Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-51

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-144 As stated in section 4.12.5.3 of the fina

Suitability Report (WSR), the Coast Guon the size of LNG carriers transiting thchannel to a capacity of 148,000 m3 andimensions of the carrier to a length of and a loaded draft of 40 feet. SimulatioJordan Cove confirm that carriers with navigate the channel at high tide. Therdredging would be required to operate proposed, and there is no segmentation 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-52

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-145 No facilities other than those directly re

terminal are currently proposed by the The general cargo berth, dock, and stagthe Port are not part of the proposed Joaddressed in the EIS except in the cum

LNG access channel and berth do not ddeepening and widening project for its 

SA2-146 We believe the EIS provides sufficient 

to water quality, and we believe that threcommended are adequate to mitigate See section 4.3 of the final EIS. Coos determination about the Jordan Cove Lthat was reviewed by the LUBA. See sEIS. 

SA2-147 We disagree. See response to commen
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-53

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-148 The referenced bill applies to activities 

farming practices, and therefore does nproject. Water quality requirements anthe jurisdiction of the COE and the OD

EIS). Shade removal and stream tempe

4.3.2.5 of the EIS. 

SA2-149 Section 2.1.4.4 of the final EIS has bee

Linerboard West site overlies an activedisposal facility, and use of this site for would require coordination with ODEQ permitted solid waste disposal facility. 

SA2-150 Pacific Connector proposes to fertilize 

in its ECRP. This plan was based on thProcedures. The intent of the FERC stassist applicants by identifying baseline minimizing the extent and duration of dwetlands, and waterbodies. It is not neof a project to assess the adequacy of itcontrols. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-54

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-151 Dredging and widening of the federal n

of the proposed Jordan Cove LNG termrequired to accommodate the size of LNSee response to comment SA2-144. 

SA2-152 No dredging is proposed anywhere else 

except at the access channel to the termpipeline could use an HDD to cross the under Catching Slough. 

SA2-153 See response to comments SA2-151, anSA2-154 See responses to comments FA3-6 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-55

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-155 The COE would be responsible for mai

Coos Bay navigation channel, and the Pmaintenance dredging of the access cha

terminal. The Port’s maintenance dredmust be approved by the COE. We belprocess will provide sufficient oversighProtection, Research, and Sanctuaries ASA2-151. 

SA2-156 We disagree that the sensitivity of ripar

described in the draft EIS. Read sectioEIS. Pacific Connector performed a sheffects are described in section 4.13 of 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-56

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-157 The EIS acknowledges that the propose

unavoidable impacts on riparian vegetaConnector’s shade assessment showed pipeline crossing of streams will not inSee response to comment SA2-43. 

SA2-158 To minimize the sediment and turbidity 

Pacific Connector changed its route to estuary crossing to about 9.5 miles. SeFA3-6. 

SA2-159 The reference to the Oregon turbidity s

comment, has been removed from the f

SA2-160 In areas with bedrock is found close to 

proposed trench depth, Pacific Connecthe trench with specialized equipment, rock using hydraulic hammers. Howevineffective, blasting would be the last rrequired trench depth. Where blasting Pacific Connector proposes to utilize thmethod to avoid or minimize potential To reduce impacts, a site blasting plan blasting contractor prior to work. All blicensed contractors under the terms of requirements and Pacific Connector CoPacific Connector would have blasting that all specifications were met. See adblasting within waterbody crossings in EIS. 

SA2-161 See discussion of shade removal at wat

4.3.2.5 and 4.5.2.3 of the final EIS. 

