Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-1

INDIVIDUALS IND1 Francis Eatherington IND1-1 On November 4, 2008, Pacific Connecto

concerning the acres of “old growth” for

that may be affected on federal lands, nocombined total pipeline route. Section 4revised to estimate the area of mature forresult of construction of the Pacific Conn
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-2

IND1 Francis Eatherington (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-3

IND2 Glen Simpson 

IND2-1 Pipeline safety, including pipeline design 

maintenance measures applicable to residsection 4.12.10 of the EIS. 

IND2-2 The EIS discusses potential impacts on s

4.7.3.2. We have recommended (in condbefore pipeline construction begins, Pacireview and approval of the FERC staff, tthe entire pipeline route that identifies alconstruction work areas, and a plan outliimplemented to mitigate impacts on any septic systems. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-4

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood

IND3-1 We do not agree that the draft EIS is premature o

28 months crafting the draft EIS since the initiatiotakes into consideration hundreds of scoping comEIS meets the criteria outlined by the Council on regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) implementing tAct (NEPA). The EIS is a disclosure document tin adequate detail. While the vast majority of impmitigation measures described, some additional saddress site-specific circumstances. Some surveyCommission Order is issued and Pacific Connectobtain access to parcels previously denied. The Ebe lacking, how we would account for potential pin those situations, and general plans or conceptulater to mitigate impacts. The Supreme Court hacomplete plan be actually formulated at the onsetbe followed for ensuring that the environmental cevaluated.”1 We have recommended conditions measures are implemented, necessary permits are 

regulatory requirements are met. As shown in seagencies have authority to issue various permits faccordance with the EPAct, FERC requires applifor major permits at the time of the application to keep a complete consolidated record of all actionagencies undertaking federal authorizations. Howissuance of other permits is a process separate frois not expected that all other permits are issued pr

IND3-2 Section 4.6 of the draft EIS contains information 

Endangered Species Act that may occur in the Propinion on effects on those species. The public mits comments on the draft EIS. This is a summary applicant-prepared draft BA filed March 10, 2008review and comment. The FERC will submit its the same time as the final EIS is issued. The BA proceeding, and is available for review via the FEeLibrary feature. 

1 Robinson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-5

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)

IND3-3 The reference on page 1-24 of the draft E

incorrect, and should have read 4.5.2.1. includes a discussion of the MSA under Habitat. The correction has been made i

IND3-4 Discussion of impacts to marine mamma

4.5.1, 4.5.2.1, and 4.6.1.1 of the EIS. Sehas been revised to make this clearer. DHabitat is found in section 4.5.2.1 of the 1.5.1.1, the BA and EFH Assessment weEIS. The FERC intends to submit our BFWS and NMFS by May 2009. 

IND3-5 Certain information that identifies specif

sensitive cultural resources, whether prepapplicants, is prohibited from public discthe NHPA. However, general informatioresources surveys, agency consultations, with section 106 of the NHPA was incluthe environmental reports filed as part of data were summarized in section 4.10 of was available for review and comment b

IND3-6 See response to comment IND3-1. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-6

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)

IND3-7 See response to comment IND3-1. The F

analyses in stages, including Pre-filing repost-authorization review. Each stage redetailed site-specific information, and stanecessary surveys and plans. During all filed in the proceeding and therefore avapreviously stated, in some instances it is detailed plans until after the Order is issuaccess to all lands along the pipeline rouallow construction to commence until the have been satisfied, including appropriatsuch as other resource agencies. Copies surveys of its proposed LNG terminal locapplication with the FERC, and are thereavailable for review through the FERC wits tsunami study with the FERC on Deceto comments PM1-26, PM1-65, and PM2
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-7

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)

IND3-8 Markets and rates are non-environmental 

by the Commission prior to making its dapprove the proposed project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-8

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)

IND3-9 The EIS analyzes a complex project. It i

subject discussed only in one place, becathan one category. When this occurs we sections of the EIS as appropriate. In reshave revised the final EIS in several locacross references. The EIS is organized lienvironmental documents. Under each hexisting environment, identification of enoutline of measures that would need to bthose impacts. The Table of Contents is discussed; further divisions would make There are many acronyms and abbreviatiand they are defined up-front. The appenCD (and not included in hard copy) to sathey are voluminous. Following standarindex was not included with the draft EIS EIS. We believe the EIS does, in fact, adenvironmental impacts of the proposed a
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-9

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)

IND3-10 We disagree. The EIS summarizes w

results, and the FERC staff’s findings of 

It identifies impacts on specific resourcemeasures that need to be implemented to 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-10

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)

IND3-11 Our assessment of the potential proj

discussed in detail in section 4.6.1.3 of thproduce a BA in keeping with the ESA akeeping with the MSA. We therefore haregulations and nothing about the project 

IND3-12 We disagree. The pipeline maps in 

a standard resolution (1:240,000) that is proposed route and adjacent topography. of 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle mGeological Survey. More detailed photoscale of 1:6,000) have been filed by Pacithese photographic alignment sheets havPacific Connector at local libraries in CoKlamath counties, Oregon. You are encoif desired. 

