Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-1

FEDERAL AGENCIES FA1 United States Department of CommerFA1-1 We are submitting our Biological Assess

consultation very soon after the final EIS and the BA include the latest project infomodifications to the proposed route. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-2

FA1 United States Department of Commer
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-3

FA2 National Oceanic and AtmospherFA2-1 The EIS is not incomplete, and meets the 

regulations for implementing the NEPA. supplemental draft EIS. The final EIS hainformation available since publication oresponse to comments received on the drcomment IND3-1. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-4

FA2 National Oceanic and Atmospher
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-5

FA2 National Oceanic and Atmospher

FA2-2 See response to comment FA2-1. FA2-3 For listed species under NMFS jurisdicti

include analysis out to the 200 nautical mEconomic Zone (EEZ). This has been cl

FA2-4 LNG carriers would proceed through Co

depending on their location within the w8-10 knots as they enter the waterway, an4-6 knots, and then 4 knots for the majoruntil reaching the LNG terminal. Sectionfinal EIS has been revised to clarify this. 

FA2-5 Figure 2.1-6 of the final EIS has been rev

text. As stated in section 2.1.4.2, the EIS Port’s 1.7 acre graveled area on the west
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-6

FA2 National Oceanic and Atmospher

FA2-6 The proposed LNG terminal would resul

surface. Section 4.5.2.2 of the final EIS h

analysis in the EIS is accurately based on 

FA2-7 Plans that have been filed with the FERC 

facilities at the proposed slip do not inclu

FA2-8 Section 2.2.1 of the final EIS has been re

information on the status of the rail. The rehabilitation of the North Spit rail indepterminal and NGL recovery. It is FERC’maintenance, and use of the rail would in need for NGL transport, and therefore thaddressed in the EIS under potential cum

FA2-9 Section 4.9.3.2 describes how existing ac

improved to support pipeline constructiowould be used to avoid or minimize impSections 2.3.4.1 and 4.9.3.2 also include of disturbance that would result from reqacknowledged in section 2.3.4.1 and 4.3.of improvements along each road section determined, but would be determined cloresponse to comment IND3-1. 

FA2-10 Permission to discharge the hydrostatic t

concurrently with the request for coveragStormwater Discharge Permit and permitof approval. Hydrostatic test water woulsettings, into erosion control devises, to mscour, erosion, and sedimentation into newaterbodies, in accordance with Pacific CConnector has modified its proposed hydresponse to concerns about potential tranfrom different basins. See additional disthe final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-7

FA2 National Oceanic and Atmospher

FA2-11 As explained in the beginning of section 

considered reasonable, an alternative muall of the proposed project’s objectives. terminals and major new pipeline systemnecessary to determine that none had sigadvantages over the proposed project and objectives. If an alternative had been ablobjectives and been clearly environmentevaluated it in greater detail. For those a

in greater detail, we evaluated those enviare necessary to make a reasoned decisio

FA2-12 We believe the alternatives analysis in se

identifies the potential energy supply alteSection 3.2.2 critically evaluates potentiaand section 3.1.3 evaluates other sources renewables. As stated in our analysis, wcould meet all or most of the proposed obProject. We do not agree that it is reason

infinite combination of alternative energy 

FA2-13 Our analysis of alternatives does conside

magnitude of impacts on environmental r

FA2-14 As explained in the beginning of section 

considered reasonable, an alternative muall of the proposed project’s objectives. such as species and habitats for those alteconsidered reasonable. However, for thoevaluated in detail (e.g. pipeline route vaEIS does include assessment of impacts o

sensitivity to the extent that information alternative. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-8

FA2 National Oceanic and Atmospher

FA2-15 Section 3.3.4.2 of the EIS includes a disc

off the coast of the Pacific Northwest comareas where LNG facilities have been citthose conditions are unfavorable. 

FA2-16 In response to our recommendation in th

has incorporated a modified alternative Wroute. The final EIS has been revised to part of the proposed route, as well as sevin response to our recommendations in th

FA2-17 Herbicides would not be used except for 

nuisance vegetation or select use within Herbicides would not be used for routine maintenance. Section 4.5.2.3 of the final include a discussion of potential impact oresources. 

FA2-18 Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of the final EIS have 

discussion of potential impacts on marinthey were to come into direct contact wit

FA2-19 As explained in the EIS, the likely hood 

extremely remote, and as such there is no

areal extent” of an LNG spill. Section 4LNG spill in terms of thermal radiation a

distances. Zones of concern 1, 2, and 3 wpotential impact from thermal and flammbecause these zones include vapor that cowinds, the areal extent of an LNG pool it
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-9

FA2 National Oceanic and Atmospher

FA2-20 Jordan Cove responded to the recommen

has provided a revised modeling of potenwash. Sections 4.2.1, 4.3.3, and 4.5.2 of revised to include this information. 

