Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-106

IND30 Dennis Phillips 

IND30-1 We disagree that the Socioeconomic

section sufficiently analyzes the potentia

both positive and negative, of the proposavailable public documents to determine employed standard analytical methodoloimpacts of the proposed project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-107

IND30 Dennis Phillips (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-108

IND31 Chasm 

IND31-1 The EIS is the result of independent 

our third-party environmental contractoragencies. The EIS adheres to the CEQ rethe NEPA. This comment touches on mureceived on the draft EIS. See responses 19, PM2-14, PM1-11, PM1-34, and PM1

IND31-2 The draft EIS addresses all the topic

stated in section 1.6. Review of the Projwas not rushed. See response to commen

IND31-3 Pacific Connector’s proposed timber 

apply to both public and private lands. Aeconomic impact of timber harvested froof-way and work spaces has been added EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-109

IND31 Chasm (continued) 

IND31-4 See response to comment PM1-10. IND31-5 Section 4.7.3.4 of the EIS describes 

construction and operation of the pipelinimplemented to minimize those impacts. the Hoover Hill area. However, this sectbeen revised to include a discussion of thaddition, Hoover Hill is addressed in the 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-110

IND32 Tonya L. King IND32-1 The EIS is complete and adheres to 

complying with the NEPA. With respect see also responses to comments IND7-3 item 2 see response to comment PM2-14route are in appendix D. 

IND32-2 No one is at risk from the Jordan Co

Connector Pipeline. As explained in secbelieve the project could be built and openo danger to the public. 

IND32-3 Section 2.9 of the EIS addresses diff

imported and domestic natural gas. Use supply and alternative energy sources as proposed Project are addressed in section 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-111

IND33 Peter A. Crosby 

IND33-1 Nowhere in the EIS is southern Cali

for the Jordan Cove Project. PG&E is a and PG&E only services northern Califoresponses to comment PM2-14, PM2-32

IND33-2 We disagree. The alternatives sectio

was 104 pages long, including discussionOregon and California. That section expwere dismissed, and others found not to bto the Jordan Cove LNG Project. The EIoutlined by the CEQ to satisfy the NEPA

IND33-3 Sections 4.7.1.2 and 4.8.1.1 of the E

residences and structures, and population proximity to the shipping channel. 

IND33-4 The EIS adheres to the CEQ regulat

NEPA and identifies environmental impaalso response to comments IND33-2, IND
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-112

IND34 Spes Dolphin 

IND34-1 Section 3.2.4.3 of the EIS describes 

that could be used for importing LNG viresponse to comments PM2-9 and PM2-3destroy the Oregon Women’s Land Trus3.4.2.11. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-113

IND35 Connie Harris 

IND35-1 The EIS includes sufficient detail ab

proposed project. See responses to commSA2-227. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-114

IND36 Douglas B. Hanan #1 

IND36-1 The hazard distances identified by th

(described in section 2.12.5.3) are not the carrier accident or attack, given the consthe level of damage required to yield sucthese “worst-case” scenarios provide guioperating restrictions for LNG marine trato the proposed terminal, as well as in esareas for emergency response and evacua

IND36-2 Jordan Cove would be required to de

plan in coordination with the Coast Guar

county, and local emergency planning gragencies. Jordan Cove would also be reqsharing plan that identifies the mechanism emergency response management costs aequipment and personnel. Two recommein section 4.12.6 of the EIS for Jordan CoResponse Plan that includes a Cost-Shari

mechanisms for funding all project-specimanagement costs that would be imposeSee additional discussion in section 4.12

IND36-3 Section 4.12.8 of the EIS includes d

security protection. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-115

IND37 Douglas B. Hanan #2 

IND37-1 The LNG carriers that would call on 

LNG terminal would not be owned or optherefore it is very likely that the LNG cadifferent insurance carriers than for the Lcarriers arriving at the proposed terminal vessels currently operating in the world mmay be constructed prior to the terminal interested party would need to contact threquest information on insurance coverag

IND37-2 The response procedure in this scena

during finalization of the emergency respto comment IND36-2. 

IND37-3 Seismic-related hazards in the Coos 

section 4.1.2.3 of the EIS and tsunami ha4.1.2.4. Section 4.1.2.4 of the final EIS hresults of new tsunami modeling conducthe question of impact of a tsunami on an 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-116

IND38 Douglas B. Hanan #3 

IND38-1 LNG carriers would move through t

Bay navigation channel at speeds betweeremaining 4.7 miles at speeds between 4 would be guided through the channel by LNG vessels would not need to maintain of steering. Potential impact from ship w4.5.2.1 of the EIS. 

IND38-2 LNG carriers would be guided throu

boats, therefore the LNG vessels would nspeeds for the purpose of steering. Sectidiscussion of shoreline erosion. Overall from the proposed LNG vessel traffic is current project does not include any propand other erosion controls along the shorCoos Bay and the LNG terminal. The Cmaintenance of the Coos Bay navigation 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-117

IND39 Suzanne J. Ross 

IND39-1 See response to comments PM1-1 anIND39-2 See response to comments PM1-45 a

changes were identified in the draft EIS. 

IND39-3 Nothing is a done deal. No decision 

project. See response to comment PM1-

IND39-4 The EIS follows the directions of the 

implementing the NEPA at 40 CFR 1502project purpose and need. The Commissthe need for this project when it makes itproject Order. See response to commentand PM2-14. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-118

IND39 Suzanne J. Ross (continued) 

IND39-5 See response to comments PM1-9 an
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-119

IND39 Suzanne J. Ross (continued) 

IND39-6 The EIS is not a decision document, 

recommendations to the Commissioners impacts. See response to comment PM1

IND39-7 The EIS includes analysis of potenti

residents living along the waterway for Lsurrounding communities. See sections 4attempt to address the mental health of parea. 

IND39-8 The referenced section of the EIS, se

Cove’s proposal for LNG vessels. A turnrequired for the proposed Jordan Cove Lof the LNG vessel route is included in seAlternatives are addressed in section 3 of alternative of a smaller berth. See respon

IND39-9 Section 4.8.2.3 of the EIS includes a 

the LNG terminal on property values. 

IND39-10 Figure 2.2-1 of the final EIS has bee

Section 2.2.1 of the final EIS has also beadditional discussion of Natural Gas Liqtransport by rail is not feasible, Jordan Cso there would be no transport by trucks. 

IND39-11 See response to comment IND36-2. IND39-12 The proposed terminal would be des

of hurricane force winds, storm surges, aNichol International performed a wind stwind data from two weather stations opeand Atmospheric Administration and the Wind speeds ranged from zero mph (no wexcessive windspeeds that have been recbetween 100 mph and 130 mph. Therefoand other critical structures and facilities velocity of 150 mph per the requirement
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-120

IND39 Suzanne J. Ross (continued) 

IND39-13 Jordan Cove would be responsible fo

maintenance of its proposed facilities, inaccident or correction of a defect. 

IND39-14 See response to comments PM1-9 anIND39-15 We disagree. The EIS does not need 

resubmitted. It meets the requirements othe NEPA. See also response to commensection (3) of the draft EIS was 104 pageexplained why some alternatives were dito be environmentally superior to the JorSection 3 also discusses renewable energthe proposed project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-121

IND40 Douglas B. Hanan #4 IND40-1 This estimate is not accurate. The c

correlates energy content with explosive explode. If there was a release of LNG ivapor would be flammable if set on fire b
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-122

IND40 Douglas B. Hanan #4 (continued) 

IND40-2 Other commentors have suggested th

care costs associated with air emissions fterminal. See response to comment PM1

in section 4.11.1 of the EIS. There is no associated with the proposed project. Se

IND36-1. The EIS does not attempt to a

IND40-3 Alternatives are discussed in section IND40-4 See response to comment PM1-54. IND40-5 See response to comment PM2-14. IND40-6 The EIS complies with the CEQ reg

NEPA. It is organized like most other ELNG and pipeline projects. See also respThe Commission encourages electronic ftraditional filing via US mail is also accetrouble using the FERC web page can ca

IND40-7 See response to comments PM1-45, 

is not a single violation of the NEPA in t
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-123

IND41 Dennis Phillips 

IND41-1 See response to comments PM1-11, 

14. Potential impacts on wildlife in the psections 4.5 and 4.6 in the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-124

IND41 Dennis Phillips (continued) 

IND41-2 Alternatives are sufficiently covered 

See response to comments PM1-91 and P
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-125

IND41 Dennis Phillips (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-126

IND42 Ronnie Herne 

IND42-1 The report in question has been revi

staff. The response is in the public recor
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-127

IND42 Ronnie Herne (continued) 

IND42-2 On December 1, 2008 Jordan Cove f

The results of the revised study are discu
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-128

IND42 Ronnie Herne (continued) 

IND42-3 See response to comment IND42-2. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-129

IND42 Ronnie Herne (continued) 

IND42-4 Potential geologic hazards to the pip

seismically induced tsunami, are discuss

IND42-5 Potential soil liquefaction is address

4.1.2.6 and section 4.1.3.2. 

IND42-6 Neither the 2004 Sandia report, nor 

in May 2008, state that dispersion distanmiles. These reports also do not claim th“blast zone.” The credible hazards associn section 4.12.1 of the EIS. As discusserecommends that Jordan Cove develop acoordination with the Coast Guard and alocal emergency planning groups and resplan, and all required mitigation measurewould not be allowed to go into operatio
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-130

IND42 Ronnie Herne (continued) 

IND42-7 The proposed tsunami barrier would 

LNG storage tanks. In its September 25, modeling, the highest elevation a wave wwould be 18 feet on the west side and 21 on these elevations, the height of the 55 fadequate. 

IND42-8 The Cascadia Subduction Zone is de
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-131

IND42 Ronnie Herne (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-132

IND42 Ronnie Herne (continued) 

IND42-9 Geological issues associated with sit

North Spit are discussed in section 4.1.2 

IND42-10 The draft EIS is not silent on discuss

read section 1.3. The EIS follows the dirregulations for implementing the NEPA addressing the project purpose and need. PM2-14. 

IND42-11 The report in question has been revi

staff and is part of the public record. On Cove filed a revised tsunami study. See PM2-5 and SA2-227. The results of the the final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-133

IND42 Ronnie Herne (continued) 

IND42-12 See response to comment IND42-11IND42-13 The revised tsunami study is in the p

proceeding and anyone can comment upoconsider comments received up until the final EIS, which is longer than 45 days afiled. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-134

IND43 Beverly Segner 

IND43-1 See response to comment PM1-1. IND43-2 See response to comment PM1-113. IND43-3 See response to comment PM1-114. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-135

IND43 Beverly Segner (continued) 

IND43-4 The potential concern by the medica

delays at the airport has been added to seThe Coos County Airport Commission, wFederal law for the safe and secure operaRegional Airport, has reviewed the projeFAA. The Airport Commission has statethat would affect the daily operations of restrictions or closure. See comments on PM1. 

IND43-5 Cumulative impacts are addressed in IND43-6 The beginning of each resource sect

existing environment. See responses to c

IND43-7 See response to comments PM1-8 anIND43-8 Low wind speeds yield longer hazar

dispersion characteristics of dense cloudthe higher wind speeds suggested would vapor and shorter dispersion distances. 

IND43-9 The 2004 Sandia Report states “mos

identified [would] produce an ignition solikely to occur.” This is further discusseEIS. An LNG carrier would not transit Bridge and therefore there would be no non use of this bridge. Section 4.9.2.4 of airport operations. See also response to 

IND43-10 See response to comments PM1-45, 

IND8-4. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-136

IND43 Beverly Segner (continued) 

IND43-11 The EIS establishes a baseline for impa

through the description of the existing envirsections 4.3.3 and 4.4. See also response to 

IND43-12 See response to comments PM1-22 and 

alternatives analysis in the draft EIS and the EIS includes discussion of baseline conditioimpacts to the human environment and cultu4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, and 4.11. 

IND43-13 The EIS describes alternatives where c

proposed, including for a wetland mitigation and 4.3.3.3), habitat and rare species mitigat4.5.2), and visual mitigation (see sections 4.sections of the final EIS include updated disproposed mitigation measures based on revisince publication of the draft EIS. 

IND43-14 Herbicides would not be used for routin

maintenance. Herbicide use would be limitenuisance vegetation or select use within aboherbicides would be used for vegetation conlandowner or land-managing agency. 

IND43-15 While the impacts associated with the Z

in each resource section, we believe that the occur to be extremely low due to the implemrecommendations listed in the Coast Guard’

IND43-16 Section 3 of the EIS includes a discussi

other LNG projects on the West Coast and oNorthwest. 

IND43-17 We disagree. The impacts to residentia

well as planned development in zones 2 and 4.7.1.2. The analysis was conducted with init was conducted. The section is updated in information available since publication of th
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-137

IND44 Marcella and Alan Laudani 

IND44-1 The existing soil conditions and pote

nearby waterbodies, including from soil addressed in section 4.2.3 of the EIS. 

IND44-2 Any disruption of power would be te

following construction. Landowners can Connector specific requirements during cproperties. Additionally, easement negoConnector and the landowner would incluse during construction, loss of nonrenewdamage done to property during construc
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-138

IND44 Marcella and Alan Laudani 

IND44-3 The possible alternative in question 

4.9.3.2 of the final EIS. 

IND44-4 See response to comment IND44-1. 

developed BMPs that would be implemepotential for erosion and sedimentation. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-139

IND44 Marcella and Alan Laudani (continued

ND44-5 IND44-5 While this area has bee

likelihood of requiring blasting, that iBedrock in this area ranges from lithic paralithic bedrock and tuffs may not rblasting be required, significant fractulimited to 6 to 12 feet from the blast hoccurring below the blastholes. Pacifiplugs or breakers to maintain existing where encountered, and along slopes. fact that trenching would be temporarwells beyond 200 feet is not anticipateFurther, Pacific Connector, on JanuarCommission, a contaminated substanc

describes methods to deal with contamduring excavation for pipeline installaTemporary water could be supplied by temporarily piping water from anotheexisting well is damaged, permanent rre-drilling or repair of the existing we

IND44-6 The HDD of the Rogue River should 

Market and the Shady Trails Motor Hthe EIS addresses pipeline safety. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-140

IND44 Marcella and Alan Laudani (continued

IND44-7 See Section 4.12.10.1 includes discu

the proposed natural gas pipeline, includevent of a fire. The DOT is mandated to 49 USC § 601. The available data show continue to be a safe, reliable means of enot agree that locating the pipeline as pro

IND44-8 See response to comments PM1-57 a
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-141

IND44 Marcella and Alan Laudani (continued
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-142

IND44 Marcella and Alan Laudani (continued

IND44-9 The stated purpose and need for the 

on the Pacific Northwest, Northern Nevadifferent markets than those served by th

IND44-10 See response to comment PM3-70. IND44-11 The proposed pipeline would be des

accordance with DOT Minimum Federal no indication that Pacific Connector woufor welding pipeline joints. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-143

IND44 Marcella and Alan Laudani (continued
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-144

IND45 Bob Barker 

IND45-1 The comment period on the draft EI

FERC allows for a 90 day formal commeThe FERC staff will consider public comdraft EIS comment deadline of DecembeEIS is written. 

IND45-2 Jordan Cove applied to the FERC to 

terminal to import LNG. The Commissiaction. A decision to authorize the projeCP07-444-000 would only allow for the Jordan Cove terminal. Jordan Cove wouLNG under this application. 

IND45-3 As stated in section 2.3.3.1of the EIS

regulated by the FERC, typical permanenfederal lands are 50 feet wide. Additionawould not allow the permanent easement other than the interstate transportation of 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-145

IND45 Bob Barker (continued) 

IND45-4 It is not FERC’s practice to require p

as conditions in the EIS process. Howevthe federal, state, and local levels could, appropriate, include performance bonds 

IND45-5 We have recommended that on-site, 

monitors representing the FERC be presepipeline construction phases (including rduring LNG terminal construction, to ascbuilt as outlined in this EIS, and in accorconditions of the FERC Order. Informatcontractor would be part of the public recinformation would be provided for landoissues to the third-party compliance monconstruction. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-146

IND45 Bob Barker (continued) 

IND45-6 See response to comment PM2-14. IND45-7 See response to comment PM3-51. IND45-8 The contingency plans for crossings 

Rivers in the event the proposed HDDs oconsist of wet open cut crossings at apprThis was identified in the draft EIS and wcomment during the 90-day comment peAlthough the project has not been approvshould these plans be required were evalshould either of the HDD crossings fail, required to obtain all necessary permits awork from appropriate agencies prior to crossing. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-147

IND45 Bob Barker (continued) 

IND45-9 Pacific Connector has filed addition

proposed mitigation plan, and the Forest comments on that plan. The intent of the the project would be neutral or beneficiamaintenance of late successional reserve cannot be met, the Forest Service would necessary. The final EIS includes additiomitigation plan and forest plan amendme

IND45-10 The EIS is a disclosure document th

impacts in adequate detail. While the vabeen identified, and mitigation measures studies and plans may be required prior treferenced aquatic species nuisance prevdiscloses what information may be lackin

potential project impacts on specific resogeneral plans or conceptual measures thamitigate impacts. The public is able to cplans as identified in the EIS. See respon

IND45-11 See response to comment IND45-4. IND45-12 See response to comment IND45-9. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-148

IND45 Bob Barker (continued) 

IND45-13 See response to comment IND45-9. IND45-14 See response to comment IND45-9. IND45-15 Pacific Connector filed its proposed 

lupine with the Commission on Decembebeen revised to include this new informathe project record and has been available comment since December 4, 2009. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-149

IND45 Bob Barker (continued) 

IND45-16 The EIS acknowledges that HDD op

weeks to complete, and that adjacent lannoise and construction activity during thiTypically, easement agreement between specifies compensation for losses resultinincluding losses of non-renewable and otproperty during construction, and restrictwould not be permitted on the permanenconstruction. It is possible that Pacific C

landowners located close to the HDD ophowever, we cannot speculate on the comconcerning such compensation negotiatiodescribes measures that would be implemminimize noise impacts on adjacent landoperations. 

IND45-17 Pacific Connector’s would provide i

Resolution process to affected landowneacquisition process. The FERC also has contact the FERC if landowners cannot r

Pacific Connector. Enforcement Hotline888-889-8030. A guide for landowners ihttp://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/citizen-

IND45-18 Discussion has been added concerni

(KOP-P2) in section 4.7.3.4 of the final E
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-150

IND45 Bob Barker (continued) 

IND45-19 Pacific Connector filed new informa

Old Ferry Road with the Commission on EIS has been revised to include this new information is in the project record and hand public comment since December 4, 2
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-151

IND45 Bob Barker (continued) 

IND45-20 Estimated ambient noise, and predic

HDD operation at the Rogue River are dsection 4.11.2.4 of the EIS. As shown in noise at the NSA from an HDD located owith the proposed acoustic tent in place w

recommended noise limit (during operatiof 55 Ldn. These impacts would be temp

IND45-21 Pacific Connector filed new informa

December 4, 2009. The final EIS has be

information. This information is in the pavailable for review and public comment 

IND45-22 See response to comment IND45-10
Appendix J – Comment

J.IND-152

IND46 Jennifer Council 

IND46-1 See response to comments PM1-24, 

PM2-14. 

IND46-2 See response to comment PM2-8. IND46-3 An HDD would not be used to cross 

See response to comments PM3-2 and PM

IND46-4 Our conclusion of the no action alter

section 3.1 of the EIS. 

IND46-5 Section 4.7 of the EIS addresses imp

communities that would be affected by thsection 4.7, many land uses, including faallowed on the pipeline right-of-way foll4.8 of the EIS also addresses socioeconolandowners and communities, including production from the permanently maintaSee response to comment PM2-14 in reg