IND3-13 The “To the Party Addressed” letter 

a short summary of the findings of the doand not the public, which makes these finEIS, to inform the public about our analyconcerning this project. We do not agree our findings is in any way prejudical, bec

document. It merely makes recommendaabout potential environmental impacts. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-11

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)

IND3-14 You found typographical mistakes in 

correct these errors. 

IND3-15 Although section 2.5 does not provid

construction, because these dates are curuncertainty of the issuance of some perm1.5 of the EIS), it does estimate the durat

IND3-16 The potential use of other energy sou

sources, as an alternative to the proposed section 3.1.3 of the EIS. The May 7, 200Kulongoski’s Request for LNG and NatuOregon Department of Energy (ODE) staOregon and the nation will consume moryears,” and “natural gas is also a good oppower.” 

IND3-17 The May 7, 2008 report by the ODE 

in sections 1.3, 3.1.3, and 4.11.1.5 of the filed by the Oregon Department of JusticBradwood Landing LNG Project in Dockwould be redundant and counter-productfull as part of the EIS for the JCE & PCGdoes not necessarily agree with all the fin

example, as explained in section 1.3 of thfact be less expensive that domestically pdepending on market conditions. Jordan its sources of LNG, but it could come froAustralia. The need for the project is brithe EIS, in accordance with the CEQ reg

NEPA (40 CRF 1502.13). However, “neissue. The Commissioners will determintheir Order. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-12

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)

IND3-18 GRI is an acronym for the company 

Environmental Consultants.” The final Edefine this abbreviation in the list of acro

IND3-19 The final EIS discusses the tsunami 

December 1, 2008. Alternatives are disc

See response to comments SA2-227 and 

IND3-20 The basis for the referenced summar

Summary is explained in detail in section addresses impacts on soils. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-13

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)

IND3-21 We disagree. The use of the words 

“minimize” are totally appropriate and arwords are used routinely in NEPA documfor example, is defined in Part 1508.20 o

IND3-22 Pacific Connector’s Erosion Control 

attached as Appendix 1B of Resource Rereports included as part of Pacific ConneFERC, filed on September 4, 2007. This by the public on the FERC Internet webs

to Documents & Filings and choose the eeLibrary, click on “General Search,” and excluding the last three digits in the field 

you have selected an appropriate date ran

IND3-23 The referenced text is from the Exec

which is only a brief summary of more delsewhere in the document. The basis fo

statement is explained in section 4.3.1.3 potential impacts on groundwater from cthe Pacific Connector pipeline. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-14

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)

IND3-24 The basis for the referenced summar

EIS sections 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2 which adto surface waters, and section 4.3.2.5 whimpacts on surface waters from construcPacific Connector pipeline. The way we “short term” is explained in section 4.0 o

IND3-25 The EIS does summarize impacts. A

Terms like “unlikely to adversely affect” impacts” are typical of NEPA documentsdefined in Part 1508.27 of the CEQ’s regNEPA. The referenced paragraph is a paand only briefly summarizes more detailin the document. See section 4.12 for moregarding Reliability and Safety. 

IND3-26 Pacific Connector has prepared a nu

that include measures that would be implto avoid or minimize environmental impare described as Best Management Practspecific measures and BMPs is standard and in some cases avoid, environmental the use of project-specific measures and operation of a major natural gas pipeline unavoidable environmental impacts. It iEIS imply, that use of BMPs would elimimpact. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-15

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)

IND3-27 Potential impacts of pipeline hydros

and discharge are discussed in sections 4the EIS. Hydrostatic testing of the pipeliimmediately following completion of pipConnector projects that construction wouhydrostatic testing done, in late summer 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-16

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)

IND3-28 The term “green-field” pipeline or “

commonly used in NEPA documents to rnot follow an existing utility corridor or 

IND3-29 Construction and operation of a maj

involves some unavoidable environmentthe EIS is to identify those impacts. If imacceptable practice under the NEPA to ereduced, minimized, or mitigated. In the pipeline in Coos Bay, in fact many impacavoided by our recommendation to follow WC-1A. 

