Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-153

IND47 Bruce Campbell 

IND47-1 We did not extend the comment peri

responses to comments PM1-18. The FEcomments submitted after the draft EIS cDecember 4, 2008, up until the final EIS 

IND47-2 Alternatives, including the no action 

section 3 of the draft EIS, in accordance CEQ for implementing NEPA, at 40 CFR to comments PM1-8 and PM1-22. 

IND47-3 We disagree that the EIS must provi

of the global carbon footprint of energy acomments PM2-8 and IND5-4. See also 1-57, PM3-19, and PM2-14. 

IND47-4 See responses to comments PM1-45

IND8-14. 

IND47-5 Contaminant testing of sediments is 

the EIS. Federal and state databases werof National Priorities List (NPL) sites, st

landfills located within 0.25 mile of the psites would be directly crossed by the pip
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-154

IND47 Bruce Campbell (continued)

IND47-6 Potential impacts on wildlife, aquati

and endangered species from constructioproposed Project on the North Spit and Cnumerous parts of Section 4 of the EIS. includes site and species-specific analysioverall impacts to the ecosystems that wofrom dredging are discussed in section 4impingement of aquatic species for LNG terminal berth; hydrostatic testing in sectsalmon in section 4.5 and 4.6; impacts on including coal- bed methane in section 4

IND47-7 Section 4.8 of the EIS discusses the 

impacts from construction and operation including on fishing and shell fishing wit

IND47-8 On December 1, 2008 Jordan Cove f

using recent and site-specific analysis. Tpotential tsunami wave on the slip and Lresults of this study are discussed in the fcomments PM1-65 and PM2-5. 

IND47-9 See responses to comments PM1-11

IND47-32. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-155

IND47 Bruce Campbell (continued)

IND47-10 Clearing of the proposed pipeline rig

construction of the pipeline within that spright-of-way during pipeline operation is discussion of potential impacts of the Pacthroughout the EIS. Sections 2.1.5, 2.3.3describe the activities that would take plaand work spaces, and multiple parts of seand evaluate impacts of these activities odiscuss design measures and mitigation mminimize, or mitigate for impacts on eacdiscussed in section 4.4.1.3; logging in sherbicides and fire suppression in section section 4.3.2.5; erosion in section 4.2; OR
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-156

IND47 Bruce Campbell (continued)

IND47-11 There are 29 additional special statu

may be present and potentially affected bproposed LNG terminal or pipeline. Thefederal species of concern, one of which candidate for listing. The Pacific fisher i4.6, and Appendix H of the EIS. 

IND47-12 See response to comment IND47-10

sufficient detail about the impacts of the adequate measures to avoid, minimize, aTable 4.3.2.2-2 303(D) lists category 5 lithe proposed pipeline. Table G-4 in Appcrossed by the proposed pipeline, includilimited streams. Potential impacts on aqsection 4.5. Threatened and endangered Sucker are discussed in section 4.6. 

IND47-13 Impacts from managing BLM lands 

Plan Revisions (WOPR) are addressed in WOPR. Land management under the Wwhen considering impacts on federally liincluded in the list of projects potentially effects in section 4.13 of this final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-157

IND47 Bruce Campbell (continued)

IND47-14 See response to comment PM1-8. S

the alternatives analyzed, including increconservation of natural gas; other sourcerenewable, solar, and wind energy; other facilities; and terminal site, design, and pvariations. Our analysis of alternatives wthe projects, designs, and variations and would meet all the objectives of the prop

IND47-15 Section 1.3 was updated in March 20

comments IND8-5 and PM2-14. We beland need in the EIS is adequate. The Coneed for the project in its Order. 

IND47-16 The EIS acknowledges that in some 

term impacts on vegetation that would reconstruction and operation. As described short-term impacts (revegetated areas reslands after three growing seasons), mediuareas resemble adjacent undisturbed landseasons), and long-term impacts (life of texpected. During construction and restowould implement measures to minimize vegetation and ensure successful revegetincluding measures from its ECRP, agenplans, and landowner requests. 

