Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-52

COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CO9 Oregon Women’s Land Trust 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-53
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-54

CO9 Oregon Women’s Land Trust (continuCO9-1 This concern has been considered in our 

section 3.4.2.11 of the final EIS. 

CO9-2 Based on concerns identified during the P

crossing of the Oregon Women’s Land Trequested in a data request to Pacific Conevaluate an alternative route in this area. included the identification of an alternatithe property. The FERC staff’s data requresponse are part of the public record for to the public web site at the time. There FERC’s part to withhold information. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-55

CO9 Oregon Women’s Land Trust (continu

CO9-3 See responses to comments PM1-10, and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-56

CO9 Oregon Women’s Land Trust (continuCO9-4 We disagree that the EIS failed to accura

from UCSAs. Section 4.4.1.3 of the EIS forest, woodland, grassland, shrubland, ragricultural vegetation types and proposeconstruction, Pacific Connector would asUCSAs and compensate the landowner frestoration measures would include scarisoil), seeding, and replanting. 

CO9-5 Pacific Connector has developed a Groun

and Mitigation Plan to prevent and/or migroundwater, including from blasting. Tidentification of groundwater supplies wconstruction right-of-way. The 200 foot measurement based on blasting studies refrom the blasting site, but rather from the right-of-way. In addition, we recommenformulate a plan to protect domestic wate
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-57

CO9 Oregon Women’s Land Trust (continu

CO9-6 Pacific Connector would conduct pre- an

monitoring of the well(s), at the landownlandowners permission. Pacific Connectthe baseline condition of the well(s) befowell(s) after construction to determine if Pacific Connector would pay for the testiprovide mitigation for any impacts. 

CO9-7 Section 2.4.2.2 of the EIS describes Paci

measures for construction and restoration rugged topography. These measures incduring construction to reduce the potentiadversely affect slope stability, and site rmonitoring after the pipeline is installed. process, Pacific Connector modified its pnumerous times to avoid existing landslilandslides. . In addition, we have recomConnector conduct supplemental site-spehave modified Section 4.1.3.2 of the finathe analyses. 

CO9-8 Pacific Connector has prepared a draft tim

continue to evaluate methods for clearing construction work areas. Landowners canegotiations with Pacific Connector specextraction on individual properties. Hownature of the right-of-way that crosses maccess points, right-of-way clearing may each individual landowner request. See r83. 

CO9-9 Safety and reliability of natural gas pipel

requirement for Pacific Connector to havResponse Plan (ERP), is discussed in secPacific Connector’s ERP is not “secret.” meet with local emergency responder grodepartments, land managing agencies incBOR, and other public officials) to revierevise the ERP if necessary. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-58

CO9 Oregon Women’s Land Trust (continu

CO9-10 Pacific Connector proposes to install bar

to deter unauthorized use of the pipeline vehicles (OHVs). However, as the commpossible to entirely prevent OHV use of there are existing trails and a history of Omean to indicate that installation of barriOHV use. The potential affect of a fire ois addressed in section 4.12.10.1 of the Eburial depth of 24 to 36 inches, a stray buintegrity. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-59

CO9 Oregon Women’s Land Trust (continu

CO9-11 It is not within the scope of this EIS to ev

dependence on foreign sources of fossil ffuel energy sources were evaluated as poproposed project in section 3.1.3 of the E

CO9-12 See response to earlier comments CO9-1 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-60

CO10 Coos Riverkeeper 

CO10-1 The Coast Guard defines the waterway fo

extending from the outer limits of the Un12 nautical miles off the coast of Oregonnavigation channel about 7.5 miles to the Jordan Cove LNG import terminal. Howevaluating impacts on protected marine shabitat (EFH) from LNG carrier traffic to LNG terminal, we used the EEZ as the liand EFH assessment. This has been clarfinal EIS. 

CO10-2 Recovery, storage, sale, and transport of 

FERC. However, since these activities apotential environmental impacts from the of the NGL extraction facilities within th

storage and sendout facility within the Raddressed in this EIS. The transportation outside the scope of this EIS. See responIND16-1, 

CO10-3 Section 4.5.2.2 of the final EIS has been 

suggested information. 

CO10-4 The applicant’s have provided additional 

proposed eelgrass and wetlands mitigatiofinal EIS has been revised to include this response to comment PM1-43. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-61

CO10 Coos Riverkeeper (continued) 

CO10-5 Ghost shrimp are among the shellfish spe

4.5.2.1 and 4.5.2.2 of the EIS. 

CO10-6 Since publication of the draft EIS, Jordan 

proposed external screening system. A deffect on aquatic organisms from LNG cterminal berth without the screening syst4.5.2.2 of the EIS. 

CO10-7 See responses to comments PM1-26 and CO10-8 See discussion of stream habitat mitigatiCO10-9 This action by the Port is beyond the scoCO10-10 See responses to comments IND8-3 CO10-11 See responses to comments PM1-9 a