Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-1

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-2

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-3

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-4

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-5

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-1 John Scott was the designated representa

Regulatory Commission (FERC or CommBend meeting to take public comments oProject draft environmental impact statemfor Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (Tetra Tech), the environmental contractor for this projectFERC staff were unable to attend the Nodue to a medical emergency and problem
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-6

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-2 There is no evidence that the Jordan Cov

(LNG) Project would result in permanenThe EIS addresses the potential for soil csections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.2, and the potentconstruction or operation of the terminal resources is addressed in sections 4.3.1.2Cove Energy Project LP would handle coprocedures outlined in its Unanticipated To handle spills, Jordan Cove would follContainment, and Countermeasure Plan. 

resulting from the Jordan Cove LNG term4.5.2.1 and 4.5.2.2 of the EIS. 

PM1-3 Miles of estuary would not be filled in by 

described in section 2.1.4.1 of the EIS, dto construct an access channel from the echannel to the proposed LNG terminal sl15.8 acres of currently existing deep subthe estuary would not be filled in. Dispodescribed in section 2.1.4.4. In section 3recommended that Pacific Connector folto reduce impacts on the Coos Bay estuathat recommendation in a filing on Decemproposed pipeline route would cross abocompared to the route proposed in the Sewould cross about 7 miles of Coos Bay. estuary is described in section 4.3.2.5 of in filling in the bay. Removal of forest wdiscussed in sections 4.4.1.3 and 4.4.2.1 the avoidance or reduction of impacts on (LSR) in section 3.4.3.2. In response to 30 in section 5.2) in the draft EIS, on DeConnector filed measures it would impleLSRs on National Forest System (NFS) l
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-7

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-8

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-4 The FERC is accountable for making the 

authorize the proposed project. The EIS environmental impacts and mitigation mdecides to authorize the project, it may aconditions recommended in the EIS as pconditions would be enforceable, and nofines up to a million dollars a day, in accEnergy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05). Tresponsible for monitoring the constructiproject, making certain that the environmare adhered to. The draft EIS recommensection 5.2) that Jordan Cove and Pacific environmental monitoring program. In aService (USFS), U.S. Bureau of Land MBureau of Reclamation (BOR) would mooperation of facilities on federal lands. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-9

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-5 The Blue Ridge Pipeline Route Variation 

section 3.4.2.2 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-10

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-11

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-6 As described in section 1.1 of the EIS, th

onshore LNG terminals and interstate napipelines is a federal process that lies witthe Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the EPAapprovals, and regulatory requirements aOpportunities for public input are definepermitting and regulatory processes. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-12

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-13

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-7 Section 4.3.2.2 of the EIS acknowledge

Category 5 waterbody under section 30(CWA), and is considered impaired by Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Potenon Coos Bay are discussed in the EIS iImpacts on the estuary would be reduce

route to cross Coos Bay, see discussion and our response to comment PM1-3. 

PM1-8 Alternatives were discussed in section 

with regulations issued by the Council (CEQ) for implementing the National E(NEPA), at 40 CFR Part 1502.14. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-14

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-9 A programmatic EIS is not required for 

practice to review each proposal indiviHowever, the alternatives section (3) oother regional proposed projects. The document, and does not contain predeteEIS is the culmination of independent aFERC staff, our third-party environmenand the cooperating agencies. We do ncontains numerous errors. The next vedocument after the draft is the final EISfew errors identified by commentors on 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-15

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-10 The U.S. Congress granted companies 

the FERC the power of eminent domaiNGA. Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline still be required to compensate landoweasement and damages incurred during level of compensation would be determstate or federal law. The rights of landnegotiations are discussed in sections 2If landowners reach agreements with Ppipeline easement, eminent domain wo
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-16

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-11 The Oregon Department of Energy (OD

project is not needed. In fact, the ODE additional demands for natural gas in OODE report is discussed in sections 1.3EIS. Section 3 of the EIS addresses altthat the Ruby Project is currently being Pre-filing process (in Docket No. PF08Project also recently initiated review unprocess (in Docket No. PF09-2), the coput this project on hold because of a lacRuby or Sunstone would meet some of Cove LNG Project in that they do not pnew source of natural gas for the Pacifipipelines may have greater environmenConnector pipeline. 

