Appendix J – Comment

J.NA-1

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES NA1 Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of NA1-1 Section 4.10.1.2 of the final EIS has been 

correspondence and note this concern. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.NA-2

NA2 Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Low

Indians (CTCLUSI) 

NA2-1 See response to comment PM1-69. NA2-2 We do not agree that a supplemental draf

response to comment FA2-1. 

NA2-3 In response to our recommendation in th

revised its proposed route and work spacand minimize impacts on endangered and Section 4.6 of the final EIS has been reviinformation. We have also recommendeConnector work with the FWS to develominimize, restore, and mitigate for federmay be found in the proposed constructioand develop a Plant Conservation Plan in finalizes avoidance and minimization merestoration, and other mitigation measurestate-listed plant species. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.NA-3

NA2 CTCLUSI (continued) 

NA2-4 We believe the EIS includes sufficient deta

on estuarine and upriver riparian habitats, ahabitats may affect salmon and other aquatfact address the potential impacts of spills resources both at the LNG terminal site and and during construction as well as cumulatProject. 

NA2-5 The final EIS has been revised to address n

on the draft EIS. The final EIS addresses pon fish, wildlife, and plants. 

NA2-6 We requested that Jordan Cove perform a l

search to identify cultural resources within waterway for LNG marine traffic. The accwithin the Zones of Concern. The literaturpreviously recorded archaeological sites, fiNRHP, within the Zones of Concern. In adtidal margin in Coos Bay, overlapping the terminal, was surveyed by Dr. R. Scott ByrCoquille Tribe by boat during a low “minuwere found in that portion of the APE. Secto include this information. 

NA2-7 Jordan Cove has agreed to monitor shorelin

has proposed to execute an MOU with variCove would conduct additional archaeologarea of the proposed slip, including deep teand monitoring of construction at specific lto contain cultural resources. 

NA2-8 Section 4.10.2.2 of the final EIS has been r

probes were selected because they were in sensitivity with the lowest elevation, and aarea in question to stockpile sand would redisturbance, mostly associated with the consettlement basin. We believe that the surveconducted by Dr. Byram was sufficient; Drarchaeological or historic sites. In additionof the area did not identify any archaeologiDr. Byram recommended and the SHPO coarchaeologist should monitor construction area. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.NA-4

NA2 CTCLUSI (continued) 

NA2-9 The FERC acknowledges that it has trust 

tribes. Both FERC and the applicants haconsult with the tribes regarding potentiacultural resources. Pacific Connector anrepresentatives of several tribes on numecommunicated with various tribes regardperson meetings were held between HRA representatives of the Coos Tribes, Cow Grand Ronde Tribes, and Siletz Tribes to surveys, reroutes to avoid specific archaefor testing at certain sites within their arewe have recommended that the applicant

their proposed facilities until they file wiof land managing agencies, the SHPO, anall cultural resources reports or plans 

NA2-10 We disagree. The draft EIS does not nee

issued. The final EIS has been updated aresponse to comment PM1-12. 

NA2-11 See response to NA2-9. NA2-12 We have directed Pacific Connector to co

that includes consultations with Indian troccupied the Project area, and seeks to idproperties or properties of cultural or relithat the results of Pacific Connector’s ethconsultations with tribes would be includto be filed with the FERC by June 2009. execute an MOU with various tribes. Wapplicants not construct or use any of thethey file with the Secretary the results of resource surveys, ethnographic studies, sa historic properties management plan, replan, and any necessary avoidance/treatm

NA2-13 The FERC staff recognize the importanc

Tribal archaeologists on the additional su

NA2-14 We have revised section 4.10 of the final 

information. See also response to comm
Appendix J – Comment

J.NA-5

NA2 CTCLUSI (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.NA-6

NA3 CTCLUSI part 2 

NA3-1 See Response to comment NA2-1. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.NA-7

NA3 CTCLUSI part 2 (continued) 

NA3-2 See Response to comment NA2-2. NA3-3 See Response to comment NA2-3. NA3-4 See Response to comment NA2-4. NA3-5 See Response to comment NA2-5. NA3-6 See Response to comment NA2-6. NA3-7 See Response to comment NA2-7. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.NA-8

NA3 CTCLUSI part 2 (continued) 

NA3-8 See Response to comment NA2-8. NA3-9 See Response to comment NA2-9. NA3-10 See Response to comment NA2-12. NA3-11 See Response to comment NA2-13. NA3-12 See Response to comment NA2-14. NA3-13 The potential for natural hazards and how 

proposed facilities along the Coos Bay eEIS. Seismic-related hazards in the Coosection 4.1.2.3, and tsunami hazards are Due to the tsunami risk in the area, we hCove develop additional predictive modeaddress revised tsunami wave predictive and 4.1.2.6 discuss the LNG facility desipotential seismic hazards. Recognizing thazard for the LNG terminal site is the Cthe potential for seismic activity and/or a we have included detailed additional recoJordan Cove would be required to complapproved (see section 4.1.2.6). Hazards transiting the waterway are addressed in 
Appendix J – Comment

J.NA-9

NA3 CTCLUSI part 2 (continued)