IND47-17 The EIS attempts to accurately repre

conditions in the project area. See respo
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-158

IND47 Bruce Campbell (continued)

IND47-18 See response to comments PM1-117

Coos Bay area is located in a region with seismic activity within the active CSZ. Nterminal and storage facility would be deearthquake of approximately magnitude of LNG from the tanks. Jordan Cove wosatisfy both the FERC Seismic GuidelineStructural Safety Specialty Code. See Seexplanation of the DOT and FERC seismalso recommending that an independent oversight on seismic design and construcand sendout pipeline. In addition, we haCove submit to the Secretary for review of OEP detailed seismic design specificaof seismic hazards. Also see response to 

IND47-19 See response to comments PM1-26, 

PM2-5. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-159

IND47 Bruce Campbell (continued)

IND47-20 Cumulative impacts are addressed in 

the EIS describes the expected impacts othe conclusion of effects. Section 4.6 of to include additional project- and site-spemade available since publication of the dspecific compensatory mitigation measurauthorize the project to proceed if the FW

the project would not jeopardize the contspecies or result in the destruction or advdesignated critical habitat. We are recomshould not begin until after the FERC staconsultations in compliance with section 

IND47-21 The potential for discovering contain

addressed in section 4.1. The Project do

Coos Bay navigation channel. 

IND47-22 See response to comment IND47-21 

sediments. To avoid the sediment, turbidremoval/modification impacts to the Coorecommended that Pacific Connector use 

Coos Bay, the WC-1A Route Variation, length of estuary crossing and the associ

resources by about 4.8 miles from the rouConnector’s application. Pacific Connecinto its proposed route, and the final EIS response to comment FA3-1 regarding R
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-160

IND47 Bruce Campbell (continued)

IND47-23 The Project does not include deepen

dredging” of the Coos Bay navigation chcomment IND47-7 regarding potential imfishermen, crabbers, and clammers. See impacts on water resources and salmon, resources, in sections 4.3.2 and 4.5.2 of ttechniques and mitigation measures propto all waterbodies crossed by the project. EIS to include additional discussion of pcommercial and sport fishing in the areas pipeline. 

IND47-24 See response to comment PM1-19. 

(cont’d)
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-161

IND47 Bruce Campbell (continued)

IND47-25 Much of this comment reiterates info

of marbled murrelets in section 4.6.1.2 othe commentor’s opinions on the EIS disknown about the species. The discussion final EIS as well as the BA has been reviinformation made available since publicaas more specific compensatory mitigatiocommentor’s opinions have also been revevaluation of potential impacts to the ma
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-162

IND47 Bruce Campbell (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-163

IND47 Bruce Campbell (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-164

IND47 Bruce Campbell (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-165

IND47 Bruce Campbell (continued)

IND47-26 With regard to red tree voles, see res

The northern spotted owl is addressed in See response to comment IND47-25. 

IND47-27 Alternative route segments to avoid 

Creek are discussed in Section 3.4.2.12 oinformation on CCArea of Concern and Badded to the final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-166

IND47 Bruce Campbell (continued)

IND47-28 Discussion of the S Umpqua/Rogue 

added to section 4.6 of the final EIS.] 

IND47-29 See responses to comments IND47-IND47-30 In general the pipeline right-of-way 

discourage or prevent travel by vehicles. maintenance would also be limited to the pipeline. This would discourage the use for salvage logging. However, during a foperation, landowners and/or land managwith Pacific Connector options to use podesired. 

IND47-31 See response to comments PM3-2 anIND47-32 See response to comment IND47-18

horizontal ground acceleration, is discussFERC staff attended several interagency representatives were present. We believe sufficient detail about potential seismic ewe believe that the design measures propadequate to mitigate the impacts of seismthe final EIS has been clarified to reflect strong horizontal and vertical ground mostated in section 4.1.2 of the EIS, the inpterminal site were determined based on sanalysis prepared for the LNG terminal b(Appendix B-6 of JCE’s FERC applicatiand horizontal ground motions. The inpuin the EIS were developed in accordance FERC Seismic Guidelines. These design the requirements for ground motion deterStructural Safety Specialty Code (2006 I
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-167

IND47 Bruce Campbell (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-168

IND47 Bruce Campbell (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-169

IND48 Jan Waitt

IND48-1 We disagree that impacts from the p

Coos Bay and the Rogue River would be EIS. We also disagree that there would bCoos Bay and the Rogue River. The EIS estimated impacts and proposed mitigatioimpacts on waterbodies, section 4.5 for iand sections 4.7 and 4.8 for impacts on tregard to need, see response to comment 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-170

IND49 Carol Gale

IND49-1 Woods Creek would not be double dredged. Pa

this stream. Section 4.5.2.3 of the EIS discusses impacts of the project on anadromous fisheries, proposed waterbody crossing methods and mitiminimize impacts on aquatic resources. We havadditional discussion of potential economic impfishing in the areas crossed by the proposed pipeEIS for a discussion of potential impacts to coho conservation methods to minimize construction including timing of construction, fish salvage, acontaminants, to name a few. See also response that the EIS provides sufficient detail about poteand we believe that the measures proposed and mitigate the impacts of the project. As stated in Connector would need to obtain a water quality the CWA. 

