Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-226

CO14 Messerle & Sons 

CO14-1 We disagree that the EIS falls short of 

evaluating the Blue Ridge alternative rrevised the evaluation of the alternativthese comments and additional informConnector. The expanded evaluation iamended alternative as suggested. See EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-227

CO14 Messerle & Sons (continued) 

CO14-2 See response to comment CO14-1. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-228

CO14 Messerle & Sons (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-229

CO14 Messerle & Sons (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-230

CO15 Coos Watershed Association 

CO15-1 The rationale for siting the Pacific Con

and specific segments as appropriate, iand 3.4. As stated in the referenced tewas done primarily where the pipeline Cascade Mountain Ranges. 

CO15-2 In response to our recommendations in 

Connector has incorporated a modified into its proposed route. See section 3.4final EIS has been revised to address rthe revised proposed route, including tconcerns identified in this comment. Wrecommendation to section 4.3 that Pacoordinate regarding the crossing of thReserve Project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-231

CO15 Coos Watershed Association (continue

CO15-3 See response to comment CO15-2. CO15-4 See response to comments CO14-1 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-232

CO16 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition 

CO16-1 The NEPA process is participatory; the 

opportunity to review and comment on Commission considers comments from private landowners, in its analysis of thfinal EIS describes the environmental FERC staff will consider public commEIS comment deadline of December 4is written. The EIS and most of its asspublic documents that are available for website (http://www.ferc.gov). 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-233

CO16 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition 

CO16-2 We disagree that the EIS is a deficient 

comment IND3-1. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-234

CO16 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-235

CO16 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition 

CO16-3 See response to comment PM1-9. CO16-4 Maps of Pacific Connector’s proposed 

and are adequate in their current form. IND3-12. Additionally, waterbody crotechniques based on situational conditifinal EIS for an explanation about how the route for its pipeline and alternativby the FERC. 

CO16-5 See response to comments IND3-1 and CO16-6 Access roads have been discussed in su

2.3.3.1 and throughout section 4.0 in th

CO16-7 The way we use terms such as “short t

explained in section 4.0 of the EIS. SeIND3-1. The quality of species habitais discussed in sections 4.5 and 4.6 of t4.10.2.3 states that about 27 miles of psurveyed for cultural resources becausapplies to other environmental surveys 

CO16-8 We disagree that the final EIS is inade

comment IND3-1. It is not necessary tproject to assess the adequacy of its prmodifications made by Jordan Cove or Plan and Procedures would provide foenvironmental protection. 

CO16-9 See response to comment IND45-9. CO16-10 We disagree. Habitat types associated 

adequately discussed throughout sectio
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-236

CO16 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition 

CO16-11 See response to comment CO11-33. W

are adequately discussed throughout se

CO16-12 See response to comments IND3-1 and CO16-13 We assume this comment refers to sed

from maintenance dredging. We have additional information on sediment pla

CO16-14 See response to comment PM2-11. CO16-15 Eel grass mitigation is fully discussed CO16-16 See response to comments IND3-26 an

plans for HDD crossings are discussed EIS. 

CO16-17 We have revised section 4.3.2.2 to incl

dredge materials in site F and have incJordan Cove to develop a plan for the ddredging materials in coordination wit
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-237

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-1 See response to comments IND33-1 an
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-238

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-239

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-2 See response to comments PM1-45, IN
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-240

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-241

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-3 See response to comment FA3-14. Tra

address in section 2.9 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-242

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-4 If the Commission approves the Jordan 

approval would be limited to the maximpermitted by the Coast Guard to use thnavigation channel. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-243

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-5 The EIS evaluates environmental impa

storage at the Port site as a long-term ithe site would be used for an estimated impacts associated with ongoing loadinfrom the site. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-244

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-245

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-6 A supplemental EIS is not required. S

IND8-14. The proposed LNG terminacomponents of the Port’s channel imprthe FERC does not need to address the as a connected action. Cumulative effimprovement project are addressed in 