SA2-162 Pacific Connector recently submitted th

temperature impacts assessment for thiResources 2009). Based on modeling conly predicted increases that exceeded streams that had base flow estimates of 4.3.2.5 of the final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-57

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-163 Section 4.1.3.2 of the final EIS has bee

information provided by Pacific Connerecommendation No. 34. That informaon December 4, 2008 and provided in G2009 Addendum to Geologic Hazards Epipeline has been rerouted in this area. not cross East Fork Cow Creek through significant sources of naturally occurrinis not expected to affect the mercury lereservoirs. Pacific Connector, on JanuCommission, a contaminated substancedescribes methods to deal with contamexcavation for pipeline installation. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-58

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-164 See response to comment SA2-227. SA2-165 Pacific Connector would reduce the po

when crossing erodible soils by followECRP. We acknowledge that trench deincrease in stream temperature. Pipelinbe temporary and limited to surface distrenching. Although trench and excavarequired in some locations, the construgenerally coincide with the period whedry, thereby minimizing the amount of Dewatering discharge would be pumpevegetated areas through a straw bale strlocalized impacts to groundwater. 

SA2-166 Because pipeline construction activity 

disturbance and shallow trenching, is tewithin the approved construction work (both public and private) beyond 200 feareas are not expected to be affected by Connector would conduct pre-construcpresence and locations of groundwater private). Pacific Connector developed Monitoring and Mitigation Plan in ordemitigation measures to prevent and/or mgroundwater. 

SA2-167 See response to comments SA2-161, S

SA2-93. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-59

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-168 The measures outlined in Pacific Conn

specific BMPs have been designed to mimpacts to riparian areas. See response 

SA2-169 If slash burning were required, it would 

ODF regulations for burning of slash a300, as well as requirements of the land 

landowners. We believe these controls additional measures such as locating buand ditches could be implemented on a Connector. 

SA2-170 The Alternatives section of the EIS doe

systems. See section 3.2. See response FA3-16. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-60

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-171 We agree that the Bradwood Project is 

However, it is not the Commission’s prprojects, but rather to allo the market to viable. See responses to comments PM

SA2-172 Section 3.2.1 of the EIS describes coalb

potential sources of domestic natural gregion. It is our understanding that the is in the pilot phase and it has not yet deconomically feasible to extract the resrate could be. Therefore we do not belalternative. 

SA2-173 Section 4.10 of the EIS describes poten

been identified, and measures that have address those concerns. Section 4.5 anextensive discussion of the potential PrSection 3.4.2.1 includes discussion of taddressed during evaluation of the Coo

SA2-174 Read section 4.10.1.2 which details con

See responses to comments FA3-11 an
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-61

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-175 The EIS does address water qualities in 

dredging is proposed. The only area drterminal access channel and slip. Cumin section 4.13. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-62

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-176 The crossing methods for all water bod

Appendix G. If an intermittent stream crossing, it would be treated like a pereopen-cut crossing method would typicadam and pump). 

SA2-177 We recognize that unanticipated accide

operation could result in potential undequantification of potential impacts woubelieve that project monitoring and mitin addressing unanticipated impacts. SPM2-30. 

SA2-178 The waterbody crossing methods inclu

Procedures, which Pacific Connector hinclude construction and restoration meimpacts on waterbodies, including chanmorphology. Section 4.5 of the EIS inimpacts on redds, which would apply t
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-63

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-179 See response to SA2-177. SA2-180 As stated in section 4.3.2.5 of the EIS, 

would be acquired from surface water would obtain all necessary appropriatioincluding from the ODWR, prior to useODWR would have the applications reto determine if there are concerns abouwithdrawals may have on water resourrelating to the timing, seasonality, and 

SA2-181 See responses to comments SA2-59, SASA2-182 See response to comments SA2-161 an

Connector has recently filed a study of temperature of several stream crossingThe study fount that with proper mitigatemperature would be noted post constr

SA2-183 Pacific Connector would develop final 

measures in consultation with the appromeasures could be included for each cr(e.g. watershed) depending on final agr
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-64

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-184 Section 4.3.2.2 and table 4.3.2.2-1 prov

beneficial uses and provide sufficient dsummarizing state water quality regula4.3.2 of the EIS describes potential impsufficient detail to evaluate impacts to 