IND49-2 There would not be repeated applications of her

herbicides would be used for vegetation control landowner. Erosion on steep slopes would be cspecified in Pacific Connector’s ECRP. The peon slopes include trench breakers, slope breakerstabilize disturbed areas. The impacts on landowright-of-way on private property are discussed in Section 2.3.3.1 explains that Pacific Connector wprivate lands, for which the landowners would b

IND49-3 We do not believe that the proposed project wou

farms, commercial and recreational fishing, and Project should increase employment. See the so4.8 of the EIS. Although users of the Coos Bay temporarily affected by the presence of LNG cawould not significantly impact commercial shipof the EIS. We do not believe the Project would renewable energy industries. See response to coPM3-19. With respect to global warming see reIND5-4. Terrorism is discussed in section 4.12
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-171

IND49 Carol Gale (continued)

IND49-4 As explained in section 4.12 of the E

could be built and operated in a safe manpublic. Reliability and safety specific to addressed in section 4.12.10 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-172

IND50 Bill McCaffree

IND50-1 Section 3 of the EIS describes the al

increased efficiency and conservation of energy such as renewable, solar, and winexisting facilities; and terminal site, desigalternatives and variations. Our analysis the feasibility of the projects, designs, analternatives would meet all the objectivePCGP Project. The EIS adheres to the Cwith the NEPA. See response to commePM1-57. 

IND50-2 See response to comments PM1-57 a

project related impacts on air quality are See response to comments PM1-9 and PMthe EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-173

IND50 Bill McCaffree (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-174

IND51 Randy Prince

IND51-1 We disagree that the tsunami study p

submitted to the FERC on December 1, 2identifying mitigation measures for desigJordan Cove also provided additional infimpacts of the tsunami on LNG vessels anavigation channel. See additional discuEIS. We recognize that the primary geol

terminal site is the Cascadia Subduction for seismic activity and/or a seismically iincluded detailed additional recommendewould be required to comply with should The recommended measures include reteConsultants made up of specialists who wterminal design. See section 4.1.2.6 of thcomment SA2-227. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-175

IND51 Randy Prince (continued)

IND51-2 See response to comments PM1-117 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-176

IND52 Paul Sebesta

IND52-1 Pipeline safety is addressed in sectio

comments IND3-1 and PM2-36. The baimpact of the pipeline on property values 4.8.3.3 of the EIS. See response to commregarding who wrote the EIS. 

IND52-2 Pacific Connector selected the route 

in section 3.4. Congress authorized the Ftransportation of natural gas in the NGA response to comment PM1-6. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-177

IND52 Paul Sebesta (continued)

IND52-3 You have cited a statement from the 

basis for the statement is explained in the 4.1.3) of the EIS. 

IND52-4 You have cited a statement from the 

on private water wells, including from blConnector’s proposed monitoring plan animplemented in the event a water well is section 4.3.1.3 of the EIS. 

IND52-5 You have cited a statement from the 

proposed hydrostatic testing plan for the is discussed in sections 4.3.2.5, 4.3.4, an

IND52-6 Pacific Connector does not propose 

gas, and would not be required to do so aresponse to comment PM2-68. As descrEIS, Pacific Connector would prepare an that would include ongoing coordination responder groups, and would use adequaas necessary to support the plan. Pacific emergency response information with lanagreements. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-178

IND52 Paul Sebesta (continued)

IND52-7 Terrorism and security issues are dis

the EIS. In support of the rulemakings, trisk-based decision-making process to corelative risks of various target and attack scenarios for those carrier types and port security incident. Although not every poanticipated, this approach provides a morthan a simple worst-case outcome assesssecurity measures discussed in section 4.significant impacts to human life and pro

unlikely. The continuing need to construfuture natural gas pipeline infrastructure threat of any such unpredictable acts. 

