Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-1

COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CO1 Knife River Materials CO1-1 See discussion of potential socioeconom

project in section 4.8 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-2

CO2 Rogue Flyfishers 

CO2-1 Alternatives that would involve an LNG 

discussed in section 3.2.4.3 of the EIS. SPM2-32. 

CO2-2 Our analysis of environmental impacts is 

proposed action considering the existing resources that would be affected, includipast human activity. The federally listed section 4.6 of the EIS.
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-3

CO2 Rogue Flyfishers (continued) 

CO2-3 We disagree. We believe the conclusion

the expected impacts on wells, surface wwetlands. In addition, we have recommeensure that all mitigation measures and pnecessary permits are obtained, and all strequirements are met. 

CO2-4 See response to comments PM3-2 and INCO2-5 See response to comments PM2-52 and I
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-4

CO3 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline CO3-1 The public comment period on the draft CO3-2 See response to comment PM1-64 and P
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-5

CO3 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-6

CO3 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO3-3 See response to comment IND19-1, and 

PM1-71. 

CO3-4 See response to comment PM1-45. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-7

CO3 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO3-5 See response to comment PM1-18 and P
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-8

CO3 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-9

CO4 The Chamber of Medford/Jackson Co

CO4-1 See discussion of potential socioeconom

project in section 4.8 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-10

CO5 Oregon Wild 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-11
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-12

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)CO5-1 We disagree; a programmatic EIS is not 

comment PM1-9. 

CO5-2 See response to comments PM2-8 and IN
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-13

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-3 The Coos County pipeline between Rose

non-jurisdictional local distribution pipeloperated by Northwest Natural and regulPacific Connector pipeline would be an ithe FERC. Section 3 of the EIS evaluateincluding broad alternative energy optionalternatives. See response to comments comment IND8-12 and response to comm

CO5-4 See response to comment IND8-3 and PMCO5-5 See response to comments PM1-11, PM1CO5-6 GHG emissions are described in section 

of the EIS includes discussion of alternatresponse to comments PM2-8 and IND5-

CO5-7 See response to comment PM2-14. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-14

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-8 The EIS evaluates multiple alternatives, 

terminal locations, different pipeline rousupplies including domestic supply from energy supplies. See section 3. 

CO5-9 A discussion of the possible alternative o

avoid impacts on Riparian Reserves and section 3.4.3 of the final EIS. 

CO5-10 As discussed in section 1.3, the JCE & P

are in the Pacific Northwest, northern Ca

Nevada. The referenced page in the execcorrected. 

CO5-11 The referenced statement from the execu

summary statement. Our analysis of the Ruby, and Bronco pipelines to serve as aproject is included in section 3.2.2 of the the other pipeline projects to be environm

CO5-12 See response to comments PM2-8 and IN
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-15

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-13 The basis for our conclusion on the Ruby 

alternative, including use of total pipelinexplained in section 3.2.2.2 of the EIS. Thas been updated to include a summary oRuby Pipeline in its application to the FEWe are preparing a separate environmentpipeline. 

CO5-14 Read section 1.3 of the final EIS, which 

future increase in domestic natural gas pr

CO5-15 No reasonable alternatives were summar

comments PM1-102 and IND8-3. 

CO5-16 Section 1.5 of the EIS identifies permits, 

requirements applicable to the proposed 

section(s) of the EIS where there is additresources applicable to each permit. Secof the requirements of the federal land mbe crossed by the proposed pipeline, and there is additional discussion of complianmanagement and forest plans applicable has also been updated to include new infconsistency with specific requirements oresource and forest management plans. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-16

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-17

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-17 We disagree that the comment period wa

response to comments PM1-18 and PM1

CO5-18 We disagree. Cumulative effects are ade

4.13 of the EIS. The EIS meets the criteregulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) implem

CO5-19 Jordan Cove’s 2008 vessel simulation stu

indicated that LNG carriers up to 148,00

to the proposed LNG terminal using the As stated in section 4.12.5.5 of the EIS, tdetermined in its WSR that the Coos Bay currently suitable for LNG marine trafficafter implementation of additional measuadditional measures do not include dredgentrance or the navigation channel would dredging is limited to the access channel Impacts of dredging the access channel a

CO5-20 We disagree. The EIS contains extensiv

on salmonids, including from impacts on crossed by the proposed pipeline. See seof the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-18

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-21 Section 4.5.1.3 of the final EIS includes 

reptiles and amphibians, and has been respecies that occupy rock outcrops. Specaddressed in section 4.6.3 of the EIS and included as an appendix to the final EIS. 

CO5-22 Riparian impacts, including from remova

to avoid or minimize impacts are addresssections 4.3.2.5, 4.3.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.5.1.3, an

CO5-23 See response to comments PM3-2 and INCO5-24 Section 4.4.1.3 of the EIS discusses the p

construction and operation to increase thconstruction activities were to occur duriPacific Connector would comply with laagency standards for each ownership/mapipeline to minimize the potential fire ris

CO5-25 The release of ballast water in foreign co

this EIS. Jordan Cove no longer proposewater intake screening system as analyzesection 4.5.2.2 of the final EIS for an updvessel water intake. The project as curreimport terminal. It cannot be authorized terminal under the current application. SPM1-19. 

CO5-26 The potential impact of the proposed LN

Airport is discussed in section 4.9.2.4 of discussed in section 4.12.8. 

CO5-27 See response to comments PM1-26, PM1CO5-28 Read section 4.1.2.6 of the EIS. See resp

and IND5-1. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-19

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-29 As described on the referenced page in section 2.1.4

CBNBWB for the LNG terminal would be both oneconstruction and limited day operation of this termina one-time use for hydrostatic testing and filling the fconcrete. Operational use would be limited to potaboperational use. Water obtained from the CBNBWB withdrawal restrictions in place for the existing perm

CO5-30 Temporary Extra Work Areas and Uncleared Storag

areas that would be affected by construction of the pthese areas have been fully described in the EIS unde

CO5-31 As describe in section 2.3.3.1 of the EIS, installation 

would disturb an estimated 1.4 acres in total, at aboupipeline (approximately 0.1 acre at each location). Tpermanent pipeline right-of-way. The impacts of thi

and timeframe of project-related activities that are adconstruction, right-of-way restoration, and operation 

CO5-32 Edge effects caused by the pipeline right-of-way thro

sections 4.4.1.3 and 4.5.1.3 of the EIS. 

CO5-33 Unauthorized use of the pipeline right-of-way by OH

impact during operation of the pipeline. Section 2.4Pacific Connector would use to discourage unauthorway, including placing barriers of large rocks or bouof the right-of-way in selected areas to form barriers vegetation maintenance practices that would discourmeasures are also discussed in section 4.7.3.4. See r

CO5-34 As described in section 4.4.2.2 of the EIS, any wood

of-way would conform to appropriate fuel loading stwildfire. In areas where the fuel loading would excewould machine or hand pile and burn the excess maaccording to the requirement of the landowner. Burnappropriate burning season and according to the conand the ODF. A prescribed burning plan would be dappropriate agencies for the necessary permits. 

CO5-35 As stated in section 2.10 of the EIS, Pacific Connect

proposed facilities. If at some point in the future Pac

pipeline, it would need to file a new, separate applicaand the FERC would conduct a complete environmeand maintenance of the pipeline is described in sectio

CO5-36 See response to comment PM1-8. The EIS presents 

consideration of alternatives. Read section 3. 

CO5-37 See response to comment s PM2-7, PM2-14, PM2-8CO5-38 See response to comment s PM1-26, PM1-65, PM2
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-20

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-39 Read sections 4.1.2.3, 4.1.2.5, and 4.1.2.

comments IND5-1 and SA2-227. 

CO5-40 See response to comment CO5-39. CO5-41 See response to comments PM1-43 and I

comment CO5-39. 

CO5-42 The EIS discloses where known landslid

the proposed pipeline. See section 4.1.3describes proposed action for mitigating where they would be crossed. Also see rSA2-227. 

CO5-43 Although the referenced information is n

included in the FERC’s project file whicinformation on the FERC’ project site is and is fully available for public review. information is on the FERC’s Internet weand accessible by going to Documents & eLibrary link. Under eLibrary, click on “the docket number excluding the last threCP07-441). 

CO5-44 As stated later in the referenced section o

identified in its application, and we evaluproject, numerous specific pipeline segmhazard risk. These were identified by sppipeline. Information on these areas and included in the detailed geological hazarand included as part of the publicly avail

CO5-45 The concerns identified in this comment 

the pages following the referenced page, Hazard Avoidance and Minimization of 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-21

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-46 Pacific Connector’s ECRP would address potential erosio

conditions. We believe the measures that would be implefor the range of climate conditions that could be expected of the project. 

