APPENDIX L 

Mitigations Proposed for Federal Lands 

L-1. Mitigation on Forest Service Lands

L-2. Mitigation on BLM Lands 

L-3. Applicant’s Proposed Mitigation Plan to Unavoidable Impacts
Appendix L – 

L-1 

TABLE L-1 

Mitigation on NFS Lands 

Mitigation Group Mitigation Activity Location Resource Ration

Decommission/obliter Umpqua LSR 223 ate roads, barricade road entrance w/permanent landscape structures (berms, boulders, etc.), remove culverts, restore drainage, recontour roadbed to original slope, large wood placement, and seed/plant. 

Rogue River-Siskiyou LSR 227 (On the RRS NF total road closures proposed include 1 fish bearing and 22 nonfish-bearing stream crossings as well as 10 stretches within fishbearing riparian habitat and 15 stretches within fish-bearing riparian habitat.) 

LSR, Northern Spotted Owl, Pacific fisher, other late-successional habitat dependent species, riparian habitat, aquatics, SONC Coho, Steelhead, soil productivity 

A 30-50 foot wide route along the maintained in early successional hconstruction zone of 100 foot width mature forest, setting back develoby one or more centuries. This strecosystem, provides a barrier for mbetween the remaining forest blochabitat through edge effects and frspecial concern in riparian ecosystwildlife species is concentrated. Pconjunction with precommercial thmitigations) would block up foresteeffects and fragmentation in a periRemoval of culverts and roadbeds sedimentation to the waters. This objectives 4, 5, 8 & 9. Little Butte road reduction is a major objective that this would be most effective if thinning proposed. This mitigation soil compaction and displacement 

Roads 

Close roads with barricades and remove culverts; outslope road prism but do not obliterate. 

Umpqua Wildlife sensitive to disturbance, 

improves aquatic and terrestrial connectivity. 

Close roads and remove culverts amaintenance of pipeline corridor, tand road use are direct disturbancclosure will mitigate some of those stand connectivity and benefit aqu

Stand Density Mgt. Commercial thin with Umpqua LSR 223 

biomass removal and activity fuel reduction. Follow with periodic underburning to remove ground fuels and fuel ladders. 

Umpqua Matrix 

Late successional and old growth dependent species and forest ecosystems. 

Both mature stands and developinduring pipeline construction. Impacstands will exceed the life of this pDensity management will increase stands by reducing losses from dismanagement in younger stands wLSOG. Associated fuel reductions Biological resources are not compchange. Removal of LSOG is esscannot be replaced. Young stands into LSOG so this is not a 1-1 replhave identified the importance of dcontrol losses to stand replacing fioffset permanent loss, entire standover time becomes contiguous and The proposed mitigation is centereassociated with late-successional 
Appendix L – 

L-2

TABLE L-1 

Mitigation on NFS Lands 

Mitigation Group Mitigation Activity Location Resource Ration

associated species, many other eccomponents such as micro organiscover inter act to purify air and watrecycle nutrients and wastes is verappropriate level of mitigation for thabitat late-seral forest (at least in lifetime and the life of this project). pipeline route intersects and area lighting strikes and has potential foThis mitigation will assist in proteclate-seral forest values. This mitigresources values for the LSR, Forelandowners and public. 

Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

Precommercial thin young harvest plantations in a single entry to create a pattern and spacing that will accelerate development of mature forest characteristics. This includes conversion of off site pine plantations to fir dominated forests. 

Umpqua NF LSR 223 

LSR, Northern Spotted Owl, Pacific fisher, other late-successional habitat dependent species 

There will be direct impacts to exisinterior habitat. The project will resand preclude the recovery of fragmstands adjacent to the pipeline corpipeline corridor will provide a conearly-seral species and non-native result in a direct loss in biological sforest characteristics for many decproject. Both mature stands and dremoved during pipeline constructforested stands will assist in the reimpact from fragmentation, reductienhance resilience of mature standevelopment of mature forest charimpacts of those biological serviceconstruction. Thinning of young sttreatment within LRSs if designed late-successional habitat characteROD Pages B-11 ACS Objectives 

Umpqua NF LSR 223 Umpqua NF Matrix 

Upland Terrestrial Within LSR manage 

snags densities at 16/acre > 10.0 in, of which 8/acre > 20 in dbh. within the Matrix manage snag densities at 4/acre >20 in dbh. to mitigate loss of current and future sang habitat from removal large trees 

Rogue River-Siskiyou NF LSR 227 

LSR, Northern Spotted Owl, Pacific fisher, other late-successional habitat dependent species. Matrix benefits all snag dependent species. 

Mitigate immediate and future impclearing of the pipeline right-of-waydevelopment of large snags during decades after. Corridor constructiohabitat on app.. 775 acres of corridsafety zone buffer). Data relies on Analysis which suggests the waterlevels of snag habitat due of past mproject will add to those cumulative critical component of LSR spotted needed. Snag requirements are sForests' LRMPs and NWFP. Fore
Appendix L – 

L-3 

TABLE L-1 

Mitigation on NFS Lands 

Mitigation Group Mitigation Activity Location Resource Ration

and snags within the construction clearing zone and the removal of adjacent hazard trees for the life of this project. Managing for this level of snag habitat provide for a greater assurance of associated species abundances within the LSR and Matrix (DecAID). ROD CC11 and C-40 

mitigation under most managemenwould be immediate though there snag decay develops. Snag manaRRNF LRMP (4-20), with levels semanagement directions. Snag MaNWFP for LSRs on C-14 and 15 oSnag management levels are baseAssociation Guidelines. Snags are Cascades LSR Assessment (Chap

Rogue River-Siskiyou NF LSR 227 

Manage Logs (Course woody material) within the pipeline corridor and in adjacent stands that have a deficiency in down wood due to past management. 

Umpqua NF LSR 223 

LSR, Northern Spotted Owl, Pacific fisher, other late-successional habitat dependent species 

Mitigate for the loss of recruitment adjacent stands and within the conproject will forgo the development life of the project and for decades critical component of Mature Foresreplacement will partially mitigate fcorridor by creating structure acrossmall wildlife species. Placement adjacent to the corridor allows for reducing localized fuel loads while stands. Larger logs maintain moisto be fully consumed by fire. Manaprovide for a greater assurance of (DecAID). ROD C-11. 

Treatment of noxious weeds, planting of native species, treatment of encroaching conifers and burning 

Umpqua NF Unique and Mosaic Habitats 

Native plant and wildlife communities. 

Mitigate impacts to Unique habitatThere will be loss of forest habitat and disruption to soil horizons enhnon native plant species. 

Planting at specific sites to grasses that benefit Mardon Skippers and Elderberry to benefit Short-horned Grasshopper. 

Rogue River-Siskiyou NF LSR 227 

Mardon Skipper Butterflies and short horned grasshoppers. 

The Dead Indian Plateau region is for Mardon Skipper butterflies in tha known site for Short-horned Graon the Forest’s Sensitive Species of a permanent open corridor provdevelop habitat for these skippers the corridor with plants preferred bhas the potential to increase the h
Appendix L – 

L-4

TABLE L-1 

Mitigation on NFS Lands 

Mitigation Group Mitigation Activity Location Resource Ration

these two species. Rehabilitation under various BMP guidelines. Ushas no additional problems. Resustabilizing the local habitat and loc

Remove offsite pine in old harvest plantations and plant with local tree species 

Umpqua NF LSR 223 Interior stand habitat, Both mature stands and developin

during pipeline construction. Impacstands will exceed the life of this prestoration of offsite plantations wisuccessional habitat and reduce fr

Wetland - Aquatic Repair stream 

crossing 

Fremont-Winema NF, Spencer Creek 

Fisheries Mitigation-Indirect: The proposed p

Creek upstream of Buck Lake. Thireach of the perennial portion of Soccupied by redband trout. Spenceby NMFS through the FERC re-liceKlamath River hydro facilities, as hSouthern Oregon/Northern CaliforAdditionally, once fish passage is River hydro facilities, steelhead wiThe pipeline crosses SONC coho other watersheds along the proposimpairing habitat quality or reducinhabitat quality at Spencer Creek ppro-active in providing quality habifor any detrimental effects to other improving habitat for redband trout Spencer Creek appears on the Orwater quality impaired from increaImprovements at this location will idownstream aquatic habitats and tthose habitats. Contact: Terry Smaffected from physical habitat disrusediment and water temperature adegradation of habitats could occumodified in the area of the crossinchanged; and if erosion of the bedareas introduces sediment into the vegetation (approximately 59 acrebanks would reduce shade, potenttemperatures, remove an importanaquatic organisms, and decrease associated reduction in habitats, afailures adjacent to waterbodies. 
Appendix L – 

L-5 

TABLE L-1 

Mitigation on NFS Lands 

Mitigation Group Mitigation Activity Location Resource Ration

Weir Repair Fremont- Winema NF, 

Great Meadow 

Wetlands A weir located to the far east of Gr

in the early 90's to help control waand restore the wetland characteriheight of the weir and weather contransform to water creating a large be achieving the desired wetland cprovide the engineering evaluation best fix to the weir (or other assocGreat Meadow) the planning neceproposed project(s) and the implem

Stream Simulator Culverts Placement; Remove existing culverts and replace with stream simulator culverts 

Umpqua NF Fisheries and aquatic biota To mitigate connectivity impacts w

system from removal of terrestrial enhance habitat for aquatic and teThese are for perennial stream crowill be affected from physical habitturbidity, sediment and water tempLong-term degradation of habitats contours are modified in the area opatterns are changed; and if erosioadjacent upland areas introduces Loss of riparian vegetation (approxland) along the banks would reducincreasing water temperatures, remterrestrial food for aquatic organismlarge wood and the associated redpotentially increase mass failures 

Riparian Planting All Riparian habitats Plant fast growing native species o

to offset loss of riparian vegetation corridor. Emphasis is on crossingdecommissioning. 

In Stream Restoration Little Butte Creek or 

Elk Creek 

Water quality, aquatic habitats and biota. 

Stream crossings and soil disturbacorridor construction will degrade lanadromous fish in a Key Watershcould impact local fish and Place lstream systems to capture sedimeStructures in impacted streams wiimpacts. Structures placed in othedesigned to benefit other populatiounavoidable impacts to the local stin Little Butte Creek make it difficuwon’t move downstream during higis not possible the project will movanadromous and LSR) amphibian 
Appendix L – 

L-6

TABLE L-1 

Mitigation on NFS Lands 

Mitigation Group Mitigation Activity Location Resource Ration

increased sedimentation. Water qstanding under the LRMP and ACS While water quality is not a direct Lresource benefit affecting overall happlied in Little Butte Creek these mitigate potential water quality loscapturing sediment. Actions taken Actions would not be close to the paffected drainage. 

Grazing Fence construction 

and cattle guards 

Fremont-Winema NF, Clover Creek Road. Buck-Indian Allotment 

wetland and riparian areas, Mitigation-direct: The pipeline cor

length of Clover Creek Road throuvegetation removal and future vegthis corridor attractive to grazing. protection from grazing impacts to areas of Buck Lake, Buck Meadow should be excluded from these arewalking along or crossing Clover Cmotorists and themselves. The heinclude intermittent tributaries to BTunnel Springs and other springs. wetland and riparian areas provideby Oregon spotted frogs. Spencer and is occupied by redband trout. identified by NMFS through the FEthe Klamath River hydro facilities, Southern Oregon/Northern CaliforBuck-Indian Cattle allotment has a USFS and BLM administered landand Jeld-Wen Timber Resources pCreek watershed. Dividing the allorotation utilizing all land ownershipa boundary is a proposal for the Ato high snow loads in this area, thimiles of let-down fence along the eROW. The let down fence is to be standard specifications. Cattle gumajor road crossings, such as 385trailhead, 790-road to Moonshine Swhich is sort of a through road up Archeology surveys should be reqexisting roads, but a monitor will b
Appendix L – 

L-7 

TABLE L-1 

Mitigation on NFS Lands 

Mitigation Group Mitigation Activity Location Resource Ration

Rogue River NF PCT and Big Elk Crossing 

Planting native species, chipping and mulching, removing rootwads and large boulders, contouring berms etc. 

Fremont-Winema NF Dead Indian Crossing and Clover Creek Road corridor 

visual resources Project will impact visual resource

within the corridor. Planting native trees will help offset visual impacts and mulching disturbed soil areas color of disturbed soils. Large boumoved to designated storage area

Visuals 

Stand density mgt. Clover Creek corridor 

and Dead Indian Road crossing 

visual resources Soften edge of corridor by thinning 

that make the visual intrusion of thobvious. See Visual Mgt. Plan. 

Rogue-River Siskiyou NF, LSR 227 

LSR Reallocation Reallocate matrix 

land to the LSR land allocation 

Umpqua NF, LSR 223 

LSR land allocation This action contributes to the "neu

new developments in LSRs by addallocation to offset the long-term lohabitat from the construction and odoes not offset the direct loss of haproject. 

Monitoring All All The spread of invasive weed spec

evaluated in this FEIS because it dassociated with connected actions activities. These utility corridor are 

habitat, because of seed beds crethe continue maintenance occurrinProximity of proposed mitigation adisturbance broadens the potentiaweeds. Once these invasive becothat don’t support an overstory canimpossible to eradicate. These inmigrating wildlife species, wind antypes within the watershed and LSimpacted by invasive weeds are fadisturbance associated with constcorridor. 1994 ROD C- page 17 

Noxious Weeds 

Treatment All All Aggressively treat noxious weed p

of chemical and mechanical methopreventing introduction and early tpopulations from becoming establi
Appendix L – 

L-8

TABLE L-2 

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project - BLM Compensatory Mitigation Proposals - February 13, 2009 

Location Resource Mitigation Activity Project Description Rationa

Roseburg District BLM Late Successional 

Habitat, T&E species 

Down wood-snag creation 

Create snags and down wood within previously commercially thinned stands. 

This project would assist in accelehabitat characteristics critical to thsuccessional habitat. Snags and providing both nesting habitat and prey species and in providing the structures necessary for the future successional habitat. 

Roseburg District BLM Water, Fish, Riparian Large Wood 

Acquisition for aquatic restoration projects 

Obtain/purchase 300 large logs for use in aquatic restoration projects within 5th field watersheds affected by construction of the pipeline. 

The pipeline crosses Riparian ResBLM-managed lands. Existing ripfrom these areas, depleting the somaterial that could eventually enteaddition, remaining trees will not bsizes within the pipeline corridor. 

Roseburg District BLM Water, Fish, Riparian In stream Large Wood 

Placement 

Place large wood in 2.75 miles of Coho-bearing stream in close proximity to the pipeline route. Locations include: 1.0 mile in Saint John Creek (T30S, R3W, Sec15), 0.5 mile in Lick Creek (T30S, R3W, Sec35), 0.5 mile in Ben Branch Creek (T29S, R4W, Sec15), and 0.75 mile in Muns Creek (T29S, R8W, Sec 3). 

Pipeline construction would result future sources of large wood in maroute. In addition, excessive use amay result in above average sedimaquatic systems. Addition of large stream channel complexity in the s

trap and store sediment over time

Coos Bay BLM/Myrtlewood Resource Area 

Water, Fish, Riparian Instream Large Wood 

Placement in Big Creek and Sandy Creek Subwatersheds 

Place large wood would be placed in 4.45 miles of streams in the following locations within the Middle Fork Coquille 5th field watershed (1710030501): Brownson Creek (1.27 miles) T29SR11W sections 2 and 11. Brownson Creek Tributary (0.88 miles) T29SR11W sections 10 and 11. Big Creek (1.05 miles) T29SR10W section 6 and T28SR10W section 31. Sandy Creek (0.70 miles) T29SR10W sections 2 and 11 and Sand Creek Tributary (0.55 miles) T29SR10W section 15. 

The pipeline would remove currento stream channels. Adding wood for this loss. 
Appendix L – 

L-9 

TABLE L-2 

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project - BLM Compensatory Mitigation Proposals - February 13, 2009 

Location Resource Mitigation Activity Project Description Rationa

Coos Bay BLM/Myrtlewood Resource Area 

Water, Fish Road Surfacing near 

HIP coho streams 

Pave approximately 8 miles of existing gravel county roads. Assess the 42 stream crossing culvert locations for proper size, wear/longevity, and function to pass material that could plug them. Replace all culverts showing wear greater than 1/2 life expectancy. Replace all that are undersized for flow from above. Establish proper drainage of ditch relief culverts or route water to streams via stable ditchlines. 

Objective is to mitigate expected sby reducing sediment delivery from adjacent to coastal coho habitat, e

hauling of timber. 

Lakeview BLM/Klamath Falls Resource Area 

Late Successional Habitat, T&E Species, Fuel Reduction 

Upper Spencer Creek LSMA 

Thin/pile/burn 0-6" white-fir understory within the Upper Spencer Creek LSMA to reduce the risk of stand replacing fire. 

Removal/Enhancement of existing mitigate increased fuels, fire risk, penhancement for Northern Spotted 

Medford District BLM Late Successional 

Habitat, T&E Species, Fuel Reduction 

Density Management of Stands within LSMA - Glendale Resource Area 

Remove/Enhancement habitat development on 3500 acres in West Fork Cow Creek for NSO, possibly MAMU, and other Late-successional forest related species. 

The project would reduce densitiemaintain/ accelerate growth, deveforest stands, and modify species would also reduce densities of ovestands to reduce fuels, maintain/ idominant overstory trees and reduto catastrophic fire. It is anticipate

250-300 acres and that treatments of a commercial product. In additidensities through the cutting of "exanticipated that fuels reduction thr

of the piles or underburning would include clearances, NEPA analysi

Medford District BLM Stream 

Habitat/Hydrology 

Trail Creek/Evans Creek Placement of large wood 

Trees felled in the pipeline corridor would be placed in streams for fish habitat. 

The project directly/indirectly effecstreams within Trail Creek, Little BElk Creek BLM Riparian ReservesESA protected habitat for SONC C

Medford District BLM Water, Riparian Seep/spring protection Fence seeps and springs on Heppsie 

Mountain. 

Many of these seeps and springs pebblesnails (Fluminicola spp.) bugrazing pressure. Ease of cattle mthe pipeline corridor opening. 
Appendix L – 

L-10

TABLE L-2 

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project - BLM Compensatory Mitigation Proposals - February 13, 2009 

Location Resource Mitigation Activity Project Description Rationa

Medford District BLM Water, Riparian Rogue River - Shady 

Cove Land Acquisition/Wetland Mitigation 

Purchase lands with known ponds containing western pond turtles (BLM Bureau Sensitive species) and transfer management of these to federal agencies. 

Mitigation for loss of existing wetlapurchase of replacement habitat oadministered lands. Ponds could acquisition and managed under soeasement. 

Medford District BLM Water, Soils, Riparian Trail Creek Road Work Approximately 12 miles of road 

proposed for decommissioning, road improvement, and maintenance projects (ditch cleaning, spot-rocking, road surfacing, culvert replacement etc.). 

Prevent further risk to sedimentatisedimentation to critical coho habRogue River watersheds. 

Medford District BLM Water, Soils, Riparian Deer Creek-Bear Creek 

Jeep Trail Obliteration 

Inventory and/or Decommission existing roads. 

Adjacent private land ownership, lhas led to the development of appand OHV trails - associated with o34s1e23 Road - which we are prodecommission. 

Medford District BLM Water, Soils, Riparian Upper Salt Creek Jeep 

Trail Obliteration 

Inventory and/or Decommission existing roads. 

Large meadows and gentle terrain OHV use in ecologically sensitive inventory and blocking and/or oblitmiles of such trails - many of whicdirectly stem from the 36s2w7 (Sa

Medford District BLM Water, Soils, Riparian West Fork Trail Creek 

Fish Culvert Replacement 

Replace, Repair, and Improve Hydrologic Connectivity and ESA SONC coho Access Concerns 

A culvert on private property on Wperched and needs to either be refor anadromous fish passage (cohbut has been delayed indefinitely dfrom local watershed councils. 

Medford District BLM Rare/Unique Plant 

Communities 

Native Grasslands & Oak Woodland Private Land Conservation Agreement/Acquisitions 

Consolidate the management of private lands containing Native Grassland/Oak Woodlands in close proximity of the pipeline ROW and Deer and Elk Winter Range; monitored in partnership with state, federal, and local agencies in the Green Dot Program. 

Loss of Cat. 1 Habitat on state/pvt the acquisition of lands adjacent to 

be deferred 

Medford District BLM Water, Soils, Riparian Obenchain Road Work Restoration, decommissioning, 

and/or obliteration jeep trails and OHV use in ecologically sensitive sites. 

Large meadows, gentle terrain, adownership and access from severtrails and OHV use in ecologically proposing blocking and/or obliterasuch trails - many of which are assfrom County Road 957 (Obenchai
Appendix L – 

L-11

TABLE L-2 

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project - BLM Compensatory Mitigation Proposals - February 13, 2009 

Location Resource Mitigation Activity Project Description Rationa

Medford District BLM Water, Soils, 

Riparian, Rare/Unique Vegetation 

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Land Acquisitions 

Facilitate the acquisition of 2,980 acres of non-federal land identified for purchase within the CascadeSiskiyou National Monument. 

Replace unique upland and forestdue to clearing and maintenance oconstruction. 
Appendix L – 

L-13

TABLE L-2 

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project - BLM Compensatory Mitigation Proposals - February 13, 2009 

Location Resource Mitigation Activity Project Description Rationa

Roseburg District BLM Late Successional 

Habitat, T&E species 

Down wood-snag creation 

Create snags and down wood within previously commercially thinned stands. 

This project would assist in accelehabitat characteristics critical to thsuccessional habitat. Snags and providing both nesting habitat and prey species and in providing the structures necessary for the future successional habitat. 

Roseburg District BLM Water, Fish, Riparian Large Wood 

Acquisition for aquatic restoration projects 

Obtain/purchase 300 large logs for use in aquatic restoration projects within 5th field watersheds affected by construction of the pipeline. 

The pipeline crosses Riparian ResBLM-managed lands. Existing ripfrom these areas, depleting the somaterial that could eventually enteaddition, remaining trees will not bsizes within the pipeline corridor. 

Roseburg District BLM Water, Fish, Riparian In stream Large Wood 

Placement 

Place large wood in 2.75 miles of Coho-bearing stream in close proximity to the pipeline route. Locations include: 1.0 mile in Saint John Creek (T30S, R3W, Sec15), 0.5 mile in Lick Creek (T30S, R3W, Sec35), 0.5 mile in Ben Branch Creek (T29S, R4W, Sec15), and 0.75 mile in Muns Creek (T29S, R8W, Sec 3). 

Pipeline construction would result future sources of large wood in maroute. In addition, excessive use amay result in above average sedimaquatic systems. Addition of large stream channel complexity in the s

trap and store sediment over time

Coos Bay BLM/Myrtlewood Resource Area 

Water, Fish, Riparian Instream Large Wood 

Placement in Big Creek and Sandy Creek Subwatersheds 

Place large wood would be placed in 4.45 miles of streams in the following locations within the Middle Fork Coquille 5th field watershed (1710030501): Brownson Creek (1.27 miles) T29SR11W sections 2 and 11. Brownson Creek Tributary (0.88 miles) T29SR11W sections 10 and 11. Big Creek (1.05 miles) T29SR10W section 6 and T28SR10W section 31. Sandy Creek (0.70 miles) T29SR10W sections 2 and 11 and Sand Creek Tributary (0.55 miles) T29SR10W section 15. 

The pipeline would remove currento stream channels. Adding wood for this loss. 
Appendix L – 

L-14

TABLE L-2 

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project - BLM Compensatory Mitigation Proposals - February 13, 2009 

Location Resource Mitigation Activity Project Description Rationa

Coos Bay BLM/Myrtlewood Resource Area 

Water, Fish Road Surfacing near 

HIP coho streams 

Pave approximately 8 miles of existing gravel county roads. Assess the 42 stream crossing culvert locations for proper size, wear/longevity, and function to pass material that could plug them. Replace all culverts showing wear greater than 1/2 life expectancy. Replace all that are undersized for flow from above. Establish proper drainage of ditch relief culverts or route water to streams via stable ditchlines. 

Objective is to mitigate expected sby reducing sediment delivery from adjacent to coastal coho habitat, e

hauling of timber. 

Lakeview BLM/Klamath Falls Resource Area 

Late Successional Habitat, T&E Species, Fuel Reduction 

Upper Spencer Creek LSMA 

Thin/pile/burn 0-6" white-fir understory within the Upper Spencer Creek LSMA to reduce the risk of stand replacing fire. 

Removal/Enhancement of existing mitigate increased fuels, fire risk, penhancement for Northern Spotted 

Medford District BLM Late Successional 

Habitat, T&E Species, Fuel Reduction 

Density Management of Stands within LSMA - Glendale Resource Area 

Remove/Enhancement habitat development on 3500 acres in West Fork Cow Creek for NSO, possibly MAMU, and other Late-successional forest related species. 

The project would reduce densitiemaintain/ accelerate growth, deveforest stands, and modify species would also reduce densities of ovestands to reduce fuels, maintain/ idominant overstory trees and reduto catastrophic fire. It is anticipate

250-300 acres and that treatments of a commercial product. In additidensities through the cutting of "exanticipated that fuels reduction thr

of the piles or underburning would include clearances, NEPA analysi

Medford District BLM Stream 

Habitat/Hydrology 

Trail Creek/Evans Creek Placement of large wood 

Trees felled in the pipeline corridor would be placed in streams for fish habitat. 

The project directly/indirectly effecstreams within Trail Creek, Little BElk Creek BLM Riparian ReservesESA protected habitat for SONC C

Medford District BLM Water, Riparian Seep/spring protection Fence seeps and springs on Heppsie 

Mountain. 

Many of these seeps and springs pebblesnails (Fluminicola spp.) bugrazing pressure. Ease of cattle mthe pipeline corridor opening. 
Appendix L – 

L-15

TABLE L-2 

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project - BLM Compensatory Mitigation Proposals - February 13, 2009 

Location Resource Mitigation Activity Project Description Rationa

Medford District BLM Water, Riparian Rogue River - Shady 

Cove Land Acquisition/Wetland Mitigation 

Purchase lands with known ponds containing western pond turtles (BLM Bureau Sensitive species) and transfer management of these to federal agencies. 

Mitigation for loss of existing wetlapurchase of replacement habitat oadministered lands. Ponds could acquisition and managed under soeasement. 

Medford District BLM Water, Soils, Riparian Trail Creek Road Work Approximately 12 miles of road 

proposed for decommissioning, road improvement, and maintenance projects (ditch cleaning, spot-rocking, road surfacing, culvert replacement etc.). 

Prevent further risk to sedimentatisedimentation to critical coho habRogue River watersheds. 

Medford District BLM Water, Soils, Riparian Deer Creek-Bear Creek 

Jeep Trail Obliteration 

Inventory and/or Decommission existing roads. 

Adjacent private land ownership, lhas led to the development of appand OHV trails - associated with o34s1e23 Road - which we are prodecommission. 

Medford District BLM Water, Soils, Riparian Upper Salt Creek Jeep 

Trail Obliteration 

Inventory and/or Decommission existing roads. 

Large meadows and gentle terrain OHV use in ecologically sensitive inventory and blocking and/or oblitmiles of such trails - many of whicdirectly stem from the 36s2w7 (Sa

Medford District BLM Water, Soils, Riparian West Fork Trail Creek 

Fish Culvert Replacement 

Replace, Repair, and Improve Hydrologic Connectivity and ESA SONC coho Access Concerns 

A culvert on private property on Wperched and needs to either be refor anadromous fish passage (cohbut has been delayed indefinitely dfrom local watershed councils. 

Medford District BLM Rare/Unique Plant 

Communities 

Native Grasslands & Oak Woodland Private Land Conservation Agreement/Acquisitions 

Consolidate the management of private lands containing Native Grassland/Oak Woodlands in close proximity of the pipeline ROW and Deer and Elk Winter Range; monitored in partnership with state, federal, and local agencies in the Green Dot Program. 

Loss of Cat. 1 Habitat on state/pvt the acquisition of lands adjacent to 

be deferred 

Medford District BLM Water, Soils, Riparian Obenchain Road Work Restoration, decommissioning, 

and/or obliteration jeep trails and OHV use in ecologically sensitive sites. 

Large meadows, gentle terrain, adownership and access from severtrails and OHV use in ecologically proposing blocking and/or obliterasuch trails - many of which are assfrom County Road 957 (Obenchai
Appendix L – 

L-16

TABLE L-2 

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project - BLM Compensatory Mitigation Proposals - February 13, 2009 

Location Resource Mitigation Activity Project Description Rationa

Medford District BLM Water, Soils, 

Riparian, Rare/Unique Vegetation 

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Land Acquisitions 

Facilitate the acquisition of 2,980 acres of non-federal land identified for purchase within the CascadeSiskiyou National Monument. 

Replace unique upland and forestdue to clearing and maintenance oconstruction. 
Appendix L-3 

Applicant’s Proposed Mitigation Plan for Unavoidable 

Impacts 
FEIS DRAFT 

Compensatory Mitigation Plan

for the 

Multi-User Slip and Access Channel, 

LNG Terminal, and PCGP Project 

Submitted by 

Oregon International Port of Coos Bay, Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. and Pacific 

Connector Gas Pipeline, LP 

April 2009 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-i 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... v 

1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................................1 

1.1 Unavoidable/Unmitigated Impacts...............................................................................................2 

1.2 Goal and Intent ............................................................................................................................3 

1.3 Re-Allocation of Forest Land .......................................................................................................4 

1.4 Project-Based Compensatory Mitigation .....................................................................................5

1.4.1 Projects....................................................................................................................................5 

1.4.2 Agreement in Principle ............................................................................................................5 

1.5 Habitat Equivalency Analysis.......................................................................................................6 

1.5.1 Late Successional-Old Growth Forest HEA Model .................................................................7 

1.5.2 Mid-Seral Forest HEA Model...................................................................................................8 

1.6 Land Acquisition ..........................................................................................................................9 

1.7 Conventions and Assumptions ..................................................................................................10 

1.7.1 General..................................................................................................................................10 

1.7.2 Conservative Assumptions and Approaches ........................................................................11 

1.8 Overlapping Areas .....................................................................................................................12 

2.0 Compensatory Mitigation - Federal Lands - NWFP ........................................................................13 

2.1 Late Successional Reserves .....................................................................................................14 

2.1.1 Background ...........................................................................................................................14 

2.1.2 Summary of Impact to Late Successional Reserves.............................................................14 

2.1.3 Compensatory Habitat – HEA Model Output ........................................................................17 

2.1.4 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation .................................................................................18 

2.1.5 Consistency With the NWFP.................................................................................................21 

2.2 Aquatic Conservation Strategy ..................................................................................................22 

2.2.1 Background ...........................................................................................................................22 

2.2.2 Summary of Impact to Key Watersheds................................................................................23 

2.2.3 Summary of Impact to Riparian Reserves ............................................................................24 

2.2.4 Compensatory Habitat – HEA Model Output ........................................................................32 

2.2.5 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation .................................................................................33 

2.2.6 Consistency With the NWFP.................................................................................................35 

3.0 Compensatory Mitigation - Endangered Species - USFWS ...........................................................36 

3.1 Northern Spotted Owl ................................................................................................................36 

3.1.1 Background ...........................................................................................................................36 

3.1.2 Summary of Impact to Northern Spotted Owl Habitats .........................................................37 

3.1.3 Compensatory Habitat – HEA Model Output ........................................................................43 

3.1.4 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation .................................................................................50 

3.1.5 Consistency With Recovery Goals........................................................................................53

3.2 Marbled Murrelet........................................................................................................................54 

3.2.1 Background ...........................................................................................................................54 

3.2.2 Summary of Impact to Marbled Murrelet Habitats.................................................................55 

3.2.3 Compensatory Habitat – HEA Model Output ........................................................................59 

3.2.4 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation .................................................................................60 

3.2.5 Consistency With Recovery Goals........................................................................................61

3.3 Western Snowy Plover ..............................................................................................................62 

3.3.1 Background ...........................................................................................................................62 

3.3.2 Summary of Impact to Western Snowy Plover......................................................................62 

3.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation.......................................................................................................62 

3.3.4 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation .................................................................................63 

3.3.5 Consistency With Recovery Goals........................................................................................64

3.4 Kincaid’s Lupine.........................................................................................................................64 

3.4.1 Background ...........................................................................................................................64 

3.4.2 Summary of Impact to Kincaid’s Lupine................................................................................64 

3.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation.......................................................................................................65 

3.4.4 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation .................................................................................65 

3.4.5 Consistency With Recovery Goals........................................................................................65

3.5 Cox’s Mariposa Lily....................................................................................................................66 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-ii 

3.5.1 Background ...........................................................................................................................66 

3.5.2 Summary of Impact to Cox’s Mariposa Lily...........................................................................66 

3.5.3 Compensatory Mitigation.......................................................................................................66 

3.5.4 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation .................................................................................66 

4.0 Compensatory Mitigation - Endangered Species – NMFS .............................................................67 

4.1 Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon ......................................................67 

4.1.1 Background ...........................................................................................................................67 

4.1.2 Summary of Impact to Coho Salmon, SO/NCC ESU............................................................68 

4.1.3 Compensatory Habitat – HEA Model Output ........................................................................74 

4.1.4 Additional Compensatory Mitigation......................................................................................75 

4.1.5 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation .................................................................................75 

4.1.6 Consistency With Recovery Goals........................................................................................76

4.2 Oregon Coast Coho Salmon......................................................................................................77 

4.2.1 Background ...........................................................................................................................77 

4.2.2 Summary of Impact to Coho Salmon, Oregon Coast ESU ...................................................78 

4.2.3 Compensatory Habitat – HEA Model Output ........................................................................85 

4.2.4 Additional Compensatory Mitigation......................................................................................86 

4.2.5 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation .................................................................................87 

4.2.6 Consistency With Recovery Goals........................................................................................88

5.0 Relationship of the CMP to ODFW’s Mitigation Policy ...................................................................88 

5.1.1 Background ...........................................................................................................................88 

5.1.2 Compensatory Mitigation.......................................................................................................89 

6.0 Summary And Conclusion...............................................................................................................91 

6.1 Summary....................................................................................................................................91 

6.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................97 

7.0 References....................................................................................................................................111 

List of Tables 

Summary Table 1. Areas (acres) of Late Successional-Old Growth Forest (LSOG) and Mid-Seral Forest 

(M-S) Determined through Habitat Equivalency Analysis to Be Appropriate Compensatory 

Mitigation for Effects to Resources on Federal and Non-Federal Lands........................... vi

Summary Table 2. Summary of Compensatory Mitigation from Land Re-Allocations, Restoration, 

Enhancement Projects for Jurisdictions Affected by Construction of the Proposed Action, 

and Land Acquisitions........................................................................................................ ix

Table 2.1-1a. Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) Affected/Removed1

 by Construction of the Proposed 

Action within Late Successional Reserves .......................................................................15

Table 2.1-1b. Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) Affected in the 30-foot Wide Corridor Maintained during 

the PCGP Project within Late Successional Reserves.....................................................16

Table 2.1-2. HEA Model Output of Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Late Successional-Old 

Growth Forest and Mid-Seral Forest in Late Successional Reserves on Federal Lands.17

Table 2.2-1. Key Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Action...........................................................24

Table 2.2-2a. Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) Affected/Removed1

 by Construction of the Proposed 

Action within Riparian Reserves in Fifth Field Watersheds Crossed by the Project .......26

Table 2.2-2b. Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) Affected 1

 in the 30-foot Wide Corridor Maintained during 

the PCGP Project within Riparian Reserves in Fifth Field Watersheds Crossed by the 

Proposed Action................................................................................................................29

Table 2.2-3. HEA Model Output of Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Late Successional-Old 

Growth Forest and Mid-Seral Forest in Riparian Reserves on Federal Lands.................32

Table 3.1-1a. Total Area (acres) of Northern Spotted Owl Suitable Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging 

Habitat Impacted by Construction of the Proposed Action within Four Physiographic 

Provinces and Different Landowners................................................................................39

Table 3.1-1b. Area (acres) of Northern Spotted Owl Suitable Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat 

within the 30-foot Wide Corridor Maintained during the PCGP Project within Four 

Physiographic Provinces and Different Landowners ........................................................41

Table 3.1-2a. Total Area (acres) of Northern Spotted Owl Dispersal-Only Habitat Impacted by 

Construction of the Proposed Action within Four Physiographic Provinces and Different 

Landowners.......................................................................................................................45
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-iii 

Table 3.1-2b. Area (acres) of Northern Spotted Owl Dispersal-Only Habitat Impacted Habitat Within the 

30-foot Wide Corridor Maintained during the PCGP Project within Four Physiographic 

Provinces and Different Landowners................................................................................47

Table 3.1-3. HEA Model Output for Impacts to Northern Spotted Owl Suitable Habitats (Late 

Successional-Old Growth Forest and Mid-Seral Forest) and Dispersal-Only Habitats 

(Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest and Other Forested Types). ..............................................49

Table 3.2-1a. Area (acres) of Marbled Murrelet Suitable Habitat and Recruitment Habitat Impacted by 

Construction of the Proposed Action within Marbled Murrelet Zones 1 and 2, 

Physiographic Provinces and Different Landowners ........................................................57

Table 3.2-1b. Area (acres) of Marbled Murrelet Suitable Habitat and Recruitment Habitat Impacted 

within the 30-foot Wide Corridor Maintained during the PCGP Project in Marbled 

Murrelet Zones 1 and 2, Physiographic Provinces and Different Landowners.................58

Table 3.2-2. HEA Model Output for Impacts to Mid-Seral Forest in Marbled Murrelet Suitable Habitat 

and Recruitment Habitat. ..................................................................................................59

Table 4.1-1a. Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) Affected/Removed1 by Construction of the Proposed 

Action within Riparian Zones (One Site-Potential Tree Height Wide) and Coho Salmon 

SO/NCC ESU Critical Habitat Crossed on Federal and Non-Federal Lands ...................70

Table 4.1-1b. Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) within the 30-foot Wide Corridor Maintained during the 

PCGP Project within Riparian Zones (One Site-Potential Tree Height Wide) and Coho 

Salmon SO/NCC ESU Critical Habitat Crossed on Federal and Non-Federal Lands ......72

Table 4.2-1a. Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) Affected/Removed1

 by Construction of the 

Proposed Action within Riparian Zones (One Site-Potential Tree Height Wide) Adjacent 

to Coho Salmon Oregon Coast ESU Critical Habitat Crossed on Federal and NonFederal Lands ...................................................................................................................79

Table 4.2-1b. Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) within the 30-foot Wide Corridor Maintained 

during the PCGP Project within Riparian Zones (One Site-Potential Tree Height Wide) 

Adjacent to Coho Salmon Oregon Coast Critical Habitat Crossed on Federal and NonFederal Lands ...................................................................................................................82

Table 4.2-2. HEA Model Output for Impacts to Mid-Seral Forests within Riparian Zones (One SitePotential Tree Height Wide) Adjacent to Coho Salmon Oregon Coast ESU 

Designated Critical Habitat on Non-Federal Land ............................................................85

Table 5.1-1. ODFW Mitigation Goals and Measures for Habitat Categories Impacted by the Proposed 

Proposed Action................................................................................................................89

Table 6-1. Areas (acres) of Habitats Classified as Late Successional-Old Growth Forest 

(LSOG) and Mid-Seral Forest (M-S) that Will Be Impacted during Construction of the 

Proposed Action that Are Compensated for in the CMP ..................................................92

Table 6-2. Areas (acres) of Late Successional-Old Growth Forest (LSOG) and Mid-Seral Forest 

(M-S) Determined through Habitat Equivalency Analysis to Be Appropriate Compensatory 

Mitigation for Effects to Resources on Federal and Non-Federal Lands..........................95

Table 6-3. Summary of Unavoidable/Unmitigated Impact to Forested Late and Mid-Seral Stages in 

Land Allocation Resources and Species’ Habitats With Compensatory Mitigation In 

Terms of HEA Model Output and/or Projects Proposed by Federal Agencies for each 

Jurisdiction Affected by Construction of the Proposed Action. Compensatory Mitigation 

Plans Proposed by JCEP and the Port of Coos Bay are Included. ................................100

List of Appendices 

Appendix A Forest Service and BLM Potential Mitigation Projects 

Appendix B Mitigation Plan – Kincaid’s Lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii) 

Appendix C Mitigation Plan – Cox’s Mariposa Lily (Calochortus coxii))

Appendix D Large Woody Debris 

Appendix E Oregon Gateway Marine Terminal – Estuarine Resource Mitigation Plan
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-iv 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

ACS Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

BA Biological Assessment 

BMP Best Management Practice 

CHU Critical Habitat Unit 

CMP Compensatory Mitigation Plan 

CSA Conservation Support Area 

dbh diameter at breast height 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

HEA Habitat Equivalency Analysis 

JCEP Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. 

LSOG late successional-old growth 

LSR Late Successional Reserve 

LWD large woody debris 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOCA Managed Owl Conservation Area 

M-S mid-seral 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFMA National Forest Management Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NRF nesting, roosting, and foraging 

NWFP Northwest Forest Plan 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

PAR permanent access road 

PCEs primary constituent elements 

PCGP Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROW right-of-way 

TAR temporary access road 

WOPR Western Oregon Plan Revision 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-v 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Purpose and Goals of CMP 

This Compensatory Mitigation Plan (CMP) has been developed to compensate fully for impacts 

of the interdependent and inter-related project components of the Oregon International Port of 

Coos Bay, the Jordan Cove Energy Project and the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (collectively 

or independently referred to as the Proposed Action and/or Proponents) that cannot be avoided 

or otherwise mitigated. The CMP is designed to achieve the following goals: 

• Compensate for the unavoidable effects of the Proposed Action on the amount of land 

currently designated as Late Successional Reserve (LSR) by the Northwest Forest Plan 

(NWFP), in order to maintain the long-term integrity of the forest management plans and 

the land allocations on which those management plans depend. 

• Compensate for impacts to species and ecological services provided by mid- and lateseral forested habitats on Forest Service and BLM lands (including LSR and Riparian 

Reserves) that cannot be avoided by the Proposed Action and cannot be otherwise 

mitigated. 

• Compensate for impacts to species and ecological services of habitats on non-federal 

land that cannot be avoided by the Proposed Action and cannot be otherwise mitigated. 

The overall effect of this CMP should be understood in the context of the Proposed Action as a 

whole, together with the other avoidance and mitigation strategies and commitments that are 

currently embedded in the Proposed Action. With this CMP, the Proposed Action is designed to 

satisfy the requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and associated Land 

and Resource Management Plans (LRMP), including the NWFP, as well as compliance with the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other applicable requirements. This CMP is informed by 

analysis prepared for the Draft Biological Assessment, and also work undertaken to assess 

consistency of the Proposed Action with the LRMPs – as required by the NFMA. One key 

requirement of the NFMA is that nonsilvicultural activities located inside LSRs must be “neutral 

or beneficial” to the creation and maintenance of LSR. In addition, under the NWFP, LSRs and 

Riparian Reserves are managed to protect and enhance habitats for late-successional and old 

growth forest–related species including the northern spotted owl. 

This CMP has been developed in close consultation with the Forest Service and other Federal 

agencies. Based on those consultations and its own analytical work, the Proponents believe 

that the CMP will be more than sufficient to compensate for unavoidable and unmitigated 

impacts on federal and non-federal lands. This CMP is also incorporated into the Biological 

Assessment of the Proposed Action prepared under section 7 of the ESA that will serve as the 

analytical foundation for the upcoming consultation with the two Federal fish and wildlife 

agencies under the ESA. In the event that the outcome of those ESA consultations results in 

adjustments to the Proposed Action or the CMP, those adjustments will be completed prior to 

the issuance by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) of its Notice To Proceed (NTP) 

for the project. 

Habitat Equivalency Analysis 

Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) models were developed to assist in evaluating the 

compensatory mitigation required. The HEA models evaluate the lost ecological services 

associated with unmitigated impacts; ecological services are assumed to equate to ecological 

functions and values of importance to listed species and their habitats. In the HEA models, 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-vi 

ecological services provided by forested habitats are assumed to be directly related to age of 

forested stands. The HEA models compute the amount of in-kind replacement habitat that 

would be required to compensate on an acreage basis, if such suitable habitat was available. 

The amount of compensatory habitat required is based on the time required for recovery of 

services on-site, the level of baseline services provided by offsite compensatory habitat relative 

to the impacted habitat, and on the duration of services provided by compensatory habitat. One 

HEA model was used to analyze effects to forests ≥80 years old (Late Successional-Old Growth 

or LSOG HEA model), and another was used to analyze effects to forests 40-80 years old (MidSeral or M-S HEA model). Output from both HEA models is included in Summary Table 1 and 

discussed in the summary sections, below. 

Summary Table 1. 

Areas (acres) of Late Successional-Old Growth Forest (LSOG) and Mid-Seral Forest (M-S) 

Determined through Habitat Equivalency Analysis to Be Appropriate Compensatory Mitigation for 

Effects to Resources on Federal and Non-Federal Lands. 

Compensatory Mitigation for 

Impact on Federal Lands Only

Compensatory Mitigation for Residual Impact on 

Federal and Non-Federal Lands

Late 

Successional 

Reserves

Riparian 

Reserves

Northern 

Spotted Owl

Marbled

Murrelet

Coho 

Salmon 

SO/NCC 

ESU

Coho 

Salmon 

Oregon 

Coast 

ESU

Compensatory 

Mitigation for 

Total Impacted 

Habitat

Landowner LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S M-S M-S M-S LSOG M-S

Coos Bay 

BLM 0.96 4.62 3.35 6.74 24.27 18.61 12.98 0 0 28.58 42.95 

Roseburg 

BLM 36.03 4.33 2.11 5.76 77.63 13.08 10.95 0 0 115.77 34.12 

Medford BLM 0 0 11.35 1.90 77.69 44.83 0 0 0 89.04 46.73 

Lakeview 

BLM 0 0 1.26 0 12.51 0 0 0 0 13.77 0 

Umpqua NF 48.21 5.29 3.74 4.21 39.91 26.66 0 0 0 91.86 36.16 

Rogue RiverSiskiyou NF 72.46 9.74 1.26 0 0 17.76 0 0 0 73.72 27.50 

FremontWinema NF 0 0 2.53 1.38 37.47 8.86 0 0 0 40.00 10.24 

Federal 

Subtotal 157.66 23.98 25.61 20.00 269.48 129.80 23.93 0 0 452.75 197.71 

Non-Federal 

Subtotal 0 0 0 0 235.00 209.04 91.74 12.73 10.06 235.00 323.57 

Overall Total 157.66 23.98 25.61 20.00 504.48 338.84 115.67 12.73 10.06 687.75 521.28 

Mechanisms for Achieving CMP Goals 

This CMP incorporates three key mechanisms for achieving its goals: 1) transfers of federal 

land from the “Matrix” to the “LSR” administrative allocations; 2) funding for restoration and 

enhancement projects on public lands to mitigate for the direct and indirect effects of the project 

on listed species and their habitats; and 3) acquisition of non-federal lands and the long-term 

management of those acquired lands to provide for substitute habitats as compensation that 

would not be mitigated by implementing the restoration and enhancement projects on public 

lands. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-vii 

1. Matrix to LSR Re-allocations. The administrative re-allocations involve transferring 

more than 1,000 acres of forested land from the Matrix allocation, to the LSR allocation 

as identified by Forest Service. The transferred land would be managed to ultimately 

provide LSR ecological services and it would be protected from the development 

otherwise allowed to occur with the Matrix designation. 

These re-allocations are designed to address the NWFP requirement that nonsilvicultural activities located inside LSRs must be neutral or beneficial to the creation 

and maintenance of LSR. The transfers are designed to ensure the continued integrity 

of the underlying Forest Management Plans and the NWFP generally and the overall 

land allocations upon which the plans are based. In particular, the transfers guarantee 

that the total fully functional LSR acreage under these plans will be increased by the 

Proposed Action to more than offset the potential temporal loss of LSR ecological 

services associated with the Proposed Action. 

2. Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Projects. To further satisfy compensation 

objectives, the Proponents will fund a series of projects on federal lands that will restore 

and enhance substitute habitat. In particular, since there are material uncertainties and 

limits on the availability of suitable acquisition lands to address national forest impacts, 

the Proponents propose (through consultation with the agency) to fund a set of habitat 

restoration and enhancement projects on Forest Service land - fire suppression, road 

decommissioning, culvert replacement, etc. (see Appendix A). The Forest Service will 

implement these projects on affected Forest Service lands by the time construction 

commences or after appropriate NEPA review has been completed for each restoration 

or enhancement project. 

The Proponents will also fund a series of projects on BLM lands that would restore and 

enhance substitute habitat. The Proponents have worked with BLM which provided a list 

of potential projects in Appendix A. The Proponents selected projects from the list that 

were most relevant as compensatory mitigation for listed species (Section 6.2). These 

projects will be applied on BLM land by the agency. Furthermore, if suitable habitat for 

acquisition, as proposed by the Proponents, is ultimately not available to satisfy 

mitigation objectives for BLM land (see below), or if the BLM determines that restoration 

and enhancement projects would better satisfy compensatory goals, then the 

Proponents will fund additional BLM enhancement and restoration projects in lieu of the 

acquisitions. 

3. Acquisitions. The acquisition component involves direct purchases by the Proponents 

of non-federal lands that currently contribute to the overall “checkerboard” ownership 

patterns within the BLM districts. The ownership pattern limits long-term connectivity 

and habitat function in support of listed species conservation. Acquired land would be 

legally protected and managed to provide for substitute habitat. 

The proposed acquisitions of in-holding and adjacent BLM lands are made to 

supplement the list of projects provided by BLM for implementation on lands under their 

management. The Proponents identified certain instances (e.g. marbled murrelet habitat 

losses in the BLM Coos Bay District) where the projects provided by the agency did not 

provide sufficient mitigation for effects to a specific resource. In these instances, the 

Proponents have proposed acquisition based upon output of the appropriate HEA 

model. The HEA model quantified the losses in ecological services, based on the age of 

forested stands that may result from the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-viii 

Action, and thereby directly determined the extent to which acquired lands will fully 

mitigate for these unavoidable effects. Use of HEA models represents a significantly 

conservative approach since calculations do not include all eventual aging of forests, 

passing from one seral stage to another with concomitant increasing ecological services 

during the life of the Proposed Action. This conservative approach ensures that any 

uncertainties associated with the estimates are more than offset. Suitability of 

acquisition land will depend on factors such as parcel location, habitat quality, 

connectivity, size, cost, potential threat to loss, conservation mechanism, multiple 

species protection, key landowner status, and transaction model considerations. 

The land base of the national forests affected by the Proposed Action is considerably 

more contiguous than that characterized by the ownership patterns within the affected 

BLM districts. Therefore, the opportunities for an acquisition strategy to achieve the 

mitigation objectives within the three national forests affected by the Proposed Action 

are far more limited. Accordingly, as set out above, this CMP adopts an alternative 

strategy for Forest Service land, which targets the accelerated implementation of a 

range of habitat improvement projects within the national forests to achieve the overall 

net improvements in ecological services that underlie this CMP. Therefore, land 

acquisition as a compensatory measure is only applied to mitigate effects on BLM lands 

and non-federal lands. 

Evaluating Sufficiency of Proposed Compensatory Mitigation 

To ensure the sufficiency of the proposed compensatory mitigation, this CMP has applied the 

HEA model and has employed various conservative assumptions and approaches. The 

conservative approach operates to offset the scientific uncertainties associated with quantifying 

habitat function over space and time, and comparing the ecological services of project-based 

mitigations with habitat acreages lost. The following described features of this CMP represent a 

precautionary approach to the uncertainties, and ensure a net overall benefit. 

1. Re-allocations. The administrative forest land re-allocations offset the amount of total 

impacted habitat with a ratio of approximately 3:1. The total area affected within the 

LSRs crossed by the Proposed Action is 357 acres (including all habitat types, not only 

late successional-old growth forest). The Forest Service has proposed to reallocate 

1,178 acres of Matrix land as LSR (Summary Table 2). Thus, there is a significantly 

greater amount of forest that will be managed to ultimately provide LSR services and 

functions, and that additional forest land will be protected from the activities otherwise 

allowed to occur within the existing Matrix designation, benefiting late successionaldependent species, such as the northern spotted owl. 

2. Projects. There are genuine limits on the ability to quantify precisely the rate and extent 

of benefits that will result from the individual restoration projects, or to establish a 

scientifically defensible correlation of quantified functional benefits to acreages. The 

Proponents and the federal land managers are therefore using their best professional 

judgment to establish a proposed suitable approach. 

That said, the CMP proposes a suite of restoration and enhancement projects that 

results in very generous ratios of acreages lost to ecological services provided. 

Specifically, on Forest Service lands, the ratio between acreage of late successional-old 

growth and mid-seral forested habitat lost (416 acres without overlap) versus acreage 

that will be enhanced by projects (6,840 acres of forest stand treatments only on Forest 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-ix 

Service lands) is approximately 16.4:1 comparing total late successional and mid-seral 

forest lost to the acres of forest treatments proposed on Forest Service lands. 

This ratio does not include forest enhancement acres that will result from road 

decommissioning projects or other compensatory mitigation in Summary Table 2. This 

CMP also does not attempt to account for the cumulative ecological benefits of the many 

overlapping project-based mitigations, some of which may provide synergistic 

interactions. For example, where road decommissioning and riparian treatments would 

address forest fragmentation as well as water quality for a particular habitat, the CMP 

does not take acreage credit for these complex overlaps. 

On BLM land, the ratio between acreage of late successional-old growth and mid-seral 

forested habitats lost (512 acres without overlap) versus acreage that would be 

enhanced by proposed projects (1,400 acres of forest stand treatments only) is 

approximately 2.7:1. This ratio also does not account for forest enhancement acres that 

will result from road decommissioning projects, and cumulative ecological benefits from 

other projects. The ratio does indicate that projects on BLM lands may provide less 

overall compensation than projects on Forest Service lands. For this reason, the 

Proponents have proposed supplementing the projects with land acquisitions. 

Summary Table 2. 

Summary of Compensatory Mitigation from Land Re-Allocations, Restoration, Enhancement 

Projects for Jurisdictions Affected by Construction of the Proposed Action, and Land 

Acquisitions. 

Bureau of Land Management USDA-Forest Service 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Coos Bay District Roseburg District Medford District Lakeview District Umpqua National Forest Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Fremont-Winema National Forest 

Non-Federal Lands

Land Re-Allocation (Matrix to LSR) 585 

acres 

593 

acres 

Road Decommissioning/Closure 9.9 

 miles 

13 

miles 

54.5 

miles 

Other Road Mitigation 5.3 

miles 

Forest Stand Treatments 830 

acres 

250-300

acres 

270 

acres 

3,500 

acres 

2,840 

acres 

500 

acres 

Stream/Riparian Treatments 4.5 

miles 

2.75 

miles 

21.5 

 miles 6 miles 

Stream Crossing Treatments 1 

site 

5 

sites 

23 

sites 

1 

site 

LWD Stream/Riparian Placement 27 

pieces 

307 

pieces 

34 

pieces 

19 

pieces 

6 

pieces 

430 

pieces 

Other, Specific Habitat Mitigation Yes Yes Yes 

Coos Bay Estuary Habitat Mitigation 39 

acres 

Land Acquisition 72 

acres 

150 

acres 

68 

acres 558 acres 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-x 

3. Acquisitions. The HEA model output has been utilized to evaluate the sufficiency of 

habitat acquisitions because it provides the amount of replacement of in-kind habitat 

required on an acreage basis relative to the amount of habitat affected. Thus, 

acquisitions based on HEA model output would neutralize project effects. 

Though the cumulative ecological benefits of projects proposed within a specific 

jurisdiction may not be quantifiable with precision, the comparison of project extent to 

HEA model output provides a gauge of their ability to offset unavoidable impacts. For 

the Coos Bay BLM District, HEA model outputs for effects to late successional-old 

growth and mid-seral forested habitat totaled 71.53 acres (28.58 acres of late 

successional-old growth habitat and 42.95 acres of mid-seral habitat) for acquisition 

(Summary Table 1). By contrast, the CMP proposes 4.5 miles of stream/riparian 

treatments, 5.3 miles of road mitigation (road surfacing), and 27 pieces of LWD 

placement within the Coos Bay District (Summary Table 2). Since the proposed 

restoration and enhancement projects may not provide equivalent compensation to 

acquiring 72 acres, the Proponents have preliminarily proposed acquisition of 72 acres 

of in-kind habitat for effects within the Coos Bay BLM District (Summary Table 2). Thus, 

the total compensatory mitigation will more than offset adverse effects to environmental 

services provided by affected habitats. 

Likewise, in the Roseburg BLM District, the preliminary quantity of proposed habitat 

acquisition equals the mitigation requirement indicated by the HEA modeling, in addition 

to the restoration and enhancement projects also proposed. In the Medford BLM 

District, acquisition acreage representing one-half of the HEA model output will 

supplement forest restoration and enhancement projects that addresses the balance of 

the mitigation requirement. Project-based compensatory mitigation will satisfy mitigation 

objectives within the Lakeview BLM District. In the other three BLM districts, acquisition 

acreage will supplement forest enhancement projects. 

For impacts to non-federal lands, the compensatory mitigation for total impacted late 

successional-old growth and mid-seral forested habitats on non-federal land, as 

calculated by the HEA models, is 558 acres which will be compensated through 

proposed land acquisitions. 

As stated above, the Proponents and federal land managers are using their best 

professional judgment to establish a suitable package of proposed project-based and 

acquisition mitigations in light of the various scientific and technical limits. One of the 

key conservative elements in the approach used in this CMP is that for all of the 

proposed acquisition mitigation, the HEA calculations do not take into account the aging 

of forests and eventual increase in ecological benefits over time as noted earlier. 

Consequently, early seral habitat acquired will provide later seral services during the life 

of the Proposed Action in the same way that re-allocations of Matrix to LSR will provide 

incremental benefits over time. 