CO17-7 Section 4.11 includes information on a

the gas turbine generator at the propos

CO17-8 See response to comment CO17-6. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-246

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-9 See response to comment IND8-7. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-247

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-10 We disagree that the analysis of the no

alternatives in the draft EIS is inadequrequirements outlined by the CEQ to ssupplemental EIS is not required. See 14. The final EIS has been revised to idomestic natural gas supplies and demproposed Project market areas. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-248

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-11 A supplemental EIS is not required. S

IND8-14. The referenced text in sectiothe final EIS for clarity. We evaluated and the stated objectives as proposed b
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-249

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-250

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-12 Pipeline length is a valid factor in dete

environmental impacts of FERC-regulBecause the other pipelines discussed would be FERC-regulated, they would same level of environmental controls aConnector, and we are able to use lengthe reasonableness of those projects as 

CO17-13 A supplemental EIS is not required. T

from the Rockies as a potential alternadiscussed in section 3 of the final EIS. IND8-7. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-251

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-252

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-14 A supplemental EIS is not required. S

IND8-7. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-253

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-15 The Costa Azul Project is not overlook

for the Costa Azul project to serve as aProject is included in section 3.2.3 of t

CO17-16 Section 3.2.4.2 of the final EIS has bee

status of the Kitimat LNG terminal. Hthe EIS should evaluate the Kitimat LNsupporting the no action alternative. 

CO17-17 An alternative berth configuration was 

evaluation of that alternative and our calternative was included in the alternatin section 3.3.2. Much of the proposed and dredged when isolated from the Ctherefore minimizing environmental im
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-254

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-255

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-18 A supplemental EIS is not required. T

alternative to follow the Grants Pass Lin section 3.4.1.10 of the final EIS. 

CO17-19 Section 3 of the final EIS has been rev

discussion of the potential for the Wesused as an alternative route for the Pac
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-256

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-20 We disagree. A supplemental EIS is n

extended the comment period on the deach alternative route was included in was available for comment. In its comPacific Connector has incorporated the 

variations into its proposed route, and proposed route as revised. 

CO17-21 A supplemental EIS is not required. S

18. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-257

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-22 Industry standards for safe LNG carrie

ignored in the EIS. The suitability of tchannel for the propose LNG carriers i4.12.5.4 and 4.12.5.5 of the EIS. As stCoast Guard has identified measures thmake the existing channel suitable for include use of two bollard pull tugs to the channel and a third tug to assist wi
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-258

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-23 The FERC does not intend to suspend 

response to comment SA2-18. 

CO17-24 We disagree. A supplemental EIS is n

section 4.12.10.1, DOT regulations reqdevelop an Emergency Response Plan components of that ERP, including coocommunication with local emergency section 4.12.10.1. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-259

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-25 Pacific Connector would design and co

in accordance with existing DOT pipelnot the purpose of the EIS to second guregulations. 

CO17-26 Because pipeline welding would be co

the construction right-of-way and work 

cleared, graded, and free of combustibbelieve that any seasonal welding restrHowever, because Pacific Connector mGrant for the portion of its project acroa FERC Certificate, Pacific Connector the USFS regarding possible seasonal lands. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-260

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-27 A supplemental EIS is not required. E

only ensure that the applicants would ialready either agreed to or would be reresult of a Commission Order, as reveaCommission’s Order. We do not agree review of the role of the environmentaPlan and Procedures, which the applictheir respective plans, include requiremtraining, and authority for Environmenrecommended measure number 8-10 in response to comment PM1-4. 

CO17-28 A supplemental EIS is not required. S

number 8 in section 5.2. See also resp
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-261

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-29 The reasons for siting the pipeline alon

described in sections 2.1.5.1 and 3.4. Tcriteria used during siting. Minimizing not a primary criteria, however it was towns, population centers, commercial subdivisions. 

CO17-30 The FERC would not restrict right-of-w

to individual landowners, and have on50 feet in the event of acquisition by uresponse to comment IND23-3. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-262

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-31 See our recommendation regarding use 

conditions applicable to Pacific ConneEIS. 