IND3-30 The referenced plan was included as 

application to the FERC, filed on Septemof the public record for this proceeding. the public on the FERC Internet website the eLibrary link. Additional discussioncrossings, potential impacts, and Pacific contingency plan can be found in sectionEIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-17

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-18

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)

IND3-31 We disagree. The draft EIS is an ind

by the applicants, prepared by the FERC environmental contractor, and the staffs o

The Pacific Connector Pipeline would be existing U.S. DOT pipeline safety standa192. In the case of a transmission line thodorant, leakage surveys using leak detecconducted at least twice each calendar yeand at least four times each calendar yeaDOT Class locations are defined and listEIS. Section 4.12.10.1 also includes addoperational safety and reliability. 

IND3-32 It is not possible to construct and op

pipeline without some environmental imagency, the FERC is responsible to identthen through a process of avoidance, minwhere necessary, reduce impacts to a levacceptable. See response to comment PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-19

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)

IND3-33 Because it would be an interstate na

does not require that Pacific Connector o

through the proposed pipeline. This woualong the entire pipeline route would be currently proposes to odorize the gas onlinto local distribution pipeline systems, wBranch, Shady Cove, and Tule Lake/Russtations. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-20

IND3 Fredric L. Fleetwood (continued)

IND3-34 If a section of the pipeline located un

require repair or replacement, the exact mor replace would depend on site-specific could be accomplished using a remotely within the pipeline. Other repairs could pipeline and replacing the damaged sectiemergency situations that would demand and/or replacement of the existing pipe wenvironmental review and approvals. 

IND3-35 See section 4.12.10 regarding the Re

gas pipelines. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-21

INDIVIDUALS IND4 Kette Walker IND4-1 Section 4.1.3.2 of the EIS includes detail

geologic hazards that would be crossed bmeasures that Pacific Connector has propthat we recommend to avoid or minimize hazards to affect the pipeline. Possible awetlands are addressed in detail in sectio4.12.10 of the EIS includes discussion anand the risk to human life. The Commiswhether or not to authorize the proposed including comments received on the drafconsideration. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-22

IND5 Sharon Perry 

IND5-1 Seismic-related hazards in the Coos Bay 

4.1.2.3 of the EIS and tsunami hazards ar

On December 1, 2008, Jordan Cove filed discussed in this final EIS. Sections 4.1.LNG facility design features to address pincluding LNG storage tank foundation dprimary geologic hazard for the LNG terSubduction Zone (CSZ) and the potentiaseismically induced tsunami, we have increcommended measures that Jordan Covcomply with should the project be approEIS. Also see response to comment SA2
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-23

IND5 Sharon Perry (page 2 of 4) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-24

IND5 Sharon Perry (page 3 of 4) 

IND5-2 The recorded geologic history of the regi

4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of the EIS. See also resp

IND5-3 Section 4.1.3.2 of the EIS includes a sum

of potential geologic hazards in the areas pipeline, including earthquakes. This secmeasures that Pacific Connector has propthat we recommend to avoid or minimize hazards to affect the pipeline. 

IND5-4 LNG is natural gas that is cooled to a liq

back to natural gas it has the same propefootprint when used as fuel for a gas-burWhile natural gas is the cleanest burning greenhouse gases (GHG), as acknowledgEIS. LNG only has a greater carbon foogas transported by interstate pipelines whproduction, liquefaction, shipping, storagadded. The ODE 2008b estimates that dproduce up to 12 percent more GHG than transported by interstate pipelines. OtheMellon 2007; Heede Climate Mitigation life-cycle LNG may have a GHG footprihigher than for domestic natural gas. Curregulations limiting GHG emissions such 

IND5-5 LNG is not compressed during shipping. 

at any given time imported LNG may actdomestic natural gas. A recent study by landed cost of LNG from Pacific Basin savailable in the future would be about $6$7.79/MMBtu for Rocky Mountain gas dto the Pacific Northwest. As also explainthe California Energy Commission believCalifornia will increase in the future, and stabilize or lower natural gas prices. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-25

IND5 Sharon Perry (page 4 of 4) 

IND5-6 See our discussion of major river crossin

salmon and steelhead in sections 4.3.2.5, 

of the EIS. Commercial and sport fishinand 4.8. Section 4.10.1.2 of the EIS desctaken place with native tribes. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-26