Taking into account the conservative “buffers” described, the Proponents, informed by 

consultations with the Forest Service and BLM, are confident that the net effect of the 

Proposed Action is an improvement to the ecological function and distribution of habitats 

important to the long-term conservation of listed species over and above those that 

would otherwise occur in the absence of the Proposed Action. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-xi 

Assurances for CMP and its Sufficiency 

This CMP has also built in mechanisms that will ensure that its mitigation benefits will occur at 

the rate and extent needed to achieve its objectives, and to do so while reserving some limited 

administrative flexibility to make adjustments as necessary. 

The Forest Service and the Proponents have developed and reviewed the list of target 

restoration and enhancement projects that they intend to implement to achieve the projectrelated mitigation benefits of this plan. However, as indicated, both the Forest Service and the 

Proponents intend to retain some ability to adjust both the overall set of project priorities and 

implementation schedules in order to respond to new, project-specific information that develops 

as project level planning and design work occurs. It is certain that changes in schedules and 

approaches will occur as more project-specific information becomes available, and the parties 

intend to reserve the ability to make appropriate adjustments in order to retain the ability to 

capture the highest and best mitigation benefits in the shortest period of time. Decisions about 

the most effective and important compensatory projects can best be made closer to the time 

they would be undertaken, in order to take into account current priorities and conditions. In 

addition, potential easements and other on-the-ground issues will ultimately determine the 

parameters – including specific acreages and dimensions – of certain projects. Further, with 

regard to the ultimate package of BLM compensatory mitigation, information about the 

availability of specific parcels for acquisition is not yet available. 

As a part of this approach, the Proponents have developed an Agreement in Principle 

(Agreement, attached as Appendix A-1) with the Forest Service under which the Proponents 

agree to commit $13,927,225 to Forest Service projects, plus project monitoring costs and a 

project contingency of 15% of the costs of the Forest Service projects. The Agreement reflects 

an understanding based on the best professional judgment of the agency staff and Proponents 

that this amount will be adequate to cover the cost of sufficient projects to satisfy the mitigation 

objectives of the CMP on Forest Service land (that are not addressed by the re-allocation of 

Matrix to LSR lands). 

The Agreement in Principle also records a commitment to enter into a subsequent enforceable 

agreement. That enforceable agreement would specify the trigger for commencing mitigation 

payments, payment schedules, and also confirm projects and acreages and any associated 

monitoring costs, payable into a Forest Service Mitigation fund account. 

For impacts to BLM lands, the Proponents are making a commitment to the acreages or 

projects specified in Section 6.2. The Proponents have not completed an Agreement in 

Principle with BLM but is willing to do so to a financial commitment based upon unit costs 

provided by BLM. The projects committed to on BLM lands by the Proponents represent a 

financial commitment of $2,879,910. In addition, the Proponents have proposed additional 

habitat acquisitions to supplement BLM projects. The cost of the land acquisitions is not 

included in the foregoing dollar figure for BLM projects. If required, the Proponents will 

implement the acquisition projects. The final BLM mitigation projects will be included in the Plan 

of Development and will be accepted by BLM prior to issuance of a Grant of Right-of-Way for 

the Proposed Action.
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-xii 

Summary of Compensatory Mitigation Needs and Mechanisms by Resource 

The following sections describe the unavoidable and unmitigated impacts on a resource basis, 

and indicate the compensatory mechanism that will be applied to address those impacts. Many 

of the ESA listed species’ habitats coincide with NWFP land allocations. Thus, providing 

compensatory mitigation for one will, in many cases, provide compensatory mitigation for the 

other. The following descriptions briefly describe the areas of overlap between resources and 

indicate how compensatory mitigation was applied. 

NWFP LSRs and Riparian Reserves. The Proposed Action would have certain limited 

unavoidable impacts to late-seral and mid-seral forest resources within NWFP LSRs and 

riparian reserves that cannot be mitigated onsite or in-kind during the life of the Proposed 

Action. Specifically, the HEA models determined that acquisition of 157.66 acres of late 

successional-old growth forest and 23.98 acres of mid-seral forest for effects to LSRs and 

acquisition of 25.61 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 20.00 acres of mid-seral 

forest for effects to Riparian Reserves would fully compensate for ecological services lost within 

those land use allocations (Summary Table 1). Habitat impacted within these land allocations 

support northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets, and/or SO/NNC and Oregon Coast coho 

ESUs. 

Instead of acquiring land, habitat impacts on Forest Service lands will be fully compensated by 

projects funded by the Proponents to restore and enhance substitute habitat, including down 

wood and snag creation, stand density management to accelerate late successional stand 

characteristics, fuel load reductions to minimize the risk of stand-replacing fires, and road 

decommissioning to mitigate fragmentation, edge creation, and soil compaction. The impacts to 

late and mid-seral forests on BLM lands will be compensated by a combination of acquiring 

approximately 290 acres of land adjacent to or in proximity of BLM-managed lands, and 

implementing projects similar to those described for Forest Service, above (Summary Table 2 

and Section 6.2). 

Northern Spotted Owls (Federal Threatened Species). The Proposed Action will affect 

northern spotted owls over the long-term by removal of suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging 

(NRF) habitat and by removal of dispersal-only habitat. Northern spotted owl suitable NRF and 

dispersal only habitat occurs within LSRs and Riparian Reserves (discussed above), and also 

provides habitat for other listed species that occur within the vicinity of the Proposed Action, 

such as marbled murrelets and listed coho salmon. HEA model outputs determined that 

acquisition of 504.48 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 338.84 acres of mid-seral 

forest would compensate for removal of suitable NRF and dispersal-only habitat (Summary 

Table 1) within federal lands but which are outside of LSRs and Riparian Reserves and removal 

of those habitats on non-federal lands. 

All impacts to northern spotted owl habitats on Forest Service lands will be compensated by 

projects to restore and enhance substitute habitat, including road decommissioning, stand 

density management and fuel reductions, and down wood and snag creation. The impacts to 

habitats on BLM lands will be compensated by acquiring approximately 290 acres of land and 

implementing projects similar to those described for Forest Service. Impacts to northern spotted 

owl habitats on non-federal lands will be compensated with approximately 558 acres of land 

acquisition, as determined through the HEA models. Some of those acquisitions are also 

expected to benefit marbled murrelets and provide habitat for listed coho salmon. Summary 

Table 2 summarizes the preliminary proposed quantity of land acquisition and projects for each 

federal jurisdiction and on non-federal land, detailed in Section 6.2. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-xiii 

Marbled Murrelet (Federal Threatened Species). The Proposed Action will affect marbled 

murrelet suitable nesting and recruitment habitat over the long-term. Marbled murrelet nesting 

habitat generally consists of old growth forests (over 250 years on average), or forests with old 

growth characteristics. Recruitment habitat occurs within close proximity of suitable nesting 

habitat. Within the vicinity of the Proposed Action, suitable or potentially suitable habitat and 

recruitment habitat occurs within both late successional-old growth and mid-seral forests. 

Suitable marbled murrelet nesting habitat occurs within NWFP LSRs and Riparian Reserves 

which also supports northern spotted owls and provides riparian habitat for listed coho salmon. 

As a result, all late successional-old growth forest and some mid-seral forest that provides 

suitable or recruitment habitat for marbled murrelets has been accounted for as compensation 

for effects to those resources. 

The HEA model indicates that compensation for the total area of mid-seral forest impacted but 

not overlapping with any other impact resource on federal and non-federal lands would be 

acquisition of 115.67 acres of mid-seral forest (Summary Table 1). Of that amount, 23.93 acres 

of suitable or potentially suitable habitat will be acquired within the Coos Bay and Roseburg 

BLM districts since no proposed BLM projects target mitigation for effects to marbled murrelets. 

The remaining 91.74 acres will be acquired on non-federal lands within marbled murrelet 

management Zones 1 and 2 (see Summary Table 2). 

Western Snowy Plovers (Federal Threatened Species). Habitats occupied by western snowy 

plovers do not include late-seral or mid-seral forests. There are, however, potential indirect 

effects to the species’ critical habitats that would be associated with construction and operation 

of the Port of Coos Bay’s facilities and the Jordan Cove Energy Project (JCEP). JCEP reviewed 

a list of conservation measures provided by the FWS, the BLM, and the Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) through the Sediment Placement subgroup of the Jordan 

Cove/Pacific Connector Interagency Task Force Working Group and agreed to provide funding 

for implementing various projects with an overall goal of conserving the species and its critical 

habitat on the Coos Bay North Spit (see Sections 3.3 of this CMP). 

Kincaid’s Lupine (Federal Threatened Species). Within the vicinity of the Proposed Action, 

Kincaid’s lupine populations are located in both grassland and open-canopied late-seral and 

mid-seral forests. Approximately 157 Kincaid’s Lupine plants are expected to be affected during 

construction. Although certain forest enhancement projects previously discussed may benefit 

the species, those projects would not specifically target management of Kincaid’s lupine habitat. 

Measures identified in the Kincaid’s Lupine Mitigation Plan (see Appendix B in this CMP), 

including plant salvage, transplant, and seed collection, are expected to compensate for any 

direct or indirect impact to the plants documented within the Proposed Action area. 

Cox’s Mariposa Lily (Federal Species of Concern, Interagency Conservation Agreement). 

Habitats occupied by Cox’s mariposa lily occur within forested habitats on serpentine and 

ultramafic soils. The Proposed Action crosses a documented population of Cox’s mariposa lily 

and will directly and indirectly impact this plan during construction. Measures identified in the 

Cox’s Mariposa Lily Mitigation Plan (see Appendix C in this CMP), which includes plant salvage, 

site restoration, and habitat enhancement are expected to compensate for any direct or indirect 

impact to the plants documented within the Proposed Action area. 

Coho Salmon (Federal Threatened Species). The Proposed Action will affect federally-listed 

Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SO/NCC) coho salmon 

Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) over the long-term by removing mid-seral and late 

successional-old growth habitat adjacent to waterbodies utilized by these fish. These habitats 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-xiv 

provide shade to regulate stream temperature, provide sources of large woody debris (LWD), 

and soil stability. Since these habitats occur within NWFP Riparian Reserves, all forested seral 

stages that provide habitat for coho streams on federal lands has been previously discussed. 

On non-federal lands, most effects to forests within riparian zones will also be mitigated as 

compensatory habitat for effects to northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets, except for 

some mid-seral forest. 

The HEA model indicates appropriate compensation for effects to riparian mid-seral forests that 

do not result from any other mitigated resource would be acquisition of 12.73 and 10.06 acres of 

mid-seral forest on non-federal lands for effects to coho in the SO/NCC ESU and Oregon Coast 

ESU, respectively (Summary Table 1). On federal lands, impacts to coho salmon (and other 

non-listed fish) will be compensated by restoration and enhancement measures. The 

Proponents propose to place 823 pieces of LWD within and/or adjacent to streams to enhance 

instream habitats for listed coho salmon (Summary Table 2 and Appendix D in this CMP). 

The Port of Coos Bay has proposed off-site compensatory mitigation for effects to eelgrass and 

intertidal habitat disturbances within the Coos Bay Estuary (Appendix E in this CMP). The Port 

proposes in-kind mitigation for impact to eelgrass at a ratio of 3:1 at a location south of the Coos 

Bay Airport’s runway extension project; mitigation would total 7.30 acres. In addition, interim 

losses of intertidal algal and unvegetated sand-mud flat (shallow water habitats) would also be 

restored with a 3:1 ratio, totaling 31.41 acres. The Port also proposes restoring 0.15 acre of 

freshwater wetlands on the North Spit. The Proponents are proposing on-site wetland 

restoration for estuarine habitats impacted by construction of the pipeline through the Haynes 

Inlet of Coos Bay. Interim losses of productive shallow water habitat would be restored for with 

1:1 restoration of affected eelgrass beds, mud/sand flats and salt marsh habitat within the 

construction right-of-way across the Haynes Inlet. 

ODFW. ODFW developed a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy that provides a 

framework for assigning one of six categories to habitats and establishes consistent goals and 

standards to mitigate impacts by the Proposed Action to fish and wildlife habitats on non-federal 

lands. Habitats that would be considered for compensation are impacted areas that cannot be 

mitigated for in-kind or in-proximity – areas that are generally categorized as Habitat Category 

One and Two. All effects to Category One and unavoidable and/or unmitigatable impacts to 

Category Two Habitats on non-federal lands have been addressed in this CMP through 

mitigation for previously discussed resources. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This Compensatory Mitigation Plan (CMP) has been developed to compensate fully for impacts 

of the interdependent and inter-related project components of the Oregon International Port of 

Coos Bay, the Jordan Cove Energy Project and the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (collectively 

or independently referred to as the Proposed Action and/or Proponents) that cannot be avoided 

or otherwise mitigated. The CMP is designed to achieve the following goals: 

• Compensate for the unavoidable effects of the Proposed Action on NWFP LSRs, in 

order to achieve a neutral or beneficial condition within affected LSRs and maintain 

the long-term integrity of the forest management plans. 

• Compensate for impacts to species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

and ecological services provided by mid- and late-seral forested habitats on Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands that cannot be avoided by the 

Proposed Action and cannot be otherwise mitigated, by providing substitute habitats. 

• Compensate for impacts to listed species and ecological services of habitats on nonfederal land that cannot be avoided by the Proposed Action and cannot be otherwise 

mitigated. 

The CMP incorporates three key mechanisms for achieving its goals: 1) transfers of Federal 

land from the “Matrix” to the “LSR” administrative allocations; 2) funding for restoration and 

enhancement projects on federal lands to mitigate for the direct and indirect effects of the 

Proposed Action on listed species and their habitats; and 3) acquisition of non-federal lands and 

the long-term management of those acquired lands to provide for substitute habitats as 

compensation that would not be mitigated by implementing the agencies’ projects. Because 

many of the ESA-listed species’ habitats coincide with other listed species habitats and NWFP 

land allocations, providing compensatory mitigation for one will provide compensatory mitigation 

for the other. This document identifies the framework for mitigation based upon conditions that 

were described during the environmental evaluation of the Proposed Action for issuance of 

FERC’s Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. The actual execution of the CMP will 

be based upon conditions existing at the time the Proposed Action commences construction. 

The CMP does not reiterate the conservation measures that the Proponents have previously 

developed. The measures, designed to avoid, minimize, rectify, and reduce adverse impacts to 

proposed or listed species and their habitats, including proposed or designated critical habitats, 

have been summarized in Section 3.3 of the Draft Biological Assessment (BA) prepared by the 

Proponents, submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and listed for 

each species potentially affected by the Proposed Action in the Effects section of the Draft BA 

(see Section 4.0). Further, the Proponents have developed various plans and procedures to 

avoid, minimize, rectify, and reduce adverse impacts from the Proposed Action. The 

Proponents’ conservation measures have been categorized (see Appendix N in the Draft BA) in 

one of five “mitigation” applications, described by the Council on Environmental Quality (43 FR 

55990 §1508.20, 1978): 

1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 

2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation. 

3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment. 

4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-2 

5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. 

The Proponents have avoided impacts to sensitive resources at multiple locations (see for 

example, the Marbled Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl Avoidance and Minimization Plan, 

Appendix V of the Draft BA); have developed measures to minimize impacts; and have specified 

approaches to repair, rehabilitate, and restore impacted resources. However, there are impacts 

to some resources – including habitats utilized by species listed under the ESA – that are 

unavoidable and cannot be otherwise mitigated on-site and/or in-kind during the life of the 

Proposed Action. These unavoidable impacts are described within this CMP. 

1.1 Unavoidable/Unmitigated Impacts 

Unavoidable/unmitigated impacts to species listed under the ESA and designated critical 

habitats have been identified within the Draft BA and Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) prepared for the Proposed Action. Such unmitigated impacts occur in relation to the 

following listed species and lands allocated under the NWFP (Forest Service and BLM, 1994). 

There will be unavoidable effects to habitats within administrative lands allocated under the 

NWFP as LSRs and Riparian Reserves on public lands, including: 

• The Proposed Action will remove 357.39 acres of all habitat types within three LSRs 

including 146.73 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 25.82 acres of midseral forest. Effects to all mid-seral and late seral forested lands within LSRs are 

assumed to be permanent. 

• The Proposed Action will remove 82.93 acres of all habitat types including 23.85 acres 

of late successional-old growth forest and 22.02 acres of mid-seral forest within multiple 

Riparian Reserves that are assumed to not coincide with LSRs on public lands. Effects 

to all mid-seral and late seral forested lands within Riparian Reserves are assumed to be 

permanent. 

There are unavoidable effects to occupied, suitable, and/or designated critical habitats for 

threatened and endangered terrestrial animal species on both public and private lands pursuant 

to the Endangered Species Act including northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and western 

snowy plover. The following summarize those effects which have been described in detail in the 

Draft BA and compiled in later sections of this CMP: 

• Unavoidable permanent effects to northern spotted owls include: 

 direct removal of 117.29 acres of suitable nesting, roosting and foraging (NRF) 

habitat – generally forests ≥80 years old - and 81.26 acres of dispersal-only 

habitat within two designated critical habitat units (CHUs) – OR-14 and OR-17 - 

which overlap with NWFP LSR land allocations; 

 removal of 35.56 acres of suitable NRF habitat and 36.04 acres of dispersal-only 

habitat within LSRs that is not designated as critical habitat; 

 removal of a total 457.64 acres of suitable NRF habitat and a total of 320.70 

acres of dispersal-only habitat on all federal lands; and 

 removal of a total 273.96 acres of suitable NRF habitat and a total of 373.19 

acres of dispersal-only habitat on all non-federal lands. 

• Unavoidable permanent effects to marbled murrelet include: 

 direct removal of 6.76 acres of suitable habitat and 9.73 acres of recruitment 

habitat within one designated critical habitat unit – OR-06-d which overlaps with 

NWFP LSR land allocations; 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-3 

 removal of 54.34 acres of suitable habitat and 38.03 acres recruitment habitat 

within other NWFP land allocations – including Riparian Reserves; 

 removal of a total 61.07 acres of suitable habitat and 48.78 acres of recruitment 

habitat on all federal lands; and 

 removal of a total 36.25 acres of suitable habitat and 143.96 acres of recruitment 

habitat on all non-federal lands. 

• Unavoidable indirect, secondary effects to designated critical habitat for western snowy 

plover on the Coos Bay North Spit by increased human use and increased predation as 

anticipated results of the human workforce associated with the Proposed Action. 

There are unavoidable effects to designated critical habitat for coho salmon in the Southern 

Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (SO/NCC ESU) and designated 

critical habitat for coho salmon in the Oregon Coast ESU. Coho in both ESUs are listed as 

threatened under the ESA. 

• Unavoidable permanent effects to coho salmon in the SO/NCC ESU include removal of 

39.26 acres of late and mid-seral forests within riparian zones (within 1 site-potential tree 

height from banks) that are components of designated critical habitat. 

• Unavoidable permanent effects to coho salmon in the Oregon Coast ESU include 

removal of 62.21 acres of late and mid-seral forested habitat within riparian zones that 

are adjacent to designated critical habitat; removal of approximately 1.15 acres of 

eelgrass by the Port of Coos Bay and removal of 1.0 acre of eelgrass by PCGP within 

the Haynes Inlet of the Coos Bay Estuary, which is also designated critical habitat for 

Oregon Coast coho salmon. 

There are unavoidable impact to the threatened plant species, Kincaid’s lupine. 

• Unavoidable direct effects to 157 Kincaid’s lupine plants and direct effects to another 

0.135 acre of potentially occupied suitable habitat where surveys for the species have not 

been conducted. 

There will be unavoidable effects on BLM land for unavoidable impacts to Cox’s mariposa lily, a 

species of concern determined by FWS. 

1.2 Goal and Intent 

The goal of this CMP is to compensate fully for unavoidable impacts to the sensitive resources 

identified above through 1) transfers of federal land from Matrix to LSR administrative 

allocations, 2) funding for habitat restoration and enhancement projects on public lands to 

mitigate for the direct and indirect effects of the project on listed species and their habitats; and 

3) acquisition of non-federal lands and the long-term management of those acquired lands to 

provide for substitute habitats as compensation that would not be mitigated by implementing the 

agencies’ projects. 

The CMP is intended to offset unavoidable and unmitigated adverse effects to listed species 

and their habitats on both federal and non-federal lands by: 

• Reducing the risk of habitat loss and fragmentation of remaining habitats; 

• Enhancing and/or accelerating stand characteristics to achieve suitable/functional habitat 

conditions; 

• Providing interconnection of core populations with dispersal corridors; 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-4 

• Providing suitable/functional habitat with assurances of long-term protection and 

stewardship; 

• Building on other managed conservation areas; and 

• Creating management opportunities where none existed or where options were limited 

(through restoration, enhancement, and creation of habitat). 

This CMP includes a Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA – described below) that identifies to 

what extent acquisition of suitable replacement habitat would compensate unavoidable effects. 

If similar quality replacement habitat is ultimately not available for acquisition, the HEA could be 

used to evaluate habitat quality utilizing forest age class to rank and prioritize alternative habitat 

replacement options. The appropriate acreage of compensatory habitat will vary depending on 

this analysis, taking into consideration not only the affected habitat but also the quality, 

characteristics and extent of available compensatory habitat. Where possible, this CMP 

identifies compensatory lands/projects capable of mitigating impacts to multiple 

resources/species by the Proposed Action. Lists of compensatory lands/projects were provided 

by the Forest Service and BLM and are included in Appendix A. 

As discussed in following sections, there are spatial overlaps among public land allocations and 

listed species’ habitats, including designated critical habitat. Consequently, compensatory 

mitigation for unavoidable effects to one parcel of land is likely to provide benefits to overlapping 

resources. Part of the analyses within this CMP are devoted to understanding and separating 

levels of overlap so that effects to the various resources are identified and evaluated clearly, 

avoiding unintentional omissions for appropriate mitigation and identifying where there are 

multiple litigation benefits provided by the various mitigation measures. 

1.3 Re-Allocation of Forest Land 

The NWFP (Forest Service and BLM, 1994) designated LSRs to protect and enhance habitat for 

late-successional and old growth forest-dependent species, including such obligate and 

federally-listed species as the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet. LSRs, in combination 

with other land allocation standards and guidelines, were intended to maintain a functional, 

interacting, late-successional, and old-growth forest ecosystem. Thinning or other silvicultural 

treatments inside LSRs may be allowed if they are judged to be beneficial to the creation of latesuccessional forest conditions. The Proposed Action, while requiring timber removal during 

pipeline construction, is not a silvicultural treatment but rather falls into the category of multiple 

use within LSRs. NWFP Standards and Guidelines recognize easements and special use 

permits within LSRs as valid uses. Similar to silvicultural practices, nonsilvicultural activities 

located inside LSRs that are neutral or beneficial to the creation and maintenance of late 

successional habitat can be allowed under the NWFP (Forest Service and BLM, 1994; page C16). In addition, new development proposals that address public needs or provide significant 

public benefits, such as ... “pipelines ... will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and may be 

approved when adverse effects can be minimized and mitigated” (Forest Service and BLM, 

1994; page C-17). 

To compensate for the loss of habitat within the LSRs from the construction and operation of the 

PCGP portion of the Proposed Action, the Forest Service has proposed the re-allocation of 

more than 1,000 acres of forested lands within the Matrix land allocation to be added to existing 

LSRs crossed to replace the habitat impacted by the Proposed Action. The Forest Service has 

proposed adding 585 acres on Matrix lands adjacent to LSR RO 223 on the Umpqua National 

Forest and adding 593 acres of Matrix lands adjacent to LSR RO 227 on the Rogue RiverSiskiyou National Forest. The Forest Service’s proposal for reallocating Matrix land to LSR is 

included in Appendix A to this CMP. The Forest Service has determined that this action 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-5 

addresses to the "neutral to beneficial" standard for new developments in LSRs (Forest Service 

and BLM, 1994; page C-16) by adding acres to the LSR land allocation to offset the long-term 

loss of acres and habitat from the construction and operation of the PCGP. However, the 

Forest Service notes that such re-allocations do not specifically mitigate for direct habitat losses 

or indirect effects within LSRs. Therefore, additional compensatory mitigation is included in this 

CMP to mitigate for habitat losses within LSRs, in other NWFP allocated lands, and within 

specific habitats utilized by species listed under ESA. 

1.4 Project-Based Compensatory Mitigation 

1.4.1 Projects 

The BLM and Forest Service have proposed a number of potential projects such as fuel breaks 

and fuel reduction projects, stand density management projects, road decommissioning, and 

land acquisitions in their draft mitigation proposals (Appendix A) that would be used to mitigate 

the Proposed Action’s near and long-term impacts and provide a net neutral or beneficial effect 

to LSRs, other affected land allocations, and listed species’ habitats. Projects and land reallocation (conversion of Matrix to LSR as a means of compensating for impact to the LSR land 

allocation - see Section 1.3, above) identified are within and/or adjacent to LSRs crossed by the 

Proposed Action and therefore, will contribute positively to the objectives of federally managed 

lands and species’ recovery plans. 

The Forest Service and the Proponents have developed and reviewed the list of target 

restoration and enhancement projects that they intend to implement to achieve the Proposed 

Action-related mitigation benefits of this plan (discussed in Section 6.2, below). The suite of 

projects would be implemented to ensure that the impacts to LSRs, riparian reserves, and 

associated federally-listed species are fully mitigated through the creation and maintenance of 

late successional habitats and enhancement of riparian and in-stream habitats. However, both 

the Forest Service and the Proponents intend to retain some ability to adjust both the overall set 

of project priorities and implementation schedules in order to respond to new, project-specific 

information that develops as project level planning and design work occurs. It is certain that 

changes in schedules and approaches will occur as more project-specific information becomes 

available, and the parties intend to reserve the ability to make appropriate adjustments in order 

to retain the ability to capture the highest and best mitigation benefits in the shortest period of 

time. Decisions about the most effective and important compensatory projects can best be 

made closer to the time they would be undertaken, in order to take into account current priorities 

and conditions. In addition, potential easements and other on-the-ground issues will ultimately 

determine the parameters – including specific acreages and dimensions – of certain projects. 

Further, with regard to the ultimate package of BLM compensatory mitigation, information about 

the availability of specific parcels for acquisition is not yet available. 

1.4.2 Agreement in Principle 

As a part of this approach, The Proponents have developed an Agreement in Principle with the 

Forest Service (Appendix A-1). The Agreement reflects an understanding based on the best 

professional judgment of the agency staff and Proponents that this amount specificed for 

projects will be adequate to cover the cost of sufficient projects to satisfy the mitigation 

objectives of the CMP on Forest Service land (that are not addressed by the re-allocation of 

Matrix to LSR lands). 

The Agreement in Principle also records a commitment to enter into a subsequent enforceable 

agreement. That enforceable agreement would specify the trigger for commencing mitigation 

payments, payment schedules, and also confirm projects and acreages and any associated 

monitoring costs, payable into a Forest Service Mitigation fund account. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-6 

For impacts to BLM lands, the Proponents are making a commitment to the acreages or 

projects described in Section 6.2. The Proponents have not completed an Agreement in 

Principle with BLM but are willing to do so to a financial commitment based upon unit costs 

provided by BLM. In addition, the proponents have proposed additional habitat acquisitions to 

supplement BLM projects. If required, The Proponents will implement the acquisition projects. 

The final BLM mitigation projects will be included in the Plan of Development and will be 

accepted by BLM prior to issuance of a Grant of Right-of-Way for the Proposed Action. 

1.5 Habitat Equivalency Analysis 

HEA was developed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration to quantify 

losses to damaged natural resources, includeding habitats. The method focuses on complete, 

in-kind replacement of services lost between the time of impact and when the restored or 

created habitat becomes fully functional. HEA accomplishes this by incorporating the concept 

of discounting from economic theory. Discounting assumes that people place a greater value 

on services that they can enjoy today than on those put off into the future. A standard real 

discount rate of 3 percent is typically assumed. Thus for every year it takes to replace a specific 

amount of a service, an amount of habitat capable of producing an additional 3 percent of the 

remaining lost services must also be obtained. 

HEA has been applied to situations as diverse as freshwater streams, sea grass beds, and coral 

reefs (Chapman et al., 1998; Fonseca et al., 2000; Milton and Dodge, 2001). Although HEA is a 

relatively new method, it has been accepted as a basis for settlement in federal court (United 

States of America vs. Melvin A. Fisher et al. 1997), and was endorsed by the 11th Circuit court 

of appeals in United States of America vs. Great Lakes Dredge & Doc County, 259 F3d 1300 

(11th Circuit, 2001), where HEA was determined to be an appropriate method by which to 

quantify size of equivalent restoration area associated with liability under the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act. Because it is a generic method it can be adapted to a variety of situations 

including the evaluation of effects to habitats and individual species. 

The structure of HEA is relatively simple. HEA involves three basic steps: 1) Assess the 

present value of lost services relative to the baseline. In this analysis the loss (“debit”) is 

measured in acre-years (acre-years are defined as the total ecological services provided by one 

acre for one year); 2) Select appropriate compensatory restoration/mitigation measures. The 

“relative productivity” of a proposed restoration measure compared to what was impacted is 

evaluated in the number of acre-years restored for every acre included in the measure; and 3) 

Identify the area for the restoration/mitigation measure (scaling) that will equate the total 

discounted quantity of lost services to the total discounted quantity of replacement services to 

compensate for the lost habitat. In other words, the amount of compensatory habitat required to 

replace services lost due to impact is based on the time required for recovery of services onsite, the level of baseline services provided by offsite compensatory habitat relative to the 

impacted habitat and on the duration of services provided by compensatory habitat. 

Determining which services are most appropriate to replace and the degree to which the Project 

area provided these services prior to impact are probably the most important steps in the HEA 

process. Forest age (seral stage) was selected as the standard for evaluating services to a 

wide variety of resources, including some listed species and NWFP land use allocations. The 

advantage of using forest age as a metric is apparent: it represents a variety of services, can 

be measured in the present, and is reliably predicted into the future. Forested habitats within 

the Project Area have been classified by seral-stage which corresponds to age class: the 

youngest is clearcut forest – 0 to 5 years old; regenerating forest – 5 to 40 years old; mid-seral 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-7 

forest – 40 to 80 years old; late successional forest – 80 to 175 years old; and old growth forest 

– 175 years and older. 

To determine compensation for unavoidable impacts to the sensitive resources identified above, 

two HEA models have been developed: a Late Successional-Old Growth (LSOG) Forest HEA 

Model (Section 1.5.1) and a Mid-Seral (M-S) Forest HEA Model (Section 1.5.2). HEA models 

used in this CMP have been developed by French Creek Consulting, RLLP, in Laramie, 

Wyoming. The models have been based on work developed by Dr. Kristin Skrabis, Resource 

Economist, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of Interior. The models continue to be 

refined through reviews by Dr. Skrabis and Doug Young, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 

Portland, Oregon, and with review and input from members of the Jordan Cove/Pacific 

Connector Interagency Task Force Working Group, Mitigation Subgroup, after meetings held in 

Roseburg, Oregon on October 29 and 30, 2008. 

Construction will require clearing the right-of-way and temporary extra work areas of most if not 

all trees, other non-forested vegetation, and debris. In the HEA modeling application used in 

this CMP, there are two areas, identified as Area 1 and Area 2, that will be affected differently 

by the Proposed Action. Area 1 is a corridor extending to 15 feet of each side of the pipeline 

centerline – the 30-foot maintenance corridor, which will remain in an herbaceous/shrub state 

for the life of the Proposed Action, estimated at 50 years. In forested habitats, conifer trees will 

be replanted within the construction right-of-way and other cleared areas outside of the 30-foot 

maintenance corridor and allowed to return to its pre-construction state (Area 2). 

The Proposed Action takes a conservative approach by simplifying both models. Neither model 

accounts for the area outside of the 30-foot maintenance corridor (Area 2) that will be replanted 

where late-seral forested habitat was removed by the Proposed Action and which will eventually 

become mid-seral habitat (within 40 years) during the life of the project. Consequently, there 

will be more mid-seral habitat created during the life of the project than will be accounted for and 

which will not be credited against the debit or loss of mid-seral habitat elsewhere. Likewise, 

model simplification does not include the inevitability that mid-seral forest that will be acquired 

as compensatory habitat and will begin to provide services as late successional-old growth 

forest after 40 years or less. That eventual overall increase of forest age classes ranging from 

40 years old to 80 years old and older is not credited against the loss of forest in either 

successional stage. Thus, compensatory mitigation, as currently evaluated through the two 

HEA models will lead to an overall net beneficial affect over the long term and during the life of 

the project. That is, the Proponents will be providing for more compensatory habitat than if 

every seral stage that develops through forest succession was fully accounted for during the life 

of the project. 

1.5.1 Late Successional-Old Growth Forest HEA Model 

Over much of the landscape, late successional and old growth forests have been combined into 

a single category. Since the age mid-point of late successional forest is 127.5 years old and the 

age mid-point for old growth is assumed to be 250 years old (related to 325-year old stands), 

the mid-point of the two age classes combined is 203.4 years, an important parameter that is 

used to compute a linear slope for the production function of replanted forest. For effects to late 

successional-old growth forest, ecological services associated with those seral stages are 

assumed to begin when replanted trees within Area 2 are 80 years old. Because Area 1 is not 

replanted, losses of ecological services are assumed to last in perpetuity. 

The current LSOG HEA model that has been reviewed by Dr. Skrabis assumes that 

compensatory habitat for effects to late successional-old growth habitats will be obtained 3 

years after construction on the PCGP Project begins. Consequently, discounting (at a rate of 3 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-8 

percent per year) applies only to the 3-year interim between clearing and acquisition so that the 

amount of compensatory habitat obtained will be about 9 percent more than the amount of 

habitat removed. In addition to the area of habitat within Area 1 that will be removed “in 

perpetuity”, conifers that are planted following construction within former late successional-old 

growth habitat in Area 2 will not start providing equivalent ecological services for 80 years. 

Thus, the growth and progressive development of structural characteristics of those conifers will 

not contribute to any decrease in the amount of compensatory habitat necessary to mitigate lost 

late seral forested habitat. In short, the HEA model as it has so far been developed only 

computes the amount of late successional-old growth habitat required for compensation based 

on the standard discount rate of 3 percent per year; all compensatory habitat obtained is 

assumed to be equivalent to the habitat affected (in-kind replacement). The model also 

assumes that the compensatory habitat obtained will be held in perpetuity. This model has 

been applied to evaluate amounts of compensatory habitat required to offset impact to late 

successional-old growth habitats described for several listed species and to lands allocated 

under the NWFP (Forest Service and BLM, 1994) in the sections, below. 

1.5.2 Mid-Seral Forest HEA Model 

A second HEA model was developed to evaluate effects to mid-seral forests and to compute 

amounts of compensatory habitat necessary to offset effects to forests between 40 and 80 

years old. The current M-S HEA model has also been reviewed by Dr. Skrabis. The 

assumptions used in the M-S HEA model are similar to those discussed above; loss of 

ecological services in Area 1 are assumed to last in perpetuity, but ecological services 

associated with mid-seral forests are assumed to begin when replanted trees within Area 2 are 

40 years old. The mid-point of mid-seral forests is 60 years which is used to compute a linear 

slope for the production function of replanted forest. 

Mid-seral forests provide NRF habitat and dispersal-only habitats for northern spotted owls as 

well as nesting habitat and recruitment habitat for marbled murrelets. In addition, mid-seral 

forests within riparian zones provide shade and affect stream water temperatures. Loss of midseral forest by construction of the Proposed Action in Area 2 will last for 40 years. 

Similar to the LSOG model, the M-S HEA model computes the amount of mid-seral habitat 

required for compensation based on the standard discount rate of 3 percent per year and all 

compensatory habitat obtained is assumed to be equivalent to the habitat affected (in-kind 

replacement). Because conifers will be planted within Area 2 following construction, they will 

begin providing services as mid-seral forest after 40 years and those services reduce the 

amount of compensatory habitat computed by the HEA model. 

The model also assumes that the compensatory habitat obtained will be held in perpetuity and 

that once obtained, it will remain as mid-seral habitat in perpetuity. Of course, that assumption 

is not realistic since, with the passage of time, mid-seral forest would eventually become late 

successional-old growth forest and contribute to offsetting impact to late seral stage forest in 

addition to the compensatory habitat obtained for that purpose. The assumption of being held 

as mid-seral forest in perpetuity is retained for simplicity as described above, and to facilitate 

understanding during implementation of the HEA model. The ecological services that would be 

provided by mid-seral forests that eventually become late successional-old growth forests within 

40 years of acquisition are not accounted for in any of the HEA models. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-9 

1.6 Land Acquisition 

Much of the BLM’s jurisdiction in the Project area is a “checkerboard” pattern of federal and 

non-federal lands; therefore, the Proponents anticipate that some non-federal lands adjacent to 

or surrounded by BLM lands will be available for acquisition, either totally in fee or as 

conservation easements (or some combination) at the time of construction. Acquisition of nonfederal lands within the BLM checkerboard ownership would improve long-term connectivity and 

habitat function to support listed species conservation. Whether such lands would be of value 

as compensatory mitigation would depend on multiple factors. Though not exhaustive or final, 

some or all of the following factors (Pacific Forest Trust, 2007) will contribute to deciding 

whether or not to acquire a particular parcel as compensation for effects to habitats on BLM 

lands or on non-federal lands: 

1. Parcel location – the proximity of a specific parcel relative to an affected LSR is likely to 

be a high prioritizing factor; 

2. Habitat quality – the presence of late successional-old growth forest and/or mid-seral 

forest on a parcel will determine whether it is adequate to provide appropriate ecological 

services required of compensatory mitigation; 

3. Parcel connectivity – a parcel with late and/or mid-seral forest that is adjacent to or 

proximate to other forested lands will likely provide more appropriate ecological services 

than a comparable though isolated parcel; 

4. Parcel size – the ecological services provided by parcel size will be affected by parcel 

location and connectivity; 

5. Parcel cost – cost of acquisition is always a prioritizing factor; 

6. Current or potential threat – parcels with other comparable attributes but at different 

levels of risk of habitat loss would likewise be prioritized for acquisition differently; 

7. Conservation mechanism – parcels acquired totally in fee or as conservation easements 

(or some combination) may be more or less desirable with different priorities; 

8. Multiple species protection – parcels likely or known to support multiple special status 

species could be prioritized higher than parcels with potential for fewer species; 

9. Key landowner status – landowners with positive attitudes/experiences with conservation 

may lead to successful transactions compared to those with no such experience; 

10. Transaction model – extremely complex transactions for acquiring a parcel may be less 

desirable than parcels acquired through more easily replicable means. 

The land base of the national forests affected by the Proposed Action is considerably more 

contiguous than that characterized by the ownership patterns within the affected BLM districts. 

Therefore, the opportunities for an acquisition strategy to achieve the mitigation objectives 

within the three national forests affected by the Proposed Action are more limited. Accordingly, 

this CMP adopts an alternative strategy that targets the implementation of a range of habitat 

improvement projects within the three national forests to achieve the overall net improvements 

in ecological services that underlie this CMP, as described above. 

The Proponents believes that acquisition of compensatory habitats on non-federal lands is the 

only realistic approach to mitigating impact on those lands. While habitat enhancement projects 

on non-federal lands may be theoretically possible and would provide similar ecological benefits 

as on federal lands but without control of land parcels, either through in fee property ownership 

or through conservation easements (or some combination), the effects of enhancement projects 

would be tenuous, subject to landowners’ goals and with no certainty of providing future benefits 

to the species. Prior to FERC’s issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the value of acquiring those 

lands as compensatory mitigation for project effects on non-federal lands would be evaluated, 

possibly using prioritizing criteria described above. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-10 

1.7 Conventions and Assumptions 

1.7.1 General 

LSRs, in combination with other land allocation standards and guidelines, are intended to 

maintain a functional, interacting, late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystem. Likewise, 

Riparian Reserves are a key component of the NWFP Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). 

Riparian Reserves are intended to help maintain and restore riparian structures and functions, 

benefit fish and riparian-dependent non-fish species, enhance habitat conservation for 

organisms dependent on the transition zone between upslope and riparian areas, improve travel 

and dispersal corridors for terrestrial animals and plants, and provide for greater connectivity of 

late-successional forest habitat. 

With the re-allocation of more than 1,000 acres of Matrix Lands to LSRs, the Forest Service has 

determined that the overall goal of multiple use actions within LSRs would address the neutral 

to beneficial standard stated in the NWFP. However, it is the Forest Service’s view that reallocation is not assumed to offset the direct loss of habitat or indirect effects of the Proposed 

Action. As discussed above, direct loss of late successional-old growth forested habitats during 

construction will be assumed as not restored or replaced on-site in whole during the life of the 

project and therefore must be offset by compensatory mitigation. Restoration of mid-seral 

coniferous and mixed forests will begin immediately following construction but full restoration of 

ecological services for mid-seral forests is assumed to begin only after the newly planted trees 

are 40 years old. The eventual return of ecological services is accounted for in the Mid-Seral 

Forest HEA Model described above, but compensatory habitat will be required to mitigate for 

the time delay to attain ecological services for both mid-seral forest and late successional-old 

growth forest removed during construction. 

The Proponents assume that restoration of ecological services for clearcut forest (0 to 5 years 

old) will begin immediately after construction and be fully achieved within 2.5 years (mid-point 

age span for clearcut forest). Likewise, restoration of ecological services for regenerating forest 

(5 to 40 years old) will begin 5 years after construction and be fully achieved within 22.5 years 

(mid-point age span for regenerating forest). The ecological services provided by compensatory 

mitigation measures to restore or enhance regenerating forest within affected portions of the 

pipeline right-of-way that were in all seral stages prior to construction (clearcut, regenerating 

forest, mid-seral forest, and late successional-old growth forest) will exceed the total services of 

regenerating forest provided prior to construction. Therefore, the Proponents have not included 

acquisition of regenerating forest in this CMP. 

The Proponents recognize that removal of forest in any seral stage from LSR and/or Riparian 

Reserves will impede achieving late seral characteristics in a stand. However, re-allocating 

NWFP Matrix to LSR land use allocations, implementing restoration and enhancement projects 

described in Section 6.2, acquiring non-federal lands for substitute habitats, and applying the 

conservation measures described in the Draft BA (Appendix N of that document) to fully mitigate 

adverse impacts from the Proposed Action witihin LSRs and/or Riparian Reserves. 

As discussed in Section 1.4.1 above, BLM and Forest Service have proposed a number of 

projects for implementation on lands under their respective jurisdictions (Appendix A, this CMP). 

The Proponents will fund projects identified in Table 6-3 to restore and enhance substitute 

habitat and assumes that application of any, some, or all of those projects, in addition to the 

other measures to which they have committed, will benefit habitats within NWFP land 

allocations and will benefit species listed under the ESA and their habitats, including designated 

critical habitats. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-11 

1.7.2 Conservative Assumptions and Approaches 

To ensure the sufficiency of the proposed compensatory mitigation, this CMP has applied the 

HEA model and has employed various conservative assumptions and approaches. The 

conservative approach operates to offset the scientific uncertainties associated with quantifying 

habitat function over space and time, and comparing the ecological services of project-based 

mitigations with habitat acreages lost. The following described features of this CMP represent a 

precautionary approach to the uncertainties, and ensure a net overall benefit. 

1. Re-allocations. The administrative forest land re-allocations offset the amount of total 

impacted habitat with a ratio of approximately 3:1. The total area affected within the 

LSRs crossed by the PCGP Project is 357 acres (including all habitat types, not only late 

successional-old growth forest). The Forest Service has proposed to reallocate 1,178 

acres of Matrix land as LSR (see Executive Summary - Summary Table 2). Thus, there 

is a significantly greater amount of forest that will be managed to ultimately provide LSR 

services and functions, and that additional forest land will be protected from the activities 

otherwise allowed to occur within the existing Matrix designation, benefiting late 

successional-dependent species, such as the northern spotted owl. 

2. Projects. There are genuine limits on the ability to quantify precisely the rate and extent 

of benefits that will result from the individual restoration projects, or to establish a 

scientifically defensible correlation of quantified functional benefits to acreages. The 

Proponents and the federal land managers are therefore using their best professional 

judgment to establish a proposed suitable approach. 

That said, the CMP proposes a suite of restoration and enhancement projects that 

results in very generous ratios of acreages lost to ecological services provided. 

Specifically, on Forest Service lands, the ratio between acreage of late successional-old 

growth and mid-seral forested habitat lost (416 acres without overlap) versus acreage 

that will be enhanced by projects (6,840 acres of forest stand treatments only on Forest 

Service lands) is approximately 16.4:1 comparing total late successional and mid-seral 

forest lost to the acres of forest treatments proposed on Forest Service lands. 

This ratio does not include forest enhancement acres that will result from road 

decommissioning projects or other compensatory mitigation in Summary Table 2. This 

CMP also does not attempt to account for the cumulative ecological benefits of the many 

overlapping project-based mitigations, some of which may provide synergistic 

interactions. For example, where road decommissioning and riparian treatments would 

address forest fragmentation as well as water quality for a particular habitat, the CMP 

does not take acreage credit for these complex overlaps. 

On BLM land, the ratio between acreage of late successional-old growth and mid-seral 

forested habitats lost (512 acres without overlap) versus acreage that would be 

enhanced by proposed projects (1,400 acres of forest stand treatments only) is 

approximately 2.7:1. This ratio also does not account for forest enhancement acres that 

will result from road decommissioning projects, and cumulative ecological benefits from 

other projects. The ratio does indicate that projects on BLM lands may provide less 

overall compensation than projects on Forest Service lands. For this reason, the 

Proponents have proposed supplementing the projects with land acquisitions. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-12 

1.8 Overlapping Areas 

Distribution of late successional-old growth and mid-seral forests across the landscape is 

complex and there are many instances of overlap between one or more resource category (land 

allocation, listed species), whether on federal lands or non-federal lands. The diagram below 

indicates how various components of listed species’ habitats and land allocations overlap on 

federal lands: 

(Note that Riparian Reserves may overlap with Late Successional Reserves in some federal jurisdictions 

but for the analyses described in this CMP they are considered separately, based on NWFP management 

objectives and without overlap as shown in the diagram.) 

Likewise, areas of listed species’ habitats on federal lands that are not allocated as LSR or 

Riparian Reserves also overlap. For example, northern spotted owl habitat that is suitable as 

nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats is generally ≥80 years old. Marbled murrelet habitat 

identified as “known suitable”, “potentially suitable” (collectively “suitable”), and “recruitment” 

habitats are also likely to be ≥80 years old although some are <40 years old, discussed below. 

Habitats for those species overlap on federal lands outside of species’ designated critical 

habitats, LSRs, or Riparian Reserves and also overlap on non-federal lands. On non-federal 

lands, stands of ≥80-year old forest associated with northern spotted owl or marbled murrelet 

habitats may also overlap with non-federal riparian zones (not Riparian Reserves) that coincide 

with critical habitats for coho salmon. Since all coho salmon critical habitat that is on federal 

land is included in Riparian Reserves, none will overlap the remaining northern spotted owl or 

marbled murrelet habitats on federal lands, as shown in the diagram below. On non-federal 

lands, forests ≥80 years old within coho salmon critical habitats may overlap northern spotted 

owl and marbled murrelet habitats. Habitats of those listed species on non-federal lands must 

be considered separately because of land ownership. 

Some younger mid-seral forest may also be suitable habitat for northern spotted owl and 

suitable and recruitment habitat for marbled murrelets. Mid-seral coniferous or mixed forests 

are also generally classified as dispersal-only habitats for northern spotted owls. On nonfederal lands, northern spotted owl dispersal-only habitat may overlap with mid-seral forests 

within riparian zones that are designated critical habitat for coho salmon. 

Late 

Successional 

Reserves 

Marbled Murrelet 

Suitable and 

Critical Habitat 

Northern Spotted 

Owl Suitable and 

Critical Habitat 

Riparian 

Reserves

Coho Salmon 

Critical Habitat

overlaps with 

overlaps with 

overlaps with 

overlaps with 

overlaps with 

overlaps with overlaps with 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-13 

2.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION - FEDERAL LANDS - NWFP 

Although this CMP focuses on providing compensation for unavoidable or unmitigated impacts 

to species listed under the Endangered Species Act and their designated critical habitats, the 

Proposed Action will affect habitats used by many of those species within federal lands 

allocated under the NWFP (Forest Service and BLM, 1994). Those land allocations include 

LSRs and Riparian Reserves. Affected lands within LSRs do not overlap affected lands within 

Riparian Reserves in this CMP but habitats utilized by listed species overlap both (refer to the 

diagram of overlapping resources on federal land, above). Discussion and analysis of 

compensatory mitigation for effects to LSRs and Riparian Reserves logically come first in the 

order of presentation within this CMP since all other species’ habitats considered also occur 

within these land allocations (except for habitats used by western snowy plovers, Kincaid’s 

lupine, and Cox’s mariposa lily). 

The NWFP established a set of land management guidelines for implementation by BLM and 

the Forest Service in the Pacific Northwest (Forest Service and BLM, 1994), which includes the 

Proposed Action area. In 1993, the NWFP was initiated to end the impasse over management 

of federal forest lands in the Pacific Northwest within the range of the northern spotted owl. 

With the signing of the 1994 Record of Decision (ROD) for Amendments to the Forest Service 

and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl, a framework and system of standards and guidelines were established, using a 

new ecosystem approach to address resource management. The signing of the 1994 NWFP 

ROD (Forest Service and BLM, 1994) by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior amended 

the planning documents of 19 National Forests and seven BLM districts within the range of the 

NSO. However, standards and guidelines in those documents that are consistent with or more 

stringent than the NWFP ROD are still applicable. 

In 2005, BLM began revising Resource Management Plans for all of the lands it manages in 

western Oregon. BLM recently finalized the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR) which will 

increase timber harvest in Oregon from current levels including in the Coos Bay, Roseburg, 

Medford, and Lakeview Districts. The BLM released the WOPR Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) on October 9, 2008. The WOPR FEIS eliminated the NWFP ACS including 

objectives, consistency requirements, standards and guidelines, key watersheds, watershed 

analysis, and watershed restoration. However, an alternative developed between the draft and 

FEIS (the Proposed Resource Management Plan Alternative, the new preferred alternative) 

Marbled Murrelet Suitable 

and Recruitment Habitat 

Coho Salmon 

Critical Habitat

overlaps with 

Northern Spotted 

Owl Suitable and 

Dispersal Habitat 

Federal Lands 

Not LSR or 

Riparian Reserve 

Non-Federal 

Lands 

Northern Spotted 

Owl Suitable and 

Dispersal Habitat 

Marbled Murrelet Suitable 

and Recruitment Habitat

overlaps with 

overlaps with 

overlaps with 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 L3-14 

deferred timber harvest in older, complex forests for several years and included some additional 

protections for riparian zones by increasing the width of some riparian buffers, compared to 

those submitted in the draft EIS. However, the riparian buffers in the new preferred alternative 

are narrower than those provided by the ACS and more thinning is allowed in riparian zones 

than under the NWFP. This CMP follows a more conservative approach than advanced within 

the WOPR FEIS and assumes that riparian buffers are the same as those in the NWFP for 

Riparian Reserves and that forest practices within riparian zones follow guidance included in the 

original ACS Objectives for BLM-administered lands. 

2.1 Late Successional Reserves 

2.1.1 Background 

As defined in the ROD for the NWFP (Forest Service and BLM, 1994), the LSR land allocation 

was designed to protect and enhance habitat for late-successional and old growth forest related 

species including the northern spotted owl. These reserves, in combination with the other land 

allocations and standard and guidelines, were intended to maintain a functional, interacting, late 

successional and old growth forest ecosystem. According to the Standards and Guidelines for 

LSRs, nonsilvicultural activities located inside LSRs that are neutral or beneficial to the creation 

and maintenance of late-successional habitat are allowed as a general guideline. The Standard 

and Guidelines clarify that new development proposals that address public needs or provide 

significant public benefits, such as powerlines, pipelines, reservoirs, recreation sites, or other 

public works projects will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and may be approved when 

adverse effects can be minimized and mitigated. These development proposals will be planned 

to have the least possible adverse impacts on LSRs. Developments will be located to avoid 

degradation of habitat and adverse effects on identified late successional-dependent or obligate 

species. 

For the Proposed Action to conform with the Standards and Guidelines, FERC must first issue a 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in order to obtain a Right-of-Way Grant on 

federal lands. The Proposed Action will cross three existing LSR land allocations in RO 261, 

RO 223, and RO 227 on public lands administered by the BLM and the Forest Service. In 

conformance with the Standard and Guidelines for nonsilvicultural activities within LSRs that 

address public needs and provide public benefits, the Proponents have provided the rationale 

for the Proposed Action’s location within the LSRs as well as the measures that have been 

incorporated into the project design to minimize impacts and ensure that the Proposed Action 

has the least possible adverse impacts on LSRs (see Sections 10.6.4 and 10.6.5 in Resource 

Report 10 of Pacific Connector’s September 2007 FERC Application as well as Pacific 

Connector’s December 4, 2008 DEIS Response to Requirement 30). The Forest Service has 

also concurred with the proposed route, which minimizes impacts to late successional forested 

habitats, within designated LSRs on National Forest lands. 

2.1.2 Summary of Impact to Late Successional Reserves 

Table 2.1-1a provides a summary of the area (acres) affected by the Proposed Action within 

each LSR unit by federal jurisdiction and by general habitat type. The areas affected in Table 

2.1-1a consider habitat removed within the construction right-of-way, temporary extra work 

areas, aboveground facilities, and temporary and permanent access roads, which incorporates 

the area affected within the 30-foot wide corridor centered over the pipeline that will be 

maintained in an herbaceous and/or shrub state by operations during the life of the Proposed 

Action. The subset of areas affected within the maintained 30-foot wide corridor are provided in 

Table 2.1-1b. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

 L3-15 

Table 2.1-1a. 

Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) Affected/Removed1 by Construction of the Proposed Action within Late Succe

Forested Habitat 3 Other Habitat 3

LSR ID 

(Total Acres)2 Federal Jurisdiction

Late Successional – 

Old Growth Forest 

Mid-Seral Forest 

Regenerating Forest 

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland 

Unaltered Habitat 

Altered Habitat 

RO 261 Coos Bay BLM 0.89 4.98 9.88 0 15.75 0 0 1.42 

(70,611 acres) Roseburg BLM 4.59 4.36 8.44 0.06 17.45 0 0 1.64 

RO 261 Total 5.48 9.34 18.32 0.06 33.20 0 0 3.06 

RO 223 Roseburg BLM 28.96 0.38 11.49 0 40.83 0.29 0.08 2.13 

(66,173 acres) Umpqua N.F. 44.89 5.74 15.07 0 65.70 0 0 8.94 

RO 223 Total 73.85 6.12 26.56 0 106.53 0.29 0.08 11.07 

RO 227 

(101,600 acres) Rogue River – Siskiyou N.F. 67.40 10.36 79.74 9.87 167.37 0 14.27 21.52 

RO 227 Total 67.4 10.36 79.74 9.87 167.37 0 14.27 21.52 

Coos Bay BLM 0.89 4.98 9.88 0 15.75 0 0 1.42 Roseburg BLM 33.55 4.74 19.93 0.06 58.28 0.29 0.08 3.77 

Umpqua N.F. 44.89 5.74 15.07 0 65.70 0 0 8.94 

All LSR Units 

(238,384 acres) 

Rogue River – Siskiyou N.F 67.40 10.36 79.74 9.87 167.37 0 14.27 21.52 

Overall Total 146.73 25.82 124.62 9.93 307.10 0.29 14.35 35.65 

1 Project components considered in calculation of habitat “Removed”: PCGP construction right-of-way, temporary extra work area

facilities, and permanent and temporary access roads (PAR, TAR). 2 Overall Total Acres within each LSR were obtained from the following Late Successional Reserve Assessments: BLM and Fores261); BLM and Forest Service, 1999 (RO 223); and FWS et al., 1998 (RO 227). 3 Habitat Types within Late Successional Reserves generally categorized as: Late Successional (Mature) or Old Growth Forest (cmixed ≥80 years old); Mid-Seral Forests (coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥40 but ≤80 years old); Regenerating Forest (coniferous, 

but ≤40 years old); Clearcut Forests; Wetland Forested, Unaltered Nonforested Habitat (grasslands, sagebrush, shrublands), and 

(urban, industrial, residential, roads, utility corridors, quarries).
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

 L3-16 

Table 2.1-1b. 

Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) Affected in the 30-foot Wide Corridor Maintained 

during the PCGP Project within Late Successional Reserves 

Forested Habitat 3 Other Habitat 3

LSR ID 

(Total Acres)2 Federal Jurisdiction

Late Successional – 

Old Growth Forest 

Mid-Seral Forest 

Regenerating Forest 

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland 

Unaltered Habitat 

Altered Habitat 

RO 261 Coos Bay BLM 0.28 1.48 1.47 0 3.23 0 0 0.30 

(70,611 acres) Roseburg BLM 1.09 1.12 1.39 0.01 3.61 0 0 0.29 

RO 261 Total 1.37 2.60 2.86 0.01 6.84 0 0 0.59 

RO 223 Roseburg BLM 7.72 0.02 2.53 0 10.27 0.10 0 0.09 

(66,173 acres) Umpqua N.F. 11.97 1.57 3.68 0 17.22 0 0 1.21 

RO 223 Total 19.69 1.59 6.21 0 27.49 0.10 0 1.30 

RO 227 

(101,600 acres) Rogue River – Siskiyou N.F. 20.77 3.62 21.91 0 46.30 0 1.31 1.14 

RO 227 Total 20.77 3.62 21.91 0 46.30 0 1.31 1.14 

Coos Bay BLM 0.28 1.48 1.47 0 3.23 0 0 0.30 Roseburg BLM 8.81 1.14 3.92 0.01 13.88 0.10 0 0.38 

Umpqua N.F. 11.97 1.57 3.68 0 17.22 0 0 1.21 

All LSR Units 

(238,384 acres) 

Rogue River – Siskiyou N.F 20.77 3.62 21.91 0 46.30 0 1.31 1.14 

Overall Total 41.83 7.81 30.98 0.01 80.63 0.10 1.31 3.03 

1 Project components considered in calculation of habitat “Removed”: PCGP construction right-of-way, temporary extra work area

facilities, and permanent and temporary access roads (PAR, TAR). 2 Overall Total Acres within each LSR were obtained from the following Late Successional Reserve Assessments: BLM and Fores261); BLM and Forest Service, 1999 (RO 223); and FWS et al., 1998 (RO 227). 3 Habitat Types within Late Successional Reserves generally categorized as: Late Successional (Mature) or Old Growth Forest (cmixed ≥80 years old); Mid-Seral Forests (coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥40 but ≤80 years old); Regenerating Forest (coniferous, 

but ≤40 years old); Clearcut Forests; Wetland Forested, Unaltered Nonforested Habitat (grasslands, sagebrush, shrublands), and 

(urban, industrial, residential, roads, utility corridors, quarries).
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-17 

Within LSRs RO 261, RO 223, and RO 227 (Table 2.1-1a), the Proposed Action would affect a 

total of 146.73 acres of late successional-old growth forested habitats and 25.82 acres of midseral forests; unmitigated effects to both are assumed to extend through the life of the project 

(late successional-old growth forest) or nearly so (mid-seral forest) and will require 

compensatory mitigation. As discussed in Section 1.6, effects to regenerating forest (124.62 

acres) and clearcut forest (9.93 acres) within the three LSRs will be mitigated in-kind (replanting 

conifers) and on-site (within the construction right-of-way, temporary extra work areas, and 

other areas temporarily cleared of trees for construction). 