IND52-8 Section 4.9.3.2 of the final EIS has b

information provided by Pacific Connectand possible use of Old Ferry Road for c

IND52-9 Pacific Connector indicated that the 

were previously considered in its applica10, under the BPA Powerline Route AlteRoute Alternative. The BPA Powerline Days Creek and Medford was eliminated would not be feasible to follow the powetopography. The Highway 227 Alternatibetween Canyonville and Shady Cove wconsideration because it would pass throhas the potential impact rural residences. alternative routes would place the pipelinCreek Lake Dam, which Pacific Connect
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-179

IND53 Richard Harrington
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-180

IND53 Richard Harrington (continued)

IND53-1 Documentation of emissions estimat

Cove’s Resource Report No. 9 which is pemissions were very conservatively estimfactors for pipeline natural gas that has bmaximum extent allowable by pipeline scubic feet) rather than the typical EPA denatural gas (0.20 grains/100 cubic feet). contain measurable amounts of sulfur, no would be present at the Jordan Cove LNG would be required prior to transmission o

safety purposes (i.e., to generate a detectoccurring downstream of the new projec
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-181

IND53 Richard Harrington (continued)

IND53-2 As stated in footnote a to table 4.11.

operation of the turbine at maximum load greater than 40 TPY NOx, the company emissions below 40 TPY. ODEQ would enforceable conditions requiring that this 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-182

IND53 Richard Harrington (continued)

IND53-3 Enforceable conditions for maintain

cap can be obtained in a variety of ways, operating hours and/or restrictions on the exact enforceable restrictions that ODEQ 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-183

IND53 Richard Harrington (continued)

IND53-4 By convention and historically, EIS 

uncertainties. This is not because there iconcept” or that the scientists and engineby the commenter); it is because (a) the uoften not quantifiable; (b) the conservatisassuming unrealistic operation at 100% lup for those uncertainties; and (c) the regare based on estimates using the accepted emissions that have been used here, rathe“absolute” value. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-184

IND53 Richard Harrington (continued)

IND53-5 Operation of the compressor station 

quality regulatory programs for stationarThese proposed air emission sources are by the CAA and its associated regulationOARs. See response to comment IND3-
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-185

IND53 Richard Harrington (continued)

IND53-6 The available information on air qua

available, based on Oregon’s air monitorpollutants were collected from the nearesfor NOx and SO2, while collected from midentify concentrations that are far below standards. There are no NO2 nonattainmand there are no SO2 nonattainment area
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-186

IND53 Richard Harrington (continued)

IND53-7 Dispersion modeling was not require

compressor station because emissions weODEQ policies applied to other sources ostate, in areas with and without inversion 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-187

IND53 Richard Harrington (continued)

IND53-8 Section 4.11 of the final EIS has bee

current understanding of potential emissiproposed terminal. Emissions from the Pstation are below the level at which dispe
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-188

IND53 Richard Harrington (continued)

IND53-9 See response to comment IND53-7. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-189

IND53 Richard Harrington (continued)
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-190

IND53 Richard Harrington (continued)

IND53-10 Pacific Connector would be required 

permit from the Oregon DEQ under sectiFinal site restoration of the Butte Falls Cin accordance with conditions of this persurface runoff from the site. 

IND53-11 In information filed since publicatio

Cove has stated that it would not recover rail transport of recovered NGL was not section 2.2.1 of the final EIS. In this casnatural gas transported through the Pacifdiscussion of gas quality and interchangeEIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-191

IND53 Richard Harrington (continued)

IND53-12 See response to comment IND8-14. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-196

IND54 Carol A. Hanrahan 

IND54-1 We disagree. Recovery, storageare not regulated by the FERC. However, since ththe project, potential environmental impacts from operation of the NGL extraction facilities within tstorage and sendout facility within the Roseburg pEIS. The transportation and processing of NGL iIND54-2 As stated in section 2.1.4.3 of thfrom the power generation unit is recovered in a wheating a water loop. The exhaust gas (at approxicondensing waste heat recovery unit (WHRU) whcross-exchange with the circulating water from thcirculating water cools the turbine exhaust to a nothe exhaust turbine is transferred to the water whewaste heat recovery unit. The hot water is then spbetween the LNG vaporization tube bundle and thdistributor. The hot water would supplement the combustion chamber in the SCV, thereby improvithe facility. IND54-3 See response to comment IND8specific information requiring citation are providethe EIS to briefly describe the need for the ProjecIND54-4 The source of the referenced fooInformation Administration, which maintains statindustry. Information on existing natural gas prodat www.tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_wells
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-197

IND54 Carol A. Hanrahan (continued)

IND54-5 Citation is provided further on ithe referenced sentence. IND54-6 This statement is not contradictoapproves the Project, Jordan Cove and Pacific Coto other federal permit requirements, including thohave been delegated to the state. IND54-7 As explained in sections 1.1 and federal agency that would be responsible for authonatural gas pipeline, including the last valve immetanks. Section 1.5.2 describes specific portions of federal entities also have overlapping authority. IND54-8 It is not necessary for the EIS to current Right-of-Way application to the BLM. Thwas noticed by the BLM and is available for publhas submitted to the BLM and USFS revised tempnecessary to survey the pipeline route changes. It these BLM and USFS temporary use permits to be determine environmental impact. It is also not nereferenced permits to be included in the EIS to deimpacts. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-198

IND54 Carol A. Hanrahan (continued)

IND54-9 We disagree. The existing LNG exp

be identified in the EIS. 

IND54-10 Our analysis of the applicants propo

within applicable sections of chapter 4 of we cite scientific references. However, mon practical agency experience and not sthese cases there are no citations to scien

IND54-11 No citation is needed for this text. T

standards for LNG vessels. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-199

IND54 Carol A. Hanrahan (continued)

IND54-12 No citation is needed for this text. I

proposed project by the FERC staff and ireview of materials supplied by Jordan CFERC. 

IND54-13 A reference has been added to sectioIND54-14 The referenced statement is the resu

provided by Jordan Cove by the FERC scontractor. It represents professional opi

recommending numerous other conditionthe proposed LNG terminal facilities accrelated hazards at the site. See response 

IND54-15 DOGAMI would review geological 

comments PM1-26, PM1-118, PM1-65, someone other than Jordan Cove needs to survey. 

IND54-16 We disagree. As stated in the EIS, w

project would have environmental impacimplementation of the applicant’s proposmeasures, and our additional recommendwould be substantially reduced. The refepractical agency experience from review not scientific literature. As described in was in fact successful in avoiding many geological hazards. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-200

IND54 Carol A. Hanrahan (continued)

IND54-17 The discussion that follows the refer

4.1.3.2 of the EIS discusses the seismic harea. 

IND54-18 The referenced text from the draft E

terminal and slip site. Impacts to soils on areas outside of the LNG terminal site anthe section of the EIS describing the prop4.2.3 of the EIS. 

IND54-19 We disagree. No delay of the propo

because published soils surveys are not ythe National Forests that would be crossedescribed in section 4.2.3, other data is aimpacts on soils. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-201

IND54 Carol A. Hanrahan (continued)

IND54-20 Details of Pacific Connector’s propo

on steep slopes are included in Pacific Cpart of the public record for the project. 

IND54-21 The referenced statements were writ

the basis for thesestatements are describe

IND54-22 As stated in the referenced section o

information in this statement is research by Pacific Connector. The information wPacific Connector’s application materials public record for the Project. The paragrthe referenced text in this comment explawater supply. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-202

IND54 Carol A. Hanrahan (continued)

IND54-23 Pacific Connector has identified pot

hydrostatic test water. See section 2.4.2.

IND54-24 This is common industry practice foIND54-25 The statement is based on data provi

reviewed by the FERC staff. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-203

IND54 Carol A. Hanrahan (continued)

IND54-26 We disagree. The pipeline would co

wherever there is bedrock encountered wPlacement within bedrock would only be fault, and at these locations additional mpipeline installation to account for possibprevent pipeline damage. See section 4.

IND54-27 The referenced text is a description o

has not occurred, and for which actual immeasured. The release of LNG from a cais a worst-case scenario that is highly un
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-204

IND54 Carol A. Hanrahan (continued)

IND54-28 We disagree that that project should 

wetlands impacts. As described in sectioConnector pipeline would impact numeromeasures and mitigation measures would with acceptable impacts. The analysis wand our third party contractor. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-205

IND54 Carol A. Hanrahan (continued)

IND54-29 We disagree. The analysis was cond

our third party contractor. The statemenin reviewing applications, and monitorinnatural gas pipelines. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-206

IND55 Ray Franklin

IND55-1 See response to comments PM1-2 an

considered the potential impact on the exenvironment in the Coos Bay area. See s

IND55-2 See response to comments PM2-14 aIND55-3 See response to comments PM1-87 a
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-207

IND55 Ray Franklin (continued)

IND55-4 Potential impact of the proposed LN

Oregon Regional Airport is addressed in See response to comments PM1-28, PM1
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-208

IND56 Connie Royer

IND56-1 All appropriate federal and state law

See response to comment PM1-45 and INsection 4.12.10, land use in section 4.7, vwildlife in section 4.5, water in section 4section 4.6. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-209

IND56 Connie Royer (continued)