Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-119

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-59 We note this comment references secti

summary only. Further explanation of found in the appropriate sections of seresponse to comments IND3-1, PM1-4
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-120

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

J.CO-121

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

J.CO-122

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

J.CO-123

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

J.CO-124

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

J.CO-125

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

J.CO-126

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

J.CO-127

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

J.CO-128

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

J.CO-129

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

J.CO-130

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

J.CO-131

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

J.CO-132

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

J.CO-133

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

J.CO-134

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

J.CO-135

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

J.CO-136

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-60 The draft EIS is not silent on discussin

read section 1.3. The EIS follows the regulations for implementing the NEPA briefly addressing the project purpose will more fully consider the need for thdecision, as discussed in its project Ordocument; it merely makes recommenabout potential environmental impacts
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-137

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-61 See response to comments CO11-15 F
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-138

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-62 See response to comments IND23-5 an
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-139

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-63 We disagree. Alternatives are discusse

See response to comments IND8-7, an

CO11-64 We disagree that the alternatives analy

supplemental EIS is not required. See 13, IND3-16, IND3-17, IND8-7, and F
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-140

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

J.CO-141

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

J.CO-142

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-65 We disagree. Section 1.3 of the EIS co

description of the existing domestic nathe Pacific Northwest and the markets Project, and section 3.2.2 contains an adomestic natural gas supply alternativeSee response to comment IND8-7. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-143

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

J.CO-144

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-66 We disagree. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 inc

existing, proposed, and other potential the proposed LNG terminal site. A smalternative is evaluated in section 3.3.2alternatives, including use of the Coos Medford Lateral are addressed in sectithe reasoning for evaluating potential ravoidance of sensitive resources. See IND8-7, FA2-15, FA2-31, and SA2-16
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-145

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

J.CO-146

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-67 Cumulative effects are discussed in sec

EIS meets the criteria outlined by the CCFR 1500-1508) implementing the NEdocument that identifies environmenta
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-147

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

J.CO-148

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-68 See response to comments CO11-67, P

CO11-57, FA2-8. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-149

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

J.CO-150

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

J.CO-151

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

J.CO-152

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-69 The EIS meets the criteria outlined by 

CFR 1500-1508) implementing the NEdocument that identifies environmentaSee response to comment IND3-1, PMPM1-14. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-153

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

J.CO-154

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-70 We disagree. The EIS includes an ade

impacts on aquatic resources. See resp
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-155

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-71 The potential impact on fisheries from 

Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) riv

section 4.5.2.3 of the EIS under the heDrilling Mud. The potential impacts oturtles, and the aquatic environment frof the LNG terminal is included in secparts of section 4.6. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-156

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-72 The combustion turbine proposed is no

because there is no steam production fheat recovery unit. The commenter states that “The DEIS Quality Data Summaries] or sufficient access that information.” Appendix K citation and the internet URL for these 2007g). The commenter states that “the [historaddress concentrations of PM2.5, a pothreats to human health in the project athat ambient monitoring of PM2.5 only older data are not available. PSD only concentrations of PM10, not PM2.5. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-157

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

The commenter states that the draft EIS “does not about potential impacts on [the nearest Class I] ardraft EIS shows the potential impacts on the Class The commenter states that “CO2 contributions frosignificantly exacerbate impacts on [Class I areasis incorrect; as noted by the Intergovernmental Pa“carbon dioxide...is distributed evenly around the the emissions originate” (IPCC, 2007). The commenter notes that annual impacts were bathroughput rather than maximum annual throughpCO13-40. The commenter states that “the DEIS must considthe entire project, and the project includes global terminal at Coos Bay. It is not within the purview where global transportation may occur from. Pollfunction of distance, and the proponents’ quantificevaluation of impacts within 1.5 hours of transit fthe “K” Buoy) are adequate for purposes of the EIThe commenter states that the DEIS only includes during berthing/deberthing and unloading activitiepage 4.11-7. Although 4.11-7 does refer to an anaberthing/deberthing and unloading activities, impaactivities are specifically quantified in tables 4.11The commenter feels that the statement “methane warming” is misleading and cites the IntergovernmChange (IPCC). IPCC identifies four levels of ce(> 99% probability of occurrence), “Extremely lik(> 90%), and “Likely” (> 66%)—and two levels oconfidence” represents at least a 9 out of 10 chancconfidence” represents about an 8 out of 10 chanc“may” has been used to reflect the fact that essentIPCC is absolutely certain. The commenter is concerned that methane emissioequivalents using the 100-year GWP of 21 rather This is by convention, and is consistent with all cuprocedures for greenhouse gases. The commenter identifies concern about potential LNG spill. Given that LNG has an excellent safetavailable to provide quantitative data regarding imspill. See discussion of LNG hazards in section 4
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-158

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

J.CO-159

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

J.CO-160

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-73 Air quality impacts are quantified and 

the DEIS. The commenter is also concstandards for carbon monoxide are not 

quality standard is subject to much debmuch greater extent than what the compurpose of the EIS is to provide informidentify relevant regulatory standards, has correctly set the standards. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-161

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

J.CO-162

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

J.CO-163

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

J.CO-164

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-74 Technical studies regarding PM have s

varying quality, and have associated umatter of policy, the Clean Air Act reqAmbient Air Quality Standards (NAAan adequate margin of safety, are requhealth”. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-165

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-75 The current NAAQS is in fact based en

collected by EPA; it is not the purpose EPA’s criteria documents, develop its separate from EPA, or speculate as to hNAAQS at the time of the next periodi
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-166

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

J.CO-167

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-76 See response to comment CO11-75. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-168

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

J.CO-169

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

J.CO-170

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-77 Ozone is addressed in section 4.11.1 o
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-171

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-78 Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) are ad

the EIS. 

CO11-79 The project has quantified emissions o

gases (GHGs) using the weighting factGHG inventory or trading program in corresponding impacts of the project ocompletely speculative. There are too (but not limited to) which alternative sused in place of LNG. See response to 4. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-172

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-80 We disagree. Hazards and risks relate

transport and storage are adequately adEIS. 

CO11-81 See response to comment SA2-246. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-173

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con

CO11-82 We disagree that the draft EIS violates 

the NEPA. The draft EIS does not neesupplemented, withdrawn, or re-issuedCEQ regulations for implementing the 
Appendix J – Comment

J.CO-174

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

J.CO-175

CO11 Friends of Living Oregon Waters (con