Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-54

IND13 W.O. Ackermann Jr. 

IND13-1 We disagree that the DEIS is lacking in detai

this document was extensive. 

IND13-2 We believe the EIS includes sufficient details 

proposed pipeline crossings of streams and rifisheries from these crossings. Read section 4

IND13-3 As stated in the draft EIS, Pacific Connector 

hydrostatic test water withdrawal and discharwith industry practices and that have been shprojects to adequately minimize impacts. Hoexpressed particular concern about the potentundesirable organisms, we recommended thaconsult with federal land management agenciSection 4.3.4 of the final EIS has been updateadditional consultation. 

IND13-4 See section 4.1.2 of the EIS where this issue iIND13-5 The potential impact of construction and oper

groundwater is addressed in section 4.3.1.3 o
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-55

IND14 Marsha King Rosine 

IND14-1 We disagree that the EIS is an inadequate doc

no specific reference to why the EIS is inadeqpresent to support the claim that the project is Section 4.12 of the EIS addresses safety. 

IND14-2 See response to comments PM1-12, PM1-17

Renewable resources such as solar and wind 

IND14-3 See our discussion of major river crossings, in

Rogue River, and potential impacts on salmosections 4.3.2.5, 4.5.2.1, 4.5.2.3, and 4.6.1.3. 2. 

IND14-4 See our discussion of the no action alternative 

in section 3.1 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-56

IND15 Jerry Havens 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-57

IND15 Jerry Havens (continued) 

IND15-1 Under authority established by the N

Act, the Department of Transportation prTitle 49, CFR, Part 193 to govern the desand construction of LNG facilities. UndGas Act and the Energy Policy Act of 20authorizing the siting and construction of terminals. In accordance with the Commapplicant must demonstrate how the propwith the federal regulations under Title 4reviews the applicant’s exclusion zone caconsistency with FERC staff’s understanregulations under Part 193 and any Formthe DOT. We believe this review, as dison our discussions with DOT staff, compregulations under Part 193. Public safety issues related to the LNG teduring both the engineering review condU.S. Coast Guard's waterway suitability results of these reviews are provided in Sprovides over 70 recommendations to enwould be constructed and operated in a mpublic safety. 

IND15-2 See response to IND15-1. IND15-3 Section 4.12.4.1 has been updated to 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-58

IND15 Jerry Havens (continued) 

IND15-4 This issue was previously addressed IND15-5 Section4.12.4.5 has been updated to IND15-6 Section4.12.4.5 has been updated to 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-59

IND15 Jerry Havens (continued) 

IND15-7 Section 4.12.4.5 has been updated to IND15-8 As stated in Section 4.12.4.1, the inc

changed the way in which design spills aare determined. NFPA 59A specifies the areas for vaporization, process, or LNG tgreatest volume during a 10-minute perioleakage source.” The determination of thsource” was based on a project specific aincluding detailed piping and instrumentsmall diameter attachments to the transfethe largest “single accidental leakage souprocess piping and flow rates are unique it follows that design spill rates will vary process was developed in consultation wpromulgated the federal regulations unde
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-60

IND15 Jerry Havens (continued) 

IND15-9 Cascading failure of LNG carrier cargo 

Sandia in its 2004 report which concludelikely involve more than two or three carfire duration from cascading tank failure fire hazard was not expected to increase percent. The majority of the expert pane2007 GAO report agreed with Sandia thaexpected to significantly increase the oveGAO recommended that further study of undertaken by Sandia. We concur that fumechanisms may clarify if the subsequenfifth cargo tanks would occur over time wconsequence of further extending the durdiscussed in Section 4.12.5.3, the 2008 Scarriers larger than 200,000 m3 and conc

for larger LNG carriers are approximatelresults presented in the 2004 Sandia repodistance, the Sandia report stated that the public safety and property remain within a spill with lower impacts at distances bemeters. 

IND15-10 The research on LNG fire physics an

conducted by Sandia National Laboratorcomplete, we will use this new data to encapabilities for determining possible cona successful intentional attack on an LNG uncertainty inherent in modeling phenomaccurate models. However, in current arwe have made conservative assumptions likely show smaller consequence areas. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-61

IND15 Jerry Havens (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-62

IND16 Harry S. and Holly C. Stamper 

IND16-1 The current status of the existing rai

4.9.2.3 of the EIS. As explained in sectiimpacts of construction and operation of to the extent they are known, is included 

IND16-2 See the full discussion of the geolog

hazards, and seismic design and mitigatioterminal in section 4.1.2 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-63

IND16 Harry S. and Holly C. Stamper (contin

IND16-3 The Port’s plan to purchase the railr

proposed Project. As stated in the EIS, Pcompensate public and private landowne

associated damages on their lands. The emaintenance dredging of the Project comchannel) have added to the final EIS. Coadditional local public security forces nebe offset by Jordan Cove. There is no plwaterway. 

IND16-4 Jordan Cove has stated that it does n

possible source of LNG for its proposed been revised to reflect this change. 

IND16-5 See response to comment IND5-4. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-64

IND16 Harry S. and Holly C. Stamper (contin

IND16-6 As explained in section 1.3 of the EI

be less expensive than domestically prodon market conditions. A 2008 study by IPacific Basin LNG would cost less than delivered to the West Coast. See respon

IND16-7 The May 7, 2008 report by the ODE 

in sections 1.3, 3.1.3, and 4.11.1.5 of the not necessarily agree with all the findingresponse to comments PM1-87, PM2-7, 

IND16-8 We disagree. The Port’s role in Jord

explained in section 1.1 of the EIS. AddPort activities are discussed in section 2.
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-65

IND16 Harry S. and Holly C. Stamper (contin

IND16-9 The referenced table 1.6.2 in the EIS 

Transportation, and under this heading th“Impacts to harbor traffic, including recrboating and fishing”. Table 1.6.2 of the include a similar scoping issue under Lanexisting public access to the Coos Bay wimpacts to those access points and users in the EIS in sections 2.1.2, 4.7.1.3, 4.7.2

IND16-10 We disagree. The Port’s proposed c

independent of the proposed Jordan Covmentioned under nonjurisdictional facilitpotential future project in cumulative impexplained in section 2.1.3, the existing nafor LNG vessels up to 140,000 m3 in capcomment PM1-18. 

IND16-11 We disagree that additional simulato

vessels of the 148,000 m3 class that have a beam of 150 feet. Simulator studies focompleted and evaluated by the Coast Guin the Coast Guard’s Waterway SuitabiliB). With regard to channel depth and vehas determined that LNG vessels transit limited to periods of high tide and winds 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-66

IND16 Harry S. and Holly C. Stamper (contin

IND16-12 The moving safety/security zone est

for the Jordan Cove Project was based on characteristics of the Coos Bay navigatiothe same moving safety/security zone estfor the Bradwood Landing LNG Project. 

IND16-13 We disagree. The referenced Transi

traffic management measures were identbased on review of the specific characternavigation channel. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-67

IND16 Harry S. and Holly C. Stamper (contin

IND16-14 The Coast Guard’s requirement to ad

capability is just one part of the overall imrequired before the waterway would be straffic. 

IND16-15 Vessel traffic control measures are i

required Transit Management Plan refere

IND16-16 Deepening of the existing Coos Bay 

of the proposed Jordan Cove LNG projecWSR are based on existing channel condsurveys and maintenance dredging would responsibility of the entities that currentlwaterway. 

IND16-17 We disagree. Simulator training is r

situations. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-68

IND16 Harry S. and Holly C. Stamper (contin

IND16-18 The WSR identifies the need for em

and as stated in the WSR, one of the planemergency response procedures and protprocedures and protocols have yet to be d

IND16-19 It is the responsibility of the Coast G

suitability of the waterway for LNG marconditions (e.g. vessel and facility inspecfor the waterway to be considered suitabsiting authority under any existing U.S. lor Coast Guard. 

IND16-20 The Coast Guard has also identified 

limited along the entire transit route, and the WSR to address that limitation. See IND16-18. 

IND16-21 We disagree. We believe it is reason

conditioned on the successful completion 

IND16-22 Jordan Cove, in consultation with th

responders, stakeholders, and users of threquired notification system and proceduthe Coast Guard prior to implementation

IND16-23 Jordan Cove, in consultation with th

responders, must develop the required gaobtain approval from the Coast Guard pr
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-69

IND16 Harry S. and Holly C. Stamper (contin

IND16-24 The FAA is the federal agency respo

space. The FAA review of the proposed discussed in section 4.9.2.4. 

IND16-25 As stated in the referenced section o

LNG terminal would be required to meet in 33 CFR 105. See discussion of securiEIS. 

IND16-26 The maintained minimum depth of t

channel is 37 feet at mean low low water tides, mean depth at high tide ranges from stated in the WSR, the Coast Guard has d

would be limited to transiting the waterwhigh tide. The Jordan Cove Vessel Simushows that LNG carriers up to 148,000 mproposed Jordan Cove LNG terminal usichannel in Coos Bay. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-70

IND17 Ara Johnson 

IND17-1 We disagree. The DEIS is adequate

project is dangerous. Safety is addressed to comments PM1-15, PM1-22, PM1-34

IND17-2 See response to comments PM1-11, 

14. As stated in section 3.1.3 renewable today could not produce as much energy LNG Project. 

IND17-3 See response to comments PM3-2 anIND17-4 The Commission will fully consider 

including the No Action Alternative discEIS, before making its decision. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-71

IND18 Dr. Joseph T. Morgan 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-72

IND18 Dr. Joseph T. Morgan (continued) 

IND18-1 The page that is enclosed with this c

of the draft Resource Report 9 submitted This table is titled “Uncontrolled Potentitherefore documenting the maximum allo

emissions, rather than the maximum alloIn this table, emissions values for the bacvaporizer and emergency generator are shours per year of operation, despite the fwould be lower as a result of operational 

Table 4.11.1.2-1 of the draft EIS accurately reflec

emissions from the LNG terminal as sumof Jordan Cove’s Resource Report 9 (Apapplication to the FERC in September 20emissions from all stationary sources assLNG terminal, including all six of the suvaporizers (which in total are limited to ffive vaporizers operating 7,008 hours per diesel generator (which is limited to fuel operating hours per year). 

IND18-2 It is accurate to say that potential em

pollutants are several hundred tons per yfacilities in Coos Bay that have allowabltons, but where actual emissions are lessquality depend on the degree to which emin turn depends on stack height. For comNational Emissions Inventory (for 2005) County, on-road motor vehicles (which elevel) emitted over 16,000 tons of actual (combined, of the five criteria pollutants 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-73

IND18 Dr. Joseph T. Morgan (continued) 

IND18-3 It is not necessarily true that “hundre

released from a location between two and population and which is directly upwind would destroy local air quality.” Impactpollutant dispersion, which in turn depentemperature, and other variables. The bepotential impacts of an upwind source on dispersion modeling, which is what was 

IND18-4 Economic impact of the proposed LN

section 4.8.2 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-74

IND18 Dr. Joseph T. Morgan (continued) 

IND18-5 There is no basis for the claim that “

significant detrimental effect on air qualiof assessing the effect of a project on air quality modeling. As described in the EIconducted for the proposed project and sa significant effect on regional air quality
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-75

IND18 Dr. Joseph T. Morgan (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-76

IND18 Dr. Joseph T. Morgan (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-77

IND18 Dr. Joseph T. Morgan (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-78

IND19 Mary Margaret Muenchrath 

IND19-1 No private lands would be taken wit

response to comment PM1-10. 

IND19-2 See response to comments PM1-87, IND19-3 See response to comment IND19-1. IND19-4 See response to comment PM3-85. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-79

IND19 Mary Margaret Muenchrath (continue

IND19-5 You are on the FERC’s environmen

based on your interest expressed during tand a draft EIS was mailed to the addreswe note that the mailing address on this laddress we had on file. We have updated 

EIS using this new address. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-80

IND20 Wayne Slawson 

IND20-1 We believe the EIS adequately defin

environmental impacts from the proposefisheries are discussed in section 4.5. Sa4.12. Impacts on waterbodies are discusregard to tsunami protection, see responsPM1-65, PM1-118, and PM2-5. With reincreased use of natural gas, see response 7, PM2-14, IND8-5, and IND3-17. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-81

IND21 Laurie and Roland Potts 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-82

IND21 Laurie and Roland Potts (continued) 

IND21-1 Section 3.4.2.2 of the final EIS inclu

Blue Ridge Route Variation. See respon
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-83

IND22 Russell and Sandra Lyon 

IND22-1 A number of revisions have been ma

new information available since publicatresponse to comments received on the dr

IND22-2 The basis for the referenced summar

Summary is explained in detail in sectionwhich addresses impacts water resources respectively. The EIS addresses the issuareas; see response to comment CO5-22. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-84

IND22 Russell and Sandra Lyon (continued) 

IND22-3 The basis for the referenced summar

Summary is explained in detail in section addresses land use, recreation and visual 

IND22-4 The statement identified is from the 

of the document. This section is a summdocument as a whole. The EIS is a discl

environmental impacts in adequate detail
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-85

IND22 Russell and Sandra Lyon (continued) 

IND22-5 Potential impacts on waterbodies are 

section 4.3. 

IND22-6 The purpose and scope are clearly id

EIS. Supporting detail and identification described throughout the EIS. 

IND22-7 We disagree. As explained in the be

EIS, in order to be considered “reasonabable to meet most if not all of the propospotential alternative LNG terminals and were evaluated at a detail necessary to designificant environmental advantages ovcould meet all of the project objectives. 

had been able to meet all of the project oenvironmentally superior, we would hav

IND22-8 The referenced bill applies to activit

farming practices, and therefore does not project. Water quality requirements and the jurisdiction of the COE and the ODEEIS). 

IND22-9 Impacts to salmonid bearing streams 

in sections 4.3.2, 4.5.2, and 4.6.1 of the E

IND22-10 This is incorrect. We have recomme

conduct supplemental site-specific analyand lateral spreading hazards on both pridiscussed in EIS section 4.1.3.2 and liste

IND22-11 Because the pipeline would cross so

does not necessarily mean the pipeline wor that the pipeline should be moved. Usmethods, and proper use of sediment and construction and restoration would allow 

the pipeline on these soils. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-86

IND22 Russell and Sandra Lyon (continued) 

IND22-12 Because the pipeline would cross so

necessarily mean the pipeline would be uthe pipeline should be moved. Use of apmethods, and proper use of sediment and construction and restoration would allow the pipeline on these soils. 

IND22-13 The sources cited were used specific

linear pipeline rights-of-way. Turbidity pipeline crossings of waterbodies is acknsection 4.5.2.3 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-87

IND22 Russell and Sandra Lyon (continued) 

IND22-14 Pacific Connector has done addition

removal and potential impacts on stream streams and watersheds. The final EIS inof this, and the related impact on the Um

IND22-15 As part of its conceptual mitigation 

proposes to donate large boulders for use agencies or groups engaged in stream resEIS). In section 4.5.2.3 of the EIS we haConnector develop a stream habitat mitigplacement of LWD or other stream improdeveloped in consultation with ODFW aappropriate. Other stream improvements 

considered appropriate at specific locatio

IND22-16 See response to comment IND22-14

Connector intends to construct barriers to response to comment PM1-82. 