SA2-185 The purpose of the EIS and section 4.3

decision on issuance of a 401 Water Qua 401 Water Quality Certificate would 

SA2-186 See response to comment SA2-185. SA2-187 Section 4.3.2.4 includes analysis of pot

quality parameters from the various wathe LNG terminal. There would be no for construction or operation of the Probe withdrawn at the proposed LNG termsystem 

SA2-188 Water intakes by LNG carriers at berth 

SCV are discussed in section 4.3.2.4. Trecycling a portion of the cooling wateserve to minimize the thermal impact oBay. Section 4.3.2.4 has also been updinformation filed by Jordan Cove in resin the draft EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-65

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-189 See response to comments SA2-161 anSA2-190 All riparian areas that are forested or sh

construction would be replanted to at leheight. Natural revegetation would be response to comment SA2-60. 

SA2-191 Pacific Connector recently submitted th

temperature impacts assessment for thi

Resource 2009). See section 4.3.2.5 of comments SA2-161 and SA2-162. 

SA2-192 This should be coordinated between th
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-66

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-193 We believe that the evaluation of impa

timber in the EIS is adequate to disclosimpacts. 

SA2-194 TEWAs are discussed throughout the E

environmental impacts of TEWAs, incvegetation, are addressed in the relevanthe EIS. 

SA2-195 During the route selection process, Pac

proposed pipeline route numerous timeand areas susceptible to landslides. Paimplement its ECRP during constructioconstruction to adversely affect slope sresponse to our recommendation in the conducted supplemental site-specific hresults with its comments on the draft Esection 4.1.3.2 of the EIS to include the

SA2-196 Since publication of the draft EIS Jorda

proposed wetland mitigation site and nIsthmus Slough. See response to comm
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-67

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-197 During project scoping the need for mi

habitat was not identified, and thereforproposed mitigation for loss of clam haloss of this habitat. 

SA2-198 We do not agree that the requested add

As stated in section 4.5.2.2, any affect oxygen demand sediment during dredgtidal exchange would be expected to recases, where dredging and disposal occestuaries, and bays, localized removal oeffect on aquatic organisms (Bray et aldredging, sediment characteristics woudetermine if any additional risks are prsediment, and a final dredging plan constudies would be developed. 

SA2-199 We do not agree that mixing zone stud

However, we have revised section 4.5.2an expanded discussion of potential temwaters from operation of the proposed 

SA2-200 See response to comment SA2-159. SA2-201 A discussion of aquatic nuisance and e

operation of the LNG terminal can be fEIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-68

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-202 See response to comments SA2-161 anSA2-203 We disagree. Mitigation for water qua

within Pacific Connector’s proposed wand ECRP. 

SA2-204 In instances on federal or non-federal l

category would be affected but would hother land management agency mitigatwork with ODFW and other stakeholdemitigation policy. See additional discu

SA2-205 See response to comment FA2-30. SA2-206 In the draft EIS we recommended that 

of prop wash and waves from LNG veson shoreline erosion and fish strandingprovided this information in its comme4.2.1, 4.4.1.1, 4.5.2.1, and 4.6.1.3 of thto include the results of the new model
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-69

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-207 Discussion of the water curtain that wo

standard practice while unloading LNG 4.3.2.4 of the final EIS. See response tregarding water intake and discharge a

SA2-208 Jordan Cove will apply for a NPDES p

discharge (not used for the firewater potest water, and stormwater discharges fand from impervious surfaces at the neCove and Pacific Connector must obtaiCertifications pursuant to section 401 o

SA2-209 Impacts to water quality limited stream

TMDL requirements would be addressprocess. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-70

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-71

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)

SA2-210 As stated in the final EIS, the pipeline 

approximately 74 sections, each with vvolume requirements. During the test, discharge water at each of the section bwould be minimized and water would bpractical by cascading water between t

(pumping from one segment to the nexwater would be released adjacent to the through an energy dissipating device anbag. Test water would not be dischargwaters. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-72

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-73

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-211 As stated in section 4.3.2.4 of the EIS, 

a new NPDES permit for new operatiothe existing industrial waste water disc
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-74

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-212 The corrections have been made to the SA2-213 The ODEQ permits are discussed in se

regarding the Clean Water Act. 

