Coal Diver Everything you wanted to know about coal, but were afraid to ask.

This is a text-only version of the document "Black Mesa - Final Environmental Impact Statement - Vol 2 of 2 - 2008". To see the original version of the document click here.
B ac M e a P OJC l k s R ET
I NA nv r nt MP T T E NT F LE i onme alI AC SAT ME
D F S 84 OI E 0 -9 OS ES3 M-I-3

D F S 84 OI E 0 -9 OS ES3 M-I-3

F LE i onme alI AC SAT ME I NA nv r nt MP T T E NT

B ac M e a P OJC l k s R ET

USD p r n o tenei . e at t fh I r r . me to O f e f ufc Miig fc o S r e nn i a R c main n E fre n el t a d nocme t a o P .o 467 . B x 66 O D ne C l a o 00-67 e vr o rd 82166 , o

USD p r n . e at t . me o teneir fh Itr o Ofe f fc o i S r c Miig uf e nn a R c main n el t a d a o E fre n nocme t

USD p r notenei . e at tf I r r . me h to Ofe fuf e n g fc oS r c Min i a i R c mai a d nocmet el t n n E fr a o e n

N vmbr08 oe e20

N vmbr08 oe e20

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mission: As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural and cultural resources. This includes fostering wise use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people.

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Our mission is to carry out the requirements of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act in cooperation with States and Tribes. Our primary objectives are to ensure that coal mines are operated in a manner that protects citizens and the environment during mining and assures that the land is restored to beneficial use following mining, and to mitigate the effects of past mining by aggressively pursuing reclamation of abandoned coal mines.

Cover photographs (from left to right): (1) dragline removing overburden from coal at Peabody Western Coal Company’s Black Mesa Complex (2) drilling of test well for Coconino aquifer water-supply system (3) sheepherder and flock on reclaimed land at Peabody Western Coal Company’s Black Mesa Complex (4) Black Mesa Pipeline, Incorporated’s coal-slurry preparation plant (5) Black Mesa Pipeline, Incorporated’s coal-slurry pipeline Pump Station Number 2

Appendix M Comments and Responses
Introduction 2006 and 2007 Comments and Responses Report of the 2006 and 2007 Comments on the Draft EIS and Responses to the Comments Table M-1: Index of Commenters (2006 and 2007) Table M-2: Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments 2008 Comments and Responses Report of the 2008 Comments on the Draft EIS and Responses to the Comments Table M-3: Index of Commenters (2008)

APPENDIX M 
 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

INTRODUCTION Appendix M contains the comments received by Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) regarding the adequacy of the Black Mesa Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and OSM’s responses to those comments. This introduction includes background information, and a discussion of the comment analysis process followed by a summary of the comments received. Following this introduction are: •	 Report of the 2006 and 2007 Comments Received on the Draft EIS and Responses to the 
 Comments 
 •	 Table M-1: Index of Commenters (2006 and 2007) •	 Table M-2: 2006 and 2007 Comments from Participating Agencies and Proponents and 
 Responses to the Comments 
 •	 Report of the 2008 Comments Received on the Draft EIS and Responses to the Comments •	 Table M-3: Index of Commenters (2008) BACKGROUND Released in November 2006, the Draft EIS analyzed three alternatives, as described in Chapter 2. Alternative A was described as the applicants’ proposed project and was identified as the preferred alternative of the lead and cooperating agencies. At that time, the proposed project included Peabody Western Coal Company’s (Peabody’s) proposed revisions to the life-of-mine (LOM) operation and reclamation plan for the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations; Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc.’s (BMPI’s) proposed continued operation of the coal-slurry preparation plant and reconstruction of the 273-mile-long coal-slurry pipeline to the Mohave Generating Station; and the Mohave Generating Station co-owners’ proposed construction and operation of a new water-supply system, including a 108-mile-long pipeline to convey Coconino-aquifer (C-aquifer) water from a well-field near Leupp, Arizona, to the Black Mesa Complex. With the publication of the Federal Register notice on November 22, 2006, announcing the availability of the Draft EIS for public review and comment, the 60-day comment period began. The comment period was to close on January 22, 2007; however, OSM extended the comment period 15 days through February 6, 2007. In recognition of Hopi traditional religious ceremonies in January and February 2007, OSM accepted comments from practitioners of Hopi traditional religion through May 11, 2007. OSM offered members of the interested public and affected agencies a variety of means of commenting on the Draft EIS. Commenters were encouraged to provide submittals to the OSM via public mail, fax, and electronic mail (e-mail). Comment forms also were provided to attendees at each of the public meetings to be completed on-site or mailed to the OSM by the close of the public comment period. Court reporters recorded oral comments at each of the public meetings, and bi-lingual translators also assisted court reporters in the collection of comments from Hopi and Navajo speakers. During the 2006 and 2007 comment period, OSM received 17873 submittals with comments. Of these submittals, 17142 submittals were form letters; that is, letters that are similar or identical in content. Thirteen different form letters were identified. All comments submitted orally and in writing were reviewed and analyzed. There were 2684 substantive comments parsed from the submittals. Of these

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

267 were provided with unique responses and the remaining were assigned one of 655 summary responses. In mid-May 2007, work on the Black Mesa Project was suspended. In spring 2008, Peabody informed OSM of its intention to amend the pending LOM permit revision application for the Black Mesa Complex to remove proposed plans and activities that supported supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Stations because it believed that reopening the Mohave Generating Station for operation as a coal-fired power plant is unlikely. After a one-year suspension of work on the EIS, OSM, in May 2008, resumed work on the EIS. In a Federal Register published on May 23, 2008, OSM announced that the comment period on the November 2006 Draft EIS was being reopened for 45 days until July 7, 2008. It did so to allow persons the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and preferred alternative, which is now Alternative B instead of Alternative A. Although it appears unlikely that the Mohave Generating Station will reopen as a coal-fired power plant, the plant is still permitted to operate and has not been decommissioned; therefore, Alternative A remains a viable alternative in the EIS. Much reduced from the project proposed under Alternative A, implementation of Alternative B would result in the revision of Peabody’s LOM operation and reclamation plans for its permitted Kayenta mining operation and, as part of this revision, incorporate into these plans the initial Indian Lands Program surface facilities and coal resource areas of its adjacent Black Mesa mining operation, which previously supplied coal to the Mohave Generating Station. As of the close of the reopened comment period on July 7, 2008, OSM had received 1,247 submittals of comments. Of these submittals, 1,095 were form letters. Five different form letters were identified. There were 435 substantive comments parsed from the submittals. Of these, 196 were provided with unique responses and the remainder were assigned one of 34 summary responses. When the submittals from the 2006 and 2007 and reopened 2008 comment periods are combined, the total number of submittals OSM received was 19,119. There were 882 unique submittals and 18,237 form letter submittals. Eighteen different form letters were identified and analyzed. There were a total of 3,119 substantive comments parsed from the submittals. Of these substantive comments, 463 were provided with unique responses and the remaining were assigned one of 689 summary responses. COMMENT ANALYSIS Comments were collected from the public through a formal, systematic effort. Response to this effort was substantial, and the volume of comments received—many of them on the same topics—required, for efficiency’s sake, some synopsis (done in accordance with Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 1503.4(a) and (b)). Each submittal received was entered into a database and analyzed to identify each comment. In accordance with NEPA, only comments deemed substantive per criteria were identified for review and response. Comments were considered substantive if they: • • • • • Questioned, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the document; Questioned, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of the environmental analysis; Presented alternatives other than those presented in the Draft EIS; Caused changes or revisions to the environmental document; and/or Provided new or additional information relevant to the analysis.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Consistent with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, [40 CFR 1503.4(b)], all substantive comments on the Draft EIS received a response. Nonsubstantive comments included those that expressed an opinion for or against the project or comments that only agreed or disagreed with agency policy; these comments do not require responses. Most nonsubstantive comments related to preferred Alternative A of the Draft EIS and are variations of pro or con statements regarding the use or source of water for the project. Many nonsubstantive comments are a simple collection of preferences for or against continuation or expansion of mining operations at the Kayenta and/or Black Mesa mining operations. Although the Mohave Generating Station was not a part of the EIS, some individuals expressed dislike for the resumption of operations of the Mohave Generating Station due to the potential for air pollutants affecting them, global climate impacts, or impacts on the Grand Canyon. Some individuals expressed a desire to have the LOM permit denied. There are a variety of general comments regarding the issue of water use that are primarily a preference for a specific alternative that would minimize water use. Comment Categories Comments were sorted into a total of 127 unique categories. These categories encompass all key topics and issues within the EIS as well as those concerns raised by the public or affected agencies. For analysis purposes, each category was assigned a unique numeric identifier as well as a name. Each comment was associated with and coded to one of the 127 categories based on the comment’s dominant theme. Among the 127 categories are several strong clusters of related topics. Purpose and need and project components categories relate to the why, what, and how of the proposed project (Categories 1-14). The alternatives categories relate to Alternatives A, B, and C (Categories 15-35). Alternatives considered but dismissed from further consideration categories relate to those alternatives that for a specific reason failed to meet the purpose and need for the proposed project (Categories 36-45). The affected environment categories follow next and include geology, air quality, water resources, vegetation, and wildlife and special status species (Categories 47-67). The social aspect of the project is clustered under categories that include land use, cultural resources, socioeconomic effects, environmental justice, and health and safety (Categories 68-98). Comments regarding the technical aspects of the NEPA process are covered by categories including consultation and coordination, public participation, and the EIS process (Categories 109-121). SUMMARY OF 2006 AND 2007 COMMENTS Form Letters Of the 13 form letters received from the 2006 and 2007 public review of the Draft EIS, many were found to have similar themes. Summaries of those themes, as well as the identifying letter for the form letters in which they were found, are responded to. In brief, the form letters reveal that there is rigorous opposition to the use of drinkable water from the C aquifer or Navajo aquifer (N aquifer) for the purpose of slurrying or washing coal. Many commenters requested a 50 to 90 day extension of the comment period. Comments bring to light a profound concern for the perceived damage by the coal mining operation to the aquifers providing drinking water to stakeholders. Climate change came up often as coal burning is considered a direct source of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Stakeholders express apprehension over the availability of adequate drinking water for all concerned in this time of severe drought. Some suggest the development of alternative electrical generating facilities rather than plants that burn coal. For example, a solar thermal plant could be developed at the Mohave Generating Station and the Black Mesa site used as a solar and wind farm. It is pointed out in a critical manner that OSM needs to update the hydrological model used to
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 M-3 Appendix M – Comments and Responses

evaluate the availability of water for the project and stakeholders. Misgivings and anger exist regarding the resettlement of 17 households (Alternative A; five households under Alternative B) from the Black Mesa Mine expansion area. Several commenters express outrage at the possibility that OSM and Peabody are planning and carrying out a plan of exploitation and even genocide against the American Indian people. Concerned members of the public specify that more analyses need to be conducted on the environmental and health effects of the coal mining operation on Indian lands and people. Do not use drinking water for coal washing or slurry: (In common with Form letters B, C, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N) OSM should reject Peabody’s attempt to expand and prolong its massive withdrawal of water from aquifers in northeastern Arizona. It is senseless, tragic, and morally reprehensible in this time of extreme drought to waste fresh groundwater from the C and N aquifers to wash and slurry coal. OSM must protect the cultural and natural values of the Black Mesa by acknowledging the severe impacts of groundwater mining and requiring a no-water alternative to transport coal. OSM should allow an option that will provide for zero drawdown of the N aquifer. Extend the Draft EIS comment period: (In common with form letters A, B, C, F, H, K, N) Extend the comment period for 50 to 90 days. Timing of the “quiet” release of the large and complex Draft EIS during winter holidays and a period of Hopi ceremonies prevented adequate review. Important Indian stakeholders did not receive the Draft EIS. Many local residents are elderly Navajo-language speaking individuals who cannot be expected to decipher the details of such an unwieldy document in such a short period of time. The comments of impacted stakeholders and communities are paramount. Unmaintained roads on Black Mesa are often impassible in the winter making travel to public meetings impossible. Not allowing this extension is an example of environmental racism and a violation of human rights. Peabody operations have caused irreparable harm to aquifers, seeps, springs, and wells: (In common with Form letters F, G, H, I, K, M) OSM and Peabody have failed to acknowledge destruction of the N aquifer as articulated in the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC’s) reports measuring damage according to OSM’s own Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment (CHIA) standards. Recent data indicates that Peabody’s water withdrawals have caused irreparable physical damage to the N aquifer, thereby violating OSM’s own material damage criteria. The sacred springs and other natural water sources of the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation are drying up and irreparable harm has occurred to local wells, seeps, and springs. OSM and Peabody have failed to demonstrate regard for Hopi religion, which relies on the damaged aquifer to provide water to natural springs that play a crucial role in Hopi ceremonies. OSM must require that Peabody put up bonds to ensure that if the N aquifer is permanently harmed or additional land subsidence occurs there will be funds for mitigation. Stop coal use, stop global warming: (In common with Form letters B, G, I, K, L, M) Do not use coal. Coal is a major contributor to global warming and its use must be stopped to prevent global disaster. It is unacceptable to re-open the Black Mesa Mine, rebuild the pipeline, commence mining 2 billion gallons of water from beneath the Hopi and Navajo reservations and contribute hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere given the current state of our

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-4

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

understanding of the environment. Renewable energy is the only way. OSM should chose Alternative C and deny Peabody the LOM permit for the sake of our children’s future air quality. OSM must ensure adequate water for affected stakeholders/ communities: (In common with Form letters B, L, M, N) OSM failed to adequately study the affects of continued pumping of the C aquifer on the drinking supplies of surrounding stakeholders and communities. OSM has not addressed the distribution of water to tribal stakeholders, only water for use by Peabody. The City of Flagstaff has purchased a wellfield adjacent to the Peabody wellfield. Will there be enough water for all stakeholders? OSM and Peabody do not have the right to waste the drinking water in the N and C aquifer. Under Federal law, Peabody must reduce hydrological impacts on adjacent communities. OSM has failed to meet their own obligations to minimize the hydrological consequences of the withdrawals from the N aquifer. OSM must consider a solar thermal plant or wind farm alternative: (In common with Form letters H, M) OSM has proposed one no-action alternative and two water alternatives. OSM must analyze a fourth no-water alternative. It is suggested that OSM consider the Just Transition Plan that would replace the Mohave Generating Station with clean energy sources such as wind and solar. This might involve transitioning the Mohave Generating Station to a solar thermal plant and the Black Mesa mine site into a solar and wind farm. OSM must update its hydrological model: (In common with Form letters K, M) OSM needs to update its hydrological model for the N aquifer and provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the C aquifer is a viable supply of water and that withdrawals will not have adverse hydrological or wildlife impacts. USGS has stated that the hydrological model used by OSM is outdated and, therefore, a new study needs to be conducted to understand the continued use of the N aquifer. Relocation of tribal members: (In common with Form letters H, M) OSM must propose an option that would prevent continued removal of families from their traditional homelands for the sake of the mine. It is unacceptable that the proposed mine would lead to the relocation of 17 families. Environmental effects of the coal mining process: (In common with Form letters F, K) OSM must review the environmental impacts of the proposed mining permit. OSM must conduct adequate studies on the effects of coal washing and on the causes of land subsidence in relation to mining coal and groundwater. The Draft EIS lacks critical information regarding the environmental impacts of operating a coal-washing facility. Environmental justice/Health: (In common with Form letter O, P) OSM and Peabody must stop their planned and continued exploitation of Hopi and Navajo lands and people. If the LOM revision is granted, Peabody will not stop mining coal and uranium from Indian lands

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-5

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

until all available resources are gone. The continuation of mining is protested because of environmental and health concerns. Professionals directly link uranium and coal mining to the epidemic of sicknesses in the Navajo Nation. It is not acceptable for Peabody or OSM to continue this course of genocide against the Hopi and Navajo people. Other comments unique to individual form letters: •	 D: OSM failed to provide for proper public meetings on the subject of the pipeline in Mohave County. Stakeholders are not being afforded proper participation. •	 H: OSM failed to show regard for Hopi and Navajo Tribal Councils passage of resolutions to cease extraction of water from the N aquifer for mining purposes as of December 2005. •	 H: OSM has failed to find a path for the coal-slurry pipeline and C aquifer pipeline that will not destroy sacred sites. •	 K: OSM must deny Peabody any permit to operate the project. •	 M: OSM failed to adequately study the impacts of groundwater withdrawal on the Lower 
 Colorado River.
 •	 M: The Draft EIS must demonstrate compliance with the Endangered Species Act. •	 M: The Black Mesa Mine currently has no purchaser of coal as the Mohave Generating Station is closed so there is no point to the Draft EIS. •	 M: There appears to be a conflict of interest in that Mohave Generating Station co-owners are funding the environmental review. General Summary of Comments Comments about a host of concerns, many of them related to water, have been assigned to different categories and subcategories, as synopsized in Report of the 2006 and 2007 Comments Received on the Draft EIS and Responses to the Comments, for facilitation in response and ease in review by the public. For discussion purposes, the summary of comments below has been divided into three main areas of concern: •	 The Project and the Environment •	 The Project and People •	 The NEPA Process The Project and the Environment Project water use is the central concern regarding the Black Mesa Project. Use of C-aquifer (and potentially N-aquifer) water to slurry coal is viewed as a wasteful practice that will affect the hydrological balance of the project area, impacting natural and cultural ecologies. Some commenters are apprehensive that the N aquifer may have been damaged already, that groundwater pumping has caused land subsidence, and that water use for mining has, and will continue to affect the availability of ground and surface water in the area. Many feel that, instead of being used for transporting coal, groundwater should be preserved for future local populations as drinking water, and to support farming, ranching, and municipal use. Some are concerned about the use of drinking water for industrial purposes, and feel that preservation of precious water resources in a drought-prone environment should take precedence over short-term economic gains. Many are opposed to any N-aquifer water use for coal slurry, and some refer to tribal resolutions to discontinue its use.
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 M-6 Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Many comments expressed general unease about the broader environmental implications of the project. Global warming was cited frequently, almost as proxy in some cases, for general, nonspecific concern about the potential reach and magnitude of project-related effects. Some feel that the stated purpose and need of the Black Mesa Project is artificially narrow—that the purpose of the project, to expand mining operations at Black Mesa and to transport coal to the Mohave Generating Station, requires greater environmental review and a broader range of alternatives, particularly because the operation of the generating station has been shut down. [Potential resumption of operations at the Mohave Generating Station, should it find a proponent, is not addressed in the EIS.] Many comments were for consideration of alternative forms of energy in an era where coal-fired generation is facing at least general disfavor (some refer to Congressional bills limiting CO2 emissions). Some are concerned that a piecemeal examination of this broader purpose is a flawed approach. There are residents in the Canyon Diablo/Leupp area who are opposed to development of the C aquifer water-supply system. Some are opposed to drilling wells and installing piping because of noise pollution, visual impacts, and the potential to disrupt their traditional way of life. Many are opposed to use of drinking-quality C-aquifer water and are concerned about pollution of the aquifer in the Canyon Diablo area. Some residents of the Black Mesa area, however, support development of the of C-aquifer system (as noted in paragraphs below) believing they may gain access to water via development of the pipeline infrastructure. Many dislike the scale of the project—the many years, tons of coal, acre-feet of water, and miles of pipeline—and urge more caution before committing such a magnitude of resources to the project. For example, some commenters believe that mining will not cease until all the coal is extracted, and others are opposed to the coal-slurry pipeline because they feel it travels over too many miles and through too many cultural resource areas. Some say the existing pipeline has caused damage to existing springs on Hualapai lands, and some feel that construction of the lengthy pipeline should not be undertaken until, and unless, the Mohave Generating Station is approved and financed. It should be noted, however, that the government of the Navajo Nation supports the project and the government of the Hopi Tribe strongly supports construction of the pipeline along the existing route, with the pipeline realignment along the Moenkopi Wash. The Project and People Project water use is at the heart of most distress about the project. People are concerned that the project may reduce available water that is necessary to sustain ecosystems, and, by extension, traditional culture, especially in areas where people depend on natural water sources and indigenous vegetation and wildlife. Many feel that the C and N aquifers belong to the people of the land. People are apprehensive about the effects of the resettlement of up to 17 households (Alternative A) within the mine lease area on individuals and the local community at Black Mesa. Besides the inconvenience, people worry that this could cause loss of livelihood, family cohesion, and cultural continuity if individuals were moved to land unsuitable for traditional occupations and practices. There are concerns about effects on the elderly, and on those with little income or with herds to tend. One commenter calls potential resettlement from the mine lease area an “outrage,” likening them to past relocations from ancestral lands enforced by the Federal government. Many are concerned about environmental justice—that the project would sacrifice the natural resources, health and welfare, and cultures of traditional tribal and rural peoples to satisfy the energy demands of a dominant culture and distant populations. There is powerful concern that the Anglo population is using the resources of the Indian people for its own gain with none of the environmental or cultural hazards experienced by the Indians. Some worry that the project could result in loss of life for people who would remain in potentially waterless locations because of attachment to spiritual sites. Many feel that
Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 M-7 Appendix M – Comments and Responses

environmental and cultural impacts on local populations would be disproportionate, with no compensating economic benefits. Some urge a halt to mining in order to preserve a culture that has made great contributions to American society. Commenters cite general hardships, potential destruction of sacred sites, international human rights law, past dishonesty in dealing with native peoples, and lack of proper representation as environmental justice concerns—one equates reopening the mining operation with a desire to exterminate the local Navajo culture. Indian beliefs are central to many concerns about the project. Many view mining on Black Mesa as an affront to their religious convictions and spiritual practices, and are fearful of the cosmological implications. Some fear reprisals from local spiritual beings offended by groundwater pumping and coal mining at Black Mesa, and feel that mining is an insult to “Mother Earth.” Distress over disruption to spiritual forces at Black Mesa extend beyond worries about project effects on specific natural resources used in local religious observances—such as seeps and springs used in Hopi ceremonies, and special status plant species used in Native American medicine—to encompass the entire mesa, considered an ancient sacred site. These anxieties run deep, but are not universally shared by all stakeholders in the project; at least one commenter expressed confidence in the continuing providence of a benevolent Creator, should mining operations resume. There are many comments that simply ask OSM to cease mining at Black Mesa and reclaim the land so residents can resume traditional lifestyles, including livestock grazing, without interference from relocations, noise, blasting, damage to homes and livestock from blasting, other mining-related hazards, further disruption of cultural landscapes, and pollution of the land, air, and water. Others, in favor of mining, are worried about the continued loss of jobs, business revenues, and royalties should the Black Mesa mining operation not resume. Some community members expressed a desire for “progress” and economic development—that poverty and lack of education are the real dangers to families and communities, and that land should be used to support economic development. One commenter says that most who oppose the mining operation are from outside, and that most people that live in the mining area support the resumption of the Black Mesa mining operation. Some characterize Alternative A as a means of achieving a successful balance of traditional ways with economic development needs, and one commenter feels that mining supports the desire of many Navajos to make a transition to nontraditional livelihoods. A few commenters are concerned that mining jobs will go to out-of-state workers affiliated with the mining union. One commenter feels that mining has not been a benefit to local people—that bargaining practices between the tribes and Peabody have resulted in losses to the Navajo, and that extension of the mining LOM permit would extend those losses. One commenter says there has been no discernible impact on the tribes since the closure of the mine, and another says that the town of Kayenta did not economically benefit from the mining (i.e., that the town has no “decent hospital” and lacks adequate shopping). Some Black Mesa residents are hopeful that development of the C-aquifer system would benefit local communities: Hopi residents would not have to travel as far to get water for their livestock and fields, and the Village of Kykotsmovi supports development of the system to support municipal, commercial, and industrial development. Health and safety also are cited as significant concerns. Many are concerned that diseases such as cancer, asthma, silicosis, and kidney disease could increase, and that land and water could be contaminated with pollutants, affecting the health of project-area residents and their animals. Others are worried about safety hazards such as mining-related blasting and increased traffic in the project area. Some project-area residents are concerned about the crime, danger to children, and disrespect of the local culture and

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-8

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

environment that may arrive with the introduction of strangers into the community to support projectrelated activities. NEPA Process Many believe that the NEPA process is flawed because of inequalities—an issue of high sensitivity in Hopi and Navajo communities. For example, some feel that the stakes are not equally high on both sides (those proposing and those against the project). On the one hand, according to this view, is access to a generic coal supply that can be gotten elsewhere; on the other hand is the preservation of unique ancestral lands and sacred places available nowhere else. Some feel the situation is aggravated by unequal power relationships, that the terms of project acceptance are dictated by the proponents, and that the process lacks validity because of inequalities of governments, access to information, and general wherewithal. For example, some feel that tribal councils should have been involved as cooperating agencies. Others feel that the Navajo translation of the EIS was inaccurate and incomplete leaving the Navajo people unprepared to understand the consequences of the NEPA process and proposed project. More than one commenter felt left out of the process—that the real decisions have taken place behind closed doors; that the outcome was preordained in favor of Peabody. Others feel that that not all commenters have equal standing in the process (that the concerns of Anglo individuals are heeded while those of Indian individuals go unheard). Many call for more comprehensive analyses of the issues. Some feel that the format, length, and availability of public meetings were not adequate to capture community input into the process. There were many requests for an extension of the public comment period due to the complexity of the information provided, the occurrence of public meetings during the Hopi winter ceremonial season, and lack of passable roads on the reservation. Many distrust the NEPA process and the reassurances of fairness by the agencies. However, these are not universal views; there are a number of individuals in the local communities who support the project and place confidence in the NEPA process. SUMMARY OF 2008 COMMENTS Form Letters Five form letters were received during the 2008 reopened comment period. One form letter pointed out that no “official” Federal agency had reached out to the local communities on Black Mesa regarding the change in alternatives. Concern was expressed over the lack of analysis of and development of mitigation measures for health impacts from coal mining on local residents. Commenters state that the Draft EIS did not consider how OSM will comply with Religious Freedom and Restoration Act requirements. This form letter also requested additional discussion regarding the relocation of 17 households from the mine lease area. A second form letter focused its concern on a request for indefinite extension or suspension of the comment period until Peabody had amended its permit revision application for the Black Mesa Mine Complex to remove operations associated with the Mojave Generating Station. It pointed out that the public may be entitled to a new scoping period and a new environmental impact analysis due to selection of Alternative B following release of the Draft EIS. Concern also was expressed over the lack of notification of the numerous local Navajo people and interested stakeholders regarding the “re-release” of the Draft EIS with its associated modifications. A third form letter was a request for an extension of the comment period by 90 days. A fourth form letter was an adamant protest of the treatment of the local people by Anglos in the context of violation of the environmental justice ordinance in the context of removal of local people from the mine lease area, destruction of Navajo land and water resources, and

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-9

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

failure to provide anything in return to the Navajo people for taking their resources for free. The fifth form letter was a statement against the project. Summary of Comments Some commenters demanded a more thorough analysis of the use of water at the mine over the past 30 years and the impact that has on current and future local populations. A few comments requested a more detailed analysis of water quality and quantity in relation to mining operations with loss and contamination of drinking water supplies a primary concern. Some comments expressed concern that OSM is failing in its trust responsibilities in allowing an increase in greenhouse gases, which could lead to additional climate change and in turn lead to an adverse impact on local hydrology. OSM must address climate change on a global scale. Other comments pointed out that the Draft EIS does not address the current Federal laws that make CO2 a pollutant and uncalculated CO2 emissions that will contribute to global warming until 2026, if more mining by Peabody continues. Quantification of greenhouse-gas emissions from the power plants in the region as they affect global climate change is requested. Other comments suggested an expanded look at solar, wind, and other clean energy alternatives at the site of the mine. Comments pointed out that the modified Alternative B as it concludes in the Draft EIS inadequately interprets the destructive processes of aquifer and coal extraction on Black Mesa that encompasses mostly pristine topography that contain numerous cultural and religious sites. Due to Black Mesa’s importance as a sacred religious, cultural, and historic landscape, early efforts are underway to designate the area a traditional cultural property under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) agreement. Many commenters want to know how OSM will comply with RFRA requirements in allowing local native people to continue their religious practices on Black Mesa. Several comments expressed strong concern that while the Draft EIS mentions lung problems, it only proposes mitigation for mine workers, not residents. They request the Draft EIS look at mitigation measures for local residents to avoid health problems associated with black lung, silicosis, and other lung ailments like asthma. Strong concern is expressed by a number of comments that no official U.S. and Navajo government entities have adequately reached out to or shared information with local Black Mesa residents regarding Alternative B. Numerous local residents and interested stakeholders that have previously submitted scoping and other comments have received no notification of the “re-release” of the Draft EIS and its associated modifications that require additional review. There are a number of comments requesting an extension of the public comment period for up to 90 days for more thorough review of Alternative B. Other comments request that OSM grant an immediate suspension or, in the alternative, an indefinite extension of time in which to comment on the Draft EIS. This is partly due to the complexity of the EIS, the scope of the proposed project, the cultural importance of the area, and the need to reconsider earlier comments on Alternative A. Another concern is the number of affected public who do not read or write in the English language who are requested to provide written comments on Alternative B. Bilingual methods of communication with them should be provided again. Some comments claim that the Draft EIS is outdated and has irrelevant information. If OSM wants to pursue Alternative B, it needs to start a new EIS process from the beginning and either redraft the Draft EIS or prepare a new one focusing on Alternative B. Many comments point out that is premature to request comments by July 7, 2008, given the scope and complexity of the document, unavailability of amendments to Peabody's pending permit revision and dramatic shift in project objectives, proposed

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-10

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

project, and preferred alternative. There is concern that OSM moved too fast in soliciting comments for Alternative B, because it did not have time to properly analyze the impacts of Alternative B on cultural resources and the environment, including water resources. Finally, some commenters request that OSM grant an immediate suspension of the reopened Draft EIS as well as any proposed actions to continue mining at Black Mesa. USE OF THE REPORTS AND TABLES THAT FOLLOW The remainder of this appendix presents a synopsis of the comments received on the Draft EIS from the comment period in 2006 and 2007 and the reopened comment period in 2008. As the title suggests, the Report of the 2006 and 2007 Comments Received on the Draft EIS and Responses to the Comments contains a synopsis of the substantive comments, by category, received and responses to those comments. Table M-1 is an index, in alphabetical order, of all commenters. It enables individuals, who provided submittals, to identify the location of and responses to each substantive comment parsed from their submittal(s). Table M-2 contains comments submitted by participating agencies and proponents that are specific to sections of the Draft EIS. The comments are primarily informational edits to the document based on the agencies’ areas of expertise, changes in wording, and additional data that has become available since the development of the Draft EIS. Responses to the comments or an explanation of how the comment was addressed also is provided in the table. Report of the 2008 Comments Received on the Draft EIS and Responses to the Comments contains a synopsis of the substantive comments, by category, received and responses to those comments. Table M-3 is an index, in alphabetical order, of all commenters. It enables individuals who provided submittals to identify the location of and responses to each substantive comment parsed from their submittal(s). STEP ONE: Use of Index of Commenters Names Reading across the top line of the Index of Commenters Names is a column header (see below) containing: Commenter: the name of the person who provided the submittal; Submittal ID: the unique Submittal ID number assigned to that submittal; and Location of Comments/Responses: the location of the substantive comments and responses to those comments. The information in this last column is found in the two Reports of Comments and Responses. Index of Public Commenters Names
Commenter Benally, Fern Submittal ID 17216 Location of Comments/ Responses by Category (Response) 94(980), 114(1010), 35(SR121), 101(SR170), 51(SR198), 52(SR240), 57(SR339), 97(SR341), 81(SR555), 81(SR556), 101(SR693) 121(1021), 54(1175), 35(SR121), 50(SR164), 97(SR333), 102(SR358), 126(SR409), 76(SR454), 93(SR646), 95(SR667), 95(SR670) 8(910), 35(SR121), 97(SR333), 97(SR341), 102(SR358), 126(SR409), 76(SR454), 89(SR630), 95(SR669)