CO17-32 Measures to minimize impact on prope

remedial measures that Pacific Connecimpact does occur are addressed in secthe EIS. 

CO17-33 We do not agree. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-263

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-34 We do not agree that regular noise leve

required at the HDD sites. A supplemeThe proposed and recommended mitigsection 4.11.2.4 of the EIS are adequatnoise during HDD installation operatio

CO17-35 The EIS does address the potential for 

near-surface groundwater. In accordanPlan and Procedures, which Pacific Coits ECRP, trench plugs would be instalwetlands and on slopes to minimize wtrench line to prevent potential subsurfpotential stability issues. To prevent imgroundwater flow, or the creation of nePacific Connector’s ECRP requires the installation of trench plugs at the edgemovement of silt-laden water through wetlands the bottom of the trench woumaintain the original wetland hydrologthe pipeline would also be monitored pcreating a new pathway for surface flo4.3.1.4, 4.3.2.5, and 4.3.3.3. 

CO17-36 Section 2.3.3.1 of the final EIS has bee

cathodic protection rectifiers would be along the proposed pipeline, with each feet long by 2 feet wide. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-264

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-37 A supplemental EIS is not required. T

additional information on the plan for damage to MAMU and NSO habitat. Private lands would not be acquired by purpose of mitigation for Project impa

CO17-38 As stated in section 4.7. of the EIS, mi

required wherever the pipeline work arresidences. Additional mitigation meaof site-specific plans, would also be rework area would be within 25 feet of r

CO17-39 A supplemental EIS is not required. A

Connector would prepare the plans whaffected landowners. This process woConnector begins easement acquisitionSee response to comment IND3-1. 

CO17-40 See response to comment PM1-4. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-265

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-41 No properties other than those owned b

Forest Products would be directly affeterminal. Jordan Cove would not provowners in Coos Bay or North Bend for would result from the proposed LNG twould compensate landowners who wconstruction activity (construction righyards, and private access roads) and lathe permanent operational right-of-waywould be limited to the permanent opeCompensation would not extend to landirectly affected by construction. As seasement agreement would include comduring construction, loss of nonrenewadamage done to property during constragreements include monetary compenswoodlots or other forested areas; loss odamage to or removal of fencing or othdriveways, drain tiles, or water wells ocompensation for areas where improvelandowner may be negotiated in the eaagreements also typically specify activway that are not allowed following conby off road vehicles is a concern, landofor Pacific Connector to install and maright-of-way. Most agricultural uses wwithin the right-of-way, and it is very uthe pipeline right-of-way would cause agricultural livelihood. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-266

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-42 The definition of damages for which P

responsible, and amount of compensatbe negotiated between Pacific Connectlandowners. However, a FERC CertifPacific Connector be responsible for crestoration work necessary to restore thaccordance with its ECRP, the landowstatements made it its application to thcannot resolve a restoration concern wconcern can be brought to the attention 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-267

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-43 A supplemental EIS is not required. T

timber resources and impacts and mitigEIS includes private lands. We have arecommendation that Pacific Connectoplan which would also include private 

CO17-44 See response to comments IND3-1 and CO17-45 See response to comments IND3-1 and CO17-46 See response to comments PM1-123, C
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-268

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-269

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-270

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-47 See response to comments PM1-28, PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-271

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-48 The EIS is not deficient in its descripti

crossed or affected by construction of not agree that the EIS should include a impact of the pipeline crossings of roa4.9.3 of the EIS, Pacific Connector has Transportation Management Plan for Noutlines measures it would implement non-federal roads used as construction construction right-of-way during pipelConnector would also obtain necessary road crossings. These measures would would be minimized during the tempopipeline, and does not warrant analysis road crossings. 

CO17-49 We have revised section 4.8.3.9 of the 

comment. A supplemental EIS is not r
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-272

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information 

CO17-50 We disagree. This information is retaiCO17-51 See response to comments PM1-12, IN

supplemental EIS is not required. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-273

CO17 Southern Oregon Pipeline Information