PM1-12 It is debatable whether or not the cost o

than the cost of domestically produced time. Staff research, cited in section 1.prices vary over time due to market concosts less than domestic natural gas. A International (ICF), filed by Jordan Coindicated that if additional sources of Lexporting countries come online in the LNG to Oregon would be $6.50 per MMof Rocky Mountain natural gas would b
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-17

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-18

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-13 Higher natural gas prices have been cit

projected increased demand for total rediscussed in detail in section 3.1.3.1, reas solar, wind, and geothermal resourceproduce the amount of energy equal to 

PM1-14 It is typical practice for the Commissio

all other federal or state permits are obOrder would be conditional, and constrnot begin until all necessary permits arcourts have ruled that state and local agdelay construction of FERC approved fallows the Commission to set a scheduauthorizations. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-19

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-20

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-21

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-15 Potential project related impacts on fish

sections 4.5.2 and 4.6 of the EIS. The meets the requirements of the CEQ regthe NEPA. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-22

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-16 The draft EIS addresses all the topics r

in section 1.6. 

PM1-17 The FERC will submitted its biologica

project to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife SeMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at ap

that the final EIS is issued. In accordanEIS contains only a brief outline of the section 1.3. The Commission will detein its decisional Order. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-23

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-24

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-18 We do not consider it a burden to comm

90 days. Typical FERC comment perioare only 45 days. Staff will consider coofficial deadline of December 4, 2008 uwriting the final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-25

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-26

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-27

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-19 Jordan Cove applied to the FERC to co

to import LNG. The Commission wouA decision to authorize the project prop444-000 would only allow for the impoCove terminal. Jordan Cove would nounder this application. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-28

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-20 See response to comment PM1-12. PM1-21 See response to PM1-5. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-29

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-30

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-31

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-32

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-22 We disagree. The EIS is complete and 

requirements outlined by the CEQ to saresponse to comments PM1-8 and PM1

 The Alternatives section (3) of the draf

That section explained why some alternothers found not to be environmentally LNG Project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-33

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-34

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-23 Maps of the proposed pipeline route are inclu

of alternative pipeline segments are included maps are copies of portions of 7.5-minute U.Stopographic quadrangles at a scale of 1:24,00adequate to illustrate the proposed route againLandowners should be able to determine the r

maps. In addition, Pacific Connector filed m

scale of 1 inch equals 200 feet. Copies of the local libraries for public inspection. 

PM1-24 Section 1.3 of the EIS includes a brief discus

reserves. The EIS discusses the ODE report i

PM1-25 Information concerning newly proposed pipePM1-26 On December 1, 2008 Jordan Cove filed a tsu

are discussed in the final EIS. 

PM1-27 In a December 4, 2008 filing, Pacific Connec

bearing deposits at the newly proposed crossialong the adopted Peavine route variation. HDecember 22, 2008, the FERC staff asked for from this response has been incorporated into 

PM1-28 On December 5, 2008 Jordan Cove filed a co

Aviation Administration (FAA) for a hazard of the LNG terminal in relation to the operatiAirport in North Bend. The FAA hazard deteEIS. 

PM1-29 Renewable energy resources such as wind, ge

discussed as potential alternatives in section 3
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-35

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-30 No one would be at risk from the Jorda

of the safety and security measures thaexplained in section 4.12 of the EIS, wbuilt and operated in a safe manner witCalifornia has not turned down every Lsection 3.2.4.3 of the EIS, there are sevreview off the coast of California. As eand 4.7.3.2 of the EIS, private property would not be subject to eminent domaimutually acceptable negotiated agreem
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-36

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-31 According to our research, no one lives 

the Jordan Cove LNG terminal. In a fiPacific Connector stated that it does nogas to be transported through its pipelinby any regulation or code and odorizatifor industrial uses such as for power geconstruction and operation of the termiCompressor Station is discussed in secthe residence closest to the compressor predicted to be 64 decibels; much lowe747 jet plane. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-37

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-32 See response to comment PM1-31. PM1-33 The EIS presents our estimates for the 

employed during construction and opersections 4.8.2.1 and 4.8.3.1. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-38

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-34 Production of the draft EIS was not rus

after the initiation of Pre-filing to resea

EIS. The EIS is complete, and meets thcomply with the NEPA. 

