Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-257

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-258

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-259

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-260

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-261

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2

PM3-1 The proposed Pacific Connector pipeline 

LNG. The LNG would be regasified at tgoes into the pipeline. The natural gas vpipeline would be near or above ambient temperature of the natural gas in the sendimpact fisheries or waterbodies. The burpermafrost on the ground surface or creacross. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-262

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-2 The EIS addresses pipeline impacts on sa

4.6. As stated in section 4.3.2.5, Pacific impacts on waterbodies by crossing durinconstruction windows. In a 1-21-09 resp12-29-08 data request, Pacific Connector all waterbodies with the recommended tiConnector would avoid impacting fish in HDD. To lessen impacts from a “frac-ouConnector outlined measures it would imcontingency plan, that was filed as part oof the record of this proceeding, availablShould the HDD crossing fail, Pacific Coobtain all necessary permits and authorizconstruction from the appropriate agenciopen cut crossing. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-263

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-264

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-3 Actually, the success rates for HDDs are 

appropriate substrata. See response to co

PM3-4 See response to comment PM1-10. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-265

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-5 Natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil 

of the NGA, Jordan Cove does not have imported LNG, a recent report it filed by would probably come from Pacific Basin Russia, Papua New Guinea, and Peru. Aof the EIS, world natural gas reserves are 6,000 Tcf, and LNG exporting counties pthose reserves. Section 3.3.1 of the EIS Cove used to select its terminal location Cove never attempted to locate its terminseveral other proposals for LNG terminaunder review, as mentioned in section 3.
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-266

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-267

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-6 Land use along the pipeline is discussed 

We have recommended, in section 5.2, thconstruction begins, Pacific Connector fithe review and approval of the FERC staof the entire pipeline route that identifies of construction work areas, and a plan ouimplemented to mitigate impacts on any supply, or septic systems. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-268

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-269

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-7 See response to comment PM3-2. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-270

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-8 The EIS addresses potential impacts to g

mitigation measures in Section 4.3.1. Padeveloped a Groundwater Supply Monitoprevent and/or minimize impacts to groupipeline construction. In section 5.2, we Connector file a plan outlining measures mitigate impacts on domestic water suppConnector’s responsibility to repair or resupplies damaged during construction. Lwould compensate landowners for damageasement agreements, as explained in sec
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-271

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-9 The EIS is not premature. We will not b

commenting on the draft EIS. See respoPM1-34, PM1-45, and PM1-59. 

PM3-10 In a 1-21-09 response to the FERC staf

Pacific Connector indicated it would inabout 20 miles apart along the pipeline not be identified until after the pipeline Connector evaluates pipe-to-soil poten

PM3-11 See response to comment PM1-10. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-272

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-273

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-12 See response to comment PM1-69. PM3-13 See response to comments PM1-9 and PM3-14 See response to comment PM1-45. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-274

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-15 See response to comment PM1-64. We 

Pacific Connector on December 29, 20landowners not previously filed along nso that they can be included in the mailConnector filed the new landowner list January 21, 2009. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-275

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-16 See responses to comments PM1-26, P

Although the new tsunami study was fiis part of the record for this proceedingreview, no one has commented on it to 

PM3-17 See response to comments PM1-28, PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-276

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-18 See response to comment PM1-67. Sa

section 4.12 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-277

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-278

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-19 The EIS is complete and adequate to m

complying with the NEPA. It contains section 3. See response to comments PRegardless of how much sunlight southinfrastructure currently in place to tranpower. Therefore, as stated in the EIS, available in southern Oregon is not clothat could be provided through the Jordis no evidence that the project would dindustry; see response to comment PMthe FERC staff considers energy conseresources to be complementary to impocompetition. Even the state of Oregon new sources of natural gas would be a additional renewable resources are dev
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-279

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-280

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-20 See response to comments PM1-69 and PM3-21 The transcripts for all of the scoping m

in North Bend, have been filed as part proceeding (in Docket nos. CP07-444-They are available for public review vi
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-281

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-22 The EIS addresses landowner concerns 

4.7.3.2. County land use planning and made by Douglas County, are discusseDouglas County Commissioners’ resolthe record in this proceeding, and is avEIS summarizes this document and doeentirety. As part of the record it is inco
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-282

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2

PM3-23 Pacific Connector prepared a draft SPC

its application to the FERC. The plan iproceeding, available for the public to rthe plan to the EIS would be redundantreference, as is the entire application anPacific Connector. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-283