IND22-17 Section 4.5.2.3 of the EIS discusses 

impacts from the proposed river crossingsedimentation. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-88

IND22 Russell and Sandra Lyon (continued) 

IND22-18 Pacific Connector would restore the 

near as possible to pre-construction condenhance stream habitat at the crossing loconsultation with appropriate land managAny off-site instream habitat improvemeaddition to, not in place of, restoration of crossing locations. 

IND22-19 See response to comment IND22-24IND22-20 See response to comment IND22-14IND22-21 While we do not require identificatio

feet from the proposed construction work 

discussion and assessment of potential im(e.g. noise, transportation, socioeconomi
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-89

IND22 Russell and Sandra Lyon (continued) 

IND22-22 The text quoted in this comment is f

and pertains to population size, and how work force required for the proposed prosize. The sections of the EIS that follow through 4.8.3.8) address other potential iresidents along the pipeline, including cocomment. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-90

IND22 Russell and Sandra Lyon (continued) 

IND22-23 What is in question here is the level 

high percentages of low-income or minolow-income or minority populations exisdisproportionately high percentages of lopopulations were not identified during th

IND22-24 Pacific Connector proposes to constr

both public and private lands following mFERC’s guidelines for natural gas pipelinand Procedures). These guidelines includesigned to avoid, minimize, and restore properties. The EIS identifies these meadocument. Additional measure specific tidentified in the EIS because requiremencrossing of public lands differ from those measures specific to individual private praffected would be negotiated during the ePacific Connector has not yet initiated. 

IND22-25 Section 4.3.2.5 of the final EIS is rev

of Fate Creek and the referenced restoratSee also response to comment IND22-24
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-91

IND22 Russell and Sandra Lyon (continued) 

IND22-26 We did consider all environmental im

recommendation for the Wood Creek/Dasection 3.4.2.10 of the EIS. During Pacianalyses, several major alternative routes proposed route that would avoid Days Cralternative north of the proposed route thThese routes were eliminated from furthereasons. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-92

IND23 Dana P. Stone 

IND23-1 See response to comments PM1-87, 

PM2-31, PM3-5, and PM3-41. 

IND23-2 See response to comments PM1-29 a
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-93

IND23 Dana P. Stone (continued) 

IND23-3 As stated in section 2.3.3.1 of the EI

Pacific Connector proposes to acquire a easement, and on all other private lands a easement. However, we have recommenPacific Connector would use the power osection 7h of the NGA to acquire a permfederal or non-tribal lands the width of th50 feet. Within the permanent easementconduct vegetation maintenance within a on the pipeline, which is referred to in thoperational easement or right-of-way. Ttemporarily impacted during construction their previous condition and use after the believe that the construction foot print as smallest reasonable area needed to safely 

IND23-4 The construction right-of-way, stagi

areas located within agricultural lands wfollowing construction, and the areas mosuch that these areas could continue to be Connector has conducted extensive cultusurveys. See section 4.10 of the EIS. 

IND23-5 We asked Pacific Connector to exam

a data request. Pacific Connector’s respoanalysis of the Wood Creek/Days Creek section 3.4.2.10 of the final EIS. 

IND23-6 See response to comment IND22-25IND23-7 See response to comments PM1-43, 

4. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-94

IND24 Jenny Webster 

IND24-1 There is no basis for the statement th

temperature of the surrounding area by 1

refers to both air temperature and water tlikely to increase by that level. There are facilities throughout the country--some opower output rating more than ten times and we have not seen any evidence of maeven for those facilities. 

IND24-2 See response to comment IND24-1. IND24-3 There is no basis for the statement th

move from their homes to other localitieresponse to comments PM1-41 and IND

IND24-4 The proposed LNG terminal would n

population area. Potential risk to human4.12.5.3 of the EIS. 

IND24-5 Pipeline safety and reliability is disc

EIS. 

IND24-6 Threatened and endangered species 

the EIS. 