Benally, John

16947

Benally, John

16929

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-11

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter names are provided alphabetically, A-Z. In some instances individuals requested that their names be withheld (Name Withheld). In others, the name was not provided (Unknown). There is a unique submittal ID number associated with each submittal from each commenter. Under the column header “Location of Comments/Responses,” the category number that the comments have been associated with is provided first. This is followed by the response identification number in parentheses. For example, 94(980) indicates that Fern Benally provided a comment that was coded into Category 94 and provided with unique response 980. 35(SR121) indicates that she provided a comment that was coded into Category 35 and provided with Summary Response 121. Note that in some instances SR appears before the response identification number. This indicates that the response is a Summary Response (SR) being applied to a number of similar or repeat comments that have been synthesized into a Comment Summary . Where there is no SR before the response identification number, this indicates that the comment and response are unique. STEP TWO: Use of Reports of Comments and Responses Each Report of Comments and Responses will appear in the following narrative format: Report of Comments and Responses Category 35 Alternatives – Do not use water (for mining and/or transporting coal in slurry) 35(SR121) Comment Summary: Summary of similar or repeat comments Summary Response: OSM response to Comment Summary Category 94 Health and Safety –Safety policies, procedures, and enforcement 94(980) Comment: Unique comments Response: OSM response to Unique Summary

Review of Steps: 1.	 Find the desired name in the appropriate Index of Commenters Names 2.	 Scan across the row to the location of the comment and response associated with that specific submission ID 3.	 Note the category and response ID numbers 4.	 Go to the appropriate Report of Comments and Responses 5.	 Categories are listed numerically; scroll down until the category desired is located 6.	 Responses are listed numerically; scroll down to the desired response ID number 7.	 Review Comment and Response

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-12

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Report of the 2006 and 2007 Comments on the Draft EIS and Responses to the Comments
Category 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 1(838) Comment: The Black Mesa Mining Operations and Mohave Generating Station Are So Intertwined that Each Is a Necessary Condition for the Other. ...actions that “cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously;” or actions that are “an interdependent part of a larger action and depends on that larger action for its justification” shall be analyzed in a single impact statement. This statement of law sums up the intertwined relationship of the Black Mesa mining operations and Mohave Generating Station. Response: The construction activities that were proposed at the Mohave Generating Station do not require any Federal approvals and, therefore, no environmental review under the NEPA. However, since the Mohave Generating Station could operate in the future only if OSM were to approve Alternative A, EIS Section 4.23 includes summary information about the impacts associated with resumed operation of the Mohave Generating Station. Alternative A is no longer the proposed project and the preferred alternative; Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS, which would not result in supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station. 1(839) Comment: This plan does NOT include water distribution to Navajo and Hopi communities, ONLY to Peabody. Tribal Water Distribution system is not in the current proposal. Response: Alternative A, the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Draft EIS, included the new C aquifer water-supply system, which addressed supplying 6,000 af/yr of water to the Black Mesa Complex and 5,600 af/yr to tribal communities along the route of the water-supply pipeline. However, Alternative A is no longer the proposed project and preferred alternative. Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS, does not include construction of the C aquifer water-supply system or reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline. 1(878) Comment: As an initial matter, the new mine plan revision should be considered a new mine plan due to the significant changes to the existing mining operations on Black Mesa. The OSM should send the plan back to Peabody as “administratively incomplete” 30 CFR 777.15. Response: OSM found Peabody’s permit application for the Black Mesa Complex to be administratively complete in 2004. At that time, the required notices were made. Peabody revised its application on July 2, 2008, to delete operations associated with the production of coal for the Mohave Generating Station (no coal production for the power plant, no coal wash plant, no coal waste disposal, and no pumping of N-aquifer water for slurrying coal). No additional finding of administrative completeness and no additional notices were needed because OSM had already done these things for those proposed operations not associated with this power plant. 1(SR151) Summary Comment: OSM misrepresents the purpose and need for action, artificially truncating environmental review and alternatives analysis. The purpose and need for the project arbitrarily narrows the actual purpose and need, which is to re-start the Mohave Generating Station, ensuring a steady supply of coal from the Black Mesa mines. As a result OSM arbitrarily truncates its environmental review and alternatives analysis. Summary Response: While it is correct that the Black Mesa mining operation was the sole coal supplier to the Mohave Generating Station, and the Mohave Generating Station was its sole customer, the construction activities that were proposed at the Mohave Generating Station do not require any Federal approvals and, therefore, no environmental review under the NEPA. 40 CFR 1502.13 of the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA require that the EIS specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action. As stated in Draft EIS Section 1.1, the underlying purpose and need of the project was to continue to supply coal from the Kayenta mining operation to the Navajo Generating Station and to supply coal from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station; The preferred alternative (A) in the Draft EIS satisfied the purpose and need. However, Alternative A is no longer the proposed project and preferred alternative. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS and does not include supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-13

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 2: Project Components 2(879) Comment: Alternative Mining Site that would eliminate the need to transport coal by slurry from Black Mesa to the Mohave Generating Station. This alternative would eliminate the need for the Black Mesa mining operation, coal washing facility and coal slurry pipeline, while providing for the primary purpose of the project, electrical generation. Response: Comment noted. There is no alternative coal-mining site in proximity to the Mojave Generating Station. 2(SR31) Summary Comment: How can Peabody transport coal when it does not have a permit? Summary Response: Peabody mines the coal and delivers it to the coal-slurry preparation plant, BMPI is the company that was responsible for preparing and transporting the coal from the Black Mesa mining operation via the coal-slurry pipeline to the Mohave Generating Station. However, the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS is Alternative B. which does not include transportation of coal. Category 3: Project Components – Kayenta mining operation (existing, currently operating) 3(SR33) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS impacts must account for the construction phase, ongoing maintenance, prevention of and responses to industrial accidents, as well as facility upgrades, reconstruction and expansion for the “life” of the mine, including future lease area expansions. Continuous and increased infrastructure investment by the Black Mesa Project “life of mine” applicants will doubtless encourage future proposals that could exhaust the entire, massive coal seam and impact the broader Colorado Plateau ecosystem. Summary Response: The Draft EIS does address construction (including upgrades), operation and maintenance, and safety. OSM is not aware of any proposals to expand the lease areas. Category 4: Project Components – Black Mesa mining operation (existing, mining suspended) 4(SR20) Summary Comment: OSM must ensure that the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) environmental performance standards are met before allowing Peabody a new LOM permit. Summary Response: OSM could not approve the LOM permit revision application unless it finds the application complies with all requirements of SMCRA and the implementing regulations, including the performance standards. 4(SR432) Summary Comment: Under OSM regulations, people cannot be forced to relocate for a mine, and, therefore, the 17 families left on the Black Mesa Mine who have managed to stay all this time with mining operations all around them, are very unlikely to leave now or in next 20 years. So the expansion of production in the Black Mesa Mine does not seem plausible. Summary Response: As noted in the EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.11.1.1 (Draft EIS, pages 4-88, 4-108), 17 Navajo residences (families) on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled out of the areas to be mined, which are within the leased areas. In this case, the leases are between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when resettling of residences due to mining activities becomes apparent, Peabody coordinates with the Navajo Nation. These households would have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time. OSM has no authority over the coal-mining leases and, therefore, has no decision authority over resettling residences. Category 5: Project Components – Coal-washing facility (new) 5(907) Comment: information regarding the discharge permitting process for the discharged from proposed coal washing facility [is lacking]. Response: Under Alternative A, the coal-washing facility would be constructed near the existing coal-processing facilities. Runoff from the facility would be contained in the existing NPDES-permitted sediment ponds. The coalwashing facility is designed to recycle water, with essentially no process-water discharge. A small, nondischarging surge pond would be constructed adjacent to the coal-washing facility to contain water that may be drained

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-14

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

periodically from facility tanks during repairs. The SPCC plan would be modified to address this pond (EIS Section 4.4.1.1.2.1 [Draft EIS page 4-21]). 5(SR29) Summary Comment: The coal wash plant permit is not properly filled out. In 9.1 Effluent Limitations and NPDES Compliance [780.18(b)(9), 780.21(h)-816.42] Reference Sections 16.1.1 Perennial and Intermittent streams and 16.12 Lakes, Reservoirs, Other Water Bodies, Black Mesa Pipeline Inc. (PWCC) says there are no streams. A 
 topographic map of these locations shows an intermittent stream and a pool holding area within the permit site. 
 Black Mesa Pipeline needs an NPDES Permit and Stormwater Permit. 
 Summary Response: Comment is unclear. Under Alternative A, Peabody would own and operate the coal-washing
 facility. Peabody proposed the coal-washing facility as on component of the LOM permit revision. However, 
 Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-
 washing facility would not be constructed.
 5(SR35) Summary Comment: Disposal of coal-washing waste, including ultra-fine refuse, in unlined pits could result in discharge of pollutants out of compliance with national discharge guidelines, including pollution of land and local aquifers (including alluvial aquifers), and other unintended consequences. There is no discussion on the treatment and release of coal waste generated by coal washing in violation of Federal regulations that prevent disposal in unlined coal mine pits. Coal-washing waste could move, with potential impacts on the N aquifer. Could byproducts in liquid and solid waste cause changes in pH and metal content? Summary Response: Refer to EIS pages A-1-6 through A-1-10, for a discussion of the coal-washing facility, under Alternative A, including refuse disposal, and refer to Section 4.4.1.1.2.1 (Draft EIS pages 4-21 and 4-22), for a discussion of effects of coal-washing refuse disposal. Peabody had revised Chapter 18, Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC), in the LOM application and submitted responses in September 2005 and April 2006 to OSM technical comments that are directly related to assessments of the hydrologic impacts of plans to dispose of coalwashing plant refuse. In addition, Peabody submitted responses to OSM in April 2006 that addressed the USEPA’s technical comments on coal-washing plant disposal plans and impact assessments. The revised PHC, Peabody’s responses to agency technical comments, and plans for operating the coal-washing plant presented in the LOM and summarized in the EIS adequately demonstrate that no significant impacts on local aquifers or surface water sources would occur as a result of refuse disposal, and applicable Federal regulations would be adhered to. However, the coal-washing facility would no be constructed under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS. 5(SR38) Summary Comment: The EIS does not adequately address the short- and long-term impacts of the proposed coalwashing facility, including (among other things listed elsewhere here) what elements are involved, how they can be handled so as to not harm the surrounding ecosystems and communities, and what assurances we have for accountability with Peabody regarding those impacts and adherence to existing environmental laws. Summary Response: The impacts of the coal-washing facility operated by Peabody, under Alternative A, are addressed in the EIS Section 4.4.1.1.2.1 (Draft EIS pages 4-21 and 4-22. Peabody has revised Chapter 18, Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC), in the LOM application and submitted responses in September 2005 and April 2006 to OSM technical comments that are directly related to assessments of the hydrologic impacts of plans to dispose of coal-washing plant refuse. In addition, Peabody submitted responses to OSM in April 2006 that addressed the USEPA’s technical comments on coal-washing plant disposal plans and impact assessments. The revised PHC, Peabody’s responses to agency technical comments, and plans for operating the coal-washing plant presented in the LOM and summarized in the EIS adequately demonstrate that no significant impacts on local aquifers or surface water sources would occur as a result of refuse disposal, and applicable Federal regulations would be adhered to. However, the coal-washing facility would no be constructed under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS. 5(SR39) Summary Comment: Washing coal before it is sent in slurry is wasteful of water resources, and no information has been provided about the facility’s water requirements and its potential for drawdown of the N aquifer. Summary Response: The coal-washing facility, under Alternative A, would use about 500 acre-feet per year (af/yr) of C-aquifer water and remove about 0.95 million tons per year of coal-washing refuse (earth material) (EIS Section 2.1.1.2, Draft EIS page 2-2). For a more detailed discussion of the coal-washing facilities water requirements, refer to EIS Section 4.4.1.1.2.1 (Draft EIS pages 4-21 and 4-22). The water requirements for operating

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-15

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

the coal-washing plant were incorporated into the numerical modeling of the N aquifer under three subalternatives for providing overall project water supplies, and the potential drawdown in the N aquifer as a result of the three subalternatives is discussed in EIS Sections 4.4.1.5.1 and 4.4.1.5.2 (Draft EIS pages 4-31 through 4-37). Water used in the coal washing process is extracted from the fine refuse and recycled in the coal-washing plant as a water conservation measure. Shipping lower-ash coal through the pipeline conserves water used for transportation. The need for the coal washing facility is addressed in the EIS Section 2.4.5 (Draft EIS page 2-48). 5(SR40) Summary Comment: In reference to the Black Mesa Project EIS Appendix A-1/ Black Mesa Complex Mining and Reclamation Procedures: Page A-1-7 Paragraph 2, last line states: “Emissions from the storage and use of magnetite, prior to becoming mixed with water, would be controlled by a bag house.” There is no further explanation of where the collected dust from the bag house is to be dumped and how it is to be contained after it is dumped. The map (Figure A-1) or process layout does not show any system for piping contaminated water runoff or any process for removing the collected dust from the magnetite bag house. Page A-1-10, paragraph 1 last line states, “No refuse piles or coalmine-waste impoundments are proposed.” 40 CFR 261, Sec. 266.112 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act does not specifically list magnetite as exempt from the designation of hazardous waste thereby requiring the application of those provisions in the RCRA to apply to the handling of magnetite waste. No such provision is apparent in the Refuse Disposal section of the EIS in question. Magnetite waste cannot be disposed of in unlined mine pits. Similarly in paragraph 3 a discussion of the lack of appropriate models to accurately assess the toxicity of the coal-wash refuse indicates that the applicant is aware of the potential problem with disposal. While the applicant offers to conduct periodic sampling of the refuse after the coal-washing facility is approved by OSM, constructed and functioning, oversight of any necessary disposal procedures would be precluded by an already approved permit. Unfortunately, the good intentions of the applicant are insufficient to warrant permit approval for Alternative A. The applicant should be required to conduct more long-term studies prior to construction of the coalwash facility in order to offer a design that meets the requirements for a proper disposal plan. The suggestion of liners without more detailed specifications is insufficient information for permit approval. In that the Refuse Disposal section on page A-1-10 refers to the coal-washing facility proposed in Alternative A, OSM would be remiss in approving Alternative A until such time as the proper disposal of the magnetite waste is addressed, the coal-washing facility refuse studied and the attendant provisions of RCRA satisfied. * It is understood that OSM prefers Alternative A, but, in all good conscience, a new Draft EIS should be prepared that offers a more substantial study on the refuse and its appropriate disposal. In the Final EIS, I request that these matters be addressed fully and fairly. Until such time, it is requested that OSM not approve Alternative A and consider Alternative C for temporary approval. Summary Response: Normal operation of a baghouse involves occasional “purging” of dust from the filter bags. This process is a reversal of the flow of air so that the dust is released from the bag and deposited into the bin or onto the belt from which it originated. The Black Mesa magnetite baghouse would be designed and operated in this manner. - Water would not be used to remove dust from the magnetite bag house. Runoff from the areas in the vicinity of the coal-washing plant and magnetite bag house would be contained and treated in down-gradient NPDES sediment ponds. Magnetite does not exhibit any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste as defined at 40 CFR 261.3, is not regulated as a CERCLA hazardous substance (40 CFR 302.4), is not regulated as a SARA Title III extremely hazardous substance (40 CFR 302.4 and 355.40, is not regulated as a SARA Title III Section 313 chemical (40 CFR 372.65), is not regulated under OSHA process safety (29 CFR 1910.119), and does not contain any component listed as a hazardous air pollutant under Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. - An unsaturated flow and contaminant transport analytical model (HYDRUS2D(r)) was used to assess the fate of coalwashing water in the disposed wash-plant waste. HYDRUS2D(r) is recognized internationally as a robust model that is capable of complex modeling conditions. The code is commonly used in the soils and groundwater sciences industry to evaluate variably saturated flow and solute migration. The analytical model TDAST(r) was an appropriate model to use considering the data available and the scope of the problem. Many analytical models are conservative; i.e. give worse-case results. The use of a finite difference or finite element numerical flow and contaminant transport model was not expected to provide significant differences in results. Approved permits are routinely revised with updated technological information through the revision process. Peabody had revised Chapter 18, Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC), in the LOM application and submitted responses in September 2005 and April 2006 to OSM technical comments that are directly related to assessments of the hydrologic impacts of plans to dispose of wash plant refuse. In addition, Peabody submitted responses to OSM in April 2006 that addressed the USEPA’s technical comments on coal-washing plant disposal plans and impact assessments. The revised PHC, Peabody’s responses to agency technical comments, and plans for operating the coal-washing plant

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-16

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

presented in the LOM and summarized in the EIS adequately demonstrate that no significant impacts on local aquifers or surface water sources would occur as a result of refuse disposal, and applicable Federal regulations would be adhered to. Peabody proposed the coal-washing facility as on component of the 2004 LOM permit revision. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-washing facility would not be constructed. 5(SR41) Summary Comment: Peabody’s disposal of coal-processing wastes from the coal-washing facility were not analyzed in the Draft EIS. Summary Response: The coal-washing facility, including refuse disposal are discussed in EIS pages A-1-6 through A-1-10. Also, refer to Section 4.4.1.1.2.1 (Draft EIS 4-21 and 4-22) for a discussion of effects of coal-washing refuse disposal. 5(SR42) Summary Comment: A coal-washing facility is unacceptable at Black Mesa as the leachate shows it has high metals, sulfates, and untested organics. The coal-washing facility leachate needs to be tested for organics. In the Virginia coal mines, there is black sludge coming out of local aquifers which is from coal mine washing. The wash pit of where the sludge must go must be coated with an impermeable plastic fabric. The coal sludge must have bentonite for the pit lining. The sludge pit must be a closed-loop system with no sludge deposited into the surface water. Here are some recommendations: “First Recommendation: Recommend Expanded Citizen Involvement in Evaluation and Assessment of Emergency Action Planning Protocols over Coal Waste Impoundments,” “Second Recommendation: Recommend Support and Expansion upon 2002 NRC Recommendation: Emergency Action Planning for Coal Waste Impoundments,” “Third Recommendation: Support and Expand upon 2002 NRC Recommendation of Improving Regulations and Instrumentation to Monitor Impoundment Stability and Integrity,” “Fourth Recommendation: Support and Expansion upon 2002 NRC Recommendation of Constituent Analysis of Coal Slurry,” “Fifth Recommendation: Refute 2002 NRC Review and Recommendation of Deep Mine Slurry Injection Methods as a Potential Alternative to Coal Waste Impoundments,” and “Sixth Recommendation: Beyond 2002 NRC Recommendations, Recommend the Expansion of Citizen Involvement in Evaluation and Assessment of Coal Waste Impacts on the Environment and Watershed” (McSpirit 2005). Summary Response: The coal-washing facility, including refuse disposal are discussed in EIS pages A-1-6 through A-1-10. Also, refer to Section 4.4.1.1.2.1 (Draft EIS 4-21 and 4-22) for a discussion of effects of coal-washing refuse disposal. 5(SR43) Summary Comment: The project does not include critical data needed to assess the potential environmental consequences of the coal-washing facility. Summary Response: The coal-washing facility, including refuse disposal are discussed in EIS pages A-1-6 through A-1-10. Also, refer to Section 4.4.1.1.2.1 (Draft EIS 4-21 and 4-22) for a discussion of effects of coal-washing refuse disposal. 5(SR97) Summary Comment: A new Draft EIS should be prepared that offers a more substantial study on the coal-washing facility and refuse and its appropriate disposal. Summary Response: EIS Appendix A includes a detailed discussion of the coal-washing facility proposed under Alternative A. The modeling study conducted by Peabody and included in the life-of-mine permit application is discussed there. The study analyzed chemical data obtained from leachate tests of coal core samples. This information is adequate for OSM to make a decision on the coal-washing refuse disposal proposal. As an added safeguard, Peabody has committed to developing a refuse sampling and disposal plan that would be incorporated into the permit and implemented once the coal washing facility begins operation. A complete description of this plan was included in EIS Appendix A. Peabody’s refuse sampling and disposal plan would ensure appropriate disposal of all refuse generated by coal washing at the mine. 5(SR661) Summary Comment: The EIS states that “Peabody would carry out a sampling and testing plant to analyze the actual chemical constituents of the refuse to make sure the results are consistent with what is expected.” The EIS must define what would be expected, or when we could expect information on what would be expected.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-17

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Summary Response: If Alternative A were approved, Peabody would submit a permit revision to OSM and other agencies that would provide details and expectations associated with commitments in the EIS to sample and test wash plant refuse. 5(SR674) Summary Comment: Peabody should be required to treat and release impounded water.
 Summary Response: Peabody is required to treat runoff from disturbed areas using NPDES permitted sediment
 ponds prior to releasing the water downstream.
 5(SR678) Summary Comment: Another deficiency in this project is the coal-washing facility. The disposal of coal-washing waste in unlined pits will result in contaminant plumes in the local alluvial aquifers. There are no studies on the contaminant transport and its effects on local alluvial aquifers for which many Navajos utilize for their stock. Summary Response: The impacts of the coal-washing facility, under Alternative A, are addressed in EIS Section 4.4.1.1.2.1. Peabody had revised Chapter 18, Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) in the LOM application and submitted responses in September 2005 and April 2006 to OSM technical comments that are directly related to assessments of the hydrologic impacts of plans to dispose of coal-washing plant refuse. In addition, Peabody submitted responses to OSM in April 2006 that addressed the USEPA’s technical comments on coalwashing plant disposal plans and impact assessments. The revised PHC, Peabody’s responses to agency technical comments, and plans for operating the coal-washing plant presented in the LOM and summarized in the EIS adequately demonstrate that no significant impacts on local aquifers or surface water sources would occur as a result of refuse disposal, and applicable Federal regulations would be adhered to. Peabody proposed the coal-washing facility as on component of the 2004 LOM permit revision. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-washing facility would not be constructed. 5(SR687) Summary Comment: Peabody’s disposal of coal-processing wastes from the “coal-washing” facility were not analyzed in the Draft EIS. The coal washing facility would remove approximately 950,000 tons per year of coalprocessing wastes (“CPW”) which would be disposed of directly in the mine pits. DEIS A1-10. Specifically, Peabody has requested authorization to dump 1.38 million tons of waste into the unlined N-6 pit (fro the short term) and long-term disposal at the unlined J-23 CRA. No treatment of the waste would occur prior to dumping. The Draft EIS did not specifically analyze in direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts of Peabody’s request. Id. Extended out to the life of the mine, Peabody’s disposal would result in the dumping of nearly 20,000,000 tons of untreated toxic waste into two unlined pits. Here, Peabody’s application, and in particular, Peabody’s Wash-Plant Refuse Disposal Hydrologic Impact Evaluation Report conservatively notes that the N-6 pit is an area of great potential impact due to its location 30-ft above the Wepo aquifer and its proximity (500 ft) to the major surface-water drainages of Coal Mine Wash and Yucca Flat Wash. The study also noted that pit bottom elevation of N-6 would be below or near the surface elevations of these drainages, presenting another potential hydrologic impact should groundwater migrate from the, pits. The surface of the now undeveloped J-23 pit is currently 500 ft from the Wepo aquifer. This depth would change once the pit was operational. Summary Response: The coal-washing facility, including refuse disposal are discussed in EIS pages A-1-6 through A-1-10. Also, refer to Section 4.4.1.1.2.1 (Draft EIS 4-21 and 4-22) for a discussion of effects of coal-washing refuse disposal. Category 7: Project Components – Coal-slurry pipeline (existing) 7(844) Comment: I have been aware of this issue for many years, since I lived in New Mexico in the late 1970’s. It is my understanding that the coal-fired power plant that was using this coal and the coal slurry pipeline that required the water has been shut down because of extreme air pollution. This being the case, what need is there for the coal slurry pipeline? The Hopi’s sacred springs and way of farming/way of life are much more important and real than Peabody Western Coal’s claim to the water for the slurry pipeline. Response: In response to a lawsuit concerning air quality, the co-owners of the Mohave Generating Station entered into a consent decree with the environmental organizations that filed the lawsuit. Under the consent decree, for the Mohave Generating Station to operate on coal beyond 2005, the co-owners would need to install new air-pollution­ control technology on the plant (sulfur dioxide scrubbers, baghouses, and low nitrogen oxide burners). Under the terms of the consent decree, operation of the power plant was suspended on December 31, 2005, because the airpollution-control technology had not been installed. Alternative A, which is no longer the preferred alternative and

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-18

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

proposed project, addresses supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station, which remains permitted for operation (has not been decommissioned) with operations suspended. Although it appears that implementing Alternative A is unlikely, it nonetheless remains a viable alternative. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS. 7(876) Comment: Project EIS does not identify cost savings of the use of the slurry line. There should be a cost analysis completed of the slurry operating under total gravity. Transportation of coal. There should be a rate charge on the total gravity to slurry coal. Response: The comment is unclear. Estimated costs are shown in EIS sections 2.4.4.1 and 2.4.4.2. 7(909) Comment: I witnessed sinkholes appear and quicksand form along the route of the slurry pipeline. Response: Comment noted. 7(SR32) Summary Comment: The Mining and Reclamation Plan for the Black Mesa Preparation Plant submitted by Black Mesa Pipeline Inc. states that they do not mine coal and insist many of the mining laws do not apply to them. On page 18, for Applicant’s Violation Information [778.14(c)], they insist they have no violations. In Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) v. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. of June 30, 2000, Black Mesa Pipeline intentionally caused misconduct by hiring less qualified people to do a dangerous job. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. has been fined a few times by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for discharging coal slurry near Seligman. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. needs to resubmit their permit application. Summary Response: It is correct that BMPI did not mine the coal. BMPI is the company that was responsible for preparing and transporting the coal from the Black Mesa mining operation via the coal-slurry pipeline to the Mohave Generating Station. 7(SR44) Summary Comment: The hundreds of miles of pipeline running across the desert create a visual impact, pose a security risk, as well as having the potential for dire environmental consequences. Summary Response: It is unclear why the commenter believes the coal-slurry pipeline poses such a risk. As stated in the Draft EIS, pages A-2-13 through A-2-16, for a discussion about pipeline releases. 7(SR45) Summary Comment: What will be done with the current slurry pipeline? It should be removed to avoid adverse environmental effects and restore landscapes (and because it has reached its 35-year design life), and to help restore existing springs impaired on Hualapai lands. Summary Response: On May 17, 2006, OSM and the Hualapai Tribe held a government-to-government meeting to discuss concerns the Hualapai Tribe had about the proposed Black Mesa Project and the EIS. The tribe raised a concern about the possible disruption of flow in the downstream channel below Tackayou Spring as the result of the existing, buried coal-slurry pipeline that crosses under the channel and a proposed new, buried pipeline that would be laid adjacent to the existing pipeline. After conducting a field evaluation, OSMs hydrologists concluded that the existing pipeline has not disrupted surface and subsurface flow in the channel and that the proposed pipeline also would not disrupt flow. Therefore, no mitigation activities are needed in this area for the existing and proposed pipelines. 7(SR46) Summary Comment: The slurry pipeline should not be constructed until right-of-way consent is obtained and unless upgrades to the Mohave Generating Station are approved and financed. Summary Response: As stated in Table 2-6, BIA and BLM would have to grant rights-of ways, and the U.S. Forest Service would have to issue a special use permit or easement prior to reconstruction of the coal slurry pipeline on lands under their jurisdictions. These agencies could make their approvals conditional upon assurances that the Mohave Generating Station would be reopened as a coal-fired plant. However, as a practical matter, this conditional approval would probably not be necessary. Given the high cost of reconstructing the pipeline ($200 million, Table 2-8), Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc., would want assurances the power plant was going to reopen before it began construction activities.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-19

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

7(SR47) Summary Comment: Use of water to transport coal for an illegal, unpermitted, unregulated, un-maintained slurry pipeline(s) that over history was fined repeatedly for ruptures in the pipeline by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) (and which leaves the water unreclaimable) is a waste. How many times will the pipeline rupture? Summary Response: Although the coal-slurry pipeline is not regulated by authority of one agency, construction, operation, maintenance, and abandonment would be subject to the provisions of (1) the rights-of-way permits approved by the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), BLM, Forest Service; (2) issuance of CWA Section 404 permit and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit (for crossing the Colorado River); issuance of CWA Section 401 water-quality certification by USEPA, NNEPA, and states of Arizona and Nevada as appropriate; and (3) compliance with National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation with the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office (HCPO), Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), and State Historic Preservation Offices of Arizona and Nevada. EIS pages A-2-13 through A-2-16 discuss pipeline spills. 7(SR48) Summary Comment: The slurry pipeline should not cross or go under the Colorado River. Summary Response: As does the existing coal-slurry pipeline, under Alternative A, the new section of coal-slurry pipeline would cross under the Colorado River to reach its destination at the Mohave Generating Station. Refer to Appendix A-2, pages A-2-18 and A-2-19, for a discussion of construction methods in special areas, including boring under the Colorado River. 7(SR652) Summary Comment: In Section 780.21(a j) Hydrologic Information. According to the topographic map for the permit facility, there is a pond and an intermittent stream. This section needs to be filled in. Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. had a slurry leak at Seligman Arizona so they need to fill out the section for accidental release of coal slurry at the permit location. There are no high liquid level alarms with an audible or visual signal at a constantly manned operation or surveillance station; nor an audible air vent. There is not high liquid level pump cutoff device set to stop flow at a predetermined tank content level. There is no direct audible or code signal communication between the tank gauger and the pumping station. There is no fast response system for determining the liquid level of each bulk storage tank such as digital computers, telepulse, or direct vision gauges or their equivalent. There is no testing of liquid level sensing devices for proper operation. Summary Response: The comment is unclear. All rain water runoff is caught in a pond on the site and pumped back into the slurry preparation system for use. There is no runoff from the site. The operating permit pertains only to the slurry preparation plant. Down stream operations are not covered by OSM’s permit. Detailed lists of the applicable pipeline permitting authorities and actions are included in the Draft EIS on page 1-7 and in Table 2-6, beginning on page 2-31. The temperature, pressure, flow, liquid level and similar measurement and control devices are inspected, maintained and calibrated using established industry standards so as to keep them in a reliable operating condition. The Coal Preparation plant and Coal Slurry pump stations are under 24 hour SCADA surveillance by a Pipeline Operator and Shift Supervisor in the System Control room. 7(SR676) Summary Comment: The existing pipeline has caused sinkholes and quicksand along the route, and exposed, unmaintained sections have ruptured and discharged coal-slurry in places, including into EPA-defined waters of the U.S.
 Summary Response: BMPI is unaware of sinkholes or quicksand caused by the presence of the coal-slurry pipeline 
 along its alignment. BMPI, which was responsible for delivering the coal to the Mohave Generating Station,
 maintained the pipeline along its entire alignment. Ruptures, as described in Appendix A-2, occurred in later years 
 of it s 35-year-long life and resulted from events other than exposure. 
 Category 8: Project Components – Project water supply 8(831) Comment: Failure to Identify Proposed Action, OSM’s presentation of the project and its failure to address key concerns, despite knowledge of their existence, confused members of the public and precluded meaningful participation. By not stating clearly what water would be used for coal slurry and mining operations, and obfuscating the extent to which the water would come from the Navajo or Coconino aquifer water (or a combination of both), the public was ill-informed of the decision being proposed, especially its impacts on water issues. In fact, the Draft