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-24 The EIS addresses potential project-rel

measures for the leatherback turtle in s

PM3-25 See response to comment PM3-2. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-284

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-285

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-26 See response to comments PM3-2 and 

a new company with no track record foHowever, all of the partners in Pacific Williams, and PG&E) have extensive pexperience, and have successfully put i

PM3-27 The HDD of the Rogue River should a

Market and the Shady Trails Motor Hothe EIS addresses pipeline safety. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-286

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-28 Pipeline safety is addressed in section 4
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-287

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-29 In response to recommended condition 

EIS, on December 4, 2008 Pacific Coninformation on the use of Old Ferry RoPacific Connector believes that improvhave less environmental impacts that uaccess. Section 4.9 of the final EIS inc

information. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-288

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-289

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-30 You have apparently confused the risks 

the risks associated with a potential natThey are not the same. Section 4.12 of details measures to be implemented to and pipeline facilities of this project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-290

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-291

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-292

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-31 While FERC staff did not answer quest

because in some cases the answers requfinal EIS provides answers to those queLNG Project has not been demonstrateand on the basis of the record the FERC 

project would have limited adverse envof the mitigation measures to be emplosignificantly harm regional ecosystemsof local communities are not threatenedand 4.12 of the EIS. The process of revdistorted, and allows for appropriate puNEPA; see response to comment PM2-adequate to meet the CEQ’s requireme

No federal laws were violated in the prdocument was written with the assistanagencies, including the COE, EPA, BLand Coast Guard. Need is not an enviraddressed at length in the EIS, but need Commissioners when they make a deciresponses to comments PM1-11, PM1-and PM2-14. The FERC and cooperatithe environmental review process; see No one is threatening to seize private pConnector seeks to reach mutually accewith landowners, as explained in sectioEIS. The EIS discusses the ODE repor4.11.1.5. LNG may not cost more than natural gas in the future; see response tstated in section 1.3 of the EIS, the maiinclude serving markets in southern Ornorthern California. The fact that Willsponsors reinforces this, since WilliamPass Lateral serves southern Oregon, wnatural gas to northern California. The authority for onshore LNG import termEPAct of 2005 did not take away state federal laws. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-293

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2

PM3-32 Safety and security is addressed in sect

Jordan Cove has not disclosed its sourclikely come from countries around the and Quatar; see response to comment P

sources are discussed in section 3.1.3.1 response to comment PM3-19, the Jordnot divert resources away from renewacould complement it. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-294

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-33 We disagree. The EIS includes sufficie

measures to avoid or minimize impacts 

PM3-34 Section 4.6 of the EIS discloses impact

threatened and endangered species and 

measures to mitigate those impacts. Thcomply with the ESA and a EFH AssesMSA, and the FWS and NMFS will evtheir BOs, and determine if any species 

result of the project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-295

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-35 Potential impacts on water resources an

sections 4.3.2 and 4.5.2 of the EIS, togConnector would implement to mitigatHDD under the Rogue River would avoand the fishery it contains. 

PM3-36 See response to comment PM1-69. Th

all comments on the record for this prodecision. The project would only be ausafe and would have no significant envcannot be mitigated. Within the contexthe FERC is a relatively small agency. conduct independent reviews of applicarecommendations based on the facts in ultimately accountable to Congress and States. All of the companies sponsorinProject are incorporated in the United Sheadquarters for Williams (Oklahoma) based in the United States, the parent foCanada (Alberta). 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-296

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-297

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-298

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-37 See response to comment PM1-19. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-299

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-300

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-38 Section 4.5.1.3 of the EIS, under the he

discusses potential impacts to deer and habitat, and acknowledges that there codepending on the timing of constructiosection also discusses mitigation of imp

PM3-39 Section 3..4.1 of the EIS describes how 

its pipeline route. As disclosed in the Evarious route alternatives. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-301

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-40 Prior to preparation of the EIS FERC s

route in a helicopter, and drove accessi
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-302

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2

PM3-41 This is not a done deal; no decision has 

or not to authorize this project. See resand PM1-54. 