Table 2.1-1b summarizes effects to terrestrial habitats within a 30-foot wide maintenance 

corridor that will be retained in an herbaceous and/or shrub state within LSRs for the life of the 

project. Of the total 357.39 acres removed with LSRs (Table 2.1-1a), 85.07 acres would be 

retained as non-forested habitat within the 30-foot wide maintenance corridor (Table 2.2-1b). 

Consequently, 41.83 acres of late successional-old growth forested habitats and 7.81 acres of 

mid-seral forest will be lost during the life of the project and correspond to Area 1 in the 

respective HEA models. 

2.1.3 Compensatory Habitat – HEA Model Output 

Areas of compensatory habitat for impact within LSRs were computed through the application of 

the LSOG HEA model for impacts to coniferous and mixed forests ≥80 years old. The model 

assumes compensatory habitat is fully functional (in-kind compensation) and acquired 3 years 

after the start of construction. A total of 146.73 acres of late successional-old growth forest will 

be removed within the three LSRs, combined (Table 2.1-2, below). Of that amount, 41.83 acres 

will remain in an herbaceous and/or shrub state along the pipeline centerline for the life of the 

project (considered as Area 1) and 104.90 acres will be replanted in Area 2, although that 

restored area will not begin to provide any late successional-old growth functions until the 

replanted trees are at least 80 years old. With the input values for Area 1 and Area 2 in Table 

2.1-2, the LSOG HEA model output is a total of 157.66 acres of late successional-old growth 

forest that, under the assumptions in the model, would provide adequate compensation for 

removing the total 146.73 acres of late successional-old growth forest during construction of the 

Proposed Action within three LSRs (Table 2.1-2). 

Table 2.1-2. 

HEA Model Output of Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Late Successional-Old Growth 

Forest and Mid-Seral Forest in Late Successional Reserves on Federal Lands 

Late Successional-Old Growth Forest Mid -Seral Forest 

HEA Input: 

Total Impacted Area 

(acres)

HEA Input: 

Total Impacted Area 

(acres)

Late Successional 

Reserve 

and 

Federal Land Area 1 Area 2

Total 

Area

HEA Output: 

Compensatory 

Mitigation 

(acres) 1 Area 1 Area 2

Total 

Area

HEA Output: 

Compensatory

Mitigation 

(acres) 1

LSR RO 261 

BLM Coos Bay District 0.28 0.61 0.89 0.96 1.48 3.50 4.98 4.62 

BLM Roseburg District 1.09 3.50 4.59 4.93 1.12 3.24 4.36 4.00 

RO 261 Total 1.37 4.11 5.48 5.88 2.60 6.74 9.34 8.62 

LSR RO 223 

BLM Roseburg District 7.72 21.24 28.96 31.10 0.02 0.36 0.38 0.33 

USDA-FS Umpqua NF 11.97 32.92 44.89 48.21 1.57 4.17 5.74 5.29 

RO 223 Total 19.69 54.16 73.85 79.32 1.59 4.53 6.12 5.62 

LSR RO 227 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-18 

Late Successional-Old Growth Forest Mid -Seral Forest 

HEA Input: 

Total Impacted Area 

(acres)

HEA Input: 

Total Impacted Area 

(acres)

Late Successional 

Reserve 

and 

Federal Land Area 1 Area 2

Total 

Area

HEA Output: 

Compensatory 

Mitigation 

(acres) 1 Area 1 Area 2

Total 

Area

HEA Output: 

Compensatory

Mitigation 

(acres) 1

USDA-FS Rogue RiverSiskiyou NF 20.77 46.63 67.40 72.46 3.62 6.74 10.36 9.74 

RO 227 Total 20.77 46.63 67.40 72.46 3.62 6.74 10.36 9.74 

ALL LSRs 

BLM Coos Bay District 0.28 0.61 0.89 0.96 1.48 3.50 4.98 4.62

BLM Roseburg District 8.81 24.74 33.55 36.03 1.14 3.60 4.74 4.33

USDA-FS Umpqua NF 11.97 32.92 44.89 48.21 1.57 4.17 5.74 5.29

USDA-FS Rogue RiverSiskiyou NF 20.77 46.63 67.40 72.46 3.62 6.74 10.36 9.74

OVERALL TOTAL 41.83 104.90 146.73 157.66 7.81 18.01 25.82 23.98 1 Totals for Compensatory Mitigation areas are not necessarily the sum of individual components but are HEA model output 

for total impacts in Area 1 and Area 2.

Similarly, the Proposed Action will remove 25.82 acres of mid-seral forest within the three LSRs. 

With input values for totals in Area 1 (7.81 acres) and Area 2 (18.01 acres), the M-S HEA model 

output is a total of 23.98 acres for acquisition to compensate for removal of 25.82 acres of midseral forest in the LSRs. The amount of compensatory mitigation is less than the amount of 

mid-seral forest actually removed because planted conifers within Area 2 will begin providing 

mid-seral functions after 40 years. 

2.1.4 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation 

HEA model outputs indicate that 157.66 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 23.98 

acres of mid-seral forest would be adequate to compensate for removal of those forested seral 

classes within LSRs (Table 2.1-2). Under the assumptions of the two HEA models used in this 

CMP, those amounts of compensatory habitats should be adequate to offset impact to 

comparable habitats within the three LSRs. Of course, neither HEA model indicates where 

compensatory habitats might be or should be acquired, only that acquiring the specified 

acreages would provide adequate compensation for otherwise un-mitigated impact. 

Forest Service lands 

For reasons discussed in Section 1.6 above, land acquisitions as compensatory mitigation do 

not represent a feasible or effective approach for project-related effects to any habitats within 

Forest Service lands will not be adopted, including mitigation for effects to LSRs. On Forest 

Service lands, habitat enhancement and restoration projects included in Section 6.2 will be used 

to compensate for the habitat effects of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action will remove 

late successional-old growth forest (112.29 acres) and mid-seral forest (16.10 acres) within 

LSRs on Forest Service lands (compiled for the Umpqua and Rogue River-Siskiyou National 

Forests from Table 2.1-2, above), which also provides habitat for northern spotted owls and 

other late successional-dependent species. HEA modeling results in compensation amounts of 

120.67 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 15.03 acres of mid-seral forest to 

mitigate for removal of those forested seral classes within LSRs on Forest Service lands. The 

Proponents will provide funding to the Forest Service for implementation of the mitigation 

projects described in Section 6.2 or other projects that have been proposed at the time of 

construction to restore and enhance substitute habitat, including down wood and snag creation, 

stand density management, fuel load reductions, and road decommissioning projects. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-19 

There are genuine limits on the ability to quantify precisely the rate and extent of benefits that 

will result from the individual restoration projects, or to establish a scientifically defensible 

correlation of quantified functional benefits to acreages. The Proponents and the federal land 

managers are therefore using their best professional judgment to establish a proposed suitable 

approach. 

That said, the CMP proposes a suite of restoration and enhancement projects that results in 

very generous ratios of acreages lost to ecological services provided. Specifically, on Forest 

Service lands, the ratio between acreage of late successional-old growth and mid-seral forested 

habitat lost (416 acres without overlap) versus acreage that will be enhanced by projects (6,840 

acres of forest stand treatments only on Forest Service lands) is approximately 16.4:1 

comparing total late successional and mid-seral forest lost to the acres of forest treatments 

proposed on Forest Service lands. 

This ratio does not include forest enhancement acres that will result from road decommissioning 

projects or other compensatory mitigation (see Executive Summary - Summary Table 2). This 

CMP also does not attempt to account for the cumulative ecological benefits of the many 

overlapping project-based mitigations, some of which may provide synergistic interactions. For 

example, where road decommissioning and riparian treatments would address forest 

fragmentation as well as water quality for a particular habitat, the CMP does not take acreage 

credit for these complex overlaps. 

To ensure the sufficiency of the proposed compensatory mitigation, this CMP has applied the 

HEA model and has employed various conservative assumptions and approaches as described 

above. These approaches, together with the generous ratios that result, reflect an intentionally 

conservative strategy that builds confidence in the conclusions given the other uncertainties and 

limits of information. Taking into account the conservative “buffers” described above, the 

Proponents, informed by consultations with the Forest Service and BLM and their best 

professional judgments, are confident that funding such projects will compensate fully for 

impacts within LSRs and to species dependent on affected habitats within LSRs to at least a 

neutral level. That is, implementation of agency projects will mitigate effects by the Proposed 

Action over time so that levels of ecological services provided after the impact are the same as 

those provided before the impact. The Proponents have agreed in principle to the set of 

mitigation projects proposed by Forest Service, discussed in Section 6.2 below (see Agreement 

in Principle, Appendix A-1). Several examples of actions proposed by the Forest Service to 

mitigate for effects by the Proposed Action within LSRs follow. 

The Umpqua National Forest has proposed thinning and underburning on approximately 1,400 

acres within LSR RO 223 in proximity (between 0.2 and 2.5 miles away) to the proposed project 

and within nine northern spotted owl home ranges that will be impacted by the proposed project 

(all with home range habitats classified in good condition). All of the proposed pre-commercial 

thinning is within regenerating forest 16 to 35 years old. These projects are also located within 

northern spotted owl CHU OR-14 and MOCA-29. 

In another proposal, the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest has identified approximately 

1,600 acres for pre-commercial and commercial thinning projects within the proposed Proposed 

Action area and extending to 2.6 miles from the route, all within LSR RO 227. These thinning 

projects are located within 14 spotted owl home ranges within the Provincial Analysis Area (see 

the Draft BA), of which four are below the FWS-recommended habitat threshold within their 

home range and/or core area. Those project areas are also located in northern spotted owl 

CHU OR-17 and MOCA-17. The proposed thinning projects will help accelerate late 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-20 

successional forest characteristics and reduce the risk of stand-replacing fires. There are also 

proposed decommissioning road projects in Umpqua and Rogue River-Siskiyou National 

Forests that occur within the LSR units affected by the Proposed Action, that if completed, 

would mitigate the fragmentation impact from the proposed project (see Appendix A-4 in this 

CMP). 

BLM Lands 

The Proposed Action will affect 34.44 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 9.72 

acres of mid-seral forest within LSRs that are within the the Coos Bay and Roseburg BLM 

districts crossed (compiled from Table 2.1-1a, above). HEA modeling results in compensation 

amounts of 36.99 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 8.95 acres of mid-seral forest 

to mitigate for removal of those forested seral classes within LSRs on BLM lands (Table 2.1-2). 

Impacts to late-seral and mid-seral forests within LSRs on BLM lands will be compensated for 

by a combination of acquiring approximately 290 acres of non-federal land habitat and 

implementing BLM projects to restore and enhance late successional and mid-seral habitat (see 

Section 6.2). 

Because much of the BLM jurisdiction in the Project area is a checkerboard pattern of federal 

and non-federal lands, the Proponents anticipate that private lands adjacent to BLM lands may 

be available for acquisition, either totally in fee or as conservation easements (or some 

combination) at the time of construction. However, available inholdings of private land, even 

those surrounded by BLM lands, are a select subset of lands available for acquisition and 

guaranteeing that they can be acquired at acceptable market pricing is not certain. The value of 

acquiring those lands as compensatory mitigation for effects from the Proposed Action on BLM 

lands would be evaluated, using prioritizing criteria described in Section 1.6, above. In addition 

to acquiring habitats, the Proponents will provide funding to the BLM for implementation of 

specific habitat enhancement projects that are discussed in Section 6.2. The Proponents 

commits to the acreages or projects specified in Section 6.2 for impacts to BLM lands. 

Examples of actions proposed by the BLM to mitigate for effects of the Proposed Action within 

LSRs follow. 

The Medford BLM District has proposed timber density management on 250 to 300 acres of 

habitat within a NWFP LSR Unit that provides habitat for three spotted owl home ranges, and 

possible nesting habitat for marbled murrelets. These projects are located approximately 14 

miles from the Proposed Action and would enhance and/or accelerate development of late 

successional habitat characteristics in treated stands. Age classes of forest range from 10 

years to 250 years (BLM’s Forest Operations Inventory [FOI] database). None of these projects 

are located within northern spotted owl CHU or MOCAs, but are located within marbled murrelet 

CHU OR-07-g. 

At the time of construction, the Proponents will continue to consult with the Forest Service and 

the BLM about the suite of projects within their respective jurisdictions that could serve to 1) 

supplement land acquisitions, described above, that in combination would produce the neutral 

to beneficial effects within LSRs required under the NWFP and listed species that depend upon 

that habitat, or 2) provide neutral to beneficial effects within LSRs, individually or in combination, 

on National Forest Service lands. The list of projects discussed in Section 6.2 (detailed in 

Appendix A) that were provided by BLM and the Forest Service represent current options for 

application to specific land allocations and federal lands in general. Management goals and 

objectives and site conditions may change by the time the BLM issues a Right-of-Way Grant for 

federal lands or FERC issues a Notice to Proceed and specific projects required by the 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-21 

agencies could also change. Habitat enhancements that have been agreed to for effects of the 

Proposed Action on federal lands will be confirmed with each agency. The Proponents would 

provide the same level of funding as needed to implement current projects, assuming future 

projects would achieve similar mitigation objectives (see Appendix A-1). 

On BLM land, the ratio between acreage of late successional-old growth and mid-seral forested 

habitats lost (512 acres without overlap) versus acreage that would be enhanced by proposed 

projects (1,400 acres of forest stand treatments only) is approximately 2.7:1. As with the 

calculations for Forest Service projects, this ratio also does not account for forest enhancement 

acres that will result from road decommissioning projects, and cumulative ecological benefits 

from other projects. The ratio does indicate that projects on BLM lands may provide less overall 

compensation than projects on Forest Service lands. For this reason, the Proponents have 

proposed supplementing the projects with land acquisitions. 

The Proponents and federal land managers are using their best professional judgment, 

informed by the HEA model outputs, to establish a suitable package of proposed project-based 

and acquisition mitigations in light of the various scientific and technical limits. The HEA model 

is used to evaluate the sufficiency of habitat acquisitions because it provides the amount of 

replacement of in-kind habitat required on an acreage basis relative to the amount of habitat 

affected. One of the key conservative elements in the approach used in this CMP is that for all 

of the proposed acquisition mitigation, the HEA calculations do not take into account the aging 

of forests and eventual increase in ecological benefits over time as noted earlier. Consequently, 

early seral habitat acquired will provide later seral services during the life of the Proposed Action 

in the same way that re-allocations of Matrix to LSR will provide incremental benefits over time. 

Taking into account such conservative buffers, the Proponents, informed by consultations with 

the BLM, are confident that the net effect of the Proposed Action is an improvement to the 

ecological function and distribution of habitats important to the long-term conservation of listed 

species over and above those that would otherwise occur in the absence of the Proposed 

Action. 

2.1.5 Consistency With the NWFP 

As noted earlier (Section 1.3), the Forest Service proposed reallocating 585 acres currently on 

Matrix lands to LSR RO 223 on the Umpqua National Forest and reallocating 593 acres of 

Matrix lands to LSR RO 227 on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The administrative 

forest land re-allocations offset the amount of total impacted habitat within LSRs with a ratio of 

approximately 3:1. Thus, there is a significantly greater amount of forest that will be managed 

to ultimately provide LSR services and functions, and that additional forest land will be protected 

from the activities otherwise allowed to occur within the existing Matrix designation, benefiting 

late successional-dependent species, such as the northern spotted owl. The Forest Service has 

determined that these actions contribute to the "neutral to beneficial" standard for new 

developments in LSRs (Forest Service and BLM, 1994; page C-16) by allocating Matrix lands to 

LSR lands. However, the Forest Service notes that such re-allocations do not specifically 

mitigate for direct habitat losses or indirect effects within LSRs. Mitigation for direct and indirect 

effects to habitats within LSRs will be funded by the Proponents and implemented by the BLM 

and Forest Service using an agreed upon target of enhancement projects proposed by each 

agency (see Section 6.2). 

Many of the projects included in Appendix A are consistent with Standards and Guidelines for 

silviculture (pre-commercial and commercial thinning, risk reduction of stand-replacing wild fire, 

snag creation, and coarse woody debris) or for multiple-use activities (non-silvicultural) within 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-22 

LSRs leading to neutral or beneficial effects within the LSR. In particular, projects designed to 

improve habitat conditions for fish, wildlife, or watersheds are consistent with NWFP if they 

provide late successional habitat benefits or if their effect on late successional-associated 

species is negligible (Forest Service and BLM, 1994; page C-17). Particularly relevant to this 

CMP are projects required for or contributing to recovery of threatened or endangered species. 

In this respect, decommissioning and obliterating roads within LSRs by various means can have 

positive effects on listed species (see below) by removing potential human access. Similarly, 

creation of snags and coarse woody material (downed logs) will contribute to some habitat 

components (development of habitat for prey resources for northern spotted owl) necessary for 

recovering listed species. 

2.2 Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

2.2.1 Background 

The 1994 NWFP ROD (Forest Service and BLM, 1994) set forth detailed requirements that 

describe how land managers should treat the forest lands within the range of the northern 

spotted owl (through implementation of the Standards and Guidelines – Attachment A to the 

1994 NWFP ROD). Some standards and guidelines apply to all lands and others to a specific 

land allocation. The 1994 NWFP ROD described the ACS, which was developed to restore and 

maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on 

public lands. There are nine ACS objectives: 

1. Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity and complexity of watershed and 

landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, 

populations and communities are uniquely adapted. 

2. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. 

Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, 

upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections 

must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling 

life history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species. 

3. Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, 

banks, and bottom configurations. 

4. Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and 

wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the 

biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, 

reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities. 

5. Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. 

Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of 

sediment input, storage, and transport. 

6. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, 

and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The 

time, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be 

protected. 

7. Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and 

water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. 

8. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant 

communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter 

thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, 

and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris 

sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-23 

9. Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, 

invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. 

To achieve these objectives, the ACS defined Riparian Reserves and Key Watersheds, 

specified analytical procedures for evaluating watersheds, and defined a program for watershed 

restoration (Reeves et al., 2006). While the ACS was primarily focused on the conservation of 

anadromous salmon and steelhead, the nine objectives listed for the ACS include maintaining 

and restoring aquatic systems, floodplains, wetlands, upslope habitats, and riparian zones in 

general to support invertebrate and vertebrate species dependent on those habitats. 

In March 2004, the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment 

and the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management amended the 

1994 NWFP to clarify provisions relating to the ACS. The resulting Record of Decision (Forest 

Service and BLM, 2004), dated March 22, 2004, changed the wording in certain provisions of 

the 1994 NWFP ROD (Forest Service and BLM, 1994) by removing certain passages and 

replacing others. However, the ACS Amendment adopted by the 2004 ROD was set aside by a 

federal court decision in March 2007. Therefore, the determination of a project’s consistency 

with the Northwest Forest Plan remains unchanged from that provided in the 1994 NWFP ROD. 

This requires new project National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis to include 

consistency with the nine ACS objectives, allowing decision makers to make a finding that the 

project or management action “meets” or “does not prevent attainment” of the ACS objectives. 

2.2.2 Summary of Impact to Key Watersheds 

One of the components of the ACS is Key Watersheds, which include watersheds that provide 

high quality water and are crucial to at-risk fish species and stocks. Watershed analysis is 

required in Key Watersheds, for roadless areas in non-Key Watersheds, and Riparian Reserves 

prior to determining how proposed land management activities meet ACS objectives (Forest 

Service and BLM, 1994). Federally-administered BLM and NFS lands within the range of the 

northern spotted owl have been assigned to one of three watershed categories: Tier 1 Key 

Watersheds, Tier 2 Key Watersheds, and non-Key Watersheds (all others). Tier 1 Key 

Watersheds consist primarily of watersheds directly contributing to anadromous salmonid, bull 

trout, and resident fish species conservation. Tier 2 watersheds do not necessarily contain atrisk fish stocks, but are important sources of high quality water. 

Table 2.2-1 provides a list of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Key Watersheds that are crossed by the 

Proposed Action. The Tier 1 Key Watersheds crossed include the South Umpqua, North and 

South Fork Little Butte Creek, and Spencer Creek. One Tier 2 Key Watershed, Clover Creek, is 

also crossed. Specific effects by Key Watershed follow: 

1. The Proposed Action will cross 19.40 miles (7.82 miles on federal land and 11.58 miles 

on private land) in the South Umpqua River Watershed. A total of 623 acres (240 acres 

on federal land and 383 acres on private land) of the Key Watershed will be disturbed by 

the Proposed Action. 

2. The Proposed Action will cross 32.86 miles (19.66 miles on federal land and 13.20 miles 

on private land) of the North and South Fork Little Butte Creek Key Watershed within the 

Little Butte Creek Fifth-Field watershed. A total of 615 acres (395 acres on federal land 

and 220 acres on private land) will be disturbed. 

3. A total of 15.06 miles (7.08 miles on federal land and 7.98 miles on private land) of the 

Spencer Creek Tier 1 Key Watershed will be crossed by the Proposed Action. The 

Proposed Action will disturb 218 acres (104 acres on federal land and 114 acres on 

private land). 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-24 

4. The Proposed Action will cross 3.47 miles (0.15 mile on federal land and 3.32 miles on 

private land) of the Clover Creek Tier 2 Key Watershed. Total disturbance in the 

watershed will be 43 acres (2 acres of disturbance on federal land and 41 acres of 

disturbance on private land). 

The Proposed Action will not cross any inventoried roadless areas (Roadless Area Review and 

Evaluation - RARE II) on Forest Service lands and would not require any new roads to be 

constructed within Tier 1 Watersheds. Although the Proposed Action will remove forested 

habitats within riparian zones of Tier 1 and Tier 2 watersheds, all disturbed riparian areas on 

federal lands are within Riparian Reserves and compensatory mitigation based on those effects 

is included in Section 2.2.3, below. 

Effects of the Proposed Action within riparian zones on non-federal lands within Tier 1 and Tier 

2 Key Watersheds are included in analyses of effects conducted for coho salmon designated 

critical habitats within the SO/NCC ESU (Section 4.1.2) and Oregon Coast ESU (Section 4.2.2). 

Compensatory mitigation determined for effects to those species will overlap effects within 

riparian zones of Key Watersheds on most non-federal lands. In addition, various enhancement 

projects – those included in Appendix A, or similar projects – will be implemented within Key 

Watersheds as compensation for effects to other resources on federal lands. 

Table 2.2-1. 

Key Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Action 

Key Watershed Jurisdiction Miles Crossed 

Construction 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

BLM Roseburg District 6.23 183.4 

Umpqua National Forest 1.59 56.3 

South Umpqua River 

(Tier 1) 

MP 82.8-102.7 Non-Federal 11.58 383.3 

BLM Medford District 5.99 113.8 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 13.66 280.6 

Fremont-Winema National Forest 0.01 0.24 

North and South Forks 

Little Butte Creek 

(Tier 1) 

MP 135.0-168.0 Non-Federal 13.20 220.2 

Fremont-Winema National Forest 6.04 90.0 

BLM Lakeview District 1.04 13.7 

Spencer Creek 

(Tier 1) 

MP 168.0-177.1 and MP 

180.5-183.0 Non-Federal 7.98 113.8 

Clover Creek BLM Lakeview District 0.15 1.9 1 

(Tier 2) MP 177.1-180.5 Non-Federal 3.32 40.8 

Federal Sub-Total 34.56 738.0 

Non-Federal Sub-Total 32.76 717.3 

Overall Total 67.32 1455.3 

1 Since the Clover Creek Watershed is a sub-watershed within the Spencer Creek Watershed, summary data 

for the Clover Creek Watershed is not included in the total since it would be counted twice.

2.2.3 Summary of Impact to Riparian Reserves 

Riparian Reserves are another key element of the ACS. Riparian Reserves provide an area 

along all streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and unstable and potentially unstable 

areas where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis. The main purpose of 

these reserves is to protect the health of the aquatic system and its dependent species. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-25 

Riparian Reserves also provide important habitat to terrestrial species. They help maintain and 

restore riparian structures and functions, benefit fish and riparian-dependent non-fish species, 

enhance habitat conservation for organisms dependent on the transition zone between upslope 

and riparian areas, improve travel and dispersal corridors for terrestrial animals and plants, and 

provide for greater connectivity of late-successional forest habitat. 

Table 2.2-2a provides a summary of the area (acres) affected by the Proposed Action within 

Riparian Reserves in Fifth Field Watersheds by federal jurisdiction and by general habitat type. 

The areas affected in Table 2.2-2a consider habitat removed within the construction right-ofway, temporary extra work areas, aboveground facilities, and temporary and permanent access 

roads. Most of those locations will be replanted with conifers if they were initially forested. 

However, a smaller area within the 30-foot wide corridor centered over the pipeline will be 

maintained in an herbaceous/shrub state by operations during the life of the project, assumed to 

be 50 years (Table 2.2-2b). 

Riparian Reserves on five perennial fish-bearing streams are crossed on National Forests – four 

on the Umpqua National Forest and one on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. In 

addition, five intermittent streams on National Forests will be crossed (one on the Rogue RiverSiskiyou National Forest and four on the Fremont-Winema National Forest). On BLM-managed 

lands, the Proposed Action will affect Riparian Reserves associated with ten fish-bearing 

streams (three perennial and one intermittent within the Coos Bay District; one perennial and 

one intermittent within the Roseburg District; and three perennial and one intermittent within the 

Medford District) while Riparian Reserves associated with 20 non-fish-bearing streams or 

streams with unknown fish presence will be affected (eight intermittent within the Coos Bay 

District; one intermittent within in the Roseburg District, ten intermittent within the Medford 

District; and one intermittent within the Lakeview District). 

Within all affected Riparian Reserves, construction of the Proposed Action will affect an 

estimated 23.85 acres of late successional-old-growth forested habitat (coniferous, deciduous, 

mixed) and 22.02 acres of mid-seral forests and effects to forests in both seral stages are 

assumed to extend through the life of the project (late successional-old growth forest) or nearly 

so (mid-seral forest), thus requiring compensatory mitigation. Effects to regenerating forest 

(20.10 acres) and clearcut forest (1.93 acres) within the Riparian Reserves (Table 2.2-2a) will 

be mitigated in-kind (by replanting conifers) and on-site (within the construction right-of-way, 

temporary extra work areas, and other areas temporarily cleared of trees for construction). 

Likewise, effects to 15.08 acres of other non-forested habitats within Riparian Reserves will be 

mitigated by in-kind and in-proximity restoration. 

Table 2.2-2b summarizes effects to habitats within a 30-foot wide maintenance corridor that will 

be retained in an herbaceous or shrub state within Riparian Reserves for the life of the project. 

Of the total 82.98 acres removed within Riparian Reserves (Table 2.2-2a), 19.13 acres would be 

retained as non-forested habitat within the 30-foot wide maintenance corridor (Table 2.2-2b). 

Within affected late successional-old growth forests, 6.00 acres will correspond to Area 1 in the 

LSOG HEA model (Table 2.2-3) and 4.72 acres of mid-seral forest will be retained as nonforested habitat within Area 1 for application in the M-S HEA model (Table 2.2-3). 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-26 

Table 2.2-2a. 

Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) Affected/Removed1 by Construction of the Proposed Action 

within Riparian Reserves in Fifth Field Watersheds Crossed by the Project 

Forested Habitat 2 Other Habitat 2

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) Federal Jurisdiction 

Late SuccessionalOld Growth

Mid-Seral Forest

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered NonForested Habitat

Agriculture

Coos Bay Frontal (HU 1710030403) 

Coos Bay BLM 0 0.05 0 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 

Coos Bay Frontal Total 0 0.05 0 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 

North Fork Coquille River (HUC 1710030504) 

 Coos Bay BLM 0.01 7.19 1.32 0.04 8.56 0 0.01 0.93 0.23 

North Fork Coquille River Total 0.01 7.19 1.32 0.04 8.56 0 0.01 0.93 0.23 

East Fork Coquille River (HUC 1710030503) 

Coos Bay BLM 0 0 2.31 0 2.31 0 0 0 0 

East Fork Coquille River Total 0 0 2.31 0 2.31 0 0 0 0 

Middle Fork Coquille River (HUC 1710030501) 

Coos Bay BLM 3.11 0.08 1.55 1.89 6.63 0 0 0 0 Roseburg BLM 1.52 6.42 3.01 0 10.95 0 0 0 0 

Middle Fork Coquille River Total 4.63 6.50 4.56 1.89 17.58 0 0 0 0 

South Umpqua River (HUC 1710030205) 

Roseburg BLM 0.44 0 0.04 0 0.48 0 0 0 0 

South Umpqua River Total 0.44 0 0.04 0 0.48 0 0 0 0 

Upper Cow Creek (HUC 1710030206) 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-27 

Forested Habitat 2 Other Habitat 2

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) Federal Jurisdiction 

Late SuccessionalOld Growth

Mid-Seral Forest

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered NonForested Habitat

Agriculture

Umpqua National Forest 3.48 2.96 3.43 0 9.87 0.09 0 0 0 

Upper Cow Creek Total 3.48 2.96 3.43 0 9.87 0.09 0 0 0 

Trail Creek (HUC 1710030706) 

Medford BLM 0.81 0 0 0 0.81 0 0 0 0 

Umpqua National Forest 0 1.73 0 0 1.73 0 0 0 0 

Trail Creek Total 0.81 1.73 0 0 2.54 0 0 0 0 

Rogue River-Shady Cove (HUC 1710030707) 

Medford BLM 2.08 0.55 0.02 0 2.65 0.05 0 0.9 0 

Rogue River-Shady Cove Total 2.08 0.55 0.02 0 2.65 0.05 0 0.9 0 

Big Butte Creek (HUC 1710030704) 

Medford BLM 6.27 0.51 0.16 0 6.94 0 0 2.20 0 

Big Butte Creek Total 6.27 0.51 0.16 0 6.94 0 0 2.20 0 

Little Butte Creek (HUC 1710030708) 

Medford BLM 1.42 1.03 3.03 0 5.48 0.01 0.18 3.99 0 

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest 1.18 0 2.28 0 3.46 0 0 0 0 

Little Butte Creek Total 2.6 1.03 5.31 0 8.94 0.01 0.18 3.99 0 

Spencer Creek (HUC 1801020601) 

Lakeview BLM 1.17 0 0 0 1.17 0 0 0 0 

Fremont-Winema National 

Forest 2.36 1.50 2.95 0 6.81 0.27 0.10 0.22 0 

Spencer Creek Total 3.53 1.50 2.95 0 7.98 0.27 0.10 0.22 0 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-28 

Forested Habitat 2 Other Habitat 2

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) Federal Jurisdiction 

Late SuccessionalOld Growth

Mid-Seral Forest

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered NonForested Habitat

Agriculture

All Fifth Field Watersheds 

Coos Bay BLM 3.12 7.32 5.18 1.93 17.55 0 0.01 0.93 0.23 Roseburg BLM 1.96 6.42 3.05 0 11.43 0 0 0 0 

Medford BLM 10.58 2.09 3.21 0 15.88 0.06 0.18 7.09 0 

Lakeview BLM 1.17 0 0 0 1.17 0 0 0 0 

Umpqua National Forest 3.48 4.69 3.43 0 11.60 0.09 0 0 0 

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest 1.18 0 2.28 0 3.46 0 0 0 0 

Fremont-Winema National 

Forest 2.36 1.50 2.95 0 6.81 0.27 0.10 0.22 0 

Fifth Field Watershed Total 23.85 22.02 20.10 1.93 67.90 0.42 0.29 8.24 0.23 

1 Project components considered in calculation of habitat “Removed”: PCGP construction right-of-way, temporary extra work areas, abovegr

and temporary access roads (PAR, TAR). 2 Habitat Types within Late Successional Reserves generally categorized as: Late Successional (Mature) or Old Growth Forest (coniferous, 

old); Mid-Seral Forests (coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥40 but ≤80 years old); Regenerating Forest (coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥5 but ≤4

Wetland Forested, Unaltered Nonforested Habitat (grasslands, sagebrush, shrublands), and Altered Habitats (urban, industrial, residential, r
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-29 

Table 2.2-2b. 

Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) Affected 1 in the 30-foot Wide Corridor Maintained 

during the PCGP Project within Riparian Reserves in Fifth Field Watersheds Crossed by the Propose

Forested Habitat 2 Other Habitat 2

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) Federal Jurisdiction 

Late SuccessionalOld Growth

Mid-Seral Forest

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered NonForested Habitat

Agriculture

Coos Bay Frontal (HU 1710030403) 

Coos Bay BLM 0 0.02 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 

Coos Bay Frontal Total 0 0.02 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 

North Fork Coquille River (HUC 1710030504) 

 Coos Bay BLM 0 1.93 0.29 0 2.22 0 0 0.11 0 

North Fork Coquille River Total 0 1.93 0.29 0 2.22 0 0 0.11 0 

East Fork Coquille River (HUC 1710030503) 

Coos Bay BLM 0 0 0.69 0 0.69 0 0 0 0 

East Fork Coquille River Total 0 0 0.69 0 0.69 0 0 0 0 

Middle Fork Coquille River (HUC 1710030501) 

Coos Bay BLM 0.95 0.03 0.43 0.19 1.60 0 0 0 0 Roseburg BLM 0.40 1.09 0.59 0 2.08 0 0 0 0 

Middle Fork Coquille River Total 1.35 1.12 1.02 0.19 3.68 0 0 0 0 

South Umpqua River (HUC 1710030205) 

Roseburg BLM 0.12 0 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 

South Umpqua River Total 0.12 0 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 

Upper Cow Creek (HUC 1710030206) 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-30 

Forested Habitat 2 Other Habitat 2

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) Federal Jurisdiction 

Late SuccessionalOld Growth

Mid-Seral Forest

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered NonForested Habitat

Agriculture

Umpqua National Forest 0.98 0.80 0.95 0 2.73 0.01 0 0 0 

Upper Cow Creek Total 0.98 0.80 0.95 0 2.73 0.01 0 0 0 

Trail Creek (HUC 1710030706) 

Medford BLM 0.25 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 

Umpqua National Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Trail Creek Total 0.25 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 

Rogue River-Shady Cove (HUC 1710030707) 

Medford BLM 0.45 0.05 0.01 0 0.51 0.01 0 0.30 0 

Rogue River-Shady Cove Total 0.45 0.05 0.01 0 0.51 0.01 0 0.30 0 

Big Butte Creek (HUC 1710030704) 

Medford BLM 1.45 0.22 0.06 0 1.73 0 0 0.64 0 

Big Butte Creek Total 1.45 0.22 0.06 0 1.73 0 0 0.64 0 

Little Butte Creek (HUC 1710030708) 

Medford BLM 0.30 0.20 0.49 0 0.99 0 0 1.02 0 

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest 0.20 0 0.64 0 0.84 0 0 0 0 

Little Butte Creek Total 0.50 0.20 1.13 0 1.83 0 0 1.02 0 

Spencer Creek (HUC 1801020601) 

Lakeview BLM 0.32 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0 0 

Fremont-Winema National 

Forest 0.58 0.38 0.76 0 1.72 0.11 0.04 0.02 0 

Spencer Creek Total 0.90 0.38 0.76 0 2.04 0.11 0.04 0.02 0 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-31 

Forested Habitat 2 Other Habitat 2

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) Federal Jurisdiction 

Late SuccessionalOld Growth

Mid-Seral Forest

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered NonForested Habitat

Agriculture

All Fifth Field Watersheds 

Coos Bay BLM 0.95 1.98 1.41 0.19 4.53 0 0 0.11 0 Roseburg BLM 0.52 1.09 0.59 0 2.2 0 0 0 0 

Medford BLM 2.45 0.47 0.56 0 3.48 0.01 0 1.96 0 

Lakeview BLM 0.32 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0 0 

Umpqua National Forest 0.98 0.80 0.95 0 2.73 0.01 0 0 0 

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest 0.20 0 0.64 0 0.84 0 0 0 0 

Fremont-Winema National 

Forest 0.58 0.38 0.76 0 1.72 0.11 0.04 0.02 0 

Fifth Field Watershed Total 6.00 4.72 4.91 0.19 15.82 0.13 0.04 2.09 0 

1 Project components considered in calculation of habitat “Removed”: PCGP construction right-of-way, temporary extra work areas, abovegr

and temporary access roads (PAR, TAR). 2 Habitat Types within Late Successional Reserves generally categorized as: Late Successional (Mature) or Old Growth Forest (coniferous, 

old); Mid-Seral Forests (coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥40 but ≤80 years old); Regenerating Forest (coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥5 but ≤4

Wetland Forested, Unaltered Nonforested Habitat (grasslands, sagebrush, shrublands), and Altered Habitats (urban, industrial, residential, r
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-32 

2.2.4 Compensatory Habitat – HEA Model Output 

Areas of compensatory habitat for impacts to forested lands within Riparian Reserves were 

computed through application of the LSOG HEA model for impacts to coniferous and mixed 

forests ≥80 years old and the M-S HEA model for impacts to coniferous and mixed forests ≥40 

but <80 years old. The models assume compensatory habitat is fully functional (in-kind 

compensation) and acquired 3 years after the start of construction. 

A total of 23.85 acres of late successional-old growth forest will be removed within ten Riparian 

Reserves, combined (Table 2.2-2a). Of that amount, 6 acres will remain in an herbaceous or 

shrub state along the pipeline centerline for the life of the project (considered as Area 1) and 

17.85 acres will be replanted with conifers in Area 2 although that restored area will not begin to 

provide any late successional-old growth functions until the replanted trees are at least 80 years 

old. With the input values for Area 1 and Area 2 in Table 2.2-3, the LSOG HEA model output is 

a total of 25.61 acres of late successional-old growth forest that, under the assumptions in the 

model, would provide adequate compensation for removing the total 23.85 acres of late 

successional-old growth forest during construction of the Proposed Action within Riparian 

Reserves (Tale 2.2-3). 

The Proposed Action will also remove 22.02 acres of mid-seral forest in all Riparian Reserves 

affected. To derive the total area for compensatory mitigation, there are 4.72 acres in Area 1 

and 17.30 acres in Area 2 (Table 2.2-3). These input values result in HEA model output of 

20.00 acres for acquisition to compensate for removal of 22.02 acres of mid-seral forest in the 

Riparian Reserves. As discussed earlier for LSRs, the amount of compensatory mitigation is 

less than the amount of mid-seral forest actually removed because planted conifers within Area 

2 begin providing mid-seral functions after 40 years. With that contribution, HEA model 

assumptions indicate that a smaller amount of mid-seral forest would be adequate 

compensation for the amount impacted. 

Table 2.2-3. 

HEA Model Output of Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Late Successional-Old Growth 

Forest and Mid-Seral Forest in Riparian Reserves on Federal Lands 

Late Successional-Old Growth Forest Mid -Seral Forest 

HEA Input: 

Total Impacted Area 

(acres)

HEA Input: 

Total Impacted Area 

Fifth Field Watershed (acres)

and 

Federal Land Area 1 Area 2

Total 

Area

HEA Output: 

Compensatory 

Mitigation 

(acres) 1 Area 1 Area 2

Total 

Area

HEA Output: 

Compensatory

Mitigation 

(acres) 1

Coos Bay Frontal 

BLM Coos Bay District 0 0 0 N/A 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 

Watershed Total 0 0 0 N/A 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 

North Fork Coquille River 

BLM Coos Bay District 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.93 5.26 7.19 6.62 

Watershed Total 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.93 5.26 7.19 6.62 

East Fork Coquille River 

BLM Coos Bay District 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 N/A 

Watershed Total 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 N/A

Middle Fork Coquille River 

BLM Coos Bay District 0.95 2.16 3.11 3.34 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.08 

BLM Roseburg District 0.40 1.12 1.52 1.63 1.09 5.33 6.42 5.76 

Watershed Total 1.35 3.28 4.63 4.98 1.12 5.38 6.50 5.84 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-33 

Late Successional-Old Growth Forest Mid -Seral Forest 

HEA Input: 

Total Impacted Area 

(acres)

HEA Input: 

Total Impacted Area 

Fifth Field Watershed (acres)

and 

Federal Land Area 1 Area 2

Total 

Area

HEA Output: 

Compensatory 

Mitigation 

(acres) 1 Area 1 Area 2

Total 

Area

HEA Output: 

Compensatory

Mitigation 

(acres) 1

South Umpqua River 

BLM Roseburg District 0.12 0.32 0.44 0.47 0 0 0 N/A 

Watershed Total 0.12 0.32 0.44 0.47 0 0 0 N/A

Upper Cow Creek 

USDA-FS Umpqua NF 0.98 2.50 3.48 3.74 0.80 2.16 2.96 2.73 

Watershed Total 0.98 2.50 3.48 3.74 0.80 2.16 2.96 2.73 

Trail Creek 

BLM Medford District 0.25 0.56 0.81 0.87 0 0 0 N/A 

USDA-FS Umpqua NF 0 0 0 N/A 0 1.73 1.73 1.48 

Watershed Total 0.25 0.56 0.81 0.87 0 1.73 1.73 1.48 

Rogue River-Shady Cove 

BLM Medford District 0.45 1.63 2.08 2.23 0.05 0.50 0.55 0.48 

Watershed Total 0.45 1.63 2.08 2.23 0.05 0.50 0.55 0.48 

Big Butte Creek 

BLM Medford District 1.45 4.82 6.27 6.73 0.22 0.29 0.51 0.49 

Watershed Total 1.45 4.82 6.27 6.73 0.22 0.29 0.51 0.49 

Little Butte Creek 

BLM Medford District 0.30 1.12 1.42 1.52 0.20 0.83 1.03 0.93 

USDA-FS Rogue RiverSiskiyou NF 0.20 0.98 1.18 1.26 0 0 0 N/A 

Watershed Total 0.50 2.10 2.60 2.79 0.20 0.83 1.03 0.93 

Spencer Creek 

BLM Lakeview District 0.32 0.85 1.17 1.26 0 0 0 N/A 

USDA-FS FremontWinema NF 0.58 1.78 2.36 2.53 0.38 1.12 1.50 1.38 

Watershed Total 0.90 2.63 3.53 3.79 0.38 1.12 1.50 1.38 

ALL RIPARIAN RESERVES 

BLM Coos Bay District 0.95 2.17 3.12 3.35 1.98 5.34 7.32 6.74

BLM Roseburg District 0.52 1.44 1.96 2.11 1.09 5.33 6.42 5.76

BLM Medford District 2.45 8.13 10.58 11.35 0.47 1.62 2.09 1.90

BLM Lakeview District 0.32 0.85 1.17 1.26 0 0 0 N/A

USDA-FS Umpqua NF 0.98 2.50 3.48 3.74 0.80 3.89 4.69 4.21

USDA-FS Rogue RiverSiskiyou NF 0.20 0.98 1.18 1.26 0 0 0 N/A

USDA-FS FremontWinema NF 0.58 1.78 2.36 2.53 0.38 1.12 1.50 1.38

OVERALL TOTAL 6.00 17.85 23.85 25.61 4.72 17.30 22.02 20.00 1

 Totals for Compensatory Mitigation areas are not necessarily the sum of individual components but are HEA model output for 

total impacts in Area 1 and Area 2.

2.2.5 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation 

Implementation of the two HEA models indicates that 25.61 acres of late successional-old 

growth forest and 20.00 acres of mid-seral forest would be adequate compensation for removal 

of those forested seral classes within Riparian Reserves (Table 2.2-3). Under the Standards 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-34 

and Guidelines that regulate actions within Riparian Reserves, actions must be generally 

consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (see Section 2.2.1, above). For 

reasons discussed in Section 1.6 above, land acquisitions as compensatory mitigation for 

project-related effects to any habitats within Forest Service lands would not be adopted, 

including effects to Riparian Reserves. Rather, habitat enhancement and restoration projects 

discussed in Section 6.2 will be used to compensate for effects by the Proposed Action. 

The Proposed Action’s effects to late successional-old growth forest (7.02 acres) and mid-seral 

forest (6.19 acres) within Riparian Reserves have been compiled for the three National Forests 

in Table 2.2-3. HEA modeling results in compensatory areas of 7.53 acres of late successionalold growth forest and 5.59 acres of mid-seral forest to mitigate for removal of those forested 

seral classes within Riparian Reserves on Forest Service lands. The Proponents will provide 

funding to the Forest Service for implementation of projects in Section 6.2 or other projects with 

similar objectives that would be proposed at the time of construction. 

To ensure the sufficiency of the proposed compensatory mitigation, this CMP has applied the 

HEA model and has employed various conservative assumptions and approaches as described 

above. These approaches, together with the generous ratios that result, reflect an intentionally 

conservative strategy that builds confidence in the conclusions given the other uncertainties and 

limits of information. Taking into account the conservative “buffers” described above, the 

Proponents, informed by consultations with the Forest Service and BLM and their best 

professional judgments, are confident that such projects will compensate fully for impacts within 

Riparian Reserves and to species dependent on affected habitats within Riparian Reserves. 

That is, implementation of agency projects over time will mitigate effects by the Proposed Action 

so that levels of ecological services provided after the impact are at least the same as those 

provided before the impact occurs. The Proponents have agreed in principle to the proposed 

Forest Service mitigation projects in Section 6.2 (Appendix A-1). Several examples of actions 

proposed by the Forest Service to mitigate for project-related effects within Riparian Reserves 

follow. 

The Umpqua National Forest has identified 2.8 miles (5.7 acres) of roads within the South 

Umpqua River Tier 1 Key Watershed (also the Elk Creek-South Umpqua Watershed) to be 

decommissioned. Road decommissioning projects are also located within northern spotted owl 

CHU OR-14 and MOCA-29 and within LSR RO 223. Road decommissioning will reduce road 

density within this key watershed and mitigate for potential increase of sedimentation into 

waterbodies that support the federally listed SO/NCC coho. 

Similarly, the Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest has identified stream enhancement 

projects within South Fork/North Fork Little Butte Creek Tier 1 Key Watershed (Little Butte 

Creek Watershed). The stream restoration projects proposed include restoring stream 

contours, improving riparian vegetation and replacing culverts if needed at 23 sites. Rogue 

River – Siskiyou National Forest has also identified 54.5 miles of roads within this watershed 

that have potential to be decommissioned. These road decommissioning projects also occur 

within northern spotted owl CHU OR-17 and MOCA-17. These projects will reduce 

sedimentation in riparian reserves that support the federally listed SO/NCC coho and reduce 

road density within the key watershed. 

Fremont-Winema National Forest has also identified projects that would further protect and/or 

enhance the Spencer Creek Watershed (also a Tier 1 Watershed), including construction of a 

6.0 mile fence along the Proposed Action right-of-way and Clover Creek Road to provide 

continued protection from cattle grazing impacts to the wetland and riparian areas of Buck Lake, 

Buck Meadow, and Spencer Creek, and to repair a stream crossing 0.5 miles from the 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-35 

Proposed Action on Spencer Creek to indirectly mitigate for impacts to SO/NCC coho habitat 

identified by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), habitat for the redband trout, and future 

habitat for steelhead. 

The Proposed Action will affect 16.83 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 15.83 

acres of mid-seral forest within Riparian Reserves that coincide with the four BLM districts 

crossed (Table 2.2-3) HEA modeling results in compensation amounts of 18.07 acres of late 

successional-old growth forest and 14.40 acres of mid-seral forest to mitigate for removal of 

those forested seral classes within Riparian Reserves on BLM lands (summed from HEA model 

outputs in Table 2.2-3). The Proponents will provide funding to the BLM for implementation of 

projects identified in Section 6.2, or other substitute projects with similar objectives that have 

been proposed at the time of construction. Examples of actions proposed by the BLM to 

mitigate for project-related effects within Riparian Reserves follow. 

The Coos Bay BLM District has identified 4.5 miles of stream reaches within the Middle Fork 

Coquille River Watershed that large woody debris could be placed within riparian reserves, 

located 1.6 to 3.4 miles from the Proposed Action. Also, Roseburg BLM District has identified 

2.75 miles of coho-bearing streams to place large woody debris within riparian reserves close to 

the Proposed Action (0.2 to 1.4 miles) in the Olalla Creek – Lookingglass Creek, Myrtle Creek, 

and South Umpqua River watersheds, including placement of large woody debris within the 

South Umpqua River Tier 1 Watershed. Medford BLM District has proposed decommissioning 

roads within Little Butte Creek and Big Butte Creek watersheds, including a Tier 1 Key 

Watershed (South Fork/North Fork Little Butte Creek), and placement of large woody debris 

within 12 miles of streams located in those watersheds. 

Prior to construction, the Proponents will continue to consult with the Forest Service and the 

BLM about the suite of projects within their respective jurisdictions that could serve to provide 

neutral to beneficial effects within Riparian Reserves, individually or in combination. the 

Proponents anticipate that the projects discussed below in Section 6.2 may change in the 

future. However, prior to the issuance of a Right-of-Way Grant and the subsequent FERC 

Notice to Proceed, target acreage for habitat enhancements as compensatory mitigation that 

have been agreed to for effects by the Proposed Action on federal lands (Section 6.2) will be 

confirmed with each agency. 

2.2.6 Consistency With the NWFP 

In general, Standards and Guidelines in the NWFP prohibit or regulate activities in Riparian 

Reserves that retard or prevent attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives 

(Forest Service and BLM, 1994; page C-31). There are, however, multiple opportunities to 

attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives through implementation of the various projects 

submitted by BLM and Forest Service that are outlined in Appendix A. In particular, projects 

related to the following (see Appendix A) are expected to facilitate attainment of multiple ACS 

objectives: 

1. Road management - decommissioning, obliterating, barricading roads to insure no net 

increase of roads within Key Watersheds; 

2. Riparian protection - installation of fencing and cattle guards for livestock exclusion and 

protection of specific locations from grazing impacts to wetland and riparian areas; 

3. Fire and fuels management – precommercial and commercial thinning, fuel reduction 

and periodic underburning; 

4. General riparian area management – installation of stream simulator culverts, repairing 

stream crossings to allow fish access, and road decommissioning; and 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-36 

5. Watershed and habitat restoration – all of the above, instream habitat enhancement with 

log and/or rock structures, noxious weed control. 

3.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION - ENDANGERED SPECIES - USFWS 

3.1 Northern Spotted Owl 

3.1.1 Background 

The decline of northern spotted owls has been linked to the removal and degradation of 

available suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat. Suitable habitat can also 

function as dispersal habitat. Appropriate vegetation and structural components are necessary 

to maintain suitable habitat and the removal of these components can potentially have adverse 

effects on northern spotted owl populations, such as displacement from traditional nesting 

areas, increased concentration of northern spotted owls into smaller, fragmented areas of 

suitable habitat, and diminished reproductive success (FWS, 2006a). Suitable habitat for 

spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging generally consists of conifer-dominated stands older 

than 80 years, multi-storied in structure, canopy closure greater than 60 percent, and has 

sufficient snags and down wood (FWS, 1992a; North et al., 1999). Younger forests with the 

appropriate structural, vegetation, and prey characteristics may also be considered suitable 

habitat if they provide moderate to high canopy cover (60 to 80 percent), multi-layered, multispecies canopy dominated by large overstory trees (greater than 30 inches diameter breast 

height-dbh), a high incidence of large trees with various deformities, numerous large snags, 

large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground, and sufficient open 

space below the canopy to fly (FWS, 1990). 

Northern spotted owl habitat needs and home ranges vary based on physiographic provinces 

and forest type. Although differences exist in natural stand characteristics that influence 

provincial home range size, habitat loss and forest fragmentation caused by timber harvest 

effectively reduce habitat quality in the home range (FWS, 1992b). A reduction in the amount of 

suitable habitat reduces spotted owl abundance and nesting success (Bart and Forsman, 1992; 

Bart, 1995) and recent studies have indicated that northern spotted owls home ranges are 

substantially larger in more heavily fragmented stands (Courtney et al., 2004). 

The FWS (1992b) determined that the physical and biological habitat features (primary 

constituent elements or PCEs) for northern spotted owl critical habitat are forested lands used 

or potentially used for nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal. These PCEs are essential to 

the conservation of the northern spotted owls (FWS, 1992b). Activities that disturb or remove 

the PCEs within designated critical habitat units might adversely modify the owl’s critical habitat. 

These activities may include actions that would reduce the canopy closure of a timber stand, 

reduce the average size (in terms of dbh) of trees in the stand, appreciably modify the multilayered stand structure, reduce the availability of nesting structures and sites, reduce the 

suitability of the landscape to provide for safe movement, or reduce the abundance or 

availability of prey species (FWS, 1992b). 

Recently, FWS (2008a) revised its 1992 designation of critical habitat that provided more 

specificity to PCEs for the owl. Those revisions are discussed in the Draft BA but noted here is 

the emphasis on adequate dispersal habitat which is essential for the movement of northern 

spotted owls between habitat blocks that is necessary to maintain stable populations and 

provide for adequate gene flow across the range of the species. The dispersal of juveniles 

requires habitat supporting both the transience and colonization phases in the species’ life 

history. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-37 

Spotted owl dispersal habitat consists of stands capable of providing for the safe movement of 

spotted owls across the landscape. Although forest attributes needed for successful dispersal 

have not been thoroughly evaluated, they generally consist of conifer and mixed mature coniferalder habitats with a canopy cover greater than or equal to 40 percent and conifer trees greater 

than or equal to 11 inches average dbh (FWS, 1992b). Dispersal habitat may occur in nesting, 

roosting, or foraging habitat but it lacks the optimal structural characteristics needed for nesting. 

Discussion during the Jordan Cove/Pacific Connector Interagency Task Force Working Group - 

ESA Consultation Subgroup meeting on April 2, 2008 indicated that NSO dispersal habitat could 

be considered adequate if at least 50 percent of the analysis area (the Action Area defined as 

the Provincial Analysis Area in the Draft BA) consisted of dispersal habitat. Although all four 

physiographic provinces coinciding with the analysis area provide adequate levels of dispersal 

habitat (greater than 50 percent – see Table 4.2.5-4 in the Draft BA), two physiographic 

provinces are just above the recommended 50 percent available dispersal habitat (Klamath 

Mountains at 56.4 percent and East Cascades at 50.2 percent). 

3.1.2 Summary of Impact to Northern Spotted Owl Habitats 

The Proposed Action will affect northern spotted owls over the long-term by removal of suitable 

nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat and by removal of dispersal-only habitat (see Table 5 in 

Appendix Q of the Draft BA which provides detailed information on habitat impact, including 

amounts removed/modified from critical habitat units and LSRs by landowner). Suitable 

habitats and dispersal-only habitats overlap with other areas for which compensatory mitigation 

will be provided, including LSRs and Riparian Reserves that have been allocated on federal 

lands under the NWFP and analyzed, above. 

Table 3.1-1a provides a summary of the total effects (acres removed) by construction on 

northern spotted owl suitable habitat by physiographic province and by landowner. In all, the 

Proposed Action will remove 731.60 acres of suitable NRF habitat, 457.64 acres on federal 

lands and 273.96 acres on non-federal lands (Table 3.1-1a). Removal of nearly 732 acres of 

NRF habitat across the four physiographic provinces crossed represents approximately 0.5 

percent of 151,466 acres of suitable NRF habitat that are present in the Action Area considered 

in the Draft BA. 

Within the Project area, northern spotted owl suitable NRF habitat mainly consists of late 

successional-old growth coniferous and mixed coniferous forest, with limited areas of deciduous 

forest. There are stands of mid-seral forest in the Project area that have also been identified 

through modeling as suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. Although the large majority 

(638.39 acres) of suitable NRF habitat is late successional-old growth forest, some mid-seral 

coniferous and mixed forest (93.21 acres) are also suitable habitats. Those types and seral 

stages are included in Table 3.1-1a. 

Table 3.1-1b summarizes effects to suitable habitat within the 30-foot wide maintenance corridor 

that will be retained in an herbaceous/shrub state (190.23 acres) for the life of the Proposed 

Action. The remaining 541.37 acres of removed suitable NRF habitat (731.60 acres total NRF 

habitat minus 190.23 acres) would be replanted with conifers and would be considered capable 

of becoming NRF habitat in approximately 80 years, although some of it may become functional 

foraging or roosting habitat prior to reaching 80 years old. Areas of affected habitat in both 

tables are required as input in the HEA model. 

The Proposed Action will also remove 693.89 acres of dispersal-only habitat (Table 3.1-2a), 

320.70 acres on federal lands, and 373.19 acres on non-federal lands. Most of the affected 

dispersal-only habitat is mid-seral coniferous or mixed forests but there are other forested types 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-38 

that also serve as dispersal-only habitat including mature oak woodlands and other late seral 

deciduous forests, mid-seral deciduous forests, regenerating forests, and forested wetlands 

(Table 3.1-2a). Similar to the restoration of ecological services within affected mid-seral forests 

that is assumed to begin after newly planted trees are 40 years old, services provided by other 

forested types that are northern spotted owl dispersal-only habitats are assumed to begin 40 

years after trees are planted. That is, those other forest types are treated in this CMP as though 

they were all mid-seral coniferous forests. The exception is regenerating forests that are 5 to 40 

years old. Restoration of ecological services in former regenerating forest will begin 5 years 

after construction and be fully achieved within 22.5 years (the mid-point age span for 

regenerating forest). 

A total of 427.22 acres of the regenerating forest component of dispersal-only habitat will be 

removed during construction (Table 3.1-2a). Of that total, 102.83 acres of regenerating forest 

are within the 30-foot wide maintenance corridor that will be retained in an herbaceous/shrub 

state for the life of the project (Table 3.1-2b). None of those 102.83 acres will be restored onsite or in-kind. Because those specific areas of regenerating forests have been identified as 

northern spotted owl dispersal habitat, they are included in the residual impacted area of habitat 

that does not overlap with other resources in Table 3.1-2b. Alternatively, 324.39 acres of the 

regenerating forest component of dispersal-only habitat will be restored on-site and in-kind 

outside of the 30-foot maintenance corridor so they are excluded from the residual impacted 

area totals in Table 3.1-2a, although the 102.83 acres that will not be restored are included in 

the residual impacted area totals in Table 3.1-2a. 

Suitable and Dispersal-Only Habitat on NWFP Land Allocations and Critical Habitat Units. 

Almost 19 miles of the proposed pipeline route crosses two designated northern spotted owl 

Critical Habitat Units (CHUs): OR-14 and OR-17 (FWS, 2008a). Table 5 in Appendix Q of the 

Draft BA provides the amount of suitable, dispersal, capable, and non-suitable habitat within the 

each critical habitat unit by landowner that will be removed and modified; removed habitat is 

summarized above in Table 3.1-1a. All CHUs that will have habitat impacted (removed or 

modified) also occur completely within NWFP LSRs (LSR units are also provided in Table 4.2.5-

19 in the Draft BA). 

Overall, the Proposed Action will remove 46.8 acres of suitable habitat and 17.65 acres of 

dispersal-only habitat in CHU OR-14. Likewise, the Proposed Action will remove 70.5 acres of 

suitable habitat and 63.61 acres of dispersal-only habitat in CHU OR-17 (Table 4.2.5-19 in the 

Draft BA). Since all designated critical habitat entirely overlaps with LSRs, all compensatory 

habitat related to unavoidable/unmitigated project effects to northern spotted owl critical habitat 

is included in the analysis of effects to LSRs, above in Section 2.1. 

An additional 35.56 acres of suitable NRF habitat and 36.04 acres of dispersal-only habitat 

impacted within LSRs crossed by the Proposed Action (Table 5 in Appendix Q of the Draft BA) 

are not designated northern spotted owl critical habitat units, but the impacts and compensation 

have been addressed in Section 2.1. 

Habitat within NWFP Riparian Reserves that will be impacted by the Proposed Action is also 

considered suitable for spotted owl nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal functions. Within 

the ten Riparian Reserves crossed, 23.85 acres of late successional-old growth forested habitat 

and 22.02 acres of mid-seral habitat will be removed (Table 2.2-3). Compensatory habitat 

acquired for unavoidable/unmitigated project effects to Riparian Reserves discussed in Section 

2.2 would also benefit northern spotted owl suitable and dispersal habitat impacted. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-39 

Table 3.1-1a. 

Total Area (acres) of Northern Spotted Owl Suitable Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat Imp

by Construction of the Proposed Action within Four Physiographic Provinces and Different Lando

Impacted Area (acres) of 

Northern Spotted Owl Suitable Habitat 

Impacted Area (acres) 

Overlapping Other 

Resources 1 

R

(a

Physiographic Province 

and Land Ownership 

Late 

Successional/

Deciduous/ 

Old-Growth Mid-Seral 

Total 

Area 

Late 

Successional 

Old Growth 

Only 

Mid-Seral 

Forest 

Only 

Su

O

Coast Range Physiographic Province Coos Bay BLM 26.60 5.65 32.25 4.01 0 Roseburg BLM 7.24 0.04 7.28 4.21 0.03 Non-Federal 23.04 17.44 40.48 0 0 

Coast Range Province Total 56.88 23.13 80.01 8.22 0.03 

Klamath Mountains Physiographic Province 0 Roseburg BLM 99.27 2.07 101.34 29.95 0 Medford BLM 21.28 8.47 29.75 0.06 0 Umpqua National Forest 85.54 18.25 103.79 48.37 5.68 Non-Federal 150.94 28.8 179.74 0 0 

Klamath Mountains Province Total 357.03 57.59 414.62 78.38 5.68 

West Cascades Physiographic Province 0 Medford BLM 60.92 0.47 61.39 9.78 0 Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest 66.40 1.89 68.29 66.40 1.89 Non-Federal 36.73 1.50 38.23 0 0 

West Cascades Province Total 164.05 3.86 167.91 76.18 1.89 

East Cascades Physiographic Province 0 Lakeview BLM 12.85 0 12.85 1.21 0 Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest 2.18 0 2.18 2.18 0 Fremont-Winema National Forest 37.22 1.30 38.52 2.36 0.06 Non-Federal 8.18 7.33 15.51 0 0 

East Cascades Province Total 60.43 8.63 69.06 5.75 0.06 

All Physiographic Provinces 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-40 

Impacted Area (acres) of 

Northern Spotted Owl Suitable Habitat 

Impacted Area (acres) 

Overlapping Other 

Resources 1 

R

(a

Physiographic Province 

and Land Ownership 

Late 

Successional/

Deciduous/ 

Old-Growth Mid-Seral 

Total 

Area 

Late 

Successional 

Old Growth 

Only 

Mid-Seral 

Forest 

Only 

Su

O

Coos Bay BLM 26.60 5.65 32.25 4.01 0 Roseburg BLM 106.51 2.11 108.62 34.16 0.03 Medford BLM 82.20 8.94 91.14 9.84 0 Lakeview BLM 12.85 0 12.85 1.21 0 Umpqua National Forest 85.54 18.25 103.79 48.37 5.68 Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest 68.58 1.89 70.47 68.58 1.89 Fremont-Winema National Forest 37.22 1.30 38.52 2.36 0.06 Federal Subtotal 419.50 38.14 457.64 168.53 7.66 Non-Federal Subtotal 218.89 55.07 273.96 0 0 Overall Total 638.39 93.21 731.60 168.53 7.66 1 Amount (acres) of Impacted Area Overlapping Other Resources (including Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, Critical Ha

Impacted Area Not Overlapping Other Resources are assumed to be entirely late successional-old growth forests for use in the HEA mcompensatory mitigation.
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-41 

Table 3.1-1b. 

Area (acres) of Northern Spotted Owl Suitable Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat within the 30-

Corridor Maintained during the PCGP Project within Four Physiographic Provinces and Different Lan

Impacted Area (acres) of 

Northern Spotted Owl Suitable Habitat 

Impacted Area (acres) 

Overlapping Other 

Resources 1

R

(a

Physiographic Province and Land 

Ownership 

Late 

Successional/

Deciduous/ 

Old-Growth Mid-Seral 

Total 

Area 

Late 

Successional 

Old Growth 

Only 

Mid-Seral 

Forest 

Only 

Su

O

Coast Range Physiographic Province Coos Bay BLM 7.59 1.44 9.03 1.24 0 Roseburg BLM 2.04 0 2.04 1.11 0 Non-Federal 5.73 4.75 10.48 0 0 

Coast Range Province Total 15.36 6.19 21.55 2.35 0 

Klamath Mountains Physiographic Province Roseburg BLM 23.05 0.30 23.35 7.83 0 Medford BLM 5.20 2.30 7.50 0 0 Umpqua National Forest 22.31 4.8 27.11 12.96 1.69 Non-Federal 36.83 8.04 44.87 0 0 

Klamath Mountains Province Total 87.39 15.44 102.83 20.79 1.69 

West Cascades Physiographic Province Medford BLM 15.03 0.12 15.15 2.21 0 Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest 20.22 0.82 21.04 20.22 0.82 Non-Federal 9.33 0.31 9.64 0 0 

West Cascades Province Total 44.58 1.25 45.83 22.43 0.82 

East Cascades Physiographic Province Lakeview BLM 3.64 0 3.64 0.33 0 Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest 0.75 0 0.75 0.75 0 Fremont-Winema National Forest 10.81 0.45 11.26 0.58 0 Non-Federal 2.66 1.71 4.37 0 0 

East Cascades Province Total 17.86 2.16 20.02 1.66 0 

All Physiographic Provinces 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-42 

Impacted Area (acres) of 

Northern Spotted Owl Suitable Habitat 

Impacted Area (acres) 

Overlapping Other 

Resources 1

R

(a

Physiographic Province and Land 

Ownership 

Late 

Successional/

Deciduous/ 

Old-Growth Mid-Seral 

Total 

Area 

Late 

Successional 

Old Growth 

Only 

Mid-Seral 

Forest 

Only 

Su

O

Coos Bay BLM 7.59 1.44 9.03 1.24 0 Roseburg BLM 25.09 0.30 25.39 8.94 0 Medford BLM 20.23 2.42 22.65 2.21 0 Lakeview BLM 3.64 0 3.64 0.33 0 Umpqua National Forest 22.31 4.80 27.11 12.96 1.69 Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest 20.97 0.82 21.79 20.97 0.82 Fremont-Winema National Forest 10.81 0.45 11.26 0.58 0 Federal Subtotal 110.64 10.23 120.87 47.23 2.51 Non-Federal Subtotal 54.55 14.81 69.36 0 0 Overall Total 165.19 25.04 190.23 47.23 2.51 1 Amount (acres) of Impacted Area Overlapping Other Resources (including Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, Critical Ha

Impacted Area Not Overlapping Other Resources are assumed to be entirely late successional-old growth forests for use in the HEA mcompensatory mitigation.
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-43 

Suitable Habitat on Other Federal Lands (non-Riparian Reserve and non-LSR/CHU). 

Approximately 281.45 acres of suitable NRF habitat will be removed on federal lands that are 

outside of CHUs OR-14 and OR-17 (250.97 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 

30.48 acres of mid-seral forest, Table 3.1-1a). That amount of affected suitable habitat does not 

overlap with any of the three LSRs that coincide with the Proposed Action (RO 261, RO 223, 

and RO 227) or any Riparian Reserves on federal lands (Table 3.1-1a). However, that amount 

does include habitat that overlaps suitable or recruitment habitat for marbled murrelets (see 

Section 3.2, below). 

Dispersal-Only Habitat on Other Federal Lands (non-Riparian Reserve and nonLSR/CHU). Approximately 101.85 acres of dispersal-only habitat will be removed on federal 

lands that are outside of CHUs OR-14 and OR-17 (Table 3.1-2a). None of that affected 

dispersal-only habitat coincides with any of the three LSRs that are affected by the Proposed 

Action (RO 261, RO 223, and RO 227) or any Riparian Reserves on federal lands. Although 

320.70 acres of dispersal-only habitat (including mid-seral forest and other forested types in 

Table 3.1-2a) will be affected on federal lands, 58.14 acres of that amount overlaps with LSRs, 

Riparian Reserves, and marbled murrelet habitats and 160.71 acres of regenerating forest will 

be restored on-site and in-kind (see discussion at the beginning of this section, above). The 

remaining 101.85 acres of habitat represents residual impact to dispersal habitat that does not 

overlap other habitats or land allocations and has not yet been compensated, including 50.64 

acres of regenerating forest that will be removed within the 30-foot maintenance corridor. 

Suitable Habitat on Non-Federal Lands. The Proposed Action will remove 273.96 acres of 

northern spotted owl suitable NRF habitat on non-federal lands (218.89 acres of late 

successional-old growth forest and 55.07 acres of mid-seral forest, Table 3.1-1a). That amount 

does include habitat that overlaps suitable or recruitment habitat for marbled murrelets (see 

Section 3.2) and critical habitat designated for the Oregon Coast and SO/NCC coho ESUs (see 

Section 4.1 and Section 4.2). 

Dispersal-Only Habitat on Non-Federal Lands. The Proposed Action will remove 373.19 

acres of northern spotted owl dispersal-only habitat on non-federal lands, including habitat that 

overlaps suitable or recruitment habitat for marbled murrelets (see Section 3.2, below). Once 

overlapping areas are removed from the total impacted area being considered, there are 162.60 

acres of residual dispersal-only habitat (which includes 87.57 acres of mid-seral coniferous 

forest also in Table 3.1-2a) that have not been accounted for in other compensatory mitigation. 

3.1.3 Compensatory Habitat – HEA Model Output 

Areas of compensatory habitat for impact to northern spotted owls were computed through the 

LSOG HEA model for impacts to coniferous and mixed forests ≥80 years old on federal land 

that are not included in designated critical habitat units, in LSRs, and in Riparian Reserves, as 

well as impacts to coniferous and mixed forests ≥80 years old on non-federal lands. Likewise, 

areas of compensatory habitat were derived by using the M-S HEA model for impacts to forests 

on federal lands between 40 and 80 years old that were not included in critical habitat, LSRs, or 

Riparian Reserves as well as impacts to dispersal-only habitats non-federal lands. Both models 

assume compensatory habitat is fully functional (in-kind compensation) and acquired 3 years 

after the start of construction. 

Compensatory habitat computed through HEA for impacts to northern spotted owl designated 

critical habitat, which completely overlaps NWFP LSR and Riparian Reserve landuse 

allocations, are included in the HEA model outputs in Section 2.1.3 and Section 2.2.4, 

respectively. Unavoidable and unmitigated impact to northern spotted owl suitable habitats and 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-44 

dispersal-only habitats have been characterized as areas that will be removed by the Proposed 

Action and either 1) cannot be restored on-site during the 50-year life of the project (late 

successional-old growth forest), or 2) cannot be restored on-site or in-kind over the long-term 

(mid-seral forest). 

Summaries of the impacted habitat areas for forests of those seral stages are provided in Table 

3.1-3. The HEA models require definitions of Area 1 - a corridor extending to 15 feet of each 

side of the pipeline centerline that will remain in an herbaceous/shrub state for perpetuity – and 

Area 2 – cleared of trees during construction but replanted after construction. Compensatory 

habitat is assumed to be acquired within 3 years of construction, is assumed to provide the 

same ecological services as the impacted habitat, and is assumed to be held in perpetuity with 

the implication that those ecological services will be provided in perpetuity as well. 

The input values and output for the LSOG HEA model are relatively straightforward. A total 

469.86 acres of late successional-old growth forest will be impacted, all of it suitable NRF 

habitat. Areas overlapping with LSRs and Riparian Reserves on federal lands have been 

considered in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, above, and have not been included in this HEA output. Of 

the total, 351.90 acres will be replanted with conifers though they will not provide any late 

successional-old growth ecological services during the life of the project (Area 2). 

The remaining 117.96 acres will remain in an herbaceous or shrub state for perpetuity (Area 1). 

With those input values, the LSOG HEA model computed a total 504.48 acres of late 

successional-old growth forest that would be adequate compensatory mitigation (Table 3.1-3). 

Some suitable NRF habitat that will be removed during construction is mid-seral coniferous 

forest (85.55 acres) which does not include the overlap of suitable NRF habitat that is also midseral coniferous forests within LSRs and Riparian Reserves, discussed previously (see Table 

3.1-1a). In addition, 264.45 acres of dispersal-only habitat will be removed including mid-seral 

coniferous forest, mature oak woodlands and other late seral deciduous forests, mid-seral 

deciduous forests, regenerating forests, and forested wetlands. None of those 264.45 acres 

overlap with LSRs and Riparian Reserves (Table 3.1-2a), discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2. 

Some of that dispersal-only habitat includes regenerating forest that will not be restored on-site 

or in-kind. In fact, 102.83 acres of regenerating forest (see Table 3.1-2b) are within the 30-foot 

wide maintenance corridor and will not be restored for the life of the project. Because those 

102.83 acres of regenerating forest have been identified as northern spotted owl dispersal 

habitat, they are included in the total for dispersal habitat that does not overlap other resources 

in Table 3.1-2a and Table 3.1-2b and are assumed to be equivalent to mid-seral forest for 

compensation purposes. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-45 

Table 3.1-2a. 

Total Area (acres) of Northern Spotted Owl Dispersal-Only Habitat Impacted by Construction 

of the Proposed Action within Four Physiographic Provinces and Different Landowners 

Impacted Area (acres) of 

Northern Spotted Owl Dispersal-Only Habitat 

Impacted Area (acres) 

Overlapping Other 

Resources 

R(

Physiographic Province and Land 

Ownership 

Mid-Seral 

Coniferous Forest 

Mature Oak Woodland 

 Late Seral Deciduous 

Forest 

Mid-Seral 

Deciduous Forest 

Regenerating 

Forest 

Forested Wetland Total Area Total Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest Only Total Dispersal Habitat Types 1 

M

C

Coast Range Physiographic Province Coos Bay BLM 22.17 0 0.30 54.71 0.36 77.54 22.17 22.47 Roseburg BLM 15.22 0 0 5.31 0 20.53 15.22 15.22 Non-Federal 31.58 0 0 137.14 0.12 168.84 31.50 31.50 

Coast Range Province Total 68.97 0 0.30 197.16 0.48 266.91 68.89 69.19 

Klamath Mountains Physiographic Province Roseburg BLM 7.10 0 0.34 34.32 0.29 42.05 3.81 4.1 Medford BLM 6.04 8.42 0.42 5.62 0 20.50 0 0.71 Umpqua National Forest 14.79 0 0 26.39 0.09 41.27 5.97 6.06 Non-Federal 53.28 1.85 8.14 56.74 0.07 120.08 15.39 15.39 

Klamath Mountains Province Total 81.21 10.27 8.90 123.07 0.45 223.90 25.17 26.26 

West Cascades Physiographic Province Medford BLM 8.98 13.25 0 12.88 0.05 35.16 0.73 0.78 Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest 7.15 0 0 55.51 0 62.66 7.15 7.15 Non-Federal 33.15 1.20 11.20 13.02 0.11 58.68 0 0 

West Cascades Province Total 49.28 14.45 11.20 81.41 0.16 156.5 7.88 7.93 

East Cascades Physiographic Province Lakeview BLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-46 

Impacted Area (acres) of 

Northern Spotted Owl Dispersal-Only Habitat 

Impacted Area (acres) 

Overlapping Other 

Resources 

R(

Physiographic Province and Land 

Ownership 

Mid-Seral 

Coniferous Forest 

Mature Oak Woodland 

 Late Seral Deciduous 

Forest 

Mid-Seral 

Deciduous Forest 

Regenerating 

Forest 

Forested Wetland Total Area Total Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest Only Total Dispersal Habitat Types 1 

M

C

Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest 0 0 0 0.98 0 0.98 0 0 Fremont-Winema National Forest 4.11 0 0 15.63 0.27 20.01 1.38 1.65 Non-Federal 16.45 0 0 8.97 0.17 25.59 0 0.02 

East Cascades Province Total 20.56 0 0 25.58 0.44 46.58 1.38 1.67 

All Physiographic Provinces Coos Bay BLM 22.17 0 0.3 54.71 0.36 77.54 22.17 22.47 Roseburg BLM 22.32 0 0.34 39.63 0.29 62.58 19.03 19.32 Medford BLM 15.02 21.67 0.42 18.5 0.05 55.66 0.73 1.49 Lakeview BLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Umpqua National Forest 14.79 0 0 26.39 0.09 41.27 5.97 6.06 Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest 7.15 0 0 56.49 0 63.64 7.15 7.15 Fremont-Winema National Forest 4.11 0 0 15.63 0.27 20.01 1.38 1.65 

Federal Subtotal 85.56 21.67 1.06 211.35 1.06 320.70 56.43 58.14 

Non-Federal Subtotal 134.46 3.05 19.34 215.87 0.47 373.19 46.89 46.91 

Overall Total 220.02 24.72 20.40 427.22 1.53 693.89 103.32 105.05 

1 Amount of Total Dispersal Habitat Types overlapping with other resources does not include Regenerating Forest. 2 Amount residual Total Dispersal Habitat Types not overlapping with other resources includes Regenerating Forest that is within the 30

Maintained during the PCGP Project included in Table 3.1-2b, below.
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-47 

Table 3.1-2b. 

Area (acres) of Northern Spotted Owl Dispersal-Only Habitat Impacted Habitat Within the 30-foot Wide Corr

during the PCGP Project within Four Physiographic Provinces and Different Landowners 

Impacted Area (acres) of 

Northern Spotted Owl Dispersal-Only Habitat 

Impacted Area (acres) 

Overlapping Other 

Resources 

Re(a

Physiographic Province and Land 

Ownership 

Mid-Seral 

Coniferous Forest 

Mature Oak Woodland 

 Late Seral Deciduous 

Forest 

Mid-Seral 

Deciduous Forest 

Regenerating 

Forest 

Forested Wetland Total Area Total Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest Only Total Dispersal Habitat Types 1 

M

Co

Coast Range Physiographic Province Coos Bay BLM 6.43 0 0.06 11.99 0.06 18.54 6.43 6.49 Roseburg BLM 3.46 0 0 0.65 0 4.11 3.46 3.46 Non-Federal 8.13 0 0 34.18 0.04 42.35 8.13 8.13 

Coast Range Province Total 18.02 0 0.06 46.82 0.10 65.00 18.02 18.08 

Klamath Mountains Physiographic Province Roseburg BLM 1.90 0 0.15 6.58 0.10 8.73 1.15 1.25 Medford BLM 1.43 2.21 0.09 1.07 0 4.80 0 0.22 Umpqua National Forest 2.38 0 0 6.67 0.01 9.06 1.15 1.16 Non-Federal 13.66 0.50 1.66 12.42 0 28.24 4.09 4.09 

Klamath Mountains Province Total 19.37 2.71 1.90 26.74 0.11 50.83 6.39 6.72 

West Cascades Physiographic Province Medford BLM 1.62 3.00 0 2.71 0.01 7.34 0.18 0.19 Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest 2.27 0 0 15.95 0 18.22 2.27 2.27 Non-Federal 8.55 0.28 2.36 2.83 0.02 14.04 0 0 

West Cascades Province Total 12.44 3.28 2.36 21.49 0.03 39.60 2.45 2.46 

East Cascades Physiographic Province Lakeview BLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-48 

Impacted Area (acres) of 

Northern Spotted Owl Dispersal-Only Habitat 

Impacted Area (acres) 

Overlapping Other 

Resources 

Re(a

Physiographic Province and Land 

Ownership 

Mid-Seral 

Coniferous Forest 

Mature Oak Woodland 

 Late Seral Deciduous 

Forest 

Mid-Seral 

Deciduous Forest 

Regenerating 

Forest 

Forested Wetland Total Area Total Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest Only Total Dispersal Habitat Types 1 

M

Co

Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest 0 0 0 0.30 0 0.30 0 0 Fremont-Winema National Forest 1.17 0 0 4.72 0.11 6.00 0.37 0.48 Non-Federal 4.95 0 0 2.76 0.06 7.77 0 0 

East Cascades Province Total 6.12 0 0 7.78 0.17 14.07 0.37 0.48 

All Physiographic Provinces Coos Bay BLM 6.43 0 0.06 11.99 0.06 18.54 6.43 6.49 Roseburg BLM 5.36 0 0.15 7.23 0.10 12.84 4.61 4.71 Medford BLM 3.05 5.21 0.09 3.78 0.01 12.14 0.18 0.41 Lakeview BLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Umpqua National Forest 2.38 0 0 6.67 0.01 9.06 1.15 1.16 Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest 2.27 0 0 16.25 0 18.52 2.27 2.27 Fremont-Winema National Forest 1.17 0 0 4.72 0.11 6.00 0.37 0.48 

Federal Subtotal 20.66 5.21 0.30 50.64 0.29 77.10 15.01 15.52 

Non-Federal Subtotal 35.29 0.78 4.02 52.19 0.12 92.40 12.22 12.22 

Overall Total 55.95 5.99 4.32 102.83 0.41 169.50 27.23 27.74 

1 Amount of Total Dispersal Habitat Types overlapping with other resources does not include Regenerating Forest. 2 Amount residual Total Dispersal Habitat Types not overlapping with other resources includes Regenerating Forest..
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-49 

There are 324.39 acres of the regenerating forest component of dispersal-only habitat that will 

be restored on-site and in-kind (discussed at the beginning of Section 3.1.2, above) so that area 

has been excluded from the residual impacted area totals in Table 3.1-2a. As a result, the input 

values for Area 1 and Area 2 into the M-S HEA model appear different relative to each other in 

Table 3.1-3 whereby some values for Area 1 are larger than values for Area 2 due to the 

inclusion of areas of regenerating forest in the former but not in the later. With a total of 164.29 

acres of mid-seral coniferous forest and other forested types included in Area 1 and 185.71 

acres in Area 2, the M-S HEA model determined that a total of 338.84 acres of mid-seral forest 

habitat would be appropriate compensation for effects to various dispersal-only forested habitat 

and mid-seral forest during project construction. 

Table 3.1-3. 

HEA Model Output for Impacts to Northern Spotted Owl Suitable Habitats (Late Successional-Old 

Growth Forest and Mid-Seral Forest) and Dispersal-Only Habitats (Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest 

and Other Forested Types). 

Late Successional-Old Growth Forest Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest and Other 

Forested Types 1

HEA Input 

Total Impacted Area 

(acres)

HEA Input 

Total Impacted Area 

Physiographic Province (acres)

and 

Land Ownership Area 1 Area 2

Total 

Area

HEA Output 

Compensatory 

Mitigation 

(acres) 1 Area 1 Area 2

Total 

Area

HEA Output 

Compensatory

Mitigation 

(acres) 1

Coast Range 

BLM Coos Bay District 6.35 16.24 22.59 24.27 13.49 4.51 18.00 18.61 

BLM Roseburg District 0.93 2.10 3.03 3.26 0.65 0.01 0.66 0.72 

Non-Federal 5.73 17.31 23.04 24.74 38.97 12.85 51.82 53.16 

Province Total 13.01 35.65 48.66 52.26 53.11 17.37 70.48 72.94 

Klamath Mountains 

BLM Roseburg District 15.22 54.10 69.32 74.37 7.78 4.50 12.28 12.36 

BLM Medford District 5.20 16.02 21.22 22.78 6.88 16.83 23.71 21.96 

USDA-FS Umpqua NF 9.35 27.82 37.17 39.91 11.01 17.05 28.06 26.66 

Non-Federal 36.83 114.11 150.94 162.03 32.19 56.98 89.17 84.05 

Province Total 66.60 212.05 278.65 299.09 57.86 85.15 143.01 136.27 

West Cascades 

BLM Medford District 12.82 38.32 51.14 54.91 7.27 17.41 24.68 22.88 

USDA-FS Rogue RiverSiskiyou NF 0 0 0 N/A 15.95 0 15.95 17.43 

Non-Federal 9.33 27.4 36.73 39.44 14.35 35.64 49.99 46.25 

Province Total 22.15 65.72 87.87 94.34 37.57 53.05 90.62 86.56 

East Cascades 

BLM Lakeview District 3.31 8.33 11.64 12.51 0 0 0 N/A 

USDA-FS Rogue RiverSiskiyou NF 0 0 0 N/A 0.30 0 0.30 0.33 

USDA-FS WinemaFremont NF 10.23 24.63 34.86 37.47 5.97 2.72 8.69 8.86 

Non-Federal 2.66 5.52 8.18 8.80 9.48 17.21 26.69 25.12 

Province Total 16.20 38.48 54.68 58.77 15.75 19.93 35.68 34.31 

ALL PROVINCES 

BLM Coos Bay District 6.35 16.24 22.59 24.27 13.49 4.51 18.00 18.61

BLM Roseburg District 16.15 56.20 72.35 77.63 8.43 4.51 12.94 13.08
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-50 

Late Successional-Old Growth Forest Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest and Other 

Forested Types 1

HEA Input 

Total Impacted Area 

(acres)

HEA Input 

Total Impacted Area 

Physiographic Province (acres)

and 

Land Ownership Area 1 Area 2

Total 

Area

HEA Output 

Compensatory 

Mitigation 

(acres) 1 Area 1 Area 2

Total 

Area

HEA Output 

Compensatory

Mitigation 

(acres) 1

BLM Medford District 18.02 54.34 72.36 77.69 14.15 34.24 48.39 44.83

BLM Lakeview District 3.31 8.33 11.64 12.51 0 0 0 N/A

USDA-FS Umpqua NF 9.35 27.82 37.17 39.91 11.01 17.05 28.06 26.66

USDA-FS Rogue RiverSiskiyou NF 0 0 0 N/A 16.25 0 16.25 17.76

USDA-FS WinemaFremont NF 10.23 24.63 34.86 37.47 5.97 2.72 8.69 8.86

Federal Sub-Total 63.41 187.56 250.97 269.48 69.3 63.03 132.33 129.80 

Non-Federal Sub-Total 54.55 164.34 218.89 235.00 94.99 122.68 217.67 209.04 

OVERALL TOTAL 117.96 351.90 469.86 504.48 164.29 185.71 350.00 338.84 1 Amount of Other Habitat types includes Mature Oak Woodland/Late Seral Deciduous Forest, Mid-Seral Deciduous and 

Forested Wetland but not Regenerating Forest 2 Impacted Areas Excluding Critical Habitat, LSR, and Riparian Reserves on Federal Lands. 3 Area 1 includes the Regenerating Forest component of Dispersal-Only Habitat which will not be restored on-site or in-kind. 4 Area 2 excludes the Regenerating Forest component of Dispersal-Only Habitat which will be restored on-site and in-kind. 5 Total Area includes Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest that is Suitable Habitat (Table 3.1-1a) and Forest Types that are Dispersalonly Habitat (Table 3.1-2a). 6 Totals for Compensatory Mitigation areas are not necessarily the sum of individual components but are HEA model output 

for total impacts in Area 1 and Area 2.

3.1.4 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation 

The Proposed Action will remove 638.39 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 93.21 

acres of mid-seral forest that have been identified as suitable NRF habitat (total of 731.60 acres, 

Table 3.1-1a) and 693.89 acres of dispersal-only habitat (Table 3.1-2a) that is mostly mid-seral 

coniferous forest but also includes other forested types and younger seral stage forests. Nearly 

25 percent (168.53 acres of late successional-old growth forest plus 7.66 acres of mid-seral 

forest – see Table 3.1-1a) of all suitable NRF habitat that will be affected by the Proposed 

Action is within LSRs or Riparian Reserves. The adequacy of compensatory mitigation for 

effects to habitats within those land allocations was addressed in Section 2.1.4 for LSRs and in 

Section 2.2.5 for Riparian Reserves. 

As discussed above, 324.39 acres of regenerating forest that has been identified as northern 

spotted owl dispersal-only habitat will be removed but replanted with conifers that will begin 

providing appropriate ecological services within 5 years (discussed at the beginning of Section 

3.1.2, above); an additional 102.83 acres of regenerating forest in dispersal-only habitat will also 

be removed in the 30-foot wide maintenance corridor but will not be replanted with conifers (see 

Table 3.1-2b). With the amount 324.39 acres of regenerating forest not included in the total, the 

Proposed Action will remove 369.50 acres of dispersal-only habitat (693.89 acres minus 324.39 

acres) of which 105.05 acres (see Table 3.1-2a), or 32 percent, are within LSRs or Riparian 

Reserves. Compensatory mitigation for project-related effects to those 105.05 acres of 

dispersal-only habitat (assumed to be mid-seral forest) was addressed earlier for LSRs and 

Riparian Reserves. 

Compensatory mitigation within LSRs and Riparian Reserves will apply to compensation for 

effects on 281.24 acres of northern spotted owl habitats (176.19 acres of suitable NRF habitat – 

168.53 acres of late successional-old growth forest plus 7.66 acre of mid-seral forest in Table 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-51 

3.1-1a and 105.05 acres of dispersal-only habitat from Table 3.1-2a). The remaining 469.86 

acres of suitable NRF habitat and 350.00 acres of dispersal-only habitat that will be removed by 

the Proposed Action and which will require compensatory mitigation were included in the HEA 

modeling for northern spotted owl suitable and dispersal only habitats (Table 3.1-3). 

In addition to effects that have been discussed under LSRs and Riparian Reserves, the 

Proposed Action will remove 72.03 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 53.00 acres 

of mid-seral coniferous forest and other forested types on Forest Service lands (compiled for the 

three National Forests in Table 3.1-3). HEA modeling output would require compensation by 

acquisition of habitats or alternate compensation from proposed projects in Section 6.2 for 77.38 

acres of late successional-old growth forest and 53.28 acres of mid-seral coniferous forest 

(compiled from HEA output in Table 3.1-3). 

Some examples of proposed projects include pre-commercial thinning within regenerating 

stands located in LSR units RO 223 and RO 227 (Umpqua and Rogue River – Siskiyou National 

Forests, consecutively) to accelerate development of mature forest characteristics (also see 

discussion for LSRs, Section 2.1). Also within stands identified for thinning, Rogue River – 

Siskiyou National Forest has identified roads for potential decommissioning. Decommissioning 

roads within those stands will offset fragmentation created by the Proposed Action and create 

more contiguous stands. Umpqua National Forest has identified approximately 1,400 acres on 

both sides of the proposed pipeline corridor that occur within LSR RO 223 (CHU OR-14 and 

MOCA-29) for commercial thinning with biomass removal to reduce the fuel load within the dry, 

fire-prone Klamath Mountains Physiographic Province. The fuel reduction project occurs within 

15 spotted owl home ranges (two predicted sites), all of which are above recommended FWS 

suitable habitat thresholds in both their home range and core area. 

The Proposed Action will affect 178.94 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 79.33 

acres of mid-seral forest within northern spotted owl habitat (non-overlapping with LSRs or 

Riparian Reserves) that coincide with the four BLM districts crossed (compiled for the four BLM 

districts in Table 3.1-3). HEA modeling results in compensation amounts of 192.10 acres of late 

successional-old growth forest and 76.52 acres of mid-seral forest that, when acquired, would 

mitigate for removal of those forested seral classes within northern spotted owl habitats on BLM 

lands (compiled from HEA output in Table 3.1-3). Impacts to spotted owl suitable and dispersal 

habitat will be compensated for by a combination of acquiring approximately 290 acres of land 

and implementing projects to restore and enhance late successional habitat (see Section 6.2). 

Because much of the BLM jurisdiction in the Project area is a checkerboard pattern of federal 

and non-federal lands, the Proponents anticipates that private lands adjacent to BLM lands will 

be available for acquisition, either totally in fee or as conservation easements (or some 

combination) at the time of construction. The value of acquiring those lands as compensatory 

mitigation for project effects on BLM lands would be evaluated, possibly using prioritizing criteria 

described in Section 1.6, above. In addition to acquiring habitats, the Proponents will provide 

funding to the BLM for implementation of specific habitat enhancement projects that are 

discussed in Section 6.2 below or other projects similar to the following examples at the time of 

construction. 

The Medford BLM has proposed density management of young stands to accelerate growth and 

development of old growth characteristics. The stands are located within a NWFP LSR land 

allocation which is approximately 14 miles south of the Proposed Action. The area identified 

also provides habitat for five spotted owls, and occurs within Marbled Murrelet Zone 1 and 

marbled murrelet CHU OR-07-g (not impacted by the Proposed Action), so may possibly 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-52 

provide habitat for nesting murrelets. Medford BLM District has also proposed road 

decommissioning projects within the vicinity of the Proposed Action and four spotted owl home 

ranges impacted by the Proposed Action that would offset fragmentation created by the 

Proposed Action. 

Roseburg BLM has proposed approximately 830 acres to create snags and down wood within 

previously commercially thinned stands, providing both nesting habitat and hiding cover for 

spotted owl prey species. Creating these habitat features would also provide the diversity of 

habitat and structure for future development of late-successional habitat. Density management 

projects proposed by Roseburg BLM and previously discussed in Section 2.1 (LSRs) will also 

benefit the spotted owl, by accelerating the growth of mature forest. 

Similarly, Lakeview BLM District has proposed commercial thinning within the Upper Spencer 

Creek LSR unit approximately 2.4 miles south of the proposed project adjacent to MOCA-17 

and CHU OR-17. This action will enhance late-seral habitat for northern spotted owls and 

reduce the risk of stand replacing fires. 

The Proposed Action will remove 218.89 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 

217.67 acres of mid-seral forest within northern spotted owl habitat on non-federal lands within 

the four physiographic provinces crossed. HEA modeling output results in compensation areas 

of 235.00 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 209.04 acres of mid-seral forest to 

mitigate for removal of those forested seral classes within northern spotted owl habitats on nonfederal lands (Table 3.1-3). Some of the effects to northern spotted owl habitats on non-federal 

lands will also affect marbled murrelet habitats (see Section 3.2.3). In particular, 56.76 acres of 

late successional-old growth forest and 22.92 acres of mid-seral forests that are suitable 

murrelet habitat or recruitment habitat on non-federal lands overlap habitats of northern spotted 

owls (see Table 3.2-1a, below) that will be removed by the Proposed Action. 

For impacts to northern spotted owl suitable and dispersal-only habitat on non-federal lands, the 

Proponents will acquire approximately 558 acres of habitat (218.89 acres of late successionalold growth forest and 217.67 acres of mid-seral forest) as determined through the LSOG and MS HEA Models. The Proponents believe that acquisition of compensatory habitats on nonfederal lands is the only realistic approach to mitigating impact to northern spotted owl habitats 

on those lands. Habitat enhancement projects on non-federal lands may be possible and would 

provide the same ecological benefits as on federal lands but without control of land parcels, 

either through in fee property ownership or through conservation easements (or some 

combination), the effects of enhancement projects would be tenuous, subject to landowners’ 

goals and with no certainty of providing future benefits to the species. Prior to FERC’s issuance 

of a Notice to Proceed, the value of acquiring those lands as compensatory mitigation for project 

effects on non-federal lands would be evaluated, possibly using prioritizing criteria described in 

Section 1.6, above. 

Similarly, affected northern spotted owl habitats overlap with riparian zones on non-federal land 

that are critical habitats for coho in the SO/NCC ESU (see Section 4.1.5) and riparian zones that 

are adjacent to designated critical habitats for coho in the Oregon Coast ESU (see Section 

4.2.5). On non-federal lands, an estimated 4.18 acres of late successional-old growth forest 

and 6.82 acres of mid-seral forest within riparian zones associated with SO/NCC ESU coho 

overlap with northern spotted owl habitats and/or marbled murrelet habitats that will be removed 

(Table 4.1-1a). Those effects are distributed among four Fifth Field Watersheds (Trail Creek, 

Rogue River-Shady Cove, Big Butte Creek, and Little Butte Creek watersheds). 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-53 

Likewise, 8.55 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 22.22 acres of mid-seral forest 

(Table 4.2-1a) associated with riparian zones adjacent to designated critical habitat for Oregon 

Coast coho will be removed and overlap with northern spotted owl habitats and/or marbled 

murrelet habitats on non-federal lands that will also be affected. Those effects are within nine 

other Fifth Field Watersheds (Coos Bay Frontal, Lower Coquille River, North Fork Coquille 

River, East Fork Coquille River, Middle Fork Coquille River, Olalla Creek-Lookingglass Creek, 

Middle South Umpqua River, Myrtle Creek, and South Umpqua River watersheds). 

Since northern spotted owl suitable NRF habitat and dispersal-only habitat (and marbled 

murrelet suitable nesting and recruitment habitats) can occur on upland locations as well as in 

riparian zones, but riparian habitats are essential to the conservation and recovery of listed coho 

salmon, priority for habitat acquisitions or for enhancement projects on non-federal lands should 

be given to compensation within riparian zones and watersheds that support coho in the 

SO/NCC ESU and Oregon Coast ESU. 

Prior to construction, the Proponents will continue to consult with the Forest Service and the 

BLM about the suite of projects within their respective jurisdictions that could serve to 

supplement land acquisitions, described above, that in combination with the Forest Service and 

BLM projects would benefit northern spotted owls and their habitats within federal and nonfederal lands. The list of projects summarized below in Section 6.2 that were provided by BLM 

and the Forest Service represent current options for application to specific land allocations and 

federal lands in general. The Proponents anticipate that those projects discussed below in 

Section 6.2 may change in the future. However, prior to the issuance of a Right-of-Way Grant 

and subsequent FERC Notice to Proceed, target acreage for habitat enhancements that have 

been agreed to for project-related effects on federal lands (see Section 6.2, below) will be 

confirmed with each agency. 

3.1.5 Consistency With Recovery Goals 

In May 2008, FWS approved the Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (FWS, 

2008a). The recovery plan recommends specific actions that address the threat of the barred 

owl, as well as actions to maintain habitat for the recovery and long-term survival of the northern 

spotted owl including dry-forest landscape management strategies. The recovery plan builds off 

strategies set forth in the 1992 Draft Recovery Plan for Northern Spotted Owl (FWS, 1992b) and 

the Northwest Forest Plan (Forest Service and BLM, 1994), using a network of “Managed Owl 

Conservation Areas” (MOCAs) on federal lands and “Conservation Support Areas” (CSAs) on 

federal and non-federal lands where recovery actions and criteria will be targeted. MOCAs are 

larger tracts of lands within non-fire-dominated provinces that are expected to support a stable 

number of breeding pairs of spotted owls over time and allow for movement of spotted owls 

across the network. 

CSAs were identified on non-federal and federal lands and are generally smaller tracts of lands 

capable of supporting a smaller number of spotted owl pairs as well as providing connectivity to 

the larger MOCAs. Within the drier forests of the Eastern Cascades Province, the recovery plan 

did not identify MOCAs or CSAs since it is expected that the rate of loss of older forests to 

stand-replacement wildfires will continue or increase in the coming years as climate changes 

(Westerling et al., 2006 in FWS, 2008a). Rather, the recovery plan recommends treatments to 

older forests to reduce risks of fires and insect outbreaks even though the strategy could have 

short-term impacts on spotted owl habitat but will achieve the long-term goal of creating more 

sustainable northern spotted owl habitat. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-54 

Compensatory mitigation proposed to offset impact from the Proposed Action, as well as 

Conservation Measures identified within the Draft BA all are consistent with relevant Recovery 

Actions outlined in the Final Recovery Plan (FWS, 2008a). Projects proposed by the BLM and 

Forest Service and habitat acquisition that will be beneficial and support Recovery Actions for 

the spotted owl include: 

• the re-allocation of more than 1,000 acres of Matrix lands to LSR will provide areas 

(not considering the 85 acres removed permanently within the 30-foot maintenance 

corridor) of protected habitat within the range of the spotted owl that are adjacent to 

current MOCAs and critical habitat units, further supporting the recovery system; 

• acquisition of non-federal late successional-old growth and mid-seral habitats at-risk 

of harvest to be maintained in perpetuity, providing additional secure and contiguous 

habitat (applying prioritizing factors described in Section 1.6, above); 

• fuel reduction projects proposed within the fire-prone Klamath Mountains and East 

Cascades Physiographic Provinces will reduce the risks of catastrophic fires in late 

successional habitat that currently supports several pairs of spotted owls; 

• pre-commercial thinning projects to accelerate the growth of mature forests and 

development of old growth habitat characteristics to manage for the highest quality of 

spotted owl habitat; 

• snag creation and large woody debris placement to enhance nesting and prey 

habitat; and 

• decommissioning roads to reduce fragmentation within habitat identified to support 

nesting spotted owls including LSRs, MOCAs, and CHUs. 

Additionally, competition with barred owls has been identified as one of the largest threats 

facing the recovery of spotted owls. Recovery Action 30 within the Final Recovery Plan has 

noted the need to manage for negative effects of barred owls. Although no plan is in place, the 

Proponents would be interested in supporting this action, especially since the second year of 

surveys within the Proposed Action area documented an increase in barred owl presence. 

The Proponents have also avoided or minimized impact to northern spotted owl suitable habitat, 

especially within nest patches and core areas. Actions taken are included in the Marbled 

Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl Avoidance and Minimization Plan in Appendix V of the Draft 

BA. 

3.2 Marbled Murrelet 

3.2.1 Background 

Removal of suitable nesting habitat by harvest of old growth timber has been cited as the 

primary reason for the species’ decline (FWS, 1992c). Since 2003, effects to marbled murrelet 

suitable habitat have been minimal (BLM and Forest Service, 2006). Implementation of the 

NWFP with defined late successional reserves and the designation of critical habitat were 

designed to increase the amount of late successional forest habitat available for the long term, 

thus increasing potential nesting habitat for murrelets. However, suitable murrelet habitat takes 

a long time to develop (over 250 years on average). Any removal of potential suitable habitat or 

recruitment habitat may affect the recovery of the murrelet, because trends indicate that 

murrelets are declining (see Population Status in Section 4.2.4.1 of the Draft BA). 

In general, suitable nesting habitat primarily occurs in coastal, old growth forests, characterized 

by large trees, multi-storied stands, and moderate-to-high canopy coverage; however, nesting 

habitat may also occur in younger forests with old-growth characteristics (FWS, 2006c). Trees 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-55 

within the habitat must have large branches or deformities, such as high, moss-covered 

branches or branches with growths or dwarf mistletoe, which serve as nest platforms (Binford et 

al., 1975; Marshall, 1988; Naslund, 1993; FWS, 1997). Suitable or potentially suitable habitat 

within the Proposed Action area was established from habitat assessment conducted for 

marbled murrelet surveys, known occupied stands, and habitat models developed with the 

Pacific Northwest Research Station (see the discussion in Section 4.2.4.2 of the Draft BA). 

The FWS (1996) determined the physical and biological habitat features (PCEs) associated with 

the terrestrial environment that support nesting behaviors essential to the conservation of the 

marbled murrelet. Activities associated with the Proposed Action may have the following effects 

on the PCEs within murrelet critical habitat: 

1. Removal or degradation of individual trees with potential nesting platforms, or the nest 

platforms themselves, that result in a significant decrease in the value of the trees for 

future nesting use; 

2. Removal or degradation of trees adjacent to trees with potential nesting platforms that 

provide habitat elements essential to the suitability of the potential nest tree or platform, 

such as trees providing cover from weather or predators. 

3. Removal or degradation of forested areas with a canopy height of at least one half the 

site-potential tree height and regardless of contiguity, within 0.5 mile of individual trees 

containing potential nest platforms. This includes removal or degradation of trees 

currently unsuitable for nesting that contribute to the integrity of the potential nest area 

(i.e., trees that contribute to the canopy of the forested area). These trees provide the 

canopy and stand conditions important for marbled murrelet nesting (FWS, 1996). 

3.2.2 Summary of Impact to Marbled Murrelet Habitats 

Unavoidable effects to marbled murrelets include direct removal of 97.32 acres of suitable or 

potentially suitable nesting habitat (Table 3.2-1a), including 61.8 acres in nine known occupied 

stands, 18 presumed occupied stands, and five unlikely to be occupied stands combined (see 

Table 4.2.4-1 in the Draft BA for an evaluation of marbled murrelet nesting habitat within each 

stand). Removal of 97.32 acres of suitable or potentially suitable habitat represents 

approximately 0.7 percent of the 14,261 acres of suitable or potentially suitable habitat in the 

analysis area (see Table 4.2.4-12 in Draft BA). Although the majority (67.02 acres) of suitable 

habitat is late successional-old growth forest, some mid-seral coniferous and mixed forest 

(30.30 acres) is also suitable habitat. Conversely, the majority of recruitment habitats that will 

be affected (forested land not currently suitable for nesting that may be capable of becoming 

suitable marbled murrelet habitat within the next 25 years) are mid-seral forests (147.39 acres) 

but some late successional-old growth forest (45.35 acres) is also classified as recruitment 

habitat. Those habitat types and seral stages are included in Table 3.2-1a. 

Table 3.2-1b summarizes effects to suitable habitat and recruitment habitat within the 30-foot 

wide maintenance corridor that will be retained in an herbaceous/shrub state for the life of the 

project. There will be 24.98 acres of former suitable habitat and 61.10 acres of recruitment 

habitat permanently lost (Table 3.2-1b). The remaining 72.34 acres of marbled murrelet 

suitable nesting habitat (97.32 acres in Table 3.2-1a minus 24.98 acres) and 131.64 acres of 

affected recruitment habitat (192.74 acres in Table 3.2-1a minus 61.10 acres) would be 

replanted with conifers. Replanted conifers would be considered late successional-old growth 

forest habitat in approximately 80 years though they would attain mid-seral forest status in 40 

years. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-56 

Critical Habitat (OR-06-d). The Proposed Proposed Action crosses one federally-designated 

marbled murrelet critical habitat unit (OR-06-d) five times for a total of 2.77 miles, although not 

all habitat within the critical habitat unit is considered suitable for marbled murrelet occupancy 

(see Table 4.2.4-11 in Draft BA). Overall, the Proposed Action will remove 6.76 acres of 

suitable or potentially suitable marbled murrelet habitat and 9.73 acres of recruitment habitat 

within critical habitat unit OR-06-d (which also coincides with NWFP LSR unit RO 261), 

including habitat removal from two occupied stands. Within the occupied stands and 

designated critical habitat crossed, however, the majority of the proposed pipeline route either 

coincides with an existing road or with regenerating forest adjacent to older forest. Critical 

habitat unit OR-06-d provides 7,964 acres of suitable nesting habitat. Removal of 6.76 acres 

from OR-06-d by the Proposed Action represents 0.02 percent of total suitable habitat available 

within CHU OR-06-d (see Table 4.2.4-15 in Draft BA). 

Within Marbeled Murrelet Zones 1 and 2 where federal land is in a checkerboard pattern with 

private land, the Proponents designed pipeline routing to take into account NWFP LSRs. As a 

result, very little marbled murrelet suitable or potentially suitable habitat will be removed within 

designated critical habitat unit OR-06-d which is completely overlapped by a portion of LSR RO 

261. 

Suitable and Recruitment Habitat on Other Federal Lands (non-Riparian Reserve, nonLSR/CHU, and non-Northern Spotted Owl Suitable NRF Habitat). Twenty-six acres total, of 

suitable habitat (5.45 acres) plus recruitment habitat (20.55 acres) will be removed on federal 

lands that are outside of CHU OR-06-d, outside of LSR RO 261, and outside of Riparian 

Reserves (residual area on federal lands, Table 3.2-1a). Both suitable and recruitment habitat 

include late successional-old growth and mid-seral forests which is a significant component of 

each habitat type (Table 3.2-1a). Also considered in the computation of acres of suitable 

murrelet nesting and recruitment habitat impacted were those areas that overlapped with 

northern spotted owl suitable nesting habitat, considered above in Section 3.1. All late 

successional-old growth forest that provides suitable or recruitment habitats overlaps with those 

other resources. Consequently, the residual total area of 26.00 acres of mid-seral forest 

included for compensatory mitigation in Section 3.2.3, below does not include any area of 

impact to LSRs/CHUs which were previously considered in Section 2.1, Riparian Reserves 

(Section 2.2), or northern spotted owl suitable habitat (Section 3.1). 

Suitable Nesting Habitat on Non-Federal Lands. The Proposed Action will remove 36.25 

acres of suitable marbled murrelet nesting habitat and 143.96 acres of recruitment habitat on 

non-federal lands (Table 3.2-1a). Of those amounts, only 9.22 acres of suitable nesting habitat 

and 90.70 acres of recruitment habitat do not coincide with suitable habitat for northern spotted 

owl (Section 3.1). All residual impacted habitat (100.53 acres) on non-federal lands is mid-seral 

forest (Table 3.2-1a). 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-57 

Table 3.2-1a. 

Area (acres) of Marbled Murrelet Suitable Habitat and Recruitment Habitat Impacted by Construction of the P

within Marbled Murrelet Zones 1 and 2, Physiographic Provinces and Different Landowners 

Impacted Area (acres) 

of Suitable Habitat 

Impacted Area (acres) 

of Recruitment Habitat 

Impacted Area (acres) 

Overlapping Other 

Resources 

Re

(ac

Marbled MurreletZone 

and 

Land Ownership 

Late successionalOld Growth Forest 

Mid-Seral Forest Total 

Late successionalOld Growth Forest 

Mid-Seral Forest Total Late Successional Old Growth Only Mid-Seral Forest Only 

Succ

Old 

Marbled Murrelet Zone1 

Coos Bay BLM 25.51 11.10 36.61 1.09 20.29 21.38 26.60 17.32 Roseburg BLM 7.24 1.29 8.53 1.78 20.12 21.90 9.02 10.80 

Non-Federal 11.32 16.37 27.69 11.72 58.40 70.12 23.04 19.87 

Zone 1 Total 44.07 28.76 72.83 14.59 98.81 113.4 58.66 47.99 

Marbled Murrelet Zone2

Roseburg BLM 15.91 0.02 15.93 4.08 1.42 5.50 19.99 0.12 

Non-Federal 7.04 1.52 8.56 26.68 47.16 73.84 33.72 3.05 

Zone 2 Total 22.95 1.54 24.49 30.76 48.58 79.34 53.71 3.17 

All Marbled Murrelet Zones 

Coos Bay 25.51 11.10 36.61 1.09 20.29 21.38 26.60 17.32 

Roseburg BLM 23.15 1.31 24.46 5.86 21.54 27.40 29.01 10.92 

Federal Subtotal 48.66 12.41 61.07 6.95 41.83 48.78 55.61 28.24 

Non-Federal Subtotal 18.36 17.89 36.25 38.40 105.56 143.96 56.76 22.92 

Overall Total 67.02 30.30 97.32 45.35 147.39 192.74 112.37 51.16 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-58 

Table 3.2-1b. 

Area (acres) of Marbled Murrelet Suitable Habitat and Recruitment Habitat Impacted within the 30-foot Wide Co

during the PCGP Project in Marbled Murrelet Zones 1 and 2, Physiographic Provinces and Different La

Impacted Area (acres) 

of Suitable Habitat 

Impacted Area (acres) 

of Recruitment Habitat 

Impacted Area (acres) 

Overlapping Other 

Resources 

Re

(ac

Marbled MurreletZone 

and 

Land Ownership 

Late successionalOld Growth Forest 

Mid-Seral Forest Total 

Late successionalOld Growth Forest 

Mid-Seral Forest Total Late Successional Old Growth Only Mid-Seral Forest Only 

Succ

Old 

Marbled Murrelet Zone1 

Coos Bay BLM 7.35 2.84 10.19 0.23 20.29 20.52 7.58 19.25 Roseburg BLM 1.95 0.04 1.99 0.16 4.72 4.88 2.11 2.21 

Non-Federal 2.69 4.25 6.94 3.04 14.85 17.89 5.73 5.51 

Zone 1 Total 11.99 7.13 19.12 3.43 39.86 43.29 15.42 26.97 

Marbled Murrelet Zone2

Roseburg BLM 3.60 0 3.60 0.81 0.51 1.32 4.41 0.03 

Non-Federal 1.78 0.48 2.26 6.09 10.40 16.49 7.87 1.07 

Zone 2 Total 5.38 0.48 5.86 6.90 10.91 17.81 12.28 1.10 

All Marbled Murrelet Zones 

Coos Bay 7.35 2.84 10.19 0.23 20.29 20.52 7.58 19.25 

Roseburg BLM 5.55 0.04 5.59 0.97 5.23 6.20 6.52 2.24 

Federal Subtotal 12.9 2.88 15.78 1.20 25.52 26.72 14.10 21.49 

Non-Federal Subtotal 4.47 4.73 9.20 9.13 25.25 34.38 13.60 6.58 

Overall Total 17.37 7.61 24.98 10.33 50.77 61.10 27.70 28.07 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-59 

3.2.3 Compensatory Habitat – HEA Model Output 

All residual impacted habitat (areas that do not overlap with other impacted habitat already 

considered for compensation) that functions as suitable nesting or recruitment habitat for 

marbled murrelets is mid-seral coniferous or mixed forest. All late successional-old growth 

forest that is nesting or recruitment habitat overlaps with LSRs and Riparian Reserves on 

federal land as well as northern spotted owl suitable habitat on federal and non-federal lands. 

Consequently, compensatory habitat for impact to marbled murrelet habitats were computed 

through the M-S HEA model for impacts to coniferous and mixed forests ≥40 but <80 years old. 

The model assumes compensatory habitat is fully functional (in-kind compensation) and 

acquired 3 years after the start of construction and is assumed to be held in perpetuity, with the 

implication that those ecological services will be provided in perpetuity as well. 

The Proposed Action will remove 126.53 acres of marbled murrelet suitable and recruitment 

habitat that does not overlap with any other habitats or land use allocations that have been 

previously evaluated for compensatory mitigation (Table 3.2-1a). Of that amount of residual 

habitat, 30.31 acres would be retained as herbaceous and/or shrub-dominated habitat within the 

30-foot wide maintenance corridor (Table 3.2-1b). Those 30.31 acres correspond to Area 1 in 

the M-S HEA model. The other 96.22 acres of removed habitat would be revegetated and 

would be considered capable of becoming mid-seral forest in approximately 40 years. The 

96.22-acre area corresponds to Area 2 in the M-S HEA model. The output of the HEA model is 

provided below in Table 3.2-2. The model computed 115.67 acres of mid-seral coniferous or 

mixed forest obtained within 3 years of construction would be adequate compensatory 

mitigation for the removal of 126.53 acres of residual marbled murrelet suitable nesting or 

recruitment habitat. 

Table 3.2-2. 

HEA Model Output for Impacts to Mid-Seral Forest 

in Marbled Murrelet Suitable Habitat and Recruitment Habitat. 

Mid-Seral Forest 

HEA Input: 

Marbled Murrelet Zones Total Impacted Area (acres)

and 

Land Ownership Area 1 Area 2

Total 

Area

HEA Output: 

Compensatory 

Mitigation 

(acres) 1

Marbled Murrelet Zone1 

BLM Coos Bay District 3.88 10.19 14.07 12.98 

BLM Roseburg District 2.55 8.06 10.61 9.70 

Non-Federal 13.59 41.31 54.90 50.29 

Zone Total 20.02 59.56 79.58 72.97 

Marbled Murrelet Zone2 

BLM Roseburg District 0.48 0.84 1.32 1.25 

Non-Federal 9.81 35.82 45.63 41.45 

Zone Total 10.29 36.66 46.95 42.69 

BOTH ZONES 

BLM Coos Bay District 3.88 10.19 14.07 12.98

BLM Roseburg District 3.03 8.90 11.93 10.95

Federal Sub-Total 6.91 19.09 26.00 23.93 

Non-Federal Sub-Total 23.40 77.13 100.53 91.74 

OVERALL TOTAL 30.31 96.22 126.53 115.67 1

 Totals for Compensatory Mitigation areas are not necessarily the sum of individual 

components but are HEA model output for total impacts in Area 1 and Area 2
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-60 

3.2.4 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation 

The Proposed Action will remove 67.02 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 30.30 

acres of mid-seral forest that have been identified as suitable marbled murrelet nesting habitat 

(total of 97.32 acres) and 192.74 acres of recruitment habitat that is mostly mid-seral coniferous 

forest (147.39 acres) but also includes late successional-old growth forests (45.35 acres). More 

than 56 percent (112.37 acres of late successional-old growth forest plus 51.16 acres of midseral forest – see Table 3.2-1a) of all marbled murrelet habitat that will be affected by the 

Proposed Action is within LSRs and Riparian Reserves or otherwise overlaps with northern 

spotted owl habitats. The adequacy of compensatory mitigation for effects to habitats within 

those land allocations and within spotted owl habitats were addressed in Section 2.1.4 for LSRs, 

in Section 2.2.5 for Riparian Reserves, and Section 3.1.4 for northern spotted owls. 

