Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-329

CO21 Umpqua Valley Native Plant Society o

CO21-1 See response to comment PM2-55. See P

12/04/2008 comments on the DEIS (Attamitigation plan. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-330

CO21 Umpqua Valley Native Plant Society o

CO21-2 See response to comment PM2-55. Paci

visit with BLM representatives in 2008 dsite-specific mitigation plan. 

CO21-3 Pacific Connector’s mitigation plan inclu

one year prior to construction. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-331

CO21 Umpqua Valley Native Plant Society of CO21-4 Pacific Connector proposes to donate the 

submittal to an approved seed bank or re

CO21-5 See Pacific Connector’s 12/04/2008 com

(Attachment M) for a site-specific mitiga
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-332

CO22 Coos County Sheep Company 

CO22-1 Because of constructability issues, we do 

Ridge Alternative or the Amended Blue environmentally superior, and do not recsection 3.4.2.2 of the final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-333

CO22 Coos County Sheep Company (continu
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-334

CO22 Coos County Sheep Company (continu

CO22-2 See our discussion of the Amended Blue 

3.4.2.2 of the final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-335

CO22 Coos County Sheep Company (continu
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-336

CO23 Klamath Riverkeeper 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-337

CO23 Klamath Riverkeeper (continued) 

CO23-1 Lost River and shortnose suckers are list

discussed in section 4.6. Impacts to wateprojects are described in section 4.3.2. Imdescribed in that section are directly releimpacts to threatened and endangered fiscooperating agencies are required to comSpecies Act (ESA), the Magnuson-SteveManagement Act (MSA), the Marine Ma(MMPA), Migratory Bird Treat Act (MBHistoric Preservation Act (NHPA). The the project to proceed if the FWS’ and N

project would not jeopardize the continuor result in the destruction or adverse mocritical habitat (assuming reasonable or pavailable). We are recommending that countil after the FERC staff completes formcompliance with section 7 of the ESA another statutes listed above. 

CO23-2 See responses to comments PM2-11, PM

disagree that Pacific Connector be subjecinstream work period. To lessen impacts HDD, Pacific Connector outlined measurHDD contingency plan that was filed as 

CO23-3 See response to comment IND6-2. The p

from bentonite clay used in HDD river csection 4.5.2.3 of the final EIS under the of Drilling Mud. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-338

CO23 Klamath Riverkeeper (continued) 

CO23-4 The FWS and NMFS, in their respective 

for conservation measures if necessary foshortnosed suckers. Those conservation compensation for endangered species rec

CO23-5 Section 4.6.1.3 of the final EIS includes 

See response to comment PM2-21. Pacihave on-site, full-time, third-party complthe FERC during all pipeline constructioproject complies with the environmental Order. 

CO23-6 See responses to comments SA2-17 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-339

CO23 Klamath Riverkeeper (continued) 

CO23-7 Comment noted. Impacts to water qualit

compliance with TMDL requirements wistate permitting process. Based on the OCategory 5 waterbodies that would be crshown in table 4.3.2.2-2 of the final EIS. Umpqua subbasin were completed in OcCoos, Coquille, Upper Rogue, Upper Klasubbasins are in progress. We believe thof the slip, access channel, LNG terminawith COE 404, ODSL Removal-Fill, and Additionally, potential impacts from erosmitigated through Pacific Connector’s ECECRP are based on the FERC staff’s Plabeen developed for projects under the revminimize impacts on soils, waterbodies, 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-340

CO23 Klamath Riverkeeper (continued) 

CO23-8 See response to comment CO23-7. CO23-9 See responses to comments SA2-62 and 

comments from agencies about placemenrecommending that Pacific Connector demitigation plan that identifies site-specifiimprovements, including placement of Lconcurrence with those details. We belieto the federal and state permitting procesopportunity to address measures to mitigJordan Cove and Pacific Connector are rthird-party environmental monitoring produring construction of the LNG terminal allows for on-site, third-party compliance FERC to be present full-time during all pand periodically during LNG terminal cothe project is being built as outlined in ththe environmental conditions of the FERcontinuing consultation with the COE, Nother regulatory agencies also will ensurare implemented in an appropriate mann

CO23-10 See response to comment CO12-4. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-341

CO23 Klamath Riverkeeper (continued) CO23-11 We believe that Pacific Connector’s 

federal and state permitting process, affoopportunity to address measures to mitigIn addition, Pacific Connector must deveenvironmental monitoring program to be construction of the pipeline. 

CO23-12 Cumulative effects are discussed in 

final EIS. The EIS meets the criteria outregulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) implema disclosure document that identifies envadequate detail. 

CO23-13 See section 1.5 of the final EIS. In a

comments from elected federal, state, an

regulatory agencies; environmental and pNative American tribes; and affected lan

if the proposed project is in the public in
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-342

CO23 Klamath Riverkeeper (continued) 

CO23-14 Environmental Justice is discussed i

4.8.3.9 of the final EIS. The route for thwas not selected taking into consideratioethnic settlement patterns. Pacific Connshortest, buildable route between Coos Bthe pipeline would terminate at interconnand PG&E. 

CO23-15 See responses to comments IND8-5 CO23-16 Section 3 of the final EIS describes t

including increased efficiency and consesources of energy such as renewable, solas other fossil fuels; other proposed and terminal site, design, and pipeline route aPart of the future demand for natural gas for electric power generation. Natural gafuel. LNG in any form is the next best athat may be developed in the absence of 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-343

CO23 Klamath Riverkeeper (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-344

CO24 Cape Arago Audubon Society 

CO24-1 We disagree that the EIS is a deficient do

comments IND3-1 and PM1-9. The finaregulations for complying with the NEPA impacts in adequate detail. The FERC stcomments submitted after the draft EIS cDecember 4, 2008, up until the final EIS 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-345

CO24 Cape Arago Audubon Society (continu

CO24-2 See response to comment FA3-8 regardin

note that the COE is responsible for mainBay navigation channel. This EIS does nactivities, which are separate from the acterminal. 

CO24-3 We assume your comment refers to impa

to the Coos Bay estuary. To avoid the sevegetation removal/modification impacts have recommended that Pacific Connectoof Coos Bay, the WC-1A Route Variatioof estuary crossing and the associated imabout 4.8 miles. We believe that Route Venvironmentally preferable to the other Cincluding the proposed route filed with Papplication. We have recommended that comment period on the draft EIS Pacific Variation WC-1A into its proposed route updated alignment sheets and resource tapermitting process provides additional ov

CO24-4 We disagree that the EIS is a deficient do

comments IND3-1 and PM1-9. The EIS regulations for complying with the NEPA impacts in adequate detail. . The FERC comments submitted after the draft EIS cDecember 4, 2008, up until the final EIS 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-346

CO25 Oregon International Port of Coos Bay 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-347

CO25 Oregon International Port of Coos Bay 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-348

CO25 Oregon International Port of Coos Bay 

CO25-1 As the lead federal agency responsible fo

FERC is responsible for identifying and impacts of the project. This includes an impacts, safety, security, and land requirFERC coordinates input, analysis, and reindustry, regulatory agencies, and the pudepth of expertise relevant to the environembodied in the EIS. Then through a prominimization, and mitigation where necereduces impacts to a level that would be EIS states in Section 1.5, “Besides the Nthe FERC and other federal cooperating Guard, COE, BLM, BOR, and USFS, are other federal laws that involve consideraimpact on a range of environmental resoucompliance with the Endangered Species Stevens Fishery Conservation and ManagMarine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA(MBTA), and the National Historic Preselead federal agency for the JCE & PCGP undertaken the lead role for consultationand the cooperating agencies.” The EIS makes recommendations to the Commiss“The FERC will use the EIS as an elemeCove’s and Pacific Connector’s applicatiprepared, the FERC will determine whetauthorized.”