Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-210

IND57 Susan Delles

IND57-1 See response to comments PM1-8, P

PM1-22, PM2-8, PM2-14, and IND3-1. section 4.12.10. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-211

IND58 H. Elizabeth Gwynn 

IND58-1 In fact, natural gas is a much cleaner 

section 3.1.3.2. 

IND58-2 See response to comments PM2-8 anIND58-3 We disagree. The EIS includes muc

impacts of the LNG terminal on Coos BaPM1-2 and PM3-85. The potential dangin a tsunami zone are described in sectioSee also response to comments PM1-20, PM2-5. The EIS also includes much anaof the proposed pipeline on forests, streain sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.7. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-212

IND58 H. Elizabeth Gwynn (continued)

IND58-4 See response to comments PM1-8, P

PM1-24. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-213

IND59 Susan Smith

IND59-1 See response to comments PM1-15, 

PM2-3. 

IND59-2 You identified a typographical error 

There are multiple references to the draft that make it clear the draft EIS was the dnot extend the comment period on the dr

IND59-3 See response to comments PM1-1 an

signed up to speak at the meeting in Nortand who had not left the meeting prior to order they signed up) was allowed to spethe entire sign-up list, the meeting also cadditional persons to speak. As stated at continue to accept comments on the drafwritten. The comment period was not ex

IND59-4 See response to comment IND3-1. T

included in Appendix B of the EIS. A dirisk mitigation measures can be found in Persons were given the opportunity to corisk mitigation measures as comments on Commission considers it to be more effedevelopment of plans such as the ERP to has determined whether a project is consIf the project is determined to be in the pcommence construction would not be issrecommendations requiring pre-construcsatisfied, with input as appropriate from 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-214

IND59 Susan Smith (continued)

IND59-5 The Coast Guard’s WSR is attached 

All the other reports are in the public recavailable for public review. See respons

IND59-6 See response to comments PM1-102IND59-7 The use of domestic natural gas as a

Project is discussed in section 3.2.2 of th

IND59-8 See response to comments PM1-11, IND59-9 See response to comments PM2-12 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-215

IND60 James F. Moore Jr. 

IND60-1 The EIS contains evaluation of the t

potential at the site of the LNG terminal section 4.1. See response to comments P

IND60-2 We disagree. The EIS includes anal

from the proposed dredging for the slip athe proposed pipeline crossings of stream4.5.2.2. 

IND60-3 The potential for domestic natural ga

Mountain area to serve as an alternative included in section 3. Rocky Mountain nthan imported LNG. See response to com
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-216

IND61 Dana Gaab

IND61-1 See response to comment PM1-39. IND61-2 See response to comment PM1-37. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-217

IND61 Dana Gaab (continued)

IND61-3 See response to comment PM1-39. IND61-4 The EIS does not discuss the possibi

becoming an export facility because it is action, and has not been identified as a presponse to comment PM1-19. 

IND61-5 We disagree that the EIS needs to be 

requirements outlined by the CEQ to satiprepared to address all social, economic an objective, thorough analysis. See resp

IND61-6 See response to comment PM1-45 a
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-218

IND62 Clarence Adams

IND62-1 The FERC staff and our third party c

from cooperating agencies, have indepeninformation provided by Jordan Cove anNumerous sections of the EIS address polandowners, including discussions on blaagricultural and residential soils, groundwand right-of-way maintenance, land use, transportation, air quality and noise, and 

IND62-2 With respect to purpose and need in 

comment PM2-14. As mentioned in sectthere are several LNG projects still undeCalifornia. We are unaware of any FERC denied in California. Section 3.3 of the Echoose Coos Bay as the location for its pterminal, and section 3.4 explains Pacific considerations. The use of domestic natupotential alternative to the proposed Proj

3.2.2 of the EIS. See response to comme
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-219

IND62 Clarence Adams (continued)

IND62-3 Use of the existing Coos County pip

alternative was not omitted from the EISheading Coos County Pipeline Route in s

IND62-4 We disagree that hydrostatic testing 

in the draft EIS. See response to comme1, and IND13-3. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-220

IND62 Clarence Adams (continued)

IND62-5 See response to comment PM2-21, PIND62-6 See response to comment PM1-45. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-221

IND62 Clarence Adams (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-222

IND62 Clarence Adams (continued)

IND62-7 See response to comment PM1-45. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-223

IND62 Clarence Adams (continued)

IND62-8 The draft EIS meets the requirement

satisfy the NEPA. The next version of thwill be the final EIS. The final EIS will identified by commentors on the draft. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-224

IND63 Jan Nakamoto Dilley 

IND63-1 See response to comment PM2-14. IND63-2 Read section 3 of the EIS. See respo

PM1-22. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-225

IND63 Jan Nakamoto Dilley (continued)

IND63-3 The EIS analyzes a complex project

each subject discussed only in one place, more than one category. When this occuother sections of the EIS as appropriate. wave on LNG vessels is discussed in secbeen updated in the final EIS to include rfiled with the Commission by Jordan Codraft EIS. There is no discrepancy in prein the draft EIS. As stated in section 4.1wave is a wave coming up the Coos Bay predicted wave heights are for a wave coSpit. See also response to comments PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-226

IND63 Jan Nakamoto Dilley (continued)

IND63-4 The draft EIS meets the requirement

satisfy the NEPA. The next version of thwill be the final EIS. The final EIS will identified by commentors on the draft. SIND63-3, IND3-1, and IND8-14. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-227

IND64 Wendy Wong-Haigh 

IND64-1 See response to comments PM2-14 aIND64-2 The FERC is not an affiliate of any o

is a federal regulatory agency, and we emenvironmental contractor to assist in the draft EIS is an independent review of datprepared by the FERC staff, our third parand the staffs of the cooperating agencie

requirements outlined by the CEQ to satito comments PM1-54 and IND8-2 conce
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-228

