Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-162

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-163

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-164

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-165

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-166

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-167

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 

PM2-1 See response to comments PM1-10 and P
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-168

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-169

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-2 Section 4.8 of the EIS discusses the socio

benefits of the proposed project in Coos, Klamath Counties, Oregon. 

PM2-3 The NEPA process is participatory; the p

opportunity to review and comment on inCommission considers comments from loprivate landowners, in its analysis of the EIS describes the environmental review opportunities for the public to become in

In accordance with the FERC’s regulatioCove and Pacific Connector were requireto notify affected landowners; communitlocal governments about the proposed prpublishing notices in local newspapers fo
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-170

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 

PM2-3 Throughout the public scoping period, th(cont’d) hundreds of comments on a wide variety 

 were then addressed in the EIS. In addit participated in 11 public meetings and at public sponsored by the applicants. PM2-4 See response to PM2-3. All documents f

proceeding are available for the public to website (http://www.ferc.gov). 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-171

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-172

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-173

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 

PM2-5 See response to comment PM1-65. FER

interagency meetings with DOGAMI rep& Nichol, consultants to Jordan Cove, remaps and local site conditions. Section 4findings. In response to a recommendatiDecember 1, 2008 Jordan Cove filed a sireport for its proposed LNG terminal sitethrough the O.H. Hinsdale Wave ResearcUniversity. The final EIS incorporated d
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-174

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-6 See response to comments PM1-28 and P
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-175

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-176

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 

PM2-7 See response to comments PM1-11, PM1

for the project is briefly outlined in sectioaccordance with the CEQ regulations for (40 CFR Part 1502.13). The Commissiothe project in its Order. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-177

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-178

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 

PM2-8 There currently are no federal laws or reg

warming. The EIS discusses greenhouse sections 3.1.3 and 4.11.1.5. The ODE rewould produce less GHG than coal. UndJordan Cove does not have to disclose its on November 17, 2008 Jordan Cove filed indicated that it would probably obtain LPacific Basin, including Australia, RussiPeru. 

PM2-9 The right of eminent domain is only conf

company once it obtains a certificate from Commission has not yet made a decision Project, so no one at this time is “under t

As discussed in sections 2.3.3.1 and 4.7.3Pacific Connector will reach mutually ag
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-179

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-9 settlements with landowners, so that the (cont’d) limited. It is typical Commission practic

 issue an order before other permits under  are issued. See response to comments PMPM2-10 We disagree. The EIS does take a hard 

impacts and is not deficient. It meets ththe CEQ to satisfy the NEPA. See also PM1-22 and PM2-7. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-180

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-11 We believe the EIS, in section 4.3.2, in

the impacts of the proposed pipeline crand proposed measures to avoid, reducThe EIS, in section 2.3.3.1, discloses abeen identified to date by Pacific Connsection 4.2.3, potential impacts on soils measures specified in Pacific Connecto

Revegetation Plan (ECRP). It is not neof a project to assess the adequacy of it
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-181

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 

PM2-12 We disagree. The EIS clearly describe

section 2, and impacts on specific resouto mitigate impacts are described in secthe federal land managers that are coop

breaks out a discussion of impacts on flands. The impacts on owners of priva

pipeline are discussed in sections 4.7.3explains that the pipeline would obtain lands, for which the landowners would response to comment PM1-43. BecausAugust 29, 2007 is sufficient to comply need to issue another new draft. The Fthe draft in the final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-182

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-13 That is not how the EIS presents the ob

the proposed Jordan Cove LNG Projecone of the main objectives of the projecof natural gas in the form of import LNthe Pacific Northwest, northern NevadaNowhere in the EIS is the statement thaout of natural gas. See also response to PM1-24, and PM2-7. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-183

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-184

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-14 Need is not an environmental issue tha

in the EIS to justify the project. Applic

present their objectives, and the FERC 

including producing an environmental NEPA. The CEQ regulations for impleCFR 1502.13) only require that the EIS underlying purpose and need to which The Commission order will include a fto comment PM2-7. The EIS is not dealternatives in section 3 meets the CEQ with the NEPA. See response to comm

PM2-15 See response to comments PM1-28 and PM2-16 See response to comment PM1-67. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-185

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-17 The project does not include a turning b

in section 2.1.4). Any reference to the currently proposed action has been rem
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-186

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-18 We disagree. The EIS meets the requir

CEQ to satisfy the NEPA. See also resPM1-58, and PM1-91. 

