Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-103

SA3 Oregon Department of Justice 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-104

SA3 Oregon Department of Justice (continu

SA3-1 The final EIS has been revised to include 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines that Pacific Connector Project. See sections 

SA3-2 See response to comment FA2-8. SA3-3 Section 4.1.2.4 of the final EIS includes 

Jordan Cove’s site-specific tsunami modto comments SA2-21 and IND47-32. 

SA3-4 Sections 1.5 and 4.3.3 of the EIS describ

requirements in addition to requirements would need to obtain section 404 permits Removal/Fill permits from ODSL, and seODEQ. As part of the permitting procesevaluate whether wetlands have been avopracticable, and whether the effects have to the extent practicable. The agencies arequirements as necessary to comply witpermit reviews have not been completedrequirements have not been identified. 

SA3-5 Section 1.5.3.2 has been updated. See reSA3-6 See responses to comments SA2-4, and c

SA2-16. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-105

SA3 Oregon Department of Justice (continu

SA3-7 See responses to comments SA2-2, SA2-SA3-8 Section 2.2.2 of the EIS includes informa

between the LNG terminal and the Port’s response to comment SA2-145. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-106

SA3 Oregon Department of Justice (continu

SA3-9 See response to comment SA2-4. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-107

SA3 Oregon Department of Justice (continu

SA3-10 As stated in section 1.5 of the EIS, in add

requirements of the Commission, the infoEIS is intended to support subsequent coby cooperating agencies. To that end, wcomments and input received from coopethey can be incorporated consistent with 

EIS does not need to provide complete dbe required to support permitting decisio1.5-1 has been updated in the final EIS to status of permit applications and consultaFERC. 

SA3-11 See response to comments SA3-10 and SSA3-12 The condition and status of the waterway 

marine traffic is discussed in section 2.1.

SA3-13 As stated at the end of section 2.4.1.2, Jo

be the anchor tenant for the proposed slip agreement with the Port is structured aro

requirements of the LNG terminal. Any dock by the Port would have to conform terminal and the unloading of LNG carriPotential safety issues associated with opterminal, including safety and exclusions facilities at the western berth, are addressresponse to comment SA2-145. 

SA3-14 See response to comment FA3-14. SA3-15 According to the Joint Permit Applicatio

2008, up to an estimated 350,000 cy of mevery two to four years for maintenance channel and slip. Section 4.3.2.4 of the freflect this volume estimate. See responsFA3-13. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-108

SA3 Oregon Department of Justice (continu

SA3-16 We do not agree that the EIS needs to ex

requested additional information on the OInformation on the status of that project aproject is available through the COE revicomment SA2-145. 

SA3-17 For the portion of the currently proposed 

cross Coos Bay, the TEWAs have been ean expanded construction right-of-way wfrom the use of TEWAs for pipeline insttherefore addressed throughout section 4 

discussion of impacts from the pipeline c

SA3-18 The cited statewide planning goals could 

Project provide they do not conflict with Commission. Pacific Connector has stat

with the Forest Practices Act. 

SA3-19 Information on the phasing of the berth c

section 2.1.4.4 of the EIS in addition to t2.4.1. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-109

SA3 Oregon Department of Justice (continu

SA3-20 It is incorrect to say that any conditions a

approvals become the responsibility of thagency, the FERC has the responsibility of the project. However, the FERC’s leaabsolve other agencies who may have peresponsibilities to ensure the applicants crespective permit conditions. See responSA2-246. 

SA3-21 See responses to comments SA2-4, and c

SA2-16. 

SA3-22 See responses to comments SA2-4, and c

SA2-16. 

SA3-23 Section 3 of the EIS describes the alterna

alternative terminal designs that have beeand the FERC. Mitigation proposed by tsection 4 of the EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-110

SA3 Oregon Department of Justice (continu

SA3-24 See response to comments SA2-32 and SSA3-25 We disagree. Section 4.3.3 of the EIS de

been taken by the applicants to avoid or mSee response to comments SA2-85 and S

SA3-26 Discussion of impacts on the estuarine sy

operation of the slip and access channel asection 4.3.2, 4.5.2, and 4.6 of the EIS. 

SA3-27 Oregon laws and regulations governing a

discussed in sections 1.5 and 4.3.2.2 of thresponsible for coordinating with the COregulatory authorizes regarding all necesmaterial disposal at the three upland disp
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-111

SA3 Oregon Department of Justice (continu

SA3-28 See response to comment SA3-15. The P

maintenance dredging of the LNG terminwhich would occur during in-water work ODFW. The COE has indicated to the Pto take in the operational maintenance draccess channel and slip. See response to 

SA3-29 See response to comment FA3-18. SA3-30 See response to comments SA2-32. Imp

pipeline construction across the Haynes ibenthic and estuarine habitats is included 

SA3-31 See response to comments FA3-8, SA2-8SA3-32 See response to comments FA2-4, SA2-4

effects of waterbody crossings are addresEIS. 

SA3-33 See responses to comment SA2-269. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.SA-112

SA3 Oregon Department of Justice (continu

SA3-34 See response to comment SA2-246 and SSA3-35 See responses to comment SA2-5.