SA2-214 These project design details would be d

of the building facilities, and would be building and sanitation codes. 

SA2-215 Section 2.1.4.4 of the final EIS has bee

overflow from the water recovery pond would be discharged to freshwater and would be discharged to the bay. 

SA2-216 The ODEQ’s assumption is correct. SA2-217 The pipework hydrostatic test water wo

existing industrial wastewater dischargjust as would the water used for hydrosstorage tanks and the overflow SCV di
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-75

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-218 Jordan Cove would apply for the neces

batch plant. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-76

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-219 The engine cooling water discharge wh

would be incidental to the normal operrevised section 4.5.2.2 of the final EIS discussion of potential temperature effeoperation of the proposed LNG termina

SA2-220 In response to your comment, section 4

updated to include proposed mitigation particulate matter emissions and additiotype of power plant and the type of fueidling, as well as the estimated quantity See response to comment FA3-18. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-77

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-221 See response to comment SA2-20. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-78

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-222 A statement has been added to section 

indicate that the Linerboard West site osolid waste disposal facility, and use of disposal would require coordination wiclose the permitted solid waste disposa

SA2-223 A statement has been added to section 

indicate that in addition to approvals frPort may also need approvals from ODmaterials at the proposed dredged mate
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-79

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-224 A statement has been added to section 

indicate that use of the JCE Placement consultation with ODEQ because of usby Weyerhaeuser. 

SA2-225 Pacific Connector would apply for the 

to be necessary based on the nature of t

SA2-226 The geotechnical reports were reviewe

professionals during preparation of the section 1.5 of the final EIS to include tregulatory requirements in table 1.5-1. SA2-227. FERC staff’s consultant’s repapers”. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-80

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-227 The EIS is a summary document that is written 

intended to be highly technical in nature. Technical rgeohazard reports, seismic hazard analysis reports) prgeologists, in accordance with the applicable federal been provided by DOGAMI and are available to the This information has been reviewed by the FERC Staincluding licensed professional geologists and enginereviewed by the FERC’s consulting seismic and geotassess the site-specific earthquake probabilities, the gspecific effects of earthquake shaking on the proposeNFPA 59A and as further detailed in FERC’s Seismi2007). Significant geological hazards along the pipelThe work performed to date is sufficient to characterithe site and pipeline route, and to understand the signdesign issues that must be addressed in the later, morproject. The LNG facility must be designed to withstany associated coseismic effects (e.g., tsunami, subsidspreading) without loss of the storage tank contents aalso a potential for seismic soil liquefaction in apparesite that must be addressed in the final design. Proposed seismic mitigation measures include soil deand base-isolated foundation system for the LNG stosignificant geological hazards along the final pipeline faults, soils subject to liquefaction and lateral spreadinreviewed for compliance with conditions of the order with construction. Jordan Cove would be required to prior to initial site preparation and to demonstrate thaachieved the necessary subgrade conditions prior to rremainder of the facility. The FERC Staff also recommends that Jordan Cove/retain an independent Board of Consultants, not affiliwould review and certify that the civil and structural construction documents are in compliance with all approject civil and structural design criteria, that all civiconformance with the project construction documentbeen properly seismic qualified in conformance with requirements, and that seismic detailing of structures The Board’s review comments would be provided to consideration prior to any approval to proceed with c

SA2-228 We have revised section 1.5 of the final EIS to i

with a regulatory requirement for the proposed LNG 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-81