The remaining 126.53 acres of suitable and recruitment habitat that will be removed by the 

Proposed Action and which will require compensatory mitigation are entirely mid-seral 

coniferous forest (Table 3.2-2). HEA model output includes 23.93 acres of compensatory midseral forest on federal land, all of which is within two BLM districts, and 91.74 acres for 

compensatory habitat acquisition on non-federal land. Impacts to marbled murrelet suitable and 

recruitment habitat on BLM lands will be compensated for by a combination of acquiring 

approximately 290 acres of land and implementing projects to restore and enhance late 

successional and mid-seral habitat (see Section 6.2). 

Because much of the two BLM jurisdictions within marble murrelet zones 1 and 2 are a 

checkerboard pattern of federal and non-federal lands, the Proponents anticipates that private 

lands adjacent to BLM lands may be available for acquisition, either totally in fee or as 

conservation easements (or some combination) at the time of construction. The Proponents will 

acquire lands to mitigate for the loss of suitable or potentially suitable habitat, and recruitment 

habitat on Coos Bay and Roseburg BLM districts (Section 6.2). The value of acquiring those 

lands as compensatory mitigation for project effects on BLM lands would be evaluated, possibly 

using prioritizing criteria such as that described in Section 1.6, above. 

For example, the Proponents will pursue habitat parcels, if available, that are in Marbled 

Murrelet Zone 1 and in close proximity to currently occupied stands to increase the potential of 

murrelet occupancy. In addition to acquiring habitats, the Proponents will provide funding to the 

BLM for implementation of specific habitat enhancement projects that are discussed in Section 

6.2, so that the net result of compensatory mitigation is beneficial to the marbled murrelet. Such 

projects include thinning young forest stands to accelerate growth characteristics of mature and 

old growth forests, and decommissioning roads to offset the fragmentation impact from the 

Proposed Action while creating more contiguous stands and reducing the threat of predation. 

For example, the Medford BLM District has proposed timber density management on 250 to 300 

acres of habitat within a NWFP LSR Unit located in Marbled Murrelet Zone 1 that provides 

possible nesting habitat for marbled murrelets. These projects are located approximately 14 

miles from the Proposed Action and are located within marbled murrelet CHU OR-07-g. Age 

classes of forest range from 10 years to 250 years (BLM’s Forest Operations Inventory 

database). Density management within these stands will enhance and accelerate the 

development of late successional-old growth forest characteristics. 

The Proponents will continue to consult with the BLM about additional projects not considered in 

Section 6.2 below for implementation within the Coos Bay District and Roseburg District that 

could serve to 1) substitute for land acquisitions, described above, that in combination would 

benefit marbled murrelet habitats within federal lands, or 2) would benefit marbled murrelets if 

compensatory mitigation by land acquisition is not possible. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-61 

For impacts to marbled murrelet suitable and recruitment habitat on non-federal lands, the 

Proponents will acquire approximately 91.74 acres of habitat as determined through the M-S 

HEA modeling. The Proponents believe that acquisition of compensatory habitats on nonfederal lands is the only realistic approach to mitigating impact to marbled murrelet habitats on 

those lands. While habitat enhancement projects on non-federal lands may be theoretically 

possible and as beneficial as they would be on federal lands, but without control of land parcels, 

either through in fee property ownership or through conservation easements (or some 

combination), the effects of enhancement projects would be tenuous, with no certainty of 

providing future benefits. Prior to FERC’s issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the value of 

acquiring those lands as compensatory mitigation for project effects on non-federal lands would 

be evaluated, possibly using prioritizing criteria described in Section 1.6, above. 

3.2.5 Consistency With Recovery Goals 

FWS published a recovery plan for the marbled murrelet in 1997 for Washington, Oregon, and 

California (FWS, 1997). The objective of the recovery plan is to stabilize population size at or 

near current levels by maintaining and/or increasing productivity of the population and removing 

and/or minimizing threats to survivorship. The recovery plan divided the range of the murrelet 

into six Conservation Zones. Conservation Zone 4 occurs within the Proposed Action area and 

includes the Siskiyou Coast Range Zone 1.2 miles off the shore and extends inland a distance 

of up to 35 miles, coinciding with the “Zone 1” boundary line described by the Forest Ecosystem 

Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). This Zone has large blocks of suitable habitat 

critical to the recovery of the murrelet within California, Oregon, and Washington. 

Recommended management for Conservation Zone 4 includes: 1) maintain designated 

occupied sites, 2) minimize loss of unoccupied but suitable habitat, and 3) decrease the time for 

development of new habitat. Specific recovery efforts should focus on maintenance of suitable 

and occupied marbled murrelet nesting habitat in BLM-administered forests. FWS (2006a) 

concluded that the maintenance and/or increase of suitable nesting murrelet habitat in relatively 

large, contiguous blocks, whether occupied or unoccupied, will be needed to recover the 

murrelet, since unoccupied suitable habitat in proximity to occupied habitat is more likely to be 

used by dispersing murrelets. 

Compensatory mitigation proposed to offset impact from the Proposed Action, as well as 

Conservation Measures identified within the Draft BA should support the management 

recommendations for Conservation Zone 4. Specific mitigation actions include: 

• The Proponents will flag and avoid removal of potential nest trees or large remnant 

trees, whether within a designated occupied site or not, if possible; 

• Acquisition of private, contiguous forested habitat within the vicinity (two miles) of 

occupied sites or suitable/recruitment habitat, or within the vicinity of designated critical 

habitat; and 

• Thinning projects within regenerating forest to accelerate the growth to mature forests 

and to create old growth characteristics. 

The Proponents have also avoided or minimized impact to occupied murrelet stands, as well as 

stands with suitable habitat that were determined after two years of surveys to unlikely be 

occupied. Actions taken are included in the Marbled Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl 

Avoidance and Minimization Plan in Appendix V of the Draft BA. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-62 

3.3 Western Snowy Plover 

3.3.1 Background 

The Pacific Coast population of western snowy plover has been listed as a threatened species 

under the ESA since March 5, 1993 (FWS, 1993). The Pacific Coast breeding population of the 

western snowy plover includes Oregon. Coastal populations, including those in Oregon, 

typically consist of resident and migratory birds. Large concentrations of migratory snowy 

plovers winter primarily in coastal California, Baja California, and along the coastal mainland of 

Mexico (FWS, 1993). 

Critical habitat for the western snowy plover was designated on January 6, 2000 (FWS, 1999), 

including 278 acres in Coos Bay (the Coos Bay North Spit Critical Habitat Unit OR-9), and redesignated in 2005 (FWS, 2005). Based on the Pacific Coast western snowy plover’s 

requirements for reproduction, feeding, forage and shelter, the FWS (2005) identified the 

following PCEs for designated critical habitat: 1) sparsely vegetated areas above daily high 

tides that are relatively undisturbed by the presence of humans, pets, vehicles or humanattracted predators; 2) sparsely vegetated sandy beach, mud flats, gravel bars or artificial salt 

ponds subject to daily tidal inundation, but not under water, that support small invertebrates; 

and, 3) surf or tide-cast organic debris such as seaweed or driftwood located on open 

substrates. Critical habitat in the vicinity of the Project area contains expansive, sparsely 

vegetated interdune flats, areas of sandy beach above and below the high tide line with 

occasional surf-cast wrack supporting small invertebrates, and close proximity to tidally 

influenced estuarine areas (FWS, 2005). 

3.3.2 Summary of Impact to Western Snowy Plover 

Indirect effects by the Proposed Action to western snowy plovers are expected to include (see 

Section 4.2.3.3 in the Draft BA): 1) the potential to create attractive but low-quality plover habitat 

on deposited dredge spoils, 2) increased human presence, and 3) increased predation of 

western snowy plovers due to increased human presence. In addition, increased human 

presence may lead to destruction of nests by off-highway vehicles (OHVs), visitors or their dogs; 

attraction of predators to garbage or other human activity; and other activities such as beach 

walking and jogging, OHV use, horseback riding, beach raking, pet walking noted above (FWS, 

2001) that may disturb plovers. 

3.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation 

Compensatory mitigation for western snowy plovers does not involve acquisition of late 

successional-old growth forested habitats similar to other compensation for unavoidable and 

unmitigated effects by the Proposed Action, because they are associated with sparsely 

vegetated beaches. Instead, compensatory mitigation focuses on management of known and 

potential indirect impact to the species. Noted above, potential indirect effects include the 

conversion or removal of upland habitat, placement of dredged materials, and offsite 

construction worker effects. JCEP has proposed that those effects will be minimized by 

management practices and oversight of construction activities and personnel. Compensatory 

mitigation is proposed for those species, such as the snowy plover, where management 

practices alone may not be sufficient to avoid potentially adverse effects (see Section 4.2.3.4 in 

the Draft BA). 

Current management activities and use restrictions within the Coos Bay North Spit Recreation 

Management Area include: 

• Predator management (i.e. nest exclosures, lethal and non-lethal predator removal and 

hazing); 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-63 

• Symbolic fencing (ropes and signs installed around nesting areas); 

• Habitat restoration (removal of European beachgrass, placement of shell hash, 

maintenance of gaps through the dunes); 

• Public outreach and education provided by BLM staff; 

• Monitoring of snowy plover populations; and 

• Recreational use restrictions in place from March 15 – September 15 each year, 

including: 

o Seasonal re-routing of the foredune road; 

o Vehicles, camping, and dogs are prohibited. Kite flying would be prohibited under 

the draft conservation plan. 

Non-prohibited recreational use (i.e. jogging, beach combing, horseback riding) is restricted to 

the wet sand outside of roped and signed breeding areas. 

JCEP reviewed a list of conservation measures provided by the FWS, the BLM, and the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) through the Sediment Placement subgroup of the 

Jordan Cove/Pacific Connector Interagency Task Force Working Group and agreed to provide 

funding as enumerated below. The funding will be provided to the entity as defined by the 

agencies and it will be the responsibility of the particular entity to administer the funding. The 

funding to be provided by JCEP will be on the condition that no additional requirements will be 

placed on the JCEP relative to the western snowy plover issue. 

Year 1 (when construction begins) – provide $60K for: 

• Fencing (~$30K) 

• Signage 

• Application of shell hash 

• Tree removal 

• One year of maintenance – $10K 

Years 2 and 3 – provide $30K (each year) for: 

• Annual maintenance – $10K 

• Beach grass elimination grant (minimum of $10K) 

• Shell hash 

Years 4 to 10 – provide $10K for: 

• Annual maintenance 

3.3.4 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation 

In addition to the conservation measures listed above, JCEP will minimize potential secondary 

effects to the critical habitat PCE that identifies disturbance by humans, pets, vehicles or 

human-attracted predators through implementation of 1) Best Management Practices (BMPs) to 

minimize predator density related to increased human presence and habitat removal, and 2) 

education and outreach programs intended to train all construction and operations staff on the 

need for snowy plover conservation; current snowy plover regulations and recreational use 

restrictions; and the importance of conservation measures, including: litter control, avoidance of 

nesting and foraging areas, keeping pets on-leash, and remaining on established roads and 

trails. All proposed conservation measures will be consistent with current management 

activities and use restrictions within the Coos Bay North Spit Recreation Management Area, 

listed above. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-64 

3.3.5 Consistency With Recovery Goals 

In 2001, the FWS drafted a recovery plan for the western snowy plover, Pacific Coast 

population, with the primary objectives to increase the numbers and productivity of breeding 

adults throughout the Pacific Coast and to provide for long-term protection of breeding and 

winter plovers and their habitat. The recovery plan provides management goals for six recovery 

units established within the breeding range of the Pacific Coast population in Washington, 

Oregon, and California. Recovery Unit 1 is near the Proposed Action. This unit is capable of 

supporting 54 breeding plovers, which is the management goal within the Draft Recovery Plan 

for this critical habitat unit (see Draft BA). 

JCEPs proposed conservation measures that include 1) BMPs and 2) education and outreach 

programs, in addition to funding habitat enhancement and maintenance projects are consistent 

with the recovery plan goal and actions recommended in the recovery plan including efforts to 

maximize survival and productivity, protecting western snowy plovers and their breeding and 

wintering habitat, and contributing to public information and education programs about the 

western snowy plover. 

3.4 Kincaid’s Lupine 

3.4.1 Background 

Kincaid’s lupine was listed as threatened on January 25, 2000 (FWS, 2000). A recovery outline 

for the species was released in 2006 (FWS, 2006d). On-going threats to Kincaid’s lupine habitat 

and range mirror the factors listed in FWS’s 2000 final rule. These on-going threats include: 

further habitat loss or fragmentation due to agriculture, development, and forest practices; 

herbicide use; disease and predation; invasion of prairie habitats by non-native species; 

encroachment of trees and shrubs into prairie habitats; elimination of natural disturbance 

regimes; inbreeding as a result of isolated and fragmented populations). Most of the known 

populations are found in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. There, Kincaid’s lupine is currently found 

at about 57 sites, comprising about 395 acres of total coverage (FWS, 2006d). Three sites 

were located in Douglas County on private lands near or in the Proposed Action area (Siskiyou 

BioSurvey, 2007). 

3.4.2 Summary of Impact to Kincaid’s Lupine 

There are direct and indirect impacts expected for the new populations of Kincaid’s lupine 

identified during surveys in 2007 on private lands at MPs 57.84 through 57.92, 59.60, and 96.5 

through 96.9 along the FERC-filed pipeline route. These populations are too small to meet the 

minimum viable population size specified in the FWS recovery plan (either by estimated number 

of plants or by density within a coverage area), but may be contributing to other known metapopulations and recovery plan objectives. Because the removal of any Kincaid’s lupine plants 

may hinder the recovery, and eventual down-listing of the species, the Proponents took actions 

to avoid or minimize the impacts to documented plants by altering the route, removing proposed 

TEWAs, or minimizing the construction right-of-way. 

The FERC-filed route has been rerouted at the first population documented between MPs 57.84 

and 57.92 to avoid direct impact to all subpopulations. The second population near MP 59.60 is 

further than 200 feet from the Proposed Action and no direct effects are expected. The third 

Kincaid’s lupine site between MPs 96.5 and 96.9 and along existing access roads cannot be 

completely avoided because the proposed route is located on a narrow ridgeline and there are 

no feasible routing alternatives to realign the pipeline. However, the Proponents have altered 

the FERC-filed route to avoid plants within four subpopulations. Approximately 157 plants at 

this third site are expected to be directly impacted. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-65 

3.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation 

Compensatory mitigation for Kincaid’s lupine does not involve acquisition of late successionalold growth forested habitats similar to other compensation for unavoidable and unmitigated 

effects to listed species by the Proposed Action, because they can be associated with both 

open grasslands and more open canopies within forests. Instead, compensatory mitigation 

focuses on means of re-establishing the species within potentially suitable habitat and 

enhancing existing habitat. Section 4.5.5.4 (Conservation Measures) in the Draft BA 

summarizes BMPs and measures that will be applied within the Project area where the three 

known populations were identified during surveys. For additional detail, see the Draft Mitigation 

Plan for Kincaid’s lupine submitted to FERC in December 2008 and included as Appendix B in 

this CMP. Measures identified in the Kincaid’s Mitigation Plan, including plant salvage, 

transplant, and seed collection, should compensate fully for any unavoidable direct or indirect 

impact to the plants documented within the proposed project area. 

3.4.4 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation 

Critical habitat for Kincaid’s lupine was designated on October 31, 2006; however, no critical 

habitat units for Kincaid’s lupine were designated in Douglas County. Rather, an interagency 

conservation agreement was established to formally document the intent to protect, conserve, 

and contribute to the recovery by implementing recovery actions for Kincaid’s lupine and its 

habitat on federal lands within Douglas County (BLM et al, 2006). Additionally, a voluntary 

agreement to aid in the conservation and recovery of Kincaid’s lupine was drafted for Lone Rock 

Timber Management Company, Roseburg Forest Products, Seneca Jones Timber Company, 

and the FWS, with the intent to complement the April Conservation Agreement (FWS et al., 

2006). In March of 2008 a Management Plan for Kincaid’s Lupine in Douglas County, Oregon 

was developed between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-Roseburg District, the 

Umpqua National Forest, and FWS. The management plan addresses the populations and 

habitat of Kincaid’s lupine on BLM and NFS lands in Douglas County (BLM, USFS, and FWS, 

2008). 

The Mitigation Plan attached to this CMP as Appendix B describes the project design measures 

that the Proponents have incorporated to minimize or avoid impacts to the populations of 

Kincaid’s lupine located near MPs 57.84 - 57.92, 59.60, and 96.5 - 96.9. The Mitigation Plan 

also outlines the construction and restoration measures that would be implemented to further 

minimize impacts to this species. Prior to construction, on-site protection and seed collection 

would also be employed to minimize impacts to the Kincaid’s lupine populations. The 

Proponents developed the mitigation plan in consultation with the FWS, BLM, and the FERC. 

Project routing, avoidance and minimization measures, as well as plant conservation measures 

were discussed during a July, 24 2008 interagency working group meeting for the project. 

Through all of these consultations, measures including plant salvage, transplant, and seed 

collection are expected to compensate fully for any unavoidable direct or indirect impact to the 

plants documented within the proposed project area. 

3.4.5 Consistency With Recovery Goals 

A draft recovery plan for the prairie species of western Oregon, including Kincaid’s lupine, was 

published on September 22, 2008 and includes recovery objectives to delist Kincaid’s lupine 

(FWS, 2008b). Ten recovery zones were established for Kincaid’s lupine, of which Douglas 

County (Roseburg Recovery Zone) is considered its own recovery zone. The Roseburg 

Recovery Zone has a recovery goal of a minimum of two populations covering at least 5,000 

square meters. Additionally, monitoring of these populations should show evidence of 

reproduction by flowering, seed set, or presence of seedlings, and remain stable or increase in 

size for a period of at least 15 years. Habitat for Kincaid’s lupine populations should be 

managed to provide high quality habitat that is protected on lands managed by a government 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-66 

agency or private conservation agreement, and is monitored and controlled from threats to the 

species (FWS, 2008b). Compensatory mitigation includes conservation actions (plant salvage, 

transplant, and seed collection) which are consistent with the draft recovery plan goal of 

achieving a minimum of two populations covering at least 5,000 square meters (0.5 hectare or 

1.24 acres) in the Roseburg Recovery Zone. 

3.5 Cox’s Mariposa Lily 

3.5.1 Background 

Cox’s mariposa lily (Calochortus coxi) is not listed as threatened or endangered under ESA but 

is identified by FWS as a species of concern. Species of concern include taxa whose 

conservation status “is of concern to FWS but for which further information is needed. Such 

species receive no legal protection and use of the term does not necessarily imply that a 

species will eventually be proposed for listing” (FWS, 2009). Cox’s mariposa-lily is listed as an 

endangered plan by the state of Oregon (ORS 564.105-564.110), and is considered a sensitive 

species by the BLM. In 2004, the BLM and USFWS established a conservation agreement for 

the Cox’s mariposa-lily to protect the species and enhance its habitat, and keep it off the federal 

threatened or endangered species list (BLM and FWS, 2004). This species is endemic to 

serpentine and ultramafic soils in Douglas County, Oregon, in a narrow band (30 square miles) 

between the Umpqua River and the Myrtle Creek Mountains. Known, extant individuals number 

less than 10,000 (ORNHIC, 2006). 

3.5.2 Summary of Impact to Cox’s Mariposa Lily 

The Proposed Action crosses a documented population of Cox’s mariposa-lily (500 – 5,000+ 

plants) between MP 75.05 and 75.30 on lands administered by the Roseburg BLM District 

located in Sec. 34, and 35, T. 28 S., R. 5 W.. The last observation in this area was recorded in 

1992. Botanical surveys conducted in 2007 for the Proposed Action located approximately 500 

plants within this same area noted above, on both sides of an existing roadbed (BLM road 29-5-

11) within the proposed construction right-of-way. Some plants and suitable habitat will be 

impacted by construction of the Proposed Action. 

3.5.3 Compensatory Mitigation 

The Proponents have created a plan to minimize and avoid impacts to the known population of 

Cox’s mariposa-lily submitted to FERC in December 2008 and included as Appendix C in this 

CMP. The mitigation plan outlines the construction measures that would be implemented to 

further minimize impacts to this species. Prior to construction, onsite protection and plant 

salvaging procedures would also be employed to minimize impacts to the lily population at this 

location. The Proponents have developed this mitigation plan in consultation with the FWS, 

BLM, and the FERC. Project routing, avoidance and minimization measures, as well as plant 

conservation measures were discussed during a July 24, 2008 interagency working group 

meeting for the project. In addition, onsite field investigations occurred with the BLM on October 

7, 2008 to further address work area requirements, construction methods, plant conservation, 

and site restoration measures to minimize impacts to Cox’s mariposa-lily at this site. These 

measures, identified within the Cox’s Mariposa Lily Mitigation Plan (see Appendix C), are 

expected to compensate fully for any unavoidable direct and indirect impact to the plants 

documented within the proposed project area. 

3.5.4 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation 

An interagency conservation agreement between the BLM and FWS was established in 2004 

for the Cox’s mariposa lily to protect the species and enhance its habitat, with the objective to 

keep the species off the federal threatened and endangered species list. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-67 

The Mitigation Plan for Cox’s mariposa lily attached to this CMP as Appendix C describes the 

project design measures that the Proponents have incorporated to minimize or avoid impacts to 

the Cox’s mariposa plants located between MPs 75.05 and 75.30. The Mitigation Plan for this 

species also outlines the construction and restoration measures that would be implemented to 

further minimize impacts to this species. Prior to construction, on-site protection and seed 

collection would also be employed to minimize impacts to the Cox’s mariposa lily populations. 

The Proponents developed the mitigation plan in consultation with the FWS, BLM, and the 

FERC. Project routing, avoidance and minimization measures, as well as plant conservation 

measures were discussed during a July, 24 2008 interagency working group meeting for the 

project. Through all of these consultations, measures including plant salvage, transplant, seed 

collection, and site restoration are expected to compensate fully for any unavoidable direct or 

indirect impact to the plants documented within the proposed project area. 

4.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION - ENDANGERED SPECIES – NMFS 

Impacts to coho salmon (and other listed or non-listed fish) will be mitigated, in part, by noncompensatory measures (e.g. restoration of the construction disturbance). Additional 

restoration measures are planned but will be applied across watersheds regardless of whether 

the project’s effects occur on public or private lands. This will be accomplished by providing 

mitigation materials (e.g. large woody debris or LWD) to regional watershed conservation 

groups or by directly funding such conservation groups’ projects. Mitigation for these effects will 

occur with mitigation projects that are funded directly by the project applicants without the use of 

the administrative framework described in this CMP, unless compensatory land parcels 

acquired under the CMP include riparian areas that are within a watershed affected by the 

project. Such riparian areas may be included in the mitigation measures for coho. 

4.1 Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon 

4.1.1 Background 

Major rivers, estuaries, and bays known to support coho salmon within the range of the 

SO/NCC ESU include the Rogue River, Smith River, Klamath River, Mad River, Humboldt Bay, 

Eel River, and Mattole River (NMFS, 1999a), of which the Rogue and Klamath Rivers are within 

the Proposed Action area. However, coho are unable to inhabit streams in the portion of the 

project area that is within the Upper Klamath Hydrologic Unit (18010206) since passage is 

restricted by the Irongate Dam (NMFS, 1999a). 

Critical habitat for coho in the SO/NCC ESU has been designated (NMFS, 1999a) and includes 

the accessible reaches of all rivers (including water, substrate, and adjacent riparian zone of 

estuarine and riverine reaches) between the Mattole River in California and the Elk River in 

Oregon (see Section 4.4.1.1, Draft BA). Primary constituent elements (PCEs) that are crucial to 

species conservation and critical habitat include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food 

resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation (NFMS, 1999a). 

Riparian areas provide the following functions: shade, sediment, nutrient or chemical regulation, 

streambank stability, and input of large woody debris or organic matter. In addition, critical 

habitat includes inaccessible headwater or intermittent streams which provide key habitat 

elements (e.g., LWD, gravel, water quality) crucial for coho in downstream reaches (NMFS, 

1999a). Widths of adjacent riparian zones may vary by site-specific and/or landscape 

characteristics but a distance of one site-potential tree height serves to define riparian zone 

widths in some cases (NMFS, 1999a). As discussed and agreed during meetings of the Jordan 

Cove/Pacific Connector Interagency Task Force Working Group - Waterbody Subgroup in 2008, 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-68 

riparian zones extending to one site-potential tree height from each streambank were used for 

consistency in analyses of project-related effects within riparian habitats. 

4.1.2 Summary of Impact to Coho Salmon, SO/NCC ESU 

Construction of the Proposed Action will affect 70 waterbodies within the range of the coho 

salmon SO/NCC ESU. Fifty-seven waterbodies will be crossed by dry-open cut techniques 

although 13 of them are likely to require blasting since the streambeds are bedrock. One 

waterbody (Rogue River) will be crossed using horizontal directional drill (HDD) and another 

(Medford Aqueduct Ditch 3) will be crossed using a conventional bore. Riparian zones, 

assumed to extend a horizontal distance of one site-potential tree height from each bank, will be 

affected in those 59 waterbodies actually crossed. Riparian zones of 11 additional waterbodies 

that are not crossed but which are adjacent to the pipeline centerline will also be affected by 

having vegetation removed during construction. In all, 94.96 acres of various types of riparian 

vegetation will be removed within riparian zones that are critical habitat for coho salmon 

SO/NCC ESU (Table 4.1-1a). 

Of the complex set of factors affecting stream temperatures, direct solar radiation is important, if 

not the most important factor influencing water temperatures associated with timber harvesting 

(Bartholow, 2000; Johnson and Jones, 2000; Beschta, 1997; Bescheta and Taylor, 1988; 

Johnson, 2004). Solar loading depends on season, latitude, cloud cover, cover by vegetation 

(shading), and aspect orientation. In addition, increased stream temperature due to shade 

removal is inversely related to stream discharge volume and other instream features including 

depth, turbulence, and off-channel water conditions (Brown, 1970 and 1972). The Proposed 

Action will remove a total of 14.14 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 25.12 acres 

of mid-seral forest within all affected riparian zones in the range of coho salmon SO/NCC ESU 

(Table 4.1-1a). Trees in those seral stages are expected to provide the most shade to water but 

will not be restored over the long-term (mid-seral forest) or for the life of the project (late 

successional-old growth forest). Therefore, the impact to critical habitat by removal of late- and 

mid-seral forests within riparian zones will be unavoidable and unmitigated. 

Late successional and mid-seral forested habitat within riparian zones overlap with several 

resources discussed and analyzed previously: Riparian Reserves, northern spotted owl suitable 

and dispersal-only habitat, and marbled murrelet suitable and recruitment habitat. As a result, 

only 13.94 acres of mid-seral forest within riparian zones on non-federal lands therefore are 

identified as residual impacted habitat (Table 4.1-1a) subject to compensatory mitigation. 

In addition, 20.42 acres within all affected riparian zones will be in the 30-foot wide maintenance 

corridor and will be vegetated in an herbaceous or shrub-dominated state for the life of the 

project (Table 4.1-1b). Of that amount, 3.46 acres of former late successional-old growth forest 

and 5.41 acres of former mid-seral forest will not be replanted with trees (Table 4.1-1b) and are 

assumed to be affected in perpetuity. Only 3.28 acres of mid-seral forest on non-federal lands 

has not been previously considered with the other resources. 

Riparian Vegetation on Federal Lands. The Proposed Action will affect 28.54 acres of 

riparian vegetation within riparian zones (one site-potential tree height) on federal lands (Table 

4.1-1a). However, all riparian zones within federal lands that are associated with coho salmon 

SO/NCC ESU critical habitat overlap with Riparian Reserves, including 9.96 acres of late 

successional-old growth forest and 4.36 acres of mid-seral coniferous forest. 

Riparian Vegetation on Non-Federal Lands. The Proposed Action will affect 66.42 acres of 

riparian vegetation within riparian zones (one site-potential tree height) on non-federal lands 

(Table 4.1-1a). That area includes 4.18 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 20.76 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-69 

acres of mid-seral forest; this habitat however, overlaps with northern spotted owl suitable and 

dispersal habitats as well as marbled murrelet suitable nesting and recruitment habitats on nonfederal lands (see Section 3.12 – northern spotted owl, and Section 3.2.2 – marbled murrelets). 

Only 13.94 acres of mid-seral forest within riparian zones on non-federal lands do not overlap 

with any other resources and therefore are identified as residual impacted habitat (Table 4.1-1a) 

subject to compensatory mitigation. Due to extensive overlap with northern spotted owl and 

marbled murrelet habitats on non-federal lands, only 3.28 acres of mid-seral forest would be 

within the 30-foot wide maintenance corridor (Table 4.1-1b). 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-70 

Table 4.1-1a. 

Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) Affected/Removed1 by Construction of the Proposed Action within Ripa

(One Site-Potential Tree Height Wide) and Coho Salmon SO/NCC ESU Critical Habitat Crossed on Federal and 

Forested Habitat 2 Other Habitat 2

Impact

(ac

Overlapp

Reso

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) 

and 

Landowner 

Late Successional- Old 

Growth Forest 

Mid-Seral Forest 

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered Non-Forested 

Habitat

Agriculture

Altered Habitat Total

Total Riparian Zone 

Impact(acres) 

Late Successional-Old 

Growth Forest Only 

Trail Creek (HUC 1710030706

Medford BLM 0.72 0.27 0 0 0.99 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 1.02 0.72 

Umpqua National Forest 0 1.73 0 0 1.73 0 0 0 0 2.19 2.19 3.92 0 

Non-Federal 0.87 3.38 0 0 4.25 0 0 1.43 0 0.03 1.46 5.71 0.87 

Watershed Total 1.59 5.38 0 0 6.97 0 0 1.43 0 2.25 3.68 10.65 1.59 

Rogue River-Shady Cove (HUC 1710030707)

Medford BLM 2.09 0.83 0.02 0 2.94 0.05 0 0.90 0 0.59 1.54 4.48 2.09 

Non-Federal 1.35 3.99 1.38 0 6.72 0 0.34 6.93 0 0.71 7.98 14.70 1.35 

Watershed Total 3.44 4.82 1.40 0 9.66 0.05 0.34 7.83 0 1.30 9.52 19.18 3.44 

Big Butte Creek (HUC 1710030704)

Medford BLM 5.69 0.50 0 0 6.19 0 0 1.70 0 0.04 1.74 7.93 5.69 

Non-Federal 0 2.31 0 0.41 2.72 0.09 0.36 3.18 1.17 0.17 4.97 7.69 0 

Watershed Total 5.69 2.81 0 0.41 8.91 0.09 0.36 4.88 1.17 0.21 6.71 15.62 5.69 

Little Butte Creek (HUC 1710030708)

Medford BLM 0.91 1.03 2.83 0 4.77 0 0.18 3.56 0 0.57 4.31 9.08 0.91 

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest 0.55 0 1.56 0 2.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.11 0.55 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-71 

Forested Habitat 2 Other Habitat 2

Impact

(ac

Overlapp

Reso

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) 

and 

Landowner 

Late Successional- Old 

Growth Forest 

Mid-Seral Forest 

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered Non-Forested 

Habitat

Agriculture

Altered Habitat Total

Total Riparian Zone 

Impact(acres) 

Late Successional-Old 

Growth Forest Only 

Non-Federal 1.96 11.08 0.89 0 13.93 0.05 4.99 14.28 4.60 0.47 24.39 38.32 1.96 

Watershed Total 3.42 12.11 5.28 0 20.81 0.05 5.17 17.84 4.60 1.04 28.7 49.51 3.42 

All Fifth Field Watersheds

Medford BLM 9.41 2.63 2.85 0 14.89 0.05 0.18 6.16 0 1.23 7.62 22.51 9.41 

Umpqua National Forest 0 1.73 0 0 1.73 0 0 0 0 2.19 2.19 3.92 0 

Rogue River - Siskiyou 

National Forest 0.55 0 1.56 0 2.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.11 0.55 

Federal Sub-Total 9.96 4.36 4.41 0 18.73 0.05 0.18 6.16 0 3.42 9.81 28.54 9.96 

Non-Federal Sub-Total 4.18 20.76 2.27 0.41 27.62 0.14 5.69 25.82 5.77 1.38 38.8 66.42 4.18 

OVERALL TOTAL 14.14 25.12 6.68 0.41 46.35 0.19 5.87 31.98 5.77 4.80 48.61 94.96 14.14 

1 Project components considered in calculation of habitat “Removed”: PCGP construction right-of-way, temporary extra work areas, abovegroun

temporary access roads (PAR, TAR). 2 Habitat Types within Late Successional Reserves generally categorized as: Late Successional (Mature) or Old Growth Forest (coniferous, dec

Seral Forests (coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥40 but ≤80 years old); Regenerating Forest (coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥5 but ≤40 years old); 

Forested, Unaltered Nonforested Habitat (grasslands, sagebrush, shrublands), and Altered Habitats (urban, industrial, residential, roads, utility c

3 Amount (acres) of Impacted Area Overlapping Other Resources includes all areas on Federal Lands (Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Re

Marbled Murrelet habitats) and Northern Spotted Owl (suitable and dispersal) habitats and Marbled Murrelet (suitable and recruitment) habitats Impacted Area Not Overlapping Other Resources is amount of non-overlapping area that remains.
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-72 

Table 4.1-1b. 

Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) within the 30-foot Wide Corridor Maintained during the PCGP Project within 

(One Site-Potential Tree Height Wide) and Coho Salmon SO/NCC ESU Critical Habitat Crossed on Federal and 

Forested Habitat 1 Other Habitat 1

Im

Are

Ove

Res

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) 

and 

Landowner 

Late Successional- Old 

Growth Forest 

3

Mid-Seral Forest 

3

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered Non-Forested 

Habitat

Agriculture

Altered Habitat Total

Total Riparian Zone 

Impact(acres) 

Late Successional-Old 

Growth Forest Only 

Trail Creek (HUC 1710030706

Medford BLM 0.19 0.07 0 0 0.26 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.19 

Umpqua National Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Non-Federal 0.27 1.04 0 0 1.31 0 0 0.29 0 0.01 0.30 1.61 0.27 

Watershed Total 0.46 1.05 0 0 1.51 0 0 0.29 0 0.02 0.31 1.88 0.46 

Rogue River-Shady Cove (HUC 1710030707)

Medford BLM 0.45 0.15 0.01 0 0.61 0.01 0 0.30 0 0.14 0.45 1.06 0.45 

Non-Federal 0.42 0.36 0.39 0 1.17 0 0.10 0.66 0 0.01 0.77 1.94 0.42 

Watershed Total 0.87 0.51 0.40 0 1.78 0.01 0.10 0.96 0 0.15 1.22 3.00 0.87 

Big Butte Creek (HUC 1710030704)

Medford BLM 1.30 0.22 0 0 1.52 0 0 0.54 0 0.01 0.55 2.07 1.30 

Non-Federal 0 0.56 0 0 0.56 0.03 0.09 0.65 0.25 0.02 1.04 1.60 0 

Watershed Total 1.30 0.78 0 0 2.08 0.03 0.09 1.19 0.25 0.03 1.59 3.67 1.30 

Little Butte Creek (HUC 1710030708)

Medford BLM 0.20 0.20 0.47 0 0.87 0 0 0.98 0 0.08 1.06 1.93 0.20 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-73 

Forested Habitat 1 Other Habitat 1

Im

Are

Ove

Res

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) 

and 

Landowner 

Late Successional- Old 

Growth Forest 

3

Mid-Seral Forest 

3

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered Non-Forested 

Habitat

Agriculture

Altered Habitat Total

Total Riparian Zone 

Impact(acres) 

Late Successional-Old 

Growth Forest Only 

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest 0.08 0 0.53 0 0.61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.61 0.08 

Non-Federal 0.55 2.81 0.25 0 3.61 0.01 1.26 3.43 0.92 0.10 5.72 9.33 0.55 

Watershed Total 0.84 3.00 1.25 0 5.09 0.01 1.26 4.41 0.92 0.18 6.78 11.87 0.83 

All Fifth Field Watersheds

Medford BLM 2.14 0.64 0.48 0 3.26 0.01 0 1.82 0 0.24 2.07 5.33 2.14 

Umpqua National Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Rogue River - Siskiyou 

National Forest 0.08 0 0.53 0 0.61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.61 0.08 

Federal Sub-Total 2.22 0.64 1.01 0 3.87 0.01 0 1.82 0 0.24 2.07 5.94 2.22 

Non-Federal Sub-Total 1.24 4.77 0.64 0 6.65 0.04 1.45 5.03 1.17 0.14 7.83 14.48 1.24 

OVERALL TOTAL 3.46 5.41 1.65 0 10.52 0.05 1.45 6.85 1.17 0.38 9.90 20.42 3.46 

1 Habitat Types within Late Successional Reserves generally categorized as: Late Successional (Mature) or Old Growth Forest (coniferous, d

Mid-Seral Forests (coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥40 but ≤80 years old); Regenerating Forest (coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥5 but ≤40 yea

Wetland Forested, Unaltered Nonforested Habitat (grasslands, sagebrush, shrublands), and Altered Habitats (urban, industrial, residential, ro

2 Amount (acres) of Impacted Area Overlapping Other Resources includes all areas on Federal Lands (Late Successional Reserves, Riparian 

and Marbled Murrelet habitats) and Northern Spotted Owl (suitable and dispersal) habitats and Marbled Murrelet (suitable and recruitment) hResidual Impacted Area Not Overlapping Other Resources is amount of non-overlapping area that remains. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-74 

4.1.3 Compensatory Habitat – HEA Model Output 

Areas of compensatory habitat for impact to coho salmon SO/NCC ESU were computed 

through the M-S HEA model for residual impacts to forests on non-federal lands between 40 

and 80 years old (Table 4.1-1a). There are no residual areas of late successional-old growth 

forests within affected riparian zones coinciding with the coho salmon SO/NCC ESU since these 

forests were considered within Riparian Reserves (Section 2.2.4), northern spotted owl suitable 

habitat (Section 3.1.3) and marbled murrelet suitable nesting habitat and recruitment habitat 

(Section 3.2.3). 

Compensatory habitat for impact to coho salmon SO/NCC ESU riparian habitats were computed 

through the M-S HEA model for impacts to coniferous and mixed forests ≥40 but <80 years old. 

All residual impacted habitat is on non-federal land. The model assumes compensatory habitat 

is fully functional (in-kind compensation) and acquired 3 years after the start of construction and 

is assumed to be held in perpetuity, with the implication that those ecological services will be 

provided in perpetuity as well. 

The Proposed Action will remove 13.94 acres of mid-seral forested riparian habitat that does not 

overlap with any other habitats or land use allocations that have been evaluated for 

compensatory mitigation (Table 4.1-1a). Of that amount of residual habitat, 3.28 acres would be 

retained as non-forested habitat within the 30-foot wide maintenance corridor (Table 4.1-1b) and 

correspond to Area 1 in the M-S HEA model. The other 10.66 acres of removed habitat would 

be replanted and would be considered capable of becoming mid-seral forest in approximately 

40 years. The 10.66-acre area corresponds to Area 2 in the M-S HEA model. The output of the 

HEA model is provided above in Table 4.1-2. The model computed 12.73 acres of mid-seral 

coniferous or mixed forest, obtained within 3 years of construction, would be adequate 

compensatory mitigation for the removal of 13.94 acres of riparian habitat not previously 

included as impact to other resources. 

Table 4.1-2. 

HEA Model Output for Impacts to Mid-Seral Forests within Riparian Zones 

(One Site-Potential Tree Height Wide) and Coho Salmon SO/NCC ESU Critical Habitat on NonFederal Land. 

Mid-Seral Forest Only

HEA Input: 

Total Impacted Area (acres) 1

Fifth Field Watershed Area 1 Area 2

Total 

Area

HEA Output: 

Compensatory 

Mitigation 

(acres) 2

Trail Creek 0.52 1.13 1.65 1.54 

Rogue River-Shady Cove 0.29 2.25 2.54 2.25 

Big Butte Creek 0.49 1.45 1.94 1.78 

Little Butte Creek 1.98 5.83 7.81 7.16 

TOTAL 3.28 10.66 13.94 12.73 

1 Impacted Areas on Non-Federal Lands Only and Excludes Northern Spotted Owl 

Habitats and Marbled Murrelet Habitats on Non-Federal Lands. 2 Totals for Compensatory Mitigation areas are not the sum of individual components but 

are HEA model output for total impacts in Area 1 and Area 2.
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-75 

4.1.4 Additional Compensatory Mitigation 

The Proponents have developed multiple conservation measures to rectify, repair, and 

rehabilitate and otherwise reduce impact to waterbodies and riparian zones within range of coho 

salmon in the SO/NCC ESU (see Section 4.4.1.4 in the Draft BA and Appendix D in this CMP). 

One of those conservation measures includes placing large woody debris (LWD) within and/or 

adjacent to streams and placing LWD on floodplains, where appropriate, to provide microsites 

for riparian vegetation and/or vegetation protection during flood events. 

In all, the Proponents propose 150 pieces of LWD for placement within the four Fifth Field 

Watersheds that coincide with SO/NCC ESU coho and designated critical habitat (see Table 

4.4.1-12 in the Draft BA and Appendix D in this CMP). Placement of LWD is subject to approval 

by each affected landowner. If a landowner rejects the proposed placement of LWD, the 

number of pieces that would have been applied onsite will be reserved and provided to 

appropriate watershed councils for their use and placement, preferably elsewhere within the 

affected Fifth Field Watershed. 

4.1.5 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation 

The Proposed Action will remove 14.14 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 25.12 

acres of mid-seral forest that are within riparian zones (extending to one site-potential tree 

height from each bank) of streams that are designated critical habitat for coho salmon in the 

SO/NCC ESU. On federal lands, the entire riparian zone component of critical habitat is within 

Riparian Reserves, allocated under the NWFP. Consequently, 9.96 acres of late successionalold growth forest and 4.36 acres of mid-seral forest that will be affected by the Proposed Action 

in riparian habitats (see Table 4.1-1a) have been included for compensatory mitigation with 

other effects to Riparian Reserves in Section 2.2.5. Projects proposed by the BLM and Forest 

Service to compensate for loss of habitat and function within Riparian Reserves are also 

included in the Riparian Reserve discussion, as well as Appendix A. 

On non-federal lands, portions of northern spotted owl habitats and marbled murrelet habitats 

overlap riparian zones. As a result, 4.18 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 6.82 

acres of mid-seral forest that will be affected by the Proposed Action in riparian habitats (see 

Table 4.1-1a) overlap with spotted owl and murrelet habitats and were discussed for 

compensatory mitigation in Section 3.1.4 (northern spotted owls) and in Section 3.2.4 (marbled 

murrelets). Those effects are distributed among four Fifth Field Watersheds (Trail Creek, 

Rogue River-Shady Cove, Big Butte Creek, and Little Butte Creek watersheds). Since northern 

spotted owl suitable NRF habitat and dispersal-only habitat (and marbled murrelet suitable 

nesting and recruitment habitats) can occur on upland as well as in riparian zones, but riparian 

habitats are essential to the conservation and recovery of listed coho salmon, priority for habitat 

acquisitions or for forest enhancement projects on non-federal lands would be given to 

compensation within riparian zones and watersheds that support coho in the SO/NCC ESU. 

One hundred percent of all late successional-old growth forest within affected riparian zones 

overlaps with other species’ habitats and land allocations, previously discussed, that will require 

compensatory mitigation. Similarly, 45 percent of all mid-seral forest within affected riparian 

zones will likewise require compensatory mitigation due to effects within other species’ habitats 

and land allocations. Only 13.94 acres of mid-seral forest within riparian zones on non-federal 

land has no similar overlap and is the residual impacted area for effects to coho critical habitat. 

HEA model output would require acquisition of 12.73 acres of mid-seral forested habitat within 

riparian zones on non-federal as adequate compensation for removal of 13.94 acres (Table 4.1-

2). 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-76 

The Proponents believe that acquisition of compensatory habitats on non-federal lands, either in 

fee or through conservation easements, is one approach to mitigating impact to riparian zones 

on those lands and would be acquired through compensation of previously discussed 

resources. The value of acquiring those lands as compensatory mitigation for project effects 

would be evaluated, possibly using prioritizing criteria described in Section 1.6, above. The 

Proponents also propose placing LWD within and/or adjacent to streams to enhance instream 

habitats for listed coho salmon and placing LWD on floodplains, where appropriate, to provide 

microsites for riparian vegetation and/or vegetation protection during flood events. Placement 

on non-federal lands will depend on landowner consent and site-specific conditions. Unused 

LWD will be donated to local watershed councils and the Proponents would provide funds to 

manipulate, transport, and stage LWD for transfer to other water courses or to local watershed 

councils such as the Upper Rogue Watershed Council and Little Butte Creek Watershed 

Council. This would provide the resources to restore or enhance substitute habitat within 

impacted watersheds supporting SO/NNC ESU coho. 

With the placement of LWD, implementation of BMPs and other proposed conservation 

measures, acquisition of compensatory habitat for unavoidable effects within riparian zones (as 

well as the conservative approaches built into these compensatory acquisitions), the 

Proponents, informed by consultations with the Forest Service and BLM and their best 

professional judgments, are confident that the net effect is at least full compensation for any 

impact to coho in the SO/NCC ESU on private and federal lands. 

4.1.6 Consistency With Recovery Goals 

No recovery plan has been finalized for coho in the SO/NCC ESU. However, recovery planning 

is underway which consists of developing objective measurable criteria with which to judge 

when the ESU would be naturally self-sustaining, with a low risk of extinction, and would no 

longer require protection under the ESA. NMFS (Williams et al., 2008) recently concluded a 

viability analysis of coho in the SO/NCC ESU, with focus on the Upper Rogue population unit. 

Biological recovery criteria are based on a population viability assessment for an ESU or 

population unit to persist over time and no longer in danger of extinction (NMFS, 2007). 

Based on estimates of annual abundance during the recent past that indicated an increasing 

population with low risk of catastrophic decline, coho in the Upper Rogue population unit were 

considered at low risk of extinction (Williams et al., 2008). However, because of low densities of 

spawning salmon in the Upper Rogue population unit and uncertain levels of hatchery fish 

spawning (though reported at localized high levels proximate to hatcheries), the population unit 

was judged to be at moderate risk of extinction (Williams et al., 2008). 

Although data were available to evaluate the Upper Rogue population unit, there were 

insufficient data available to assess risks of other coho populations within the SO/NCC ESU 

(Williams et al., 2008). Nevertheless, compensatory mitigation proposed to offset impact from 

the Proposed Action appears to be consistent with current understanding of risks to the ESU; 

compensatory habitat acquisition and additional habitat enhancement projects proposed by the 

Proponents, BLM and Forest Service are expected to benefit riparian habitats which improve 

physical and biological features of streams utilized by coho. 

In particular, acquisition of late successional-old growth forests and mid-seral forests within 

riparian zones on non-federal land should reduce risks that they would otherwise be modified. 

Benefits to water quality, temperature, sediment interception and nutrient input are anticipated. 

As indicated in the Draft BA, baseline watershed conditions crossed by the Proposed Action are 

lacking in LWD from historic disturbance and are typically below benchmark thresholds to be 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-77 

properly functioning. Installation of LWD at each waterbody crossing, based on the site-specific 

waterbody crossing conditions, landowner requirements, and potential construction constraints, 

is expected to provide instream structure, channel and habitat complexity among other benefits 

that promote salmonid productivity and would be consistent with viability and recovery. 

4.2 Oregon Coast Coho Salmon 

4.2.1 Background 

Critical habitat for the Oregon Coast coho ESU was first proposed in May 1999 (NMFS, 1999b). 

Proposed critical habitat included all river reaches accessible to Oregon Coast coho ESU that 

were listed as threatened at the time (see discussion in Section 4.4.2.1 in the Draft BA). 

Proposed critical habitat consisted of water, substrate, and adjacent riparian zones of estuaries 

and rivers including those in the Umpqua (HU 17100302), Coos (HU 17100304) and Coquille 

(HU 17100305) hydrologic units (NMFS, 1999b). The 1999 proposal was terminated when the 

District Court set aside the 1998 final rule determining threatened status for the Oregon Coast 

ESU. 

Following re-proposing Oregon Coast coho ESU for listing as threatened in June 2004, critical 

habitat for the ESU was likewise re-proposed in December 2004 (NMFS, 2004). The new 

proposed critical habitat designated three critical habitat units that coincide with each of the 

three project components: Unit 9 – South Umpqua Subbasin (HU 17100302) affected by the 

Proposed Action, Unit 11 – Coos Subbasin (HU 17100304 which includes the Coos Bay 

estuary) affected by the Proposed Action, and Unit 12 – Coquille Subbasin (HU 17100305) 

affected by the Proposed Action. Final designation of critical habitat for the Oregon Coast coho 

ESU was made in February 2008 (NMFS, 2008). 

Similar to critical habitat designated for coho in the SO/NCC ESU, proposed critical habitat 

included stream channels laterally to the ordinary high water mark (or bankfull elevation or 

bankfull width). NMFS also defined critical habitat in estuarine and nearshore marine zones as 

areas contiguous with the shoreline from the extreme highwater mark out to a depth no greater 

than 30 meters (98 feet) below the mean low water mark (NMFS, 2004). Within these areas, 

NMFS (2004) identified primary constituent elements that are essential to supporting one or 

more life stages: 1) freshwater spawning sites (spawning, incubation, and larval development), 

2) freshwater rearing sites (with physical and biological properties to support juvenile 

development), 3) freshwater migration corridors (with physical and biological properties to 

support juvenile and adult movements), 4) estuarine areas (with physical and biological 

properties to support smoltification, juvenile and adult growth, and survival), 5) nearshore 

marine areas (with physical and biological properties to support growth and survival), and 6) 

offshore marine areas (with physical and biological properties to support growth and survival). 

NMFS (2008) defined the lateral extent of critical habitat as the ordinary highwater mark or 

bankfull elevation rather than a width defined by riparian zone functions, unlike the Final Rule 

for critical habitat designated for coho in the SO/NCC ESU. However, NMFS (2008, page 7834) 

stated that 

“the quality of aquatic habitat within stream channels is intrinsically related to the 

adjacent riparian zones and floodplain, to surrounding wetlands and uplands, and to 

non-fish-bearing streams above occupied stream reaches. Human activities that occur 

outside the stream can modify or destroy physical and biological features of the stream. 

In addition, human activities that occur within and adjacent to reaches upstream (e.g., 

road failures) or downstream (e.g., culverts and dams) of designated stream reaches 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-78 

can also have demonstrable effects on physical and biological features of designated 

reaches.” 

Consequently, riparian zones similarly defined as one site-potential tree height are assumed to 

be as important to Oregon Coast coho as they are to SO/NCC coho and have been used in this 

CMP (and the Draft BA) as a standard for evaluating project-related effects within riparian zones 

and to coho salmon in both ESUs. 

4.2.2 Summary of Impact to Coho Salmon, Oregon Coast ESU 

Construction of the Proposed Action will affect 140 waterbodies within the range of the coho 

salmon Oregon Coast ESU. One hundred nineteen waterbodies will be crossed by dry-open 

cut techniques although 20 of them are likely to require blasting since the streambeds are 

bedrock. One waterbody (Coos River) will be crossed using horizontal directional drill (HDD) 

and two others (Kentuck Slough, Catching Slough) will be crossed using a conventional bore. 

The South Umpqua River will be crossed twice using a diverted open cut. Riparian zones, 

assumed to extend a horizontal distance of one site-potential tree from each bank, will be 

affected in 126 waterbodies actually crossed. Riparian zones of 14 additional waterbodies that 

are not crossed but which are adjacent to the pipeline centerline will also be affected by having 

vegetation removed during construction. In all, 275.95 acres of various types of riparian 

vegetation will be removed within riparian zones that are adjacent to designated critical habitat 

for coho salmon Oregon Coast ESU (Table 4.2-1a). 

The Proposed Action will remove a total of 15.30 acres of late successional-old growth forest 

and 46.91 acres of mid-seral forest (Table 4.2-1a) within all affected riparian zones in the range 

of coho salmon Oregon Coast ESU. Trees in those seral stages are expected to provide the 

most shade to water but will not be restored over the long-term (mid-seral forest) or for the life of 

the project (late successional-old growth forest). 

In addition, 51.10 acres within all affected riparian zone will be within the 30-foot wide 

maintenance corridor and will be vegetated in an herbaceous or shrub-dominated state for the 

life of the project (Table 4.2-1b). Of that amount, 3.71 acres of former late successional-old 

growth forest and 10.68 acres of former mid-seral forest will not be replanted with trees (Table 

4.2-1b) and are assumed to be affected in perpetuity. 

Riparian Vegetation on Federal Lands. The Proposed Action will affect 29.66 acres of 

riparian vegetation within riparian zones (one site-potential tree height) on federal lands (Table 

4.2-1a). However, all riparian zones within federal lands that are associated with coho salmon 

Oregon Coast ESU overlap with Riparian Reserves, including 6.75 acres of late successionalold growth forest and 6.79 acres of former mid-seral coniferous forest. 

Riparian Vegetation on Non-Federal Lands. The Proposed Action will affect 246.29 acres of 

all vegetation within riparian zones (one site-potential tree height) on non-federal lands (Table 

4.2-1a). That area includes 8.55 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 33.55 acres of 

mid-seral coniferous forest; however, this habitat overlaps with northern spotted owl suitable 

and dispersal-only habitats, as well as marbled murrelet suitable nesting and recruitment 

habitats on non-federal lands. Only 11.33 acres of mid-seral forest within riparian zones on 

non-federal lands do not overlap with any other resources and therefore are identified as 

residual impacted habitat (Table 4.2-1a) subject to compensatory mitigation. Due to extensive 

overlap with northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet habitats on non-federal lands, only 1.47 

acres of mid-seral forest would be within the 30-foot wide maintenance corridor (Table 4.2-1b). 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-79 

Table 4.2-1a. 

Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) Affected/Removed1 by Construction of the Proposed Action within Ripa

(One Site-Potential Tree Height Wide) Adjacent to Coho Salmon Oregon Coast ESU Critical Habitat Crossed on Fe

Lands 

Forested Habitat 2 Other Habitat 2

Imp

Overla

Re

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) 

and 

Landowner 

Late Successional- Old 

Growth 

Mid-Seral Forest 

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered Non-Forested 

Habitat

Agriculture

Altered Habitat Total

Total Riparian Zone 

Impact(acres) 

Late Successional-Old 

Growth Forest Only 

Coos Bay Frontal (HU 1710030403) 

Coos Bay BLM 0 0.05 0 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0 

Non-Federal 0.43 9.59 27.76 8.62 46.40 2.35 17.80 5.13 9.33 38.90 73.51 119.91 0.43 

Watershed Total 0.43 9.64 27.76 8.62 46.45 2.35 17.80 5.13 9.33 38.90 73.51 119.96 0.43 

Lower Coquille River (HU 1710030505) 

Non-Federal 0 0.89 5.70 0 6.59 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.08 6.67 0 

Watershed Total 0 0.89 5.70 0 6.59 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.08 6.67 0 

North Fork Coquille River (HU 1710030504) 

Coos Bay BLM 0.01 7.16 1.21 0 8.38 0 0.01 0.51 0.23 0.23 0.98 9.36 0.01 

Non-Federal 0 1.08 6.29 1.50 8.87 0 0.05 0 2.93 0.22 3.20 12.07 0 

Watershed Total 0.01 8.24 7.50 1.50 17.25 0 0.06 0.51 3.16 0.45 4.18 14.86 0.01 

East Fork Coquille River (HU 1710030503 

Coos Bay BLM 0 0 1.83 0 1.83 0 0 0 0 0.41 0.41 2.24 0 

Non-Federal 0.11 0.62 7.94 3.22 11.89 0 0.01 0 1.97 0.48 2.46 14.35 0.11 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-80 

Forested Habitat 2 Other Habitat 2

Imp

Overla

Re

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) 

and 

Landowner 

Late Successional- Old 

Growth 

Mid-Seral Forest 

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered Non-Forested 

Habitat

Agriculture

Altered Habitat Total

Total Riparian Zone 

Impact(acres) 

Late Successional-Old 

Growth Forest Only 

Watershed Total 0.11 0.62 9.77 3.22 13.72 0 0.01 0 1.97 0.89 2.87 16.59 0.11 

Middle Fork Coquille River (HU 1710030501) 

Coos Bay BLM 2.12 0.08 0.90 1.89 4.99 0 0 0 0 0.20 0.20 5.19 2.12 Roseburg BLM 1.40 3.11 0 0.09 4.60 0 0 0 0 0.31 0.31 4.91 1.40 

Non-Federal 1.84 1.96 2.00 1.90 7.70 0.06 0 0 4.24 0.16 4.46 12.16 1.84 

Watershed Total 5.36 5.15 2.90 3.88 17.29 0.06 0 0 4.24 0.67 4.97 22.26 5.36 

Olalla Creek-Lookingglass Creek (HU 1710030212) 

Non-Federal 1.34 3.15 0 0 4.49 0 0.28 1.47 11.20 0.11 13.06 17.55 1.34 

Watershed Total 1.34 3.15 0 0 4.49 0 0.28 1.47 11.20 0.11 13.06 17.55 1.34 

Middle South Umpqua River (HU 1710030210) 

Non-Federal 1.05 8.07 1.59 0 10.71 0 0.14 11.65 0.22 4.20 16.21 26.92 1.05 

Watershed Total 1.05 8.07 1.59 0 10.71 0 0.14 11.65 0.22 4.20 16.21 26.92 1.05 

Myrtle Creek (HU 1710030211) 

Non-Federal 1.61 3.65 0.43 0 5.69 0 0.17 8.04 4.35 0.78 13.34 19.03 1.61 

Watershed Total 1.61 3.65 0.43 0 5.69 0 0.17 8.04 4.35 0.78 13.34 19.03 1.61 

South Umpqua River (HU 1710030205) 

Roseburg BLM 0.44 0 0.04 0 0.48 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.08 0.56 0.44 

Non-Federal 2.17 4.54 1.33 0.31 8.35 0 0.13 2.36 5.15 1.64 9.28 17.63 2.17 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-81 

Forested Habitat 2 Other Habitat 2

Imp

Overla

Re

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) 

and 

Landowner 

Late Successional- Old 

Growth 

Mid-Seral Forest 

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered Non-Forested 

Habitat

Agriculture

Altered Habitat Total

Total Riparian Zone 

Impact(acres) 

Late Successional-Old 

Growth Forest Only 

Watershed Total 2.61 4.54 1.37 0.31 8.83 0 0.13 2.36 5.15 1.72 9.36 18.19 2.61 

Upper Cow Creek  (HU 1710030206) 

Umpqua National Forest 2.78 2.96 1.43 0 7.17 0.09 0 0 0 0.09 0.18 7.35 2.78 

Watershed Total 2.78 2.96 1.43 0 7.17 0.09 0 0 0 0.09 0.18 7.35 2.78 

All Fifth Field Watersheds

Coos Bay BLM 2.13 7.29 3.94 1.89 15.25 0 0.01 0.51 0.23 0.84 1.59 16.84 2.13 Roseburg BLM 1.84 3.11 0.04 0.09 5.08 0 0 0 0 0.39 0.39 5.47 1.84 

Umpqua National Forest 2.78 2.96 1.43 0 7.17 0.09 0 0 0 0.09 0.18 7.35 2.78 

Federal Subtotal 6.75 13.36 5.41 1.98 27.50 0.09 0.01 0.51 0.23 1.32 2.16 29.66 6.75 

Non-Federal Subtotal 8.55 33.55 53.04 15.55 110.69 2.41 18.58 28.65 39.39 46.57 135.60 246.29 8.55 

Overall Total 15.30 46.91 58.45 17.53 138.19 2.50 18.59 29.16 39.62 47.89 137.76 275.95 15.30 

1 Project components considered in calculation of habitat “Removed”: PCGP construction right-of-way, temporary extra work areas, aboveground fac

access roads (PAR, TAR). 2 Habitat Types within Riparian Zones generally categorized as: Late Successional (Mature) or Old Growth Forest (coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥80 

(coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥40 but ≤80 years old); Regenerating Forest (coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥5 but ≤40 years old); Clearcut Forests; 

Nonforested Habitat (grasslands, sagebrush, shrublands), and Altered Habitats (urban, industrial, residential, roads, utility corridors, quarries). 3 Amount (acres) of Impacted Area Overlapping Other Resources includes all areas on Federal Lands (Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserv

Murrelet habitats) and Northern Spotted Owl (suitable and dispersal) habitats and Marbled Murrelet (suitable and recruitment) habitats on Non-Fede

Not Overlapping Other Resources is amount of non-overlapping area that remains.
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-82 

Table 4.2-1b. 

Total Terrestrial Habitat (acres) within the 30-foot Wide Corridor Maintained during the PCGP Project within 

(One Site-Potential Tree Height Wide) Adjacent to Coho Salmon Oregon Coast Critical Habitat Crossed on Fede

Lands 

Forested Habitat 1 Other Habitat 1

Imp

Overla

Re

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) 

and 

Landowner 

Late Successional- Old 

Growth 

Mid-Seral Forest 

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered Non-Forested 

Habitat

Agriculture

Altered Habitat Total

Total Riparian Zone 

Impact(acres) 

Late Successional-Old 

Growth Forest Only 

Coos Bay Fronta (HU 1710030403) 

Coos Bay BLM 0 0.02 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0 

Non-Federal 0.06 2.34 7.29 1.92 11.61 0.66 2.71 0.25 2.08 3.37 9.07 20.68 0.06 

Watershed Total 0.06 2.36 7.29 1.92 11.63 0.66 2.71 0.25 2.08 3.37 9.07 20.70 0.06 

Lower Coquille River (HU 1710030505) 

Non-Federal 0 0.18 1.47 0 1.65 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 1.68 0 

Watershed Total 0 0.18 1.47 0 1.65 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 1.68 0 

North Fork Coquille River (HU 1710030504) 

Coos Bay BLM 0 1.92 0.24 0 2.16 0 0 0.07 0 0.02 0.09 2.25 0 

Non-Federal 0 0.22 1.88 0 2.10 0 0.02 0 0.49 0.05 0.56 2.66 0 

Watershed Total 0 2.14 2.12 0 4.26 0 0.02 0.07 0.49 0.07 0.65 4.91 0 

East Fork Coquille River (HU 1710030503 

Coos Bay BLM 0 0 0.63 0 0.63 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 0.66 0 

Non-Federal 0.04 0.19 1.79 0.40 2.42 0 0.01 0 0.23 0.10 0.34 2.76 0.04 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-83 

Forested Habitat 1 Other Habitat 1

Imp

Overla

Re

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) 

and 

Landowner 

Late Successional- Old 

Growth 

Mid-Seral Forest 

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered Non-Forested 

Habitat

Agriculture

Altered Habitat Total

Total Riparian Zone 

Impact(acres) 

Late Successional-Old 

Growth Forest Only 

Watershed Total 0.04 0.19 2.42 0.40 3.05 0 0.01 0 0.23 0.13 0.37 3.42 0.04 

Middle Fork Coquille River (HU 1710030501) 

Coos Bay BLM 0.63 0.03 0.26 0.19 1.11 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.14 1.25 0.63 Roseburg BLM 0.38 0.51 0 0 0.89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.89 0.38 

Non-Federal 0.68 0.67 0.42 0.3 2.07 0.02 0 0 0.83 0.05 0.90 2.97 0.68 

Watershed Total 1.69 1.21 0.68 0.49 4.07 0.02 0 0 0.83 0.19 1.04 5.11 1.69 

Olalla Creek-Lookingglass Creek (HU 1710030212) 

Non-Federal 0.23 0.94 0 0 1.17 0 0.1 0.21 2.62 0.03 2.96 4.13 0.23 

Watershed Total 0.23 0.94 0 0 1.17 0 0.1 0.21 2.62 0.03 2.96 4.13 0.23 

Middle South Umpqua River (HU 1710030210) 

Non-Federal 0.15 1.27 0 0 1.42 0 0.04 1.60 0.03 0.43 2.10 3.52 0.15 

Watershed Total 0.15 1.27 0 0 1.42 0 0.04 1.60 0.03 0.43 2.10 3.52 0.15 

Myrtle Creek (HU 1710030211) 

Non-Federal 0.35 0.81 0.14 0 1.30 0 0.06 1.00 0.35 0.08 1.49 2.79 0.35 

Watershed Total 0.35 0.81 0.14 0 1.30 0 0.06 1.00 0.35 0.08 1.49 2.79 0.35 

South Umpqua River (HU 1710030205) 

Roseburg BLM 0.12 0 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 0.06 0.06 0.18 0.12 

Non-Federal 0.3 0.78 0.29 0.04 1.41 0 0.07 0.51 0.56 0.12 1.26 2.67 0.30 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-84 

Forested Habitat 1 Other Habitat 1

Imp

Overla

Re

Fifth Field Watershed 

(Hydrologic Unit Code) 

and 

Landowner 

Late Successional- Old 

Growth 

Mid-Seral Forest 

Regenerating Forest

Clearcut Forest Total

Forested Wetland

Non-Forested Wetland

Unaltered Non-Forested 

Habitat

Agriculture

Altered Habitat Total

Total Riparian Zone 

Impact(acres) 

Late Successional-Old 

Growth Forest Only 

Watershed Total 0.42 0.78 0.29 0.04 1.53 0 0.07 0.51 0.56 0.17 1.32 2.85 0.42 

Upper Cow Creek  (HU 1710030206) 

Umpqua National Forest 0.77 0.80 0.41 0 1.98 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.01 1.99 0.77 

Watershed Total 0.77 0.80 0.41 0 1.98 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.01 1.99 0.77 

All Fifth Field Watersheds

Coos Bay BLM 0.63 1.97 1.13 0.19 3.92 0 0 0.07 0 0.19 0.26 4.18 0.63 Roseburg BLM 0.5 0.51 0 0 1.01 0 0 0 0 0.06 0.06 1.07 0.50 

Umpqua National Forest 0.77 0.80 0.41 0 1.98 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.01 1.99 0.77 

Federal Subtotal 1.90 3.28 1.54 0.19 6.91 0.01 0 0.07 0 0.25 0.33 7.24 1.90 

Non-Federal Subtotal 1.81 7.40 13.28 2.66 25.15 0.68 3.01 3.57 7.19 4.26 18.71 43.86 1.81 

Overall Total 3.71 10.68 15.10 2.85 32.06 0.69 3.01 3.64 7.19 4.51 19.04 51.10 3.71 

1 Habitat Types within Riparian Zones generally categorized as: Late Successional (Mature) or Old Growth Forest (coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥80 

(coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥40 but ≤80 years old); Regenerating Forest (coniferous, deciduous, mixed ≥5 but ≤40 years old); Clearcut Forests; 

Nonforested Habitat (grasslands, sagebrush, shrublands), and Altered Habitats (urban, industrial, residential, roads, utility corridors, quarries). 2 Amount (acres) of Impacted Area Overlapping Other Resources includes all areas on Federal Lands (Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserv

Murrelet habitats) and Northern Spotted Owl (suitable and dispersal) habitats and Marbled Murrelet (suitable and recruitment) habitats on Non-Fede

Not Overlapping Other Resources is amount of non-overlapping area that remains.
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-85 

Eelgrass and Intertidal Habitats in Coos Bay Estuary. Unavoidable effects to coho salmon 

in the Oregon Coast ESU include removal of 2.43 acres of eelgrass by the Port of Coos Bay 

(see Appendix E in this CMP) and 1.0 acre of eelgrass by PCGP within Haynes Inlet of the 

Coos Bay Estuary (see Draft BA). In addition, the Port will affect 10.47 acres of intertidal algal 

and unvegetated sand-mud flat (shallow water habitats) in the Estuary. The Estuary is included 

as designated critical habitat for the Oregon Coast ESU. 

4.2.3 Compensatory Habitat – HEA Model Output 

Areas of compensatory habitat for impact to coho salmon Oregon Coast ESU were computed 

through the M-S HEA model for residual impacts to forests on non-federal lands between 40 

and 80 years old (Table 4.2-1a). There are no residual areas of late successional-old growth 

forests within affected riparian zones coinciding with the coho salmon Oregon Coast ESU. 

Unavoidable and unmitigated impact to forests within riparian zones have been characterized as 

areas of habitats that will be removed by the Proposed Action and either 1) cannot be restored 

on site during the 50-year life of the project (late successional-old growth forest), or 2) cannot be 

restored on-site over the long-term (mid-seral forest). However, only a summary of the 

impacted habitat areas for forests in the mid-seral stages are provided in Table 4.2-2 since all 

affected late successional-old growth habitats in riparian zones will be mitigated through 

compensation for effects to other resources previously discussed. 

Table 4.2-2. 

HEA Model Output for Impacts to Mid-Seral Forests within Riparian Zones (One Site-Potential 

Tree Height Wide) Adjacent to Coho Salmon Oregon Coast ESU Designated Critical Habitat on 

Non-Federal Land 

Mid-Seral Forest 

HEA Input: 

Total Impacted Area (acres) 1

Fifth Field Watershed Area 1 Area 2

Total 

Area

HEA Output: 

Compensatory 

Mitigation 

(acres) 2

Coos Bay Frontal 0 0 0 N/A 

Lower Coquille River 0 0 0 N/A 

North Fork Coquille River 0 0 0 N/A 

East Fork Coquille River 0 0 0 N/A 

Middle Fork Coquille River 0 0 0 N/A 

Olalla Creek-Lookingglass Creek 0 0 0 N/A 

Middle South Umpqua River 0.30 4.44 4.74 4.17 

Myrtle Creek 0.65 2.36 3.01 2.73 

South Umpqua River 0.52 3.06 3.58 3.19 

Upper Cow Creek 0 0 0 N/A 

TOTAL 1.47 9.86 11.33 10.06 

1 Impacted Areas on Non-Federal Lands Only and Excludes Northern Spotted Owl Habitats 

and Marbled Murrelet Habitats on Non-Federal Lands. 2 Totals for Compensatory Mitigation areas are not the sum of individual components but are 

HEA model output for total impacts in Area 1 and Area 2.
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-86 

The HEA models require definitions of Area 1 – a corridor extending to 15 feet of each side of 

the pipeline centerline that will remain in an herbaceous/shrub state for perpetuity – and Area 2 

– cleared of trees during construction but replanted after construction. Compensatory habitat is 

assumed to be obtained within 3 years of construction. It is also assumed to provide the same 

ecological services as the impacted habitat and held in perpetuity with the implication that those 

ecological services will be provided in perpetuity, as well. Areas of residual effects to mid-seral 

forests equate to 1.47 total acres in Area 1 (Table 4.2-1b and Table 4.2-2) and 9.86 total acres 

in Area 2 (Table 4.2-2). The M-S HEA model computed that 10.06 acres of mid-seral coniferous 

or mixed forest would be adequate compensatory mitigation for the 11.33 acres of mid-seral 

forest removed within riparian zones and critical habitat for the coho salmon Oregon Coast ESU 

(Table 4.2-2). 

4.2.4 Additional Compensatory Mitigation 

The Proponents have developed multiple conservation measures to rectify, repair, and 

rehabilitate and otherwise reduce impact to waterbodies and riparian zones within range of coho 

salmon in the Oregon Coast ESU (see Section 4.4.2.4 in the Draft BA and Appendix D). One of 

those conservation measures includes placing LWD within and/or adjacent to streams and 

placing LWD on floodplains, where appropriate, to provide microsites for riparian vegetation 

and/or vegetation protection during flood events. 

The Proponents propose 373 pieces of LWD for placement within the 10 Fifth Field Watersheds 

that coincide with Oregon Coast ESU coho and designated critical habitat (see Table 4.4.2-11 in 

the Draft BA and Appendix D in this CMP). Placement of LWD is subject to approval by each 

affected landowner. If a landowner rejects the proposed placement of LWD, the number of 

pieces that would have been applied onsite will be retained and provided to appropriate 

watershed councils for their use and placement, preferably elsewhere within the affected Fifth 

Field Watershed. 

The Proponents have proposed off-site compensatory mitigation for effects to eelgrass and 

intertidal habitat disturbances within the Coos Bay Estuary (Appendix E in this CMP). The 

Proponents propose in-kind mitigation for impact to 2.43 acres of eelgrass at a replacement 

ratio of 3:1. The proposed mitigation would be implemented at a location south of the Coos Bay 

Airport runway extension project; mitigation would total 7.30 acres. In addition, interim loss of 

10.47 acres of intertidal algal and unvegetated sand-mud flat (shallow water habitats) would 

also be restored with a 3:1 ratio. Restoration would occur at the Kentuck Sough golf course, 

east of North Bend, where approximately 31.41 acres of the golf course would be converted to 

intertidal and mudflat habitat to offset impacts by the Proposed Action in the Estuary. 

Conversion would require removing existing levees and removing tide gates, actions that will 

reestablish tidal connections between former intertidal habitat within the golf course and 

Kentuck Slough. An additional 69.06 acres of the golf course may be restored/enhanced as a 

result of breaching the existing dike. The Proponents propose to use this additional acreage as 

advanced mitigation for future Port of Coos Bay projects. The Proponents also propose 

restoring 0.15 acre of freshwater wetlands on the North Spit at the request of ODFW because 

fresh water is a relatively scarce resource on the North Spit (see Appendix E). 

The Proponents are also proposing on-site wetland restoration for estuarine habitats impacted 

by construction of the pipeline through the Haynes Inlet of Coos Bay. Although the construction 

right-of-way across Haynes Inlet does not intercept high density eel grass beds, all low and 

medium density eel grass beds will be replanted at high density levels. The incremental gain to 

high density levels will provide some compensation for the short-term loss of eelgrass caused 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-87 

by the PCGP construction. The Coos Bay Estuary is included as designated critical habitat for 

coho in the Oregon Coast ESU. 

4.2.5 Adequacy of Compensatory Mitigation 

The Proposed Action will remove 15.30 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 46.91 

acres of mid-seral forest that are within riparian zones (extending to one site-potential tree 

height from each bank) of streams and are adjacent to designated critical habitat for coho 

salmon in the Oregon Coast ESU. On federal lands, the entire riparian zone component of 

critical habitat is within Riparian Reserves, allocated under the NWFP. Consequently, 6.75 

acres of late successional-old growth forest and 6.79 acres of mid-seral forest that will be 

affected by the Proposed Action in riparian habitats (see Table 4.2-1a) have been included for 

compensatory mitigation with other effects to Riparian Reserves in Section 2.2.5. Projects 

proposed by the BLM to compensate for loss of habitat and function within Riparian Reserves 

will also benefit the Oregon Coast coho ESU and are also included in the Riparian Reserve 

discussion, as well as Appendix A. 

On non-federal lands, portions of northern spotted owl habitats and marbled murrelet habitats 

overlap riparian zones. As a result, 8.55 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 22.22 

acres of mid-seral forest that will be affected by the Proposed Action in riparian habitats (see 

Table 4.2-1a) overlap with spotted owl and murrelet habitats that were discussed for 

compensatory mitigation in Section 3.1.4 (northern spotted owls) and in Section 3.2.4 (marbled 

murrelets). Those effects are within nine other Fifth Field Watersheds (Coos Bay Frontal, Lower 

Coquille River, North Fork Coquille River, East Fork Coquille River, Middle Fork Coquille River, 

Olalla Creek-Lookingglass Creek, Middle South Umpqua River, Myrtle Creek, and South 

Umpqua River watersheds). Since northern spotted owl suitable NRF habitat and dispersal-only 

habitat (and marbled murrelet suitable nesting and recruitment habitats) can occur on uplands 

as well as in riparian zones but riparian habitats are essential to the conservation and recovery 

of listed coho salmon, priority for habitat acquisitions or for enhancement projects on nonfederal lands should be given to compensation within riparian zones and watersheds that 

support coho in the Oregon Coast ESU. 

One hundred percent of all late successional-old growth forest within affected riparian zones 

overlaps with other species’ habitats and land allocations that will require compensatory 

mitigation. Similarly, 66 percent of all mid-seral forest within affected riparian zones will likewise 

require compensatory mitigation due to effects within other species’ habitats and land 

allocations discussed previously. Only 11.33 acres of mid-seral forest within riparian zones on 

non-federal land has no similar overlap and is the residual impacted area for effects to coho 

designated critical habitat. HEA model output would require acquisition of 10.06 acres of midseral forested habitat within riparian zones on non-federal as adequate compensation for 

removal of 11.33 acres (Table 4.2-2). 

The Proponents believe that acquisition of compensatory habitats on non-federal lands, either in 

fee or through conservation easements, is one approach to mitigating impact to riparian zones 

on non-federal lands and would be acquired through compensation of previously discussed 

resources. The value of acquiring those lands as compensatory mitigation for project effects 

would be evaluated, possibly using prioritizing criteria described in Section 1.6, above. The 

Proponents also propose placing LWD within and/or adjacent to streams to enhance instream 

habitats for listed coho salmon and placing LWD on floodplains, where appropriate, to provide 

microsites for riparian vegetation and/or vegetation protection during flood events. Placement 

on non-federal lands will depend on landowner consent and site-specific conditions. Unused 

LWD will be donated to local watershed councils and the Proponents would provide funds to 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-88 

manipulate, transport, and stage LWD for transfer to other water courses or to local watershed 

councils that are affiliated with Oregon Coast Watershed Councils. This would provide the 

resources to restore or enhance substitute habitat within impacted watersheds with Oregon 

Coast ESU coho. 

With the placement of LWD, implementation of BMPs and other proposed conservation 

measures, and acquisition of compensatory habitat for unavoidable effects within riparian zones 

will compensate fully for any impact to coho in the Oregon Coast ESU on private and federal 

lands. 

4.2.6 Consistency With Recovery Goals 

No recovery plan has been finalized for coho in the Oregon Coast ESU. In May 2008, the 

Oregon and Northern California Coast Technical Recovery Team (TRT) released a final report 

entitled ‘‘Biological Recovery Criteria for the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit’’ (Wainwright et al., 2008). The report presented biological criteria for assessing 

the ESU’s progress toward recovery while emphasizing uncertainty about its future status. 

However, the report noted that if recent conditions continue (habitat conditions, climate patterns, 

management policies), there is moderate to high levels of certainty that the Oregon Coast would 

persist over a 100-year period without artificial support. Persistence is related to the simple risk 

of extinction, the primary determination of endangered status under the ESA. 

The TRT evaluated spawner abundance and juvenile occupancy per watershed, influence of 

hatchery fish, habitat capacity and population diversity to derive sustainability of individual 

population and sustainability of the ESU. However, complete quantifiable data are not available 

for all evaluations and expert opinion was brought to judge the available data. In conclusion, if 

recent conditions continue into the future (same as above for persistence), there is low to 

moderate levels of certainty that the Oregon Coast ESU is sustainable. Sustainability is the 

ability of the ESU to maintain its genetic legacy and long-term adaptive potential for the 

foreseeable future, in addition to being persistent over time. With sustainability, the risk of 

extinction will not increase in the future. Further, the TRT concluded that the ESU may be 

sustainable “if strong ecosystem, harvest, and hatchery protections are in place” since once 

they become degraded, it is more difficult and expensive (consequently less likely of success) to 

return populations and habitats to moderate or good condition (Wainwright et al., 2008). 

Acquisition of late successional-old growth forests and mid-seral forests within riparian zones on 

non-federal land should reduce risks that those habitat components would otherwise be 

modified. Benefits to water quality, temperature, sediment interception and nutrient input are 

anticipated. As indicated in the Draft BA, baseline watershed conditions crossed by the 

Proposed Action are lacking in LWD from historic disturbance and are typically below 

benchmark thresholds to be properly functioning. Installation of LWD at each waterbody 

crossing, based on the site-specific waterbody crossing conditions, landowner requirements and 

potential construction constraints, is expected to provide instream structure, channel and habitat 

complexity among other benefits that promote salmonid productivity and would be consistent 

with goals for persistence and sustainability of the Oregon Coast ESU. 

5.0 RELATIONSHIP OF THE CMP TO ODFW’S MITIGATION POLICY 

5.1.1 Background 

The ODFW developed a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy (OAR 635-415-000). The 

mitigation policy provides a framework for assigning one of six categories to habitat with similar 

relative importance to fish and wildlife within a defined Project area and establishes consistent 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-89 

goals and standards to mitigate project impacts to fish and wildlife habitats on non-federal lands. 

The Proponents applied the habitat categorization process framed by ODFW to the Proposed 

Action and incorporated additional guidance provided in the FWS Mitigation Policy (FWS, 1981), 

as well as consultations with members of the Habitat Quality Subtask Working Group, an 

extension of the Jordan Cove/Pacific Connector Task Force. A numerical value (habitat 

category) from one to six was provided to all areas impacted by the Proposed Action based on 

its value to wildlife and if that habitat is limiting within the Proposed Action area or a limiting 

factor to the recovery of a listed species or a species with special status or management 

concern. Mitigation goals and measures to be considered for each habitat category affected by 

the Proposed Action are provided within the ODFW Mitigation Policy (Table 5.1-1). 

Habitats that can be effectively restored within 3 years following construction disturbance are 

not proposed for mitigation. Habitats that would be considered for compensation are those 

areas impacted that cannot be mitigated for in-kind and in-proximity – areas categorized as 

Category One Habitat, and in some cases Habitat Categories two or three. These habitats 

include old growth forests, late successional and mid-seral forests within spotted owl nest 

patches, core areas, and home ranges, marbled murrelet occupied or presumed occupied 

stands, and riparian management zones (one site potential tree height). Project-related effects 

within all of these habitats (all Category One) have been included for compensatory mitigation 

discussed in the previous sections of this CMP. Also, compensation would be required for 

impacts to federal and/or state listed plant species and habitat within a buffered distance of 

documented locations. For additional detail, see the Draft Proposed Habitat Categorizations for 

the Proposed Action submitted to FERC in July 2008. 

Table 5.1-1. 

ODFW Mitigation Goals and Measures for Habitat Categories 

Impacted by the Proposed Proposed Action 

ODFW Habitat 

Category 

Definition of Habitat 

Category ODFW Mitigation Goals ODFW Mitigation Measures 

1 Irreplaceable, essential, 

limited 

No loss of habitat 

quantity or quality Avoid all impacts 

No net loss of habitat 

quantity or quality 2 Essential, limited Provide net benefit of 

habitat quantity or quality 

Avoid all impacts if possible; In-kind, 

in-proximity mitigation 

3 Essential OR important, 

limited 

No net loss of habitat 

quantity or quality In-kind, in-proximity mitigation 

4 Important No net loss of habitat 

quantity or quality 

In-kind or out-of-kind, in-proximity 

or off-proximity mitigation 

5 High potential to 

become essential 

Net benefit of habitat 

quantity or quality Actions that improve habitat 

6 Low potential to become 

essential, important Minimize impacts Minimize impacts 

5.1.2 Compensatory Mitigation 

The Proponents have developed multiple conservation measures to rectify, repair, and 

rehabilitate, and otherwise reduce impacts to various wildlife habitats (and habitat categories) 

throughout the Proposed Action. For unavoidable and unmitigated impacts onsite, such as 

areas of habitats that will be removed by the Proposed Action and cannot be restored on site 

during the 50-year life of the project (e.g., late successional-old growth forest), or cannot be 

restored on site over the long-term (e.g., mid-seral forest), the Proponents have proposed 

acquisition of compensatory habitats. Previous sections within the CMP have addressed and 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-90 

analyzed most unavoidable and unmitigated impacts to ODFW habitat categories on nonfederal lands that would require compensatory mitigation: 

• Section 3.1.3: Northern spotted owl suitable and dispersal habitat removed by the 

Proposed Action, whether within a spotted owl home range or not (Table 3.1-3). 

Compensatory mitigation discussed in previous sections, as well as other 

conservation measures proposed in the Draft BA, should benefit northern spotted 

owls. 

• Section 3.2.3: Marbled murrelet suitable or potentially suitable nesting habitat, which 

includes occupied, unlikely to be occupied, and presumed occupied/unsurveyed 

stands, and recruitment habitat removed within marbled murrelet Zones 1 and 2 

(Table 3.2-3). Compensatory mitigation discussed in previous sections, as well as 

other conservation measures proposed in the BA should benefit marbled murrelets. 

• Section 3.4.3: Individual Kincaid’s lupine plants and suitable habitat impacted by the 

Proposed Action. Compensatory mitigation proposed in the Draft Mitigation Plan for 

Kincaid’s Lupine submitted to FERC in December 2008 (Appendix B in this CMP) as 

well as other conservation measures proposed in the BA should provide a neutral to 

net benefit to the species. 

• Section 4.1.3: Late successional and mid-seral habitat removed within riparian 

zones and critical habitat unit for the coho salmon SO/NCC ESU (Table 4.1-2). 

Compensation for late successional and mid-seral habitats impacted discussed in 

previous sections, as well as other conservation measures proposed in the Draft BA 

should have a net benefit to coho in the SO/NCC ESU on private lands. 

• Section 4.2.3: Late successional and mid-seral habitat removed within riparian 

zones and critical habitat unit for the coho salmon Oregon Coast ESU (Table 4.2-2). 

Compensation, discussed in previous sections, for late successional and mid-seral 

habitats impacted, as well as other conservation measures proposed in the Draft BA 

should have a net benefit to coho in the Oregon Coast ESU on private lands. 

Habitats/Habitat Categories that will be impacted but not compensated directly within previous 

sections of the CMP include: 

• Late-seral oak forest and woodlands (Owens, 2009). Although late-seral oak forest 

and woodlands has been categorized as a Habitat Category 2 (Owens, 2009) and 

has been previously considered as dispersal-only habitat for the northern spotted 

owl, late-seral oak habitat has not been compensated for in previous sections; and 

• Approximately 4.3 acres of mid-seral deciduous and coniferous forest habitat within 

riparian zones (one site potential tree height) on non-federal lands outside of the 

range of federally-listed coho (Spencer Creek, Klamath R-John C Boyle Reservoir, 

Lake Ewauna-Upper Klamath River, and Lower Lost River Watersheds). 

The Proponents will work with ODFW to identify mitigation opportunities for the remaining 

impacts, including considerations of Oregon Conservation Strategy Conservation Opportunity 

Areas or other appropriate land trusts or conservation programs. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-91 

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 

6.1 Summary 

This CMP is designed to compensate for unavoidable and unmitigated impacts to species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act and their designated critical habitats as discussed in the 

Draft BA prepared for the Proposed Action. In addition, compensatory mitigation is also 

provided to mitigate for the unavoidable adverse effects to certain land use allocations defined 

under the NWFP or other resources requiring amendment to the various Land and Resource 

Management Plans (LRMPs) of the NWFP that result from the construction and maintenance of 

the pipeline right-of-way corridor across these allocations. The overall goal of mitigation for 

project-related developments within LSRs and Riparian Reserves is to achieve a neutral or 

beneficial condition within the affected land allocations. 

The CMP incorporates three key mechanisms for achieving its goals: 1) transfers of Federal 

land from the “Matrix” to the “LSR” administrative allocations; 2) funding for restoration and 

enhancement projects on federal lands to mitigate for the direct and indirect effects of the 

Proposed Action on listed species and their habitats; and 3) acquisition of non-federal lands and 

the long-term management of those acquired lands to provide for substitute habitats as 

compensation that would not be mitigated by implementing the agencies’ projects. 

All of these approaches are employed in this CMP to improve habitat functions for listed species 

in the overall project area beyond functions that would exist in the absence of the Proposed 

Action. 

Because many of the listed species’ habitats coincide with the land allocations, the proposed 

land re-allocation measures will be providing potentially substantial benefits over the life of the 

project to listed species and their habitats that extend well beyond those secured by the projectspecific mitigations that are designed to address species effects directly. 

Unavoidable effects to occupied, suitable, and/or designated critical habitats will impact the 

northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and western snowy plover, and both the SO/NCC ESU 

and Oregon Coast ESU coho salmon. One listed plant species, Kincaid’s lupine will be 

affected. Another plant, Cox’s mariposa lily, is a federal species of concern that will also be 

affected. 

This CMP utilizes HEA models to identify the extent to which suitable replacement habitat will 

compensate for unavoidable effects to listed species and their habitats. The HEA evaluates 

affected ecological services based on seral stages of forested habitat and identifies appropriate 

replacement acreage. This method focuses on complete, in-kind replacement of ecological 

services lost between the time of impact and when the restored or created habitat becomes fully 

functional. The amount of compensatory habitat required to replace services lost due to impact 

is based on the time required for recovery of services on-site, the level of baseline services 

provided by offsite compensatory habitat relative to the impacted habitat, and on the duration of 

services provided by compensatory habitat. 

HEA modeling requires evaluation of two impacted areas. Area 1 is the 30-foot wide 

maintenance corridor along the pipeline right-of-way that will remain in an herbaceous or shrub 

state for the life of the project, estimated at 50 years. Area 2 includes the construction area 

which, if forested, will be replanted with trees. Two models have been formulated, dependent 

upon forest age of the affected area: a Late Successional-Old Growth model to analyze effects 

to forests ≥80 years old and a Mid-Seral model to analyze effects to forests 40-80 years old. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-92 

To compensate for unavoidable changes to managed LSRs from the construction and operation 

of the PCGP portion of the project, the BLM and Forest Service have proposed the re-allocation 

of more than 1,000 acres of forested lands within the Matrix land allocation to be added to 

existing LSRs crossed by the project. The Forest Service has determined that this action will 

address the "neutral to beneficial" standard for new developments in LSRs by adding acres to 

the LSR land allocation to offset the long-term loss of acres and habitat from the construction 

and operation of the Proposed Action. These re-allocation commitments, although not intended 

to compensate for impacts to late successional-old growth habitat, will provide benefits to late 

successional-dependent species that are over and above the project-specific commitments that 

are also provided in this CMP that are intended to mitigate for direct and indirect habitat effects 

on federal lands. 

The Proposed Action will remove 146.73 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 25.82 

acres of mid-seral forest within LSRs and will remove 23.85 acres of late successional-old 

growth forest and 22.02 acres of mid-seral forest from Riparian Reserves (Table 6-1). Under 

the NWFP, LSRs and Riparian Reserves are managed to protect and enhance habitats for latesuccessional and old growth forest-related species including the northern spotted owl. 

Therefore, habitats impacted within these land allocations also support northern spotted owls, 

marbled murrelets, and coho salmon (SO/NNC and Oregon Coast ESUs). In the analyses 

conducted in this CMP, areas of LSRs do not overlap with areas of Riparian Reserves. 

Table 6-1. 

Areas (acres) of Habitats Classified as Late Successional-Old Growth Forest (LSOG) and 

Mid-Seral Forest (M-S) that Will Be Impacted during Construction of the Proposed Action that Are 

Compensated for in the CMP 

Impact on Federal Lands Only Residual Impact on Federal and Non-Federal Lands

Late 

Successional 

Reserves

Riparian 

Reserves

Northern 

Spotted Owl

Marbled 

Murrelet

Coho 

Salmon 

SO/NCC 

ESU

Coho 

Salmon 

Oregon 

Coast 

ESU

Total Impacted 

Habitat

Landowner LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S M-S M-S M-S LSOG M-S

Coos Bay 

BLM 0.89 4.98 3.12 7.32 22.59 18.00 14.07 0 0 26.60 44.37 

Roseburg 

BLM 33.55 4.74 1.96 6.42 72.35 12.94 11.93 0 0 107.86 36.03 

Medford 

BLM 0 0 10.58 2.09 72.36 48.39 0 0 0 82.94 50.48 

Lakeview 

BLM 0 0 1.17 0 11.64 0 0 0 0 12.81 0 

Umpqua NF 44.89 5.74 3.48 4.69 37.17 28.06 0 0 0 85.54 38.49 

Rogue 

RiverSiskiyou NF 

67.40 10.36 1.18 0 0 16.25 0 0 0 68.58 26.61 

FremontWinema NF 0 0 2.36 1.50 34.86 8.69 0 0 0 37.22 10.19 

Federal 

Subtotal 146.73 25.82 23.85 22.02 250.97 132.33 26.00 0 0 421.55 206.17 

Non-Federal 

Subtotal 0 0 0 218.89 217.67 100.53 13.94 11.32 218.89 343.46 

Overall 

Total 146.73 25.82 23.85 22.02 469.86 350.00 126.53 13.94 11.32 640.44 549.63 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-93 

Within the three LSRs affected by the Proposed Action, HEA modeling computed that 157.66 

acres of late successional-old growth forest and 23.98 acres of mid-seral forest would be 

adequate compensation for removal of those forest seral stages from LSRs. Likewise, 25.61 

acres of late successional-old growth forest and 20.00 acres of mid-seral forest would 

compensate for affected forests within Riparian Reserves (Table 6-1). 

All impacts to LSRs and Riparian Reserves will be on federal lands. For project effects to 

Forest Service lands, the Proponents will provide funding to the Forest Service for 

implementation of projects included in Table 6-3 and described in detail in Appendix A-3. 

Likewise for impacts to habitats on BLM lands, the Proponents will provide funding to the BLM 

for implementation of projects included in Table 6-3 which are selections derived from the 

projects detailed in Appendix A-2, but will also acquire approximately 290 acres of in-holding 

and adjacent BLM lands to supplement the list of projects identified by BLM to mitigate for 

impacts not fully compensated by the proposed projects. Because BLM’s jurisdiction in the 

project area is a checkerboard pattern of federal and non-federal lands, the Proponents 

anticipate that some non-federal lands adjacent to or surrounded by BLM lands will be available 

for acquisition in fee or conservation easement. Whether such lands would be of value as 

compensatory mitigation would depend on multiple factors. 

If compensatory habitats for effects to BLM lands are not available or if BLM considers that 

specific habitat enhancement projects would be preferable, the Proponents will provide funding 

to the BLM for implementation of the projects included in Table 6-3 or other projects that have 

been proposed at the time of construction. To ensure the sufficiency of the proposed 

compensatory mitigation, this CMP has applied the HEA model and has employed various 

conservative assumptions and approaches as described above. These approaches, together 

with the generous ratios that result, reflect an intentionally conservative strategy that builds 

confidence in the conclusions given the other uncertainties and limits of information. Taking into 

account the conservative “buffers” described above, the Proponents, informed by consultations 

with the Forest Service and BLM and their best professional judgments, are confident that the 

ecological services provided will meet or exceed those available before the project impact. 

The Proposed Action will affect northern spotted owls over the long-term by removal of suitable 

nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat and by removal of dispersal-only habitat. Within 

the project area, northern spotted owl suitable habitat mainly consists of late successional-old 

growth coniferous and mixed coniferous forest, with some areas of younger coniferous and 

deciduous forest. In total, the project would remove 469.86 acres of suitable NRF habitat during 

construction. That area does not include impact to LSRs or Riparian Reserves (176.19 acres) 

that were previously analyzed and provide habitat for the spotted owl. In addition, the project 

will remove 264.45 acres of dispersal-only habitat that does not overlap with other previously 

compensated resources (105.05 acres). Some dispersal-only habitat that will be affected by 

construction is regenerating forest that can be restored on-site and in-kind, beginning to provide 

ecological services 5 years after conifers are planted. There are 324.39 acres of the 

regenerating forest component of dispersal-only habitat that will be restored outside of the 30-

foot maintenance corridor and are not included in the total area (264.45 acres) that will be 

removed (Table 6-1). Some of the suitable NRF and dispersal-only habitat also supports 

marbled murrelet nesting and recruitment habitat. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-94 

There are areas affected in northern spotted owl habitats that overlap with riparian zones that 

are critical habitats for coho salmon (SO/NCC ESU) or adjacent to critical habitats (Oregon 

Coast ESU). Since northern spotted owl suitable NRF and dispersal-only habitat, and marbled 

murrelet suitable nesting and recruitment habitats can occur on upland as well as in riparian 

zones, but riparian habitats are essential to the conservation and recovery of listed coho 

salmon, priority for habitat acquisitions or for forest enhancement projects on non-federal and 

federal lands should be given to compensation within riparian zones and watersheds that 

support coho in the SO/NCC ESU and Oregon Coast ESU. 

HEA model outputs determined that 504.48 acres of late successional-old growth forest and 

338.84 acres of mid-seral forest would compensate for removal of suitable NRF and dispersalonly habitat not located within NWFP LSRs or Riparian Reserves (Table 6-2). The Proponents 

will provide funding to the Forest Service and BLM for implementation of projects included in 

Table 6-3 or other projects identified at the time of construction. Projects funded would enhance 

or restore habitats currently used by northern spotted owls and reduce the risk of standreplacing fires, benefiting northern spotted owls and their habitat over the long-term. 

Additionally, the Proponents will acquire approximately 290 acres of available lands with 

suitable or potentially suitable spotted owl habitat within or adjacent to BLM-managed lands to 

supplement the projects identified by BLM in Table 6-3. Compensatory habitat acquisition and 

habitat treatments/enhancements, in addition to conservation measures in the Draft BA 

(including Appendix V, the Marbled Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl Avoidance and 

Minimization Plan) would compensate fully for impacts to northern spotted owl suitable NRF and 

dispersal only habitat and would be consistent with the goals for recovering the northern spotted 

owl. 

Marbled murrelet suitable nesting habitat is generally assumed to consist of old growth forests 

(over 250 years on average), or forests with old growth characteristics. Unavoidable permanent 

effects to marbled murrelets include direct removal of 192.74 acres of suitable or potentially 

suitable nesting habitat (67.02 acres of late successional-old growth forest, 30.30 acres of midseral forest) and recruitment habitat (45.35 acres of late successional-old growth forest, 147.39 

acres of mid-seral forest). All of the late successional-old growth forest and 51.16 acres of midseral forest that provides suitable or recruitment habitats for murrelets overlap with other 

resources previously discussed (LSRs, Riparian Reserves, and northern spotted owls) that will 

be impacted and mitigated through compensation. The residual total area of 126.53 acres of 

mid-seral forest impacted and not previously considered (Table 6-1) would be compensated for 

by acquisition of 115.67 acres of mid-seral forest (Table 6-2). Of that amount, 23.93 acres of 

suitable or potentially suitable habitat will be acquired within the Coos Bay and Roseburg BLM 

districts since no proposed projects directly target mitigation for effects to marbled murrelets. 

The remaining 91.74 acres will be acquired for effects on non-federal lands within marbled 

murrelet management Zones 1 and 2 (see Table 6-3). 

If compensatory habitats for effects to BLM lands are not available or if BLM considers that 

specific habitat enhancement projects would be preferable, the Proponents will provide funding 

to the BLM for implementation of substitute projects to those listed in Table 6-3. Compensatory 

habitat acquisition and habitat enhancements, in addition to conservation measures in the Draft 

BA (Appendix V, the Marbled Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl Avoidance and Minimization 

Plan) would compensate fully for impacts to marbled murrelet nesting and recruitment habitat 

and would be consistent with the goals for recovering marbled murrelets. 

Habitats occupied by western snowy plovers do not include late-seral or mid-seral forests. 

There are, however, potential indirect effects to the species’ critical habitats that would be 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-95 

associated with construction and operation of the Port’s facilities and the JCEP. JCEP reviewed 

a list of conservation measures provided by the FWS, the BLM, and the ODFW through the 

Sediment Placement subgroup of the Jordan Cove/Pacific Connector Interagency Task Force 

Working Group and agreed to provide funding for implementing various projects with an overall 

goal of conserving the species and its critical habitat on the Coos Bay North Spit. Those 

projects would be consistent with the goals for recovering western snowy plovers. 

Table 6-2. 

Areas (acres) of Late Successional-Old Growth Forest (LSOG) and Mid-Seral Forest (M-S) 

Determined through Habitat Equivalency Analysis to Be Appropriate Compensatory Mitigation for 

Effects to Resources on Federal and Non-Federal Lands 

Compensatory Mitigation for 

Impact on Federal Lands Only

Compensatory Mitigation for Residual Impact on 

Federal and Non-Federal Lands

Late 

Successional 

Reserves

Riparian 

Reserves

Northern 

Spotted Owl

Marbled

Murrelet

Coho 

Salmon 

SO/NCC 

ESU

Coho 

Salmon 

Oregon 

Coast 

ESU

Compensatory 

Mitigation for 

Total Impacted 

Habitat

Landowner LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S M-S M-S M-S LSOG M-S

Coos Bay 

BLM 0.96 4.62 3.35 6.74 24.27 18.61 12.98 0 0 28.58 42.95 

Roseburg 

BLM 36.03 4.33 2.11 5.76 77.63 13.08 10.95 0 0 115.77 34.12 

Medford 

BLM 0 0 11.35 1.90 77.69 44.83 0 0 0 89.04 46.73 

Lakeview 

BLM 0 0 1.26 0 12.51 0 0 0 0 13.77 0 

Umpqua NF 48.21 5.29 3.74 4.21 39.91 26.66 0 0 0 91.86 36.16 

Rogue 

RiverSiskiyou NF 

72.46 9.74 1.26 0 0 17.76 0 0 0 73.72 27.50 

FremontWinema NF 0 0 2.53 1.38 37.47 8.86 0 0 0 40.00 10.24 

Federal 

Subtotal 157.66 23.98 25.61 20.00 269.48 129.80 23.93 0 0 452.75 197.71 

Non-Federal 

Subtotal 0 0 0 0 235.00 209.04 91.74 12.73 10.06 235.00 323.57 

Overall 

Total 157.66 23.98 25.61 20.00 504.48 338.84 115.67 12.73 10.06 687.75 521.28 

Within the Proposed Action area, Kincaid’s lupine populations are located in both grassland and 

open canopy late-seral and mid-seral forests. Although certain forest enhancement projects 

previously discussed may benefit the species, those projects are not specifically directed 

towards the management of Kincaid’s lupine habitat. Approximately 157 Kincaid’s Lupine plants 

are expected to be affected during construction. Measures identified in the Kincaid’s Mitigation 

Plan, including plant salvage, transplant, and seed collection, are expected to compensate fully 

for any direct or indirect unavoidable impact to the plants documented within the proposed 

project area. Implementation of the Mitigation Plan and conservation measures identified within 

the Draft BA would be consistent with the goals for recovering Kincaid’s lupine. 

Habitats occupied by Cox’s mariposa lily, a species of concern with a federal interagency 

conservation agreement, occur within forested habitats on serpentine and ultramafic soils. The 

Proposed Action crosses a documented population of Cox’s mariposa lily and will directly and 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-96 

indirectly impact this plan during construction. Measures identified in the Cox’s Mariposa Lily 

Mitigation Plan (see Appendix C in this CMP), which includes plant salvage, site restoration, and 

habitat enhancement are expected to compensate fully for any direct or indirect impact to the 

plants documented within the proposed project area. 

The Proposed Action will affect federally-listed Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern 

California Coast (SO/NCC) coho salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) over the longterm by removing mid-seral and late successional-old growth habitat adjacent to waterbodies 

utilized by these fish. Impacts to coho salmon (and other non-listed fish) will be mitigated by 

non-compensatory measures (e.g. restoration of the construction disturbance). Materials such 

as LWD will be provided to agencies or conservation groups to perform instream restoration 

projects, including funds for manipulating, transporting and staging LWD for transfer to other 

water courses or to local watershed councils. The Proponents also propose placing LWD within 

and/or adjacent to streams to enhance instream habitats for listed coho salmon and placing 

LWD on floodplains, where appropriate, to provide microsites for riparian vegetation and/or 

vegetation protection during flood events. 

In addition, the Proponents have examined effects to riparian zones that are important habitat 

components for coho salmon in the SO/NCC ESU and Oregon Coast ESU. On federal lands, 

effects to riparian habitats will be mitigated for by compensatory habitat and/or proposed 

projects in Appendix A for effects to Riparian Reserves. On non-federal lands, most effects to 

forests within riparian zones will also be mitigated as compensatory habitat for effects to 

northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets, where the focus of mitigation efforts would be 

within riparian zones. There will be an estimated residual impact of 13.94 acres (not accounted 

for by effects to other resources) of mid-seral forest within riparian zones associated with coho 

salmon SO/NCC ESU streams and 11.32 acres of riparian mid-seral forests adjacent to coho 

salmon Oregon Coast ESU streams (Table 6-1). HEA determined that 12.73 acres and 10.06 

acres of riparian mid-seral forest would be adequate compensatory mitigation for effects to coho 

in the SO/NCC ESU and Oregon Coast ESU, respectively (Table 6-2). 

The Proponents have proposed off-site compensatory mitigation for effects to eelgrass and 

intertidal habitat disturbances within the Coos Bay Estuary (Appendix E in this CMP). The 

Proponents proposes in-kind mitigation for impact to eelgrass at a ratio of 3:1 at a location south 

of the Coos Bay Airport’s runway extension project; mitigation would total 7.30 acres. In 

addition, interim losses of intertidal algal and unvegetated sand-mud flat (shallow water 

habitats) would also be restored with a 3:1 ratio, totaling 31.41 acres. The Proponents also 

propose restoring 0.15 acre of freshwater wetlands on the North Spit. The Proponents are also 

proposing on-site wetland restoration for estuarine habitats impacted by construction of the 

pipeline through the Haynes Inlet of Coos Bay. Although the construction right-of-way across 

Haynes Inlet does not intercept high density eel grass beds, all low and medium density eel 

grass beds will be replanted at high density levels. The incremental gain to high density levels 

will provide some compensation for the short-term loss of eelgrass caused by the PCGP 

construction. The Coos Bay Estuary is included as designated critical habitat for coho in the 

Oregon Coast ESU. 

ODFW developed a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy that provides a framework for 

assigning one of six categories to habitats and establishes consistent goals and standards to 

mitigate project impacts to fish and wildlife habitats on non-federal lands. Habitats that would 

be considered for compensation are impacted areas that cannot be mitigated for in-kind or inproximity – areas that are generally categorized as Habitat Category One and Two. In fact, all 

effects to Category One and unavoidable and/or unmitigatable impacts to Category Two 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-97 

Habitats on non-federal lands have been addressed in this CMP through mitigation for 

previously discussed resources. 

6.2 Conclusion 

Compensatory mitigation proposed by the Proponents to compensate fully for impacts of the 

Proposed Action is highly diverse and summarized in Table 6-3. 

Re-allocations. The Forest Service and BLM have proposed to re-allocate Matrix land as LSR 

land to compensate for permanent loss of late successional forest within three LSR units 

impacted by construction of the Proposed Action; 585 acres would be reallocated on the 

Umpqua National Forest (Table 6-3e) and 593 acres would be reallocated on the Rogue RiverSiskiyou National Forest (Table 6-3f). Together, both measures will address the "neutral to 

beneficial" standard for new developments in LSRs by adding acres to the LSR land allocation 

to offset the long-term loss of acres and habitat from the construction and operation of the 

Proposed Action. The fact that forested habitats within former Matrix lands will be managed to 

achieve late successional forest characteristics will also benefit the recovery of the northern 

spotted owl and other late successional-dependent species in the long-term. 

Projects. To further address compensatory objectives, the Proponents are also proposing land 

acquisition and/or habitat treatments and enhancements. Given the limits and uncertainties 

associated with land acquisitions to supplement Forest Service lands, the Forest Service has 

determined that effects to listed species and habitats within National Forests impacted by the 

Proposed Action will be fully mitigated through implementation of a variety of projects proposed 

on each forest, including: 

1. on the Umpqua National Forest, 13 miles of road decommissioning and road closures, 

3,500 acres of various forest stand treatments and stream crossing treatments at 5 sites 

(Table 6-3e); 

2. on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, 54.5 miles of road decommissioning, 

2,840 acres of forest stand treatments and stream crossing treatments at 23 sites (Table 

6-3f); and 

3. on the Fremont-Winema National Forest, 500 acres of forest stand treatments, 6 miles of 

riparian zone treatments and stream crossing treatments at 1 site (Table 6-3g). 

The projects proposed by the Forest Service and agreed to in principle by the Proponents 

summarized in Table 6-3 and further described in Appendix A-3. The projects in Table 6-3 will 

be implemented with funding provided by the Proponents and will achieve forest plan goals and 

mitigate unavoidable impacts to listed species and their habitats on each forest based on 

conditions at the present. Management goals and objectives and site conditions may change by 

the time the Proposed Action is granted a Notice to Proceed by FERC and specific projects 

required by the Forest Service could also change. In addition, potential easements and other 

on-the-ground issues will ultimately determine the parameters – including specific acreages and 

dimensions – of certain projects. Thus, the CMP has also built in mechanisms that reserve 

some limited administrative flexibility to make adjustments as necessary in order to retain the 

ability to capture the highest and best mitigation benefits in the shortest period of time. 

Decisions about the most effective and important compensatory projects can best be made 

closer to the time they would be undertaken, in order to take into account current priorities and 

conditions. Site-specific information will at that time also allow the site-specific evaluations of 

impacts to be undertaken. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-98 

However, Pacific Connector would provide the same level of funding to the Forest Service then 

as needed to implement current projects, assuming future projects would achieve similar 

mitigation objectives as described in Tables 6-3e, 6-3f, and 6-3g. 

Similarly, the BLM has proposed projects within each district crossed, and those projects 

considered for funding by the Proponents include: 

1. on the Coos Bay District, 5.3 miles of road mitigation and 4.5 miles of stream/riparian 

treatments (Table 6-3a); 

2. on the Roseburg District, 830 acres of forest stand treatments, 2.75 miles of 

stream/riparian treatments, and 300 logs for use as LWD (Table 6-3b); 

3. on the Medford District, 9.9 miles of road decommissioning, 250 to 300 acres of forest 

stand treatments, 21.5 miles of stream/riparian treatments, and stream crossing 

treatment at 1 site (Table 6-3c); and 

4. on the Lakeview District, 270 acres of forest stand treatments (Table 6-3d). 

Acquisitions. As discussed for projects proposed by the Forest Service, specific BLM projects 

may change by the time that the Proposed Action will commence but the Proponents would 

provide the current levels of funding to support future projects that would achieve similar 

mitigation objectives as described in Table 6-3a, 6-3b, 6-3c, and 6-3d. Projects proposed within 

each BLM district do not address impacts to some listed species, either in part or in full, as 

evident in Table 6-3. For example, projects on the Coos Bay and Roseburg districts do not 

provide compensatory mitigation for effects to marbled murrelets. To insure that impacts to all 

listed species and their habitats on BLM lands are fully mitigated, the Proponents have 

proposed to acquire late successional-old growth forest and mid-seral forest on lands adjacent 

to BLM-managed lands, based on HEA model output: 

1. a total of 72 acres (43 acres of mid-seral and 29 acres of late successional forest) for 

effects within the Coos Bay District (Table 6-3a); 

2. a total of 150 acres (34 acres of mid-seral and 116 acres of late successional forest) for 

effects within the Roseburg District (Table 6-3b); and 

3. a total of 68 acres (24 acres of mid-seral and 44 acres of late successional forest) for 

effects with the Medford District (Table 6-3c). The proposed amount of habitat 

acquisition is less than HEA model output since the compensatory projects included in 

Table 6-3c will at least partially mitigate for effects to species. 

The HEA model output indicates that impacts to listed species and their habitats within the 

Lakeview District are assumed to be fully mitigated by proposed forest stand treatments (Table 

6-3d), in addition to conservation measures discussed in the Draft BA. 

Effects to listed species and habitats on non-federal lands (Table 6-3h) will be fully mitigated 

through acquisition (in-kind replacement) totaling 558 acres (323 acres of mid-seral and 235 

acres of late successional forest) based on HEA model output, to compensate for effects to 

those forested seral stages on non-federal lands. The Proponents anticipate that private lands 

adjacent to or surrounded by BLM lands and other private lands in the vicinity of the Proposed 

Action will be available for acquisition, either totally in fee or as conservation easements (or 

some combination) at the time of project commencement. 

Plans. In addition to land use re-allocation, land acquisition, and projects proposed by the BLM 

and Forest Service, the Proponents have developed individual plans to address compensatory 

mitigation for effects to species and their specific habitats. These plans include: 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

L3-99 

1. Habitat enhancement and maintenance of habitats occupied by western snowy plovers 

on the Coos Bay North Spit proposed by JCEP and included in Section 3.3.3 of the 

CMP. 

2. Kincaid’s Lupine Mitigation Plan in Appendix B of the CMP specifies plant salvage, 

transplant, and seed collection, proposed by the Proponents to compensate for any 

direct or indirect impact to the plants documented within the proposed project area. 

3. Cox’s Mariposa Lily Mitigation Plan, Appendix C of this CMP, specifies avoidance and 

minimization measures by project routing, construction methods, plant conservation, and 

site restoration proposed by the Proponents. 

4. Large Woody Debris Mitigation Plan in Appendix D, this CMP, which specifies placement 

of LWD within the construction right-of-way at stream crossings or in riparian zones 

within ranges of the SO/NCC and Oregon Coast coho ESUs. The Proponents have 

proposed a total of 423 pieces of LWD for placement. 

5. Oregon Gateway Marine Terminal – Estuarine Resource Mitigation Plan in Appendix E 

of the CMP specifies compensatory mitigation for effects to eelgrass and non-eelgrass 

disturbances within the Coos Bay Estuary with replacement of eelgrass and restoration 

of intertidal habitats along Kentuck Slough. A total of 36 acres of compensatory 

mitigation has been proposed by the Port of Coos Bay. 

Assurances. This CMP provides assurances about the mechanisms and criteria that will be 

used to determine the ultimate compensatory mitigation package and ensure its sufficiency to 

fully mitigate adverse project effects to species listed under ESA and their habitats. 

For impacts on Forest Service lands, the Proponents have developed an Agreement in Principle 

(Agreement, attached as Appendix A-1) with the Forest Service under which the Proponents 

agree to commit $13,927,225 to Forest Service projects, plus project monitoring costs and a 

project contingency of 15% of the costs of the Forest Service projects. The Agreement reflects 

an understanding based on the best professional judgment of the agency staff and Proponents 

that this amount will be adequate to cover the cost of sufficient projects to satisfy the mitigation 

objectives of the CMP on Forest Service land (that are not addressed by the re-allocation of 

Matrix to LSR lands). The Forest Service will implement these projects on affected Forest 

Service lands by the time construction commences or after appropriate NEPA review has been 

completed for each restoration or enhancement project. 

The Agreement in Principle also records a commitment to enter into a subsequent enforceable 

agreement. That enforceable agreement would specify the trigger for commencing mitigation 

payments, payment schedules, and also confirm projects and acreages and any associated 

monitoring costs, payable into a Forest Service Mitigation fund account. 

For impacts to BLM lands, the Proponents are making a commitment to the acreages or 

projects specified, above and in Table 6-3. The Proponents have not completed an Agreement 

in Principle with BLM but is willing to do so to a financial commitment based upon unit costs 

provided by BLM. The projects committed to on BLM lands by the Proponents represent a 

financial commitment of $2,879,910. In addition, the Proponents have proposed additional 

habitat acquisitions to supplement BLM projects. The cost of the land acquisitions is not 

included in the foregoing dollar figure for BLM projects. If required, the Proponents will 

implement the acquisition projects. The final BLM mitigation projects will be included in the Plan 

of Development and will be accepted by BLM prior to issuance of a Grant of Right-of-Way for 

the Proposed Action. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-100 

Table 6-3. 