IND24-7 See response to comments PM1-29, 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-95

IND24 Jenny Webster (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-96

IND25 Dennis Netter 

IND25-1 See response to comment PM1-4. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-97

IND26 William Rohrer 

IND26-1 With respect to project need, see res

PM2-14. Section 3 of the EIS addresses response to comment PM1-8). With respsee response to comments PM1-9 and PMto be addressed before the close of the coEIS, see response to comment PM1-45. should be withdrawn. See response to co14. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-98

IND27 Maryann Rohrer 

IND27-1 See response to comments PM1-87 aIND27-2 Section 3 of the EIS addresses altern

comments PM1-8 and PM1-22. 

IND27-3 See response to comments PM1-9 anIND27-4 See response to comment PM1-45. IND27-5 With respect to baseline conditions i

comment IND8-9. We disagree that the withdrawn. See response to comments P
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-99

IND28 Barbara Falcy 

IND28-1 The draft EIS is not incomplete and 

comments PM1-18, PM1-22, and PM1-4laws would be followed. 

IND28-2 This comment does not identify any 

however we have revised the final EIS as noted in other comments on the draft EISissued prematurely. See response to com

IND28-3 Safety and reliability of the proposed 

section 4.12.10 of the EIS. As stated in sDOT PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety safety in the design, construction, testingemergency response for the proposed pip

IND28-4 The impact of the pipeline on the “la

multiple sections of the EIS. Visual imp

4.7. Impacts on affected land owners are and 4.8.3.3. See response to comments P
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-100

IND28 Barbara Falcy (continued) 

IND28-5 Section 4.6 addresses threatened and 

Section 4.10 discusses cultural resources

IND28-6 HDD crossings are not expected to a

drinking water wells. See response to co

IND28-7 We did not extend the comment peri

response to comments PM1-18, PM1-59
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-101

IND29 Dennis Phillips 

IND29-1 See responses to comments PM1-87 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-102

IND29 Dennis Phillips (continued) 

IND29-2 The draft EIS complies with the CEQ 

implementing the NEPA, and we disagrethe NEPA “hard look” requirement. For of the EIS we reviewed results of wildlifcompleted by the applicants following essummarized these results in the EIS. Surfiled with the FERC and are part of the presponse to comments on cumulative effscientific views were included where appfiled on the draft EIS. The FERC has evimpacts and prepared EISs for many simestablished standards by which impacts astaff’s Plan and Procedures were developto major projects so that if implemented, be predicted and quantified, and impacts practicable. As stated in the EIS the appmajor provisions of the FERC staff’s Plahave evaluated specific measures from thwould be modified. Compliance with apdiscussed in section 1.5 of the EIS. 

IND29-3 We do not agree that cumulative imp

The EIS adheres to the CEQ regulations and identifies environmental impacts in acumulative effects analysis in section 4.1include in the analysis past projects and othe analysis area. Cumulative effects for individual species accounts in section 4.6 Weyerhaeuser wetlands mitigation projeanalysis in the final EIS. The FERC is nproposing the project or mitigation. The to create duck ponds as mitigation. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-103

IND29 Dennis Phillips (continued) 

IND29-4 The EIS includes an adequate risk an

EIS addresses risk from the transport of Ltransfer and storage of LNG at the propotransmission of natural gas through the p
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-104

IND29 Dennis Phillips (continued) 

IND29-5 Section 1.5.1 of the draft EIS describ

with the MBTA. The final EIS includes measures that would be implemented by to comply with the MBTA. 

IND29-6 The EIS adequately addresses impac

species. Section 4.6 of the draft EIS evaimpacts on species protected under the Emay occur in the Project area, and the FEon those species. This includes the northplover, and marbled murrelet. Section 4revised to include data available since puincluding survey and habitat assessmentsallocations on BLM lands. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-105

IND29 Dennis Phillips (continued) 

IND29-7 See response to comment PM2-8.