Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-202

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-29 See response to comments PM1-13 anCO13-30 See response to comments PM1-13 an
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-203

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-31 See response to comment PM1-13. CO13-32 See response to comment PM1-13. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-204

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-33 See response to comment PM1-13. Th

the coast of Oregon are not proposed aCove LNG Project. 

CO13-34 Increased efficiency and conservation 

reduce LNG demand, is discussed in s

CO13-35 See response to comment IND3-7. Ea

receives its own, independent environmproposed project. These are available project’s designated docket at FERC. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-205

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-36 The sound channeling phenomenon di

primarily a deep water condition that tdepths of about 2,000 to 4,000 feet (Ri65-66). Other types of sound channelisurface water layers, but this phenometo areas with significant water depths. phenomenon that only occurs when theor salinity stratification in the water coand tides generally prevent the developlayers in coastal shallow water areas, hConsequently, sound channeling is not expected to occur in the shallow water

(Richardson et al. 1995, page 68). Unvirtually no effect on terrestrial wildlifdifferences between air and water genesound transmission from air to water osurface acts as a very efficient reflecto

underwater are not readily transmitted 

Similarly, sounds generated on land or transmitted into the underwater enviroaboveground noise on wildlife is addre
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-206

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-37 Potential impacts of the proposed proje

are addressed in sections 4.7, 4.8, and comments regarding potential impacts were evaluated and addressed in the Emisinformation on the benefit of the prjustification for the Project. See respo
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-207

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-38 As stated in section 4.8.2.7, the propos

terminal may affect recreational use of the bay would have to avoid constructiduring the Port’s dredging of the accesterminal. Likewise, during operation orecreational boaters would have to keesecurity zone established by the Coast when in transit and at berth. The securLNG carriers are in transit through Cosecurity zone around the LNG terminathe public boat dock. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-208

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-39 A discussion of recreation and tourism 

tourism in the area can be found in secEIS. 

CO13-40 The rejected LNG terminal in Californ

was based on regulatory intepretations EPA’s regulatory interpretation), the sclassification of the nearest onshore ar(considering that a national marine sanaway). California and Oregon have seemissions much greater than those assoLNG terminal. Many facilities, includstations and other industrial facilities, emissions much larger than the 700-80would be associated with the proposed comment FA3-18. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-209

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-210

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-41 Information on safety and security ves

with the Project is not publicly availabsecurity vessels would be fueled with dwhich by 2012 will be required to contsulfur by weight. Section 4.11.1 of the reflect updated time estimates identifieresponse to FERC’s 1/2/09 data requesupdated in accordance with the proponFERC’s 1/2/09 data request. Emissionfuture capacity increases would be addenvironmental review if and when poteincreases occur. 

CO13-42 Numerous other agencies have authori

the proposed project. Specific mitigatiwould be determined through consultastate and local agencies prior to issuan
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-211

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-43 Potential environmental effects of oper

terminal are addressed within numerouEIS. 

CO13-44 See response to comments SA2-196 anCO13-45 The proposed slip, including the weste

Henderson Marsh, would be armored tslip and prevent sands from shifting. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-212

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-46 See response to comments SA2-196, FCO13-47 See response to comment CO13-48. CO13-48 Potential impacts from excavating and 

and dredging the proposed access channumerous parts of section 4 of the EIS
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-213

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-49 The Oregon Gateway Terminal and Co

improvement projects are included in timpacts in section 4.13 of the final EIS
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-214

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-50 See response to comment PM1-14. CO13-51 As stated in section 4.12.4 of the EIS, 

an option for an easement with the OreCoos Bay. This option for an easemenlegal control over the portion of land thsiting purposes. 

CO13-52 As stated in section 4.8.2.4 of the EIS, 

charge Jordan Cove up to $60 million services. In addition, the Port may colterminal up to $5.5 million per year, anmaintenance fees. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-215

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-53 This is addressed in section 3.3.2.1 of CO13-54 The suggested alternative is not an alte

proposed project, but is an alternative That is beyond the scope of the EIS. 

CO13-55 Dredged material would be subject to 

contaminants. A detailed description osection 4.2.2.2 of the EIS. 

CO13-56 We disagree that the EIS for the Jordan 

to include full details for the Coos Bay improvement project. As stated in secchannel improvement project is not pathe proposed Project is not dependent project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-216

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-57 The referenced ECONorthwest study i

basis for justification of the proposed Ldoes not consider the potential economcommunity as justification for such a pcomment PM2-14. Section 4.8 of the mention the Whole Bay Study done by as well as to address similar comments 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-217

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-218

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-219

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-58 The moving safety and security zone w

vacate the zone while an LNG carrier wrequire moving crab traps. Other boatprovided advance notice of an arriving impacts of the moving security zone. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-220

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-59 This is untrue. Section 3.4 of the EIS 

Jordan Cove selected Coos Bay as the terminal. 

CO13-60 We have considered the effects of the 

archaeological and cultural values. Se
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-221

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-61 Section 4.8 of the EIS includes an eval

impact of operation of the Project after 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-222

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-62 Section 4.8 and 5.1.8 of the final EIS h

consistent. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-223

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-63 See response to comments IND3-1, IN

PM1-45, and IND3-9. 

CO13-64 The referenced regulations have been f
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-224

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-225

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued)