Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-62

Companies and Organizations CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters See response to comments IND3-1, PM1-8, PM1-See response to comments IND3-1, PM1-43, PM1
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-63

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-64

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-65

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-66

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-3 Alternatives are adequately addressed in 

response to comments PM1-8, PM1-22, 

CO11-4 See response to comments IND3-1, PM1
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-67

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-5 See response to comments PM2-14 and ICO11-6 See response to comment IND8-7. CO11-7 We disagree that the draft EIS violates ei

NEPA. Cumulative impacts are describesection 4.13 of the EIS. 

CO11-8 See response to comments IND3-1, PM1
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-68

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-9 We disagree that the draft EIS violates ei

NEPA. The EIS adheres to the CEQ regthe NEPA and is a disclosure document timpacts in adequate detail. Federal, state are identified in section 1.5 of the EIS. IProject, the applicants would apply for alocal permits or approvals. See response 

CO11-10 See response to comments IND3-1, PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-69

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-11 See response to comments PM2-14, FACO11-12 See response to comment PM2-14. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-70

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-13 See response to comments PM2-14 an
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-71

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-14 This topic is discussed in section 1.3 o

comments PM1-12, IND3-17. 

CO11-15 The EIS follows the directions of the C

implementing the NEPA at 40 CFR 15the project purpose and need. The Comconsider the need for this project when discussed in its project Order. See resp
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-72

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-73

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-16 See response to comment IND8-7. Ad

concerning the Rockies Express Pipeli1.0 and 3.2.1 in the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-74

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-17 See response to comment PM2-14. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-75

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-76

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-18 We disagree. The need for the project 

1.3 of the EIS, in accordance with the implementing the NEPA (40 CRF 150comment PM2-14. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-77

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-78

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-79

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-80

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-19 See response to comments PM2-8 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-81

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-20 As stated in section 1.0 of the EIS, the 

Project would diversify available sourcPacific Northwest, northern Nevada, aimporting LNG to meet estimated futuwhich would contribute to regional natand mitigate against the projected declThese conclusions are base on projecticonditions and existing natural gas supcomment PM2-14. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-82

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-83

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-21 There are multiple independent studies 

that bringing in additional new suppliein the future would help to stabilize prthe EIS and see response to comment P
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-84

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-85

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-22 See response to comment IND3-17. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-86

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-23 See response to comments FA2-12, an
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-87

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-24 See response to comments PM2-8 and CO11-25 See response to comment IND8-7. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-88

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-26 See response to comments PM2
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-89

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-90

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-27 See response to comments PM2-8 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-91

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-92

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-93

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-28 See response to comments PM2-8 and CO11-29 No decision has yet been made consid

the public interest. See response to co
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-94

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-30 We disagree that the draft EIS violates 

the NEPA. See response to comments and IND8-4. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-95

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-96

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-31 We disagree; a supplemental draft EIS 

a disclosure document that identifies eadequate detail in accordance with the implementing the NEPA (40 CRF 150comments IND3-1, PM1-43, PM1-45, 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-97

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-32 See response to comments PM1-54, IN

IND8-4, and CO11-31. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-98

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-99

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-33 See response to comment SA2-18. Th

carriers on other users of the waterway 4.7.1, 4.8.1, and 4.9.1 of the EIS. See r

CO11-34 We do not agree that it is necessary for 

carriers that are larger than those propoor larger than the Coast Guard has statthe waterway. To increase vessel sizere-apply to the FERC and initiate a new new Letter of Intent, WSA, and WSR. CO11-33. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-100

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-101

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-35 See response to comments CO11-34 an
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-102

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-103

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-104

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-36 See response to comments SA2-33 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-105

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-106

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-37 Water discharge during operation of th

Landing LNG Project and Jordan Cove design information provided by the apincluded within their engineering desigapplications as part of Resource Repor
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-107

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-38 See response to comment SA2-18. Se

addresses the coordination required for Plan. 

CO11-39 See response to comments PM1-26, PM

Section 4.1.2.4 of the final EIS provideJordan Cove’s tsunami study. We beliEIS is not necessary. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-108

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-40 We do not require that the applicant’s 

plan be site-specific for the purpose of Connector’s ECRP applies to all areas including pipeline reroutes. The ECRP staff’s Plan and Procedures, and it has pipeline projects built following the Plconstructed and operated with acceptab
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-109

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-41 Pacific Connector has prepared timber 

federal and non-federal lands. Timber 

lands were prepared to address requireand plans for non-federal lands to addrOregon Forest Practices Act. Right-ofconducted prior to pipeline constructiouse and needs between timber clearing crews. Separating timber clearing and also reduce the area impacted. If the twtime, additional work space would be r

CO11-42 We disagree that the EIS understates th

As described in section 4.2.3.2, Pacific measures to minimize potential effects and operation, and are based on the FE

Procedures that have been developed fof the FERC to avoid or minimize impConnector’s ECRP includes project- anto our Plan related to soil compaction, modifications and believe they would level of protection than the FERC staffcomment CO11-40. 

CO11-43 In response to recommendations in the 

has filed additional details of mitigatioas incorporated minor modifications to space to avoid rare plants. See revised the final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-110

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-44 As described in sections 2.4.2.2 and 4.

ECRP includes measures to minimize construction and operation on steep sloFERC staff’s Plan and Procedures that projects under the review of the FERC 

on soils. See response to comment COcomments SA2-61 and SA2-195. Lanminimization are further discussed in sEIS. 

CO11-45 See response to comments SA2-40, SA
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-111

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-46 See response to comment IND3-1. CO11-47 The EIS, not the ECRP, includes this i

comments FA2-35, FA2-36, FA3-8, an
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-112

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-48 See response to comment CO11-40. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-113

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-49 We disagree. The draft EIS does not n

supplemented, withdrawn, or re-issuedCEQ regulations for implementing the comment IND3-1. 

CO11-50 See response to comment IND3-1 and CO11-51 See response to comment FA3-15. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-114

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-52 See response to comment IND3-1. CO11-53 See response to comment PM1-14. CO11-54 See response to comment IND3-1, PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-115

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-116

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-117

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-55 See response to CO11-44. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-118

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-56 See response to comment FA3-14 and CO11-57 Section 2.9 of the EIS includes a discu

interchangeability, which addresses the introduced into interconnecting pipelin

CO11-58 We disagree that the HDD contingency 

discussion in section 4.3.2.5. We have crossing alternative for the Rogue Rivefinal EIS.