Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-179

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-1 See response to comments SA2-24, SA
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-180

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-2 With regard to issuance of the draft EI

studies, see response to comment INDcomments PM1-26, PM1-28, PM1-1273.3.2.1 of the EIS evaluates a smaller a require dredging a slip. As for the desIND 12-21. The design, construction, for the project are contained in 33 CFR Part 127, and 49 CFR Part 193. Althorequire the use of SIGTTO publicationterminal procedures described in the SNo. 14 are consistent with the safety anproject review. The Coast Guard used National Laboratories when assessing with the project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-181

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-182

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-3 There is no requirement to notify lando

directly affected by the construction riSee response to comment PM1-64 and 2.3.3.1 of the EIS, on federally manageproposes to acquire a 53-foot-wide perover the pipe. On private timber landsto acquire a 60-foot-wide permanent econfiguration of 25-foot and 35-foot ocenterline. On all other private lands, acquire a 75-foot-wide permanent ease50-foot and 25-foot offsets from the piwe have recommended that in situationwould use the power of eminent domaNGA to acquire a permanent right-of-wtribal lands the width of that easement project would not destroy the livelihooSee sections 4.7 and 4.8 of the EIS. 

CO13-4 See response to comment IND3-1 and 

justify any pre-conceived decision. Th

document. It makes recommendations 

CO13-5 See response to comment FA3-14 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-183

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-6 See response to comment PM1-64 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-184

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-7 See response to comment CO13-6, IND

result of analysis in the draft EIS, we rConnector incorporate pipeline route croute. These route changes are analyzLandowners or others can request late provide justification for the request. 

CO13-8 The June 23, 2006 Notice of Intent (N

notified the public of the intent to prepProject. That NOI also stated that the identified the potential need to revise rThe USFS may issue further notices remanagement plans. 

CO13-9 We disagree. The statement referred to 

An appropriate probabilistic seismic hperformed which takes into account thaffect the site. The draft EIS contains (including much of the information preregarding the CSZ. Additional informfinal EIS disclosing the position of the Zone relative to the Project. The text dlocated about 100 miles off shore, that on the fault zone are detectable by landthat an earthquake in the fault zone wotsunami. The statement is in reference LNG terminal and southwestern Orego
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-185

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-10 We have recommended that all require

measures be assessed by a qualified inConsultants. That review and approvaevaluating tank designs relative to poteliquefaction hazards. The LNG tanks withstand, without loss of containment earthquake as well as any associated cosubsidence and soil liquefaction. Refeadditional details. 

CO13-11 We have recommended that all require

measures be assessed by a qualified inConsultants. That review and approvaevaluating designs for tanks, barrier welements relative to potential seismic, tsunami hazards. The Board of Consuindependent engineering consultants edisciplines of geotechnical, civil, strucengineering. In addition, information EIS to address Jordan Cove’s site-specand velocities related to a large CSZ eveffort included Dr. Daniel Cox (DirectResearch Laboratory at Oregon State U(Geologist at DOGAMI), and other repHealth and Science University (OHSUdescribed in section 4.1 of the final EItsunami study, coupled with the local wspecific emergency response plan, woupreparation recommendations of the locomment IND5-1. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-186

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-187

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-12 See response to comment IND5-3. CO13-13 We are not aware of a document from 

Water Board that states the proposed wnegative impact on their water availab4.3.1.2 of the EIS, the water provided obtained from groundwater wells locatas two reservoirs (Upper Pony Creek RReservoir). The CBNBWB is responssurface water sources in accordance wto prevent adverse impacts. The North supplying up to 4 million gallons per dNorth Spit treatment plant can provide day of potable water. Impact of the proecological systems is addressed in sectEIS. See response to IND8-9. Cumulsection 4.13 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-188

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-14 Cumulative impacts are addressed in sCO13-15 See response to comment PM1-9. CO13-16 As stated in section 4.3.3 of the EIS, P

comply with conditions in the section 404 perin the Removal/Fill permit from ODSL, and iobtained from the ODEQ. Compensatory mithe effects to wetland functions or loss in acrepermitting process. Compensatory mitigation restoring, or enhancing wetlands to replace tharea/connectivity lost due to proposed Projeccredits from a mitigation bank. ODSL admin085-136) include minimum ratios for acres revaries by type of mitigation proposed (e.g., reacre lost, creation is 1.5 for 1, and enhancemeaccount for the likelihood of success of a type specific type and amount of compensatory mby the COE as part of the section 404 permit part of the Removal-Fill permit process. The pipeline was not a FERC-regulated pipeline, construction and restoration measures requireinspection and oversight, were not applied to on the waterway are addressed in sections 4.7

CO13-17 The Executive Summary at the front o

summary of the findings of the document. It recommendations to the Commissioners abouimpacts. Page ES-10 does not indicate any “question lists additional measures and operatiimplemented, indicate that the waterway may 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-189

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

traffic. Section 4.7.1.3 states that use of the Coos affected by the passage of LNG carriers than they passage of deep draft ships. Fishing activities occchannel and are unlikely to be affected by the pastransit in the waterway to the terminal. However, occur in the channel, those activities would have ttemporarily move out of the way of an LNG carri4.8 of the EIS contains a socioeconomic evaluatioCO13-18 In response to our data request about p

Zone of Concern 1 along the waterwayupdated information on residences and of Concern. Jordan Cove identified no Zone of Concern 1. See revised sectioThe EIS acknowledges that there woulbuildings within Zones of Concern 2 aof the proposed LNG storage tanks is aand for the proposed pipeline in sectio

CO13-19 See response to comment PM2-14 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-190

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-191

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-192

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-20 See response to comment PM1-19. On 

Cove filed with the Commission its Mwith the State of Oregon that species, aCove’s financial commitment to eventpreconstruction conditions when the te
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-193

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-21 These questions are not within the scop

addressed in the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-194

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-195

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-22 The Commission has evaluated the siti

terminal and the Coast Guard has evaluwaterway. In its WSR, the Coast Guarcould be made suitable for LNG marinmitigation measures were implementedmitigation measures are listed in sectio

CO13-23 See response to comment SA2-18, and 

IND15 and IND74. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-196

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-24 See response to comments IND12-18, 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-197

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-198

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-25 As part of the LNG Management Plan

that LNG vessels would not be allowevoluntary traffic lanes offshore unless continue into the LNG terminal. In adproposing that LNG vessels would not offshore the Oregon coast. The New Cwhen a ship inappropriately anchored 

coast. LNG vessels would only be allomiles when all conditions are suitable Jordan Cove has committed to providiLNG vessel into the port and to the bercapability to fully maneuver the LNG looses power. This type of tug has not the port. 

CO13-26 See response to comment CO13-25. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-199

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-200

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-27 Section 4.12 of the EIS evaluates the r

proposed LNG terminal at the proposerecommending that Jordan Cove develplan and cost sharing plan to address pneeds of the local responders in varioucomment SA2-18. On March 31, 2009FERC a Memorandum of UnderstandiCove and the State of Oregon. The Mfor cooperation between the State of Owell as collaboration with the ODOE, County Sheriff’s Department, the Cooand Fire Departments, and the North BDepartments. The document outlines tCove and the State of Oregon with resof the terminal, including the resourceCove would provide to other entities foIn the MOU, Jordan Cove has agreed tand money to ensure that the necessary would be available and operational priterminal. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-201

CO13 Citizens Against LNG, Inc (continued) 

CO13-28 The use of renewable energy options a

proposed Project is addressed in sectioIND8-7.