PM3-42 Section 3.2.4.3 of the EIS discusses LN

California as potential alternatives to thLNG Project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-303

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-43 The FERC does not evaluate an applica

does not require as a condition of a CerConvenience and Necessity that an appof insurance. Therefore, insurance and 

Connector and/or it’s pipeline contractothis EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-304

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-44 Section 4.1.3.2 discusses potential seis

earthquake faults, along the pipeline roimplemented to mitigate impacts. In recondition 31 in section 5.2 of the draft Pacific Connector filed additional data have incorporated that data into the finbe allowed to begin until all geotechniccompleted, and there are assurances tha

vulnerable to a seismic event. We recosection 5.2 of the draft EIS, that a boardesign. 

PM3-45 Section 4.9.2.2 of the EIS discusses po

mitigation measures relative to motor vconstruction. Pacific Connector has prPlan for Non-Federal Lands as part of iAs recommended in the draft EIS, Pacidraft Transportation Plan for Non-Fedeappropriate county agencies for review modified the plan with comments recei
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-305

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-46 The proposed communication tower wi

Compressor Station would be a 160-fowithout guy wires. That correction has 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-306

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-47 Operational noise levels for the propos

Station were predicted at the compressthe five nearest noise sensitive areas (remodeling predicted that the proposed Bwould not have a measurable noise impHowever, to ensure that actual operatiopredicted noise, we have recommended conduct a noise survey after the compr

make any modifications necessary to coperational noise requirements. A discmay affect the noise modeling done for Station has been added to section 4.11.

PM3-48 The potential visual impact on the prop

Falls Compressor station has been addefinal EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-307

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-49 See response to comment PM3-38. PM3-50 Section 4.10 of the EIS describes cultu

consultations with Indian tribes and the the Project. Pacific Connector would bplan to address unanticipated discoveri

PM3-51 Potential alternative sites for the propo

comparison to the proposed site, are diEIS. The referenced location of MP 12Recommendations section of the draft proposed location of the Butte Falls CoMP 132.1. This has been corrected in t
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-308

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-309

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-52 The DOE acronym has been corrected 

would be installed to supply potable wwater needs for the Butte Falls comprethe communication tower, see response on the proposed height of the communiwould not be required. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-310

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-53 Pipeline safety is discussed in section 4

and fire fighting responses are also disc(Fire Regimes) and 4.8.3.6 (Law Enfor
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-311

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-54 See response to comments PM1-81 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-312

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-55 While section 3.4.5 of the EIS discusse

compressor station near Trail, that alterRegarding landowner rights, see responPM2-9. Pipeline safety is addressed in See responses to comments PM1-81 animpact on wells and domestic water su
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-313

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2

PM3-56 See response to comments PM1-11, PM

regarding how the EIS addresses need. 

the CEQ requirements for complying wto comments PM1-22 and PM1-70. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-314

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-57 Alternatives are discussed in section 3 

comment PM1-8. As explained in respapplicants define the objectives for the
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-315

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-58 The proposed Sunstone and Blue Bridg

all of the objectives of the Jordan Cove would not provide a new source of natuNorthwest in the form of imported LNGPM1-53. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-316

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-59 The Bradwood LNG Project is a viable 

Cove LNG Project and could achieve mHowever, the Commission typically docompeting projects; see response to comPM2-65. Ruby only recently (Septemb

for the Jordan Cove LNG Project was ienvironmental resource reports. Those pipeline would cross 563 waterbodies (crossed by the Pacific Connector pipeli41 federally listed threatened and endalisted species with habitat along the roupipeline), and could impact 837 archaesites identified within the area of potenConnector facilities). Therefore, poten

the Ruby pipeline appear to be greater pipeline for some resources. The Pacif

certain, and filed on the record for this other hand, has not yet come to the FER
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-317

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-60 We disagree, the FERC staff was able t

alternatives after thorough analyses. Sour evaluation process. We considered technically feasible, practical, and reas

objectives of the Jordan Cove LNG Proenvironmental impacts; see response to 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-318

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-319

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2

PM3-61 We believe that for the reasons explain

alternative berth configurations in sectialternative is not a reasonable alternativanalysis of this alternative is not warran

PM3-62 The referenced discussion of the Grant

section 3.4.1.10 of the EIS identifies seroutes were eliminated from further anof populated or developing areas. 