 Summary of Unavoidable/Unmitigated Impact to Forested Late and Mid-Seral Stages in Land Allocation Resources and Sp

 In Terms of HEA Model Output and/or Projects Proposed by Federal Agencies for each Jurisdiction Affected by C

Compensatory Mitigation Plans Proposed by JCEP and the Port of Coos Bay are Inc

Table 6-3a - Coos Bay BLM District 

Area (acres) of Forested Seral Stage (LSOG, M-S) Removed 

Federal Lands Only Federal and Non-Federal Lands 

Late 

Successional 

Reserves 

Riparian 

Reserves 

Northern Spotted 

Owl Marbled Murrelet 

Coho Salmon 

SO/NCC ESU 

Coho Salmon 

Oregon Coast 

ESU 

Other ESA

and/or 

Non-ESA 

Resources 

Compensatory 

Mitigation for 

Total Impacted 

Habitat 

Landowner, 

Jurisdiction 

and 

Proposed Projects 

Proposed 

Quantity LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S N/A LSOG M-S 

Coos Bay BLM District Total Impact (with no overlap) 0.89 4.98 3.12 7.32 26.60 40.47 26.60 31.39 0.00 0.00 2.13 7.29 59.34 91.45 HEA Model Input (with overlap) 0.89 4.98 3.12 7.32 22.59 18.00 0.00 14.07 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 26.60 44.37 HEA Model Output (with overlap) 0.96 4.62 3.35 6.74 24.27 18.61 0.00 12.98 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 28.58 42.95 Projects proposed by Coos Bay BLM District, Pacific Connector and JCEP 

Instream Large Wood 

Placement 4.45 miles X X X 

Road Surfacing 5.3 miles X X 

Land Acquisition ∼72 acres X X X X X X 

On-site LWD 

Enhancement 27 pieces X X X 

Habitat Enhancement 

and Maintenance 

(Western Snowy Plover) 

 X 

(Continued) 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-101 

Table 6-3b - Roseburg BLM District 

Area (acres) of Forested Seral Stage (LSOG, M-S) Removed 

Federal Lands Only Federal and Non-Federal Lands 

Late 

Successional 

Reserves 

Riparian 

Reserves 

Northern Spotted 

Owl Marbled Murrelet 

Coho Salmon 

SO/NCC ESU 

Coho Salmon 

Oregon Coast 

ESU 

Other ESA

and/or 

Non-ESA 

Resources 

Compensatory 

Mitigation for 

Total Impacted 

Habitat 

Landowner, 

Jurisdiction 

and 

Proposed Projects 

Proposed 

Quantity LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S N/A LSOG M-S 

Roseburg BLM District Total Impact (with no overlap) 33.55 4.74 1.96 6.42 106.51 32.29 29.01 22.85 0.00 0.00 1.84 3.11 172.87 69.41 HEA Model Input (with overlap) 33.55 4.74 1.96 6.42 72.35 12.94 0.00 11.93 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 107.86 36.03 HEA Model Output (with overlap) 36.03 4.33 2.11 5.76 77.63 13.08 0.00 10.95 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 115.77 34.12 Projects proposed by Roseburg BLM District and Pacific Connector 

Instream Large Wood 

Placement 2.75 miles X X X 

Large Wood Acquisition 300 logs X X X 

Down Wood/Snag 

Creation 830 acres X X X 

Land Acquisition ∼150 acres X X X X X X 

On-site LWD 

Enhancement 7 pieces X X X 

(Continued)
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-102 

Table 6-3c - Medford BLM District 

Area (acres) of Forested Seral Stage (LSOG, M-S) Removed 

Federal Lands Only Federal and Non-Federal Lands 

Late 

Successional 

Reserves 

Riparian 

Reserves 

Northern Spotted 

Owl Marbled Murrelet 

Coho Salmon 

SO/NCC ESU 

Coho Salmon 

Oregon Coast 

ESU 

Other ESA

and/or 

Non-ESA 

Resources 

Compensatory 

Mitigation for 

Total Impacted 

Habitat 

Landowner, 

Jurisdiction 

and 

Proposed Projects 

Proposed 

Quantity LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S N/A LSOG M-S 

Medford BLM District Total Impact (with no overlap) 0.00 0.00 10.58 2.09 82.20 49.88 0.00 0.00 9.41 2.63 0.00 0.00 102.19 54.60 HEA Model Input (with overlap) N/A N/A 10.58 2.09 72.36 48.39 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 82.94 50.48 HEA Model Output (with overlap) N/A N/A 11.35 1.90 77.69 44.83 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 89.04 46.73 Projects proposed by Medford BLM District and Pacific Connector 

Road Decommissioning 9.9 miles, 18.10 acres X X X X 

Instream Large Wood 

Placement 12 miles X X X 

Seep/Spring Protection 9.5 miles X X 

Culvert Replacement 1 site X X 

Stand Density 

Management 

250-300 

acres 

 X X X X X 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-103 

Area (acres) of Forested Seral Stage (LSOG, M-S) Removed 

Federal Lands Only Federal and Non-Federal Lands 

Late 

Successional 

Reserves 

Riparian 

Reserves 

Northern Spotted 

Owl Marbled Murrelet 

Coho Salmon 

SO/NCC ESU 

Coho Salmon 

Oregon Coast 

ESU 

Other ESA

and/or 

Non-ESA 

Resources 

Compensatory 

Mitigation for 

Total Impacted 

Habitat 

Landowner, 

Jurisdiction 

and 

Proposed Projects 

Proposed 

Quantity LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S N/A LSOG M-S 

Medford BLM District Total Impact (with no overlap) 0.00 0.00 10.58 2.09 82.20 49.88 0.00 0.00 9.41 2.63 0.00 0.00 102.19 54.60 HEA Model Input (with overlap) N/A N/A 10.58 2.09 72.36 48.39 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 82.94 50.48 HEA Model Output (with overlap) N/A N/A 11.35 1.90 77.69 44.83 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 89.04 46.73 Projects proposed by Medford BLM District and Pacific Connector 

Land Acquisition ∼68 acres X X X X 

On-site LWD 

Enhancement 34 pieces X X X 

Habitat Enhancement 

(Cox's Mariposa Lily) X 

(Continued)
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-104 

Table 6-3d - Lakeview BLM District 

Area (acres) of Forested Seral Stage (LSOG, M-S) Removed 

Federal Lands Only Federal and Non-Federal Lands 

Late 

Successional 

Reserves 

Riparian 

Reserves 

Northern 

Spotted Owl 

Marbled 

Murrelet 

Coho Salmon 

SO/NCC ESU 

Coho Salmon 

Oregon Coast 

ESU 

Other ESA

and/or 

Non-ESA 

Resources

Compensatory

Mitigation for 

Total Impacted 

Habitat 

Landowner, 

Jurisdiction 

and 

Proposed Projects 

Proposed 

Quantity LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S N/A LSOG M-S 

Lakeview BLM District Total Impact (with no overlap) 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.00 12.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.02 0.00 HEA Model Input (with overlap) N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 11.64 0.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.81 0.00 HEA Model Output (with overlap) N/A N/A 1.26 0.00 12.51 0.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.77 0.00 Projects proposed by Lakeview BLM District and Pacific Connector 

Stand Density 

Management 270 acres X X X 

(Continued)
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-105 

Table 6-3e - Umpqua National Forest 

Area (acres) of Forested Seral Stage (LSOG, M-S) Removed 

Federal Lands Only Federal and Non-Federal Lands 

Late 

Successional 

Reserves 

Riparian 

Reserves 

Northern Spotted 

Owl Marbled Murrelet 

Coho Salmon 

SO/NCC ESU 

Coho Salmon 

Oregon Coast 

ESU 

Other ESA

and/or 

Non-ESA 

Resources 

Compensatory 

Mitigation for 

Total Impacted 

Habitat 

Landowner, 

Jurisdiction 

and 

Proposed Projects 

Proposed 

Quantity LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S N/A LSOG M-S 

Umpqua National Forest Total Impact (with no overlap) 44.89 5.74 3.48 4.69 85.54 39.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.73 2.78 2.96 136.69 54.92 HEA Model Input (with overlap) 44.89 5.74 3.48 4.69 37.17 28.06 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.54 38.49 HEA Model Output (with overlap) 48.21 5.29 3.74 4.21 39.91 26.66 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.86 36.16 Projects proposed by Umqua National Forest and Pacific Connector 

Road Decommissioning 

and Road Closures 13 miles X X X X X X 

Culvert Replacement 5 sites X X 

Stand Density 

Management 

~2,800 

acres 

X X X X X X 

Down Wood/Snag 

Creation 700 acres X X X 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-106 

Area (acres) of Forested Seral Stage (LSOG, M-S) Removed 

Federal Lands Only Federal and Non-Federal Lands 

Late 

Successional 

Reserves 

Riparian 

Reserves 

Northern Spotted 

Owl Marbled Murrelet 

Coho Salmon 

SO/NCC ESU 

Coho Salmon 

Oregon Coast 

ESU 

Other ESA

and/or 

Non-ESA 

Resources 

Compensatory 

Mitigation for 

Total Impacted 

Habitat 

Landowner, 

Jurisdiction 

and 

Proposed Projects 

Proposed 

Quantity LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S N/A LSOG M-S 

Umpqua National Forest Total Impact (with no overlap) 44.89 5.74 3.48 4.69 85.54 39.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.73 2.78 2.96 136.69 54.92 HEA Model Input (with overlap) 44.89 5.74 3.48 4.69 37.17 28.06 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.54 38.49 HEA Model Output (with overlap) 48.21 5.29 3.74 4.21 39.91 26.66 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.86 36.16 Projects proposed by Umqua National Forest and Pacific Connector 

Matrix/LSR Re-allocation 585 acres X X X X X X 

On-site LWD 

Enhancement 19 pieces X X X X 

(Continued)
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-107 

Table 6-3f - Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

Area (acres) of Forested Seral Stage (LSOG, M-S) Removed 

Federal Lands Only Federal and Non-Federal Lands 

Late 

Successional 

Reserves 

Riparian 

Reserves 

Northern Spotted 

Owl Marbled Murrelet 

Coho Salmon 

SO/NCC ESU 

Coho Salmon 

Oregon Coast 

ESU 

Other ESA

and/or 

Non-ESA 

Resources 

Compensatory 

Mitigation for 

Total Impacted 

Habitat 

Landowner, 

Jurisdiction 

and 

Proposed Projects 

Proposed 

Quantity LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S N/A LSOG M-S 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Total Impact (with no overlap) 67.40 10.36 1.18 0.00 68.58 25.29 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 137.71 35.65 HEA Model Input (with overlap) 67.40 10.36 1.18 0.00 0.00 16.25 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 68.58 26.61 HEA Model Output (with overlap) 72.46 9.74 1.26 0.00 0.00 17.76 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 73.72 27.50 Projects proposed by Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest and Pacific Connector 

Road Decommissioning 54.5 miles X X X X X 

Repair Stream Crossing 23 sites X X X 

Commercial/PreCommercial Thinning ~1,640 acres X X X X X 

Down Wood/Snag 

Creation 1,200 acres X X X 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-108 

Area (acres) of Forested Seral Stage (LSOG, M-S) Removed 

Federal Lands Only Federal and Non-Federal Lands 

Late 

Successional 

Reserves 

Riparian 

Reserves 

Northern Spotted 

Owl Marbled Murrelet 

Coho Salmon 

SO/NCC ESU 

Coho Salmon 

Oregon Coast 

ESU 

Other ESA

and/or 

Non-ESA 

Resources 

Compensatory 

Mitigation for 

Total Impacted 

Habitat 

Landowner, 

Jurisdiction 

and 

Proposed Projects 

Proposed 

Quantity LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S N/A LSOG M-S 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Total Impact (with no overlap) 67.40 10.36 1.18 0.00 68.58 25.29 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 137.71 35.65 HEA Model Input (with overlap) 67.40 10.36 1.18 0.00 0.00 16.25 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 68.58 26.61 HEA Model Output (with overlap) 72.46 9.74 1.26 0.00 0.00 17.76 N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 73.72 27.50 Projects proposed by Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest and Pacific Connector 

Matrix/LSR R-eallocation 593 acres X X X X X 

On-site LWD 

Enhancement 6 pieces X X X 

(Continued)
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-109 

Table 6-3g - Fremont-Winema National Forest 

Area (acres) of Forested Seral Stage (LSOG, M-S) Removed 

Federal Lands Only Federal and Non-Federal Lands 

Late 

Successional 

Reserves 

Riparian 

Reserves 

Northern Spotted 

Owl Marbled Murrelet 

Coho Salmon 

SO/NCC ESU 

Coho Salmon 

Oregon Coast 

ESU 

Other ESA

and/or 

Non-ESA 

Resources 

Compensatory 

Mitigation for 

Total Impacted 

Habitat 

Landowner, 

Jurisdiction 

and 

Proposed Projects 

Proposed 

Quantity LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S N/A LSOG M-S 

Fremont-Winema National Forest Total Impact (with no overlap) 0.00 0.00 2.36 1.50 37.22 10.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.58 11.90 HEA Model Input (with overlap) N/A N/A 2.36 1.50 34.86 8.69 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 37.22 10.19 HEA Model Output (with overlap) N/A N/A 2.53 1.38 37.47 8.86 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 40.00 10.24 Projects proposed by Fremont-Winema National Forest and Pacific Connector 

Repair Stream Crossing 1 site X X 

Riparian Protection 6 miles X X X 

Stand Density 

Management 500 acres X X 

(Continued)
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

L3-110 

Table 6-3h – Non-Federal Lands 

Area (acres) of Forested Seral Stage (LSOG, M-S) Removed 

Federal Lands Only Federal and Non-Federal Lands 

Late 

Successional 

Reserves 

Riparian 

Reserves 

Northern Spotted 

Owl Marbled Murrelet 

Coho Salmon 

SO/NCC ESU 

Coho Salmon 

Oregon Coast 

ESU 

Other ESA

and/or 

Non-ESA 

Resources 

Compensatory 

Mitigation for 

Total Impacted 

Habitat 

Landowner, 

Jurisdiction 

and 

Proposed Projects 

Proposed 

Quantity LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S LSOG M-S N/A LSOG M-S 

Non-Federal Lands Total Impact (with no overlap) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 218.89 264.58 56.76 123.45 4.18 20.76 8.55 33.55 288.38 442.34 HEA Model Input (with overlap) N/A N/A N/A N/A 218.89 217.67 0.00 100.53 0.00 13.94 0.00 11.32 218.89 343.46 HEA Model Output (with overlap) N/A N/A N/A N/A 235.00 209.04 0.00 91.74 0.00 12.73 0.00 10.06 235.00 323.57 Projects proposed by Pacific Connector and the Port of Coos Bay 

Habitat Enhancement 

(Kincaid's Lupine) X 

Eelgrass and Intertidal 

Habitat Restoration 39 acres X X 

Land Acquisition ∼558 acres X X X X X 

On-site LWD 

Enhancement 430 pieces X X X 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

111 

7.0 REFERENCES 

Bart, J. 1995. Amount of Suitable Habitat and Viability of Northern Spotted Owls. 

Conservation Biology 9 (4):943-946. 

Bart, J., and E.D. Forsman. 1992. Dependence of Northern Spotted Owls Strix occidentalis 

caurina on Old-growth Forests in the Western USA. Biological Conservation 62:95-100. 

Bartholow, J.M. 2000. Estimating Cumulative Effects of Clearcutting on Stream Temperatures 

Rivers 7: 284-297. 

Beschta, R.L. 1997. Riparian Shade and Stream Temperature: An Alternative Perspective. 

Rangelands 19: 25-28. 

Beschta, R.L and R.L. Taylor. 1988. Stream Temperature Increases and Land Use in a 

Forested Oregon Watershed. Water Resources Bulletin 24:19-24. 

Binford, L.C., B.G. Elliott, and S.W. Singer. 1975. Discovery of a Nest and the Downy Young of 

the Marbled Murrelet. The Wilson Bulletin. 87: 303-440. 

Brown, G.W. 1970. Predicting the Effect of Clearcutting on Stream Temperature. Journal of 

Soil and Water Conservation 25:11-13. 

Brown, G.W. 1972. An Improved Temperature Prediction Model for Small Streams. Research 

Report WRRI-16, Water Resources Research Institute, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR. 

Chapman, D., N. Iadanza, and T. Penn. 1998. Calculating Resource Compensation: An 

Application of the Services-To-Services Approach to the Blackbird Mine Hazardous 

Waste Site. NOAA Damage Assessment and Restoration Program Technical Report 97-

1. Available online at http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/pacific/black/pdf/blackfnl.pdf. 

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fliescher, A.B. 

Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R. J. Guitierrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. 

Scientific Evaluation of the Status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystems 

Institute, Portland, OR. 

Fonseca, M.S., B.E. Julius, and W.J. Kenworthy. 2000. Integrating Biology and Economics in 

Sea Grass Restoration: How Much is Enough and Why? Ecological Engineering 

15:227-237. 

Johnson, S.L. 2004. Factors Influencing Stream Temperatures in Small Streams: Substrate 

Effects and a Shading Experiment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 

61:913-923. 

Johnson, S.L and J.A. Jones. 2000. Stream Temperature Responses to Forest Harvest and 

Debris Flows in Western Cascades, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences. 57: 30-39. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

112 

Marshall, D.B. 1988. Status of the Marbled Murrelet in North America with a Special Emphasis 

on Populations in California, Oregon, and Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Biological Report 88(30). 

Milton, J. W. and R. E. Dodge. 2001. Applying Habitat Equivalency Analysis for Coral Reef 

Damage Assessment and Restoration. Bulletin of Marine Science 69:975-988.National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 1999a. Designated Critical Habitat; Central California Coast 

and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon. Federal Register 

64(86): 24049-24062. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999a. Designated Critical Habitat; Central California Coast 

and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon. Federal Register 

64(86): 24049-24062. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999b. Designated Critical Habitat: Proposed Critical 

Habitat for the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit. Federal 

Register 64(89):24998-25007. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of 

Critical Habitat for 13 Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus 

spp.) and Steelhead (O. mykiss) in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Proposed rule. 

Federal Register 69(239): 74572-74846. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Adaptive Management for ESA-Listed Salmon and 

Steelhead Recovery: Decision Framework and Monitoring Guidance. NOAA_NMFS, 

Northwest Region and Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Endangered and Threatened Species: Final 

Threatened Listing Determination, Final Protective Regulations, and Final Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho Salmon; 

Final Rule. Federal Register 73(28):7816-7873. 

Naslund, N.L. 1993. Why Do Marbled Murrelets Attend Old-Growth Forest Nesting Areas YearRound? The Auk 110: 594-602. 

North, M.P., J.F., Franklin, A.B. Carey, E.D. Forsman, and T. Hamer. 1999. Forest stand 

structure of the northern spotted owl’s foraging habitat. Forest Science. 45(4): 520-

527. 

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center. 2006. Personal Sensitive Species Data Request 

(05/03/06). 

Owens, R. 2009. Habitat Special Project Coordinator, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

email communication with R. Miller, Pacific Connector, Salt Lake City. February 15. 

Pacific Forest Trust. 2007. A Critical Evaluation of the Proposed Approach to Evaluation of 

Compensatory Habitat as outlined in Proposal to Evaluate Habitats Used by Northern 

Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets Affected by the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline 

Project. Prepared for Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline by The Pacific Forest Trust, San 

Francisco, CA. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

113 

Reeves, G.H., J.E. Williams, K.M. Burnett, and K. Gallo. 2006. The Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy of the Norwest Forest Plan. Conservation Biology 20(2):319-329. 

Siskiyou BioSurvey. 2007. 2007 Draft Biological Survey Report (Botanical, Northern Spotted 

Owl, Great Gray Owl, Mollusks, Marbled Murrelet, and Red Tree Vole). Prepared for 

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP. August. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management (Forest Service and BLM). 1994. Record of Decision for 

Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents 

Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management (Forest Service and BLM). 2004. Record of Decision. Amending 

Resource Management Plans for Seven Bureau of Land Management Districts and Land 

and Resource Management Plans for Nineteen National Forests Within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl. Decision to Clarify Provisions Relating to the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service (BLM and Forest Service). 1998. South Coast – Northern Klamath LateSuccessional Reserve Assessment. Coos Bay, Roseburg, and Medford BLM Districts 

and Siuslaw National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service (BLM and Forest Service). 1999. South Umpqua River/Galesville LateSuccessional Reserve Assessment (LSR #R0223). Medford and Roseburg BLM 

Districts and Umpqua National Forest. July 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service (BLM and Forest Service). 2006a. FY 2006-2008 

Programmatic Biological Assessment For the Reinitiation of Consultation on Activities 

that May Affect Listed Species in the Rogue River/South Coast Province. Medford 

District BLM and Rogue River Siskiyou National Forests (RORSISBLM FY 06-08 BA.). 

August. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service (BLM and Forest Service). 2006b. Programmatic 

Conservation Agreement for Kincaid’s Lupine (Lupinus sulphureus spp. Kincaidii) in 

Douglas County. Roseburg BLM, Umpqua National Forest, and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. April. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service (Umpqua National Forest), and U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 2008. Management Plan for Kincaid’s Lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

Kincaidii) in Douglas County Oregon. March 2008. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 2004. Conservation Agreement for Calochortus coxii (Crinite Mariposa Lily). 

Roseburg BLM District and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Roseburg Field Office. January. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

114 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy. Federal 

Register. 46(15): 7656 – 7663. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Determination of Threatened Status for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. Federal 

Register 55(123):26114-26194. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Determination of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. Federal 

Register 57(10): 1796-1838. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl – Draft. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992c. Protocol for Surveying Proposed Management Activities 

that May Impact Northern Spotted Owls. Endorsed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

March. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992d. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Determination of Threatened Status for the Washington, Oregon and California 

Population of the Marbled Murrelet. Federal Register 57(191): 45328-4533. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Determination of Threatened Status for the Pacific Coast 

Population of the Western Snowy Plover. Federal Register 58(42): 12864-12874. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet; Final Rule. Federal Register 

61(102): 26256-26320. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy 

Plover. Federal Register 64(234): 68507-68544. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Endangered Status for Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens and Fender’s Blue Butterfly 

(Icaricia icarioides fenderi) and Threatened Status for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii 

(Kincaid’s Lupine). Federal Register 65(16): 3875-3890. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus 

nivosus) Pacific Coast Population Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Western Snowy Plover Final Designated Habitat, GIS 

Data. Online at: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet. Federal Register. 71(176): 

53838-53951. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

115 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006b. Biological Opinion for Effects to Northern Spotted Owls 

(Strix occidentalis caurina) from the Willamette Planning Province Fiscal Year 2007–

2008 Activities that have the Potential to Adversely Affect, Due to Habitat Modification 

and Disturbance, on U.S. Department of the Interior; Bureau of Land Management, 

Eugene District and Salem District, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Mt. Hood 

National Forest, Willamette National Forest and the Columbia River Gorge National 

Scenic Area. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. FWS Reference Number 1-7-06-F0179. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet. Federal Register. 71(176): 

53838-53951. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006d. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender’s Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icariodes fenderi), 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine), and Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens (Willamette daisy). Federal Register 71(210): 63861-63910. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Proposed Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix 

occidentailis caurina); Proposed Rule. Federal Register 72(171): 32449-32516. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 

Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. Federal Register 

73(157):47325-47374. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Draft Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western 

Oregon and Southwestern Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, 

Oregon. 

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Federal Listed, Proposed, Candidate, Delisted and 

Species of Concern by Taxonomic Group. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office. Available on line at http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDA Forest Service. 

1998. South Cascades Late Successional Reserve Assessment. April. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, W.S, R. Sohn, R. Jones, and R. T. Re, Sr. 2006. Voluntary 

Agreement for Kincaid’s Lupine (Lupinus sulphureus spp. Kincaidii) in Douglas County. 

Lone Rock Timber Management Compnay, Roseburg Forest Products, Seneca Jones 

Timber Company, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August. 

United States of America vs. Melvin A. Fisher et al. 1997. 92-10027-CIV-DAVIS. 

Wainwright, T.C., T.H., M.W. Chilcote, P.W. Lawson, T.E. Niclelson, C.W. Huntington, J.S. 

Mills, K.M.S. Moore, G.H. Reeves, H.A. Stout, and L.A. Weitkamp. 2008. Biological 

Recovery Criteria for the Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum-NMFS-NWFSC-91 

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and Earlier 

Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Fire Activity. Science 313(5789):940–943. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

116 

Williams, T.H., B.C. Spence, W. Duffy, D. Hillemeier, G. Kautsky, T.E. Lisle, M. McCain, T.E. 

Nickelson, E. Mora, and T. Pearson. 2008. Framework for Assessing Viability of 

Threatened Coho Salmon in the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit. NOAA Technical Memorandum-NMFS-SWFSC-432. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

Appendix A 

Forest Service and BLM Potential Mitigation Projects 

Appendix A-1 

Pacific Connector and USDA-Forest Service Agreement in Principle 

Appendix A-2 

Projects Recommended By Bureau of Land Management For Funding By the 

Proponents As Compensatory Mitigation 

Appendix A-3 

Projects Recommended By USDA- Forest Service For Funding By the Proponents 

As Compensatory Mitigation 

Appendix A-4 

Road Decommissioning Projects Recommended By USDA- Forest Service For 

Funding By the Proponents As Compensatory Mitigation 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 1

Appendix A-1 

Agreement in Principle 

Pacific Connector Commitment to Forest Service Mitigation Projects 

Pacific Connector agrees in principle to the following points that have been incorporated into the 

Jordan Cove-Pacific Connector Project’s Compensatory Mitigation Plan as filed with the FERC 

for the purpose of insuring that these mitigations may be considered as reasonably foreseeable 

actions in the Jordan Cove – Pacific Connector Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Agreement in principle means: 

• That Pacific Connector agrees to fund the Forest Service to implement these mitigations 

to insure that the Goals and Objectives of the respective Forest Plans affected by the 

Jordan Cove-Pacific Connector Project are attained; 

• This is done with the understanding that Pacific Connector’s cost obligation for 

implementation of mitigation projects is limited, except as noted in item 2 below. 

• That the Forest Service may substitute projects that achieve similar objectives or change 

amounts in this proposal provided such changes are within the total cost limit 

established in this proposal; 

• That unexpended funds from completed projects or projects that cannot be implemented 

as planned will be transferred to other Pacific Connector-related mitigation projects at 

the discretion of the Forest Service. 

• That Pacific Connector agrees to enter a subsequent enforceable agreement with the 

Forest Service that will meet the objectives set forth in this document and specify the 

trigger for commencing mitigation payments, payment schedule, confirm projects and 

acreage and any associated monitoring costs, payable into a “Forest Service Mitigation 

Fund” account; 

 

Pacific Connector is in agreement to defining a final list of mitigation projects and mitigation 

acreage targets as shown in Forest Service’s Revised Final Spreadsheet 032509 which is 

attached, and made a part of this agreement as Attachment A-3 for eventual funding and 

execution should the Pacific Connector project be authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) and a Right-of-Way Grant issued by the federal land management 

agencies and project construction occurs. Project acres provided in this proposal generally 

define project scope but are not in and of themselves fixed requirements and may change 

during evaluation of site-specific conditions. 

Pacific Connector hereby agrees: 

1. Pacific Connector agrees to the project types and resource objectives as shown in the 

spreadsheet of Forest Service’s Revised Final Spreadsheet 032509 as appropriate 

mitigations for impacts to National Forest resources from the PCGP and that these 

mitigations are necessary to insure that Goals and Objectives of the respective Forest 

Plans are achieved. 

2. Provided no substantial change to habitat types and conditions within the project area 

occurs prior to construction such as a large fire or a major landslide, Pacific Connector 

agrees to the Forest Service mitigation proposal package as resource targets for 

mitigation of project impacts that occur on Forest Service lands. In the event of 

substantial changes in landscape conditions that occur prior construction, the parties 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

 2

agree to reopen discussion and negotiation on this mitigation proposal to insure that the 

Goals and Objectives of the respective Forest Plans are achieved. This Agreement 

limits Pacific Connector’s cost obligation for mitigation projects for environmental 

consequences described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. It does not alter, 

limit or replace the provisions for liability or resource protection that are part of the Right 

of Way Grant issued by the BLM to Pacific Connector. 

3. Project acres provided in this proposal generally define project scope but are not in and 

of themselves fixed requirements. 

4. Pacific Connector’s commitments to the proposed Forest Service mitigation projects are 

provided such that the total Forest Service mitigation costs do not exceed $13.9 million 

dollars in total. Pacific Connector will in addition finance general project contingency of 

15%. All projects in Attachment A-3 were proposed based on unit cost assumptions that 

included Agency Administrative Overhead Burden. Contingency funds are available for 

use by the Forest Service at its discretion to cover cost overruns, unforeseen design 

changes in projects or changes in conditions that result in other unplanned costs. 

Unexpended funds would be handled in accordance with general agreement bullet 

number 4. 

5. The funding commitment is in 2009 dollars. Costs for projects implemented in 2010 and 

beyond will be indexed for inflation utilizing the annual implicit price deflator of the U.S. 

Gross Domestic Product. Management of the Forest Service Mitigation Fund will be 

determined in the final enforceable document. 

6. Pacific Connector agrees to establish a payment schedule for the Forest Service 

Mitigation Fund that will provide deposit of payments in the account to cover the costs 

for defined mitigation projects. Generally, payments will be made as needed by the 

Forest Service for implementation of defined projects during the period of construction of 

the Pacific Connector Project with a lump sum payment of any remaining Forest Service 

Mitigation Fund balance within 60 days of the pipeline being granted “in-service” 

recognition by FERC. 

7. This Agreement does not include those costs covered by Cost Recovery Agreements 

with the Forest Service such as planning costs and permit monitoring and administration. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

1 

Appendix A-2 

Projects Recommended By Bureau of Land Management for Funding by the Proponents As C

Proposing 

Land Mgt Unit Resource Direct (D)/ Indirect (I) Project Name Project Description Rationale 

Acquisitions Mitigation Projects 

Medford District 

BLM Water, Riparian D/I 

Rogue River - Shady 

Cove Land 

Acquisition/Wetland 

Mitigation 

A request to purchase lands with known ponds containing western pond turtles (BLM Bureau Sensitive species) and transfer management of these to federal agencies. 

In Jackson County, there are at leawetland/ponds on private lands thawestern pond turtles. These wetlanlarge populations of the pond turtletimber company lands adjacent to lands. It is not known if the lands aponds could be protected by a land managed under some form of consaddition to blocking up managemenmitigation, they would also be protedevelopment into rural residential la

Medford District 

BLM 

Rare/Unique Plant 

Communities D/I 

Native Grasslands & 

Oak Woodland Private 

Land Conservation 

Agreement/Acquisitions 

A proposal which consolidates the management of private lands containing Native Grassland/Oak Woodlands in close proximity of the pipeline ROW and Deer and Elk Winter Range; monitored in partnership with state, federal, and local agencies in the Green Dot Program 

Loss of Cat. 1 Habitat on state/pvt mitigated by the acquisition of landfederal lands, soon to be deferred 

Medford District 

BLM 

Water, Soils, 

Riparian, 

Rare/Unique 

Vegetation 

I 

Cascade-Siskiyou 

National Monument 

Land Acquisitions 

This project would facilitate the acquisition of 2,980 acres of land within the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument from Pacific Forest Trust. 

Acquisition of these lands would hemanagement goals and objectives Cascade-Siskiyou National Monumacquisitions would result in a net gavalues including wildlife habitat, threndangered, or sensitive species hwetland areas, and areas key to thproductive ecosystems. 

Riparian Mitigation Projects 

Coos Bay 

District 

BLM/Myrtlewood 

Resource Area 

Water, Fish, 

Riparian D 

Instream Large Wood 

Placement in Big Creek 

and Sandy Creek 

Subwatersheds 

Large wood would be placed in 4.45 miles of 

streams in the following locations within the 

Middle Fork Coquille 5th field watershed 

(1710030501): Brownson Creek (1.27 miles) 

T29SR11W sections 2 and 11. Brownson Creek 

Tributary (0.88 miles) T29SR11W sections 10 

and 11. Big Creek (1.05 miles) T29SR10W 

section 6 and T28SR10W section 31. Sandy 

Creek (0.70 miles) T29SR10W sections 2 and 

11 and Sand Creek Tributary (0.55 miles) 

T29SR10W section 15. 

The pipeline would remove current input to stream channels. Adding wmitigate for this loss. 

Medford District 

BLM 

Stream 

Habitat/Hydrology D/I 

Trail Creek/Evans 

Creek Placement of 

large wood 

Trees felled in the pipeline corridor would be placed in streams for fish habitat. 

The project directly/indirectly effect17 streams within Trail Creek, Little Butte Creek, Elk Creek BLM Ripariverified streams with ESA protecteCoho, and resident species 

Medford District 

BLM Water, Riparian D/I Seep/spring protection Fence seeps and springs on Heppsie Mountain. 

Many of these seeps and springs spebblesnails (Fluminicola spp.) but from grazing pressure. Ease of caincrease along the pipeline corridor 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

2 

Proposing 

Land Mgt Unit Resource Direct (D)/ Indirect (I) Project Name Project Description Rationale 

Medford District 

BLM 

Water, Soils, 

Riparian D/I 

West Fork Trail Creek 

Fish Culvert 

Replacement 

Replace, Repair, and Improve Hydrologic Connectivity and ESA SONC coho Access Concerns 

A culvert on private property on Weperched and needs to either be repallow for anadromous fish passage initiated, but has been delayed indegrant support from local watershed 

Roseburg BLM 

Water, Fish, 

Riparian I 

Large Wood 

Acquisition for aquatic 

restoration projects 

Obtain/purchase 300 large logs for use in 

aquatic restoration projects within 5th field 

watersheds affected by construction of the 

pipeline. 

The pipeline crosses roughly 65 acReserve on BLM-managed lands. will be removed from these areas, future large woody material that cothe aquatic system. In addition, rembe allowed to grow to large sizes wcorridor. 

Roseburg BLM 

Water, Fish, 

Riparian I In stream Large Wood Placement 

Large wood would be placed in 2.75 miles of 

Coho-bearing stream in close proximity to the 

pipeline route. Locations include: 1.0 mile in 

Saint John Creek (T30S, R3W, Sec15), 0.5 mile 

in Lick Creek (T30S, R3W, Sec35), 0.5 mile in 

Ben Branch Creek (T29S, R4W, Sec15), and 

0.75 mile in Muns Creek (T29S, R8W, Sec 3). 

Pipeline construction would result iand future sources of large wood in adjacent to the route. In addition, ewear on road surfaces may result isediment contributions to these aqu

Addition of large wood would increacomplexity in the short term, and wstore sediment over time. 

Roads Mitigation Projects 1

Coos Bay 

District 

BLM/Myrtlewood 

Resource Area 

Water, Fish I Road Surfacing near HIP coho streams 

 Pave approximately 8 miles of existing gravel county roads. Assess the 42 stream crossing culvert locations for proper size, wear/longevity, and function to pass material that could plug them. Replace all culverts showing wear greater than 1/2 life expectancy. Replace all that are undersized for flow from above. Establish proper drainage of ditch relief culverts or route water to streams via stable ditchlines. 

Objective is to mitigate expected se

way by reducing sediment delivery road system adjacent to coastal coduring winter hauling of timber. 

Medford District 

BLM 

Water, Soils, 

Riparian D/I Trail Creek Road Work 

Approximately 12 miles of road could be proposed for decommissioning to prevent further risk to sedimentation to critical coho habitat within the Trail Creek & Rogue River watersheds. 

These roads, at this time, would beimprovement and maintenance prospot-rocking, road surfacing, culver

Medford District 

BLM 

Water, Soils, 

Riparian D/I Deer Creek-Bear Creek Jeep Trail Obliteration Inventory and/or Decommission. 

Adjacent private land ownership, lacontrol has led to the development miles of jeep and OHV trails - assostemming from the 34s1e23 Road proposing to inventory and/or deco

Medford District 

BLM 

Water, Soils, 

Riparian D/I Upper Salt Creek Jeep Trail Obliteration Inventory and/or Decommission. 

Large meadows and gentle terrain and OHV use in ecologically sensitproposing an inventory and blockinapproximately 5 miles of such trails associated with or directly stem froCreek) Road. 

Medford District 

BLM 

Water, Soils, 

Riparian D/I Obenchain Road Work 

Restoration, Decommissioning, and Obliteration of jeep trails and OHV use in ecologically sensitive sites. 

Large meadows, gentle terrain, adjownership and access from severafor jeep trails and OHV use in ecoloWe are proposing blocking and/or oapproximately 5 miles of such trails associated with or directly stem fro(Obenchain Road). 

Stand Density Mitigation Projects 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

3 

Proposing 

Land Mgt Unit Resource Direct (D)/ Indirect (I) Project Name Project Description Rationale 

Coos Bay 

District 

BLM/Myrtlewood 

Resource Area 

Late Successional 

Habitat, T&E 

Species, Fuel 

Reduction 

D/I Unknown 

Acquisition of Mid-seral and Late Successional forest (suitable or potential) marbled murrelet habitat adjacent to BLM lands. 

LSR Removal/Enhancement of exiincreased Habitat Enhancement fo

Lakeview 

District BLM 

Late Successional 

Habitat, T&E 

Species, Fuel 

Reduction 

D/I Upper Spencer Creek LSR/DDR LSR Thinning. Thin/pile/burn 0-6" white-fir understory within the Upper Spencer Creek LSR to reduce the risk of stand replacing fire. LSR Removal/Enhancement of exi

increased fuels, fire risk, Protection Enhancement for Northern Spotted 

Medford District 

BLM 

Late Successional 

Habitat, T&E 

Species, Fuel 

Reduction 

D/I 

Density Management 

of Stands within LSOG 

1 and LSOG 2 areas - 

Glendale Resource 

Area 

The project would reduce densities within young stands to maintain/ accelerate growth, develop characteristics of older forest stands, and modify species composition. This project would also reduce densities of overstocked unentered older stands to reduce fuels, maintain/ improve vigor of large dominant overstory trees and reduce the risk of loss of habitat to catastrophic fire. It is anticipated that the project would treat 250-300 acres and that treatments would not involve removal of a commercial product. In addition to reducing stand densities through the cutting of "excess" vegetation, it is anticipated that fuels reduction through handpiling and burning of the piles or underburning would be done. Project would include clearances, NEPA analysis (CE), and treatment. 

West Fork Cow Creek, NSO, possisuccessional forest related species(LSOG1,2) MAMU zone 1. 

Roseburg BLM 

Late Successional 

Habitat, T&E 

species 

D Down wood-snag creation This project would create snags and down wood within previously commercially thinned stands 

This project would assist in accelerof habitat characteristics critical to successional habitat. Snags and din providing both nesting habitat anspotted owl prey species and in prohabitats and structures necessary fdevelopment of late-successional h

1 Refer to Appendix A-3 for additional detail on locations of proposed road decommissioning projects. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

1 

Appendix A-3 

Projects Recommended By USDA- Forest Service for Funding By the Proponents As Co

Related Forest Plan Goals and 

Objectives Mitigation Activity Location Amount 

Treatments 

in 50 Year 

Period Resource 

Roads Mitigation Group 1

Decommission/obliterate Umpqua LSR 222, 223 7.6miles 1 roads, barricade road entrance w/permanent landscape structures (berms, boulders, etc.), remove culverts, restore drainage, recontour roadbed to original slope, large wood placement, and seed/plant. 

Rogue River-Siskiyou LSR 227 (On the RRS NF total road closures proposed include 1 fish bearing and 22 non-fish-bearing stream crossings as well as 10 stretches within fish-bearing riparian habitat and 15 stretches within fish-bearing riparian habitat.) 

54.5 miles 1 

LSR, Northern Spotted Owl, Pacific fisher, other latesuccessional habitat dependent species, riparian habitat, aquatics, SONC Coho, Steelhead, soil productivity 

A 30-50 foot wide route azone of 100 foot width or or more centuries. This sthe remaining forest blockconcern in riparian ecosysconjunction with precommedge effects and fragmensedimentation to the wateand road reduction is a mwith the thinning proposedconstruction R/W. 

Key Watersheds: Reduce existing system and nonsystem road mileage. There will be no net increase in the amount of roads in Key Watersheds. (ROD C-7) Soil Productivity: maintain and enhance soil productivity and soil stability. (UNF IV-67; RR 4-1)) Wildlife: To provide for present and future habitat needs of wildlife species Contribute to the recovery of all threatened or endangered species (UNF IV-39, RR 4-2) Water Quality: maintain or enhance water quantity, quality, and timing of streamflow (UNF IV-59, RR 4-1) Fisheries: protect, maintain and, where appropriate, enhance the productivlty of fish habitat (UNF IV-33, RR 4-2). ACS Objectives: 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 

Close roads with barricades and remove culverts; revegetate, outslope road prism but do not obliterate. 

Umpqua 5.4 miles 1 Wildlife sensitive to 

disturbance, improves aquatic and terrestrial connectivity. 

Close roads and remove cconstruction, and road usimprove interior stand con

Stand Density and Fuels Management Mitigation Group 

Integrated Commercial Thin, Precommercial Thin, Fuels Treatments adjacent to Pipeline corridor 

Umpqua LSR 223 and Rogue Rivier/Siskiyou LSR 227 

2081 Acres vegetation Rx with 1128 acres of underburn 

Matrix 

1341 Acres vegetation Rx with 907 acres of underburn 

1 Vegetation treatment, 3 underburns 

Late successional and old growth dependent species and forest ecosystems. Timber production on Matrix Lands. 

Both mature stands and ddeveloping stands will excexisting mature stands by accelerate development ointensity. Biological resoupermanent loss that cannreplacement. LSR Assessreplacing fire. In order to econtiguous and is in proxilate-successional habitat. as micro organisms, soils and wastes is very compleforest. The proposed ridgpotential for stand replaceThis mitigation provides m

Rogue River-Siskiyou NF LSR 227. 

600 acres 

Late Successional Reserves: LateSuccessional Reserves are to be managed to protect and enhance conditions of latesuccessional and old-growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for latesuccessional and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl. These reserves are designed to maintain a functional, interacting, late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystem. (ROD, C-11) Matrix Lands: Most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities would be conducted in that portion of the matrix with suitable forest lands, according to standards and guidelines. (ROD, C-39)  Efficient production of wood fiber to satisfy National needs and benefit local economies (UNF IV-42, RR 4-2) ACS Objectives 1,2, 5, 8. 

Precommercial thin young harvest plantations in a single entry to create a pattern and spacing that will accelerate development of mature forest characteristics. These stands are in LSR but are not adjacent to the pipeline and are in addition to acres above. 

Umpqua NF LSR 223 425 acres (In 

addition to Fuel Break Project above.) 

1 (staggered over a period of 3 years) 

LSR, Northern Spotted Owl, Pacific fisher, other latesuccessional habitat dependent species 

There will be direct impacfragmentation and precludMaintenance of pipeline cAlso the project will result decades past the life of thconstruction. Density manfragmentation, reduction iforest characteristics will syoung stands is a recognicharacteristics (NWFP RO
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

2 

Upland Terrestrial Mitigation Group 

Umpqua NF LSR 223 Rogue River-Siskiyou NF LSR 227 

175 Acres 600 Acres 

Within LSR manage 1 snags densities at 16/acre > 10.0 in, of which 8/acre > 20 in dbh. within the Matrix manage snag densities at 4/acre >20 in dbh. to mitigate loss of current and future sang habitat from removal large trees and snags within the construction clearing zone and the removal of adjacent hazard trees for the life of this project. Managing for this level of snag habitat provide for a greater assurance of associated species abundances within the LSR and Matrix (DecAID). ROD C-C11 and C-40 

Umpqua NF Matrix 175 Acres 1 

LSR, Northern Spotted Owl, Pacific fisher, other latesuccessional habitat dependent species. Matrix benefits all snag dependent species. 

Mitigate immediate and fudevelopment of large snasnag habitat on app.. 775 Watershed Analysis which actions. This project will areplacement is needed. Sanalysis and mitigation un10 year delay as snag decthe various management (items 4 and 7). Snag madiscussed in the South Ca

Manage Logs (Coarse woody material) within the pipeline corridor and in adjacent stands that have a deficiency in down wood due to past management. 

Umpqua NF LSR 223 Rogue River-Siskiyou NF LSR 227 

350 Acres 600 Acres 

1 LSR, Northern Spotted 

Owl, Pacific fisher, other latesuccessional habitat dependent species 

Mitigate for the loss of recproject will forgo the devecritical component of Matuthe corridor by creating stadjacent to the corridor aldeficient stands. Larger loproposed levels provide f

Treatment of noxious weeds, planting of native species, treatment of encroaching conifers and burning 

Umpqua NF Unique and Mosaic Habitats 

Variable as encountered in project 

1 Native plant and 

wildlife communities. 

Mitigate impacts to Uniqu

habitats and disruption to 

Late Successional Reserves: managed to protect and enhance conditions of latesuccessional and old-growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for latesuccessional and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl. (ROD C11) Long Term Soil Productivity: Maintain or improve soil site productrvlty in all resource management activities Rehabilitate degraded land to a productive state. (RR 4-1, UNF IV-67) Wildlife: To provide for present and future habitat needs of wildlife species Contribute to the recovery of all threatened or endangered species (UNF IV-39, RR 4-2) Biological Diversity: Mantain viable representation of native plant and animal species, and biological commumties. (UNF IV36, RR 4-2) 

Planting at specific sites to grasses that benefit Mardon Skippers and Elderberry to benefit Short-horned Grasshopper. 

Rogue River-Siskiyou NF LSR 227 

20 Acres 1 Mardon Skipper 

Butterflies and short horned grasshoppers. 

The Dead Indian Plateau to a known site for Short-hrequirement of a permanegrasshoppers. Planting thhabitat and local range foUse of specific plant speclocation would be in the p

Wetland Aquatic - Riparian Mitigation Group 

Repair stream crossing Fremont-Winema NF, 

Spencer Creek 

1 Project 1 Fisheries and Riparian 

habitats 

Mitigation-Indirect: The prreach of the perennial porby NMFS through the FERSouthern Oregon/NortherKlamath River hydro faciliother locations in other waavailable habitat. Improvinhabitat for SONC coho, mredband trout and other aimpaired from increased shabitats and the species aphysical habitat disruptionof habitats could occur if tif erosion of the bed, bank(approximately 59 acres oremove an important sourassociated reduction in ha

Riparian Areas: Maintain or enhance the Characteristics of riparian areas, wildlife habitat, and fish habtat near or within riparian ecosystems (WIN 4-6) . Riparian area management is designed to protect soil, water, wetland, floodplain, wildlife, and fish and resource values associated with riparian vegetative communities; maintain or improve water quality, wildlife habitat and fish habitat near or within riparian ecosystems (WIN 4-136, 139; RR 4-2; UNF IV-59) Fisheries: protect, maintain and, where appropriate, enhance the productivlty of fish habitat to provide for populations of resident and anadromous fish (UNF IV-43; RR 4-2). High standards of water quality in terms of temperature, turbidity, and bank stability for fisheries (WIN 4-6, 4-139). Aquatic ecosystems: restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and Stream Simulator Umpqua NF 5 crossings 1 Fisheries and aquatic To mitigate connectivity im
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

3 

Culverts Placement; Remove existing culverts and replace with stream simulator culverts 

biota enhance habitat for aquat

will be affected from physLong-term degradation of patterns are changed; and Loss of riparian vegetatioincreasing water temperaof large wood and the ass

aquatic ecosystems contained within them on public lands... maintain and restore ecosystem health at watershed and landscape scales to protect habitat for fish and other ripariandependent species and resources and restore currently degraded habitats. (NWFP ROD B-9) ACS objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 

Repair stream crossing Rogue River NF 23 crossing 

repairs Included in Road Decom 

1 Fisheries, aquatic 

biota and connectivity 

Restoring stream crossingvegetation. Over time, theriparian planting as a mitig

Grazing Mitigation Group Riparian Areas: Maintain or enhance the Characteristics of riparian areas, wildlife habitat, and fish habtat near or within riparian ecosystems. (WIN 4-6) . Water bodies, stream courses, and wetlands, their riparian vegetation, and the immediately adjacent upland areas will be managed to stabilize stream channels: prevent soil erosion: and maintain or improve water quality, fish habitat, recreation opportunities, and riparian/ wetland habitat for dependent fish and wildlife species and dependent aquatic species. (WIN 4-16) Riparian area management is designed to protect soil, water, wetland, floodplain, wildlife, and fish resource values associated with riparian vegetative communities (WIN 4-136); maintain or improve riparian areas associated wlth Class I, II and III streams and with lakes (WIN 4-139) ACS Objectives: 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 

Fence construction and cattle guards 

Fremont-Winema NF, Clover Creek Road. Buck-Indian Allotment 

Fence and cattle guard project (6 miles fence, 3 cattle guards) 

1 wetland and riparian 

areas, 

Mitigation-direct: The pipRequired vegetation remocontinued protection from Creek, cattle should be exendangering motorists an

Meadow, Buck Lake, Tun

habitat for and is occupied 

trout. Spencer Creek has facilities, as habitat for Fe

allotment has a single perWen Timber Resources putilizing all land ownershiphigh snow loads in this arpipeline ROW. The let dopreferred to gates at majoand 3850 or 3750 which is crossings are on existing 

Visuals Mitigation Group

Rogue River NF PCT and Big Elk Crossing 

Planting native species, chipping and mulching, removing rootwads and large boulders, contouring berms etc. 

Fremont-Winema NF Dead Indian Crossing and Clover Creek Road corridor 

Variable within Partial Retention and Retention VQO 

Project will impact visual rlarger trees will help offse

contrasting color of distur

Visual Mgt. Plan. (These 

Winema NF: Provide attractive. visually pleasing settings, emphasizing appearance of areas seen from major travel .routes,-use areas, and bodies of water (LRMP 4-13) Rogue River NF: Maintain and / or enhance scenery in Foreground Retention and Partial Retention areas (LRMP 4 - 72, 4 - 86) Foreground Retention: The primary emphasis for this intensity is to retain the natural-appearing condition of the foreground areas. The retention visual quality objective means that activities may only repeat whatever form, line, color, and texture are frequently found in the characteristic landscape. Changes in their qualities--such as size, amount, intensity, direction, and pattern-may not be evident (WIN MA 3A, LRMP 4-103, RR MA 6A, LRMP 4-72). Foreground Partial Retention: The goal is to provide attractive scenery that is slightly altered from a natural condition as viewed in the foreground . Activlties may repeat or introduce form, line, color, or texture common or uncommon to the characteristic landscape, but changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensty, direction, and pattern must remain visually subordinate to the visual strength of the characteristic landscape (MA 3B; LRMP 4-107, RR MA 6B, LRMP 4-86). 

Stand density mgt. with fuel treatments. 