IND64 Wendy Wong-Haigh (continued)

IND64-3 See response to comment PM3-22. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-229

IND65 Mark Sheldon

IND65-1 Section 3.4.2.1 of the final EIS inclu

recommendation regarding potential use Alternate Route. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-230

IND65 Mark Sheldon (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-231

IND66 Brian L. Gumbs, MD, FAAP

IND66-1 See response to comments PM1-43 aIND66-2 See response to comment PM1-18, P
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-232

IND67 Nicole J. Jackson, MD

IND67-1 These data came from the Southwes
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-233

IND67 Nicole J. Jackson, MD (continued)

IND67-2 See response to comments PM1-28, IND67-3 Section 4.9.2.2 of the final EIS has b

discussion of the revised traffic study, inHighway 101, completed by Jordan Coveimpact analysis was filed by Jordan Cove November 6, 2008, when it was placed in project. It has been available for public rthat date. 

IND67-4 Section 4.8.2.2 of the final EIS inclu

potential impacts associated with worker tourist lodging. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-234

IND67 Nicole J. Jackson, MD (continued)

IND67-5 See response to comment PM1-46. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-235

IND67 Nicole J. Jackson, MD (continued)

IND67-6 The comment period on the draft EI
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-236

IND68 Carol Custodio

IND68-1 The proposal is not dangerous. See 

PM1-15, PM1-22, and PM1-34. 

IND68-2 Alternatives to the proposed project, 

from North America, are discussed in secresponse to comments PM1-22, PM1-24

IND68-3 See response to comments PM3-2 anIND68-4 The no action alternative is discusse
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-237

IND69 M. Kluepfer 

IND69-1 See response to comments PM1-10 aIND69-2 We have reviewed an alternative rou

Women’s Land Trust property. See sect

IND69-3 See response to comment PM2-8. IND69-4 We disagree. The EIS shows that th

hazardous to people. There is no blast zoenvironment does not explode. See sectievaluate the potential seismic and tsunamproposed LNG terminal at the proposed l

evaluates the potential long-term impacts Coos Bay. See response to comment IND

IND69-5 The EIS addresses renewable energy 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-238

IND70 Jerry H. Chadwick and Sarita Southg

IND70-1 The body of this letter is a copy of a 

response to comments in letter IND29. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-239

IND70 Jerry H. Chadwick and Sarita Southg
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-240

IND70 Jerry H. Chadwick and Sarita Southg
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-241

IND70 Jerry H. Chadwick and Sarita Southg
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-242

IND70 Jerry H. Chadwick and Sarita Southg
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-243

IND71 Jan Rice 

IND71-1 See response to comments PM1-29, 

IND3-32, and IND5-9. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-244

IND72 David C. Machovec 

IND72-1 See response to comment PM3-47. IND72-2 See response to comment PM3-48. IND72-3 See response to comment PM3-38. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-245

IND72 David C. Machovec (continued) 

IND72-4 See response to comment PM3-50. IND72-5 See response to comment PM3-51. IND72-6 See response to comment PM3-52. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-246

IND72 David C. Machovec (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-247

IND73 Daina Swanson 

IND73-1 See response to PM1-8, PM1-22, an
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-248

IND73 Daina Swanson (continued) 

IND73-2 See response to comment PM1-45 aIND73-3 See response to comments PM1-28, IND73-4 We disagree. The EIS is neither inc

meets the requirements outlined by the Cnext version of the environmental documresponse to comments PM2-12 and IND8
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-249

IND74 Jerry Havens 

IND74-1 See the response to IND15-7. IND74-2 Section 4.12.4.5 has been updated to 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-250

IND74 Jerry Havens (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-251

IND74 Jerry Havens (continued) 

IND74-3 See the response to IND15-8. IND74-4 See the responses to IND15-3 and IN
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-252

IND74 Jerry Havens (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-253

IND74 Jerry Havens (continued) 

IND74-5 See the responses to IND15-5, IND1
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-254

IND74 Jerry Havens (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-255

IND75 Cascade Butte Ranch IND75-1 A description of the facilities associate

compressor station is provided in sectioNegotiations concerning land leased focomponents are the responsibility of thConnector. We received a comment frneighboring property concerning visuacommunications tower. See response t
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-256

IND75 Cascade Butte Ranch (continued) IND75-2 See comment response PM75-1. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-257

IND76 George K Ahuna IND76-1 See section 4.12.5.5 of the final EIS. S

events have been considered through thand the applicant’s WSA. 

IND76-2 See response to comment CO11-33. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-258

IND76 George K Ahuna (continued) IND76-3 See response to comments PM1-10 and IND76-4 Construction and operation of a major 

result in some unavoidable environmenidentifies impacts on specific resourcesmeasures that need to be implemented Additionally, our assessment includes a project safety and reliability in section 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-259

IND77 John and Phyllis Boling IND77-1 The final EIS acknowledges that some 

further improvement than originally anwould be based on successful negotiatiand Pacific Connector. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-260

IND77 John and Phyllis Boling (continued
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-261

IND78 Lyn Wandell IND78-1 See response to comment IND14-1. IND78-2 See response to comment IND14-2. IND78-3 See response to comment IND14-3. IND78-4 See response to comment IND14-4. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-262

IND79 Harry and Holly Stamper IND79-1 See section 1.3 of the final EIS. Contra

supply are market driven, and not part Our analysis is based on the JCE & PCspecifically designed to provide up to ato the Pacific Northwest, northern Calimarkets.