PM3-63 A discussion of the Westwide Energy C

section 3. of the final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-320

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-64 Section 4.3 of the EIS discusses potent

resources, including groundwater and wSection 4.13 contains a study of cumulpast, present, and reasonably foreseeabconclusions in section 5 are based on ththe record. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-321

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-65 See response to comments PM3-2 and PM3-66 Hydrostatic testing of the pipeline is di

the EIS. Recommended condition 33 irequested that Pacific Connector documUSFS and BLM concerning its hydrostConnector responded in a filing on Dec

draft plan. In a data request issued Decrefinements to this plan, including meacontaminants between watershed basinresponse is included in the final EIS. SPM2-52. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-322

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-323

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-324

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2

PM3-67 Section 3.4 of the EIS discussed the cri

Connector to select their pipeline routeincluding constructability, Pacific Connpipeline along ridgelines. Potential imaddressed in section 4.5 of the EIS. 

PM3-68 This is a meeting to take public comme

Jordan Cove LNG Project. It is not a h

record for this proceeding will be consiprior to making a decision. Discussionbe found throughout the EIS; see respoPM1-30, and PM2-9. Safety is address
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-325

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-326

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-69 Pacific Connector does not intend to tre

proposes to cross under it using an HDPM3-2 and PM3-35. 

PM3-70 Air quality is discussed in section 4.11

is addressed in section 4.12.10. The avgas pipelines continue to be a safe, relitransportation. With regard to odorizinresponse to comment PM2-68. LNG wthrough the pipeline. The LNG would and then sent into the pipeline as natura
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-327

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-71 See response to comment PM1-71. Th

FERC’s web page. For landowners rigcomments PM1-10, PM1-30, and PM2

PM3-72 Section 4.11.2.4 of the EIS, under the h

Site, discusses construction noise durinRiver crossing. The HDD operation wconstruction that would impact nearby Connector would implement noise mitiinstallation that would reduce noise imwould be acceptable. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-328

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-329

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-73 Read section 2.4.2.1 of the EIS. The p

least 3 feet deep in regular soils and 2 fwelds would be visually and radiograpevidence that new pipelines leak. The pipeline inspections. Pipeline safety is of the EIS. With respect to odorization comment PM2-68. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-330

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-74 Noise from operation of the compresso

section 4.11.2.4 of the EIS. The comprdesigned with noise attenuation measurnearest sensitive areas would be below response to comment PM3-47. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-331

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-75 Pipeline safety is addressed in section 4
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-332

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2

PM3-76 Section 3.4 presents the criteria used by 

select its pipeline route. The pipeline cthe whole way because those lines typithat present construction problems for in section 2.1.5.1 of the EIS, 39 percen(90 miles) would follow existing rightsof the EIS discussed the alternative rousuggested; and staff does not recommeover the dam. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-333

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2

PM3-77 Geothermal power, as a renewable reso

in section 3.1.3.1 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-334

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-78 See response to comments PM1-81, P
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-335

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-79 See response to comment PM1-12. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-336

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-80 See response to comment PM1-19. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-337

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-81 Section 3 of the EIS presents analyses 

No Action alternative, renewable resouas peak storage plants, and other LNG West Coast of North America. 

PM3-82 We acknowledge in the EIS that ECO

consultant to Jordan Cove. However, scholars or consultants, also found ecoan LNG terminal in Oregon. Section 

study by Dr. Phillip Romero of the UnNovember 17, 2008, Jordan Cove filed Regional and Local Benefits of an LNOregon. The results of that study are 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-338

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-83 Section 4.8.2.3 of the final EIS has bee

referenced study and its applicability to 

PM3-84 Section 4.8.2.3 of the final EIS has bee

reasons for the use of the referenced stuLNG carriers and the LNG import termsection 4.12 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-339

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-340

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-85 Coos Bay is not pristine. The bay is su

industrial development. Historically it major mills. That is why the EIS acknothat the water in the bay is impaired. Wfor LNG marine traffic in the waterway do not believe that the lives of people amitigation measures proposed by Jordaoutlined in the Coast Guard WSR will carriers to the terminal. The EIS is comrequirements for complying with the Nsection 1.4 of the EIS, the purpose of thpublic and governmental agency decisienvironmental impacts resulting from talternatives, and outline measures to avimpacts. The EIS represents independethe facts on the record; see response to regard to the price of LNG in comparissee response to comment PM1-12. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-341

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2PM3-86 Renewable resources as alternative sou

in section 3.1.3.1 of the EIS. 

PM3-87 See response to comments PM1-18 and 

of this document to be produced will baddress comments on the draft. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-342

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-343

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-344

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-345

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-346

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2

PM3-88 The CEQ. See response to comments P
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-347

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-348

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-349

PM3 Medford Public Meeting – October 2