IND6 Lee and Carolyn Wedberg 

IND6-1 Environmental impacts, or ecological ris

that are proposed to reduce those impacttopics within the EIS. However, as the Emitigation measures proposed by Pacific recommendations by the FERC staff, cleshould not cause “extensive” environmenadverse impacts. Sections 4.7.3.1 and 4.landowner concerns about the pipeline, iproperty values. Pipeline safety is discusEIS, the potential for forest fires is addrepotential impacts of earthquakes on the psection 4.1.3.2, 

IND6-2 See our discussion of major river crossin

River, and potential impacts on salmon asections 4.3.2.5, 4.5.2.1, 4.5.2.3, and 4.6fisheries from bentonite clay used in Hor(HDD) river crossings is discussed in secthe heading Inadvertent Release of Drillicomment PM3-2. We have revised sectiinclude additional discussion of potential commercial and sport fishing in the areas pipeline, including along the Rogue Rive
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-27

IND7 William Rittenhouse 

IND7-1 See response to IND6-1. The EIS indica

have limited adverse environmental impalandowners for the pipeline crossing of psections 4.7.3.1 and 4.8.3.3. See responsPM2-9. 

IND7-2 See response to comment IND3-33. IND7-3 Impacts of construction within Coos Bay 

and stream crossings is discussed in the E4.5.2.1, 4.5.2.3, and 4.6.1.3. To reduce iestuary, we have recommended the use oand Pacific Connector has incorporated troute. The potential impact on fisheries HDD river crossings is discussed in sectithe heading Inadvertent Release of Drillicomment PM3-2. 

IND7-4 The EIS acknowledges that vegetation cl

construction right-of-way, and subsequenwould have long term impacts. See discu4.3.4, 4.4.1.3, 4.4.1.4, and 4.7.3.4. 

IND7-5 See responses to IND6-1 and IND7-1. IND7-6 Section 1.3 of the EIS describes the state

including ultimate end users of the natur

IND7-7 The Commission will use the EIS, includ

the draft EIS, during its consideration of Project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-28

IND8 Ron Sadler 

IND8-1 We disagree that the draft EIS violates ei

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPcomments PM1-15, PM1-22, PM1-34, P37. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-29

IND8 Ron Sadler (page 2 of 13) 

IND8-2 The EIS does not justify any pre-conceiv

decision document. It makes recommendIn the third paragraph following the paracomment, the draft EIS states “The FERC element in its review of Jordan Cove’s anapplications. After a final EIS is preparewhether the Project should be authorizedindependent analyses by the FERC staff, contractor, and staff from cooperating agcomment on the range of alternatives ana

The EIS adheres to the CEQ regulations NEPA. See response to comments PM2-

IND8-3 In situations where multiple projects are 

could serve similar purposes or compete FERC reviews each project individually appropriate, we also evaluate projects as proposals. However, the FERC does not over others, but lets the market decide wCommission’s policy prohibiting subsidiworks to ensure that an authorized projecwithout adequate support from the markepublic interest, in the case of LNG imporonly authorize projects that are safe and unmitigatible environmental impacts. 

IND8-4 While the draft EIS recommends that the 

additional data before the end of the comthe specific circumstances for each recomthe environmental impacts are known an

information clarifies site-specific measurrefined mitigation to eliminate or minimiwill consider public comments submitted deadline of December 4, 2008, up until tfact, as of April 1, 2009, no additional coeither the LNG carrier water intake data filed by Jordon Cove on December 5, 20
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-30

IND8 Ron Sadler (page 3 of 13) 

IND8-5 The draft EIS is not silent on discussing 

section 1.3. The EIS follows the directioregulations for implementing the NEPA addressing the project purpose and need. fully consider the need for this project wdiscussed in its project Order. See respo
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-31

IND8 Ron Sadler (page 4 of 13) 

IND8-6 We disagree; a programmatic EIS is not 

comments PM1-9 and IND8-3. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-32

IND8 Ron Sadler (page 5 of 13) 

IND8-7 As explained in the beginning of section 

considered “reasonable,” an alternative mnot all of the proposed project’s objectivLNG terminals and major new pipeline sdetail necessary to determine that none hadvantages over the proposed project and objectives. If a major system alternative the project objectives and been clearly enwould have evaluated it in greater detail. would not meet all the main objectives oProject because the Bradwood Project is markets in the Pacific Northwest, and no

California. We have updated the discussalternative in the final EIS to reflect the fstalled because of a lack of market suppo
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-33

IND8 Ron Sadler (page 6 of 13) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-34

IND8 Ron Sadler (page 7 of 13) 

IND8-8 Although the draft EIS does not contain 

“Affected Environment,” the document ibeginning of the discussion of each resouexisting affected environment for the subin the first sentence of the second paragrEIS. 