PM1-35 See response to comment PM1-26. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-39

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-40

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-36 Wind energy as a potential alternative t

discussed in section 3.1.3.1 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-41

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-42

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-43

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-37 Section 4.8.2.3 of the final EIS has bee

reasons for the use of the referenced stulimitations in applying the results of thproject. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-44

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-38 This is a stylist issue with respect to ho

EIS. The words "would,” “could,” or “

used to convey that during the environmproposed but not yet authorized. Staff conditions it recommends in the EIS, thadopt as requirements of an Order. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-45

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-46

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-39 Section 4.8.2.3 of the final EIS has bee

discussion of the referenced study, prepAssociates in response to LNG projects Passamaquoddy Bay in Maine. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-47

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-48

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-49

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-50

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-51

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-52

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-53

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-54

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-55

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-40 We believe the version of Resource Repo

comment is from the draft version submiJanuary 2007, during the Pre-Filing Procuncontrolled emissions, and therefore doallowable uncontrolled emissions. The dthe estimated controlled emissions from summarized in the latest version of Jorda(Appendix B.9) filed with its application September 2007. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-56

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-57

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-41 It is not necessarily true that “hundreds o

released from a location between two and population and which is directly upwind would destroy local air quality.” Impactpollutant dispersion, which in turn depentemperature, and other variables. The bepotential impacts of an upwind source on dispersion modeling, which is what was 

 Emission limits set by air quality standar

Section 108 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)"allowing an adequate margin of safety..We believe it is appropriate to evaluate pbased on conformance to existing air qua
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-58

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-42 Potential socioeconomic impacts from 

including potential impacts on populati4.8.2 of the EIS. There is no evidence Coos Bay area would become less attraCove LNG Project was built, or result inumber of households in the region. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-59

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-60

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-43 The EIS is a disclosure document that id

impacts in adequate detail. While the vabeen identified, and mitigation measures studies and plans may be required to addcircumstances. The EIS discloses what ihow we would account for potential projresources in those situations, and general that would be finalized later to mitigate ihas held that “NEPA does not require a cformulated at the onset, but only that the 

followed for ensuring that the environmefairly evaluated.” We have recommenderequest for an FAA feasibility study, that measures are implemented, necessary pestatutory or regulatory requirements are mcomment PM1-28. 

PM1-44 Potential project related impacts on the 

Airport at North Bend are discussed in 4.9.2.4 of the EIS. The Coos County Aoperates the airport, stated that flights wpassage of LNG carriers heading to the 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-61

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-62

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-45 While the draft EIS recommends that th

additional data before the end of the coexplains the specific circumstances for most cases, environmental impacts are draft EIS. The additional information cor would provide more refined mitigatiimpacts. Because the data requested wthe public had an opportunity to commimpacts on certain resources within the closed on December 4, 2008. Howeve

consider public comments submitted afdeadline of December 4, 2008, up until final EIS includes the additional data firesponse to requests in the draft. ThereNEPA requirements. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-63

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-46 Higher wind speeds would tend to decr

distance. Higher wind speeds would almore atmospheric instability, which wodownwind dispersion distance. 49 CFR dispersion distances be calculated for tmeteorological conditions which would downwind distances at least 90 percent the time. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-64

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-47 See response to comment PM1-45. Th

comment period. 

PM1-48 On January 2, 2009, the FERC sent a d

requesting additional information abouwould be transported from the LNG terservice. Section 2.2.1 of the final EIS incorporate additional information on tliquids. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-65

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-49 See response to comment PM1-45. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-66

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-50 We disagree. The EIS meets the requir

to satisfy the NEPA. See also response PM1-22, and PM1-34. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-67

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-51 Alternatives are discussed is section 3 o

with regulations issued by the CEQ for CFR Part 1502.14. See response to com

PM1-52 As explained in 3.1 of the draft EIS, we 

reasonable if they were technically feasthe objectives of the proposed project. determine the objectives of their projecupheld in the courts. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-68

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-53 The FERC initiated its Pre-filing review 

Docket No. PF09-2, on November 14, not yet filed any environmental data abSunstone requested that the FERC staff it firms up market support. The Sunstothan the Pacific Connector pipeline, anenvironmentally superior because it masome resources. The final EIS includeSunstone Project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-69

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-54 Because you do not like the style or org

make it deficient. It is organized like mdocuments produced by the FERC, and complying with the NEPA. The EIS dienvironmental impacts of the proposed document. The FERC staff concluded tconstructed and operated with the propplace, including measures put forward recommended by the staff, it would havThat is staff’s opinion, and not the finaIn section 5.2 staff lists recommended the Commission decides to authorize thor all the staff’s recommendations as enOrder. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-70

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-71

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-55 The EIS discusses potential impacts on 

Recreation Area in section 4.7.2.3. ThEstuarine Research Reserve is located o

Concern and would not be affected by EIS does not address resources to whic
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-72

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-56 Section 3.1.3.1of the draft EIS addresse

renewable resources that may be considproposed project. See response to com
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-73

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-74

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-57 There is no evidence that the constructi

Jordan Cove LNG Project would have proposed renewable energy projects, suIn fact, Oregon’s Renewable Portfolio section 3.1.3.1 of the EIS, should encourenewable energy projects in the futureproject related air pollution in section 4section 4.8, the Jordan Cove LNG and Project is predicted to have a positive eeconomy, due to construction and operrevenues. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-75

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-58 The EIS was written by the FERC staff 

environmental contractor (Tetra Tech), cooperating agencies. See response to 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-76

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-59 The FERC did not extend the period fo

EIS past 90 days. See response to com

PM1-60 The EIS, including analysis of alternati

outlined by the CEQ to satisfy the NEPcomments PM1-8 and PM1-58. The finrevision to the environmental documenmade in response to comments on the d
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-77

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-78

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-61 There is no such thing as a “blast zone.

does not explode. If there was a releasand the vapor would be flammable if sesource. The Coast Guard defined three on the Sandia Report. See section 4.12detailed discussion. As stated in sectioand 4.8.1.2 of the EIS, staff was not abwithin Zone 1, within 500 meters of the traffic or the LNG terminal. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-79

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-80

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-81

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-82

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-62 See response to comment PM1-1. Req

be made by intervenors in the proceediissues its decision in a project Order. Tmake its decision until after the final Ecomments PM1-15 and PM1-59. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-83

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-63 See response to comments PM1-45 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-84

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-64 The draft EIS disclosed all recommend

landowners along the route changes hawithin the 90 days allotted for commen

showing the locations of those route chdraft EIS. With regard to recommendefiling on August 7, 2008 Pacific Connecontacted all landowners along this rouFebruary 29, 2008. The FERC incorpoour mailing list, and sent them copies obecome an intervenor late in the procesBeing an affected landowner is typicallThe Blue Ridge Route Alternative is dithe EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-85

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-65 Jordan Cove filed its tsunami study on 

is in the public record for this proceediupon it. The FERC staff will consider 

the time we finish writing the final EISafter the tsunami study was filed. Sectdiscusses the study. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-86

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-66 Jordan Cove filed its Request for a Haz

FAA on December 5, 2008. That docuLNG tanks as 202 feet and 8 inches frodome. This differs from Jordan Cove’s Design, which indicated that the top of above grade. We clarify the height of tresponse to comments PM1-28 and PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-87

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-67 EPact05 requires that Jordan Cove, in c

Guard and local agencies, prepare its E(ERP) to be reviewed and approved by approval to begin construction.” Recomsection 5.2 of the draft EIS requests thareview and approval prior to initial site practice has been for applicants to docuappropriate stake-holders during develocorrespondence to and from the Coast state and county local emergency plannlocal law enforcement agencies, and lo
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-88

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-68 The EIS discusses solar energy in secti

comment PM1-57. 

PM1-69 See response to comments PM1-8 and 

the Commission responded to Senator Wdated October 21, 2008 that explained the comment period. The FERC maile

landowners identified by the applicantsrecommended route changes. See respThe draft EIS contained maps of the pralternatives. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-89

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-90

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-70 The draft EIS was done properly. See 

PM1-15, PM1-16, PM1-18, PM1-22, PPM1-69. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-91

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-71 The FERC sent copies of the draft EIS 

names and addresses were provided by is available through the FERC internet sent to local libraries. If you were inadmailing list for the draft EIS, you will bfinal EIS if you requested to be added tmeeting. The draft EIS contains maps alternative routes. See response to com
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-92

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-93

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-72 How can you comment on a document 

read? The purpose of the EIS is to discand discuss mitigation of impacts, incluthat may avoid or lessen impacts, as meresponse to comments PM1-15, PM1-2

PM1-73 See response to comments PM1-43 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-94

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-74 Mitigation of impacts on eel grass beds 

4.3.3.2 of the EIS. We recommend, in the draft EIS, that Jordan Cove prepare mitigation plan for eel grass, in consultODSL, and ODFW, for our review and construction. As stated in section 2.1.3 proposed Jordan Cove terminal would vessels up to 217,000 cubic meters (m3

with a representative of the Coos Bay Psimulator services provided by Marine Middletown, Rhode Island, assisted by Hill, Florida, to provide tug support simcarriers up to 148,000 m3 in capacity co

from the proposed Jordan Cove LNG teCoos Bay navigation channel, with the conditions. Based on this study, the Coto the FERC on July 1, 2008, restricted can use the Jordan Cove import termin148,000 m3 in capacity (see EIS appen

size, Jordan Cove LNG would need to Coast Guard, and the project change wenvironmental and safety/security revie
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-95

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-75 The draft EIS contained maps of the pr

routes. See response to comment PM1
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-96

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-76 The draft EIS was complete and was no

be withdrawn. See responses to commPM1-23, PM1-34, PM1-45, PM1-60, a
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-97

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-98

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-77 See response to comments PM1-26 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-99

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-100

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-78 A detailed discussion on reliability and 

section 4.12 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-101

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-102

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-79 A detailed discussion on the reliability 

be found in section 4.12.10 of the EIS. recommended route changes; see respoPM1-71. We are not extending the perthe DEIS for reasons explained in respoJohn Scott was the FERC representativ

as explained in response to comment P

PM1-80 The draft EIS was not deficient, and m

complying with the NEPA. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-103

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-104

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-105

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-81 See response to comment PM1-5. The 

impacts on domestic water sources in ssection 5.2 of the draft EIS, we recommPacific Connector file a plan outlining to mitigate pipeline construction impacsystems. 

PM1-82 The EIS discusses control of off-road v

4.7.3.2. ORV control is included in PaControl and Reclamation Plan (ECRP)is a concern, landowners could negotiainstall and maintain barriers across the negotiations. 

PM1-83 Project related impacts on timber lands 

4.4.1.3 and 4.4.2 of the draft EIS. Landcan negotiate with Pacific Connector foeasement for the pipeline right-of-way. agreements include monetary compenswoodlots or other forested areas. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-106

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-107

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-84 See response to comment PM1-6. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-108

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-109

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-85 See response to comments PM1-6 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-110

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-86 See response to comments PM1-45 and PM1-87 The Commission will make a determin

Order for this project. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-111

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-88 Section 3 of the draft EIS addressed alt

to meet the CEQ requirements for impl40 CFR Part 1502.14. 

PM1-89 Section 3.1.3.1 of the draft EIS discuss

resources, including solar and hydrokin
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-112

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-113

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-114

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-90 Please read section 1.3 of the EIS. See 

PM1-9 and PM1-58. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-115

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-116

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-117

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-118

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-91 Section 3 of the EIS discusses the no ac

renewable energy alternatives includinbiomass, solar, wind, nuclear; system anewly proposed pipelines; existing LNterminals on the Pacific Coast of North proposals in Mexico, two proposals in California, and two proposals in Oregolocations and facility designs in Coos Band multiple pipeline route alternatives
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-119

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-92 While raw natural gas extracted from th

of greater than 70 percent hydrogen sul

to remove H2S prior to liquefaction and 

freezing point of H2S is significantly hi

Celsius at which the LNG freezes. Any 

and be removed from the LNG prior to carrier. Any free sulfur in the LNG thasulfate reducing bacteria in the pipeline the pipe itself. State and federal rules rmonitor valves and pipes to ensure that burning, any H2S would convert to wat

is a regulated pollutant. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-120

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-121

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-93 Safety, security, and reliability are disc

EIS. This includes an assessment of ricase scenarios within the context of the 

PM1-94 For the terminal, the 10-minute spill cr

maximum flow possible for containmethat impoundments are sized for a worsrecognizing that less conservative spill to calculate exclusion zones. Impacts 

Concern are disclosed in each resource potential for those impacts to occur to bimplementation of the recommendationWSR. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-122

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-95 In its 2004 report, Sandia looked at cas

determined it would not likely involve tanks. These cascading events would nsignificantly increase the overall fire hafire would increase. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-123

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-96 The EIS shows that with the safety and 

by Jordan Cove, recommended by the FCoast Guard, it is highly unlikely that athe last 35 years since onshore LNG imoperating in the United States there has resulted in public harm. NEPA does nunlikely events. However, the EIS discbetter inform the public about how risk

PM1-97 Pipeline safety is addressed in section 4PM1-98 As pointed out in section 4.7.2.2 of the 

within 1 mile of the LNG terminal, and there are only 13 residences within 150 extent possible, Pacific Connector attemareas. See section 3.4.1 of the EIS for Connector selected its route. Safety is Impacts on forest are disclosed in sectigave companies with a FERC certificat

domain through section 7h of the NGA
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-124

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-99 The EIS is not incomplete. PM1-100 The comment period on the draft EIS i

held four public meetings to take commwe believe is sufficient. See response tand PM1-67. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-125

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-101 In its 2003 report, Quest Consultants, I

LNG carrier would have a volume of 1described in ABSG’s 2004 report was ua spill volume of 23,000 m3 of LNG abvolume was used to calculate the thermdispersion distances for holes ranging imeters. 

PM1-102 See the discussion on alternatives in s

the Bradwood Pipeline would be shortpipeline, and have less environmental may decide to authorize the Jordan Coreasons. In other cases, the Commissi

with greater environmental impacts thnon-environmental reasons, such as to pipeline competition, or to break a regof natural gas to a specific set of custonot typically choose between competiwould rather independently evaluate emerits. The Commission is willing to within the same region, if each is judgenvironmentally acceptable, and allow what projects it would support, and thdetermine what infrastructure ultimateand Pacific Connector would not be sptheir proposals if they did not believe market support, if authorized by the F
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-126

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-103 The FERC staff’s rational for believing 

(WC1-1A) is environmentally superior proposed in Pacific Connector’s Septemto 9 was disclosed in section 3.4.2.1 of our recommendation (condition 22 of son December 4, 2008 Pacific Connectoabout its new proposed route (WC-1A-11.4. In a December 29, 2008 data reqenvironmental data based upon on-the-results of those surveys are incorporate

data includes the potential for geologicalong the new proposed route, and propimpacts from such hazards. On Januarfiled a revised Geologic Hazards reporrealignment in responses to the draft EIaddressed in section 4.12.10. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-127

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-104 The period for commenting on the draf

See response to comment PM1-18. Padiscussed in section 4.12.10.1 of the EIPM1-67. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-128

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-105 This meeting will not be rescheduled, a

was in attendance. See response to PMsystem was provided by the City of Noproperly recorded and a copy of the trarecord for this proceeding. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-129

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-106 See response to comment PM1-8. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-130

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-107 The socioeconomics of the proposed pr

section 4.8 of the EIS. See response to and PM1-91. 

PM1-108 See response to comments PM1-43, PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-131

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-109 Proposed measures to mitigate impacts 

construction near residences are discusthe EIS. 

PM1-110 Herbicides that may be used for the Pa

discussed in section 4.5.1.3 of the EIS. toxicity of 2,4D. 