Clover Creek corridor and Dead Indian Road crossing 

500 1 

visual resources 

Soften edge of corridor by obvious. See Visual Mgt. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

4 

LSR Re-allocation Mitigation Group 

Rogue-River Siskiyou NF, LSR 227 

Approximately 600 

Late Successional Reserves: The objective 1 of Late-Successional Reserves is to protect and enhance conditions of late successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl. (NWFP ROD C-9) 

Reallocate matrix land to the LSR land allocation Umpqua NF, LSR 223 Approximately 

400 

1 

LSR land allocation This action contributes to 

land allocation to offset thIt does not offset the direc

1 Refer to Appendix A-4 for additional detail on locations of proposed road decommissioning projects.
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

1 

Appendix A-4 

Road Decommissioning Projects Recommended By Bureau of Land Management and By USDA Fores

for Funding by the Proponents As Compensatory Mitigation 

NW

Agency Jurisdiction 

(shapefile 1) 

Road ID Road Number/ Road Name Length (feet) Width (feet) Total Acres Fifth Field Watershed (Key Watershed) Riparian Reserves (acres) Alloca

BLM Districts 

32-1-30.2 Beaver Spgs 2564 14 0.83 Trail Creek 0.28 Mat

 33-2-12 Hardway Ml 5848 17 2.29 Trail Creek 0.55 Mat 32-1-31.3 Beaver Springs Sp 1455 14 0.47 Trail Creek 0.28 Mat 32-1-31.2 Beaver Springs Sp 2086 14 0.67 Trail Creek 0.25 Mat 33-1-29.4 No Name 2068 17 0.81 Trail Creek 0.00 Mat 33-1-31.2 Mobil Yarder Spur 950 17 0.38 Trail Creek 0.03 Mat 33-1-15 No Name 1847 17 0.73 Elk Creek – Rogue River (Elk Creek) 0.38 LS 34-2-1.1 Board East Ts Sp 1022 14 0.33 Trail Creek 0.02 Mat

Medford 

(medford_potential

_mitigation_arc)

33-1-10.4 Hungry Spot Lower Buck 1795 14 0.58 Trail Creek 0.01 Mat

 33-2-23.2 Romine Crk S 1566 14 0.51 Trail Creek 0.19 Mat 33-2-15.1 Walpole Ck Mn Sp 3888 14 1.25 Trail Creek 0.09 Mat 33-2-13.1 Walpole 480 14 0.16 Trail Creek 0.09 Mat 33-2-25.1 Board Mtn Sp 874 14 0.28 Trail Creek 0.00 Mat 33-2-25.1 Board Mtn Sp 369 14 0.12 Trail Creek 0.00 Mat 33-2-24.2 Paradise Sp 1214 12 0.34 Trail Creek 0.05 Mat 33-2-23.5 Walpole Ck Sec 23 Se Sp 698 14 0.54 Trail Creek 0.08 Mat 33-2-1 Hardway Spur 778 17 0.31 Trail Creek 0.16 Mat 33-2-3.6 Little Chicago 2278 16 0.84 Trail Creek 0.40 Mat 33-2-3 Chicago Cabin Esmt 4006 14 1.29 Trail Creek 0.69 Mat 33-2-23 Walpole Sec 23 Sp 2504 14 0.81 Trail Creek 0.07 Mat 33-2-23.6 Wallow Sp 1407 14 0.46 Trail Creek 0.13 Mat 34-2-1.2 Board East Ts Sp 642 17 0.26 Trail Creek 0.01 Mat
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

2 

NW

Agency Jurisdiction 

(shapefile 1) 

Road ID Road Number/ Road Name Length (feet) Width (feet) Total Acres Fifth Field Watershed (Key Watershed) Riparian Reserves (acres) Alloca

 33-2-25.8 Stump Sp 615 14 0.20 Trail Creek 0.00 Mat 33-2-3.3 Snow Springs Sp 1214 17 0.48 Trail Creek 0.23 Mat 32-1-30.3 Beaver Spgs 276 14 0.09 Trail Creek 0.09 Mat 32-1-30.1 Beaver Spgs 1607 14 0.52 Trail Creek 0.11 Mat

Medford 

(medford_potential

_mitigation_arc)

32-1-21.2 Shed Camp Swbk Sp 1242 14 0.40 Trail Creek 0.00 Mat

 32-1-21 Shed Cp 2333 13 0.70 Trail Creek 0.36 Mat 32-1-21.1 Shed Camp Adverse Sp 2236 14 0.72 Trail Creek 0.34 Mat 32-1-29 Se Sec 29 Upper Trl S 1489 14 0.48 Trail Creek 0.31 Mat 33-1-15 No Name 482 17 0.19 Trail Creek 0.00 Mat 33-2-23.1 Walpole Sec 23 Short spur 200 17 0.06 Trail Creek 0.02 Mat

Total Medford 

BLM District N/A N/A 52,035 (9.86 mi) N/A 18.10 N/A 5.21 N/A 

USDA Forest Service 

 3200750 OL BLUE/ ET AL T.S. 443 0.18 Trail Creek 0.00 Mat 3200751 825 0.33 Trail Creek 0.00 Mat 3200752 -/PONY T.S. 1778 0.70 Trail Creek 0.00 Mat 3200753 PONY T.S. 459 0.18 Trail Creek 0.00 Mat 3200801 1145 0.45 Trail Creek 0.22 Mat 3200812 BUTTERFLY T.S. 917 0.36 Trail Creek 0.00 Mat

Umpqua 

National Forest 3201500 ROWLEY - ROWLEY II TS'S 1578 0.62 Elk Creek – South Umpqua (South Umpqua River) 0.00 LS

(ump-rd-decommcmp2) 3230121 2569 1.01 Elk Creek – South Umpqua (South Umpqua River) 0.00 LS

 3230201 1589 0.63 Elk Creek – South Umpqua (South Umpqua River) 0.00 Mat

(0.23) 

(0.4

 3230211 657 0.26 Elk Creek – South Umpqua (South Umpqua River) 0.00 LS 3230220 CALLAHAN T.S. 2183 0.86 Elk Creek – South Umpqua (South Umpqua River) 0.00 LS 3230240 CALLAHAN T.S. 5158 2.02 Elk Creek – South Umpqua (South Umpqua River) 0.67 Mat
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

3 

NW

Agency Jurisdiction 

(shapefile 1) 

Road ID Road Number/ Road Name Length (feet) Width (feet) Total Acres Fifth Field Watershed (Key Watershed) Riparian Reserves (acres) Alloca

 3230260 815 0.32 Elk Creek – South Umpqua (South Umpqua River) 0.00 LS 3232865 3144 1.23 Upper Cow Creek 0.00 Mat 3243220 DISMAL T.S. 339 0.14 Upper Cow Creek 0.00 Mat 3243221 DISMAL T.S. 2229 0.88 Upper Cow Creek 0.08 Mat 3243222 DISMAL T.S. 2930 1.15 Upper Cow Creek 0.00 Mat 3243223 1296 0.51 Upper Cow Creek 0.00 Mat 3243224 DISMAL T.S. 1538 0.61 Upper Cow Creek 0.00 Mat

Umpqua 

National Forest 3243225 DISMAL T.S. 933 0.37 Upper Cow Creek 0.00 Mat

(ump-rd-decommcmp2) 3243226 DISMAL/PANTH ER T.S. 681 0.27 Upper Cow Creek 0.00 Mat

 3243227 DISMAL T.S. 1721 0.68 Upper Cow Creek 0.02 Mat 3243228 DISMAL T.S. 1101 0.43 Upper Cow Creek 0.00 Mat 3243229 DISMAL T.S. 1359 0.54 Upper Cow Creek 0.00 Mat 3243230 DISMAL T.S. 894 0.35 Upper Cow Creek 0.00 Mat 3243234 723 0.29 Upper Cow Creek 0.00 Mat 3243235 DISMAL T.S. 1764 0.69 Upper Cow Creek 0.00 Mat 3243271 ANCHOR T.S. 926 0.37 Upper Cow Creek 0.11 Mat

Total Umpqua 

National Forest N/A N/A 41,694 (7.9 mi) N/A 16.41 N/A 1.10 N/A 

2500145 6384 16 2.35 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek) 

0.97 LS

 2500146 Decommissioned 1151 10 0.27 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 

LSR (0

Oth

(0.0

Rogue River 

National Forest 

(potentialroadclosu

res.shp)

2500147 Decommissioned 837 10 0.19 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815220 2136 14 0.69 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.15 LS

 2815250 4619 14 1.49 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.86 LS

 2815254 3402 14 1.10 Little Butte Creek (S. Fork/ 0.13 LSR (1

Oth
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

4 

NW

Agency Jurisdiction 

(shapefile 1) 

Road ID Road Number/ Road Name Length (feet) Width (feet) Total Acres Fifth Field Watershed (Key Watershed) Riparian Reserves (acres) Alloca

N. Fork Little Butte Creek) (0.0

 2815255 Decommissioned 2186 0.86 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.45 LS

 2815260 1730 14 0.56 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815320 Decommissioned 1161 0.46 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815325 Decommissioned 1072 0.42 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815370 Decommissioned 2410 0.95 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815375 Decommissioned 1541 0.61 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

Rogue River 

National Forest 

(potentialroadclosu

res.shp)

2815380 Decommissioned 931 0.37 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815385 Decommissioned 1116 0.44 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815390 Decommissioned 294 0.12 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815395 Decommissioned 575 0.23 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

2815400 13312 20 6.12 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

1.52 LS

2815420 3180 14 1.03 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.14 LS
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

5 

NW

Agency Jurisdiction 

(shapefile 1) 

Road ID Road Number/ Road Name Length (feet) Width (feet) Total Acres Fifth Field Watershed (Key Watershed) Riparian Reserves (acres) Alloca

 2815420 3180 0.31 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815422 957 14 0.31 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815423 538 12 0.15 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815424 718 12 0.20 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815425 Decommissioned 1455 0.57 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815426 Decommissioned 778 0.31 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

Rogue River 

National Forest 

(potentialroadclosu

res.shp)

2815460 6459 14 2.08 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.22 LS

 2815463 Decommissioned 711 12 0.20 

(Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815466 Decommissioned 2513 12 0.69 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815468 Decommissioned 921 0.36 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.18 LS

 2815470 Decommissioned 888 0.35 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 2815900 3899 1.53 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.44 LS

 2815950 Decommissioned 412 0.17 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

6 

NW

Agency Jurisdiction 

(shapefile 1) 

Road ID Road Number/ Road Name Length (feet) Width (feet) Total Acres Fifth Field Watershed (Key Watershed) Riparian Reserves (acres) Alloca

 3700060 2273 14 0.73 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.63 LS

3700070 2089 14 0.67 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.67 LS

3700088 2827 14 0.91 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.36 LS

 3700095 2156 12 0.60 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3700097 4293 14 1.38 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.46 LS

 3700100 10282 16 3.79 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.67 LS

Rogue River 

National Forest 

(potentialroadclosu

res.shp)

3700101 Decommissioned 1542 0.61 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3700103 4117 14 1.33 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3700106 3169 14 1.02 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.04 LS

 3700109 2003 14 0.65 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.16 LS

 3700113 2918 14 0.94 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3700115 2727 14 0.88 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3700117 Decommissioned 5643 2.21 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.24 LS
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

7 

NW

Agency Jurisdiction 

(shapefile 1) 

Road ID Road Number/ Road Name Length (feet) Width (feet) Total Acres Fifth Field Watershed (Key Watershed) Riparian Reserves (acres) Alloca

 3705375 Decommissioned 7733 3.02 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.12 LS

 3705520 1378 16 0.51 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.23 LS

 3705525 2547 12 0.70 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.05 LS

 3705580 2614 14 0.84 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

3705700 2627 14 0.85 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.07 LS

3705710 Decommissioned 1175 0.46 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

Rogue River 

National Forest 

(potentialroadclosu

res.shp)

3705712 Decommissioned 7100 2.78 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.01 LS

 3705800 2290 14 0.74 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3705805 Decommissioned 989 0.39 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3707100 Decommissioned 1406 0.55 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.09 LS

 3707590 5358 16 1.97 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3707800 Decommissioned 2898 1.14 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.16 LS
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

8 

NW

Agency Jurisdiction 

(shapefile 1) 

Road ID Road Number/ Road Name Length (feet) Width (feet) Total Acres Fifth Field Watershed (Key Watershed) Riparian Reserves (acres) Alloca

 3707805 Decommissioned 757 0.30 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3707850 10521 16 3.87 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.71 LS

 3710012 11127 14 3.58 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

1.20 LS

 3710013 Decommissioned 2022 12 0.56 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.31 LS

 3710015 1826 16 0.68 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.36 LS

Rogue River 

National Forest 

(potentialroadclosu

res.shp)

3710017 Decommissioned 1520 12 0.42 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3710020 Decommissioned 942 0.37 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3710023 Decommissioned 3094 12 0.85 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.13 LS

3710025 Decommissioned 428 0.17 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

3710030 Decommissioned 1735 0.68 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

3710032 1370 12 0.38 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

3710040 Decommissioned 6271 12 1.73 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.46 LS

 3710042 Decommissioned 784 12 0.22 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

9 

NW

Agency Jurisdiction 

(shapefile 1) 

Road ID Road Number/ Road Name Length (feet) Width (feet) Total Acres Fifth Field Watershed (Key Watershed) Riparian Reserves (acres) Alloca

 3710050 Decommissioned 2428 0.95 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.04 LS

 3710053 Decommissioned 1666 0.65 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3710080 2005 10 0.46 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 

LSR (0

Oth

(0.0

 3710090 1996 12 0.55 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3710090 1996 12 0.81 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3710095 953 12 0.27 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.10 LS

Rogue River 

National Forest 

(potentialroadclosu

res.shp)

3710100 Decommissioned 850 0.34 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3710105 Decommissioned 1540 0.61 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3710120 Decommissioned 1163 0.46 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3710120 Decommissioned 1163 0.46 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3710130 741 14 0.24 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

3710155 8124 3.17 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 

LSR (2

Oth

(0.4

3710157 Decommissioned 1111 0.44 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

10 

NW

Agency Jurisdiction 

(shapefile 1) 

Road ID Road Number/ Road Name Length (feet) Width (feet) Total Acres Fifth Field Watershed (Key Watershed) Riparian Reserves (acres) Alloca

3720500 7247 12 2.00 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.43 LS

3720510 Decommissioned 1882 0.74 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3720520 5491 16 2.02 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3720530 3578 16 1.32 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3720535 2972 12 0.82 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3720537 2704 12 0.75 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.21 LS

 3720600 10347 14 3.33 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.40 LS

Rogue River 

National Forest 

(potentialroadclosu

res.shp)

3720610 Decommissioned 786 14 0.26 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.25 LS

 3720640 Decommissioned 1240 0.49 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.13 LS

 3720650 Decommissioned 2101 0.83 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.01 LS

 3720800 Decommissioned 837 0.33 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

 3730000 15857 6.19 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.55 LS

 3730180 5841 14 1.88 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

11 

NW

Agency Jurisdiction 

(shapefile 1) 

Road ID Road Number/ Road Name Length (feet) Width (feet) Total Acres Fifth Field Watershed (Key Watershed) Riparian Reserves (acres) Alloca

Rogue River 

National Forest 

(potentialroadclosu

res.shp)

3730450 Decommissioned 2801 1.10 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

0.00 LS

3732201 6355 2.48 

Little Butte Creek 

(S. Fork/ 

N. Fork Little Butte Creek)

1.23 LS

Total Rogue 

River – Siskiyou 

National Forest 

N/A N/A 293,793 (55.6 mi) N/A 102.92 N/A 15.54 N/A 

Overall Total N/A N/A 293,792 (73.4 mi) N/A 137.43 N/A 21.85 N/A 

1 GIS shapefiles of recommended projects, including road decommissioning projects, were provided by BLM and Forest Service. 

2 Note: all northern spotted owl critical habitat units are also northern spotted owl recovery plan MOCAs (Managed Owl Conservation Areas). 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

1 

Appendix B 

Mitigation Plan 

Kincaid’s Lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii) 

MPs 57.84 - 57.92, 59.60, and 96.5 - 96.9 

Douglas County, Oregon 

1.0 Introduction 

Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii) (LUSUK) is a long-lived, tall, perennial herb 

in the Pea (Fabaceae) family. LUSUK is found in dry upland prairies from Lewis County, 

Washington, in the north, south to the foothills of Douglas County, Oregon, and is a federallyand Oregon state-threatened species. Populations in Douglas County often occur in more 

shaded conditions – in mixed woods with a partially-closed canopy – in contrast to the open 

prairie habitats of the more northerly populations. Flowering begins in April and extends 

through June. LUSUK is also a host plant for the federally-endangered Fender's blue butterfly 

(Icariciaicariodes fenderi [Lycaenidae]) (Siskiyou BioSurvey LLC, 2007)). 

A Draft Recovery Plan for LUSUK and several other prairie-habitat species was published in 

August, 2008. Critical habitat for Kincaid’s lupine was designated on October 31, 2006; 

however, no critical habitat units for Kincaid’s lupine were designated in Douglas County. 

Rather, a conservation agreement was established to formally document the intent to protect, 

conserve, and contribute to the recovery by implementing recovery actions for LUSUK and its 

habitat on federal lands within Douglas County (BLM et al, 2006). Additionally, a voluntary 

agreement to aid in the conservation and recovery of LUSUK was drafted for Lone Rock Timber 

Management Company, Roseburg Forest Products, Seneca Jones Timber Company, and the 

FWS, with the intent to complement the April Conservation Agreement (FWS et al., 2006). In 

March of 2008 a Management Plan for Kincaid’s Lupine in Douglas County, Oregon was 

developed between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-Roseburg District, the Umpqua 

National Forest, and FWS. The management plan addresses the populations and habitat of 

Kincaid’s lupine on BLM and NFS lands in Douglas County (BLM, USFS, and FWS, 2008). 

During botanical surveys conducted for the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (PCGP) Project in 

2007, three new populations of Kincaid’s lupine were identified, two in western and one in 

eastern Douglas County. These populations occur on private lands at Mile Posts (MPs) 57.84 - 

57.92, 59.60, and 96.5 - 96.9 along Pacific Connector’s proposed route (Siskiyou BioSurvey 

LLC, 2007). These populations are described in more detail in Section 2.0. 

This mitigation plan describes the project design measures that Pacific Connector has 

incorporated to minimize or avoid impacts to the populations of LUSUK located near MPs 57.84 

- 57.92, 59.60, and 96.5 - 96.9. This mitigation plan also outlines the construction and 

restoration measures that would be implemented to further minimize impacts to this species. 

Prior to construction, on-site protection and seed collection would also be employed to minimize 

impacts to the lupine populations. Pacific Connector has developed this mitigation plan in 

consultation with the FWS, BLM, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 

Project routing, avoidance and minimization measures, as well as plant conservation measures 

were discussed during a July, 24 2008 interagency working group meeting for the project. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

2 

2.0 Project Design Measures to Minimize and Avoid Impacts to Kincaid’s Lupine 

This section describes the rationale for the proposed project’s alignment within the LUSUK

populations near MPs 57.84 - 57.92, 59.60, and 96.5 - 96.9 and the adjustments to the 

proposed alignment or construction right-of-way that have been incorporated into the project’s 

design to minimize direct impacts to the lupine populations at these sites. Pacific Connector 

has limited the construction right-of-way and temporary extra work area (TEWA) requirements 

to only the area necessary to safely construct the pipeline. These measures are described 

separately for each LUSUK population. 

LUSUK at MPs 57.84 - 57.92

The LUSUK population identified between MPs 57.84 - 57.92 is on private land in western 

Douglas County, in Sec. 8, T.29 S., R. 7 W. This site is located at an elevation of 750 feet, in an 

ungrazed pasture in alluvial gravelly loam soils on a terrace north of Olalla Creek. The area 

slopes gently on a southeast aspect. The site includes 7 sub-populations scattered within a 500 

foot by 250 foot (approximately 5 acre) area centered on the FERC-filed centerline (September, 

2007) and construction right-of-way (see Figure 1). The 7 sub-populations total approximately 

199 plants and 21,283 square feet. Sub-populations 1 through 5 form a nearly complete line of 

plants from 200 feet north to 200 feet south of the right-of-way near MP 57.90. Sub-populations 

2 and 5 occur in the FERC-filed construction right-of-way and sub-population 3 is located on the 

edge and just south of the construction right-of-way. The remaining sub-populations occur 

outside and either north or south of the FERC-filed construction right-of-way (Siskiyou 

BioSurvey LLC, 2007). 

The alignment of the project within the Olalla Valley between approximately MPs 57.0 and 67.0 

was developed based on public scoping comments and Pacific Connector’s meetings with 

affected landowners during centerline surveys. The purpose of the Olalla/Dillard Reroute was to 

minimize impacts to residences (easement encumbrances), agricultural lands, shallow ground 

and surface water domestic supplies and proposed development of a reservoir and large 

subdivision proposed by affected landowners (see Section 10.6.2 in Resource Report 10). 

However, after 2007 botanical surveys identified the LUSUK population between MPs 57.84 - 

57.92, Pacific Connector informally consulted with the FWS during the summer of 2007, in the 

field, as well as during a July, 24 2008 interagency working group meeting for the project. 

Based on these consultations, Pacific Connector developed an alignment modification that 

would avoid direct impacts to this LUSUK population (see Figure 1). Pacific Connector has 

conferred with the affected landowners about the alignment modification and received 

concurrence from one landowner and no response from a second affected landowner for the 

proposed modification (see Attachment M). 

The modification of the FERC-filed alignment, shown in Figure 1, would avoid direct 

construction impacts to all of the sub-populations at this site, including the three large subpopulations 2, 3, and 5 as defined by Siskiyou BioSurvey LLC, (2007) which were originally 

impacted by the September, 2007 FERC-filed alignment. The alignment modification would 

avoid direct construction impacts to approximately 146 plants representing 73.3 percent of the 

total 199 plants in this LUSUK population that would have been impacted by the original 

alignment. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

3 

LUSUK at MP 59.60 

The LUSUK population identified near MP 59.60 is located outside of the construction right-ofway approximately 300 feet north of the centerline (at MP 59.60), and approximately 225 feet 

north of TEWA 59.30-N (see Figure 2). This LUSUK site is located on private lands in western 

Douglas County (Sec. 4, T.29 S., R. 7 W.). This population is located at the closest point 

approximately 30 feet north of Mcnabb Creek Road (BLM Road 29-7-3) which will be used to 

access the construction right-of-way (EAR 59.60). Project road maintenance activities on this 

road may include filling potholes, blading/grading and brushing; however all maintenance 

activities will be confined to the existing road prism and will not impact this LUSUK population. 

Pacific Connector’s Environmental Inspectors will determine if it is necessary to install protection 

measures for this population such as installation of silt or safety fence on the edge of the road at 

the time of construction. 

LUSUK at MPs 96.5 - 96.9 

The LUSUK population identified between MPs 96.5 and 96.9 and on the access roads to the 

construction right-of-way (i.e., Existing Access Road (EAR) 96.29 and EAR 96.67) occur on 

private timberland in eastern Douglas County (Sec. 2, T. 31 S., R. 3 W.). This population is 

located on a ridgeline in a young mid-seral mixed conifer and hardwood forest. Aspects range 

from south to southwest and elevation ranges from 2,400 to 2,700 feet. Plants in this population 

were located in canopy gaps and, less regularly, under closed canopy (particularly under 

Ponderosa pine trees), and in openings along 4-wheel drive roads. 

The proposed alignment between MPs 96.5 - 96.9 follows a narrow ridgeline with no feasible 

routing alternatives to realign the pipeline to completely avoid this LUSUK population. As 

identified by Siskiyou BioSurvey LLC, (2007), the proposed project as filed with FERC in 

September 2007 would impact a total of 254 plants within the 95-foot construction right-of-way 

and 80 plants within TEWA 96.66-W. However, to minimize the direct impacts to the LUSUK 

plants within this population, Pacific Connector has modified the construction right-of-way and 

TEWA 96.66-W, as shown on Figure 3. These modifications would avoid direct impacts to 61 

plants within sub-populations 13, 14, and 16. Sub-population 17, which supports 40 plants, was 

also partially avoided by narrowing the construction right-of-way. 

A number of LUSUK sub-populations also occur along the project access roads in this area 

including EAR 96.29 (sub-populations: 9, 10, 21, 25, 26, and 27) and EAR 96.67 (subpopulations 21, 22, and 23) which are shown on Figure 3. Project maintenance activities 

proposed for these roads include filling pot-holes, blading/grading and brushing, which would 

only occur within the existing road prism. To minimize potential impacts to these LUSUK subpopulations, they would be surveyed and flagged by a qualified botanist prior to project activities 

in this area. Pacific Connector’s Environmental Inspectors would clearly fence the road edges 

adjacent to these sub-populations to minimize potential disturbance from road use and 

maintenance activities. 

EAR 96.67 follows the ridgeline alignment along the construction right-of-way between MPs 

96.67 and 96.92 and passes outside the construction right-of-way near MPs 96.71 and 96.75 

immediately adjacent to two LUSUK sub-populations (13 and 16). This road also passes 

outside the construction right-of-way between MPs 96.86 and 96.88 immediately adjacent to two 

other LUSUK sub-populations (17 and 19). To minimize impacts to these sub-populations in 

this area, traffic during construction would utilize the cleared construction right-of-way. 

However, prior to clearing and grading of the construction right-of-way in this area, which would 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

4 

allow open access down the right-of-way, Pacific Connector’s Environmental and Chief 

Inspectors would limit access on the existing road (EAR 96.67) to only that necessary to prevent 

encumbering construction progress and schedules. The Environmental Inspector would ensure 

that any traffic on these roads, prior to right-of-way clearing and grading, would minimize 

potential impacts to these sub-populations by appropriately protecting them with safety and/or 

silt fencing along the road edges adjacent to these populations. 

2.1 Construction Methods 

Typical pipeline construction methods and practices would be used to install the pipeline in the 

vicinity of the LUSUK populations at MPs 57.84 - 57.92 and MPs 96.5 - 96.9. The typical 

construction practices that would ensure that impacts to the LUSUK populations are minimized 

include the following practices: 

• Surveying and flagging the construction right-of-way and temporary extra work areas to 

clearly mark the limits of construction disturbance (i.e., clearing/grading). 

• Where feasible, the Environmental Inspector will monitor the survey and flagging efforts 

and will provide additional protective buffers or neck-downs to ensure protection of 

adjacent LUSUK populations or provide additional avoidance. The Environmental 

Inspector will consult with Pacific Connector’s Chief Inspector and the construction 

contractor during construction to determine where additional buffer protections or neckdowns can be accommodated without affecting construction safety. 

• The known LUSUK populations adjacent to the construction right-of-way at MPs 57.84 - 

57.92 and MPs 96.5 - 96.9 (see Figures 1 and 3) would be protected by safety fence and 

silt fence to ensure these plants are not inadvertently impacted by project activities. 

• Equipment would be inspected and cleaned of potential noxious weed seed or plant 

parts prior to working within the known LUSUK habitat. 

• Topsoil salvaging will occur within affected populations. The salvaged topsoil will be 

returned to its original location during restoration. 

• During restoration all areas will be regraded as closely as possible to the original 

contours to ensure preconstruction drainage patterns are not affected. 

Prior to topsoil salvaging, the LUSUK populations that cannot be avoided (see Figure 3) would 

be mapped (GPS), and the topsoil within the population would be salvaged in two lifts. 

Depending on site conditions and the depth of topsoil at each of the LUSUK population 

locations, the first topsoil lift would be salvaged from approximately the top 6 inches of the soil 

horizon. This topsoil lift would be salvaged and stored separately from the second topsoil lift 

and any graded or excavated trench material. The second topsoil lift would be salvaged from 

the next approximately 6-12-inches of topsoil horizon. If necessary, topsoiling may be 

performed by hand to meet the topsoiling objectives. The topsoil stockpiles would be located as 

closely as possible to the salvaged area and appropriately signed for identification. During 

restoration the salvaged topsoil would be returned to its original location and in the same lift 

order that it was salvaged from. Pacific Connector’s Environmental Inspectors would oversee 

these operations. 

3.0 Plant Salvage 

If Pacific Connector receives approval from the landowner between MPs 96.5 - 96.9 in the 

spring or early summer during the year of construction, a qualified botanist would attempt to 

salvage LUSUK plants that cannot be avoided within the construction right-of-way (see Figure 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

5 

3). The salvaged plants would be transplanted immediately off-site in suitable habitat openings. 

The feasibility of salvaging and successfully transplanting the salvaged plants is expected to be 

difficult because of the lupine’s vegetative growth pattern (clonal) that renders it difficult to 

distinguish individuals. Excavations and morphological patterns suggest that plants 33 feet or 

more apart can be interconnected by below-ground stems, and that clones can exceed 66 feet 

across (FWS, 2005; Kaye, 2008). Therefore, the ability to efficiently and successfully complete 

plant salvage efforts will be determined during the salvaging efforts by Pacific Connector’s 

environmental staff and the salvaging botanist. 

3.1 Seed Collection 

Seed collection of Kincaid’s lupine from the populations between MPs 96.5 - 96.9 would be 

completed in the two years prior to construction after flowering and when the seeds have 

developed and matured, but prior to seed drop or dispersal (i.e., June to July). Seed collection 

is proposed for two years because of the species’ low seed production (Gisler, 2004). Seeds 

will be collected as soon as possible to minimize seed loss from grazing, insect predation, or 

other natural causes. Seed collection would be completed by a qualified botanist after collecting 

permits have been acquired. The botanist will collect seed pods and will store the collected 

seeds in suitable envelopes or bags that have been labeled with the site’s collection information 

(i.e., date of collection, legal location, UTM coordinates, etc). The collected seed will be 

provided to a certified seed repository for long-term storage and for use in establishing 

transplants, such as The Berry Botanic Garden1

. Alternatively, the collected seed would be 

replanted within the construction right-of-way and outside the 30-foot maintained easement 

during restoration efforts as described in Section 4.0 below. 

4.0 Site Restoration/Habitat Enhancement 

After the pipeline has been installed, the trench backfilled, and the area regraded and restored 

to approximately original contours, the salvaged topsoil from the mapped polygons of LUSUK

between MPs 96.5 - 96.9 would be replaced (see Figure 3). All disturbed areas between MPs 

57.84 - 57.92 and MPs 96.5 - 96.9, would be reseeded with native grasses and, forbs adjacent 

to the Kincaid’s lupine populations to minimize noxious weed invasion and to encourage a 

variety of pollinating insects. These native reseeding species would be hand collected from the 

area immediately adjacent to the right-of-way between 96.5 - 96.9 or other similar areas and 

would include those species listed in Tables 1 and 2. Seed would be collected two years prior 

to construction as well as during the year of construction to ensure that an adequate quantity of 

seed is available for reseeding efforts. Seed collected in the years prior to construction would 

be dried, stored in labeled, sealed bags and refrigerated to preserve viability. It is anticipated 

that adequate seed will be collected to allow for direct re-seeding without the need for farmincreasing. In the area of 57.84-57.92, there are currently very few populations of native 

species present due to the modified agricultural nature of the area. While it may be possible to 

aquire some seed by collecting locally, it will probably be necessary to collect seed from nearby 

BLM lands (if allowed) or, likely, to purchase seed from a native seed supplier. 

During reseeding, the LUSUK seed that was collected from the sub-populations between and 

adjacent to MPs 96.5 - 96.9 would be replanted in this area by the collecting botanist. The 

botanist would select the replanting area within the construction right-of-way. The replanting 

area would consider the best available habitat in this area based on aspect, soil conditions, 

 

1 (http://www.berrybot.org/cons/conservation.html)
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

6 

shading and other factors. The planting areas would be mapped (GPS) for subsequent 

monitoring purposes. 

 

Table 1 

Preliminary Seed Mixture: MP 57.85 (1acre) 

Common Name Scientific Name Estimated Seed Quantity (lbs) 

Grasses 

Blue wild rye Elymus glaucus 6 

California brome Bromus carinatus 8 

California fescue Festuca californica 6 

Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia caespitosa 1 

Roemer’s fescue Festuca roemeri 5 

Forbs 

Dwarf Sidalcea malvaeflora 3

Woolyhead clover Trifolium eriocephalum 0.25-0.5 

Tomcat clover Trifolium willendovii 0.25-0.5 

Table 2 

Preliminary Seed Mixture: MP 96.5 (4 acres) 

Common Name Scientific Name Estimated Seed Quantity (lbs) 

Grasses 

Blue wild rye Elymus glaucus 24 

California brome Bromus carinatus 35 

California fescue Festuca californica 27 

Roemer’s fescue Festuca roemeri 10 

Slender hairgrass Deschampsia elongata 4 

Forbs 

Oregon sunshine Eriophyllum lanatum 2 (cleaned seed) 

Woolyhead clover Trifolium eriocephalum 1 

Yarrow Achillea millefolium 2 (cleaned seed) 

Dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium 1 

Whipplevine Whipplea modesta 1 

Prior to seeding, an appropriate seedbed would be prepared to ensure that the site has been 

properly scarified to mitigate potential compaction that may have occurred from heavy 

equipment traffic during construction. The seedbed will be left in a roughened condition to 

promote infiltration, reduce runoff, and enhance revegetation success by creating micro-sites to 

capture moisture. Proper seedbed preparation will also ensure proper soil/seed contact. 

Seeding will occur by hand broadcasting. Following seeding, the seed area will be lightly raked 

to cover seed with soil approximately 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch deep. Soil amendments or fertilizers will not 

be applied to ensure that native soil nutrient conditions are not altered. The area will be 

mulched with certified weed free straw or hydromulch at 2,000 lbs per acre to assist in erosion 

control and to enhance revegetation success. 

In a July 24, 2008 interagency meeting it was indicated that the existing forest canopy cover is 

high and habitat conditions could be improved by not replanting trees in this area. According to 

the Management Plan for Kincaid’s Lupine in Douglas County (BLM, USFS, and FWS, 2008) 

forest succession and canopy shading appear to be a threat and limiting factor at many of the 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

7 

LUSUK sites in Douglas County. Between MPs 96.5 - 96.9 Pacific Connector would not plant 

trees within the construction right-of-way and temporary extra work areas, if approved by the 

landowner, to enhance habitat conditions for adjacent LUSUK populations. 

After restoration is completed, Pacific Connector would sign and/or construct physical barriers to 

prevent OHV use in LUSUK habitat, if approved by the landowner, and if OHV use has been 

observed or has the potential to be a problem based on public access. Pacific Connector’s 

Environmental Inspector would determine the need for signing and physical barriers at the time 

of restoration. 

5.0 Monitoring 

Pacific Connector would monitor revegetation success in the areas of the restored Kincaid’s 

lupine populations between MPs 57.84 - 57.92 and MPs 96.5 - 96.9 annually for three years 

after construction. Monitoring would also occur where salvaged LUSUK plants are transplanted 

to assess the success of the transplanting efforts as well as where collected LUSUK seed was 

replanted. An annual monitoring report would be submitted to FERC and FWS by the end of 

each monitoring year. The three-year monitoring period mirrors FERC’s monitoring requirement 

for sensitive areas such as wetlands (see Section VI. D. 3. of FERC’s (2003) Wetland and 

Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures). Monitoring would be completed by a 

qualified botanist and would be scheduled in June to coincide with the optimal time for plant 

identification.

Monitoring would also occur for noxious or invasive weed infestations within disturbed areas of 

the construction right-of-way that could hinder revegetation success and threaten LUSUK 

populations in the area. If weed infestations are identified during monitoring, Pacific Connector 

would use Integrated Weed Management to control noxious weed infestation within disturbed 

areas associated with the project adjacent to LUSUK habitat. If weed control is required, the 

treatment method would be designed to be species-specific and would specify herbicide 

treatment, application method, application rate, and timing to properly treat the noxious or 

invasive weed species. To mitigate the potential for adverse disturbance and/or contaminant 

exposure to non-targeted species, the treatment method would utilize appropriate application 

methods such as isolated hand spraying using applicable nozzles and buffers to prevent 

overspray, or when LUSUK is dormant. During treatment applications the weather conditions 

would also be considered, such as wind speed and direction to avoid potential contact with nontargeted species. Application methods such as wicking or hand removal/weeding would also be 

considered, where applicable. 

6.0 References 

BLM, USFS, and USFWS. 2006. Programmatic Conservation Agreement for Kincaid’s Lupine 

(Lupinus sulphureus spp. Kincaidii) in Douglas County. Roseburg BLM, Umpqua 

National Forest, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April. 

Bureau of Land Management Roseburg District, Umpqua National Forest, U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 2008. Management Plan for Kincaid’s Lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

Kincaidii) in Douglas County Oregon. March 2008. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2003. FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction 

and Mitigation Procedures. http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/wetland.pdf

Gisler, S.D. 2004. Developing biogeographically based population introduction protocols for atrisk Willamette Valley plant species. Report to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

8 

Oregon. Native Plant Conservation Program, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, 

Oregon. 

Kaye, T. 2008. Institute of Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon, personal communication with 

Siskiyou BioSurvey. 

Siskiyou BioSurvey LLC., 2007. 2007 Draft Biological Survey Report (Botanical, Norther Spotted 

Owl, Great Gray Owl, Mollusks, Marbled Murrelet, and Red Tree Vole). Pacific 

Connector Gas Pipeline Project, Southwest Oregon. Prepared for Pacific Connector 

Gas Pipeline, LP and Edge Environmental, Inc. August 20, 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender’s Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), 

Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s Lupine), and Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens (Willamette Daisy); Proposed Rule. Federal Register 70(211): 66491-

66599. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Recovery Outline for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii

(Kincaid’s lupine). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. March. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, W.S, R. Sohn, R. Jones, and R. T. Re, Sr. 2006. Voluntary 

Agreement for Kincaid’s Lupine (Lupinus sulphureus spp. Kincaidii) in Douglas County. 

Lone Rock Timber Management Compnay, Roseburg Forest Products, Seneca Jones 

Timber Company, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Draft Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western 

Oregon and Southwestern Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, 

Oregon. x + 212 pp. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration. 2007. Roadside 

Revegetation: An integrated Approach to Establishing Native Plants. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

1 

Appendix C 

Mitigation Plan 

Cox’s Mariposa Lily (Calochortus coxii) 

MP 75.05 and 75.30 

1.0 Introduction 

Cox’s Mariposa Lily (Calochortus coxii) is listed as an endangered plant by the state of Oregon 

(ORS 564.105-564.110) and is a federal species of concern. C. coxii is endemic to serpentine 

and ultramafic soils in Douglas County, Oregon, in a narrow band (30 square miles) between 

the Umpqua River and the Myrtle Creek Mountains. Individuals number less than 10,000 

(ORNHIC, 2006a). All populations are on serpentine soils, mostly on shady, north-facing, mesic 

sites near ridgelines. C. coxii typically occurs in the ecotone between coniferous forests and 

grass-shrub meadows, or in meadows, commonly in litter and moss micro sites, below an 

elevation of 2,500 feet (Siskiyou BioSurvey, 2007; PCGP, 2007a). 

The proposed Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project (PCGP) pipeline alignment crosses a 

documented population of C. coxii (500 – 5,000+ plants) between MP 75.05 and 75.30 on lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management Lands (BLM) Roseburg District located in 

Sec. 34, and 35, T. 28 S., R. 5 W.. C. coxii was first observed in this area in 1989 and the 

largest population was recorded in 1992 (ORNHIC, 2006b). 

This mitigation plan describes the project design measures that Pacific Connector has included 

to minimize and avoid impacts to the known population of C. coxii located near MP 75.0. This 

mitigation plan also outlines the construction measures that would be implemented to further 

minimize impacts to this species. Prior to construction, onsite protection and plant salvaging 

procedures would also be employed to minimize impacts to the lily population at this location. 

Pacific Connector has developed this mitigation plan in consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC). Project routing, avoidance and minimization measures, as 

well as plant conservation measures were discussed during a July 24, 2008 interagency 

working group meeting for the project. In addition, onsite field investigations occurred with the 

BLM on October 7, 2008 to further address work area requirements, construction methods, 

plant conservation, and site restoration measures to minimize impacts to C. coxii at this site. 

2.0 Project Design Measures to Minimize and Avoid Impacts to Cox’s Mariposa Lily 

This section describes the rationale for the proposed project’s alignment within the Calochortus 

coxii population near MP 75 and the adjustments to the proposed alignment that have been 

incorporated into the project’s design to minimize direct impacts to this known lily population. 

To further minimize direct project impacts to this population, Pacific Connector has proposed 

construction methods, and has minimized the construction work area requirements to the 

smallest area necessary to safely construct the pipeline. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

2 

2.1 Project Alignment/Routing Rationale 

As shown in Figure 1, the project’s original alignment in this area was routed along a ridgeline to 

ensure a stable route for pipeline integrity and to minimize the grading requirements using 

conventional pipeline construction procedures (red dashed line). However, when C. coxii was 

identified in this area during botanical surveys in 2007, the pipeline was realigned to the north 

and along an existing road (Bilger Creek Road - BLM 29-5-11) to minimize direct impacts to this 

species. Geotechnical reviews of the proposed realignment were also completed to ensure that 

the alignment along the existing road and the topographic sidehill would be stable and that the 

integrity of the pipeline would not be compromised (PCGP, 2007b). Because of the steep 

dissected topographic conditions in this area there are no other reasonable alternatives that 

were identified in the immediate area during project routing efforts and during interagency 

consultations and project reviews that would avoid impacts to the population of C. coxii in this 

area. 

2.2 Construction Methods and Work Area Requirements 

To minimize work area requirements and to reduce the project’s direct effects to the lily 

population between MP 75.05 and 75.30, Pacific Connector will utilize specialized construction 

methods (e.g. Stove-pipe construction, trench box utilization) to install the proposed pipeline 

within Bilger Creek Road (BLM 29-5-110). These construction techniques will require the road 

to be temporarily shut-down during construction. During stove pipe construction, the trench is 

excavated and the trench spoils will be hauled out and stored in the construction right-of-way or 

temporary extra work areas (TEWAs) away from the immediate work area where C. coxii is 

located to minimize the construction footprint and avoid disturbance to this species. To install 

the pipeline, pipe segments or individual pipe joints will be hauled in using sidebooms, cranes, 

or excavators and set the pipe into the trench. Each pipe segment or joint will then be lined-up 

and welded in the trench to the previous pipe segment that was installed in the trench. After 

each pipe joint has been welded it will be coated and inspected by x-ray procedures and coated 

to ensure integrity requirements are met. Depending on the contractor’s construction methods, 

the trench may be backfilled progressively after welding each of the pipeline segments or after 

the stove pipe construction is complete. The stove pipe construction technique (installing one 

joint of pipe at a time) is significantly slower and much more restrictive than conventional 

pipeline construction methods because of the limited work area available for spoil storage, pipe 

stringing, welding, and other construction sequences. Further, the equipment/vehicle passing 

lane will be eliminated to minimize disturbance in this area, which prevents equipment and 

vehicle traffic from passing around the construction area and the ability to continue working 

down the right-of-way beyond the stove pipe construction area. Because pipe stringing, pipe 

line-up, welding, coating, and testing (x-ray) operations may all be preformed in the trench 

during stove pipe construction there is heightened awareness with construction safety in the 

event the trench cave in. To ensure worker safety and to meet OSHA safety requirements if 

workers are to enter the pipeline trench at the tie in locations, the ditch will be wider than typical 

conventional construction methods at those locations. The size of the tie-in location 

excavations will further limit the work area during stove pipe construction. To minimize the 

trench opening the construction contractor may choose to use appropriate trench box style 

shoring to ensure worker safety. 

To minimize the construction footprint and direct impacts to C. coxii between MP 75.05 and 

75.30, Pacific Connector has narrowed (necked-in) the construction right-of-way in three areas 

to the existing road prism (i.e., road surface, ditch and cut and fill slopes) as shown on Figure 1. 

Pacific Connector has also eliminated a portion of the uncleared storage area (USCA) at MP 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

3 

75.17 to ensure that impacts to the lily population located below the construction right-of-way is 

not affected by construction activities. Pacific Connector will install appropriate barriers (safety 

fence, silt fence, Jersey barriers, etc.) along this stretch of the pipeline to ensure that the lily 

populations in the vicinity are protected and not impacted by potential sedimentation or debris 

falling off of the construction right-of-way. There is a concern that that during pipeline 

trenching/construction between MP 75.05 and 75.30 the existing steep cut-slopes along the 

road could slough/cave potentially affect some of the plants that are present on these slopes. 

Although, Pacific Connector will take every effort to protect these slopes from disturbance by 

using specialized construction techniques, worker safety will be the ultimate priority when 

constructing within the confined road prism and the steep cut-slope between approximately MP 

75.16 to 75.18 may need to be mitigated (i.e., reconfigured/modified by sloping or stepping, etc.) 

to ensure worker safety. As shown on Figure 1, the construction right-of-way between 

approximately MP 75.10 to 75.13 and MP 75.21 to 75.25 utilizes the typical 95-foot construction 

right-of-way width, however, clearing/grading activities in these areas will be dependent on sitespecific conditions that will be determined at the time of construction based on the construction 

contractors work area requirements to ensure safe pipeline installation. To accommodate the 

special construction techniques and to confine the proposed work to the existing road prism 

between MP 75.05 and 75.30, TEWA 75.00-W, TEWA 75.16-N and TEWA 75.33-N were added 

or modified to accommodate construction staging and temporary spoil storage. 

To further minimize impacts to C. coxii, between MP 75.05 and 75.30 some locations of 

individual plants that cannot be avoided by project activities would be salvaged during the late 

summer or fall after the growing season of the year preceding actual pipeline construction. 

3.0 Seed Collection and Bulb Salvage 

Calochortus coxii plant materials that would be impacted within the construction right-of-way 

would be collected (seeds) and salvaged (bulbs) where their location places them at “high risk” 

of direct effect from pipeline construction. To ensure that all potentially impacted plants would 

be identified for bulb collection/salvage, plant surveys would be completed in the spring one 

year prior to construction. Additional surveys on the C. coxii population within the construction 

right-of-way and immediately adjacent areas would occur prior to the bulb salvaging year to 

ensure that adequate distribution data is known about the population to be salvaged. Identified 

plants would be mapped (GPS) and marked with pin flags or other appropriate flagging methods 

so that in the late summer or fall, seed collection and bulb salvaging can be accomplished on 

targeted plants. 

 

3.1 Seed Collection 

Seed collection of Calochortus coxii would be completed in the year prior to construction after 

flowering and when the seeds have developed and matured but prior to seed drop or dispersal 

(i.e., mid to late July). Seeds will be collected as soon as possible to minimize seed loss from 

grazing, insect predation, or other natural causes. Seed collection would be completed by a 

qualified botanist approved by the BLM and after collecting permits have been acquired, if 

necessary. The botanist will collect seeds or seed pods and will store the collected seeds in 

suitable envelopes or bags that have been labeled with the sites collection information (i.e., date 

of collection, legal location, UTM coordinates, etc). The collected seed will be provided to the 

BLM for submittal to an approved seed bank or repository for conservation, such as The Berry 

Botanic Garden (http://www.berrybot.org/cons/conservation.html). 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

4 

3.2 Bulb Salvage 

 

In the year prior to construction, plant bulbs within the construction right-of-way that would be 

impacted or that are on potentially unstable cut slopes that could potentially be affected by 

project activities would be salvaged and transplanted immediately in suitable habitat on BLM 

lands off of the construction right-of-way. The transplanting locations would be approved by the 

BLM. Bulb salvaging and transplanting would be scheduled for the late summer or fall, after the 

growing season to enhance bulb transplant success. Caution would be taken to ensure that C. 

coxii bulbs are not damaged during salvaging efforts. 

Topsoil materials within the affected population areas of Calochortus coxii, between MP 75.05 

and 75.30 (see Figure 1), would also be salvaged and stored separately from subsoil materials 

during construction. The topsoil salvage depth will be 8-12-inches, but the exact depth would 

be determined from the bulb salvaging efforts which would note the typical depth of the plant 

bulbs. Topsoil salvaging would be monitored by Pacific Connector’s Environmental Inspectors. 

The salvaged topsoil would be returned during restoration to the same approximate location 

from where it was removed. During topsoil salvaging, Pacific Connector’s Environmental 

Inspector would be onsite to oversee this operation and would collect any visible plant bulbs 

potentially uncovered. Any collected bulbs would be appropriately bagged and submitted to the 

BLM’s Roseburg District for storage or for direction as to their distribution to an appropriate seed 

bank or repository, such as The Berry Botanic Garden. Alternatively, any salvaged bulbs would 

be appropriately stored temporarily until they can be replanted onsite in the areas where they 

were salvaged. The BLM may also direct that any bulbs collected during topsoil salvaging be 

transplanted immediately in suitable habitat off of the construction right-of-way. If desired, the 

BLM may assist in this transplanting effort. 

4.0 Site Restoration 

After the pipeline has been installed, the trench backfilled, and the area regraded and restored 

to approximately original contours, the salvaged topsoil from the mapped polygons of 

Calochortus coxii would be replaced. If directed by the BLM, any salvaged blubs that were 

collected during the topsoil salvaging operations would be replanted. All disturbed areas 

between MP 75.05 and 75.30, outside the active road prism, would be reseeded with native 

species adaptive to serpentine and ultramafic soils. These native reseeding species would be 

hand collected from the area immediately adjacent to the right-of-way between MP 75.05 and 

75.30 or other similar areas and would include those species listed in Table 1. Seed would be 

collected in the two years prior to construction when plant bulbs are salvaged as well as during 

the year of construction to ensure that an adequate quantity of seed is available for reseeding 

efforts. Seed collected in the years prior to construction would be dried, stored in labeled, 

sealed bags and refrigerated to preserve viability. It is anticipated that adequate seed will be 

collected to allow for direct re-seeding without the need for farm-increasing. 

 

Table 1 

Preliminary Seed Mixture 

Common Name Scientific Name Estimated Seed Quantity (lbs) 

Grasses 

Primary grasses forming the backbone planting and accounting for the majority of the seed to 

be collected: 

Blue wild rye Elymus glaucus 12 

Roemer’s fescue Festuca roemeri 6 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

5 

Common Name Scientific Name Estimated Seed Quantity (lbs) 

Secondary grasses (where available) used to augment the primary grasses in special micro site 

situations: 

California fescue Festuca californica 1 

squirreltail Elymus elymoides 0.5 

Lemmon’s Acnatherum lemmonnii 1 

One-sided bluegrass Poa secunda 0.5 

Forbs 

Oregon sunshine Eriophyllum lanatum 2 

Deltoid balsamroot Balsamorrhiza deltoidea 2 

whipplevine Whipplea modesta 0.5 

Prior to seeding, an appropriate seedbed would be prepared to ensure that the site has been 

properly scarified to mitigate potential compaction that may have occurred from heavy 

equipment traffic during construction. The seedbed will be left in a roughened condition to 

promote infiltration, reduce runoff, and enhance revegetation success by creating micro-sites to 

capture moisture. Proper seedbed preparation will also ensure proper soil/seed contact. 

Seeding will occur by hand broadcasting. Following seeding, the seed area will be lightly raked 

to cover seed with soil approximately 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 inch deep. Soil amendments or fertilizers will not 

be applied to ensure that native soil nutrient conditions are not altered. The area will be 

mulched with weed free straw or hydromulch at 2000 lbs per acre to assist in erosion control 

and to enhance revegetation success. 

5.0 BLM Habitat Enhancement Area 

The USCAs between approximately MP 75.04 and 75.28 are also planned for mitigation 

activities to thin the forest density to enhance habitat conditions for this plant. Reducing 

understory vegetation (sapling-pole sized trees) in this area will enhance habitat conditions in 

the adjacent forested around the Calochortus which prefers partial sun, historically maintained 

by low intensity fire. Pacific Connector would provide funds to the BLM to implement this 

enhancement action as part of the Compensatory Mitigation Plan.

6.0 Monitoring 

Pacific Connector would monitor revegetation success of the transplanted Calochortus coxii and 

disturbed areas between MP 75.05 and 75.30 annually for three years after construction. An 

annual monitoring report would be submitted to the BLM by the end of each monitoring year. 

The three year monitoring period mirrors FERC’s monitoring requirement for sensitive areas 

such as wetlands (see Section VI. D. 3. of FERC’s (2003) Wetland and Waterbody Construction 

and Mitigation Procedures). Monitoring would be completed by a qualified botanist and would 

be scheduled in June to coincide with the optimal time for plant identification.

Monitoring would also occur for noxious or invasive weed infestations within disturbed areas of 

the construction right-of-way that could hinder revegetation success and threaten C. coxii

populations in the area. If weed infestations are indentified during monitoring, Pacific Connector 

would consult with the BLM to determine site specific control methods for proper weed 

treatment and to avoid potential adverse impacts to non-targeted species. If weed control is 

required, the treatment method would be designed to be species-specific and would specify 

herbicide treatment, application method, application rate, and timing to properly treat the 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

6 

noxious or invasive weed species. To mitigate the potential for adverse disturbance and/or 

contaminant exposure to non-targeted species, the treatment method would utilize appropriate 

application methods such as isolated hand spraying using applicable nozzles and buffers to 

prevent overspray. During treatment applications the weather conditions would also be 

considered, such as wind speed and direction to avoid potential contact with non-targeted 

species. Application methods such as wicking or hand removal/weeding would also be 

considered, where applicable. 

7.0 References 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2003. FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction 

and Mitigation Procedures. http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/wetland.pdf

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center. 2006a. Oregon Threatened and Endangered 

Plant Field Guide. [Online: http://oregonstate.edu/ornhic/plants/index.html]. Accessed 

07/25/06. 

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ORNHIC). 2006b. Personal Sensitive Species 

Data Request (05/03/06). 

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project. 2007a. Resource Report 3. Fish, Wildlife, and 

Vegetation. 

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project. 2007b. Resource Report 6. Geologic Resources. 

Siskiyou BioSurvey LLC., 2007. 2007 Draft Biological Survey Report (Botanical, Norther Spotted 

Owl, Great Gray Owl, Mollusks, Marbled Murrelet, and Red Tree Vole). Pacific 

Connector Gas Pipeline Project, Southwest Oregon. Prepared for Pacific Connector 

Gas Pipeline, LP and Edge Environmental, Inc. August 20, 2007. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration. 2007. Roadside 

Revegetation: An integrated Approach to Establishing Native Plants. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

1 

Appendix D 

Large Woody Debris 

The LWD quantities provided in Tables D-1 and D-2 represent Pacific Connector’s restoration, 

enhancement and compensatory mitigation commitment for the project’s potential waterbody 

crossing impacts. During construction, LWD will be installed at each waterbody crossing based 

on the site-specific waterbody crossing conditions, landowner requirements and potential 

construction constraints. Pacific Connector would target LWD installation at each waterbody 

crossing according to the following schedule: 

• 4 pieces for each perennial stream crossed with riparian forest removed (2 pieces 

instream, 2 pieces within riparian zone on the bank); 

• 2 pieces for each intermittent stream and unknown stream crossed with riparian forest 

removed (one or both pieces placed instream or on bank); 

• 2 pieces for each perennial, intermittent, and unknown stream crossed but with no 

riparian forest removed (one or both pieces placed instream or on bank). 

• 1 piece each for perennial, intermittent, and unknown stream not crossed but adjacent to 

ROW with or without riparian forest removed (placed on bank). 

In consultation with landowners, Pacific Connector would place LWD at appropriate areas in the 

riparian zone and in the waterbody within the construction right-of-way to mitigate for potential 

short-term impacts that may occur to aquatic species from a dry open cut crossing and instream 

construction. LWD placement would occur after the pipe has been installed across the 

waterbody, during ODFW instream construction windows and during the time when the flume or 

dam and pump controls are in place to minimize turbidity associated with the installation of the 

LWD. Other possibilities include placing LWD immediately downstream from the lower flume 

dam (to create a depositional rather than potential scouring environment at the pipeline 

crossing) either during or after the flume has been removed. LWD could be placed across a 

stream channel with minimal or no generation of sediment after construction, as well. Such 

decisions will be made on a site-by-site basis. Installation of the LWD without the flume or dam 

and pump control measures in place would only occur with the approval of the appropriate 

permitting agencies. 

Guidelines for LWD placement, provided by ODF and ODFW (1995), suggest using 1) larger 

diameter wood pieces because they are more effective at creating pools and complex channels 

that improve fish populations (see Table D-3 below for minimum diameter LWD per bankfull 

width); 2) LWD that are at least twice the length of the waterbody bankfull width (1.5 times the 

bankfull width if rootwad attached) to increase the likelihood that the LWD will remain in place; 

and 3) conifer logs, especially western redcedars or redwoods if available, since they are more 

durable. In larger waterbodies, smaller diameter, shorter LWD could be used if bundled and 

anchored together to provide the same benefits of the longer, larger diameter LWD. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

2 

Table D-3 

Minimum Diameter LWD for Placement in Waterbody Based on Bankfull Width 

Bankfull Width 

(feet) 

Minimum Diameter LWD 

(inches) 

0 to 10 10 

10 to 20 16 

20 to 30 18 

Over 30 22 

Source: ODF and ODFW, 1995 

As indicated in the Draft BA, baseline watershed conditions crossed by the project are lacking in 

LWD from historic disturbance and are typically below benchmark thresholds to be properly 

functioning. LWD is an important habitat feature providing instream structure, channel and 

habitat complexity among other benefits and that which promote salmonid productivity. 

Therefore, Pacific Connector considers installing LWD on site during construction as an 

appropriate habitat enhancement feature to rectify potential project impacts and which would 

benefit watershed conditions which are generally lacking. The LWD placement would be in 

addition, to the project conservation measures (see Appendix N, Draft Biological Assessment) 

that have been designed to minimize the potential project effects, such as utilizing dry open cut 

crossing methods, applying instream construction timing restrictions, and implementing erosion 

control measures and revegetation methods. Because of the overall lack of LWD in the affected 

watersheds, LWD also provides an appropriate compensatory mitigation model for the project’s 

potential waterbody crossing impacts that are temporary, short-term, and unavoidable. The 

LWD would also serve to mitigate for the minor potential long-term project impacts, such as the 

loss of forested riparian vegetation within the pipeline’s 30-foot operational corridor. 

Pacific Connector anticipates that during construction, in some cases, the waterbody size, 

landowner restrictions, or construction constraints will limit LWD placement according to the 

targeted LWD schedule provided in Tables D-1 and D-2. Further, the overall benefit of 

installation of LWD at some project waterbody crossings (i.e., intermittent headwater streams) 

may not warrant LWD placement. In these situations, Pacific Connector’s Environmental 

Inspector would record the uninstalled LWD as a deficit during construction. After construction 

is completed, the deficit or undersupplied LWD would be used as the compensatory LWD credit 

that would be provided to local watershed conservation organizations or agencies for use in 

local enhancement projects within the affected watersheds. The LWD credits could be either 

LWD donations or funds. In watersheds where there is a deficit of LWD installation during 

construction, Pacific Connector would provide LWD with a minimum diameter of 10 inches and 

an average length of 20 feet. At least half of the LWD would be provided with attached root 

wads. Alternatively, Pacific Connector would provide in-lieu funds equivalent to $800 for each 

piece of LWD, which the watershed organizations could utilize to purchase LWD or implement 

enhancement projects. 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

3 

Table D-1 – Oregon Coast ESU 

Proposed Application of Large Woody Debris to Waterbodies and Riparian Zones Affected by Construction of t

Waterbody Type

Perennial Intermittent Unknown 

Fifth Field Watershed 

Watershed 

Parameter Crossed Adjacent Crossed Adjacent Crossed Adjacent 

Total in 

Watershed C

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 4.12 0.91 7.52 0.44 2.10 0.08 15.17 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 40 1 11 2 1 3 58 

With Riparian Forest 14 1 8 1 1 2 27 

Coos Bay Frontal (HU 1710030403) 

No Riparian Forest 26 0 3 1 0 1 31 

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 5 0 1 0 0 0 6 

With Riparian Forest 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Lower Coquille River (HU 1710030505) 

No Riparian Forest 4 0 1 0 0 0 5 

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 1.80 0.00 5.31 0.80 0.00 0.34 8.25 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 3 0 3 1 0 1 8 

With Riparian Forest 2 0 3 1 0 1 7 

North Fork Coquille River (HU 1710030504) 

No Riparian Forest 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 0.45 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 6 1 5 0 2 0 14 

With Riparian Forest 2 0 4 0 0 0 6 

East Fork Coquille River (HU 1710030503) 

No Riparian Forest 4 1 1 0 2 0 8 

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 5.34 0.00 4.32 0.45 0.00 1.07 11.18 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 5 0 4 1 0 3 13 

With Riparian Forest 5 0 3 1 0 2 11 

Middle Fork Coquille River (HU 1710030501) 

No Riparian Forest 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 3.00 0.00 1.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.71 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 4 0 9 0 0 0 13 

With Riparian Forest 4 0 8 0 0 0 12 

Olalla CreekLookingglass Creek (HU 1710030212) 

No Riparian Forest 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 2.37 0.00 1.46 0.09 0.00 0.09 4.68 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 6 0 4 2 0 1 13 

With Riparian Forest 4 0 4 1 0 2 11 

Middle South Umpqua River (HU 1710030210) 

No Riparian Forest 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

4 

Waterbody Type

Perennial Intermittent Unknown 

Fifth Field Watershed 

Watershed 

Parameter Crossed Adjacent Crossed Adjacent Crossed Adjacent 

Total in 

Watershed C

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 5.15 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.27 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 6 0 2 0 1 0 9 

With Riparian Forest 6 0 2 0 0 0 8 

Myrtle Creek (HU 1710030211) 

No Riparian Forest 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 5.11 0 2.03 0 0 0 7.14 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 5 0 3 0 0 0 8 

With Riparian Forest 5 0 3 0 0 0 8 

South Umpqua River (HU 1710030205 

No Riparian Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 3.10 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.04 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 4 0 1 0 0 0 5 

With Riparian Forest 4 0 1 0 0 0 5 

Upper Cow Creek (HU 1710030206) 

No Riparian Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 31.33 0.91 23.70 1.78 2.10 1.58 62.07 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 84 2 43 6 4 8 147 

With Riparian Forest 47 1 36 4 1 7 96 

Total Fifth Field Watersheds For Coho Oregon Coast ESU

No Riparian Forest 37 1 7 2 3 2 51 

Total LWD 

1 Proposed schedule for applying LWD to different waterbody types, subject to landowner approval: 

• 4 pieces for each perennial stream crossed with riparian forest removed (2 pieces instream, 2 pieces within riparian zone on the bank); 

• 2 pieces for each intermittent stream and unknown stream crossed with riparian forest removed (one or both pieces placed instream or on bank); 

• 2 pieces for each perennial, intermittent, and unknown stream crossed but with no riparian forest removed (one or both pieces paced instream or on bank

• 1 piece each for perennial, intermittent, and unknown stream not crossed but adjacent to ROW with or without riparian forest removed (piece placed on ba
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project 

5 

Table D-2 – SO/NCC 

Proposed Application of Large Woody Debris to Waterbodies and Riparian Zones Affected by Construction of t

Waterbody Type

Perennial Intermittent Unknown 

Fifth Field Watershed 

Watershed 

Parameter 1 Crossed Adjacent Crossed Adjacent Crossed Adjacent 

Total in 

Watershed C

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 1.28 0.00 3.94 0.00 0.00 1.73 6.95 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 2 0 3 0 0 1 6 

With Riparian Forest 2 0 3 0 0 1 6 

Trail Creek  (HUC 1710030706) 

No Riparian Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 0.70 1.57 4.00 7.08 1.22 0.00 14.57 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 4 1 9 5 1 0 20 

With Riparian Forest 3 1 9 3 1 0 17 

Rogue River-Shady Cove (HUC 1710030707) 

No Riparian Forest 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 3.53 0.00 7.71 0.50 0.00 0.00 11.74 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 3 0 5 1 0 0 9 

With Riparian Forest 3 0 5 1 0 0 9 

Big Butte Creek (HUC 1710030704) 

No Riparian Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 0.98 0.00 13.60 0.00 0.00 0.09 14.67 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 4 0 28 1 0 1 34 

With Riparian Forest 3 0 17 0 0 0 20 

Little Butte Creek (HUC 1710030708) 

No Riparian Forest 1 0 11 1 0 1 14 

Area (acres) of Riparian 

Forest 6.49 1.57 29.25 7.58 1.22 1.82 47.93 

Total Number of 

Waterbodies 13 1 45 7 1 2 69 

With Riparian Forest 11 1 34 4 1 1 52 

Total Fifth Field Watersheds For Coho SO/NCC ESU 

No Riparian Forest 2 0 11 3 0 1 17 

Total LWD 

1 Riparian Forest assumed to be coniferous, deciduous, or mixed forest 40 years old and older. 2 Proposed schedule for applying LWD to different waterbody types, subject to landowner approval: 

• 4 pieces for each perennial stream crossed with riparian forest removed (2 pieces instream, 2 pieces within riparian zone on the bank); 

• 2 pieces for each intermittent stream and unknown stream crossed with riparian forest removed (one or both pieces placed instream or on bank); 

• 2 pieces for each perennial, intermittent, and unknown stream crossed but with no riparian forest removed (one or both pieces paced instream or on ba

• 1 piece each for perennial, intermittent, and unknown stream not crossed but adjacent to ROW with or without riparian forest removed (placed on bank)
Multi-user Slip/Access Channel, LNG Terminal, & PCGP Project CMP 

Appendix E 

Oregon Gateway Marine Terminal

Estuarine Resource Mitigation Plan