FA2-21 See response to comment FA2-3. Sectio

also been revised to include additional inedge of the EEZ. 

FA2-22 See response to comments FA2-3 and FAFA2-23 Section 2.1.4.3 of the EIS describes the p

construction and operation of the LNG tewould be supplied through the connectioWater Board system. 

FA2-24 Because of this concern, Jordan Cove ha

mitigation site to a property adjacent to tSlough, between river mile 0.0 and 0.9. land previously disturbed by construction course would be restored to a mud-flat cotidal connections to Kentuck Inlet. Sectibeen revised to include this new informarecommendation that Jordan Cove continNMFS, ODSL, and ODFW, and other apdevelop a final compensatory mitigation 

FA2-25 Section 4.5.2.2 of the final EIS has been 

the new benthic community in the access productive deeper water habitat than whalong-term reduction in benthic productio

FA2-26 The discussion of proposed pile driving m

the final EIS has been clarified to be conthe EIS, including section 4.6. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-10

FA2 National Oceanic and Atmospher

FA2-27 As explained in section 4.5.2.2 of the EIS

would occur in fairly low velocity areas per second). Jordan Cove would also deadaptive management plan that would be effectiveness of bubble curtains and otheand adapt to conditions as necessary to mbelow the NMFS noise criteria. 

FA2-28 The LNG terminal and its lighting would 

channel of Coos Bay which would minimHowever, the discussion in section 4.5.2impacts from terminal lighting has been terminal lighting may affect some fish bethe lighting arrangement would be determwith resource agencies to reduce these po

FA2-29 See response to comment IND3-1. FA2-30 The stormwater management system at th

designed and constructed to accommodavolume that would result from creation osurface. The proposed stormwater manaincludes oil/water separators at each storimpervious surfaces, including the 1.7-acwestern side of the slip. Final design, inctreating runoff from impervious surfaces contaminants from entering the Bay, woupermitting under the Clean Water Act. 

FA2-31 The discussion of maintenance dredging 

EIS has been expanded to address this coa recommendation that would require Jorspecific plan, in consultation with the COfor disposal of maintenance dredged mat

FA2-32 Section 4.5.2.2 of the final EIS has been 

comment. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-11

FA2 National Oceanic and Atmospher

FA2-33 The discussion of sediment and turbidity 

EIS has been revised as suggested, as we4.6.1.3 where appropriate under individu

FA2-34 The discussion of sediment and turbidity 

within Coos Bay, in section 4.5.2.3 of th

FA2-35 Pacific Connector has revised its propose

of estuarine habitats, including eelgrass, the original in-water. The discussion of Removal and Modification in section 4.5revised to reflect the reduced area of eelgadditional discussion of mitigation for eeimpacted. 

FA2-36 See response to comment FA2-35. Also

impacts in Coos Bay, including on eelgradeveloped an Estuarine Wetland Mitigatiwould be to establish a one to one on-site impacted along the estuarine crossing of standard of success is a return of each haconditions, or better, in order to ensure thvalues of wetlands impacted during the csection 4.3.3 of the final EIS. 

FA2-37 Section 4.5.2.3 of the final EIS describes 

trees from the construction right-of-way, Connector’s proposal to replant trees witalso acknowledges that trees would be pe30-foot-wide operational right-of-way. Ttrees has been factored into the proposed on riparian areas. 

FA2-38 The referenced discussion blasting and p

section 4.5.2.3 of the final EIS has been 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-12

FA2 National Oceanic and Atmospher

FA2-39 Section 4.6 of the final EIS has been revi

risk of ship strikes per year, by species. 

FA2-40 Section 4.6 of the final EIS has been revi

strike data available since publication of 

FA2-41 Section 4.6 of the final EIS has been revi

unpublished data from the NMFS. 

FA2-42 Sections 4.6.2.1 of the final EIS includes 

whales. 

FA2-43 Potential effects to marine mammals, inc

construction and operation of the propossection 4.5.2 of the EIS. 