PM2-19 See response to comments PM1-4 and PM2-20 The finding of public convenience and 

by the Commission in the Order for theto authorize the project; it is not containCommission will issue an Order after tto comment PM2-7. With regard to imsection 4.7.4.2 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-187

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-21 The sentences in question are taken dir

descriptions of soil types. Although ththey are typical of published soil type dinclude a range of soil characteristics w

PM2-22 See response to comment PM1-45. On 

Connector filed its responses to recomm(geologic hazards), 32 (topsoil segregaplan) in section 5.2 of the draft EIS. Tthis proceeding, and the public may revFERC staff will consider comments rechave finished writing the final EIS. Codiscussed in sections 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.3.landslide hazards along the pipeline rousection 4.1.3.2. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-188

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-189

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-23 See our discussion of potential impacts 

salmon, among other aquatic resourcesof the EIS. The construction techniqueproposed in these sections apply to all project, including Faith Creek. We havinclude additional discussion of potenticommercial and sport fishing in the arepipeline, including Faith Creek. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-190

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-24 See response to comment PM1-1. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-191

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-25 See response to comment PM1-38. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-192

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-193

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-26 As explained in sections 1.5.1.1 and 4.

lead federal agency for this project, has regulatory responsibilities under the EnPart of our responsibilities under the Emitigate impacts on federally listed thrspecies. The BLM requested that the r

Pacific Connector in its September 20050 and 53 be altered to avoid impacts oDecember 4, 2008, Pacific Connector 

Southern Route as part of it proposed rrecommended condition 23 in section 5route would avoid 1,043 feet of marbleoccupied stand R03027, 350 feet of po33.35 acres of habitat for northern spotsometimes environmental trade-offs whnew route crosses 7 more landowner tracres of private land than the original r

of private land that would be crossed oand the EIS discusses how impacts on reduced or mitigated. Section 2.3 of thoperational easements negotiated with permanent pipeline right-of-way. A pishould not prevent you from making a some restrictions on the use of the land prohibitions against putting up structurConnector’s ability to operate, maintainlandowner would still be able to grow aorchards or timber) or have pasture oveSection 4.8.3.3 of the EIS discusses the property values. Recommended conditdraft EIS would require Pacific Connecmitigate impacts on domestic water supproximity to the pipeline. Pacific Connfiling shows an existing agricultural ou73 feet outside the construction right-ooutbuilding at MP 51.9 would be 17 fecorridor; so no barns would be “taken o
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-194

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 

PM2-27 The Federal Energy Regulatory Comm

interstate transportation of natural gas uauthorizes the construction and operatinatural gas that ultimately is used by cidecision the FERC studies each proposand environmentally acceptable. In its 

Commission would determine if the prbenefits that outweigh potential impact
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-195

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-196

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-197

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-198

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-28 Section 4.5.2.3 of the EIS discusses the 

impacts of the project on anadromous f

waterbody crossing methods and mitigminimize impacts on aquatic resourcesEIS to include additional discussion of commercial and sport fishing in the arepipeline. 

PM2-29 Herbicides would not be used for right

maintenance except for select treatmen

select use within aboveground facilitieused for vegetation control without the land-managing agency. In addition, heor within 100 feet of a waterbody’s me
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-199

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-30 The potential impacts of the proposed p

of coho salmon are addressed in section 

PM2-31 See response to comment PM1-18. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-200

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM1-32 We are unaware of any FERC regulate

California. Section 3.3.1 of the EIS exchoose Coos Bay as the location for its terminal, and section 3.4.1 explains Pacrouting considerations. The Jordan Coexport, LNG. See response to commendiscusses potential project impacts on wPacific Connector pipeline, including t4.6.1.3 discusses potential project relatthreatened and endangered fish. Sectioimpacts on archaeological sites. Impac

in sections 4.2.3.2 and 4.7.3.1. Plantin

pipeline permanent easement would noimpacts on wells and springs are discusImpacts on forest and timberlands are dand 4.4.2.1. The EIS also outlines meaimplemented to mitigate impacts on grthreatened and endangered species, culforest. Recommended condition 65 in would require that Pacific Connector fion domestic water supplies. While the of trees for a 30-foot strip centered on t

Connector has a restoration plan for rep

remainder of the construction right-of-w

PM2-33 See response to comment PM2-29. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-201

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-34 Pacific Connector has proposed mitiga

impacts on red-tailed hawks and MAM4.6.1.2 of the EIS. Section 4.12.10 prereliability and safety of natural gas pipeto provide pipeline safety under 49 US
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-202

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-35 The crossing of the South Umpqua Riv

4.3.2.5 of the EIS. This section describincluding St. John Creek, and proposed impacts. As indicated in Appendix G-4 Connector intends to do a dry open cut 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-203

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-36 The EIS is not inadequate and meets th

complying with NEPA. Section 4.8 of socioeconomic impacts, including proprequirements of the project are discussediscussion of land use is in section 4.7. impacts on landowners, see response to PM2-9. On the limited use of herbicidPM2-29.
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-204

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-205

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-37 We disagree. The EIS is a high quality 

CEQ regulations. In regard to 40 CFR the draft EIS for public review on Augabout 1,900 interested parties, includinlibraries, and was posted on the FERC’was available to citizens. The EIS was has made a decision about this project; PM1-10 and PM1-54. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-206

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-38 Section 4 of the EIS is an analysis of im

environmental resources. See response 

PM2-39 With regard to 40 CFR 1500.1(c), the E

protect, restore, and enhance the enviroadvisory document for the public officiFERC. 

PM2-40 With regard to 40 CFR 1501.2(b), secti

environmental impacts in detail. To m40 CFR 1502.1, the EIS includes a studsection 3. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-207

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-41 The EIS is an objective study, and is th

decision about the project. See responsPM2-38. 

PM2-42 As stated in response to comment PM2

was prepared before the Commission has an advisory report to the decision m
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-208

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-43 See response to comments PM1-8 and 

Alternative is discussed in section 3.1 oenergy alternatives were discussed in s
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-209

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-210

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-44 Section 4 of the EIS includes a discuss

on a range of resources and measures treduce, or mitigate those impacts. 

PM2-45 In compliance with 40 CFR 1502.16(c)

land managing agencies planning objec4.7.4.2, and county land use processes sections 4.7.2.1 and 4.7.3.1 of the EIS. 

major federal, state, and local permits, apidentified for construction and operation 

PM2-46 Section 4.10 of the EIS addresses cultura

PM2-47 The FERC’s regulations for implement

do not require that a cost-benefit analys

proposed project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-211

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-48 This comment speaks to the question o

project need is defined and evaluated. regulations, the EIS contains only a bripurpose and need in section 1.3. The Cthe need for the project, including consprojections of the future need for LNG
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-212

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-49 The FERC held four public meetings th

take comments on the draft EIS and yoany of those meetings. See response coand PM2-7. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-213

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-50 See response to comments PM1-18, PM

PM1-71. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-214

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-51 The draft EIS is available on the FERC 

(http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrahas access to it. 

PM2-52 On December 4, 2008 Pacific Connecto

hydrostatic testing plan. In response to plan, the FERC issued a data request on for additional refinements to this plan. Pacific Connector has been incorporatedata are part of the record for the procepublic review and comment. No membcommented on the revised draft hydros
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-215

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-53 Based on landowner lists provided by P

proposed pipeline would impact about Impacts on private landowners along thsections 4.7.3 and 4.8.3 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-216

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-54 See response to PM2-8. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-217

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-55 The proposed pipeline crosses a docum

mariposa lily on BLM-administered lanBotanical surveys conducted in this areConnector located approximately 500 plength of the proposed construction rigrecommendation in the draft EIS, on DConnector filed a draft mitigation plan or minimize adverse impact on known lily. Section 4.6.2.3 of the final EIS hasummary of this mitigation plan. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-218

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-219

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-56 The Commission will address need in i

an environmental issue to be discussed response to comments PM1-17, PM1-8

PM2-57 See response to PM2-55. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-220

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-58 Late Successional Reserves (LSRs) are 

in the EIS, including sections 4.4.1.4, 4Section 4.6 of the EIS discusses potent

threatened and endangered species, incOwl (NSO). 