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-229 Public safety issues related to the LNG 

during both the engineering review donCoast Guard's waterway suitability assof these reviews are provided in section recommendations to ensure that the opin the Coos Bay navigational channel aLNG terminal would not impact public 

SA2-230 The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act 

transmission operators develop and folmanagement program that addresses thtransmission pipeline segment. Pacific safety and integrity management activisystem in the greatest need of attention Landslide risk assessment is discussed the EIS. Pacific Connector conducted to determine high hazard areas that wopipeline siting and plans to conduct addexploration after project approval if the authorize the project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-82

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-231 Section 4.1.3.2 of the final EIS has been revised 

Connector develop a plan prior to the start of connaturally occurring hazardous substances discov

SA2-232 Section 4.1.1 of the final EIS has been revised to 

of historically (over the past 170 years) moderatefor this determination has been added. An additimegathrust events has been added. The seismic 

section 4.1.2. We believe the clarified statementwaterway and in the Coos Bay area are correct b

FERC staff attended several interagency meeting

Moffat & Nichol reviewed DOGAMI tsunami ma Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Study for the progeotechnical investigation indicate that subsurfacare generally suitable for the facilities, provided tdesign and construction methods were implemenresponse to comment CO13-9. 

SA2-233 Section 4.1.2.3 of the final EIS has been clarified 

defined. The first two paragraphs have been comcomplete summary of the seismic hazards associoccurs in a moderate- to low-activity seismic reginvestigation conducted by GRI (2007a). Figure seismicity in Western Oregon on the central and shown on the figure, the Coos Bay area is locatecentral CSZ. Over 200 km to the south, the subdconsiderably more historic earthquakes, all primassociated with the subduction trench axis. The (M 5.0 - 7.0) in both the Puget Sound and Gorda intraslab earthquakes. In the Puget Sound area, t(40 to 60 km) and over 200 km from the deformGorda Block, the earthquakes are shallower (up front. Wong (2005) notes the historic absence of and suggests they are very rare along the Oregon geophysical conditions and local geology. The sAtwater and others (2005), “tells the scientific detrans-Pacific tsunami”. This book is based on mand other scientists. The site-specific geotechnicconsulted eleven Atwater publications, as well a

of the proposed LNG terminal. See response to 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-83

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-234 See response to comment SA2-206. SA2-235 Due to the tsunami risk in the area, we 

in the EIS that Jordan Cove develop sitrunup heights and wave velocities for tupon the most current DOGAMI data oheight determination procedures for the 4.1.2.4 of the final EIS has been revisepredictive modeling and revised facility See also response to comment IND5-1

SA2-236 Section 4.1.2.3 of the final EIS has bee

Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Study (Gfiled as Appendix B-6 of Resource Repwithin 150 km of the site. GRI consultthe eleven individual seismic sources umodel. These are not the only faults wdescribed in GRI (2007a), all faults witconsidered. After review of local faultDOGAMI, eleven fault sources were trsources in the seismic hazard model are (2007a), with their fault type, maximum distance from the site. The location of Figure 4.1 of GRI (2007a), Fault Map oresponse to comment SA2-227. 

SA2-237 Section 4.1.2.3 of the final EIS has bee

with Section 4.1.2.5. We have includerequired civil and structural design meaqualified independent Board of Consulapproval process would include evaluapotential subsidence hazards. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-84

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-238 See response to comment IND5-1 and SA2-239 Section 4.1.2.6 of the EISis based on th

Hazard Study performed by GRI (2007

Appendix B-6 of Resource Report 6). details the extensive review of existing performed on site to better characterize collaboration with DOGAMI in selectievents and faults. This site-specific apaccurate information than consulting re
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-85