PM1-111 The Zones of Concern are explained in 

The final EIS includes figures that illusextending up the waterway and around proposed LNG terminal. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-132

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-112 See response to comments PM1-94 and PM1-113 Risks to the public within the Zones of 

for LNG marine traffic and the LNG te

sections 4.7.1, 4.7.2, and 4.12 of the EIthe draft EIS are included in this appen
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-133

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-114 With respect to Dr. Morgan’s commen

PM1-40 through PM1-42 and IND18-1 environmental impacts of the proposed facilities within the Zones of Concern aand 4.7.2 of the EIS.
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-134

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-135

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-115 Nothing is a done deal. No decision ha

project. See response to comments PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-136

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-116 See response to comment PM1-105. W

public meetings in southern Oregon to EIS was sufficient. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-137

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-138

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-117 Section 4.1.2.5 of the EIS includes a su

seismic hazards and the design requirem

to address these hazards. Section 4.1.2specific investigation and seismic hazadetailed recommendations for measureaddress the seismic conditions at the si
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-139

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-118 Jordan Cove conducted a site-specific t

current understanding and modeling of site, and filed the results with the FERC Section 4.1.2.4 of the EIS has been revthis new analysis. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-140

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-119 With respect to modeling of potential t

to PM1-118. Revised tsunami hazard mmaximum inundation at the LNG slip dtsunami would be about 20 feet. The finclude this new information and addreinundation on LNG vessels. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-141

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-120 See response to comment PM1-118. PM1-121 We disagree with the statement that the 

in direct conflict with the identified loninvestment strategy. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-142

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-122 Section 4.8 of the EIS is a socioeconom

on property values are discussed in this comment PM1-37. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-143

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-123 The report prepared by ECONorthwest 

Cove as part of its application to the FEindependent third-party contractor. Sethe final EIS have been revised to makprojections more clear. Sections 4.8.2.that results of another study of 11 existthe presence of an LNG facility did not negative effect on either wages or prop1994). 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-144

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-124 The EIS complies with the NEPA. Sec

contains estimates for employment and the applicants and independent researchPM1-22 and PM1-58.
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-145

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-146

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-125 See response to comment PM1-19. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-147

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-148

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-126 See response to comment PM1-1. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-149

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-150

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-127 We have addressed this issue in section 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-151

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-128 As described in section 2.2.1 of the EIS

(NGL) may be separated when the LNG This separation of NGL is not considerSee also response to comment PM1-48
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-152

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-153

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-154

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-155

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-129 We believe this comment is in referenc

Environmental Justice in sections 4.8.2to address whether or not the proposed communities with disproportionately hincome populations. These sections do economic structure of the Project area wresponse to comments PM1-43 and PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-156

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob

PM1-130 Potential project related impacts on rec

are addressed in sections 4.7.1.3 and 4.
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-157

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-131 Section 4.11.1 of the EIS addresses pot

on air quality. Impacts from potential fsections 4.3.2.3, 4.3.2.4, and 4.3.2.5. Iaddressed in section 4.7.1.3 and 4.8.1.8impacts on marine mammals are discus

PM1-132 The decisions made by the Oregon Lan

(LUBA) are public information, and caweb page. The EIS summaries LUBA to the Jordan Cove LNG Project in sec

PM1-133 See response to comments PM1-1 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-158

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-134 Section 4.7.1.2 and figure 4.7-1 of the 

include new data provided by Jordan Csimilar comments received on the draft 

PM1-135 The potential dangers of the proposed L

that can be done and have been proposare discussed in several locations withiGeneral LNG hazards are discussed in includes our recommendations for addimeasures to ensure risks are minimizeddiscussion of siting requirements, inclupopulation areas. Alternatives are addr
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-159

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-136 See response to comment PM1-8. PM1-137 According to the Coast Guard’s WSR, 

the EIS, the waterway could be made s

if certain conditions were met. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-160

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – OctobPM1-138 The EIS mentions Simpson Reef as par

National Wildlife Refuge in section 4.7Concern 3 would overlap a portion of tReef is actually outside of the zones anaffected by the proposed Jordan Cove L
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-161

PM1 North Bend Public Meeting – Octob