CO5-47 The referenced section of the EIS identifies the site-specifi

Connector to evaluate channel migration and scour hazardthe FERC’s web site and is available for public review anthe EIS also includes site-specific information on each stre

CO5-48 As stated in section 4.1.2.3 of the EIS, based on evaluation

represents future migration potential for all crossings. The on site-specific conditions, and the 100-year CMZ is least potential and channel location for all crossings. Based on 

year CMZs, Pacific Connector would design all waterbodlevel of design would be protective of the pipeline and pubconditions that could be expected to occur in the project ar

CO5-49 Proposed new access roads on BLM lands are listed in tab

potential impacts from construction and use of these roads areas that would be affected by construction of the proposareas have been described in the EIS under specific resour

CO5-50 The referenced section of the EIS summarizes locations w

areas discussed previously in the EIS in section 4.1.3.2. Siof seismically induced rockfalls, landslides, or soil slumps RR6-1) from Pacific Connector’s Response to a June 2, 2available on the FERC’s project site. Section 4.1.3.2 also in the event of seismically induced landslides and rockfallrisk, including our recommendation that Pacific Connectoanalysis. Since the pipeline right-of-way after installation wnot likely to increase impacts from geological hazards. 

CO5-51 We disagree. The analysis of the Ruby and Bronco pipeli

Project is included in section 3.2.2 of the EIS. Ruby has juinformation on its proposed project. Bronco has not yet fianalysis for these projects does not need to be included in tseparate EISs prepared for each respective project. 

CO5-52 You have cited a section of the EIS called General Constr

design includes general discussion. Greater detail is includheading Site-Specific Construction Impacts. 

CO5-53 We disagree that different stream crossing techniques from 

required to meet the referenced downstream turbidity requadded to the referenced discussion in section 4.3.2.5 of the 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-22

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-54 We disagree. The EIS contains sufficient detail on 

potential effects from crossing these streams. Read 

CO5-55 As stated in the referenced paragraph of the EIS, it 

require backfill of trenches with clean gravel or cobwho are the “experts” as suggested in this commenevaluated Pacific Connector’s request to modify thacceptable. We agree that the use of rip rap for banwhere possible. Pacific Connector would restore sFERC staff’s Procedures, which seeks to limit use other stabilization measures would not be effective

CO5-56 See response to comment CO5-22. CO5-57 The referenced sentence from the EIS begins with 

remainder of the discussion acknowledges that use require modifications for use by the proposed consareas additional studies are planned and BMPs prosection 4.9.3. 

CO5-58 The referenced statement from the EIS is not false. 

construction would be restored and revegetated as section 4.4.1.3 of the EIS. The statement does not would be restored to pre-construction conditions in 

CO5-59 The referenced page describes the existing conditio

construction in areas infected with Port Orford Cedsection 4.4.1.3 of the EIS under the heading Impacwhere Port Orford cedar root disease are know to oincluded in table 4.4.1.3-7. The discussion of hydrfinal EIS has been revised to include new measurehydrostatic test plan, which would include testing o

and treatment as necessary to prevent the spread of 

CO5-60 See response to comment CO5-34. CO5-61 Loss of habitat productivity is evaluated in this EIS

ecological impacts on habitat, and ensure that imparespective resource management plans, mitigation has been recommended by the USFS, BLM, or FEproposed for impact on economic value of habitat. 

CO5-62 Resource specialists from the applicable land mana

large trees would cause adverse impacts and would 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-23

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-63 Section 4.4.2.2 of the final EIS has been revised to 

and how hazard trees would be cut, and how they would only be removed if work within the danger construct the pipeline. Pacific Connector is propossnag habitat. 

CO5-64 Section 4.5.1.2 of the EIS includes a site-specific an

may occur from construction and operation of the psection acknowledges that construction and operatsome wildlife mortality, and loss of habitat. The seproposal to mitigate for permanent habitat loss. Wendangered, or have other special status they may oLNG terminal are discussed by species in section 4are discussed in section 3. 

CO5-65 Section 4.5.1.3 of the final EIS has been revised to 

bird species. 

CO5-66 Section 4.5.1.3 of the final EIS has been revised to 

as an “important habitat type”. 

CO5-67 See response to comments IND3-1 and IND3-7. CO5-68 The Oregon Coast coho is federally listed as threat

in depth in section 4.6 of the final EIS and in the BAsalmon in section 4.5.2.1 of the draft EIS is an ODFUnits. 

