Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-350

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – Oct
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-351

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – Oct
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-352

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – Oct
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-353

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – OctPM4-1 Oregon state laws, regulations, and app

Cove LNG Project are discussed in secstated in this section: “The FERC encoapplicants and state and local authoritiestate and local agencies, through applicmay prohibit or unreasonably delay the facilities approved by the FERC.” 

PM4-2 The permanent right-of-way for the pip

width on federal land as on private landlandowner agrees to a different width dwith Pacific Connector; please read sec

more detailed explanation. With regard use of eminent domain, see response to PM2-9. 

PM4-3 See response to comments PM1-2 and 

section 4.2.2.2 of the EIS, the sedimentchannel and slip at the Jordan Cove LNcontaminated and therefore this action permanent adverse impacts on human hbay. Nor would the dredging have signor fishing, as explained in sections 4.5.EIS. 

PM4-4 See response to comments PM1-26, PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-354

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – OctPM4-5 See response to comments PM1-28, PMPM4-6 We have no record of a FERC jurisdict

California; see response to comments PWith respect to odorization of the gas, PM2-68. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-355

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – OctPM4-7 Page 3-77 of the draft EIS discusses tw

one, labeled the McConnell Route Vari69.7 and 69.8; while the other, labeled Route Variation, would be between MPbetween these two locations are not listalternatives because no alternatives weroute in this location. However, if you maps in Appendix D you will see there route between MPs 69.8 and 82.7. Howalignment sheets filed by Pacific Conndid not locate Wanda Baker as a landow

PM4-8 Section 2.4.2.2 of the EIS includes a di

construction techniques proposed for aPacific Connector’s ECRP includes eroaddress pipeline construction on steep 

PM4-9 Use of UCSA is discussed in section 2

UCSA would be removed during restor

PM4-10 See response to comment PM4-2. On p

Connector is unable to negotiate a mututhe easement needs to be acquired thro

permanent right-of-way cannot exceed BLM lands. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-356

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – OctPM4-11 Helicopter logging to clear the pipeline 

sections 2.4.2.1 and 4.4.2.1 of the EIS. need to insure that helicopter use for loaccordance with applicable regulations

PM4-12 We believe the EIS includes sufficient 

the proposed pipeline crossings of streaimpact on fisheries from these crossing4.5.2.1, 4.5.2.3, and 4.6.1.3. 

PM4-13 This comment is addressed in section 1PM4-14 See response to comments PM1-10, PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-357

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – Oct
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-358

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – OctPM4-15 We disagree. We think that the mitigat

EIS would reduce impacts to resourceswaterbodies. Pipeline construction at wconducted during low-flow periods whODFW recommended in-water construin the Klamath Basin is discussed in se

PM4-16 The need for the project is addressed in 

response to comment PM1-11, PM1-24are addressed in section 3 of the EIS. 

PM4-17 Potential project related impacts on Lo

suckers, and conservation measures, arof the EIS. The action agency (FERC) federally listed threatened and endangeproduces a BA, and submits the BA for NMFS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-359

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – OctPM4-18 Section 4.6.1.3 of the final EIS has bee

ODFW’s plan to reintroduce anadramoRiver basin. 

PM4-19 Section 4.13 of the EIS addresses cumu

out in section 4.3.2.5 of the EIS, Pacifithe Klamath River using an HDD, thus river. See response to comment PM4-1
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-360

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – Oct
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-361

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – OctPM4-20 See response to comments PM1-11, PM
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-362

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – OctPM4-21 See response to comments PM1-11 and 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-363

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – Oct
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-364

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – Oct

PM4-22 Section 3.4 of the EIS explains the crite

in selecting its pipeline route. Geologisection 4.1.3. Special pipeline construcor steep terrain and across agricultural 2.4.2.2. Potential impacts on prime far4.2.3.2 and impacts on agricultural land 4.7.3.1. Pacific Connector would be relandowners for damages, including crosections 2.3.3.1 and 4.7.3.2 of the EIS. 

PM4-23 As explained in section 4.12.10 of the E

safety standards for pipelines. The Pipgovernment agency responsible for saf900 foot zone is not a government manbased on fact or science. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-365

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – OctPM4-24 Read section 4.12.10 of the EIS about pPM4-25 Section 3.2.2 of the EIS discusses othe

gas pipelines coming in from the west These other pipelines would also affect 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-366

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – Oct
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-367

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – OctPM4-26 Need is discussed in section 1.3 of the 

comments PM1-11, PM1-24, and PM2

PM4-27 See response to comments PM1-15, PMPM4-28 Wildfires and fire protection are discus

4.8.3.6 of the EIS. Earthquakes are disFish and wildlife are discussed in sectiquality is discussed in section 4.3. Theimpacts and mitigation measures. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-368

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – OctPM4-29 Pacific Connector would be responsibl

according to all commitments it has ma

review process, and with any conditionpermits for its proposed project. This wconstruction and operation. With regarcomment PM3-43. 

PM4-30 The affect of EPAct05 on the rights of 

exaggerated. In fact, the FERC had the LNG terminals and interstate natural gaWhile EPAct05 clarified the FERC’s athat states retain their powers to grant fapprovals under the CAA, CWA, and Cdiscussed in sections 1.3, 3.1.1.3, and 4response to comments PM1-11, PM1-2only reviewed one on-shore LNG propBeach), that was withdrawn because thland for the terminal. However, as expthe EIS, there are several off-shore LNconsideration in California that would bCoast Guard. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-369

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – Oct
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-370

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – Oct

PM4-31 See response to comment PM1-19. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.PM-371

PM4 Klamath Falls Public Meeting – Oct