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-20

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

EIS and distributed materials disguise the fact that it would provide unfettered access to the Navajo aquifer for all 
 mining needs. 
 Response: Potential use of water, considering several scenarios was disclosed in the Draft EIS in Section 2.2.1.2 and
 in the Final EIS in Section 2.2.1.2.3.
 8(832) Comment: If there is so much accessible aquifer water at Big Mountain/Black Mesa, why does Peabody Coal have to use the most pristine and accessible aquifer water there? Response: Because of concerns expressed by the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation, under Alternative A, use C-aquifer water, rather than the N-aquifer water it has been using, was proposed. There is no other suitable source of water at Black Mesa. Shallow, low-volume alluvial aquifers feed most local seeps and springs. 8(833) Comment: Without a Chairman providing solid leadership, there is a high probability that miscommunication could exist between the Hopi Tribe and the Office of Surface Mining. In fact, it appears you are already aware of it. To quote our Vice President from a letter he wrote to you: “The DEIS states that as a “worst case” an average of 2,000 af/yr of N-aquifer water would still be used under Alternative A.” But that is simply not true, the Draft EIS actually states that over 6,000 af/yr of N-aquifer water can be used for “any reason” Yet, you let our Vice Chairman believe he is correct. Additionally the Hopi Water team and Energy team have also actively miss-informed the public that the Black Mesa Project will bring C aquifer water to the coal mine. As you know the Black Mesa Project does not provide for one inch of C aquifer pipeline to be built or allow one drop of C aquifer water to be pumped. The Hopi Tribe has written you in support of Alternative A, but they think that it actually supplies C aquifer water. Again, you let them believe they are correct. The Office of Surface Mining is keenly aware the Black Mesa Project has no authority to obtain C aquifer water. Yet you have done nothing to correct the Hopi Tribe in their misunderstanding, most likely because it would change their support. Instead, while there is no chairman to watch over, OSM will simply turn a blind eye. Has anyone at the Office of Surface Mining let the Secretary of Interior know his trust responsibilities are needed? Response: Under Alternative A, use of C-aquifer water was proposed to reduce the use of N-aquifer water. If Alternative A were implemented, up to 6,000 af/yr of C-aquifer water would be conveyed to the Black Mesa Complex and up to 5,600 af/yr of C-aquifer water would be available to tribal communities along the C aquifer water-supply pipeline. The Hopi Tribe is represented in the project as a cooperating agency and has actively participated in the project. If the C aquifer water-supply system were to fail or be interrupted, N-aquifer water would be used as an emergency backup. 8(834) Comment: Currently presented the Draft EIS relies on false pretenses and fails to identify the project’s scope of N-aquifer withdrawals. As an initial matter, OSM’s preferred alternative, Alternative A, is premised on unfettered N-aquifer withdrawals. In other words, the Alternative A is based, in the final analysis, on N-aquifer water withdrawals as the sole, identifiable source that will ensure sufficient water for the proposed activity. This must be studied and disclosed. Within this “N-aquifer Alternative” OSM offers various speculative “subalternatives” that would reduce N-aquifer dependence by providing varying levels of C-aquifer water withdrawals. But the source relied upon is the N-aquifer. OSM turns this fact on its head when it maintains that “[w]ater for the project is proposed to come primarily from the C aquifer with some supplemental use of the N aquifer.” OSM even identifies the significant obstacles exist to the C aquifer coming on line. If for any reason, be it hydrologic or political, the C aquifer is not able to be used as a water supply for the mine, the full burden of water demand for the life of the mine would fall squarely on N aquifer, at even greater stresses than have occurred in the past. To the extent that OSM is purporting to rely on C-aquifer water to replace N-aquifer water, that reliance on C aquifer is a separate alternative to reliance on N-aquifer water. Moreover, any reliance premised on the combination of the two aquifers must identify their respective proportions rather than write blank checks. Alternative A, as described in the Draft EIS is, in reality, three separate (secondary) alternatives: (1) reliance on C-aquifer water for all mining and slurrying operations (6,000 acre feet/year, with a potential 5,000 acre feet/year for other purposes ); (2) reliance on N-aquifer water for all mining and slurrying purposes (6,000 af/yr); and (3) reliance on a defined portion of both C and N aquifers for all mining and slurrying purposes (6,000 acre feet/year). OSM cannot subsume these three separate alternatives into one catch-all preferred alternative. Response: What has been described in this comment are subalternatives under Alternative A.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-21

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

8(835) Comment: We request that the long term cumulative effects of depleting northern Arizona’s N and C aquifers be included in the analysis for the slurry water alternatives. This should include an updated hydrological analysis, and should include the social, economic, and environmental effects of the lowered water tables. Response: The impacts on resources from use of N- and C-aquifer water are disclosed in Chapter 4 of the EIS. Hydrological models created in 2005 and using the recent data were used in the analyses. 8(910) Comment: More pipelines will only cause more ruptures and other side effects like sinkholes Response: Comment noted. 8(SR141) Summary Comment: This water belongs to the people of the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe. Use of massive amounts of C and N aquifer water to transport coal for a private venture is a waste of a life-sustaining resource in an arid environment, a resource that belongs to those living in Arizona and the southwestern states, and other alternatives should be considered. Summary Response: Studies and computer modeling indicate that there is adequate water in N and C aquifers to support both mining and foreseeable Hopi and Navajo water uses. The Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation are not private entities; they are supporting this project to continue a life-sustaining resource, tribal people and tribal livelihoods. The Tribes would also receive an additional source of water from the project. Refer to the Draft EIS, Sections 2.4.2, beginning on page 2-25, for discussion of other water sources considered, and section 2.4.4, beginning on page 2-42 for discussion of alternative coal delivery methods. However, transporting coal via slurry is a component of Alternative A. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be constructed. 8(SR142) Summary Comment: Do not use C and N aquifer water to transport coal via slurry to produce electricity for distant areas because the magnitude of water use will damage the N aquifer, cause sinkholes, affect wildlife, and compromise the safety and reliability of the country’s water supply. Summary Response: Studies and computer modeling indicate that there is adequate water in the N and C aquifers to support both mining and foreseeable Hopi and Navajo water uses. Potential subsidence of the N aquifer is discussed in the Draft EIS, Appendix H. No evidence has been found of subsidence due to groundwater withdrawals at the Black Mesa mining complex. However, transporting coal via slurry is a component of Alternative A. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be constructed. 8(SR143) Summary Comment: Please require Peabody coal to install a parallel pipeline to return the same waste water from
 Nevada for re-use. Water is more precious in the long run than coal is now. 
 Summary Response: An explanation regarding a water-return pipeline from the Mohave Generating Station to the 
 black Mesa Complex is provided in EIS Section 2.4.3 (Draft EIS page 2-42). However, transporting coal via slurry
 is a component of Alternative A. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, 
 under Alternative B, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be constructed. 
 8(SR228) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS should discuss that the use of poor quality groundwater would be preferable environmentally to the use of good quality groundwater for coal slurry. Summary Response: The EIS addresses the potential use of water from several sources (EIS Sections 2.2.1.2.3, 2.4.2). 8(SR230) Summary Comment: Why did you choose Leupp to mine groundwater? How did you know there was water there?
 This a selfish and wasteful use of our water. 
 Summary Response: The comment is unclear, but we assume the commenter is referring to C-aquifer water. The 
 proponents knew there was a good likelihood of finding adequate supplies of suitable water in the areas drilled
 because of their knowledge of the areas geology and past wells that had been drilled in the C aquifer. The U.S. 
 Geological Survey drilled pump tested wells and found that water of adequate quantity and quality is present in the 
 area of the C aquifer water-supply system well field proposed under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, the 
 proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS, the C-aquifer well field would not be developed.


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-22

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

8(SR231) Summary Comment: It seems as though pumping water uphill from the Leupp well fields is not an efficient method of obtaining water to slurry coal as more water will be required to move the coal. Summary Response: Under Alternative A, 3,700 af/yr of water would be used for the coal slurry; this same amount would be needed regardless of the source. 8(SR245) Summary Comment: The EIS does not identify when and how much municipal water we will receive. 
 Summary Response: The comment is unclear. If the commenter is referring to the amount of water that could be
 delivered to the tribal communities along the C aquifer water-supply pipeline, under Alternative A, the communities 
 could receive up to 5,600 af/yr of C-aquifer water in the short-term, and up to 11,600 af/yr in the long term. 
 However, Alternative A is no longer the proposed project and the preferred alternative. Alternative B is the proposed 
 project and preferred alternative, which does not include construction of the C aquifer water-supply system. 
 8(SR306) Summary Comment: Continued use of the N aquifer under Alternative A with development of the C aquifer watersupply system would, in all likelihood, be much less than the Draft EIS hypothesizes as a worst-case scenario. Because of the demonstrated reliability of the C aquifer, such usage is highly unlikely to approach 2,000 af/yr or to involve actual use of the N aquifer for emergency or backup supply purposes. Rather, future mine-related N-aquifer uses are likely to be limited to about 500 af/yr. Accordingly, the project will reduce recent use of the N aquifer by approximately 90 percent, which would help to protect that resource as a domestic municipal water source and achieve an important objective of the Hopi Tribe. Summary Response: Comment noted. 8(SR491) Summary Comment: Do not use C and N aquifer water for coal slurry because it will dry up springs and other water sources used by local indigenous communities for drinking water, irrigation, medicinal practices, and day-to-day religious practices. Do not show disrespect to these communities by endangering their traditions, way of life, and water resources that will be used to maintain these traditions into the future. Summary Response: For Alternative A, groundwater modeling of the regional N and C aquifers shows no measurable impact on the aquifers or on springs due to project pumping. Studies and groundwater modeling indicate that there is adequate water in N and C aquifers to support both mining and foreseeable Hopi and Navajo water uses. However, Alternative A is no longer the proposed project and preferred alternative; Alternative B is the proposed project in this Final EIS, which means that water will no longer be needed to slurry coal to the Mohave Generating Station. Category 9: Project Components – Project water supply – Coconino aquifer water-supply system (new) 9(845) Comment: If C aquifer is good for drinking why do you plan to be used for drinking in both Navajo-Hopi communities. Response: The comment is unclear. 9(SR233) Summary Comment: The EIS has not adequately addressed the use of C-aquifer water and impacts on local and outlying areas. Summary Response: The statement is unclear about how the water issue is not adequately addressed. Refer to EIS Chapter 4 for analyses of impacts on resources as a result of use of the C aquifer. 9(SR272) Summary Comment: This large quantity of clean drinking water should not be pumped from the C aquifer for use in this project because current and future impacts to Hopi and Navajo communities and also for surrounding northern Arizona communities are not fully known and are likely detrimental according to the science and study of other aquifers in North America. Summary Response: Comment noted. 9(SR275) Summary Comment: There is piece-mealing of the C-aquifer EIS and the Black Mesa EIS. This is not right and both projects should be considered as one to fully address the cumulative effects.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-23

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Summary Response: The C aquifer water-supply system is a component of Alternative A and is addressed in the Black Mesa Project EIS. No separate C-aquifer EIS is being prepared. 9(SR276) Summary Comment: Development of the C-aquifer pipeline will take water from my lands and lead to the end of my traditional lifestyle of living off the land by herding and grazing. Summary Response: Current static water levels in the C aquifer in the well field range from 226 to 615 feet below ground surface (EIS Section 3.4.3.1.2.1 [Draft EIS page 3-35]. Water in the aquifer is far below the root zone of grasses and trees. Changes in the aquifer water level would nor impact forage resources. Any local well owners significantly impacted by water-level changes would be provided water from the C aquifer well field or have their wells deepened or replaced (EIS Section 4.4.1.4.1 [Draft EIS page 4-26]). Under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS, the C-aquifer well field would not be developed. 9(SR277) Summary Comment: It is interesting to note that Peabody and OSM responded to the Indians’ complaint about use of the N aquifer. Why then deplete the C aquifer? Summary Response: Modeling indicates that the C-aquifer saturated thickness will be reduced by a maximum of 8 percent in the center of the well field. The C aquifer would not be depleted due to project pumping. Category 10: Project Components – Project water supply – Coconino aquifer water-supply system (new) – Well Field 10(847) Comment: Who’s going to pay for the sources of water if the water table – if there’s no more water from those wells? Response: Under Alternative A, depending on the specific design of the C-aquifer well field and distribution facilities, some affected well owners would receive replacement water from the proposed well field. Other impacted owners could require that wells be deepened or new wells be drilled. Specific actions would be taken to address impacts on existing water users in coordination with the tribes (EIS Section 4.4.1.4.1 [Draft EIS page 4-26]). However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C-aquifer well field would not be developed. 10(SR57) Summary Comment: Installation and operation of the proposed well field in Leupp would reduce the amount of C-aquifer water and potentially impact wells in that area. Summary Response: Under Alternative A, depending on the specific design of the C-aquifer well field and distribution facilities, some affected well owners would receive replacement water from the proposed well field. Other impacted owners could require that wells be deepened or new wells be drilled. Specific actions would be taken to address impacts on existing water users in coordination with the tribes (EIS Section 4.4.1.4.1 [Draft EIS page 4-26]). However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C-aquifer well field would not be developed. 10(SR58) Summary Comment: The well field would cause noise pollution in that area. Summary Response: Comment noted. Under Alternative A, noise in and nearby the well field from short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the wells is discussed in EIS Section 4.14.1.3.1.1.1 (Draft EIS page 4-121). However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C-aquifer well field would not be developed. 10(SR59) Summary Comment: With installation of the proposed well field, 55 Leupp area residences would have reduced access to their lands or possibly be relocated. Summary Response: Under Alternative A, wells would be dispersed within the well field, spaced about 1.2 to 1.5 miles apart, and each well would require approximately 0.06 acre of permanent right-of-way for a well pad and associated equipment. A spur road to access each well would be needed and the pipeline that would carry the water from each well would be buried in the spur and access roads. Approximately 55 residences exist in the area of the well field. Although residences would be avoided during the development of the well field, access to residences or associated use areas may be disrupted during the short-term construction activities. No residents would be relocated.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-24

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

(EIS Section 4.9.1.3.1) However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C-aquifer well field would not be developed. 10(SR60) Summary Comment: The City of Flagstaff bought a ranch near Leupp specifically for the purpose of creating a well field for drinking water, and plans to draw as much as 11,000 acre-feet per year as well. Will there be enough water for all parties? Summary Response: Under Alternative A, future use by Flagstaff of C-aquifer water in the Leupp area was considered in the cumulative impact analysis (refer to EIS Section 4.24.3.1 [Draft EIS page 4-174]). The increase in drawdown in the well field due to Flagstaff and other users is 10 feet and would result in a reduction in the aquifer saturated thickness of less than 10 percent. There would be enough water for all planned users. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C-aquifer well field would not be developed. 10(SR61) Summary Comment: Have any other well field sites for drawing water from the C aquifer been carefully examined?
 Were any test wells drilled to access water quality and quantity at other sites?
 Summary Response: Under Alternative A, other well-field locations in the Little Colorado River Plateau Hydrologic 
 Basin, including some in the C-aquifer, were evaluated but rejected for various reasons (EIS Section 2.4.2.2). 
 Existing data was used to evaluate these locations, no test wells were drilled. However, Alternative B is the 
 proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C-aquifer well field would 
 not be developed. 
 10(SR62) Summary Comment: Three wells have already been drilled in the Leupp area well field. Well number one does not produce the same amount of water as before. Will someone be repairing that well? Summary Response: The Navajo Department of Water Resources local office at Leupp, which oversees the operation and maintenance of livestock wells in the area, has had water production problems at the site described as site 1 before the C-aquifer test and continuing after the test. The problem is a mechanical issue with the windmill. 10(SR64) Summary Comment: The C-aquifer pumps will suck the C-aquifer water from my surface grass via fault lines and cracks and eventually kill the grass [and] dry out my surface grass and the grass in Canyon Diablo rendering my only living as terminated since my cows, sheep and horses have no place to forage and get water. I would lose my kids and my parents. I water my sheep at the proposed pumping site 3(PW-2B). I would become homeless as the land will become a wasteland. Summary Response: Current static water levels in the C aquifer in the well field range from 226 to 615 feet below ground surface (EIS Section 3.4.3.1.2.1 [Draft EIS page 3-35]. Water in the aquifer is far below the root zone of grasses and trees. Changes in the aquifer water level would nor impact forage resources. Any local well owners significantly impacted by water-level changes would be provided water from the C aquifer well field or have their wells deepened or replaced (EIS Section 4.4.1.4.1 [Draft EIS page 4-26]). However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C-aquifer well field would not be developed. 10(SR65) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS appears to do a cursory review of the construction of the well field in the Canyon Diablo area. Summary Response: EIS Appendix A-3, pages A-3-2 through A-3-9, provides a description of the construction of the well field under Alternative A. The exact locations of the wells had not yet been determined at the time the EIS was prepared. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C-aquifer well field would not be developed. 10(SR66) Summary Comment: Construction of a C-aquifer well field to deliver water from near Leupp, 108 miles to the Black 
 Mesa Complex would affect soil, wildlife, plant, livestock, and human communities. 
 Summary Response: The potential effects of construction and operation of the well field and water-supply pipeline,
 Under Alternnative A, are addressed in various sections in Chapter 4 of the EIS. However, Alternative B is the 
 proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C-aquifer well field would 
 not be developed. 


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-25

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 11: Project Components – Project water supply – Coconino aquifer water-supply system (new) – Water-supply pipeline 11(SR823) Summary Comment: How was the pipeline route that would go through the Hopi Reservation chosen? Was it an engineering recommendation, or was it a political recommendation? Why is this route recommended as the preferred alternative? Summary Response: Under Alternative A, the routes for the water-supply pipeline were sited in coordination with the Hopi Tribe. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C-aquifer C aquifer water-supply pipeline would not be constructed. Category 14: Project Components – Project water supply – Navajo aquifer water-supply system (existing) 14(SR307) Summary Comment: Peabody’s water withdrawals have already caused irreparable physical damage to the N aquifer, dried up springs and washes considered sacred by the Hopi and Navajo, caused land subsidence as evidenced by piping and land fractures (that indicate ground water drainage) in valleys, hills, and over vast areas, and caused development of chasms, violating Peabody’s material damage criteria. Alternatives to slurry transport must be considered. Summary Response: Significant impact on springs and washes due to Peabody pumping has not been demonstrable to date. OSM has participated in at least two field trips to observe features thought to be evidence of subsidence by some local residents. The supposed subsidence features were found, based on field investigation, to be attributable to near-surface erosional processes, rather than N aquifer drawdown that has occurred to date. These previous investigations are discussed in the EIS on page H-10. Alternatives to transportation of coal by slurry are discussed in EIS Section 2.4.4. Under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS, the coalslurry pipeline would not be constructed and the amount of water needed under Alternative B would be much less than Alternative A. 14(SR308) Summary Comment: The U.S. Geological Survey has admitted that OSM’s model to understand the N aquifer is outdated and, therefore, OSM needs to conduct a new hydrological study to understand the impacts of continued use of the N aquifer. Summary Response: OSM uses the recent Waterstone/GeoTrans model of the N and D aquifers. 14(SR309) Summary Comment: Peabody and OSM have consistently maintained that water withdrawal from the N aquifer for coal-slurry transportation has had little or minimal affect on the N aquifer. These published and public reports were based on nearly a dozen studies that have been carried out over the years. Recognizing that the area is still in a drought condition the Final EIS should address whether or not there has been a change in the status of the aquifer since pumping has been stopped for over a year. Has the water table changed? Does the N aquifer recharge itself? Do the claims of the environmentalists and Native American soothsayers have any substance or is it more assumption and prejudice with little or no scientific evidence? Summary Response: Water levels in wells in the permit area have rebounded significantly. The water level in BM 6 20 miles south of the mine has recently shown rebound (CHIA). The delay was expected. OSM has and continues to find there has been no material damage to the N aquifer. 14(SR310) Summary Comment: The use of the N aquifer as a sole source of water is still a viable alternative to Peabody. See Figure 2-1, page 76 [?], and Section 2.2.1.2. In speaking with an OSM representative at one of the public meetings, he could not promise that the N aquifer would NOT be the sole water supply for the Black Mesa Project. He said the applicant had every right to only use N aquifer if it is disclosed that way in the report (Draft EIS). Summary Response: The authorization to develop and use water for mining operations and coal slurrying is given in the original mining leases with the Hopi Tribe (Lease No.14-20-0450-5743) and Navajo Nation (Lease Nos. 14-20­ 0603-8580 and 14-20-0603-9910). 14(SR824) Summary Comment: The public was effectively barred by the agency from reviewing the groundwater studies reviewed and cited by OSM. For this reason, the agency has effectively stymied public review of the alleged impacts on groundwater. Further, there is no indication that OSM’s analysis of environmental consequences to the N aquifer

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-26

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

was based on baseline hydrologic, geologic, and other current information collected for the permit application or included data statistically representative of the site (including actual ground-water information). 30 CFR 780.21(f). Instead, OSM’s analysis merely presumes acceptable baseline conditions of the N aquifer and relies exclusively on an undated numerical model prepared for Peabody and not made publicly available. Summary Response: OSM provided the model to the Natural Resources Defense Council. Category 15: Alternatives 15(848) Comment: The Draft EIS’ s analysis of alternatives and mitigation measures was also inadequate. OSM must conduct a good-faith analysis of alternatives, including alternatives that may not be within the lead agency’s jurisdiction, that would accomplish the project’s basic purpose and reduce impacts. Such alternatives were given short shrift. For example, research shows that all of the energy to be supplied by the proposed project could be obtained more stringent energy conservation measures (SWEEP 2007). Such measures would provide the energy at less cost (indeed, most likely at a cost savings) and without the environmental costs. It is nonsensical for the government to be approving a coal-fired power plant before all available energy conservation measure have been implemented, yet an energy conservation alternative was not seriously and fully considered. Response: Approving a coal-fired power plant is not the purpose of the Black Mesa Project. This EIS is a response to Peabody’s application to revise the mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex. Consideration of energy conservation and development of alternative energy sources is outside the scope of this EIS. However, alternative energy sources and energy efficiency were addressed in a separate study conducted in accordance with California Public Utilities Commission Decision 04-12-016, issued December 2, 2004. The study evaluates potential alternatives to, or complementary energy resources form the Mohave Generating Station (EIS Section 2.4.6). 15(851) Comment: OSM also fails to analyze alternatives that would fulfill one of the stated purposes and needs of the project to transport coal, summarily dismissing them without sufficient evidence. As identified by OSM, one of the two primary purposes of the Black Mesa project is to “supply coal from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada” to fulfill a need for electrical generation. Coal extraction and transport could be accomplished in a number of ways: Reduced-Mining Alternative, that would contemplate reduced coal production which would have reduced water requirements. This alternative could then secure alternative water sources other than the N aquifer, such as the Colorado River, groundwater basins near the coal-slurry pipeline, and gray-water from Flagstaff and Phoenix. Hybrid-Water Alternative, that would combine portions of various water sources, such as gray water from Tuba City, Flagstaff or Phoenix supplemented by Dakota aquifer water. This alternative would overcome the perceived shortfall of gray water from Flagstaff and the Dakota aquifer alone, instead combining the two to sufficiently provide water for coal-slurrying purposes. Response: Coal production under Alternative B (8.5 million tons per year) is less than what would be produced under Alternative A (a total of 14.85 tons per year). Production of 8.5 million tons cannot be reduced as this is the amount that is needed for the Navajo Generating Station to operate efficiently. A reduced-mining alternative is addressed in EIS Chapter 2, Section 2.3. 15(913) Comment: Options one and two are not meaningful choices. Option three, the lesser of the three evils, punishes the tribes. Is the purpose here to break the economic backs of communities who depend on revenues from selling energy, but want, rightfully, to preserve resources upon which daily life depends? The structuring of the alternatives forces an artificial choice between economic and cultural survival. Response: The comment is vague in explaining how the alternatives are not meaningful. EIS Section 4.11 explains the social and economic effects of the three alternatives. 15(SR15) Summary Comment: The purpose and need of this Draft EIS is too narrow in scope to allow for viable alternatives that will mitigate adverse environmental and cultural impacts on Navajo, Hopi, and other northern Arizona communities. We request that the long-term cumulative effects of depleting northern Arizona’s N and C aquifers be included in the analysis for the slurry-water alternatives. This should include an updated hydrological analysis, and should include the social, economic, and environmental effects of the lowered water tables. Summary Response: Cumulative effects of pumping from the N and C aquifers are addressed in EIS Section 4.24. Under Alternative A, which is no longer the proposed project and preferred alternative, impacts due to lowered water tables in the C aquifer; i.e., reduced base flow in Clear Creek, would result largely from ongoing drought

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-27

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

conditions; seasonal precipitation and current heavy industrial use. Therefore, while there will likely be an impact, 99 percent of the impact is not attributable to this project. Under Alternatives B or C, which do not include the slurry pipeline, would have less impact on the N aquifer from water withdrawals and no impact on the C aquifer. 15(SR69) Summary Comment: Decision-makers and the public are unable to make a reasoned choice because the range of reasonable alternatives falls short of NEPA requirements, the environmental analysis is inadequate, and nonwater conveyance alternatives should be explored. Summary Response: The Department of Interior, Office of Environmental Planning and Compliance, Environmental Protection Agency, and other cooperating agencies deem the document in compliance with NEPA. The alternatives addressed in the Draft EIS represent a reasonable range of alternatives. If selected, Alternative A would result in conveyance of water from the proposed C-aquifer well field to the Black Mesa mining operation. Under Alternatives B and C, the Black Mesa mining operation would cease, and water would not need to be conveyed from the C-aquifer well field to the Black Mesa Complex. Alternatives, other than coal-slurry, to transport coal from the Black Mesa mining operation to Mohave Generating Station are addressed in the EIS Section 2.4.4. 15(SR70) Summary Comment: You must consider less destructive alternatives to Peabody’s proposed mining expansion. Summary Response: Comment noted. To clarify, under Alternative A (which is no longer the proposed project), although Peabody would increase the amount of coal mined and processed from the Black Mesa mining operation (from 4.8 million tons per year to 5.4 million tons of coal per year), this would not be considered a mining expansion. 15(SR71) Summary Comment: The City of Flagstaff formally requests that the use of good quality groundwater as a transportation medium for coal be further examined and other alternatives be considered that would minimize or eliminate the use of good quality water from the C aquifer. Summary Response: Comment noted. Several alternatives have been examined as described in EIS Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.4. 15(SR74) Summary Comment: None of the alternatives allow for the long-term security and sovereignty of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. Aside from the “no action” alternative, the only options offered propose the use of water to transport coal. This does not represent a positive choice. Both tribal and non-tribal entities express significant concern with using aquifer water, yet there are no alternatives for non-water conveyance Summary Response: Socioeconomic effects are discussed in EIS Sections 3.11 and 4.11. The alternatives addressed in the EIS represent a reasonable range of alternatives. If selected, Alternative A would result in conveyance of water from the proposed C-aquifer well field to the Black Mesa mining operation. Under Alternatives B and C, the Black Mesa mining operation would cease, and water would not need to be conveyed from the C-aquifer well field to the Black Mesa Complex. Alternatives, other than coal-slurry, to transport coal from the Black Mesa mining operation to Mohave Generating Station are addressed in EIS Section 2.4.4. 15(SR850) Summary Comment: OSM Effectively Limits Itself to Consider Only One Alternative: the “No Action” Alternative. OSM fails to provide an adequate alternatives analysis. In no simple terms, this is not an alternatives analysis under NEPA, as can be seen in Table 1, but merely a range of mining approval actions from which OSM proposes to choose. Summary Response: This EIS is in response to Peabody’s application to revise the mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex and the alternatives appropriately address this. Category 16: Alternatives – Alternative A 16(1045) Comment: I have strong reservations about the Black Mesa Projects ability to meet the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act standards. Response: Peabody’s activities subject to the CAA and CWA must be in compliance for the facilities to operate. The BMS currently operates in substantial accordance with these statutes. Most monitored NAAQS exceedences have been attributed to local weather conditions.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-28

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

16(SR7) Summary Comment: The document is not in accordance with NEPA. A wider range of alternatives, including no water, must be thoroughly analyzed to be in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other Federal law. This may require a supplemental Draft EIS. Summary Response: The Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Planning and Compliance, and other cooperating agencies deem the document in compliance with NEPA. A supplemental Draft EIS is not justified. 16(SR28) Summary Comment: The Black Mesa and Kayenta Mines are regulated under two distinct permits that OSM must approve or disapprove separately. Two key differences between the 2004 application and the 2002 application are: (1) identification of a potentially viable tribal water source, the Coconino aquifer; and (2) the administrative action to subsume the Black Mesa mining operation into the Kayenta mining operation. Summary Response: The Kayenta mining operation is currently administered through OSMs permanent Indian Lands Program permit, the Black Mesa mining operation is currently administered under OSMs Initial Program under an administrative delay of OSMs permanent Indian Lands Program permitting decision instituted in 1990 by the Secretary of the Interior. If under Alternative A OSM were to approve both the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations, there would be no administrative or other need for Peabody and OSM to maintain two permits. (EIS Section 2.1.1) 16(SR77) Summary Comment: Use of C or N aquifer water for coal slurry it an extravagantly wasteful method for moving coal (while others have instituted measures for conserving aquifer water in a period of drought), and the local community would not benefit from the C-aquifer component of Alternative A, but instead only lose water from the aquifer. Summary Response: Under Alternative A, the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation proposed that the C aquifer watersupply system could be expanded to provide 5,600 af/yr of water (in addition to the 6,000 af/yr for the project) for tribal domestic, municipal, industrial and commercial uses. Although not a part of the applicants’ proposed project to meet the purpose and need for the project, both tribes have indicated that upsizing the pipeline and expanding the well field of the system is an alternative that would fulfill the needs of both tribes to significantly expand and improve tribal water supplies at a relatively modest cost. The construction of these water-distribution systems is not currently proposed and, accordingly, is not analyzed in this EIS, and would be subject to future NEPA review processes, when and if appropriate. (EIS Section 1.1) Other socioeconomic effects are discussed in EIS Section 4.11. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. 16(SR80) Summary Comment: Alternative A is, in reality, three separate (secondary) alternatives: (1) reliance on C-aquifer water for all mining and slurrying operations (6,000 acre feet/year, with a potential 5,000 acre feet/year for other purposes ); (2) reliance on N-aquifer water for all mining and slurrying purposes (6,000 acre feet/year); and (3) reliance on a defined portion of both C- and N-aquifers for all mining and slurrying purposes (6,000 acre feet/year). OSM cannot subsume these three separate alternatives into one catch-all preferred alternative. Summary Response: Under Alternative A, water for the project would come primarily from the C aquifer with minimized use of the N aquifer water. It was the applicants’ intent to no longer use water from the N aquifer for slurry use and to minimize its use for mine-related uses. The existing N aquifer water-supply system would continue to supply up to 500 af/yr, to maintain the wells in operational condition, for mine-related and domestic uses and also would be used as an emergency back-up supply in the event that the C aquifer were to fail for an extended period of time (which is not expected). Pumping the N aquifer for project-related uses would cease when the water is no longer needed for project-related uses, including reclamation. The leases require the N-aquifer wells to be transferred to the tribes in operating condition once Peabody successfully completes reclamation and relinquishes the leases. Two subalternatives are addressed in the EIS: (1) supplemental use of N-aquifer water to maintain the N-aquifer well field in an operationally ready state to supply the public and in case water from the well field is needed for emergencies and (2) use of water from the N aquifer for the life of the project in the event the C aquifer water-supply project is not approved.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-29