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-240 The bullets in section 4.1.2.6 describe t

associated with a Return Period of 475 is associated with a Return Period of 4,

SA2-241 See response to SA2-239. According t

“Greatest coseismic subsidence (1–2 mOregon/ southern Washington; subsideThe statement in section 4.1.3.2 refers Oregon coast locally. In this context, 3 statement in section 4.1.2.3 refers to thperformed by Leonard et al. (2004), in subsidence could occur. In that contexSection 4.1.3.2 of the final EIS has beefollowing statement from Goldfinger aaverage recurrence interval for full-ma

yr, the southern Cascadia margin has a Section 4.1.3.2 indicates that several sievaluated to determine the potential for 

information about the methods used to liquefaction along the pipeline is includ24, 1007 Geologic Hazards and MineraPacific Connector’s Resource Report 6Addendum to Geologic Hazards EvaluConnector on January 19, 2009). A cothroughout the entire pipeline to evalualiquefaction. Where that analysis suggsite-specific studies were conducted. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-86

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-242 Section 4.1.3.2 of the final EIS has bee

Addendum to Geologic Hazards EvaluThis addendum incorporates 2008 SLIDmethods for analyzing landslide and surecommended in Baum and others (200We recommend that all required civil abe assessed by a qualified independent review and approval process would incproject elements relative to potential sethe 0.25 mile from the pipeline is an adfor landslides. Larger landslide complesquare miles of terrain were detected aldescribed in GeoEngineers (2007). FEinteragency meetings with DOGAMI r4.1.3.2 describes that GeoEngineers revaerial photographs and used GIS modefield evaluations, and comparisons with inventories. Aerial and surface reconnevaluate hazard sites that represented prisk to the pipeline. GeoEngineers’ 20LiDAR DEMS were compiled to evalupipeline. This approach is consistent wBaum et al. (2008). We have retained Pacific Connector characterize potentiaLiDAR or aerial photographs are not av2000 when the ODF guidelines were essection 4.1.3.2 of the EIS, east of MP 1hazards were evaluated by analyzing sl

sites based on general guidelines of the Forestry (ODF 2000). Depositional realowest slopes (as defined in Montgomewhich would have lower risks of rapidlspecific slope thresholds and other factare described in detail in GeoEngineers 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-87

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-88

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-243 Section 4.1.3.2 of the EIS describes tha

the 25-, 50-, and 100-year CMZs for eaevaluations of each crossing, the 25-yemigration potential for all crossings. TCMZ depends on site-specific conditioleast representative of future channel mlocation for all crossings. Pacific Connwaterbody crossings for the 50-year cowould be protective of the pipeline, and given the level of natural channel migr
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-89

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-244 Section 4.1.3.2 of the final EIS has bee

information presented in GeoEngineers recommendation has been added to cominvestigations and document mitigation

SA2-245 Section 4.1.3.2 of the EIS describes tha

of Resource Report 7 filed with Pacific 

FERC lists the proposed disposal sites characteristics of the sites, including st

SA2-246 If the Commission issues it’s authoriza

Project, the state’s rights under the CZMprotected. The applicant must receive under these federal statutes prior to conwould not impact any substantive determade by the states under these federal agencies retain full authority to grant oMoreover, because construction cannot necessary authorizations are obtained, environment until there has been full cofederal laws. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-90

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-246 (continued) AS we have stated befo

approach is a practical response to the refforts of those involved, it may be impobtain all approvals necessary to constradvance of the Commission’s issuance 

unduly delaying the project. While the exercise the authorization to construct receives all necessary federal authoriza

this approach in order to make timely dits NGA jurisdiction that will inform prlicensing agency, as well as the public. with the Commission’s broad conditionand 7 of the NGA 

SA2-247 See response to comment IND3-1. SA2-248 See response to comment IND3-1. SA2-249 See responses to comments IND3-1, IN