IND8-9 The existing environmental conditions of 

described under separate topics in variouexample, existing conditions for Coos Baquality in section 4.3.2; upland vegetatiosection 4.4.1.1; wildlife in section 4.5.1.14.5.2.2 and 4.5.2.3; and for threatened, estatus species in section 4.6. We believe describes the baseline conditions of the Cresponse to this comment, we have revissome additional information. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-35

IND8 Ron Sadler (page 8 of 13) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-36

IND8 Ron Sadler (page 9 of 13) 

IND8-10 Alternatives are discussed in section 

IND8-7. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-37

IND8 Ron Sadler (page 10 of 13) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-38

IND8 Ron Sadler (page 11 of 13) 

IND8-11 See response to comments IND8-2 a
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-39

IND8 Ron Sadler (page 12 of 13) 

IND8-12 See response to comments PM1-8, PIND8-13 See response to IND8-4. IND8-14 We disagree. The draft EIS does no

supplemented, withdrawn, or re-issued. 

CEQ regulations for implementing the Nmost other EISs produced by the FERC fyou do like the way in which the EIS is othe document is in any way inadequate. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-40

IND8 Ron Sadler (page 13 of 13) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-41

IND9 Fairbanks 

IND9-1 Noxious weeds are discussed in several a

4.4.1.2 for Jordan Cove’s proposed LNG 4.4.1.3 for the Pacific Connector Pipelinenumber of measures that Pacific Conneccontrol or minimize the spread of noxiou4.4.1.3, Pacific Connector would also deplan to address agency recommendations
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-42

IND10 Fredric L. Fleetwood 

IND10-1 We disagree. The EIS is adequate to 

does disclose potential environmental im

IND10-2 The Oregon Department of Fish and 

numerous comments about this project. of the public record in this proceeding, athe FERC’s Internet web page using the dated January 19, 2007, filed January 22that the FERC analyze alternatives to the The draft EIS discusses alternative to usiRiver in section 4.3.2.5 (pages 4.3-43 anMitigation Policy is discussed on pages 4heading “Fish and Wildlife Habitat Categ
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-43

IND10 Fredric L. Fleetwood (page 2 of 2) 

IND10-3 We disagree that the draft EIS is una

requirements outlined by the CEQ to sati
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-44

IND11 Nancy French 

IND11-1 As stated in sections 1.3 of the EIS, 

its sources of LNG, but it could come froBasin. Section 2.3.3.1 explained that the easement over private lands, for which thcompensated. As discussed in section, 3has not turned down every LNG proposaseveral off-shore projects. With regard tsources of natural gas, see discussion in EIS. There are currently no existing pipesources of natural gas on the East and GuNorthwest. 

IND11-2 Potential impacts from tsunamis on 

addressed in section 4.1.2.4 of the EIS. Pdiscussed in section 1.3. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-45

IND12 Camby Collier 

IND12-1 Seismic-related hazards in the Coos 

section 4.1.2.3 of the EIS. Sections 4.1.2LNG facility design features to address pincluding LNG storage tank foundation dprimary geologic hazard for the LNG terSubduction Zone (CSZ) and the potentiaseismically induced tsunami, we have increcommended measures that Jordan Covcomply with should the project be approEIS. 

IND12-2 The referenced statement is from the 

Detailed discussion of land use, recreatiowaterway for LNG marine traffic and the 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 of the EIS. With regard t4.12.5.5 of the EIS discusses the need foand procedures along the Coos Bay wateCoast Guard’s Waterway Suitability Rep
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-46

IND12 Camby Collier (continued) 

IND12-3 The source of the socioeconomic fig

summary of the draft EIS are described iEIS. 

IND12-4 Construction of the proposed projec

environmental impacts as described in seis some instances impacts would be signiproposed, or we have recommended, mitthose impacts to acceptable levels. Overconstruction and operation of the project environmental impacts. 

IND12-5 The moving safety/security zone est

for the Jordan Cove Project was based on characteristics of the Coos Bay navigatiothe same security zone established by the Bradwood Landing LNG Project. 