FA2-44 Section 4.4.1.3 of the EIS includes a deta

impacts, including construction and operclearing forest vegetation within riparian summarizes impacts on forested habitat wSection 4.3.4 discloses the acreage of foraffected within Riparian Reserves within Management Areas within BLM lands, aimplemented to mitigate for these impac

FA2-45 See response to comment FA2-37. The E

of LWD as a result of clearing for the proSee discussion of Vegetation and Habitain section 4.5.2.3. Section 4.5.2.3 also inthat Pacific Connector develop a stream placement of LWD or other stream improthat agency concurrence is received for swaterbody crossing where mitigation is p
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-13

FA2 National Oceanic and Atmospher

FA2-46 Section 4.6 of the final EIS has been upd

updated information on the southern DPS habitat (73 FR 52084). 

FA2-47 The discussion of green sturgeon in secti

been updated accordingly. 

FA2-48 Section 4.6 of the final EIS has been revi

entry timing information available at httpnfimp/information/timing/ Timing_Rogu

FA2-49 Section 4.6 of the final EIS has been revi

comment. 

FA2-50 Section 4.6 of the final EIS has been revi

entry timing information available at httpnfimp/information/timing/Timing_Umpq
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-14

FA2 National Oceanic and Atmospher

FA2-51 See response to comment FA2-28. FA2-52 Use of a suction dredge for the proposed 

channel would result in less impact that iused for this initial construction. Therefodredging equipment for new construction from that which would occur from use of equipment. The statement in the draft EI

FA2-53 Areas of riparian forest clearing have bee

pipeline route alternatives that have been proposed route. The final EIS has been rinformation, and to be consistent with hopresented in different sections of the EIS

FA2-54 See response to comment IND3-1. FA2-55 The final EIS, and the BA, have been rev

on potential impacts on ESA species from maintenance dredged material. 

FA2-56 The BA and EFH Assessment includes g

benefits of the proposed mitigation, as thbenefit species and habitats protected unapplicants have proposed monitoring and for some specific construction activities and management plans are proposed for driving during construction, water intake terminal during operation, estuarine reso

plover habitat and nesting at dredged maplants along the pipeline right-of-way. Icompensatory mitigation plan would incon the long-term management of mitigateach site with respect to mitigation for Pr
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-15

FA2 National Oceanic and Atmospher

FA2-57 The final EIS, and the BA/EFH Assessm

information on mitigations and plans whbecome available since publication of the is addressed as reasonably foreseeable aceffects in section 4.13 of the final EIS. 

FA2-58 It is not FERC’s practice to require posti

conditions in the EIS process. However, federal, state, and local levels could, if deappropriate, include performance bonds respective permits. 

FA2-59 See response to comment FA2-58. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-16

FA2 National Oceanic and Atmospher
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-17

FA3 Environmental Protection Agency

FA3-1 In response to our recommendation in th

has incorporated a modified alternative Wroute. The final EIS has been revised to the proposed route, as well as several othresponse to our recommendations in the 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-18

FA3 Environmental Protection Agency 

FA3-2 We have revised the final EIS based on s

additional information on potential impadisposal of maintenance dredged materiaincluded a recommendation that Jordan Cfor the deposition of maintenance dredgeconsiders the needs and characteristics dfor this site use. The plan should be specof deposition and frequency, location, anto be deposited to insure the site capacity The plan should also include monitoring and should be developed in coordination 

FA3-3 See response to specific comments for eaFA3-4 As stated in response to comment FA3-1

longer includes the in-water route, and thchange. See response to comment FA3-
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-19

FA3 Environmental Protection Agency 

FA3-5 As stated in response to comment FA3-1

longer includes the in-water route, and thchange. 

FA3-6 As stated in response to comment FA3-1

longer includes the in-water route across in the draft EIS. The revised proposed roamount of in-water pipeline construction been revised to reflect this change, includavailable information on impacts from piHaynes Inlet portion of Coos Bay. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-20

FA3 Environmental Protection Agency 

FA3-7 See response to comment FA3-6. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-21

FA3 Environmental Protection Agency 

FA3-8 The currently proposed pipeline route wo

Inlet and disturb approximately 86 acres intertidal (44 acres) habitats, of which abmarsh (see table 4.5.2.3-3 in section 4.5.an overall reduction of about 35 percent that would be affected by the original in-mitigate for these impacts Pacific ConneEstuarine Wetland Mitigation Plan (EWMCommission since publication of the draEWMP is to establish a one-to-one on-siimpacted along the estuarine crossing of habitat type affected to pre-construction to ensure that the original functions and vduring the crossing are preserved. We beimpacts to salt marsh and the proposed Eminimize impacts on salt marsh. 