PM2-59 Alternatives are addressed in section 3 

comment PM1-8. Additional studies was explained in response to comment P

PM2-60 As explained in response to comment P

only be applied with landowner permis
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-221

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-61 Impacts on salmon fisheries, and propo

those impacts, are discussed in sections 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-222

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-223

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-62 The EIS complies with the NEPA. See 

PM1-22, PM2-10, and PM2-12. 

PM2-63 Section 4.8 of the EIS addresses socioe

of timber is discussed in section 4.4.2. 2.3.3.1 and 4.73.2, landowners will be timber. In section 5.2, we recommendeconstruction Pacific Connector prepare respective landowners and land managFERC detailed timber extraction plans. PM1-83. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-224

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-225

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-64 The project cannot go forward until the 

EIS and an order that authorizes the proreceives all necessary permits and apprincluding a Right-of-Way Grant to cros
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-226

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-227

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-65 The FERC does not typically chose bet

allows the market to determine what inresponse to comments PM1-9 and PM1
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-228

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-229

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-66 See response to comment PM2-63. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-230

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-67 The EIS is not incomplete. It is adequa

The EIS was prepared by the FERC, noresponse to comments PM1-45, PM1-5addressed comments on the draft EIS in 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-231

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-232

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-68 Because it would be an interstate natur

does not require that Pacific Connector 

through the proposed pipeline. Pacific to odorize the gas only where it would distribution pipeline systems, which wo

Shady Cove, and Tule Lake/Russell Castations. 

PM2-69 Section 4.1.3 of the EIS addresses geol

pipeline, including earthquake faults, amitigate impacts from seismic activity. 

PM2-70 Section 4.8.3.3 of the EIS discusses pro

pipeline. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-233

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-71 With regard to tsunamis see response to 

PM1-65, and PM2-5. Regarding an air comments PM1-28 and PM1-44. 

PM2-72 See response to comments PM1-11, PMPM2-73 Section 4.12 of the EIS addresses reliab

project-related impacts on birds are disHenderson Marsh would not be advers

explained in section 4.3.3.2. 

PM2-74 Section 4.3.2.5 discusses the pipeline c

outlines measures that would be implemimpacts. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-234

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-75 See response to comments PM1-18 an
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-235

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-76 No one would lose their home as a resu

project related impacts on streams are aImpacts on forest are discussed in sectienvironmental impacts is one of the gotherefore plays an important role in the 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-236

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-77 See response to comment PM2-69. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-237

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-78 The applicant picked the pipeline route

Section 3.4 of the EIS discusses the FEalternative routes. Using the I-5 corridseveral alternative route segments and because of environmental, buildability, addition, there are restrictions imposed Administration that exclude utilities froand access. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-238

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-239

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-79 Landowners can negotiate compensatio

including fencing to protect livestock ocompany is liable to pay for all compenagreements. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-240

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-241

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-80 See response to comments PM1-28 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-242

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-243

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-81 See response to comment PM2-69. As 

EIS, avoidance of geological hazards oconsiderations. We examined a numbepresented by landowners in filings with 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-244

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-245

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 

PM2-82 As explained in section 2.3.2 of the EIS

clean up and restore uncleared storage installed. Section 4.1.3.4 of the EIS didisposal sites. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Emethods for large rocks removed durinConnector would also be liable for all dCompensation for damages may be par
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-246

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-247

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 

PM2-83 See response to comment PM2-78. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-248

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-249

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-84 The FERC is the lead federal agency fo

includes federal, non-federal, and privamanaging agencies can require specific planning criteria, impacts on private prthe FERC, and disclosed in this EIS, inreduce, or mitigate impacts. Impacts omeasures are discussed in sections 4.5.mitigation plans have been filed in the are available for public review and comcomment PM1-45. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-250

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-251

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-85 See response to comment PM2-68. PM2-86 See response to comment PM2-55. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-252

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-253

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-254

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October PM2-87 See response to comment PM2-68. Al

stated that odorization of the gas in the make the gas unfit for potential future iconnected to the pipeline, including ponatural gas storage facilities. 

PM2-88 This comment cites a paragraph from s

which includes a short summary of issusection 4 of the EIS. The basis for the detailed analysis of LNG safety include
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-255

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-256

PM2 Roseburg Public Meeting – October 

PM2-89 See section 4.12 for a discussion of saf