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

16(SR84) Summary Comment: Alternative A would cause radiation contamination for Leupp. 
 Summary Response: The comment is vague regarding how Alternative A, which is no longer the proposed project 
 and preferred alternative, would cause radiation contamination. 
 16(SR85) Summary Comment: Alternative A would cause personal hardship due to loss of a road, and affect care of a homebound parent (e.g., regarding emergency care transportation and water hauling). Summary Response: The comment is unclear. Under Alternative A, access to residences may be interrupted during reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline and construction of the water-supply system; however, access would not be blocked entirely nor would roads be closed without alternative access. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed and C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. 16(SR144) Summary Comment: With the Mohave Generating Station closed, why was there not an alternative that would just build the C aquifer community component? The Mohave Generating Station operations are no longer needed or, is it? Summary Response: If operation of the Mohave Generating Station does not resume, there would be no need for coal to be supplied to the Mohave Generating Station and there would be no project-related need for developing the C aquifer water-supply system. Under Alternative A, construction and operation of the proposed C aquifer watersupply system would provide an opportunity for the tribes to pay the incremental costs of increasing water production from the C aquifer and increasing the size of the water-supply pipeline rather than having to pay for the entire cost of construction, operation, and maintenance of the water-supply system. 16(SR825) Summary Comment: Who will be making the final decision? (regarding the choice of alternatives). 
 Summary Response: In full consideration of recommendations and concurrence from the cooperating agencies, 
 OSM as lead Federal agency decided which alternatives were analyzed the Final EIS. The Manager, Program 
 Support Division, Western Region, OSM, will make a decision on the coal mine permit application under SMCRA. 
 The Group Administrator, Renewable and Mineral Resources, Division of Resources, Arizona State Office, BLM,
 will make a decision on the mining plan under Secretarial Order No. 3087, Amendment No. l (February 7, 1983), 
 and the Tribal Lands Leasing Act (25 U.S.C. 396a ). If, in the future, NPDES permit modifications or new NPDES 
 permits are needed for discharges on Indian Lands in Arizona, these permits would be issued by the Director, Water 
 Division, Region 9, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 
 Section 1342). 
 Category 17: Alternatives – Alternative A – Coal-slurry pipeline subalternatives 17(SR133) Summary Comment: Clean and recycle the water from the coal slurry pipeline. 
 Summary Response: Under Alternative A, about half of the water used to transport the coal in the slurry can be 
 reclaimed and used for cooling and other purposes at the power plant (EIS Section 2.4.3 [Draft EIS page 2-42]).
 However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, 
 the coal-slurry pipeline would not be constructed.
 17(SR826) Summary Comment: Local American Indian communities have not been fully consulted regarding right-of-way. Navajo Nation law recognizes property rights of residents along the pipeline routes, and five Hopi villages (Kykotsmovi, Orayvi [Old Oraibi], Paaqavi [Bacavi], and perhaps Songoopavi [Shongopavi] and Hot’vela [Hotevilla]) potentially will assert original jurisdiction on the “Hopi” route (which pre-dates the establishment of the Hopi Tribal Council in 1936). Also, the EIS has failed “to find a path for the ... 108-mile water supply pipeline that will not destroy sacred sites.” Summary Response: Under Alternative A, the routes considered for the C aquifer water-supply pipeline were developed in coordination with the Hopi Tribe. Tribal right-of-way decisions will be made according to the requirements of Tribal law. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-30

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 19: Alternatives – Alternative A – Coal-slurry pipeline subalternatives – Kingman area reroute 19(SR87) Summary Comment: With abandonment rather than removal of the existing pipeline, many Kingman residents who live along the pipeline would be at risk because of the potential for build up of coal particulate gasses. Peabody should be subject to laws in Arizona that require owners to dispose of potentially hazardous debris at their own expense, and should be required to safely remove the existing (and any future) line to avoid harm to current and future landowners or home owners who own land or live along the line(s). Summary Response: If the pipeline were abandoned in place, BMPI, the owner and operator of Black Mesa coalslurry pipeline would ensure that the pipeline is purged of any remaining coal fines, which are inert and nontoxic (EIS Appendix A-2, pages A-2-15 and A-2-16). The pipeline then would be capped. There would be no coal particulate gasses. The slurry was displaced from the pipeline, which is currently filled with fresh water and most of the pipeline would be abandoned in-place, filled with fresh water and capped. 19(SR88) Summary Comment: The pipeline is incompatible with development in Kingman and in the Golden Valley area. The City of Kingman favors relocation of the existing route to avoid conflict with existing and future development. Mohave County is concerned that the pipeline would be built in areas proposed for “very near future development in Golden Valley, and would lie beneath areas of significant development. The County also is concerned about construction-related disruption to people who already live there, and about use of county-owned right-of-way, and would like to be thoroughly consulted on the proposed plan.” Summary Response: Early in the EIS process, BMPI coordinated with both the City of Kingman and Mohave County to develop an alternative route to the existing coal-slurry pipeline route through the Kingman area. The resulting alternative is the Kingman Area Reroute, which, under Alternative A, would be the preferred route for the pipeline if Alternative A were selected. The route is shown in EIS Map 2-5b. If Alternative A were selected, prior to reconstruction the City of Kingman, and County of Mohave, would be consulted about the proposed reroute and the City’s expressed interest in taking ownership of part of the existing pipeline, for conversion to a water distribution service, as previously discussed with them. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed. Category 20: Alternatives – Alternative A – Project water supply 20(919) Comment: The sacred springs that the Hopi and Navajos depend on are drying up. Please research less destructive methods to Peabody’s coal mining expansion. Response: The 20-year Black Mesa Archaeological Project, conducted between 1967 and 1986, fulfilled OSM’s obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Black Mesa Complex. Pursuant to terms and conditions of the current LOM Permit AZ-0001D that OSM renewed on July 6, 2005, Peabody continues to take into account any sacred and ceremonial sites brought to the attention of Peabody by local residents, clans, or tribal government representatives of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation (Special Condition 1). Because impacts to any sacred springs and seeps are being addressed pursuant to that permit condition, development of another alternative is unwarranted. 20(1059) Comment: Alternative A also authorizes the continued use of N-aquifer water as a back-up to the C aquifer. We expect the C aquifer will not be developed, which means the N aquifer would be used and over 6,000 acre feet per year would be withdrawn for the coal-slurry operation for the life of the operation (the year 2010 through 2026). This volume is more than the approximately 4,000 to 4,500 acre feet per year that was being withdrawn to support the coal slurry prior to the closing of the Mohave Generating Station. This means that in only 16 years, the pristine water supply that could sustain 10,000 Hopi and Tewa people for over 400 years will be withdrawn to slurry coal to the plant and would have devastating impacts on our culture. Response: Refer to EIS Section 2.2.1.2.3 for a discussion regarding water supply and Section 4.4 for a discussion on the effects of the alternatives on water resources. 20(1060) Comment: The co-option of Flagstaff’s water in a water-deprived area for controversial, environmentally questionable, and culturally insensitive industrial purposes is an issue that deserves considerably more attention than it so far has been given. Response: Comment noted.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-31

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

20(SR146) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not discuss options other than use of the N and C aquifers. 
 Summary Response: Alternatives considered, including other water sources and alternative coal-delivery methods, 
 are discuss in EIS Section 2.4. 
 20(SR147) Summary Comment: Is there a plan to reuse or recycle the slurry water once it reaches the Mohave Generating Station? Summary Response: About half of the water used to transport the coal in the slurry can be reclaimed and used for cooling and other purposes at the power plant (ESI Section 2.4.3). However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed to deliver coal to the Mohave Generating Station. 20(SR234) Summary Comment: The use of water in the mining process has not been adequately defined and is probably more than is available. Summary Response: Refer to the Draft EIS, section 2.1.3, page 2-8, for discussion of Uses of water in the mining process are discussed in EIS Section 2.2 and in Appendix A-1. 20(SR235) Summary Comment: Impacts on water quality as well as quantity are a concern. Summary Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.4. 20(SR236) Summary Comment: It sounds absurd to even consider granting water rights to an organization that has already depleted another ground water table and is now pursuing another. Summary Response: Granting water rights is not a part of the EIS decisions. The authorization to develop and use water for use in mining operations is given in the original mining lease with the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. 20(SR246) Summary Comment: There is inadequate study of the potential impacts on Lower Little Colorado River and potential water shortages to the ever-expanding populations of the Colorado Plateau. Summary Response: The EIS describes the impact of the proposed project on the surface and groundwater resources of the affected portions of the Colorado Plateau. Modeling indicates that C aquifer, under Alternative A, can meet projected project and nonproject demands through the planning period. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed and C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. 20(SR247) Summary Comment: Further depletion of the C and N aquifers would be in addition to the consequences of 
 “Peabody’s failure to adhere to the limits for water sequestration.” 
 Summary Response: Because the comment is not clear as to what is meant by water sequestration, OSM cannot 
 respond to it. 
 20(SR248) Summary Comment: I object to the fact that you knowingly cut Flagstaff City Government out of the process when making this Draft EIS. The City (before scoping) bought a ranch near Leupp specifically for the purpose of creating a well field for drinking water. They plan to draw as much as 11,000 af/yr as well. Will there be enough water? Or will everyone in Leupp just get dust from their wells while Flagstaff and Peabody suck the water dry? Summary Response: The City of Flagstaff was not cut out of the EIS process. The Flagstaff Utilities Departments director presented oral comments at the EIS scoping meeting OSM held in Flagstaff. At that time, he entered into the record a city council resolution requesting that the city be included in the planning process for the C-aquifer water supply project part of the Black Mesa Project proposal. In response to this request, the Bureau of Reclamation, a cooperating agency on the EIS and the contracting agency for the USGS modeling of Alternative A’s effect on the C aquifer, met with the Utilities Department Director and received city projections on its use of C-aquifer water. These projections were incorporated into cumulative impacts modeling done for the EIS.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-32

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

20(SR266) Summary Comment: What constitutes an “outage of the C-aquifer system?” If water quality becomes poor in the C aquifer? If Peabody decides on a whim to switch? The Draft EIS does not adequately describe outages in the Coconino aquifer. Summary Response: The commenter is referring to the statement in the EIS indicating during outages or interruptions of supply from the C-aquifer well field water, under Alternative A, would be pumped from the N aquifer (EIS Section 4.4.1.5.1). These could result, for example, from a temporary loss of electricity to power the pumps in the well field or temporary suspension of operation for repairs. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. Category 21: Alternatives – Alternative A – Project water supply – Navajo aquifer only 21(857) Comment: Alternatives A and B will exacerbate resource conflicts by consolidating mining operations under a single permit that will allow the continued use of N-aquifer groundwater. Response: Comment noted. 21(1061) Comment: Both the Navajo and Hopi Tribes have already passed resolutions ending the use of the N aquifer for coal slurry. Do not ignore these resolutions, and further harm the N aquifer and communities which depend on these resources for basic and future survival. Response: On July 25, 2003, the Navajo Nation Council passed a resolution supporting “the end of pumping of the N-Aquifer by Peabody Western Coal Company for its coal mining and pipeline operations on the Black Mesa no later than 2005.” However, as stated by the Navajo Nation President in an August 11, 2003, press release “To have the effect of law, the Council would have to rescind the existing leases to stop pumping, however, as it stands now the Nation has binding leases which allow use of the N-Aquifer pumping beyond 2005, unless an alternative water source is identified and agreed by the tribes and companies.” OSM could not find any Hopi Tribal Council resolution to end N-aquifer pumping. 21(SR312) Summary Comment: Given that the N aquifer will continue to be used for mining under all of the alternatives as presented, the Draft EIS should explicitly address unresolved conflicts over N aquifer water. Summary Response: Under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS, water would no longer be needed for slurrying coal thereby reducing the amount of N-aquifer water needed for minerelated uses. The authorization to develop and use water for use in mining operations is given in the original mining lease with the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. Category 22: Alternatives – Alternative A – Project water supply – Coconino aquifer 22(1062) Comment: Alternative A will have a long term major impact on the C aquifer Well Field. On page 4-29 Table 4-6 are stream flows for Upper East Clear Creek, Lower Clear Creek and Lower Chevelon Creek for the Draft Black Mesa EIS. URS uses these values for the EIS. The Leake, S.A., Hoffmann, and Dickinson, J.E., 2005 page 26 says the following “The ground-water change model of the C aquifer described in this report was designed specifically to compute the possible effects of ground-water withdrawals in an unconfined part of the aquifer near Leupp, Arizona, about 25 miles from the nearest connected surface-water feature, lower Clear Creek. Treatment of the aquifer as a porous medium with generalized aquifer properties is reasonable for this scale of simulation. This model should not be used for purposes such as evaluation of possible drawdown in and around well fields because local conditions such as flow in fractures and heterogeneities not represented in the model may be important at that scale. The model also was not designed to evaluate the effects of existing withdrawals throughout the C aquifer on streams of interest including lower Clear and Chevelon Creeks. That purpose would require a calibrated flow model, rather than a change model. A related caution is that the model should not be used to evaluate the effects of withdrawals in areas other than near Leupp. The perimeter boundaries are distant from this area so that possible errors in placement or types of these boundaries will not affect the calculation of depletion in stream reaches of interest. This is not true, however, for an area such as Flagstaff, which is near a model boundary. Also, in the attempt to calibrate the change model, many observations near the confined-unconfined boundary could not be matched. More work would need to be done before the model could be used with confidence to evaluate the effects of withdrawals in those areas.” The

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-33

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Black Mesa Draft EIS uses stream flows for Upper East Clear Creek, Lower Clear Creek and Lower Chevelon Creek for evaluation purposes going against the intent of the authors. Response: The USGS “change model” was used only to assess impacts on Upper Clear Creek. Impacts on Lower Clear Creek and Chevelon Creek and on other water users, under Alternative A, were determined with a calibrated flow model. Refer to EIS Appendix H. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. 22(SR280) Summary Comment: The EIS provides insufficient information on the impacts of project-related C-aquifer water use on area hydrology. Like many areas on the Navajo Nation, there is not enough real-time monitoring data acquired. Therefore, hydrological models can not accurately predict the extent of the cone of depression and the effects of pumping on the regional aquifer. Summary Response: The EIS uses models and analyses that are state-of-the-art for analysis of hydrologic impacts and are based on the most recent available data. 22(SR282) Summary Comment: JJ CLACS & Company, 2005 page 68 [Leupp Chapter Land Use Plan] says there is a sinkhole at Canyon Diablo Dam including solution joints. Obviously well field data cannot be used for determination of water drawdown in the C aquifer. S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. (2005) page 24, Model Limitations A. The C aquifer model was designed to evaluate regional flow conditions, and for this purpose utilizes a minimum grid size of one square mile. As a result, local variations in hydrologic and hydrogeologic conditions at scales smaller than one square mile are not considered. Similarly, the gridsize means that the modeled water levels represent an average head within a 1 mile by 1 mile area. Consequently, it is not possible to accurately predict water levels at all wells, particularly those near pumping centers where the pumping wells is not located precisely at the cell center. Summary Response: Under Alternative A, the well field area would be approximately 10 miles by 4 miles in area. Data from the USGS test wells shows that production well drawdown is largely confined to within 500 feet of the pumping well. In addition, any local well owners significantly impacted by water level changes would be provided water from the C-aquifer well field or have their wells deepened or replaced (EIS Section 4.4.1.4.1 [Draft EIS page 4-26]). However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C-aquifer well field would not be developed. 22(SR283) Summary Comment: Other limitations apply to the results of the simulation. Calibration efforts were focused on the aquifer conditions within and near the proposed well field, on baseflow conditions in the lower reaches of Clear and Chevelon Creeks, and on spring flows. Consequently, less attention was given to aquifer conditions in outlying areas not directly impacting these parameters. For example, in the northwestern part of the model area, groundwater levels are believed to be below the bottom of the C aquifer and, as a result, the C aquifer does not technically exist in these areas. In these areas, groundwater flow from the C aquifer moves into the underlying Redwall Limestone Aquifer and is transmitted to discharge points at Blue Springs and other locations. In the model of these areas, the C aquifer was not removed even when the computed groundwater level was below the bottom of what is considered to be the C aquifer. However, the groundwater flow toward the discharge points occurs in the Redwall Limestone and is included in the model. As a result, the maintenance of the C aquifer in these areas simply adds an additional mechanism for flow to reach the discharge points. As these areas are considerable distance from the proposed well field, these deviations from the actual aquifer structure are of no consequence to the goals of the model. Summary Response: Comment noted. We agree that these limitations have no impact on the goals of the model and its ability of predict changes in C-Aquifer water levels due to project pumping. 22(SR284) Summary Comment: Flagstaff has invested millions of dollars in the purchase Red Gap Ranch as a future water source for the City. The Ranch is adjacent to the area designated for C-aquifer ground water withdrawals. Few choices exist as to how Flagstaff will accommodate its future unmet water demands and we anticipate needing to import water from the area in the next fifteen years. For that reason, our ability to obtain sufficient supplies of goodquality ground water from this area is critical. During the initial comment period for the project, the City of Flagstaff adopted a resolution (attached) that requested the City be included in the planning process. We requested Flagstaff’s projected water use be included in the determination of hydrologic adequacy. City staff met with Bureau of Reclamation staff and discussed demands that Flagstaff anticipates from the Red Gap Ranch area. The Draft EIS does not indicate that pumping to Flagstaff has been included in the hydrologic analysis.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-34

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Summary Response: The Draft EIS was written before the acquisition by Flagstaff of Red Gap Ranch. However, the Draft EIS assumed that Flagstaff would locate wells on the Bar-T-Bar Ranch, which is adjacent to the Red Gap Ranch. Pumping from the C-aquifer well field, the Flagstaff Bar-T-Bar wells and all other off-reservation water users results in a maximum predicted drawdown of 68 feet in the C-aquifer well field. This is a reduction in aquifer saturated thickness of less than 10 percent and will not prevent other planned uses. 22(SR623) Summary Comment: Long-term availability of groundwater should be secured for local versus outside (primarily short-term industrial) interests. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 23: Alternatives – Alternative A – Project water supply – Coconino aquifer – Capacity 23(SR250) Summary Comment: Groundwater modeling should incorporate projected pumping for Flagstaff municipal water use (10,000 to 20,000 af/yr) at the adjacent Red Gap Ranch well field. How would the combined pumping affect water quantity and quality in the Red Gap Ranch well field, and area springs? Summary Response: The Draft EIS was written before the acquisition by Flagstaff of Red Gap Ranch. However, the Draft EIS assumed that Flagstaff would locate wells on the Bar-T-Bar Ranch, which is adjacent to the Red Gap Ranch. Pumping from the C-aquifer well field, the Flagstaff Bar-T-Bar wells and all other off-reservation water users results in a maximum predicted drawdown of 68 feet in the C-aquifer well field. This is a reduction in aquifer saturated thickness of less than 10 percent and will not prevent other planned uses. Under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. Category 24: Alternatives – Alternative A – Project water supply – Coconino aquifer – Capacity – 6,000 acrefeet per year 24(SR63) Summary Comment: Shouldn’t there be an alternative well field site, for pumping the 6,000 acre-feet per year of low quality water if the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation can’t come forward with money to pay for expanding water production with a larger pipeline since if there is no participation by Navajo and Hopi there will be no use of this water for domestic uses? Summary Response: One poor-quality groundwater site, near Tucker Mesa on the Navajo Reservation, was considered early in the process as a mine-only alternative. However, the water quality was so poor that extensive treatment and brine disposal would have been required prior to use for the slurry (under Alternative A), so it was eliminated from consideration. As the EIS progressed, the opportunity to deliver reliable, higher-quality C-aquifer water to tribal communities became an even higher priority for the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. Under Alternative A, the water-supply pipeline would be designed to pump the additional 5,600 af/yr for tribal DCMI use in the future. Therefore, the tribes would be paying for both the cost of upsizing the pipeline as well as the OMRE costs for pumping the water up to the tribal communities along the pipeline route. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. Category 26: Alternatives – Alternative A – Project water supply – Coconino aquifer – Water-supply pipeline route 26(SR148) Summary Comment: The EIS does not identify the alternative pipeline route of the C aquifer (one was to go through, one around, the Hopi tribal area). Summary Response: Under Alternative A, the two alternative routes for the water-supply pipeline are the Eastern Route, which crosses the Hopi and Navajo reservations, and the Western Route, which crosses the Navajo Reservation only. The two alternatives are shown in EIS Map 2-5 and are described in EIS Section 2.2.1.2.3.1.2. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. 26(SR540) Summary Comment: How would the western route for the water supply pipeline affect commercial and other development along [US?] 160 [under jurisdiction of the Shonto Chapter]?

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-35

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Summary Response: Under Alternative A, the Western Route would parallel U.S. 160 from the Tonalea and Red Lake area to the loading site of the Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad. It is not possible to determine the effects of the presence of the pipeline without knowing how the tribes would plan for the C-aquifer water distribution. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. Category 27: Alternatives – Alternative A – Project water supply – Coconino aquifer – Water-supply pipeline route – Eastern alternative 27(SR52) Summary Comment: How would the water be piped along Hopi road-highways into their reservation up to Black Mesa as proposed? Summary Response: The EIS provides a description of the Alternative A C aquifer water-supply pipeline routes across the Hopi Reservation (refer to the EIS Section 2.2.1.2.3.1.2 and Map 2-5). However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. Category 28: Alternatives – Alternative A – Project water supply – Coconino aquifer – Water-supply pipeline route – Eastern alternative – Little Colorado River Crossing 28(SR149) Summary Comment: The Hopi Tribe strongly supports [the water-supply pipeline] crossing the Little Colorado River by way of horizontal boring [as it would result in less disturbance to the riverine ecology]. Summary Response: The Hopi Tribe is a cooperating agency for the preparation of the EIS. Consistent with this statement, under Alternative A, the cooperating agencies preferred alternative in the Draft EIS was the placement of the C aquifer water-supply pipeline under the Little Colorado River by the use of horizontal boring. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. Category 29: Alternatives – Alternative A – Project water supply – Coconino aquifer – Water-supply pipeline route – Eastern alternative – Kykotsmovi 29(954) Comment: What is the detailed impact on Kykotsmovi? Response: Under Alternative A, the C aquifer water-supply pipeline’s Eastern Route would pass through or in the vicinity of the village of Kykotsmovi. Two minor routing alternatives were considered in the Kykotsmovi area (Map 2-5b): along the western subalternative, the water-supply pipeline would be buried beneath the main roadway through the village of Kykotsmovi, and along the eastern subalternative, the water-supply pipeline would be buried in the right-of-way of the road that bypasses Kykotsmovi on its eastern edge. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. 29(SR150) Summary Comment: The proposed pipeline will pass directly through Kykotsmovi Village lands. According to the proposed route of the pipeline, the preferred route is through the Village of Kykotsmovi. This is a cause of concern for the Village because of the likely disruption the pipeline’s construction will have on existing infrastructure (water and sewer lines) and our service to village residents. While we support the pipeline, we must insist that the route be sited around the outside of the village, along BIA Route 2, rather than down main street of Kykotsmovi. Although we have both water and sewer lines in the area of Route 2, the impacts and disruption would not be as great. We would need assurances from the owner of the pipeline that any realignment of these existing lines would be done with minimal temporary interruption of service and that the cost of any such re-alignment would be borne by the pipeline owner and not by the Village of Kykotsmovi. Summary Response: The Hopi Tribe expressed the interest in changing the preferred route of the water-supply pipeline, under Alternative A, from the route through Kykotsmovi to the route at the eastern edge of Kykotsmovi. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-36

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 30: Alternatives – Alternative B 30(SR90) Summary Comment: This language on page ES-7 of the executive summary is confusing: “The 18,984 acres associated with the Black Mesa mining operation, including the 127 acres for the coal haul road, would be incorporated into the expanded permit area. However, the Black Mesa mining operation... would not resume operations.” How would additional acreage be incorporated into the expanded permit, but the mining operation cease? Summary Response: As part of Alternative B in the Final EIS, 18,857 acres, which is part of Peabody’s lease area, would be incorporated into the permanent Indian Lands Program permit and, therefore, permitted for mining. However, the Black Mesa mining operation would cease since coal for the Mohave Generating Station would no longer be needed. 30(SR92) Summary Comment: Based on the current rate of production, does Alternative B assume that the Kayenta Mine will be operating after 2026? Summary Response: OSM evaluated an extended mining scenario beyond 2026 in the cumulative effects section (Section 4.24). This extended mining would occur within the boundaries of the Black Mesa Complex; it could occur in the location of the current Kayenta Mine, in the current location of the Black Mesa Mine, or both. Category 31: Alternatives – Alternative C 31(863) Comment: Similarly, the no action Alternative C will continue to allow the use of N-aquifer water at the Kayenta mining operation. [Thereby exacerbating resource conflicts] Response: Comment noted. Category 32: Alternatives – Disapprove all 32(868) Comment: The Leupp Chapter Resolution, an official document that speaks to the environmental impact study for the proposed Black Mesa Project. The Resolution here was passed in December of 2006, and with the officials presiding, and it was a duly-called meeting, and there was a vote and affirmation of a passage to this Resolution. It is basically to oppose the EIS document in its entirety. Response: Comment noted. The Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation are cooperating agencies in this EIS and have been participating actively in the development and preparation of the EIS. 32(SR126) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS should have included an alternative that closed the area to coal mining. Summary Response: The Draft EIS includes two alternatives (Alternatives B and C) that address ceasing the Black Mesa mining operations. However, there is no alternative that addresses cessation of the Kayenta mining operation as it is permitted to operate through 2026. Refer to the EIS Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. Category 33: Alternatives – New alternative proposed through public comments 33(SR101) Summary Comment: There appears to me to be an underground lake at Red Gap Ranch which Peabody is going to mine for groundwater. Why not tap the water from this underground lake further away from the Leupp area. Beyond where the lake is dammed up. Summary Response: There is no evidence in the literature or in the USGS well field studies that identifies an underground lake. 33(SR102) Summary Comment: If current air and water pollution requirements are met by the Four Corners power plants, it would be better to burn the coal at these plants than to ship it all the way to Nevada. Summary Response: Before operation of the Mohave Generating Station was suspended in December 2005, the generating station was and would continue to be important to the co-owners of the power plant because of its dependability as a base source of power to the region (1,580 megawatts of power) and because it is fueled with coal, which is less expensive than natural gas. In addition, any restart of Mohave would be contingent upon installation of the best available emissions technology intended to bring the plant into compliance with applicable air quality standards. Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 M-37 Appendix M – Comments and Responses

33(SR103) Summary Comment: Why not build a new power plant close to the coal mine that is environmentally safe, that gets away from all the problems, and that will not drain the aquifer? Summary Response: Although operation of the Mohave Generating Station was suspended in December 2005 until new air-pollution-control technology can be installed on the plant, the power plant is licensed and operational. To build a new power plant closer to the mine would require extensive planning, development, and permitting. 33(SR109) Summary Comment: Use water and solar energy to transform coal into methane (e.g., natural gas) and diethyl and dimethyl ethers (cleaner diesel fuels). Summary Response: Transforming coal into methane and diethyl and dimethyl ethers is beyond the scope of the Black Mesa Project EIS. 33(SR110) Summary Comment: To avoid use of water and pulverization of coal for coal slurry, use conveyer belts to transport coal from the mine, across reservation lands, to the railroad. Summary Response: At present, coal is conveyed a few miles from the Kayenta mining operation to the railroad for transportation of the coal to the Navajo Generating Station at Page, Arizona. To convey coal from the Black Mesa mining operation to the closest railroad (near Winslow, Arizona) would require crossing approximately 164 miles. Such a conveyor would not be technically or economically feasible or reasonable. Also, dust from the coal would increase particulate matter. 33(SR111) Summary Comment: Two resources are not used: (1) The existing 270-mile pipeline [could] be used as a pressure vessel for compressed air energy. Compressed air from intermittent remote renewable sources can be released through an air driven turbine generating power for sale during peak usage times. The pipeline volume is approximately 2 to 2.5 million cubic feet. (2) Use the C-aquifer water as convective coolant for pumping stations via liquid/liquid heat exchangers. The lengthy sections between each station allow the water to return to ambient temperature. Limited generation at each station is possible. Summary Response: Comment noted. However, the alternatives suggested in your comment are beyond the scope of the Black Mesa Project EIS. 33(SR112) Summary Comment: Consider extracting energy resources from another place, such as Tuba which has coal and natural gas to fuel the power station. Summary Response: The Black Mesa Complex is leased with the intention of providing coal. 33(SR304) Summary Comment: Consider setting a reasonable date for ending the use of N aquifer water and replacing it with another source such as water from Lake Powell, which could be delivered to Black Mesa by means of the rail line that currently travels between Page and Black Mesa. Summary Response: Other water sources are discussed in EIS Section 2.4.2. Category 34: Alternatives – No more mining 34(SR116) Summary Comment: Do not resume mining because the operation has already severely depleted the N aquifer (causing land subsidence), irreversibly damaged the environment, and destroyed natural landscapes; continuation of mining would exacerbate these problems. Summary Response: Potential subsidence of the N aquifer is discussed in the Draft EIS, Appendix H. No evidence has been found of subsidence due to groundwater withdrawals at the Black Mesa mining complex. Category 35: Alternatives – Do no use water (for mining and/or transporting coal in slurry) 35(SR17) Summary Comment: Heart-felt grievances by residents near the Black Mesa Complex and supporting facilities are well known and documented by OSM. Cumulative impacts are unknown and unacceptable. We are moved to ask, why are future coal mining proposals even being considered? Summary Response: This EIS is a response to Peabody’s application to revise the already-permitted mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-38

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

35(SR121) Summary Comment: Water is a precious resource, particularly in this time of drought. It is irresponsible to allow the mining of either of the only sources of drinking quality ground water for the Navajo and Hopi people for the purpose of washing and slurrying coal to a non-operational generating station hundreds of miles away from the mine. Both the N aquifer and the C aquifer serve a critical role in the continuing existence and livelihood of the Indian people as well as others in the northern Arizona area. Other means of transporting coal or other forms of energy generation should be considered. Summary Response: Comment note. Alternative coal-delivery methods (associated with Alternative A) are discussed in EIS Section 2.4.4. and a discussion of alternative forms of energy generation is in EIS Section 2.4.6. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed. 35(SR125) Summary Comment: The water used to transport coal will not be reclaimed. Summary Response: About half of the water used to transport the coal in the slurry can be reclaimed and used for cooling and other purposes at the power plant (EIS Section 2.4.3). However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed. 35(SR244) Summary Comment: Using water from the aquifer could cause loss or damage to local water supplies and springs
 that are fed by the aquifers. 
 Summary Response: Impacts on wells, streams, and springs are discussed in the EIS Section 4.4. Impacts on
 N aquifer water-supplies and springs are negligible. Within the leasehold some springs and wells may be impacted. 
 Peabody is required to supply alternative water in as close a proximity to the original supply as possible. 
 Category 38: Alternatives Considered – Approval of Black Mesa LOM revision, disapproval of Kayenta LOM revision 38(SR19) Summary Comment: OSM should deny Peabody the revised mine application because the size of the revision clearly indicated that a new LOM permit is required. Summary Response: OSM is processing the permit revision in the same manner as a new permit. 38(SR152) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS fails to discuss eventual plans under a LOM permit that may include further lease area expansion, environmental damage and relocation of stakeholders until the coal seam has been exhausted. Summary Response: There are no proposals to lease additional coal. Any additional coal leasing would require additional NEPA analysis. Category 39: Alternatives Considered – Other water sources 39(SR134) Summary Comment: Use California and Nevada allotments of water form the Colorado River as a source of slurry 
 water.
 Summary Response: Colorado River water-supply options are discussed in EIS Section 2.4.2.1. However, 
 Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-
 slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed and C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed.
 39(SR135) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not analyze the use of poor quality water from other aquifers to slurry coal versus the use of high quality water needed for municipality and residential use. Summary Response: Section 2.4.2 in the EIS discusses other water sources for the coal slurry that were investigated but were not analyzed further due to water rights issues or insufficient yields. The D aquifer exhibits poor water quality relative to the N and C aquifers, and was evaluated as a potential alternative source. The analysis indicated the feasibility of pumping the target volumes from the D aquifer is low enough to eliminate this aquifer as an alternative. Several other shallow aquifers in the vicinity of the Black Mesa Complex exhibit poor water quality, but the amounts of water these aquifers can provide are even less that the D aquifer, and were not considered to be viable alternative sources.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-39

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 40: Alternatives Considered – Water-return pipeline 40(SR197) Summary Comment: The return of slurry water to the mine site for reuse should be considered. Summary Response: About half of the water used to transport the coal in the slurry can be reclaimed and used for cooling and other purposes at the power plant (EIS Section 2.4.3). However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed. Category 41: Alternatives Considered – Alternative coal-delivery methods 41(873) Comment: Indeed, I oppose the Draft EIS’s utter failure to do an adequate cost-benefit analysis of the ground transport option versus the rail-line transport option versus the water slurry. There is a cost associated with this, yet OSM has not added it to the calculation. In addition, despite the potentially higher monetary costs of the rail or road transport options, the profit margin Peabody and SRP enjoy from the project should be expected to absorb significant costs of a more responsible plan. It appears that it is okay to use Navajo drinking and livestock water for wasteful off-reservation industrial use despite its implications for Navajo health, welfare, and local economy in the future. Yet it is not okay to spread the burden of costs to non-Indian individuals using I-40? What about the option of creating a new lane on I-40 to accommodate the increased traffic flow? Response: Refer to EIS Sections 2.4.4 for discussion of alternative coal-delivery methods (including estimated costs). 41(SR131) Summary Comment: OSM has failed in its analysis of alternative (no-water) methods of transporting coal from the Black Mesa Mine. Both the environmental and economic costs of alternative transportation methods should be addressed. Water must be protected. Summary Response: Alternative coal-delivery methods are discussed in EIS Section 2.4.4. Category 42: Alternatives Considered – Alternative coal-delivery methods – Other media for slurry 42(SR106) Summary Comment: OSM should consider use of water sources for coal slurry other than the N aquifer, for example: the Colorado River, groundwater basins near the coal-slurry pipeline, Davis Dam, Lake Powell, gray-water from Flagstaff and Phoenix, stormwater runoff, adopting reclamation technologies, treated effluent, the ocean, or water from Lake Powell. Summary Response: Other sources of water considered for transporting coal are discussed in EIS Section 2.4.2. 42(SR174) Summary Comment: Do not use high-quality ground water for this project. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 43: Alternatives Considered – Alternative coal-delivery methods – Truck transportation 43(SR137) Summary Comment: Peabody should consider the use of trucks in transporting coal to the Mojave Generating
 Station. Perhaps a new lane could be added to I-40 for such a purpose. 
 Summary Response: Transporting coal from the Black Mesa Complex to the Mohave Generating Station is
 discussed in ESI Section 2.4.4.1.
 Category 44: Alternatives Considered – Alternative coal-delivery methods – Rail transportation 44(SR138) Summary Comment: The coal from the Black Mesa mining operation should be moved by rail as is done elsewhere. Summary Response: Transporting the coal from the Black Mesa Complex to the Mohave Generating Station is discussed in EIS Section 2.4.4.2.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-40

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 45: Alternatives Considered – Alternative coal-delivery methods – Alternative energy sources and energy efficiency 45(837) Comment: OSM argues that alternative energy are beyond the scope of the EIS, but as the comments below prove, global warming impacts require a shift away from coal energy production to energy produced by clean sources like solar and wind to mitigate environmental impacts from global warming. OSM’s purpose and need for the EIS are too narrow in scope and do not include these concerns as they should to comply with the Department of Interior’s general mission to preserve the environment. Response: This EIS is a response to Peabody’s application to revise the mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex. Consideration of development of alternative energy sources is outside the scope of this EIS. 45(875) Comment: Last June, Southern California Edison promised the Hopi and Dine Navajo people of Big Mountain/Black Mesa that the Mojave Generation Station would be permanently closed, and, though distrustful of its temporary closure, these native survivors then began to imagine a future; they imagined a solar farm, instead of a coal mine, a coal slurry line, and the Mojave Generation Station, a solar farm that would provide power to them, members of the Black Mesa Water Coalition, not to Californians, and that would likely generate power beyond what they would use and thus begin to generate sustainable revenue to help them rebuild their communities, Hopi and Din? Navajo. Response: This EIS is a response to Peabody’s application to revise the mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex. Consideration of development of alternative energy sources is outside the scope of this EIS. 45(1049) Comment: Under the National Environmental Policy Act, your agency is required to review the environmental impacts of the proposed mining permit as well as to consider no-water and electrical-generation alternatives. Response: This EIS is a response to Peabody’s application to revise the mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex. Consideration of development of alternative energy sources is outside the scope of this EIS. Water is needed for mine-related uses. 45(1050) Comment: The Draft EIS’s analysis of alternatives and mitigating measures was also inadequate. OSM must conduct a good-faith analysis of alternatives, including alternatives that may not be within the lead agency’s jurisdiction, that would accomplish the project’s basic purpose and reduce impacts. Such alternatives were given short shrift. For example, research shows that all of the energy to be supplied by the proposed project could be obtained more stringent energy conservation measures (SWEEP 2007). Such measures would provide the energy at less cost (indeed, most likely at a cost savings) and without the environmental costs. It is nonsensical for the government to be approving a coal-fired power plant before all available energy conservation measure have been implemented, yet an energy conservation alternative was not seriously and fully considered. Response: Regulation of energy conservation measures, while admirable, is not within the purview of the OSM. 45(1056) Comment: Our innovation and financial resources should be directed towards “clean energy” and even, so called, “clean coal” fails as a clean/renewable energy. We, as a people, must learn to look beyond the profit/loss concept as it is now, and factor in a reduced aquifer as a significant loss to US citizens. Response: This EIS is a response to Peabody’s application to revise the mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex. Consideration of development of alternative energy sources is outside the scope of this EIS. 45(1076) Comment: The EIS also failed to fully consider an alternative that would require carbon capture and sequestration. Information on this technology is fully available (see, e.g., IPCC 2005), and such an alternative should have been fully explored. Response: The Final EIS has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change. As stated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report, and recent Department of the Interior guidance, current climate models are less precise regarding the impacts of individual projects on global climate trends, and prediction of global climate-related changes within relatively small study areas.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-41

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

45(SR100) Summary Comment: Convert the Mohave Generating Station into a solar thermal plant and install a solar and/or wind farm on Black Mesa. SCE’s Mohave Alternatives Study examines power generation/conservation options as alternative/complementary energy sources: *A A dish/Stirling plant that uses large dishes to collect and concentrate the sun’s heat and that could be located anywhere on Hopi and Navajo lands *A Wind farms (which are economically feasible at Gray Mountain, Aubrey Cliffs, Clear Creek, and Sunshine Wind Park) *A Investigation of Energy Efficiency and Demand Side Management Summary Response: Comments noted; however, conversion of the Mohave Generating Station into a solar thermal plant and installation of a solar and/or wind farm on Black Mesa is beyond the scope of the Black Mesa Project EIS. 45(SR154) Summary Comment: The EIS should consider a plan that would replace the Mohave Generating Station with clean energy sources such as wind and solar. Summary Response: This EIS is a response to Peabody’s application to revise the mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex. Consideration of energy conservation and development of alternative energy sources is outside the scope of this EIS. However, alternative energy sources and energy efficiency were addressed in a separate study conducted in accordance with California Public Utilities Commission Decision 04-12-016, issued December 2, 2004. The study evaluates potential alternatives to, or complementary energy resources form the Mohave Generating Station (EIS Section 2.4.6). 45(SR564) Summary Comment: Instead of using money to operate a coal-fired power plant, use the money to build wind and solar power generation and hire the Navajo people to operate them. And let them have some electricity for a change! Summary Response: This EIS is a response to Peabody’s application to revise the mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex. Consideration of energy conservation and development of alternative energy sources is outside the scope of this EIS. 45(SR874) Summary Comment: There are new, cleaner alternative energy generation methods available today that have not been sufficiently addressed in the EIS. OSM must look at solar and wind options in comparison to the dirty coalfired power plant that is being proposed to be re-opened. This will protect the global environment and our precious water supplies. Summary Response: This EIS is a response to Peabody’s application to revise the mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex. Consideration of energy conservation and development of alternative energy sources is outside the scope of this EIS. Category 46: Comparison of Alternatives 46(877) Comment: Without the analysis of the true cost of waters from the ancient aquifers, it is not possible to come to an objective comparative analysis of the cost of coal slurry, rail, and other modes of transportation. Response: Comment noted. 46(SR156) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not consider an adequate range of alternatives. 
 Summary Response: The Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, and other cooperating 
 agencies have determined that the EIS addresses a reasonable range of alternatives to meet the purpose of and need
 for the action.
 Category 47: Landforms and topography 47(SR159) Summary Comment: Drilling in the Meteor Crater area, because of all the fractures, will result in subsidence. Summary Response: There is no evidence of subsidence in the Coconino sandstone due to groundwater withdrawals. If the Meteor Crater area was more fractured than other areas of the Coconino sandstone the permeability would be expected to be correspondingly greater. Permeability in the well field area is similar to other areas of the C aquifer, suggesting that fracturing in the well field area was not increased by the meteorite impact. 47(SR1077) Summary Comment: The faults and land subsidence in the area need to be addressed in the EIS.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-42

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Summary Response: The geology of the study area is discussed in EIS Section 3.2. It is true that there are normal faults in the region; however, none are significantly active. In general, the earthquake hazards in the study area are minor. There is no evidence that groundwater mining in the project area has led to any land subsidence or faulting. Category 48: Geology and minerals 48(882) Comment: The [dynamite] shock wave will damage the water well and the C aquifer. The C aquifer is made of Coconino Sandstone. There are highly fractured rocks, fault lines, and breccia pipes in the area. There is radiation in the breccia pipes. The breccia pipes usually contain uranium, copper and nickel. A shock wave will crack the Supai Formation and the C-aquifer will drain into the Red Wall Limestone flowing through its underground channels. An example is the dam near Fort Defiance, Arizona. A dam was built with dynamite, but the rock bottom of the dam was fractured by the dynamite. The dam could not hold water anymore. Efforts were made to line the bottom of the dam with clay, but that did not work. A dam sits in a canyon with no water. The same thing could happen in this area. The alluvial/grass sits in hydrostatic equilibrium with C-aquifer via cracks, fault lines, and breccia pipes. A shock wave will damage this hydrostatic equilibrium shifting water away from the alluvial/grass. The grass would die and will not go to seed. The active soil would die and blow away. When the soil blows away, the soil will take centuries to repair in this arid high plateau desert. The water will return 20 years after the pumping stops, but he soil will take centuries to repair itself. The area would become a waste land. Response: There is no evidence that blasting at the mine complex has caused any changes in water wells or damage to the aquifer-bearing formation. Category 49: Soils resources 49(SR161) Summary Comment: Heavy construction equipment and the construction of new roads will cause soil compaction and exacerbate erosion during sudden, heavy rains which are typical for the region. Additional traffic on roads should be addressed. Hazardous waste spill prevention measures should also be taken along roads. Summary Response: Soil restoration is important because it reclaims the ground surface, promotes revegetation that stabilizes slopes in the area, retains water on slopes, mitigates runoff and erosion, and restores the productivity and capability of the land. Reclamation of soils disturbed by mining operations is described in EIS Section 4.3.1.1.1. Reclamation of soils disturbed by reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline is addressed in EIS Section 4.3.1.2. 49(SR162) Summary Comment: The loss of vegetation resulting from changes to the hydrostatic equilibrium could result in the loss of soil from wind erosion. This could result in long-term impact on soil resources. Summary Response: If “changes to hydrostatic equilibrium” refers to groundwater level change due to the proposed water supply well fields, there would be no impact on surface vegetation or soil resources due to the fact that existing water levels in both the C aquifer and N aquifer are deep and well below the root zone. On the mine complex, areas disturbed by mining activities are subject to the Minesoil Reconstruction Plan as approved by OSM. Category 50: Surface water 50(886) Comment: The habitat of rare and endangered plant species as well as culturally significant plants is already showing signs of devastation. Washes that once flowed year round and were used for irrigating cornfields and gardens are bone-dry today. In many Hopi villages, water levels in wells have dropped over a hundred feet. Response: Comment noted. 50(887) Comment: Despite the fact that OSM acknowledges that the Black Mesa operation will permanently impair the hydrologic function of major drainages, there is no indication of how the hydrologic function of these drainages is being preserved and protected. Draft EIS at 3-23 - 3-24. Such an analysis is particularly critical in this case where OSM admits that the agency has stream monitoring data from 1980 and prior. Response: Pages 3-23 and 3-24 of the DEIS pages are in Section 3.4.1.1, which addresses the existing surface water environment. Section 4.4.1.1.1 analyzes the impacts to surface water resources, but it does not conclude, as the commenter asserts, that the hydrologic function of major drainages will be impaired.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-43

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

50(888) Comment: Instead of analyzing and comparing this data with current data provided by Peabody, OSM instead “averaged” Peabody’s stream monitoring data over a 16 year period. Draft EIS at Table 3-1. In so doing, OSM has made it impossible for the public to determine what effect Peabody’s operations are having on hydrologic function. Response: Effects on water resources are addressed in EIS Section 4.4. 50(935) Comment: They fail to follow impoundment limits for water sequestration and, though the Moencopi Wash is completely dry and farmers have no water to irrigate their crops, the water impoundments are still full of untreated and unreleased water. This water should be treated and released for downstream farmers and all living inhabitants of the riparian habitat along Moencopi Wash, providing consistent flows along Moenkopi Wash. This includes not only people, but the region’s wildlife. Many migratory birds depend on the water as well and suffer from dry washes where water used to run freely. Response: See Section 4.4.1.1.1, Diminution of Flow, for a discussion of impacts of Black Mesa Complex sediment ponds, drainage control structures, and permanent impoundments to flows in Moenkopi Wash. This section concludes that decreases in flow in Moenkopi Wash would be negligible to no surface-water quantity impacts from these structures at the Black Mesa Complex. 50(965) Comment: [I object to the proposed project because of] Its disregard for damage to the Hopi religion, which relies on the damaged aquifer to provide water to natural springs that play a crucial role in Hopi ceremonies Response: Comment noted. 50(973) Comment: Office of Surface Mining officials in Denver and US Army Corp of Engineers admit that no analysis of the impact of 200 plus impoundment dams has ever been conducted. These dams were built under the nationwide permit 21, which covers the discharges associated with mining. The Draft EIS does not consider socio-economic and environmental impacts on Moencopi and Dennebito Washes. The permit should be withdrawn from this particular situation since it is obviously a violation of the national Environmental Protection Act. Response: The effect of mine impoundments on streamflow in Moenkopi and Dinnebito Washes is described in Section 4.4.1.1.1. Social and economic impacts are discussed in Section 4.11. The impact on flow would be small compared to that lost through channel infiltration and would be difficult to measure. Studies have shown that impoundment releases would quickly infiltrate into the wash alluvium. At the Black Mesa Complex, the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operation must comply with SMCRA regulations, which require that disturbed-area runoff must be controlled to “prevent, to the extent possible using the best technology available, additional contributions of suspended solids to streamflow, or runoff outside the permit area.” The CWA requires that discharges to streams meet all applicable water-quality standards. Water that is held in impoundments following runoff events is treated to remove sediment and to comply with both SMCRA and CWA regulations. The Black Mesa Complex was issued a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the Section 404 Nationwide Permit 21, and this certification evaluates the potential impacts on streams as a result of constructing the 200 plus sediment ponds at the Black Mesa Complex. 50(1116) Comment: Impacts on Stream and Spring Flow, it is unclear how impact levels associated with diminution of discharge to streams and springs were established. CHIA criteria established by OSM set ten percent reduction in discharge to springs or as baseflow to washes as an indicator of material damage to the N-aquifer. But the draft EIS considers a ten percent reduction in discharge as a negligible impact level (defined as an impact in the lower limit of detection that potentially could cause an insignificant change or stress to an environmental resource or use). No technical basis is provided for classifying in the draft EIS impacts as “negligible” impacts that OSM has otherwise concluded indicate “material damage.” Response: The most recent groundwater model simulations, which also have been used to calculate the effect on streamflow from springs that might be discharging from the N aquifer, indicate that the maximum reductions in streamflow would be less than 0.5 percent for all but one stream, for which the impact would be less than 1.5 percent. The comment is moot, because model estimates and the available measured data indicate that it would be exceptionally unlikely for any spring to get close to the limits being discussed. OSM is reviewing this criterion and is considering revising or eliminating it in the upcoming CHIA.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-44

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

The impact levels of Appendix H of the EIS address NEPA-related discussions of impacts, which have a very different purpose than the SMCRA-related discussions of impact levels. In the EIS, the central question regarding hydrologic impacts is “Have the hydrologic impacts been fully disclosed and properly evaluated?” The central question with the SMCRA-related CHIA is, “Will the proposed operation cause material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area?” Because of the differing purposes of the NEPA and SMCRA analyses, the focuses of the impact descriptions are different. 50(SR1) Summary Comment: There will be well-field development in and around washes. This will require Clean Water Act (CWA) section 401 and 404 permits as well as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDS) permits prior to any construction. Summary Response: Comment noted; however, Alternative A, which includes the C aquifer water-supply well field, is no longer the proposed project and preferred alternative . 50(SR163) Summary Comment: The water that is held in impoundments needs to be treated and redistributed for agricultural use, to maintain riparian habitats, and provide consistent flows along Moenkopi Wash. Summary Response: Studies have shown that impoundment releases would quickly infiltrate into the wash alluvium. Moenkopi Wash flows in response to precipitation events, and flows have never been consistent. At the Black Mesa Complex, the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations must comply with SMCRA and CWA regulations, which require that surface runoff from constructed surfaces be controlled to “prevent, to the extent possible using the best technology currently available, additional contributions of suspended solids to streamflow, or runoff outside the permit area.” The CWA requires that discharges to streams meet all applicable water-quality standards. Water that is held in impoundments following runoff events is treated to remove sediment and to comply with both SMCRA and CWA regulations. No agricultural use of impounded water in the vicinity of Black Mesa has been documented historically, and the amounts of water are not sufficient to support potential agricultural activities. Water that is held in impoundments does provide some source of water to the local downgradient shallow aquifers and in certain locations to baseflow in Moenkopi Wash in the vicinity of the leasehold. (EIS Section 4.4.1.1.1) 50(SR164) Summary Comment: Previous and proposed construction and mining-related activities in the area have affected surface-water quantity and quality. Summary Response: At the Black Mesa Complex, the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations must comply with SMCRA and CWA regulations, which require that surface runoff from constructed surfaces be controlled to prevent, to the extent possible using the best technology currently available, additional contributions of suspended solids to streamflow, or runoff outside the permit area. The CWA requires that discharges to streams meet all applicable water-quality standards. OSM-approved procedures for controlling sediment transport include berms, terraces, sediment ponds, and other energy dissipative channel structures that allow water to pond and sediment to accumulate. (EIS Section 4.1.1.1) 50(SR165) Summary Comment: OSM is under a statutory duty to ensure preservation of the “essential hydrologic functions of alluvial valley floors in the arid and semiarid areas of the country” and ensure that toxic mine drainage is not “adversely affect[ing] downstream water...” 30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(10)(A) and (F). As noted in the Draft EIS, currently these functions are not only not being preserved but are in severe noncompliance with applicable standards. Summary Response: Chapter 17, Protection of the Hydrologic Balance in the Black Mesa and Kayenta Mine PAP for Permit No. AZ0001D addresses the potential for alluvial valley floors within the Black Mesa leasehold, and concludes there are no valley floors within the leasehold that meet the criteria mine drainage is not common on Black Mesa, is limited to select mine pits that have intercepted groundwater, may contain elevated levels of TDS and other constituents, but is not toxic. Mine drainage is typically handled by pumping pit water to downstream NPDES permitted impoundments for treatment in accordance with NPDES Permit No. NN0022179. 50(SR167) Summary Comment: BMPI says there are no streams [at the coal-slurry preparation plant]. On the topographic map of the location, there is an intermittent stream and a pool holding area within their permit site. BMPI needs an NPDES Permit and Stormwater Permit. Summary Response: All rain water runoff is caught in a pond on the site and pumped back into the slurry preparation system for use. There is no runoff from the site.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-45

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

50(SR169) Summary Comment: Due to the ongoing water quality exceedences, it is a violation of SMCRA for the current permit to be issued until Peabody’s current exceedences and ongoing violation of SMRCA’s environmental OSM protection performance standards are cured and mitigated Draft EIS at 3-26 to 3-27 (which only analyzed 28 impoundments). SMRCA mandates that “water impoundments will not result in the diminution of the quality or quantity of water utilized by adjacent or surrounding landowners.” 30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(8)(F). As a condition precedent to permit authorization of an additional 104 impoundments, OSM must ensure that Peabody’s current impoundments comply with SMCRA environmental protection performance standards. That has not happened. Instead, OSM simply ignores performance standard compliance in favor of allowing Peabody to merely submit “information to OSM to demonstrate” compliance. Summary Response: Cited 30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(8), which is the SMCRA performance standard at Section 515(b)(8), requires that OSM may permit Peabody to create permanent impoundments only when Peabody adequately demonstrates such water impoundments will not result in the diminution of the quality or quantity of water utilized by adjacent or surrounding landowners for agricultural, industrial, recreational, or domestic uses. Prior to approving permanent impoundments in the past, OSM has required adequate demonstrations. For future proposals, OSM would likewise require adequate demonstrations. Section 510(c) of SMCRA does not allow OSM to issue a permit until a permit applicant, or any surface mining operation owned or controlled by the permit applicant, resolves, or is in the process of satisfactorily correcting, violations of SMCRA, and any law, rule, or regulation of the United States, or of any department or agency in the United States pertaining to water environmental protection. Cited CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1502.15, 1502.16, and 1508.20 respectively concern the affected environment section of the EIS, the environmental consequences section of the EIS, and mitigation. The EIS adequately addresses the quality of discharges from the mine area. Compliance issues (1) are a part of the inspection and enforcement process that OSM continuously carries out and (2) are, with respect to the aforementioned SMCRA Section 510(c) requirements, a part of the permitting process that OSM would undertake prior to any permit issuance. OSM reviews surface water quality data collected by Peabody from streams and impoundments on a quarterly and annual basis. In addition, OSM reviews Peabody’s monthly discharge monitoring reports and the Annual Seepage Monitoring Reports submitted to the USEPA and both the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribes in accordance with the NPDES Permit (No. NN0022179). EIS Section 4.4.1.1.1 addresses impoundment and seep water quality (EIS pages 4-16 through 4-18), and mentions additional measures Peabody will be required to employ to ensure compliance with water quality standards and CWA requirements as a part of the NPDES permit. The permit is currently up for renewal, and the EIS (EIS page 4-17) mentions both USEPA and Peabody are working on a modification of the Seepage Management Plan to eliminate problem seeps that have not met water quality standards. OSM also is working with Peabody and USEPA to finalize the Seepage Management Plan modifications. 50(SR634) Summary Comment: Portions of both Chevelon and East Clear Creeks are potential rivers for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System. OSM has failed completely to analyze the affects of diminished stream flows on these two potential wild and scenic rivers. OSM must complete such analysis before making a decision on the proposed project. Summary Response: Reaches of the Chevelon and Clear Creeks with potential for Wild and Scenic designation are located far upstream of the lower reaches of those streams where impacts would occur. Alternative B, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS, would result in no effect on Chevelon and East Clear Creeks. Category 51: Groundwater 51(901) Comment: It is assumed that OSM’s data manipulation is deliberate and designed to shroud ongoing environmental
 impacts. 
 Response: OSM has not made any attempt to obfuscate the facts regarding the interpretation of data. 
 51(903) Comment: OSM relies heavily on the GeoTrans model to support its claims that impacts to the N aquifer are minimal. But Peabody admits that the model has insufficient resolution to address a critical issue: diminishment of flow at sacred and other springs in the area. The impact of mining activities on spring flow is, and has always been, a central hydrogeologic issue. But the GeoTrans model simply cannot address individual springs, thereby precluding OSM from assessing impacts to individual springs, many of which are religiously and culturally integral to the Hopi in addition to serving as sources of potable water

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-46

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Response: The model does not have sufficient resolution to predict effects on individual springs, but it does have sufficient resolution to predict spring impacts on a regional basis. The “GeoTrans” model estimates impacts to streams receiving flow from N-aquifer springs. The potential impact is estimated to be less than a 0.5 percent reduction in streamflow for all but one stream, which has an estimated reduction of just less than 1.5 percent. The U.S. Geological Survey has concluded that data from the only gaged spring that might be discharging from near the important N-aquifer confined-unconfined boundary—Burro Spring—has not had a statistically significant increase or decrease during the period of time that the spring has been measured since 1989. Burro Spring has flowed at less than 1/2 gallon per minute (gpm) over the period of record and has extremely high variability. Just as increases in flows of 100 percent from 2001 to 2002 (from 0.2 to 0.4 gpm) cannot be attributed to Peabody Western Coal Company activities, 50 percent decreases in flows from 2003 to 2004 (back to 0.2 from 0.4 gpm) cannot also not be attributed to Peabody pumping. Burro Spring provides no indication of impacts from past pumping at the Black Mesa Complex or from municipal pumping of N-aquifer in closer proximity. 51(904) Comment: Assignment of Impact Levels Is Unreasonable and Arbitrary, in Appendix H, OSM defines hydrology impact levels in direct contradiction to SMCRA, previously identified agency criteria, and NEPA’s “significance” standards. Requiring “elimination” of the resource before finding a “major” impact is hydrogeologically indefensible and an unreasonable and arbitrary legal standard. Response: The impact levels of Appendix H of the Draft EIS address NEPA-related discussions of impacts, which have a very different purpose than the SMCRA-related discussions of impact levels. In the EIS, the central question regarding hydrologic impacts is, “Have the hydrologic impacts been fully disclosed and properly evaluated?” The central question with the SMCRA-related CHIA is, “Will the proposed operation cause material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area?” Because of the differing purposes of the NEPA and SMCRA analyses, the focuses of the impact descriptions also are different. Also, as a correction to the comment, the Draft EIS in Appendix H does not require elimination of the resource in order to be defined as a significant impact but rather an economical, technical, or legal elimination of the use of the resource, which are very different items. 51(939) Comment: This decline will also impact the fish and water types we’re told. Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.24.3 for discussion of the cumulative effects of Alternative A specific to water supply. 51(1047) Comment: In regard to the water in Leupp, as I understand from the Navajo Nation and the chapter house in Leupp, there has been no permission given by the chapter house or the Navajo Nation to use that water. Response: The Navajo Nation is a cooperating agency in this EIS and were in agreement with the actions proposed under Alternative (which is no longer the proposed project). 51(1078) Comment: OSM is mandated to assess the probable and cumulative hydrologic impacts, including impacts on water and water availability, of all anticipated mining in the Black Mesa Project area before approving the requested permit revision. Here, the last Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Analysis (“CHIA”) for the coal lease area was apparently done in 1989. Draft EIS at 3-23. Without an updated CHIA of the probable hydrologic consequences of the mining and reclamation operation, both on and off the mine site, OSM’s approval of Peabody’s LOM permit revision is in violation of SMCRA and NEPA, and is therefore unlawful Response: OSM will prepare a revised CHIA prior to any action on permit application. 51(1079) Comment: Migration of Poor Quality Groundwater, groundwater in the Dakota aquifer (also know as the “D-aquifer”) is of lower quality than that of the N-aquifer. The draft EIS states that leakage between the D-aquifer and N-aquifer only occurs naturally in the southern portion of the Black Mesa basin more than twenty miles from the Peabody well field. The implication is that induced leakage from pumping does not occur; however, minerelated pumping has impacted groundwater elevations and altered groundwater gradients in the same areas where “natural” vertical leakage from the overlying D-aquifer has been documented. Induced leakage from pumping has been documented to occur long distances away from pumping centers where hydrogeologic conditions inhibit leakage in the immediate vicinity of the pumping, such as at the Peabody mine. As such, evidence of induced leakage from the D aquifer to the N aquifer in the southern portion of Black Mesa may potentially be related to mine-related groundwater withdrawals further to the north. The draft EIS bases their evaluation of the potential

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-47

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

impact of migration of poor quality groundwater to the N aquifer on modeling results rather than monitoring of vertical gradients. OSM “conservatively” lists the potential impact as moderate (outside the random fluctuation of natural processes, but do not cause a significant loss of the use of the resource). But OSM ignores off-site impacts of induced leakage of poor quality groundwater from the D aquifer that could significantly impact water quality in the N-aquifer in other areas of Black Mesa. Response: OSM monitors potential leakage from the D aquifer to the N aquifer at the Peabody wells were drawdown is greatest. It does so by looking at the amount of total dissolved solids and chloride in the N aquifer water. To date, there is no indication of increased leakage. 51(1080) Comment: Peabody’s Permit Application for life of mine also goes into great detail about groundwater flowing into the pits. Groundwater flowing into the pits depletes local aquifers and springs in the Wepo Formation. This section of the permit application would be fine but references to Lohman, 1972 is old and outdated definitions for hydrology. The Peabody Western Coal Company (PWCC) water hydrology report and models are flawed. The PWCC report for chapter 18 of the Life Permit Application for the Black Mesa Mine freely admit to using lower hydraulic conductivities along with a lower specific storage value, and a lower hydraulic head. This creates an artificially low flow of water into the pits. The actual water flow into the pits is higher. The lower water flow into the pits is due the fact the pits were smaller resulting in a lower surface area and also higher hydraulic conductivities have already depleted the Wepo Formation of water by now. The report says the Wepo Formation has different areas of hydraulic conductivity. A higher hydraulic conductivity would mean the Wepo Formation would be depleted of water faster. It is like saying a rock in the middle of a raging stream should represent the hydraulic conductivity of the stream rather than the water. The D Aquifer is right below the Wepo Formations so the Wepo water would leak into the D Aquifer. The Black Mesa is a concentric rings of a water dish. The Wepo water dish fills and drains into the D Aquifer via the edges, volcanic intrusions (like El Capitan), fault lines, fractures and an old larger underground mine fire. The large underground mine fire altered the rocks above and beneath the Wepo Formation changing it to metamorphic rock and its hydraulic conductivity. This would explain the Hopi springs drying up. Black Mesa also has North-West to South-East anticline and synclines which act as a trough of the Wepo Water and the D Aquifer water to the South-East. The sulfate water would then intrude into the South-East portion of the N aquifer. The N aquifer may be fine, but mine activity has altered the Wepo Formation and the D Aquifer. The only water model hydrology data is based upon false hydraulic conductivities, storage coefficients, and hydraulic gradients. Response: Locally, near the mine pits, water levels in the Wepo Formation have dropped. On the bases of measured Wepo water levels and quality within the permit area and the topographic isolation of the Wepo within the permit area from that outside the permit area, OSM concludes that the Wepo Formation water outside the permit area is and will be unaffected by the mining operation. The model contains reasonable hydrologic conductivity assumptions. A massive layer of Manchos Shales between the D aquifer and the Wepo Formation restricts downward migration of water from the Wepo and Toreva Formations to the D aquifer. The D aquifer is unaffected by and isolated from the mining process. 51(1081) Comment: The information used in place of the CHIA employs biased and incomplete data. Absent the CHIA, Peabody has used information from a consulting firm retained by the Peabody Coal Company (SSPA). This firm predicts Lower Chevelon Creek base flow reductions in 2060 of 0.04 cfs. A second consulting firm (HDR) arrives at a number four times lower (0.01 cfs), and the US Geological Service (USGS) arrives at a number almost twice as high (0.07 cfs.) In fact, USGS says there is a 10% likelihood that the actual base flow reduction will be 0.13 cfs or higher - a number 13 times the HDR prediction. (DEIS H-14.) From this divergence of predictions, OSM attempts to quantify the proposed project’s effect on spinedace. Predicted base flow reduction is compared to predicted base flow absent project implementation. Current base flow numbers are arrived at from a June-July 2005 survey of Lower Chevelon Creek. This survey measured base flow at 3 cfs. But this base flow measurement needs to be considered carefully, because it does not accurately represent the actual base flow of Lower Chevelon Creek. NOAA characterizes the current Lower. Chevelon Creek drought index as D-3, Extreme, which is not and has not been unusual over the last several decades. But on July 5, 2005, when figure for the base flow that is used in this DEIS was determined, NOAA characterized the area as D-1, Moderate. And even the DEIS notes that “the winter . . . was wetter than usual and those base flow conditions may not be typical of average years” Draft EIS. 3-76. Response: OSM and its consultants (URS) used all of the available data in assessing the impact of the project on flow in Chevelon and Clear Creeks. The historical flow record is discussed in Section 3.4.3.1.1 along with the results of the June-July 2005 USGS stream flow measuring event. The comment’s application of the NOAA drought

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-48

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

index to base-flow is questionable since base-flow is a reflection of groundwater discharge, not precipitation and surface water flow conditions. Given the nature of modeling any large hydrogeologic system, the prediction of future change in base flow due to groundwater pumping is subject to uncertainty. The variation in base-flow reduction between the three independent models is not unexpected given the fact that all the models predict very small reductions in base-flow due to project withdrawals. The fact that three independent models all predict small reductions in base-flow (less than 3 percent in Lower Chevelon Creek) is more significant than the differences between the model predictions. 51(1082) Comment: OSM has not provided, as it should have provided, data describing Lower Chevelon Creek base flow in a dry year. We can assume that it will be less, perhaps substantially less than the baseline they have chosen to employ. A dry-year number is necessary to honestly and accurately evaluate the maximum impact on spinedace. As noted above, in listing the species FWS says, “threats to the spinedace must be analyzed as to their impact at the lowest population levels.” 52 Fed. Reg. 35034 (Sept. 16, 1987). The fish is likely to be at its lowest level during the height of most severe drought, not during a “wetter than usual” year. In evaluating the impacts on the Little Colorado Spinedace of drawdown of groundwater due to project pumping, the task at hand for OSM is to compare predicted Little Chevelon Creek base flow reductions to stream flow rates when spinedace are at their lowest population levels. As noted above, the first of these two values, reductions, include predictions that vary by a factor of 13 or more. The second of these values, low-flow baseline, has apparently not yet been estimated, or at least has not been revealed in the DEIS. The public and the decision-maker thus are forced to use the numbers provided by OSM and consider them among the most optimistic of possible outcomes. In the absence of a CHIA, OSM has chosen to employ the Peabody Coal/SSPA report. On page 4-83 they use this report in an attempt to absolve the proposed project from responsibility for spinedace extinction: “The modeled streamflow depletion of 0.07 cfs for lower Chevelon Creek in 2060 represents 2.5 percent of the estimated 3 cfs base flow in lower Chevelon Creek.” DEIS 4-83. This, however, is an “apples and oranges” comparison of a highly disingenuous nature. As stated immediately above, the 0.07 cfs depletion rate is for 2060. The value of 3 cfs is the base flow rate as estimated right now, before project initiation. On page 4-172 OSM admits that, “the baseflow on lower Chevelon Creek declines from almost 3 cfs in 2000 to about 0.3 cfs in 2060.” The depletion of base flow in 2060 due to this project most assuredly is not 2.5% as stated, but 0.07 cfs of 0.3 cfs, a number closer to 25% of base flow! It is no surprise that Peabody’s experts will use whatever rhetorical flourishes and statistical misdirection they can to support their client’s position, but OSM should not be repeating their efforts uncritically. USGS provides different numbers than Peabody does, and estimates that there is a 10% chance that base flow reductions will be nearly double their employed value, 0.13 cfs or greater. And as noted above, all base flow rates are predicated on measurements from a wetter than usual year, thus implying a true denominator that may be substantially smaller, thereby leading to a depletion percentage substantially higher. The conclusion is remarkable. OSM, in the absence of a Cumulative Hydrological Impacts Analysis, has chosen a preferred alternative that could lead to steamflow reduction rates in Lower Chevelon Creek of 50% or more. Even using a best-case scenario, OSM admits that “effects on the spinedace are likely to be major.” Yet the Executive. Summary (p. ES-16) concludes, “project-related groundwater pumping is not expected to contribute to appreciable long-term impacts on lower Chevelon Creek. . . .” 3. The Draft EIS is incomplete because it was prepared before the completion of a Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion on the effects to the spinedace and humpback chub. Response: The Draft EIS and Biological Assessment were prepared in parallel and included the same conclusions regarding the effects on spinedace and humpback chub. The Draft EIS and Biological Assessment, however, were prepared considering Alternative A as the proposed project, which is no longer the case. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. 51(1083) Comment: Ignoring over four decades of hard monitoring data on the impacts of N-aquifer withdrawals when one is purporting to engage in the analysis of the impacts of N-aquifer withdrawals is unreasonable and arbitrary. Moreover, directly contradicting criteria that has existed for almost two decades is unreasonable and arbitrary. Furthermore, failing to address independent, peer reviews of Peabody and U.S. Geological Survey monitoring data and models conducted by LFR is unreasonable and arbitrary; in violation of NEPA. When analyzing the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of N-aquifer water withdrawals, this factual data, independent peer-reviews, and long-standing criteria are directly relevant, and a failure to analyze it is a failure to adequately perform NEPA analysis.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-49

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Response: For many years, OSM has frequently evaluated quarterly hydrologic monitoring data submitted by Peabody as well as published and unpublished data and scientific reports by the U.S. Geological Survey, among other sources. 51(1084) Comment: OSM Fails to Perform Necessary Analysis to Fill Any Potential Gaps in the Criteria and Data Nor has OSM provided adequate discussion in the draft EIS for rebuking - much less outright rebuffing - over 35 years of hard facts and data. In the face of directly applicable annual USGS reports, academic publications, third-party hydrological reports, anecdotal information, and real-time and annual monitoring data, OSM’s methodology and analysis of factual data is unreasonable and arbitrary. OSM has failed to make “a reasoned analysis of the evidence before it.” To the extent that OSM purports-to rely on alternative criteria and data to perform its NEPA review, it must gather and present such relevant data. Response: For many years, OSM has frequently evaluated quarterly hydrologic monitoring data submitted by Peabody as well as published and unpublished data and scientific reports by the U.S. Geological Survey, among other sources. OSM has made consistent and carefully-reasoned independent analyses of all published and unpublished information and data presented to OSM. 51(1085) Comment: OSM Relies On a Fundamentally Flawed Model and Fails to Disclose Specific Quantitative Methods and Assumptions In order to ensure the accuracy of its conclusions, NEPA requires OSM to “insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impacts statements.” Courts have applied this requirement to hold that impacts statements may not rely on incorrect data and assumptions. The courts emphasize that the impact statement’s discussion of complex technical information must be clear, and an impact statement must disclose responsible scientific opinion. Further, the impact statement “must be written in language that is understandable to the nontechnical minds and yet contain enough scientific reasoning to alert specialists within the field of their expertise.” The prohibition against scientifically faulty data and methodology in impact statements is further supported by the Information Quality Act (IQA), sometimes referred to as the Data Quality Act. 84 Section 515 of IQA denotes four substantive terms - quality, utility, objectivity, and integrity - to ensure that information is being presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner, and as a matter of substance, is accurate, reliable, and unbiased. Response: OSM has based its analyses on the best available scientific information and models. OSM strives in the EIS to make its evaluations as clear, concise, objective, and understandable as possible. 51(1086) Comment: The technical review concluded that the GeoTrans model was fundamentally flawed and failed to meet the regulatory requirements, including the following major flaws: 1. the 1999 Flow Model is inadequate to address all relevant consequences of mining on the hydrologic balance; and 2. the model is otherwise flawed in important ways that destroy its utility and credibility, including its theoretic postulation of a nearly unlimited supply of water to replace water pumped by Peabody and mask the effects of Peabody pumping. Response: OSM does not find the technical review to be persuasive. It has confidence in the GeoTrans modeling. As stated in EIS Section 4.4.1.5 (Draft EIS, page 4-32), the USGS has been monitoring springflow at four N aquifer springs for at least 10 years and reported that “long-term trends are not apparent.” No support for the stated “observed decreases in flow at sacred springs” is provided. While the GeoTrans model does not simulate all known springs, it does simulate groundwater discharge to several major springs and washes. In all cases, the predicted decrease in flow, due to maximum project pumping, to these springs and washes is very small (Final EIS Table 4-7). 51(1087) Comment: the GeoTrans model is otherwise fundamentally flawed in important ways that destroy its utility and credibility. As documented in peer-reviewed reports from expert hydrogeologists and modelers with LFR, the GeoTrans model has numerous inconsistencies and significant problems. Chief among them, the model artificially creates a nearly limitless supply of water residing in the D-aquifer that “replaces” water pumped from the underlying N-aquifer by the coal company for use in its operations. This element of the model fundamentally obscures impacts and minimizes Peabody’s proportional role in those that are identified. In short, the GeoTrans model is inadequate to support the conclusions contained in the draft EIS, nor is it capable of supporting a finding by OSM that the impacts are negligible. Response: OSM has confidence in the GeoTrans modeling. As stated in EIS Section 4.4.1.5, the USGS has been monitoring springflow at four N-aquifer springs for at least 10 years and reported that “long-term trends are not apparent.” No support for the stated “observed decreases in flow at sacred springs” is provided. While the GeoTrans

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-50

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

model does not simulate all known springs, it does simulate groundwater discharge to several major springs and washes. In all cases, the predicted decrease in flow, due to maximum project pumping, to these springs and washes is very small (Final EIS, Table 4-7). 51(1088) Comment: Impact levels Associated with Reductions in Saturated Thickness, it is unclear how the various impact levels were established. For example, how was it determined that a thirty percent reduction in saturated thickness in the C-aquifer would represent a minor impact level (defined as an impact that potentially could be detected, but slight). Response: Impact levels due to reductions in aquifer saturated thickness are defined in Appendix H. As noted, the Reduction in Saturated Thickness impact criteria are designed to assess the reduction in the aquifer’s ability to supply water to a well. The assignment of qualitative impact levels (major, moderate, minor, etc.) is based on the judgment of the investigator. Based on well theory and using aquifer parameters for the C-Aquifer in the proposed well field area, a reduction in aquifer thickness (and transmissivity) of 30 percent (800 feet to 560 feet) would require an increase in drawdown from 14 feet to of 20 feet to maintain a discharge rate 500 gpm. This drawdown is less than 4 percent of the aquifer saturated thickness and would have little effect on the ability of the aquifer to supply water to a well. This impact was judged, therefore, to be minor. 51(1089) Comment: In 2005, Peabody released a supplement to its Three-Dimensional Flow Model of the D and AT Aquifers (2005 Supplement).94 The purpose of the 2005 Supplement was to simulate and evaluate five additional pumping scenarios, provide results of additional sensitivity testing, and evaluate whether the models originally presented in 1999 are able to accurately simulate water level changes from 1997 through 2003 in the Black Mesa monitoring wells. Once again, LFR reviewed the GeoTrans model and 2005 Supplement to determine its ability to address CHIA criteria and resolve outstanding shortcomings outlined in the GeoTrans model. Peabody’s 2005 Supplement has three major flaws: 1. Previous concerns regarding the model and its ability to resolve specific CHIA criteria requirements remain unresolved, including a failure to resolve changes in spring discharge at the level necessary to evaluate CHIA criteria. 2. Calibration and other essential statistics to support the supplement’s conclusions and facilitate peer review are not made available; rather, only declaratory statements are provided. 3. The model fails to include D aquifer water-level data necessary to quantify leakage from the D aquifer to the N aquifer. Response: The 1989 CHIA is being revised. The Geotrans model has been adequately calibrated and validated. The model and associated measured data indicate that leakage from the D aquifer to the N aquifer has not been and will continue to not be significantly affected by N-aquifer pumping. 51(1090) Comment: Over-Reporting Annual Recharge, the annual recharge to the N aquifer is reported in the Draft EIS report to be 13,000 acre-feet, which is based on older studies. More recent studies using age-dating methods indicate that annual recharge to the N-aquifer may be as low as 3,100 acre-feet. Response: Section 3.4 of the EIS has been modified to state that estimates of N-aquifer recharge range from 2,600 to 20,428 af/yr, although the median value from five studies is 13,000 af/yr. 51(1091) Comment: Public Process for Reexamination and Revision of CHIA, to the extent “updated” CHIA will serve the basis of a discussion of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of N aquifer water withdrawals, it is necessary to provide a public process for reexamination and revision of OSM’s material damage criteria under NEPA and SMCRA. This is necessary to ensure third-party review and push toward binding criteria that OSM could not discount upon violation. The previous CHIA identified structural stability as one of the four criteria demonstrating material harm. Yet whenever material harm is evidenced by a drop in potentiometric head below 100 feet, OSM and Peabody find justification and pretext to discount the data. For example, of the 15 wells monitored by the USGS, six wells (Rough Rock, 10T-258, 10R-111, Sweetwater Mesa, BM3, and Kayenta West) have potentiometric heads that fall within 100 feet of the aquifer surface. Nonetheless, OSM and Peabody either discount the data or summarily dismiss the danger. The first four sites are discounted for their proximity to the N-aquifer’s unconfined portion; the material harm to the N-aquifer implicated by the remaining two sites is summarily dismissed. As another example, OSM established discharge reduction of 10 percent or more to indicate damage to springs. According to government data, seven or nine monitored wells have lost at least 30 percent of their outflow since mining began. Drawdown at 10. This excludes the numerous other springs that have completely dried up yet remain unmonitored. And these signs of material damage have also been ignored. The new CHIA must clearly identify and delineate the markers

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-51

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

and standards of material harm, the consequences that will follow when material harm has been demonstrated, and the process to be followed to ameliorate or mitigate that harm. Response: There is no public process for the reexamination and revision of the CHIA. OSM will complete the revised CHIA prior to making its decision on the mine permit application. The revised CHIA will be substantially updated, and the topic of structural stability will be addressed. 51(1092) Comment: OSM fails to adequately analyze impacts to the C aquifer, rendering the draft EIS inadequate. The C-aquifer covers an approximately 3,400-square mile area. This is roughly four times larger than the area covered by the N aquifer. The total annual recharge to the C-aquifer is estimated at 319,000 acre-feet (USGS 2002). The C-aquifer analysis fails to consider the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of water withdrawals, including: Cone of Depression, the C-aquifer has been pumped since 1940s, mainly in the south-central portion of the area. Due to several of these concentrated pumping centers, groundwater levels have declined by as much as 100 feet in this part of the basin. Two pumping centers can be identified by two triangular areas: one formed by Joseph City, Holbrook, and Snowflake, and one formed by Concho, St. Johns, and Springerville. Available data do not indicate that cones of depression have stabilized; however, the cones of depression have not reached the boundary of the aquifer or caused a decline in discharge from springs or baseflow along the periphery of the C-aquifer (USGS, 2002, p. 28). It has been noted that these pumping centers are approximately as distant from each other as the new proposed well field at Leupp. A similar cone of depression may be expected to develop due to pumping of the proposed well field, a cone whose environmental impacts and effects to the local community is not sufficiently analyzed. C-Aquifer Well Yields, it is unclear how OSM determines C-aquifer well yields. The USGS report “Generalized Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Budget for the C aquifer, Little Colorado River Basin and Parts of the Verde and Salt River Basins, Arizona and New Mexico” (2002) lists 50 wells that are producing from the C-aquifer. The average discharge of these wells is 154 gpm. Ninety percent of these wells have a mean discharge of 132 gpm showing that the average discharge is skewed higher by outliers. The draft EIS calls for 17 wells under the 6,000 acre-feet/year scenario, with a minimum separation between wells of 1.2 miles and all wells equipped with pumps rated at 400 gpm and 300 horsepower.118 It is noted that the expected yield from the proposed Leupp wells is approximately three times higher than the average yield from existing C-aquifer wells. No information has been provided regarding well completions or specifications so no discharge limitations can be identified, but it seems overly optimistic to plan for individual well yields of 400 gpm when only 10% of existing wells in the same aquifer produce at that rate. Salinity, current data suggest an increase in salt concentration towards the north-west, that is, along the trajectory of Little Colorado River, with the source originating underneath the central portion of the basin from evaporites and/or salt dome(s). The draft EIS fails to discuss the travel time and origin of salt water towards the future well field. If the extracted water becomes salinated, the coal that is slurried with the water may not be acceptable by the power plant due to sodium and chloride concentrations. Radiation, OSM fails to analyze outright issues of radiation resulting from brecha pipes inside of the Kaibab limestone, which contain harmful elements and deposits, such as uranium. In fact, the Leupp Chapter Land Use Plan119 acknowledges that radiation exists in the water in the northern part of Leupp Chapter. C-aquifer water withdrawals could put these radiation deposits into suspension, increasing the possibility of radiation contamination of the Leupp water supply down stream of the pumping area. The issue of radiation deposits are neither addressed in the draft EIS, nor analyzed. Taken individually or as a whole, OSM’s analysis of C-aquifer withdrawals fails to meet minimal standards of review required under NEPA Response: The DEIS meets the requirements of NEPA in addressing the impacts of the proposed project on the C-Aquifer. Contrary to the comments assertion, all current and projected pumping, both on-reservation and offreservation, is simulated in the groundwater model used to assess impacts of pumping on C-Aquifer water levels (Appendix H and Section 4.23.3.1). Estimated well pumping rate of 400 gpm used for the proposed C-Aquifer well field wells are based on the actual pumping rates of the tests conducted by the USGS in the well field area and on published pumping rates for industrial wells at the three existing power plants. Typically, these wells produce more than 400 gpm. The potential for the migration of poor water quality, including salinity, into the C-Aquifer well field is addressed in Section 4.4.1.4.1. Groundwater from the C aquifer well field test wells contains small amounts of uranium and other radionuclides, which are a natural component of some geologic units in the area. However, concentrations are below the USEPA maximum contaminant levels for drinking water. The potential area of “capture” of groundwater was defined by a particle tracking analysis using the groundwater flow model. The modeled “capture” area of the C-Aquifer well field is relatively small and does not extend as far north as Leupp. No breccia pipes are known to exist within the capture area.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-52

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

51(1093) Comment: NEPA requires the discussion of mitigation measures in impact statements by requiring discussion of “any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided.” CEQ regulations implement this requirement by requiring the discussion of mitigation measures in impact statements. CEQ regulations also define mitigation. OSM fails to consider mitigation measures to protect water resources, including such mitigation measures as: Safe Yield Sole Source Aquifer Monitoring of the N-aquifer Treatment and Release of Impoundments Response: Drought can affect water quantity and quality. Peabody monitors water quantity and quality, and OSM reviews the monitoring data. Under the proposed project, which is now analyzed under Alternative B, Peabody would on average use 1,236 ac-ft/year of N-aquifer water during the time that mining operations would be occurring. 51(1094) Comment: Since the signing of their contract, there is no question to the environmental damage and considerable change caused by the mining operations. There are statements that have been reported by the OSM declaring that if water flow or quality does decrease, it would have been the result of either drought or other uses unrelated to mining. Over the years there has been notable, obvious decrease in water flow and water quality. The people on the reservations, knowing the land longer and more intimately than Peabody, you, or myself, have documented the decline of water in sacred springs and points of water discharge. The result is decreased water for livestock, their primary source of survival and claim to the land, and for themselves. It is highly unlikely that the reduction in water could result due to overuse by reservation citizens, since a family will subsist on barely eight gallons a day, compared to Peabody’s 3,600 acre-feet per year. Response: Impacts on spring flow and reduced stream flow are discussed under the subsection titled “Dimunition of Stream and Spring Flow” in Sections 4.4.1.5.1, 4.4.1.5.2, and 4.4.2.1. Under the potetntial project pumpage of 6,000 af/yr on average (Alternative A), the maximum model-predicted streamflow reduction was 0.69 percent of the total 2005 discharge at Begashibito Wash/Cow Springs. Under the preferred Alternative B, the model-predicted reduction at Begashibito Springs/Cow Springs is 0.63 percent of the 2005 discharge. These reductions in streamflow are considered negligible. Historical changes in streamflow are difficult to evaluate because of the many factors, including climate variability, local and regional pumping, invasion of salt cedar, and changes in irrigation practices. Thus, the computer model is considered to be the best indicator of the likely effects of pumping at the Peabody leasehold. 51(1095) Comment: Alternative A wanted to drain the water from my land. Alternative A has poor water models, poor hydrology, poor geology, toxic coal wash plant, radiation contamination for Leupp and has caused animosity at the Leupp Chapter House and in my customary use area....The water model has numbers in the files, but no explanation as to what the numbers mean. Does one number mean spring, but which spring, or sink hole? Response: Comment noted. Alternative A, which would require water to deliver coal to the Mohave Generating Station, is no longer the proposed project. Alternative B is the proposed project in this Final EIS, which does not include supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station. 51(1096) Comment: Impact Levels Contradict CHIA Criteria Conclusions, it is unclear how the various impact levels were established and the determinations do not follow from previous impact assessments established by OSM. For example, how was it determined that a twenty-five percent increase in pumping costs in the N-aquifer, or a onehundred percent increase in pumping costs in the C aquifer, would represent a minor impact level (defined as an impact that would affect the cost or quality but not the use of water or are similar to those caused by random fluctuations in natural processes). Does the draft EIS author suggest that a 100% increase in pumping costs be expected from random fluctuations in natural processes? Furthermore, the draft EIS analysis does not reconcile with previous determinations on CHIA criteria established by OSMRE for the N-aquifer under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Response: The impact levels of the Draft EIS address NEPA-related discussions of impacts, which have a very different purpose than the SMCRA-related discussions of impact levels. In the EIS, the central question regarding hydrologic impacts is “Have the hydrologic impacts been fully disclosed and properly evaluated?” The central question with the SMCRA-related CHIA is “Will the proposed operation cause material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area?” Because of the differing purposes of the NEPA and SMCRA, the focus of the impact descriptions are different.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-53

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

51(1097) Comment: I support Alternative C due to poor water modeling of N aquifer, Wepo Aquifer, D-Aquifer, and the C-Aquifer. The error is too large in the above water models and cannot accurately and precisely predict the effects of drilling the actual water models. Data points have been left out. Response: The analyses are the best available modeling. OSM is satisfied that the model adequately represents the actual conditions and is suitable for making the kinds of predictions required by NEPA and SMCRA. The commenter has not specified which data points she/he believes were left out, so OSM cannot respond to that portion of the comment. 51(1098) Comment: Impacts oN aquifer Saturated Thickness, to establish impact level criterion for reductions in saturated thickness, the Draft EIS report references Driscoll, 1986, which states that, theoretically, ninety percent of the maximum well yield is obtained at sixty-seven percent of maximum drawdown. The EIS report identifies that other factors including well losses need to be considered, and concludes that between twenty percent and fifty percent reduction in saturated thickness represents a conservative range for establishing impact levels associated with reduced aquifer saturated thickness. But the reference cited by OSM is specific to unconfined aquifers. In confined aquifers, such as the N aquifer, adverse environmental impacts occur where water levels drop below the top of a confined aquifer independent of the percentage of draw down observed. The report assumes that water levels are not predicted to drop below the top of the confined N aquifer; however, monitoring data has shown that the water levels have periodically dropped below the elevation of the top of the N-aquifer at both the Kayenta West and BM3 monitor wells used to monitor impacts of mine-related pumping. Response: The Impacts oN aquifer Thickness (Saturation) section of Appendix H has been revised to clarify that, according to the Driscoll report, 90 percent of the maximum well yield in an unconfined aquifer theoretically occurs at 67 percent of the maximum drawdown. The decrease in water level observed at the Kayenta West and BM3 wells was predicted by the ground-water flow model. However, the model results show that 86 percent of the impact at BM3 is due to pumping from the Kayenta municipal well field (approximately 1 mile away) while only 16 percent of the impact is due to pumping at the Peabody mine (approximately 15 miles from BM3). 51(SR157) Summary Comment: Both sources for deep-well pumping of groundwater, the N aquifer and the C aquifer, are located within the Little Colorado River watershed limestone karst geology characterized by an uncharted labyrinth of sinkholes, blowholes, caves, and underground water drainages augmenting the Little Colorado River and the Colorado River. Human activities such as industrialization and water exploitation can and have seriously impacted the karst formations, resulting in subsidence and groundwater contamination. The quality of water in a karst aquifer affects the health of ecosystems as well as tributary levels fed by karst waters that issue from the eastern canyon walls into the Grand Canyon Colorado River ecosystem. Summary Response: Project water supply wells located in the N aquifer and C aquifer well fields draw water from the Navajo and Coconino sandstone formations. Neither of these rock units are subject to the development of karst features such as sinkholes. Refer to the EIS Appendix H, for discussion of karst features in the study area. 51(SR172) Summary Comment: OSM’s approval of Peabody’s LOM permit revision is in violation of SMCRA and NEPA because OSM’s last CHIA was done in 1989. Summary Response: The CHIA is a part of the SMCRA permitting process and is not a part of the NEPA process. OSM will complete a new updated CHIA prior to making a decision on the LOM revision. 51(SR177) Summary Comment: I am worried about water supply in the Hopi-Navajo area, and pumping groundwater to slurry and wash coal will only put more strain on limited water resources. People, livestock, and wildlife need the water more than the coal mine does. The EIS must address how Peabody intends to restore these waters and if other water sources will be provided for livestock and wildlife. Summary Response: The only area of the N aquifer where water levels are near ground surface is in the unconfined portions of the aquifer along drainages and at springs. In these areas water level declines due to project pumping are not measurable and will impact crops or forage. Current static water levels in the C aquifer in the well field range from 226 to 615 feet below ground surface (EIS Section 3.1.3.1). Water in the aquifer is far below the root zone of grasses and trees. Changes in the aquifer water level will not impact on forage resources. Any local well owners significantly impacted by water level changes will be provided water from the C-aquifer well field or have their wells deepened or replaced (EIS Section 4.4.1.4.1). The EIS concludes that the withdrawal of groundwater for the

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-54

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

project would have a small impact on overall water resources and on Hopi and Navajo water uses. This is due in part to the large amount of water in the aquifers and in part to the relatively short period of mining-related groundwater use (until 2026). Local uses impacted due to project activities would be replaced. No long-term loss of use due to the project is anticipated. 51(SR179) Summary Comment: Do not use Native American water to slurry and wash coal. Using groundwater will have impacts on the native cultures in the region, and lack of water will force people off their traditional lands. Summary Response: The EIS concludes that the withdrawal of groundwater for the project would have a small impact on overall water resources and on Hopi and Navajo water uses. This is due in part to the large amount of water in the aquifers and in part to the relatively short period of mining-related groundwater use (until 2026). Local uses significantly impacted during mining would be replaced. No long-term loss of use due to the project is anticipated. 51(SR180) Summary Comment: There has not been adequate study of the impacts on the hydrological balance within the major population centers of the Black Mesa area on the Hopi and Navajo reservations or on the surrounding areas. Summary Response: The impact on water levels and pumping cost in community wells were assessed (refer to EIS Section 4.4.1.4. 51(SR182) Summary Comment: I object to the EIS because of its use of outdated hydrological models to assess potential damages to the N and C aquifers. It must be updated to incorporate the most recent USGS geological research and research on subterranean karst formations. Summary Response: The computer flow models used in the assessment of impacts have been developed and/or updated with in the past year. They represent the state-of-the-art in modeling tools. The USGS was an active participant in the development and review of some of the models and provided much of the hydrogeologic data on which the models are based. The models addressing groundwater are current and present the project impacts. [Bill Greenslade: In the response above, you say in the first sentence that the computer flow models have been developed or updated within the last year. Both the USGS and SSPA models for the C aquifer were completed in 2005 (more than a year ago). 51(SR183) Summary Comment: Do not use groundwater because OSM has previously failed to minimize the hydrological impact to adjacent communities as required by its own CHIA criteria for minimal impact. Summary Response: OSM has analyzed hydrological impacts and determined that there would be no material damage to the hydrologic regime outside the permit area. 51(SR184) Summary Comment: The EIS does not adequately study the impact of C- and N-aquifer water use on the water security of Flagstaff, Doney Park, Leupp, Twin Arrows, and the Navajo and Hopi communities. This water is critical to farming and ranching. Summary Response: The EIS estimates the change in water level in the N and C aquifers in response to pumping of groundwater for project purposes. Changes in water level in the N aquifer are identified at eight Navajo communities (Final EIS, Table 4-7). Maps 4-1 and 4-2 show the change is water level in the C aquifer at Leupp and Twin Arrows. There is no change at Flagstaff and Doney Park. In all cases, the impact on water available from community wells is negligible. 51(SR187) Summary Comment: Were the costs of using irreplaceable potable water included in the slurry transport? Impacting 
 groundwater for 20 years.
 Summary Response: The cost of the water used for transporting the coal is shown in the EIS Section 2.2.1.3,
 Table 2-5. Also see Table 2-7 and Table 2-8.
 51(SR188) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS analysis does not reconcile with previous determinations on CHIA criteria established by OSM for the N aquifer under the SMCRA. Summary Response: OSM last prepared a CHIA in 1989. The Draft EIS contains more current information than the 1989 CHIA. OSM is preparing a new CHIA that would be the basis for some of its decisions on the LOM revision.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-55

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

51(SR189) Summary Comment: To establish impact level criterion for reductions in saturated thickness, the Draft EIS report references Driscoll 1986, which states that, theoretically, 90 percent of the maximum well yield is obtained at 67 percent of maximum drawdown. The Draft EIS report identifies that other factors including well losses need to be considered, and concludes that between 20 percent and 50 percent reduction in saturated thickness represents a conservative range for establishing impact levels associated with reduced aquifer saturated thickness. It should be noted that the reference cited is specific to unconfined aquifers. Significant adverse impacts (and material damage) may occur where water levels drop below the top of a confined aquifer independent of the percentage of drawdown observed. The report assumes that water levels are not predicted to drop below the top of the confined N aquifer; however, monitoring data has shown that the water levels have periodically dropped below the elevation of the top of the N-aquifer at both the Kayenta West and BM3 monitor wells used to monitor impacts of mine related pumping. For reasons including these, the criterion established, therefore, is not a technically appropriate measure of impact. Summary Response: In the EIS, the criterion for reduction in saturated thickness is applied only to unconfined portions of the C aquifer. As long as aN aquifer is confined, by definition the saturated thickness is 100 percent. The assertion that significant adverse impacts may occur when water drops below the top of a confined aquifer independent of the percentage of drawdown is not supported by any data. Kayenta West and BM3 wells are both located near the N aquifer confined/unconfined boundary. Both are subject to the influence of both mine and Kayenta community pumping. At Kayenta West, only 4.6 feet of drawdown is predicted to be due to project pumping. Even if this were to result in aquifer being unconfined, the impact on saturated thickness would be negligible. 51(SR190) Summary Comment: Impacts of pumping (as drawdown) are observed throughout the entire confined and into the unconfined portion of the N aquifer. With regard to groundwater extractions, a new state of dynamic equilibrium is reached only by an increase in recharge (induced recharge), a decrease in discharge, or a combination of the two. To date, certain studies regarding the impacts of mine-related pumping have concluded that the N aquifer can be pumped for decades at levels near or greater than the available recharge and not cause reduced discharge to springs or baseflow to washes, and little or no induced leakage from the overlying D aquifer. While models have been developed that purport to support those conclusions, the results are not consistent with basic hydrogeologic theory or with monitoring data that is being collected at the site. Summary Response: As stated in EIS Section 4.4.1.5.1, the USGS has been monitoring springflow at four N aquifer springs for at least 10 years and reported that long-term trends are not apparent. Modeling of future withdrawals does indicate a significant reduction in the flow of some springs (e.g., Pasture Spring), essentially all of which is due to projected nonproject community pumping (Final EIS, Table 4-12). 51(SR191) Summary Comment: The EIS lacks a hydrologic reclamation plan. Summary Response: The hydrologic reclamation plan required by the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 780.21(h) is contained in Chapter 19 of Peabody’s approved application for permit AZ0001 and the LOM revision application for the Black Mesa and Kayenta mining operations. In the EIS, Appendix A describes the hydrologic reclamation plans; Section 3.4.1 describes the existing, affected environment resulting from past implementation of the approved plan at the Black Mesa Complex; and Section 4.4.1.1 describes the approved and proposed plans environmental consequences at the Black Mesa Complex. 51(SR192) Summary Comment: Peabody is now under a mandatory duty to replace the water depleted from the N aquifer under SMRCA. 30 U.S.C. 1.307(b). [URS, check the comments to see whether the commenters actually cited 30 U.S.C. 1.307(b) instead of the correct citation 30 U.S.C. 1307(b). URS checked, stated in letter as shown] This statutory requirement was not addressed in the Draft EIS or Peabody’s application. Summary Response: 30 U.S.C. 1307(b) (Section 717(b) of SMCRA) requires the operator of a surface coal mine to replace the water supply of an owner of interest in real property who obtains all or part of his supply of water for domestic, agricultural, industrial, or other legitimate use from an underground or surface source where such supply has been affected by contamination, diminution, or interruption proximately resulting from such surface coal mine operation. The Black Mesa Complex mining has not contaminated, diminished, or interrupted water supplies from the N aquifer.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-56

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

51(SR193) Summary Comment: The technical review [by LFR] concluded that the GeoTrans model was fundamentally flawed and failed to meet the regulatory requirements, including the following major flaws: 1. the 1999 flow model is inadequate to address all relevant consequences of mining on the hydrologic balance (Peabody admits that the model has insufficient resolution to address a critical issue: diminishment of flow at sacred and other springs in the area); and 2. the model is otherwise flawed in important ways that destroy its utility and credibility, including its theoretic postulation of a nearly unlimited supply of water to replace water pumped by Peabody and mask the effects of Peabody pumping. The probable hydrological consequences model cannot even begin to predict flow to individual springs, as its resolution is not fine enough. It is both scientifically inadequate and culturally inappropriate to substitute an incomplete model for observed decreases in flow at sacred springs that have already adversely impacted Hopis and Navajos. Summary Response: OSM does not find the technical review to be persuasive. It has confidence in the GeoTrans modeling. As stated in EIS Section 4.4.1.5.1 (Draft EIS page 4-32), the USGS has been monitoring springflow at four N aquifer springs for at least 10 years and reported that “long-term trends are not apparent.” No support for the stated “observed decreases in flow at sacred springs” is provided. While the GeoTrans model does not simulate all known springs, it does simulate groundwater discharge to several major springs and washes. In all cases, the predicted decrease in flow, due to maximum project pumping, to these springs and washes is very small (Final EIS, Table 4-7). 51(SR194) Summary Comment: Peabody’s 2005 supplement to the original GeoTrans model done in 2002 has three major flaws: 1. Previous concerns regarding the model and its ability to resolve specific CHIA criteria requirements remain unresolved, including a failure to resolve changes in spring discharge at the level necessary to evaluate CHIA criteria. 2. Calibration and other essential statistics to support the supplement’s conclusions and facilitate peer review are not made available; rather, only declaratory statements are provided. 3. The model fails to include D aquifer water-level data necessary to quantify leakage from the D aquifer to the N aquifer. Summary Response: 1. The model simulates a change in groundwater discharge to major springs and streams. This methodology is described in the GeoTrans report as follows: “Because of the aforementioned sparseness of the data set related to spring discharge rates, groundwater discharge rates into the washes are not well-known. As a result, developing a quantitative estimate of the discharge (e.g., 0.1 cfs), or absolute change in discharge, is not feasible. Relative changes in discharge rates (expressed as a percentage change) can be better predicted. Idealizations and assumptions inherent in the model may render questionable an estimate of the absolute discharge. But because these components of the model are identical when predicting a change in discharge, the relative change (predicted change in discharge divided by the predicted discharge) is expected to be more reliable than either the predicted discharge or predicted change in discharge. The effects of the idealizations and assumptions tend to cancel when the change is expressed in relative terms. In addition, the simulated discharge at a single cell is more likely to be in error than that for many cells. A single cell’s discharge rate is determined by the difference between simulated head for that cell, and the specified head for the boundary condition, so that the cell’s discharge rate can be very sensitive to modeling assumptions and simplifications. For example, if the simulated hydraulic head is slightly below the elevation of a drain, no discharge will be simulated. A minor increase in simulated head can cause a significant increase in simulated discharge. For a collection of cells, the cell-by-cell changes are added together, and the single-cell effects are averaged together. Thus, the relative change in the simulated discharge (for example, into Laguna Creek or Moenkopi Wash) can be used as a reasonable estimate of the relative change in actual discharge that would result from a change in recharge or pumping rates, while the estimate for a single cell would be considerably less reliable” 2. Calibration statistics were provided for the steady-state and transient parts of the model calibration in the HSI GeoTrans and Waterstone report by for the confined N aquifer. These statistics are still valid, as the model parameters have not been changed. However, in Supplement 1, statistics on the quality of agreement between simulated and measured drawdown after the calibration period were not provided. The statistics for the base-case model are included in the following table, for each of the BM observation wells individually. At the time the work for Supplement 1 was being performed, pumping and water-level data were available through mid-2003, so the statistics cover the period between the beginning of 1998 through mid-2003. During the model calibration, the changes in water levels were calculated based on the most recent water-level measurement, rather than the first, because of uncertainty about the quality of the early-time measurements. The residuals evaluated in the following table are based on this approach. Thus, the post-calibration residuals will tend start at low values, and increase in amplitude if there is growing mismatch. During the post-calibration period, water levels in BM1 have varied without a significant temporal trend; the model predicts that drawdown is slowly occurring, so that the average residual

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-57

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

(calculated as the measured change minus the simulated change) reflects a combination of the variability in the measurements and the slow simulated drawdown. At BM2, the measured drawdown during the post-calibration period is about 13 feet; the model predicts drawdown approximately 9 feet of drawdown over this period, producing an average residual of about 2.4 feet. Community pumping near BM3 produces considerable variability in its measurements. Because the short-term pumping data are not collected, the model has not been able to mimic this noisy signal. At BM5 and BM6, the model matches the observed changes well, with small values for both the average and standard deviation of the residuals for these wells. 3. The model was calibrated to the available water level data in the D Aquifer. 51(SR195) Summary Comment: Pumping was stopped or significantly reduced in December of 2005, and although the GeoTrans model and 2005 supplement predict a robust recovery, monitoring wells on the N aquifer have yet to show a rebound. Water levels have continued to decline. This casts doubts regarding the ability of the model to assess potential material damage to the N aquifer. Summary Response: Monitoring wells within the boundaries of the Black Mesa Complex have shown considerable recovery in water levels. Monitoring well BM 6 south of the Complex has recently begun to show recovery. The delayed response at this well was expected. 51(SR196) Summary Comment: Structurally there is one syncline and anticline leading from the northwest to southeast. In the Black Mesa permit revision application, probable hydrologic consequences, page 1, state that the mine pits intercept Wepo Water. In the Black Mesa permit revision application, probable hydrologic consequences, page 20, admits using a geometric mean for hydraulic conductivity. Of course, one cannot find the 24 hydraulic conductivity numbers in Chapter 15 of the Black Mesa permit revision application. Water follows the least path of resistance avoiding low hydraulic conductivities. Using a lower hydraulic conductivity does not represent the true nature of the Wepo Aquifer. Summary Response: The 24 hydraulic conductivity values for Wepo wells can be found in Table 32 in Chapter 15, Hydrologic Description of the approved Black Mesa and Kayenta Mine PAP for Permit No. AZ0001D. The geometric mean of the 24 values was selected in order to provide a conservative yet representative estimate of hydraulic conductivity for the Wepo aquifer. 51(SR198) Summary Comment: The data in the EIS indicates only a small decrease in the amount of surface water flow and groundwater, but this is incorrect. Summary Response: The EIS analysis is based on the latest available data and models. Decreases in groundwater discharge and baseflow are predicted to be small. No data are provided to support assertion that the analysis is incorrect. 51(SR199) Summary Comment: Since the mine opened, water quality has improved. Summary Response: Comment noted. 51(SR200) Summary Comment: In the Black Mesa permit revision application, probable hydrologic consequences, pages 24-26, the consequences of using a lower hydraulic conductivity are revealed. The observation does not match theoretical values. The mismatch of values is the truth that the Peabody coal mine pits have drained the Wepo Aquifer and Peabody is measuring the last few drops from the Wepo Aquifer. Long-term damage has occurred to the Hopi sacred springs. Summary Response: The pit-inflow calculations used the geometric mean of the available hydraulic conductivity data, which is the best indicator of the large-scale hydraulic conductivity of heterogeneous porous media. The use of an arithmetic mean would only be appropriate if lithologic layers were infinite in extent, which layers in the Wepo are not. Long-term monitoring of water levels and flows of springs discharging from the Wepo has shown that the opening of new pits effects water levels only locally, and early, wide-spread changes did not occur. Localized changes in Wepo water levels and springs that are close to mine pits have been observed at some locations, but these changes have no caused long-term damage to the Hopi springs that emanate from the D and N aquifers.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-58

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

51(SR201) Summary Comment: OSM needs to update its hydrological model for the N aquifer and provide sufficient information demonstrating that the C aquifer is a viable supply of water and that withdrawals will not have adverse hydrological or wildlife impacts. Summary Response: OSM does not have a hydrologic model. The applicant has provided model results that account for all of the pertinent groundwater variables. Both N-aquifer and C-aquifer models are correct and describe anticipated impacts. Hydrologic and wildlife effects from pumping C aquifer water were analyzed respectively in EIS Sections 4.4.1.4.1 and 4.8.1.3.1. 51(SR202) Summary Comment: There are several things that are wrong with the way the water studies were done. When they first went in there, they drilled without a permit. When they went in there and did the water, instead of drawing just like a cup to do the study of the water, they took water trucks in there and pumped out thousands of gallons of water, and went, and then they just dumped it out in the open dirt tank, so it evaporated into the air. And they drilled three windmills out there. Number 1, Number 2, and Number 3 wells. Number 1 well is at a higher elevation, and the representative [name deleted] of the Navajo Nation is the one that did the study. He told the people that own the Well Number 1, because the water table is low, the water pressure wasn’t coming up, and when people were to get water, he told them it should come back up in two or three days. To this day, the water pressure remains low. Summary Response: The permit for the drilling was issued by the Navajo Nation Water Code Administration. A copy of the permit is on file with the Water Code Administration. Part of the study included pump tests at the three sites. The maximum water level draw down during the pump test at site 1 was less than 5 feet and the water level recovered to within 1 foot within an hour after the testing was complete. The Navajo Department of Water Resources local office at Leupp, which oversees the operation and maintenance of livestock wells in the area, has had water production problems at the site described as site 1 before the C-aquifer test and continuing after the test. The problem is a mechanical issue with the windmill. 51(SR204) Summary Comment: Peabody’s operations have contributed significantly to groundwater problems adversely impacting the environment, culture, and religious ceremonies of the people of Black Mesa. Summary Response: Comment noted. 51(SR205) Summary Comment: The impact analysis is inconsistent and attention to detail disparate among the various alternatives, preventing decision-makers and the public from evaluating the comparative merits of Alternatives A, B, and C. For example, the summary of hydrological impacts for the Black Mesa Complex indicates that impacts under Alternative A are “Negligible.” For Alternatives B and C, the impacts are listed respectively as “Similar to Alternative A” and “Same as Alternative B.” This analysis suggests that (l ) there is no appreciable hydrological impact from strip mining, and (2) hydrological impacts do not vary in relation to the size of the area mined. Such an analysis is not only implausible but is utterly unhelpful to the decision-makers and to the members of the general public who are trying to discern the costs and benefits of the various alternatives. Summary Response: Hydrologic impacts from mining operations are described in detail for Alternative A. Impacts range from negligible to moderate. As stated in EIS Section 4.4.2 (Draft EIS page 4-37), impacts under Alternative B would be similar in scope but reduced in area due to the reduced volume of coal produced. 51(SR229) Summary Comment: The impacts of the proposed reopening of the Black Mesa Project have not been adequately assessed due to the absence of accurate and up-to-date baselines studies. As you are aware, it is essential that all EIS documents must “plan to ground.” That is, existing conditions must be accurately modeled, and a proposed project’s impacts reviewed against those up-to-date conditions. Absent “plan to ground” data, the evidentiary basis for any required findings is absent. Consequently, the required NEPA findings cannot be made, and the EIS becomes fundamentally flawed. Therefore, rather than relying on the Draft EIS as circulated, OSM should update the hydrological model for the N aquifer and provide sufficient information demonstrating the C aquifer is a viable supply of water and that withdrawals will not have adverse hydrological or wildlife impacts. At this point the EIS then could be recirculated. Summary Response: OSM considers the N aquifer model to be current. The C-aquifer model presents the potential project impacts and cumulative impacts. The Draft EIS used models updated through 2005 and the most recent available data, including USGS and Peabody monitoring data through 2004 and 2005, respectively.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-59

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

51(SR270) Summary Comment: The EIS should use pre-mine water levels as a baseline; the current analysis that uses 2005 water levels as a baseline underestimates the actual incremental costs associated with continued use to the N aquifer. Summary Response: The methodology used to estimate the impact of increased cost of pumping due to water (piezometric) level drawdown associated with mine pumping is presented in Appendix H. Incremental cost associated with the LOM permit revision are those increased or decreased pumping costs due to water level changes resulting from mine N-aquifer pumping that would occur between the time of the permit approval and the end of mining. The baseline for this analysis was assumed to be 2005 and is appropriate for assessing the impacts of this action. In Section 4.24.3.2, Cumulative Effects Specific to the Project Water Supply, N-Aquifer Water Supply water level drawdown due to mine pumping from 1955 to 2025 are analyzed along with pumping by others. This period includes all prior and planned future mine pumping. The impact analysis assesses changes in water levels from premining conditions through 2025. The DEIS uses most recent available hydrologic and geologic data in assessing the impacts of the proposed project. These data are summarized in Chapter 3 and the sources referenced in Chapter 7. The groundwater flow models were calibrated to the most recent data available at the time of model development. The comment references DEIS pages 3-29 and 3-30, both of which contain numerous references to data from 2004, 2005, and 2006. Many of the cited references contain data collected since the beginning of mining. 51(SR303) Summary Comment: Recharge to the exposed Shonto region at the northern end of Black Mesa, the region believed to account for much of the N aquifer’s recharge, has been downgraded on the basis of detailed geochemical and isotopic measurements to between 2,500 and 3,500 acre-feet per year. This revised figure indicates that Peabody’s current withdrawals from the N aquifer surpass the aquifer’s safe yield. OSM failed to look at this as a mitigation measure for N aquifer withdrawals. If an increase in recharge is not forthcoming, a decrease in discharge to the washes and springs is a mitigation measure that to prevent individual and cumulative impacts from industrial and municipal water withdrawals. Sole Source Aquifer, a mitigation measure also could designate the N aquifer a “sole source aquifer” pursuant to the Federal Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program. The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act recognizes that sole sources of regional drinking water, whose contamination “would create a significant hazard to public health,” require special protection to ensure their long-term viability. Summary Response: Comment noted. OSM is aware of the various studies and estimates of recharge and took them into consideration in preparing the EIS. 51(SR750) Summary Comment: The GeoTrans and Waterstone D and N aquifer Model should have been made available for third-party review and public oversight. Summary Response: OSM provided the model to the Natural Resources Defense Council. 51(SR818) Summary Comment: Release of a new CHIA should have occurred before the release of the EIS so the public could adequately review it. Summary Response: The CHIA is a part of the permit process and not required for the EIS analysis. 51(SR819) Summary Comment: Peabody’s GeoTrans model for the N aquifer was not included as part of Peabody’s permit application or as part of the EIS and for this reason, OSM has effectively stymied public review of the alleged impacts on groundwater. Summary Response: Peabody summarized modeling results generated by the 3-D groundwater model and referenced the comprehensive model report in Chapter 18, Probable Hydrologic Consequences of the LOM plan application. The public has access to the LOM application for review at OSM’s Western Technical Center in Denver, Colorado. Peabody also shared the model with the tribes, USGS, OSM, and other. Category 52: Groundwater – Water withdrawal (effects of withdrawal, drawdown of surrounding wells, springs) 52(900) Comment: In Appendix H, OSM assigns “impact levels” to identify various hydrological impacts of water withdrawals. But throughout the N-aquifer analysis the proffered “impact levels” do not correspond to existing

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-60

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

factual data. Moreover, the impact levels are arbitrary, at best, and capricious, at worst, by directly contradicting 
 previous criteria established to measure impact levels: 
 Response: See the responses to comments 52(1148), 52(1149), 52(1150), and 52(1151). 
 52(912) Comment: It fails to identify mitigation measures to protect the groundwater quality at Red Gap Ranch, which might include limits on groundwater withdrawals, buffer zones between Red Gap Ranch and Black Mesa Project wells, groundwater quality monitoring, contributions toward treatment of municipal water supplies and/or other measures identified by the stakeholders after the additional studies of the poor quality groundwater have been completed. Response: The cumulative impacts of future water withdrawals by the City of Flagstaff, Winslow, and other municipalities were considered and are discussed in EIS Section 4.24.3.1. 52(917) Comment: Plus water has always been free to the indigenous peoples. Dewater the region has caused access to water on the reservations to be very expensive, and to continue to allow energy companies to deplete and pollute our aquifers in exchange for purchasing political power for their ever corrupt proxy Indians is no longer acceptable. Response: The primary source of potable groundwater beneath the Hopi and Navajo reservations is the N aquifer. Due to the cost of wells required to penetrate this deep aquifer, most are community owned and operated by the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority. The increased cost due to project pumping is discussed in the EIS Section 4.4.1.5 and in Appendix H. 52(960) Comment: The Black Mesa Project is bad and must not go forward because: It seeks to pump massive amounts of water from aN aquifer with religious significance. The aquifer recharges with extreme slowness. The pumping will deplete the aquifer, reduce artesian well pressure, and reduce or even halt the flow of water to certain ceremonial springs and water sites. The reduced or terminated water flow will interfere with or halt certain traditional religious ceremonies and practices. The federal government protects insects, amphibians, fish, fowl, and other lowly creatures when their waters are threatened. Why in the world is the federal government not protecting the religious beliefs of the Hopi people, when their sacred waters are threatened? Are the religious beliefs of the Hopi people less important to the federal government than insects, amphibians, fish, fowl, and other lowly creatures? Threatening the religious waters of the Hopi people threatens my personal religious beliefs and practices, because I use such waters, and participate in religious ceremonies and practices that require the use of such religious waters. I have a very personal religious stake in all of this. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the federal government from violating - and substantially interfering with - my religious beliefs in this way, unless there is an exceptionally compelling state interest in doing so. There is no such compelling state interest here. . The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) says that the U.S. Government “should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.” 42 U.S.C.A. A§2000bb(a)(3). But that is just what the federal government is threatening to do to me. . The traditional lands of the Hopi Tribe were ceded to the United States of America under the terms of the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, 9 Stat. 922 (February 2, 1848), more formally entitled the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic. Under Article IX of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, the United States of America agreed that the people residing in the territory acquired under that Treaty would be accorded all of the rights of citizens of the United States, including the right to be “secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction.” (Emphasis added.). What the federal government is threatening to do will impose a “restriction” on the “free exercise” of my traditional Hopi religious beliefs and practices. I am an actual and intended beneficiary of the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, and have the right to seek its enforcement. Your agency is an agency of the federal government. Acting in the name of the United States of America, your agency and the federal government are threatening to violate those religious rights guaranteed to me, as a traditional Hopi, under the terms of the Treaty of GuadalupeHidalgo. Response: The USGS has concluded that data from the only gaged spring that might be discharging from near the important N-aquifer confined-unconfined boundary—Burro Spring—has not had a statistically significant increase or decrease during the period of time that the spring has been measured since 1989. Burro Spring has flowed at less than 1/2 gallon per minute (gpm) over the period of record and has extremely high variability. Just as increases in flows of 100 percent from 2001 to 2002 (from 0.2 to 0.4 gpm) cannot be attributed to Peabody activities, 50 percent decreases in flows from 2003 to 2004 (back to 0.2 from 0.4 gpm) cannot also not be attributed to Peabody pumping. Burro Spring provides no indication of impacts from past pumping at the Black Mesa Complex or from municipal pumping of N-aquifer in closer proximity.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-61

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

52(1117) Comment: Using a lower hydraulic conductivity does not represent the true nature of the Wepo Aquifer. My uncles have told me the water use to gush from the side of the pit walls filling up the coal mine pits...In the Black Mesa Permit Revision Application, Probable Hydro Consequences pages 24-26 the consequences of using a lower hydraulic conductivity is revealed the observation does not match theoretical values. The mismatch of values is the truth that the Peabody Coal mine pits have drained the Wepo Aquifer and Peabody is measuring the last few drops from the Wepo Aquifer. Response: Locally, near the mine pits, water levels in the Wepo formation have dropped. Outside the permit area, the Wepo Formation remains essentially unaffected by the mining operation. 52(1118) Comment: The Hart water study (2002) is flawed. The Cholla Power plant did draw down water levels in the Holbrook area. In the Holbrook area, there use to be artesian wells. After the Cholla Power Plant was built the artesian wells dried up. This was communicated via Vincent Yazzie’s friend, Lloyd Taylor from Holbrook, Arizona. The water will drop 35 feet in my area according to the Leake water study of 2005. A 35 foot drop in water levels will cause Canyon Diablo to dry up. There are fault lines in the area which affect the water levels in Canyon Diablo by causing more water to be withdrawn from springs in Canyon Diabo. Canyon Diablo is a source of water for my animals, medicinal herbs, and cactus fruit. Wild Elk also use Canyon Diablo as a source of water during the droughts. Cougars and bobcats can also be found in Canyon Diablo. Wild animals would be forced to leave the area and enter human habitation areas. The grass would also dry up in Canyon Diablo removing a source of hearty, wholesome, nutrient rich grass in the area. The area where I live is mostly Moenkopi shale with alluvial deposits. No grass grows on the Moenkopi Shale. Grass only grows in areas of alluvial sandy drainages which fatten the sheep. Beneath the Moenkop Shale is the Kaibab Limestone. The Kaibab Limestone is impermeable to water, but it is highly fractured allowing water to pass through to the Coconino Sandstone. The Moenkopi Shale is very thin in my area and there are cracks which lead to the top of the Kaibab Limestone. There are numerous fault lines and cracks in the area due to earthquakes from the past. One earthquake near Cameron, Arizona measured 7 on the richter scale in 1912. The fault lines are created as the Pacific Plate slides underneath the North American plate especially in the friction zones of the two plates. Meteorite Crater also created fractures in the area as it sent out shock waves upon impact. The Meteorite Crater was a 10 Megaton explosion. The fault lines extend all the way to the basement rocks. The surface water travels to the top of the Coconino Aquifer trickling down the alluvial, Moenkopi shale and finally entering the highly fractured Kaibab Limestone and Toroweap Formation. A 35 foot drop in the top of the C-aquifer will cause more surface water to flow to the C-aquifer allowing the surface springs to dry up. I would be forced to drive to get water. This will cause more expense on my vehicle as the primitive dirt roads will cause more wear and tear on my vehicles plus gasoline expense. My cows, sheep, lambs, and horses rely heavily on the surface water and grass. Response: Groundwater levels in the proposed C-Aquifer well field area range from 226 to 611 feet below ground surface (USGS 2005). C-Aquifer water levels are below the bottom of Canyon Diablo; there are no know C-Aquifer springs. Drawdown of water levels in the C-Aquifer due to project pumping will not induce greater water movement from the surface to the aquifer since water levels are already below the ground surface. Grasses and wildlife on the land surface do not rely on C-Aquifer water for sustenance, rather on ponded surface water and on springs supported by locally perched water and are not expected to be impacted by changes in C-Aquifer water levels. 52(1119) Comment: All the water sources appears to go down, the streams, underground sources and any above ground waters will decrease from its normal levels. Base your comments, questions, [and concerns] on these data. Some impacts will occur to the Colorado River, including Clear Creek and Chevelon tributaries to bear reduction impacts. Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.24.3.1 for a discussion of the effects on Clear and Chevelon creeks under Alternative A, which is no longer the proposed project and preferred alternative.. 52(1121) Comment: As the result of the coal slurry pipeline, wells and ancient springs began to run dry. Cracks and fissures have appeared across Black Mesa - and the centuries old cultures of the Hopi and Diné that depended so heavily upon the pristine aquifer for religious, cultural and day-to-day uses, are suffering as a result. Response: OSM has no documentation that any N-aquifer springs have begun to run dry or, if so, what the specific cause might be. OSM has investigated reports of cracks and fissures on Black Mesa and concluded that they have no link to water withdrawals from the N aquifer. As stated in Appendix H of the EIS, the “subsidence” features of

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-62

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

concern have been determined to be either in or adjacent to unconsolidated alluvial valley deposits and have been due to surface water entering and eroding desiccation features following an extended period of drought. 52(1122) Comment: Already the landscape of the southwest has been dramatically altered because of Peabody’s slurry line. Springs have dried up, underground waterways have dried up and the ground has caved in on these areas preventing water from returning. Immeasurable damage has already been done to the Navajo aquifer and surrounding springs by Peabody Coal The further pumping of pristine high quality water for coal use is unacceptable and insulting especially today when we know that there is a water scarcity. In the southwest we know this, ever day we pray that it will rain or snow so that our forests will be not be wrecked by forest fire, using our groundwater to slurry coal is insane under the current conditions. Response: Operation of the coal-slurry pipeline by Black Mesa Pipeline Inc. is no longer proposed as a part of the Black Mesa Project in the Final EIS. 52(1146) Comment: Black Mesa is Where the Hopi and Navajo people live and these people had to use the water that were first used in the Peabody’s coal mine as a drinking water. They were able to see all the crushed coal in their water that they use every day. It permanently taken all the sources of pure drinking water in Black Mesa by polluting the ground water with coal wastes. Response: Monitoring the Wepo and alluvial water chemistry since early history of the mining on Black Mesa has shown that in most areas, significant degradation of the water quality has not occurred. In most areas, the water quality in these formations was highly variable, as many wells had relatively high concentrations of total dissolved solids and other constituents resulting from reactions between the water and the rock prior to mining. In most cases, the water quality was not suitable for domestic drinking water or livestock drinking water. Peabody provides costfree drinking water from the N aquifer to residents year round at two public water stands at the Black Mesa Complex. Peabody provides this water in compliance with a public water-supply permit issued by the Navajo Nation under its Safe Drinking Water Act. 52(1147) Comment: OSM Fails to Analyze the Environmental Impacts of Water Withdrawals Response: Refer to EIS Sections 4.4.1.3 and 4.24.3 for a discussion on the effects of water withdrawals. 52(1148) Comment: Impact Levels Do not Correspond to Factual Data and Previous Criteria. In Appendix H, OSM assigns “impact levels” to identify various hydrological impacts of water withdrawals. But throughout the N-aquifer analysis the proffered “impact levels” do not correspond to existing factual data. Moreover, the impact levels are arbitrary, at best, and capricious, at worst, by directly contradicting previous criteria established to measure impact levels. Response: See the responses to comments 52(1149), 52(1150), and 52(1151). 52(1149) Comment: Impact Levels Contradict CHIA Criteria Conclusions, it is unclear how the various impact levels were established and the determinations do not follow from previous impact assessments established by OSM. For example, how was it determined that a twenty-five percent increase in pumping costs in the N-aquifer, or a onehundred percent increase in pumping costs in the C aquifer, would represent a minor impact level (defined as an impact that would affect the cost or quality but not the use of water or are similar to those caused by random fluctuations in natural processes). Does the Draft EIS author suggest that a 100% increase in pumping costs be expected from random fluctuations in natural processes? Furthermore, the Draft EIS analysis does not reconcile with previous determinations on CHIA criteria established by OSM for the N aquifer under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Response: The impact levels of the Draft EIS address NEPA-related discussions of impacts, which have a very different purpose than the SMCRA-related discussions of impact levels. In the EIS, the central question regarding hydrologic impacts is “Have the hydrologic impacts been fully disclosed and properly evaluated?” The central question with the SMCRA-related CHIA is “Will the proposed operation cause material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area?”Because of the differing purposes of the NEPA and SMCRA, the focuses of the impact descriptions are different. 52(1150) Comment: Assignment of Impact Levels Is Unreasonable and Arbitrary, in Appendix H, OSM defines hydrology impact levels in direct contradiction to SMCRA, previously identified agency criteria, and NEPA’s “significance”