CO5-69 See response to comment CO5-25, and read sectioCO5-70 Sections 4.3.2.5 and 4.5.2.3 of the final EIS include 

from waterbody crossings. 

CO5-71 Potential impact to waterbodies by deep-seated lan

unchannelized slopes is difficult to evaluate. Slope pipeline operation could result in soil and sedimentPacific Connector evaluated all likely unstable areapipeline route, and moved the route as necessary to Resource reports and other evaluations are documeavailable for review on the FERC Internet website 

CO5-72 Section 4.6.1.2 of the final EIS has been revised to 

to snowy plovers due to increased presence of corv
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-24

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-73 Section 4.6.1.2 of the final EIS has been revise

the effects of fragmentation on marbled murre

CO5-74 In this case, the term “construction debris” refe

generated during construction activities, and thin section 4.6.1.2 of the final EIS. We have recConnector develop a management plan that wand all work areas within marbled murrelet suiconstruction debris and food wastes that could predators. 

CO5-75 Section 4.6.1.2 (under northern spotted owl) o

of impacts to the Cow Creek Area of Concernto other environmental and construction constr

CO5-76 Section 4.6.1.2 of the final EIS includes discus

spotted owl, and has been revised to include a Final Recovery Plan for the northern spotted o

CO5-77 Section 4.6.1.3 of the final EIS discusses impa

coho salmon habitat, but does not do so at a sitManagement Practices would be incorporated FERC staff’s Wetland and Waterbody Construwill be followed at all sites. Further discussion waterbodies from pipeline construction is incluof the final EIS. 

CO5-78 Section 4.6.4 in the final EIS has been revised 

impacts to the red tree vole. Additional informvole can be found in the Biological Evaluation final EIS. Surveys were conducted according Red Tree Vole v. 2.1” (USDA 2002) and tree-at potential nest trees. The results of these survNovember 2008 and are part of the public reco
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-25

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-79 Oregon Statewide planning goals are not part o

agencies use these goals. Coos County found Oregon Statewide planning goals in their land 4.7.2.1. 

CO5-80 The EIS includes an accurate discussion and a

the proposed pipeline construction based on exroute and the experience and professional judgengineering staff who prepared the EIS. 

CO5-81 A Certificate of Public Convenience and Nece

Commission after the NEPA review as explainfor this project, including our analysis of alternNEPA. 

CO5-82 We do not agree that each road crossing by the 

analysis. Each road crossing is identified in thE), and the EIS describes and evaluates impaccrossings. One of the potential impacts describ

authorized vehicles, including OHVs. See resPM1-82. 

CO5-83 New road construction is included in the footp

impacts of new road construction on various reare addressed in the appropriate sections of the 

to construct about 0.1 mile of new permanent which would impact about 0.24 acre within lansections 2.3.4 and 4.9.3.3). The USFS has idewould be closed as part of the mitigation of ovproject on NFS lands, including impacts on wi(see appendix L). Section 4.9.3.2 of the final Eacknowledge that in some areas (e.g. forested new temporary access roads may not be restorand that some impacts may be long term. Detmanaged are included in Pacific Connector’s Tfor Non-Federal Lands (see section 4.9.3.2) an4.9.3.3). 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-26

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-84 Read section 2.5 and 2.6 of the EIS. See CO5-85 See response to comments PM2-8 and INCO5-86 See response to comment CO5-85. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-27

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-87 See response to comment CO5-26. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-28

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-88 Section 4.13 of the final EIS has been rev

the potential cumulative impacts of the pBLM’s western Oregon plan revision. 

CO5-89 See response to comments PM1-45 and I
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-29

CO5 Oregon Wild (continued)

CO5-90 Comments received during the scoping p

have been addressed in the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-30

CO6 Northwest Industrial Gas Users 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-31
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-32
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-33

CO6 Northwest Industrial Gas Users (contiCO6-1 See section 1.3 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-34

CO7 Menasha Forest Products Corp. 

CO7-1 A detailed discussion of the Blue Ridge R

in section 3.4.2.1 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-35

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline 

CO8-1 See response to comments PM1-18 and P
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-36

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-37

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO8-2 The FERC evaluates the purpose of the p

applicants. We have evaluated in section potential alternatives. See response to coPM2-14. 

CO8-3 Section 3 of the EIS in fact includes disc

alternatives that would not include pipeliOregon. See response to comment PM1-EPAct of 2005, the FERC is the lead fedauthorizing onshore LNG terminal and inso we do not have to consider California are not applicable. See response to comm
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-38

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO8-4 As stated in section 2.3.3.1 of the EIS, du

and restoration TEWAs would be restoreareas disturbed during pipeline constructregraded and seeded. TEWAs that were would be planted with trees. Section 4.4that impacts on forested areas, including because of the time required for forested construction conditions. 

CO8-5 The economic impact on owners of prop

by the proposed pipeline are discussed in of the EIS. 

CO8-6 The referenced section of the EIS is from 

impact on groundwater, and in this conteworking area of the right-of-way is accurThe potential impact of soil compaction, proposed measures to mitigation for soil more detail in section 4.2.3.2 of the EIS. 

CO8-7 It is not required that a BA be produced a

EIS. However, the draft EIS included a information that was being developed intwas submitted to the FWS and NMFS neEIS was issued, and the final EIS also ininformation included in the BA. The BA proceeding and is available for review vipage using the eLibrary feature. We did draft EIS. The next version of the envirofinal EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-39

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO8-8 Potential impact from project activities, i

vessel traffic, is included in section 4.6.1marine mammals, section 4.6.2.1 for statand section 4.6.4.1 for other marine mamMammal Protection Act. Information frosources on potential impact on whales frto the final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-40

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO8-9 Hydrostatic testing is addressed in several sec

appropriate for different resources that could water withdrawals and discharges. In section limited license for temporary use of surface wwould be required from the Oregon Departm2.4.2.1 further explains that withdrawals from permitted as necessary, and appropriate reviepermitting process. Table 2.4.2.1-2 identifies potential sources would necessarily be used. not used, other potential sources listed in the talternatives. Pacific Connector’s proposed hyfederal and non federal lands. Potential cumuresources, including from the proposed hydrosection 4.13 of the EIS. Mitigation for impacdiscussed in sections 2.4.2.1, 4.5.1.3, and 4.5comment PM2-52. 

CO8-10 See response to comment CO5-29. CO8-11 After testing the LNG storage tanks, the hydr

discharged into the firewater pond, which in tthe existing permitted wastewater pipeline intfinal EIS has been clarified to make this more 

CO8-12 The presence of chlorine within the municipa

the hydrostatic testing process. Jordan Cove months to complete construction of the LNG EIS). As stated in section 2.4.1.4, the 10 millbe one of the first facilities completed, and wfrom the municipal water line. Hydrotesting take place near the end of the 36 month constwould be made up of water from the fire watmillion gallons from the municipal water line time of year, it would take 2 to 4 weeks to obthe municipal water line. Section 2.4.1.4 of thmake this more clear. Section 2.4.1.4 explainbefore and after hydrotesting, to ensure it wouprior to discharge (see response to comment Cthe Pacific Connector pipeline is addressed in 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-41

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO8-13 If hydrostatic testing identifies a leak or break 

sections, that section would be drained, the lerepeated. The process for the repeat test wouincluding cascading test water from, or to, othminimize water usage. Section 2.4.2.1 of the include this information. 

CO8-14 Section 2.4.2.2 of the EIS includes a discussio

construction techniques proposed for areas of Connector’s ECRP includes erosion control mconstruction on steep slopes. These measurehydrotesting discharge. We have revised secinformation on hydrostatic test water dischargwith high erosion potential. If erosion were thydrostatic test water, Pacific Connector wounot anticipated that compensation to landown
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-42

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO8-15 See response to comment IND13-3. As state

Connector is proposing to implement a noxiowould apply to noxious weeds spread by hydnot require that a company post a bond. Howmonitor and correct restoration concerns folloFERC, with input from interested stakeholdesatisfied that restoration is successful. The FEfor several years after the pipeline is installed

CO8-16 Section 4.3.1, beginning on the page cited in 

existing groundwater aquifers in the project alocations along the Pacific Connector pipelin

CO8-17 Trail Creek is on the 303(d) list for Dissolved 

released a final TMDL for the Rouge basin, wDecember 29, 2008; however, ODEQ has indinsufficient data to develop a TMDL for dissoJordan Cove and Pacific Connector must obtpursuant to section 401 of the CWA from the 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-43

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO8-18 The basis for the referenced statement from s

clearly explained in the paragraphs following does not need to be retracted. 

CO8-19 Pacific Connector’s ECRP includes specific p

techniques in areas of rugged topography. Thalong ridgelines has been included in the footconstruction right-of-way. As stated in the Eparking, and storing materials within UCSAs work areas are proposed, and those impacts awould in fact need to be cut from the construchowever UCSAs are areas in addition to the cand TEWAs. Noxious weeds and vegetative section 4.4.1.3. Soil and rock that cannot be rwould be spread over the surface of the right-

CO8-20 The EIS acknowledges that some trees within 

that over time may die or would need to be cuthat event. See section 4.4.1.3. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-44

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO8-21 The pipeline right of way clearing would not 

regeneration due to a loss of uphill seed sourc5 times the height of the tree from which they Silviculture, 6th edition, Ralph C. Hawley anSons Inc, 1958, page 93). Such dispersal distpipeline right of way clearing. As a practical forest roads, which may have similar clearing regeneration. 

CO8-22 Since publication of the draft EIS, the classifi

reserves on BLM lands has been changed froManagement Areas, as defined in the BLM’s incorporates this change. We have considerethe checkerboard of land ownership in into ouof-way clearing. See response to comments P

CO8-23 Federal regulations (CFR 223.12) authorize t

issuance of a right-of-way or special use authdirectly to the grantee at the current appraised Service would sell the timber under a Tree MContract (Form 2400-6T), with standard Forepayment, log accountability, and operations. established using the Forest Service Transactwhich is designed to establish fair market val

CO8-24 The Landslide Hazards subsection of section 

the results of site-specific analysis of landslidpipeline route, including areas east of MP 166climate change for this area has been added to discloses that climate change models predict the Cascade Range, corresponding to the area 

CO8-25 See response to comment PM2-78. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-45

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO8-27 There is no discrepancy. Prime farmland 

agricultural lands. For the purpose of the those lands that are actively or recently ffarmland soils are classified as such by thand may or may not be actively farmed. 

CO8-28 See response to comment IND8-7. The E

the CEQ regulations for complying with a new draft EIS. 

CO8-29 See response to comment CO5-78. CO8-30 See response to comment IND5-4 and PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-46

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO8-31 See response to comment PM1-2. CO8-32 Section 4.5.2.1 of the final EIS has been 

on the use of estuaries by salmonids. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-47

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO8-33 Pacific Connector would cross all stream

See section 4.3.2.5. 

CO8-34 Impacts to the Oregon Coast coho salmo

are discussed in section 4.6.1.3 of the fin

CO8-35 The number of waterbodies that would li

of the streambed is 7 for the Southern OrCoast ESU of coho salmon, and 29 for thsalmon. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-48

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO8-36 Section 4.5.2.1 under Impacts and Mitiga

species that could occur along the waterwPotential impacts on oysters along the piaddressed in section 4.5.2of the final EIS

CO8-37 The impact on aquatic resources from the 

well as maintenance dredging is discusseEIS. This analysis includes all aquatic ospecies protected under the Endangered Simpacts are addressed in section 4.13. 

CO8-38 The potential Oregon Gateway Containe

the cumulative impacts analysis in sectio
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-49

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO8-39 The pipeline would be buried with a min

where it crosses a waterbody, and the strthen be restored. Therefore placing the pUmpqua River would not be expected to patterns or downstream systems. The refsection 2.4.2.2 has been revised in the fincrossing of the South Umpqua River is nSection 4.3.2.5 includes a more detailed crossing methods and potential impacts fcrossings of the South Umpqua River. Sincludes discussion of potential impacts 

CO8-40 In the draft EIS we recommended that Pa

work with the USFS to identify a route vWildcat Ridge/Long Prairie Route Variasince modified its proposed route in this discussion in section 3.4.2.12 of the final 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-50

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO8-41 Nothing has been purposely omitted from 

final EIS includes additional analysis of plans, and analysis of mitigation measureWe disagree that a programmatic EIS is comment PM1-9. The Commission Ordeneed, not the EIS. See response to comm

CO8-41 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-51

CO8 Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline (

CO8-42 In its application to the FERC Pacific Co

contingency plan in the event the HDD cfails. Constructing the HDD during the fconstruction would provide for the contincompleted during the second year of consection 4.3.2.5 of the EIS. 

CO8-43 We disagree; a programmatic EIS is not 

comments PM1-9, PM2-14, and CO8-41