IND12-6 Explanation is included in the Coast 

Suitability Report which is included as apotential scenarios from a major breach odescribed in detail in sections 4.12.5.3 thEmergency response and evacuation plan4.12.6 of the EIS. 

IND12-7 As described in the Waterway Suitab

Appendix B of the EIS, the Coast Guard Bay navigation channel is not currently straffic, but could be made suitable after imeasures. See also section 2.1.2.8 and s
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-47

IND12 Camby Collier (continued) 

IND12-8 Jordan Cove has conducted site-spec

the need for a turning basin at the entrancchannel. Based on these simulations the require a turning basin. The Coast Guard simulations in developing its recommendWaterway Suitability Report (see appendthe need for a turning basin. 

IND12-9 The referenced C-FER report was us

Pipeline Safety to assist in its rulemaking consequence areas. High consequence a4.12.10.1 of the EIS and listed in table 4

IND12-10 The Sunstone pipeline project is cur

immediate plans for development. See dof these projects and our assessment of thin section 3.2.2.4 of the EIS. 

IND12-11 See response to comments PM1-17, 

and IND8-5. 

IND12-12 See response to comment IND12-11
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-48

IND12 Camby Collier (continued) 

IND12-13 See response to comments PM1-9, P

IND12-10. 

IND12-14 See response to comment PM1-12. IND12-15 See response to comment IND12-13

or imply that the other proposed or planediscussed as possible system alternatives 

easements. While portions of these projeto existing pipeline rights-of-way, each onew easements, including easements on p

IND12-16 See response to comments PM1-17, 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-49

IND12 Camby Collier (continued) 

IND12-17 See response to comments PM1-17, 

IND8-5. 

IND12-18 See response to comment IND12-7. IND12-19 The purpose of the pubic review and 

section 1.6 of the EIS is to assist in the eproposed project and in preparation of thcooperating agencies. The authority of tsiting of onshore LNG terminals is definEnergy Policy Act of 2005 and the NaturThe authority of the FERC to authorize cinterstate natural gas pipelines is also defeminent domain for natural gas pipelines also established and defined by the NGAPM1-10 and PM2-9. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-50

IND12 Camby Collier (continued) 

IND12-20 See response to comment IND12-7. 

of the Coos Bay navigation channel is noCove LNG terminal project. 

IND12-21 The application that Jordan Cove fil

berthing facility design that could accomLNG carriers. In its WSR, the Coast GuLNG carriers transiting the Coos Bay navm3. Jordan Cove has stated that there wphysical dimensions of the berthing slip 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-51

IND12 Camby Collier (continued) 

IND12-22 See response to comment IND12-15IND12-23 See response to comment IND12-13IND12-24 As stated in section 3.3, Jordan Cov

terminal site after going through a regionon the growing demand for natural gas in northern Nevada, and northern CaliforniaWashington were potential target marketto serve. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-52

IND12 Camby Collier (continued) 

IND12-25 Information filed by the applicants in res

in the draft EIS is available for public commein the project’s record on the FERC’s InterneGo to Documents & Filings and choose the eclick on “General Search,” and enter the dockthree digits in the field (e.g., CP07-441). Be appropriate date range. See response to commPM1-44, and PM1-66. 

IND12-26 See response to comment IND12-25. IND12-27 Impacts from dredging the access chann

from installation of the Pacific Connector pipaddressed in numerous locations within the Ewithin the existing environment of Coos Bay sections 4.5.2.1, 4.7.1.3, 4.7.2.3, 4.7.3.3, and Coos Bay as a result of the proposed project ilocations within the EIS. With regard to baseresponse to comment IND8-9. The use and dLNG ships are at dock is addressed in section of the proposed ballast water screening system aquatic organisms from ballast water intake uaddressed in section 4.5.2.2 of the EIS. 

IND12-28 As stated in section 4.12.5.5 of the EIS, 

Suitability Report, identified the need for a puprocedures along the Coos Bay waterway. If would place a requirement on the Project for public along the transit route, including on-gonotification systems, and drills and training. Ethe needs of all users of the waterway, includboaters, local businesses, local residents, and available to the public through the required edby realtors and potential home buyers. 

IND12-29 Drills and training for schools and the pu

required public notification system and proceIND12-28. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-53

IND12 Camby Collier (continued) 

IND12-30 We disagree. The conclusions are a sum

environmental impacts as assessed by the FEdecision document, but merely makes recomCommissioners about potential environmenta