FA3-9 The discussion of impact on eelgrass in s

has been revised to reflect the currently p

Haynes Inlet area of Coos Bay. Based on mapping of eelgrass, construction along temporarily remove about 1.0 acre of eelfrom the area of eelgrass that would be aproposed in-water route. Pacific Connecwhich includes replanting the disturbed amonitoring and contingency plans to ensat equal or better condition than pre-consoverall reduction in impacts to salt marsh would adequately minimize impacts on s
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-22

FA3 Environmental Protection Agency 

FA3-10 Since publication of the draft EIS, Pacifi

a modified version of route variation WCThe final EIS reflects this revised proposlocations within section 4 of the final EIS the proposed 2.5-mile pipeline crossing o3.4.2.1 of the final EIS includes an envirrevised proposed route with other pipelinBay. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-23

FA3 Environmental Protection Agency 

FA3-11 Input from the Coos Tribes was one of th

our analysis of alternative pipeline routes section 3.4.2.1 of the final EIS. 

FA3-12 Section 4.3.3.3 describes measures from 

that would be implemented to prevent thwetland or stream hydrology. This woultrench breakers at the base of slopes or ewaterbodies, or sealing the bottom of the maintain the original wetland hydrology. drilling mud frac-outs during Horizontal crossings is discussed in section 4.5.2.3 oInadvertent Release of Drilling Mud. As Pacific Connector has proposed compenspermanent wetland impacts, however, thcompensatory mitigation would be determthe section 404 permit process and by the Removal-Fill permit process. 

FA3-13 Because of this and similar comments re

discussion of maintenance dredging in sehas been expanded. We have also added would require Jordan Cove to develop a with the COE and EPA, for use of Site F 

dredged material. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-24

FA3 Environmental Protection Agency 

FA3-14 Recovery, storage, sale, and transport of 

FERC. However, potential environmentconstruction and operation of the NGL eJordan Cove LNG terminal and the NGL on the Roseburg property are addressed aTable 4.7.2.1-1 for example identifies the construction and operation of the NGL stagree that the final EIS needs to include nonjurisdictional facility. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-25

FA3 Environmental Protection Agency 

FA3-15 In response to this and similar comments 

Jordan Cove to clarify how the status of affect its plan to include NGL extraction Jordan Cove stated that it would only recservice is available to transport NGL from rail service, Jordan Cove would eliminatproposed facility, therefore we do not neanalysis of other NGL transport options. FA2-8. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-26

FA3 Environmental Protection Agency 

FA3-16 The other pipelines discussed in our eval

alternatives would be FERC-regulated pibasis for general comparisons of these piapproved and constructed, they would be same level of environmental controls as pConnector. This is not the case for the Cwas not a FERC-regulated pipeline. See 

FA3-17 We have added the proposed channel mo

terminal project to table 4.13.1-1 and havimpacts from these projects in our discus

section 4.13. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-27

FA3 Environmental Protection Agency 

FA3-18 As noted in this comment Jordan Cove o

LNG carriers that are capable of “cold-irelectrical power from land, rather than usgenerate electricity), and provided emissassumption. However, not all LNG carricold ironing, this estimate results in an uemissions. Since publication of the draft acknowledged this limitation and stated temissions estimates. We have also asked estimates to account for the possibility of carriers arriving at the proposed terminalnot yet available, we have recommended estimates be filed with the FERC prior to 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-28

FA4 United States Department of Agr

FA4-1 The final EIS has been revised to indicat

complete a separate process to complete Forest Plans. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-29

FA5 Bureau of Land Management

FA5-1 It is the FERC staff’s understanding that 

December 2008 Resource Management Pthe Western Oregon Plan Revision procebe required to amend any resource manadistricts. The final EIS has been revised the December 2008 RMPs. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.FA-30

FA5 Bureau of Land Management (co

FA5-2 Since publication of the draft EIS Pacific 

progress towards finalizing a number of project on BLM-administered lands. Planear finalized, include the Timber ExtracManagement Plan, Hydrostatic Testing PManagement Plan. The final EIS has beerecently available information from these comment IND3-1. 

FA5-3 We have revised section 4.1.3.2 of the fin

discussion of the BLM’s concerns at the and Pacific Connector’s proposed measuWe have included a recommendation thaconstruction, Pacific Connector prepare a Heppsie Mountain Quarry. 

FA5-4 Sections 4.7.3.4 and 4.7.4 of the final EI

of visual impacts on BLM and private laand Pacific Connector’s current proposed 

visual impacts on these lands. 

FA5-5 In its comments on the Administrative re

the BLM indicated it was not in favor of access road that Pacific Connector has evFerry Road. We do not recommend use section 4.9 of the final EIS for our reviseFerry Road for construction access.