Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-274

CO18 Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center 

CO18-1 The EIS is not a decision document, bu

Commission’s final decision. See resp

CO18-2 See responses to comment IND3-17. S

describes the alternatives analyzed, incand conservation of natural gas; other renewable, solar, and wind energy; othfacilities; and terminal site, design, and and variations. As discussed in section & PCGP Project’s target markets are in 

northern California, and northern Neva
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-275

CO18 Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (c

CO18-3 We disagree. The final EIS follows th

regulations for implementing the NEPA Commission will more fully consider tit makes its decision, as discussed in it

CO18-4 The alternatives described in section 3

evaluated in accordance with the NEPA FERC’s analysis of alternatives was baenvironmental impacts of the projects, whether the alternatives would meet al

proposed project. It is important to recconceivable alternatives are technically and practical. Some alternatives may bare unavailable and/or incapable of beiinto consideration costs, existing technof the overall project purpose. Also seIND8-3 and CO5-13. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-276

CO18 Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (c

CO18-5 Contracts between Jordan Cove and fo

market driven and beyond the scope of analysis of purpose and need in the EIS Commission will determine the need f

CO18-6 See response to comments PM2-11, PM

regarding water and aquatic resources. and mitigation measures proposed in thwaterbodies crossed by the project incPacific Connector is required to have ocompliance monitors representing the construction phases to ensure that the penvironmental conditions of the FERC 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-277

CO18 Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (c

CO18-7 See response to comments PM3-2 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-278

CO18 Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (c

CO18-8 Pacific Connector has developed a Gro

and Mitigation Plan to prevent and/or groundwater, including from blasting. identification of groundwater supplies pipeline construction right-of-way. Paconduct pre- and post-construction mowells and springs, at the owners requepermission. Pacific Connector would baseline condition of the wells and sprretest the well(s) after construction to dany impacts. Pacific Connector would mitigation for any impacts. 

CO18-9 See responses to comments IND13-3 aCO18-10 See response to comments PM2-8 and 

has state-specific air quality requiremeapplicable to the proposed project, therof scrutiny of the project’s air quality i
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-279

CO18 Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (c

CO18-11 We disagree that the draft EIS is inade

comments IND3-1, PM1-8, and PM1-9

CO18-12 Section 4.13 of the final EIS discusses CO18-13 The final EIS addresses the potential e

associated with temporary storage and temporary and permanent access roads project and proposed mitigation measuSee response to comment CO12-4. 

CO18-14 We disagree. The final EIS adequately 

to salmonids and other anadromous fisSee response to comments PM2-11 anEIS for a discussion on listed fish spec
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-280

CO18 Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (c

CO18-15 See response to comment IND1-1. Section 4.4.

impacts to forest, woodland, grassland, shrublanvegetation types and proposed mitigation measu

CO18-16 Because the proposed pipeline must be designed 

stability and integrity, it is unreasonable, impracall designated LSRs. The BLM and USFS have pipeline’s likely nonconformance with the NorthGuidelines for LSRs and put forward route alterthe final EIS. See also response to comment PM

CO18-17 We do not agree that the draft EIS is inadequate

1, PM1-8, and PM1-9. Sections 4.4.1.4 and 4.5modified to include additional information on spwithin NFS lands. 

CO18-18 The proposed pipeline route would have impact

Siskiyou National Forest. Pacific Connector woUSFS and BLM lands that identifies the specific BMPs would be employed to minimize potentiato continue to work with the USFS and BLM on addition, Pacific Connector would design a com

address unavoidable impacts to the LSRs. AlsoGrant on federal lands, Pacific Connector must dpublic need and provides a significant public befor, and receive, a Certificate of Public ConveniFERC would issue this Certificate only if Pacifipipeline has a public need and provides significa

CO18-19 A discussion of the Western Oregon Plan Revisi

the final EIS. 

CO18-20 We disagree that the mitigations measures are w

response to comment IND3-1. Construction and terminal and a natural gas pipeline involve some The purpose of the EIS is to identify those impais acceptable practice under the NEPA to explaiminimized, or mitigated. While the draft EIS resome additional data before the end of the commspecific circumstances for each recommendationimpacts are known and disclosed, and the additimeasures or would provide more refined mitigat

CO18-21 See response to comment CO9-10. Large rocks 

construction would be used as OHV barriers alocrossings to block access at OHV points to restr
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-281

CO18 Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (c

CO18-22 See response to comment PM2-29 and PM1-110 

Additionally, see section 4.5.1.3 of the final EISwaterbodies, and wetlands would be minimized Cove’s Plan and Procedures and Pacific Connecon the FERC staff’s Plan and Procedures, and Pmodified based on input from the BLM and USFPlan and Procedures is to assist applicants by idmeasures for minimizing the extent and duration and waterbodies. It is not necessary to know evadequacy of its proposed erosion controls. We bJordan Cove or Pacific Connector to our Plan anequal level of environmental protection. 

CO18-23 All areas disturbed by construction, including th

UCSAs, and contractor yards as necessary, wou

accordance with Pacific Connector’s ECRP. Teremain in place until restoration is complete. Pafollow-up inspections of all disturbed areas after to determine the success of revegetation. Wetlarevegetation for 3 years or until the revegetation successful at the end of 3 years, Pacific Connectremedial revegetation plan to continue revegetatis successful. In addition, we have included a reCommission’s Order) that Jordan Cove and Paciauthorization from the Director of OEP before cThis authorization would only be granted followfacility and the pipeline and associated facilities with Commission approval and applicable standsafely as designed, and the rehabilitation and resconstruction are proceeding satisfactorily. 

CO18-24 See responses to comments IND3-1 and PM1-9

flawed, inadequate, or insufficient. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-282

CO19 Center for Biological Diversity 

CO19-1 We disagree that the final EIS violates 

adheres to the CEQ regulations for comidentifies environmental impacts in adto comments IND3-1 and PM2-1. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-283

CO19 Center for Biological Diversity (contin

CO19-2 We disagree. We believe the EIS prov

baseline conditions of the affected envthe final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-284

CO19 Center for Biological Diversity (contin

CO19-3 The FERC staff has determined that co

the project would result in limited advWe disagree that the EIS is a deficient comment IND3-1. See responses to coIND29-3 regarding cumulative impactwildlife, aquatic resources, threatened waterbodies, and other significant envisocioeconomic resources are discussed EIS. The FERC staff has developed mappropriately and reasonably avoid, menvironmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. If the proposed poperated in accordance with recommenwould be an environmentally acceptabrecommended that these mitigation meconditions to any authorization issued 

CO19-4 See response to comment PM2-2. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-285

CO19 Center for Biological Diversity (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-286

CO19 Center for Biological Diversity (contin

CO19-5 See response to comments PM2-8 and CO19-6 See response to comments PM2-8 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-287

CO19 Center for Biological Diversity (contin

CO19-7 Mitigation for specific actions on spec

discussed in section 4.0. Additionallydraft mitigation plan that is included in L-3. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-288

CO19 Center for Biological Diversity (contin

CO19-8 We have determined that the project w

seven federally listed species and their only authorize the project to proceed if find that the project would not jeopardlisted species or result in the destructiodesignated critical habitat (assuming realternatives are not available). We are construction should not begin until afteformal consultations in compliance wi
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-289

CO19 Center for Biological Diversity (contin

CO19-9 See response to comment CO19-8.