IND8-2, and IND8-7 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-91

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-92

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-250 In table 1.5-1 and section 1.5.1.8 of the 

the applicants have submitted draft reqdeterminations to the ODLCD. See resWhile the EPAct amended the NGA to the FERC to approve or deny an applicconstruction, expansion, or operation ospecified that nothing in the Act was infederal authorities. This includes the pstates with federally delegated responsiCAA, and CWA. If the FERC provideProject, Jordan Cove and Pacific Connfederal, state and local agency approvapermits/approvals for construction and developed recommendations or “conditPacific Connector must meet in order tthe provisions of the CZMA, Jordan Comust provide a certification to the FERprojects comply with and would be conwith the state's approved management Subpart D). Therefore, we have recomPacific Connector file with the SecretarLNG terminal, slip, and pipeline, documfrom the ODLCD that these proposed fwith the CZMA. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-93

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-94

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-251 See response to comment SA2-246. SA2-252 See response to comment SA2-246. SA2-253 See responses to comments IND3-1. T

appropriate federal, state, and local regopportunity to review the plans developPacific Connector, and the measures restaff and attached to the Commission’s have been prepared and/or revised with 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-95

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-96

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-254 See responses to comments SA2-246 th
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-97

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)

SA2-255 See response to comment PM2-14. SA2-256 Section 1.5.3.2 has been updated with tSA2-257 The Coast Guard’s WSR restricts the s

use the LNG terminal to not more than EIS describes the proposed class of shiterminal. Dredging and widening of this not part of the proposed Jordan Cove Simulation studies conducted by Jordan navigational channel would not have to accommodate the proposed class of shi

SA2-258 See response to comment FA2-16. SA2-259 See response to comment FA3-17. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-98

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-260 The issue or royalty payments to DSL 

EIS, but would be determined between 

SA2-261 We have added a discussion of potentia

methods for wetlands and other sensitivfinal EIS. 

SA2-262 See response to comment SA2-258. SA2-263 Water rights related to hydrostatic testi

4.3.2.4 of the EIS. 

SA2-264 The explanation of why Jordan Cove se

terminal site, and why the proposed senthat site and then need to cross Oregon agricultural lands, is included in section 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-99

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-265 We disagree that the EIS is premature. 

IND3-1. The FERC staff considered pafter the draft EIS comment deadline othe final EIS was written. 

SA2-266 See responses to comments SA2-261. SA2-267 See response to comments FA2-36 and SA2-268 See response to comment PM2-63 rega

timber production. One of the purposeland managing agencies, is to assess cofor each affected BLM District and NaBOR, and USFS, the EIS is the basis foDecision (ROD) and the USFS and BOalso documents the decisions by the BLthe Region 6 Regional Forester to apprto their respective land use plans and to necessary for the construction and operfederal lands. In order to comply with Connector would be required to providplan to the ODF State Forester for each be crossed. Pacific Connector would pState Forester for approval prior to timwritten plan describing how the proposcompliance with the Forest Practices ASection 4.4.2.1 of the EIS describes Patimber harvesting operations. Furthermthat Pacific Connector file with the Secconstruction detailed timber extraction 

consultation with the respective land owagencies, with separate plans for state, 

NEPA process gives the appropriate feregulatory authorities the opportunity tby Pacific Connector, and the measurestaff and attached to the Commission’s have been prepared and/or revised with 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-100

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-269 See response to comment SA2-268. SA2-270 To offset potential demands on local se

stated that it would consider implemencontrol program consistent with the OrProtection Program, as well as BLM anadditional discussion of pipeline safety EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-101

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)

SA2-271 Pacific Connector has stated that it inte

Practices Act. We have recommended detailed timber extraction 120 days pri
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-102

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)SA2-272 Invasive species are discussed in sectio

EIS. To avoid introducing or spreading Cove would follow the recommendatioAquatic Species Management Plan, the Strategic Plan, and BLM’s multi state estatement, Northwest Area Noxious Wsupplements, in addition to the mitigatiEIS. Pacific Connector would develop Weed Control Plan during pipeline conactivities. 

SA2-273 See response to comments SA2-67 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-103

SA2 State of Oregon (continued)