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-63

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

standards. For example, the definition of a “major” impact requires that the effects either cause a water-quality violation or “economically, technically, or legally eliminate use of the resource.” This definition is unreasonable and arbitrary as a matter of law for failing to incorporate the environmental (other than water quality), hydrological, and cultural impacts of, for example, drawdown, permanent diminution of aquifer capacity, short-term and long-term reduction or elimination of spring flow and wash discharge, and subsidence. Requiring “elimination” of the resource before finding a “major” impact is hydrogeologically indefensible and an unreasonable and arbitrary legal standard. Response: As stated in Appendix H of the EIS, the impact evaluation criteria generally follow those developed for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Assessment of Western Navajo and Hopi Water Supply Needs (HDR 2003). 52(1151) Comment: Impacts on Stream and Spring Flow, it is unclear how impact levels associated with diminution of discharge to streams and springs were established. CHIA criteria established by OSM set ten percent reduction in discharge to springs or as baseflow to washes as an indicator of material damage to the N aquifer. But the draft EIS considers a ten percent reduction in discharge as a negligible impact level (defined as an impact in the lower limit of detection that potentially could cause an insignificant change or stress to an environmental resource or use). No technical basis is provided for classifying in the Draft EIS impacts as “negligible” impacts that OSM has otherwise concluded indicate “material damage.” The Draft EIS report relies on model-predicted groundwater discharge diminution due to Peabody pumping as the basis for assigning impact levels (Table 4.9). According to the Draft EIS, OSM determined that the GeoTrans model satisfies the intended objectives and is the most comprehensive groundwater assessment tool for predictive impact evaluations necessary to address concerns related to Peabody’s pumping of the N aquifer. It is well documented (as noted in the Draft EIS) that the numerical models of the N aquifer were not designed to simulate discharge to individual springs and washes. As such, impacts of pumping from the N aquifer must not be based on model results, but rather physical monitoring of discharges. Response: The impact levels of the Draft EIS address NEPA-related discussions of impacts, which have a very different purpose than the SMCRA-related discussions of impact levels. In the EIS, the central question regarding hydrologic impacts is “Have the hydrologic impacts been fully disclosed and properly evaluated?” The central question with the SMCRA-related CHIA is “Will the proposed operation cause material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area?”Because of the differing purposes of the NEPA and SMCRA, the focuses of the impact descriptions are different. With respect to the part of the comment asserting that pumping impacts must be based on physical monitoring rather than on modeling results, the N-aquifer model was in fact calibrated and validated using actual hydrologic data. The model indicates that the greatest reductions in N-aquifer head in the immediate vicinity of the N-aquifer springs will occur in the 2005 to 2025 time period. However, these reductions in head will occur primarily as the result of groundwater withdrawals by local municipalities such as Kykotsmovi and Mishongnovi rather than as the result of the mining-related operations. Also, the one spring where a relatively lengthy actual flow record exists—Burro Spring, located approximately seven miles downstream of Kykotsmovi— indicates that flow quantity and quality are highly variable and have no statistically significant trend, indicating no discernable impact from pumping. The model results are necessary to supplement the relatively sparse records for actual springs that discharge from the confined-unconfined boundary region of the N aquifer. 52(1152) Comment: Costs of Pumping, it is unclear how the incremental costs/impacts of continued mine-related pumping of the N-aquifer were established. The incremental costs/impacts should be based on costs/impacts associated with continued N-aquifer pumping versus the costs that would be incurred if no mine-related pumping existed. Instead, OSM shifts the baseline, by minimizing the actual costs/impacts from re-starting N-aquifer water withdrawals. Since baseline water levels used in the analysis were based on existing or historic water levels affected by mine-related pumping, the analysis grossly underestimates the actual incremental costs/impacts. Response: The methodology used to estimate the impact of increased cost of pumping due to water (piezometric) level drawdown associated with mine pumping is presented in Appendix H. Incremental cost associated with the LOM permit revision are those increased or decreased pumping costs due to water level changes resulting from mine N-aquifer pumping that would occur between the time of the permit approval and the end of mining. The baseline for this analysis was assumed to be 2005 and is appropriate for assessing the impacts of this action. In Section 4.24.3.2, Cumulative Effects Specific to the Project Water Supply, N-Aquifer Water Supply water level drawdown due to mine pumping from 1955 to 2025 are analyzed along with pumping by others. This period includes all prior and planned future mine pumping. The impact analysis assesses changes in water levels from premining conditions through 2025.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-64

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

52(1153) Comment: Impacts oN aquifer Saturated Thickness, to establish impact level criterion for reductions in saturated thickness, the Draft EIS report references Driscoll, 1986, which states that, theoretically, ninety percent of the maximum well yield is obtained at sixty-seven percent of maximum drawdown. The EIS report identifies that other factors including well losses need to be considered, and concludes that between twenty percent and fifty percent reduction in saturated thickness represents a conservative range for establishing impact levels associated with reduced aquifer saturated thickness. But the reference cited by OSM is specific to unconfined aquifers. In confined aquifers, such as the N aquifer, adverse environmental impacts occur where water levels drop below the top of a confined aquifer independent of the percentage of draw down observed. The report assumes that water levels are not predicted to drop below the top of the confined N aquifer; however, monitoring data has shown that the water levels have periodically dropped below the elevation of the top of the N aquifer at both the Kayenta West and BM3 monitor wells used to monitor impacts of mine-related pumping. Response: The Impacts oN aquifer Thickness (Saturation) section of Appendix H has been revised to clarify that, according to the Driscoll report, 90 percent of the maximum well yield in an unconfined aquifer theoretically occurs at 67 percent of the maximum drawdown. The decrease in water levels observed at the Kayenta West and BM3 wells was predicted by the ground-water flow model. However, the model results show that 86 percent of the impact at BM3 is due to pumping from the Kayenta municipal well field (approximately 1 mile away) while only 16 percent of the impact is due to pumping at the Peabody mine (approximately 15 miles from BM3). 52(1154) Comment: Impact levels Associated with Reductions in Saturated Thickness, it is unclear how the various impact levels were established. For example, how was it determined that a thirty percent reduction in saturated thickness in the C-aquifer would represent a minor impact level (defined as an impact that potentially could be detected, but slight). Response: Impact levels due to reductions in aquifer saturated thickness are defined in Appendix H. As noted, the Reduction in Saturated Thickness impact criteria are designed to assess the reduction in the aquifer’s ability to supply water to a well. The assignment of qualitative impact levels (major, moderate, minor, etc.) is based on the judgment of the investigator. Based on well theory and using aquifer parameters for the C-Aquifer in the proposed well field area, a reduction in aquifer thickness (and transmissivity) of 30 percent (800 feet to 560 feet) would require an increase in drawdown from 14 feet to of 20 feet to maintain a discharge rate 500 gpm. This drawdown is less than 4 percent of the aquifer saturated thickness and would have little effect on the ability of the aquifer to supply water to a well. This impact was judged, therefore, to be minor. 52(1155) Comment: Migration of Poor Quality Groundwater, groundwater in the Dakota aquifer (also know as the “D-aquifer”) is of lower quality than that of the N-aquifer. The Draft EIS states that leakage between the D aquifer and N aquifer only occurs naturally in the southern portion of the Black Mesa basin more than twenty miles from the Peabody well field. The implication is that induced leakage from pumping does not occur; however, mine-related pumping has impacted groundwater elevations and altered groundwater gradients in the same areas where “natural” vertical leakage from the overlying D aquifer has been documented. Induced leakage from pumping has been documented to occur long distances away from pumping centers where hydrogeologic conditions inhibit leakage in the immediate vicinity of the pumping, such as at the Peabody mine. As such, evidence of induced leakage from the D aquifer to the N aquifer in the southern portion of Black Mesa may potentially be related to mine-related groundwater withdrawals further to the north. The Draft EIS bases their evaluation of the potential impact of migration of poor quality groundwater to the N aquifer on modeling results rather than monitoring of vertical gradients. OSM “conservatively” lists the potential impact as moderate (outside the random fluctuation of natural processes, but do not cause a significant loss of the use of the resource). But OSM ignores off-site impacts of induced leakage of poor quality groundwater from the D aquifer that could significantly impact water quality in the N aquifer in other areas of Black Mesa. Response: Contrary to the statement in the comment, pumping of water from the Peabody well field has caused the leakage rate to increase. The greatest percentage increase has occurred in the vicinity of the well field, where drawdown in the N aquifer is the greatest. However, because of the low permeability of the confining bed separating the D and N aquifers, the natural leakage rate was too small to have any appreciable effect on the quality of water in the N aquifer over periods of thousands of years. The increase in leakage due to Peabody’s pumping still results in a very low leakage rate, and a change in water quality in the N aquifer has not been detected. This is consistent with mass-balance calculations performed using the 3D flow model. The natural leakage rate is higher south and southwest of the leasehold, as shown by separate USGS and Peabody studies, and the effects of natural leakage of

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-65

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

D-aquifer water into the N aquifer is apparent. Because this area is distant from the leasehold and near or within the unconfined area, drawdown caused by Peabody’s pumping is very small, and thus the effect on the water chemistry is calculated to be small. In this area, drawdown from local pumping will have greater effect on the water quality of the N aquifer near or within the unconfined area. 52(1156) Comment: An additional failure is the lack of public availability of critical assumptions. The Draft EIS fails to
 release assumptions on expected Hopi, Navajo and other withdrawals, both present and future, municipal and
 industrial, for both the C and N aquifers. 
 Response: Past and future water use is summarized in the cumulative effects Sections 4.24.3.1 and 4.24.3.2.
 References are cited for the numbers used in the analysis. Citations for these sources are provided in Chapter 7 and
 are available to the public. 
 52(1157) Comment: USGS Data Ignored, the USGS report “Ground-Water, Surface-Water, and Water Chemistry Data, Black Mesa Area, Northeastern Arizona - 2003-2004” (Truini and Porter 2005) contains recent data for four springs that discharge from the N aquifer. Of the four springs, three are located on the southwestern side of Black Mesa (Pasture Canyon, Moenkopi School, and Burro) and the other is on the northeastern side of Black Mesa (unnamed spring near Dennehotso). Annual discharge data dating back to at least the early 1990s are provided. Some historic discharge data (pre-development) are also provided. A graph showing trends in discharge for all four springs is presented in the USGS report although the data is plotted on a logarithmic scale making interpretation difficult. A closer look at the data clearly shows an overall reduction in spring discharge for the three springs on the southwest side of the mesa. Discharge from the unnamed spring near Dennehotso has fluctuated over time making a definitive analysis of the overall trend more difficult; however, the two lowest measured discharges observed since annual measurements commenced in 1992 occurred within the last three years. Using only the annual data collected at the same location for each spring, estimates of discharge reduction since monitoring began are twenty-four percent at Moenkopi, nineteen percent at Pasture Canyon, and fifty percent at Burro. If other historic spring discharge data were considered, observed discharge reductions would be much greater (seventy percent at Moenkopi and eightyfive percent at Pasture Canyon). Response: OSM did not ignore the cited reference. On the contrary, it (and its sister reports on monitoring at Black Mesa) are referenced frequently in the DEIS. Contrary to the conclusions reached by the commenter, the USGS in the referenced report (page 16) states “For the consistent periods of record at all four springs, the discharges have fluctuated but long-term tends are not apparent.” 52(1158) Comment: Independent Peer Reviews Ignored, failing to address independent, peer hydrological reviews of Peabody 
 and U.S. Geological Survey monitoring data and models by LFR is unreasonable and arbitrary in violation of
 NEPA. LFR has conducted numerous independent reviews of the monitoring data, CHIA criteria, and models which
 are directly relevant to the analysis of impacts to spring flow, leakage, wash discharge, water levels, among others. 
 This failure extends to NRDC reports and Hopi and Navajo reviews. 
 Response: OSM conducts its own independent, objective reviews of all available data, models, and reports. 
 52(1159) Comment: Pre-existing Government Criteria Ignored, OSM contradicts criteria and findings that it previously made, including the cumulative hydraulic impact assessment (CHIA). OSM defined material damage to the N-aquifer as any long-term or permanent change in available quantity or quality of a water resource that will preclude its use or reduce its utility to an existing water user cumulative impact area. OSM established criteria to make these determinations. In an about-face with no justification, OSM is now arbitrarily ignoring its own criteria and making claims that directly contradict previous findings. Response: OSM is revising the CHIA and will be revisiting many aspects of the 1989 CHIA that are now dated. 52(1164) Comment: Additionally, adequate studies addressing...the causes of land subsidence must be conducted and included in a re-circulated EIS. Response: As stated in the EIS Section 4-4.1.3 (Draft EIS page 4-24), lowering of the water level has the potential to result in subsidence in unconsolidated aquifer systems due to compression fine-grained layer. Also, the removal of cavity filling material and dissolution of limestone in some limestone aquifers can foster sinkhole development.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-66

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

These effects are not a concern of this study; however, due to the fact the primary water-bearing units of the N and C aquifers are not comprised of unconsolidated material or limestone. 52(1166) Comment: Costs of Pumping, it is unclear how the incremental costs/impacts of continued mine-related pumping of the N-aquifer were established. The incremental costs/impacts should be based on costs/impacts associated with continued N-aquifer pumping versus the costs that would be incurred if no mine-related pumping existed. Instead, OSM shifts the baseline, by minimizing the actual costs/impacts from re-starting N-aquifer water withdrawals. Since baseline water levels used in the analysis were based on existing or historic water levels affected by mine-related pumping, the analysis grossly underestimates the actual incremental costs/impacts. Response: Same comment as 52(1152). 52(1167) Comment: Cumulative Impacts of N-Aquifer Water Withdrawals,112 the discussion of cumulative effects of N-aquifer water withdrawals does not indicate the impacts at various N-aquifer pumping scenarios on springs, washes, water quality, and water levels. Moreover, the incremental impact of N-aquifer water withdrawals is neither adjusted to past and present withdrawals, nor calibrated to predicted recovery levels under present N-aquifer pumping conditions,. In addition, OSM’s cumulative impacts analysis relies, in significant part, on the 1989 CHIA conclusions, which is improper because: (1) the USGS and Peabody monitoring data indicate violations of CHIA criteria, which OSM fails to explain under Section 4.24 or referenced sections; (2) the 1989 CHIA only indicates “probable cumulative hydrologic impacts (CHIA) of the proposed operation and all anticipated mining,” which is more restrictive than, not the equivalent of, the cumulative impacts analysis of all actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or persons under, NEPA;113 (3) the “material damage” under SMCRA is more restrictive than, not the equivalent of, the standard of “significantly” under NEPA in context and intensity;114 and (4) the “baseline period” in the 1989 CHIA refers to the period immediately prior to submittal of the permit application (1985), which is more restrictive than, not the equivalent of, the requirement to analyze the “incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions...”115 In the context of cumulative impacts, the above-described shortcomings apply to the GeoTrans model and 2005 Supplement as well. The cumulative impacts analysis under NEPA fails to analyze the “collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.”116 Lastly, OSM makes reference to, but fails to include, an “updated” CHIA. Response: Section 4.24.3.2 of the Draft EIS included an analysis of N-aquifer pumping under Alternative A. This section has been revised to include analyses of N-aquifer pumping scenarios under Alternatives B and C. The analyses in Section 4.24.3.2 are separate analyses that do not rely on the 1989 CHIA conclusions. OSM will complete the revised CHIA prior to making its decision on the mine permit application. The N-aquifer model has been adjusted (i.e., groundwater pumping datasets updated based on measured pumping rates) on multiple occasions since its release in 1999. The model was validated in 2008 by updating the actual groundwater withdrawal rates for the Black Mesa and Kayenta mines from 1997 through 2007 and for the communities through 2005 without changing any other model parameters (Chapter 18, LOM permit application submitted July 2, 2008). The model simulates the observed drawdown well without recalibration. The model also matches recovering water levels through 2007 that have occurred since the mines reduced their groundwater withdrawal amounts starting in 2006. 52(1168) Comment: The Black Mesa Project Environmental Impact Statement (BMPEIS) says there are sink holes near Holbrook located 50 miles away, but actually there are some located at Chevelon Canyon (Neal, Johnson, 2003) and Leupp, AZ (JJ CLACS & Company, 2005). This is the first mistake in of many mistakes in the BMPEIS. The sink holes near Chevelon Canyon create a higher recharge efficiency according to Neal and Johnson. The models used in the Black Mesa Project EIS utilize the Chevelon Creek area as part of the C-aquifer simulation which is 36 miles from my home. The karst sinkholes bias the models of the Black Mesa Project EIS especially the water model study by Leake (2005). The McCauley sinkholes are located 36 miles from the Navajo Wellfield according to Neal and Johnson. The Black Mesa Project Water Models for the C-aquifer have to be thrown out as they utilize a model in which the USGS authors say not to use their model for Chevelon Canyon (Leake, Hoffman, Dickinson, 2005). No water model for the C-aquifer has been created accurately and precisely. This Black Mesa Project EIS is a sham and an outrage. Proper models have to be created to reflect the sinkholes near Leupp, AZ. Response: The commenter seems to imply that drawdown in the C-Aquifer in the Chevelon Canyon area is overestimated in the model due to the “higher recharge efficiency” created by sinkholes in the area that were not included in the model. It is possible for sinkholes to locally create more direct pathways for precipitation and surface water reach the groundwater. However, precipitation is low in the well field area and the bulk of the precipitation

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-67

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

that supplies the C-Aquifer recharge originates in the Mogollon Highlands many miles south of the known location of significant sinkholes. The statement claiming that the “USGS authors say not to use their model for Chevelon Canyon” is incorrect. The authors’ (page 26) state that the “ground-water change model … was designed specifically to compute the possible effects of ground-water withdrawals in an unconfined part of the aquifer near Leupp, Arizona …” They do caution about its use in evaluating the effects of pumping by others on lower Clear and Chevelon Creeks. This is one reason why the USGS model was not used in DEIS to evaluate the impacts of project pumping on lower Clear and Chevelon Creeks. 52(SR1) Summary Comment: There will be well-field development in and around washes. This will require Clean Water Act (CWA) section 401 and 404 permits as well as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDS) permits prior to any construction. Summary Response: Comment noted; however, Alternative A, which included the C aquifer water-supply well field, is no longer a part of the Black Mesa Project. 52(SR160) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not adequately address impact on geologic resources from subsidence due to the removal of groundwater in the N and C aquifers. Summary Response: As stated in the EIS Section 4-4.1.3 (Draft EIS page 4-24), lowering of the water level has the potential to result in subsidence in unconsolidated aquifer systems due to compression fine-grained layer. Also, the removal of cavity filling material and dissolution of limestone in some limestone aquifers can foster sinkhole development. These effects are not a concern of this study; however, due to the fact the primary water-bearing units of the N and C aquifers are not comprised of unconsolidated material or limestone. 52(SR238) Summary Comment: The Black Mesa Project EIS needs to consider potential hydrologic impacts on the drinking water supplies of the cities of Flagstaff, Winslow and other municipalities using the C-aquifer. Summary Response: The cumulative impacts of future water withdrawals by the City of Flagstaff, Winslow and other municipalities were considered and are discussed in EIS section 4.24.3.1. 52(SR240) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS should include a discussion on if pumping groundwater will lower the water table and make it unavailable for existing and future users. Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Section 4.4.1.3 (Draft EIS beginning on page 4-23) for discussion of effects of pumping groundwater. 52(SR241) Summary Comment: The water in these aquifers was deposited during the last ice age. The Draft EIS should include a discussion of the groundwater recharge rate. Summary Response: Groundwater recharge is discussed in the EIS Sections 3.4.3.1 and 3.4.3.2. 52(SR242) Summary Comment: The use of groundwater from beneath Hopi and Navajo Reservations has already harmed local wells and springs and created sinkholes and future damage could occur from the increased use. Summary Response: Comment noted. The impact wells and springs of withdrawing ground-water from the N and C Aquifers is addressed in detail in the DEIS. 52(SR243) Summary Comment: It is unclear how impact levels associated with diminution of discharge to streams and springs were established. The Draft EIS considers a 10 percent reduction in discharge as a negligible impact level (defined as impacts of less magnitude, but still predictable under current technology, e.g., computer models, or measurable under commonly employed monitoring technology). No technical basis is provided for classifying impacts as “negligible” in the Draft EIS what OSM has otherwise concluded indicates “material damage.” Summary Response: Hydrologic impact levels are defined in the Draft EIS in Appendix H. Impacts are defined in accordance with NEPA criteria. 52(SR254) Summary Comment: These water withdrawals would never stand up under the water rights laws of most eastern states. This is ironic, because the impacts upon other water users of this natural resource should be weighed on legal, moral, and fairness (The Public Trust) grounds. Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 M-68 Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Summary Response: Comment noted. 52(SR546) Summary Comment: The pumping of so much groundwater for the mine and slurry pipeline is not right and could bring about the end of livelihoods for thousands of families and many generations. The aquifer won’t last forever, but pumping the water we drink will definitely shorten the length of time it has left. Summary Response: Comment noted. 52(SR914) Summary Comment: Peabody’s water withdrawals have caused irreparable damage to the N aquifer violating OSM’s material damage criteria. This has resulted in damage to Navajo and Hopi sacred waters. Summary Response: Significant impacts on springs and washes due to Peabody pumping has not been demonstrable to date. OSM has participated in at least two field trips to observe features thought to be evidence of subsidence by some local residents. The supposed subsidence features were found, based on field investigation, to be attributable to near-surface erosional processes, rather than N aquifer drawdown that has occurred to date. These previous investigations are discussed in EIS Appendix H on page H-10. Category 53: Groundwater – Coconino aquifer 53(1030) Comment: Dr. Joe Shirley’s staff said the proposed Navajo Wellfield has been already approved. Dr. Joe Shirley and his staff did not give warning on the dangers of Uranium, Thorium, Strontium, Tritium and radiation. Dr. Joe Shirley and his administration did not warn us about these dangerous chemicals that his administration has released into the C aquifer. Response: The site of the proposed well field has been identified in the Draft EIS. Uranium is a locally occurring natural substance in the geologic formations of the region. No additional radioactive materials have been released into the C aquifer. 53(1031) Comment: Addressing the Hoffman study regarding geology and water quality from the C-aquifer. Sites 2 and 3 not only yielded hard, sulfated water, but also radioactive uranium from a breccia pipe. The BMPEIS blantly says there are no sinkholes in the area, but uranium in this area is usually found in breccia pipes. Uranium was also found North of Leupp at Dry Spring Well located in Box Canyon (JJ CLACS & Associates, 2005) which is categorized as a cancer risk (EPA 2000). Is uranium mining on Navajoland still against the law? Who picked the drilling sites? The drill sites hit uranium right on the money except site 1. Site 1, 2, and 3 recovered strontium and thorium. Strontium and thorium are part of the uranium fuel cycle and are decay products of nuclear reaction of uranium. Were the test wells in the Navajo Field exploring for uranium? After uranium was discovered, the drawdowns and testing was stopped. The result of the test drilling and water draw down test is to disturb the breccia pipes containing uranium and releasing it into the C aquifer. The level of the radioactivity is 11.5 pico Curies per liter which is close to the level of 15 pico Curies per liter. Another 3.5 pico Curies per liter and the water will not be safe to drink. If the C aquifer is used as replacement water for the N aquifer, the uranium would be released from the breccia pipe contaminating the C aquifer even more. The test wells have almost contaminated the C aquifer. Not just the Leupp area, but for off-reservation communities. All three test wells averaged around 1.35 mg/liter of strontium. Strontium sells for around $64/ton (Ober 2007). Is there dangerous Strontium-90 in the water? Strontium-90 is readily absorbed into the bones of the human body as its chemical structure is almost similar to milk. I do not want my children drinking water which contains radioactive strontium-90. The following Thorium isotopes were found in the water Thorium-228, Thorium-230, Thorium-232. Thorium sells for $5/ Response: Groundwater from the C aquifer well field test wells contains small amounts of uranium and other radionuclides, which are a natural component of some geologic units in the area. Radionuclide concentrations are below the USEPA maximum contaminant levels for drinking water. The potential area of “capture” of groundwater by the well field was defined by a particle tracking analysis using the groundwater flow model. The modeled “capture” area of the C-Aquifer well field is relatively small and does not extend as far north as Leupp. While located in a general area of possible breccia pipe development, no breccia pipes are known to exist within the capture area. 53(1046) Comment: A formal agreement between the Navajo, Hopi and Flagstaff should be in place to ensure pumping from the area will be managed at sustainable levels prior to approval of the project. Other stakeholders should be included as well.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-69

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Response: Comment noted. Such an agreement is outside the scope of this EIS. 53(1064) Comment: The C aquifer covers an approximately 3,400-square mile area. The total annual recharge to the C aquifer is estimated at 319,000 acre-feet (USGS 2002). In 1995, groundwater extraction from the C aquifer totaled approximately 140,000 acre-feet. The remaining discharges from the aquifer occurred as spring discharge, baseflow, and downward leakage. It has been noted that discharge from Blue Springs, the largest of the springs located at the lower reach of the Little Colorado River, is not potable due to elevated salinity (3000 ppm, EIS appendix H, p. H-6). Salinity issue has also been noted in the deepest portion of the C-aquifer where it is overlain by the Black Mesa (USGS 2002, p. 19). Response: Comment noted. 53(1065) Comment: Of most concern is the proposed use of the N aquifer as a back-up to the C aquifer should the C aquifer fall short in meeting mine related water demands, and in consideration of using the C aquifer as a water source for the mine, the following comment is provided: the hydraulic conductivity of the C aquifer ranges from 0.02 to 10 ft/d, comparable or higher than in the N aquifer, with the lowest conductivity occurring underneath the Black Mesa. The C aquifer is confined under the Back Mesa area by the overlying sequence of nearly impermeable Chinle and Moenkopi Formations that inhibit the downward movement of groundwater from the N to the C aquifer (USGS 2002, p. 21). Neither the D, nor the N aquifer is hydraulically connected to the C aquifer (USGS 2002, p. 40). Response: Comment noted. 53(1066) Comment: Of most concern is the proposed use of the N aquifer as a back-up to the C aquifer should the C aquifer fall short in meeting mine related water demands, and in consideration of using the C aquifer as a water source for the mine, the following comment is provided: The C aquifer has been pumped since 1940s, mainly in the southcentral portion of the area. Due to several of these concentrated pumping centers, groundwater levels have declined by as much as 100 feet in this part of the basin. Two pumping centers can be identified by two triangular areas: one formed by Joseph City, Holbrook, and Snowflake, and one formed by Concho, St. Johns, and Springerville. Available data do not indicate that cones of depression have stabilized; however, the cones of depression have not reached the boundary of the aquifer or caused a decline in discharge from springs or baseflow along the periphery of the C aquifer (USGS, 2002, p. 28). It has been noted that these pumping centers are approximately as distant from the each other as the new proposed well field at Leupp. A similar cone of depression may be expected to develop due to pumping of the proposed well field. Response: Comment noted. 53(1067) Comment: There are sinkholes in the Navajo Well Field area located near my house since 2 of the 3 exploration wells hit uranium which is evidence of breccia pipes in the area. There is also a sinkhole near Leupp, Arizona in UTM Zone 12, 500904mE, 3904233mN NAD 27(JJ CLACS & Company, 2005). From the Leupp Chapter Land Use Plan “Canyon Diablo Reservoir filled for the first time in1966 but as of yet has never completely fulfilled its role as a retention reservoir. Sinkholes formed in the reservoir bottom causing excessive leakage. . . . The sinkholes remain as the primary avenue for reservoir seepage through seepage also occurs beneath the dam through alluvium and bedrock. . . . The sandstone beds were described as highly jointed and cavernous (Reclamation 2001) because of the sinkhole Reclamation and the BIA prepared an EA to evaluate the environmental effects of proposed alternates to address safety concern.” Response: Comment noted. 53(1068) Comment: More troubling is this potential option to scrap the C aquifer plan and continue pumping the N aquifer flies in the face of trust responsibility to the tribes and fails to address the concerns for the N aquifer listed below. Response: N aquifer water has been used for mine-related purposes and the coal slurry since operation of the mines began. As explained in EIS Section 3.4.3.2.1.1, the N aquifer well field at the Black Mesa Complex consists of eight wells. This well field remains a viable source of water, but under Alternative A the applicants proposed to use C aquifer water for most of the needs of the Black Mesa Complex because of tribal concerns about use of N aquifer water for the coal slurry. However, Alternative A is no longer the proposed project and the C aquifer water-supply system would be constructed under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-70

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

53(1069) Comment: Pumping millions of gallons of C aquifer out of the ground per second is going to deplete our water supply. Our windmills will be capped off, so we will not have water for our sheep, cows, and horses. We will not have any water to use in or homes. I do not want any C aquifer drillings and pipelines near my home Response: Comment noted. Alterative A, which, would result in the withdrawal of water from the C aquifer, is no longer the proposed project. Alternative B is the exposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS. 53(1070) Comment: This EIS does not show in a satisfactory manner the impacts of the proposed pumping of water from C aquifer. Certainly the impacts of past pumping from N-aquifer have been negative, and as the lowered water table of other impacts have interfered with the ability of those living near Black Mesa to survive, not to mention to continue traditional lifestyles, a form of genocide has been committed. Response: Pumping water from the C aquifer under Alternative A is addressed in EIS Section 4.4.1.4. 53(1071) Comment: On page 4-24 and H-10 of the Draft Black Mesa EIS, says there are no sinkholes. Of course there is a sinkhole at Canyon diablo dam JJ CLACS & Company (2005) page 68. Response: As stated in the EIS Section 4-4.1.3 (Draft EIS page 4-24), lowering of the water level has the potential to result in subsidence in unconsolidated aquifer systems due to compression fine-grained layer. Also, the removal of cavity filling material and dissolution of limestone in some limestone aquifers can foster sinkhole development. These effects are not a concern of this study; however, due to the fact the primary water-bearing units of the N and C aquifers are not comprised of unconsolidated material or limestone. 53(1072) Comment: The Red Wall Limestone is made of limestone and dolomite. Carbon dioxide mixed with water creates carbonic acid which eats out limestone caverns in the limestone. Sometimes the caverns get to big and collapse creating breccia pipes. The breccia pipes allow water to travel from the Moenkopi Shale to the Red Wall Formation. In the Grand Canyon area breccia pipes contain uranium, nickel and copper. The breccia pipes are a source of radioactive water. No measurements have been made of the radiation in my area due to the test well water draw test. In the Doney Park area, the water is radioactive, but still safe to drink which is around 5 pico curies per liter. If the C-aquifer water is filtered or evaporated in storage ponds to remove the radiation, the filter or ponds become highly radioactive. A radioactive hazard would exist and more permits must be obtained. The water at the Mohave Generating Station will be evaporated leaving a radioactive sludge to be cleaned up. Any prolonged spills in the Black Mesa area would have to be monitored for radiation concentrations. The water is hard in the Leupp area consisting of Calcium Carbonate and Magnesium Carbonate as the Kaibab Limestone is a dolomite. If the sulfer dioxide is removed, with wet-slaked lime, the by-products would be gypsum and a trace amount of sulfuric acid due to the magnesium carbonate. Corrosion problems would occur with the Mohave Generating Station. Response: Comment noted. 53(1099) Comment: Structurally the fault lines are moving every now and then. Some of the walls of the fault line cave in over time. Some of the fault lines extend to the basement rocks of the area. The fault lines also allow surface water to penetrate all rock layers. There are sinkholes in the Navajo Well Field area as evidenced by uranium being released by breccia pipes. The BMPEIS Draft says the sink holes are near Holbrook, but actually there are some located at Chevelon Canyon (Neal, Johnson). The sink holes near Chevelon Canyon create a higher recharge efficiency. The models used in the Black Mesa Project EIS utilize the Chevlon Creek area to simulate the C aquifer. The karst sinkholes bias the models of the Black Mesa Project EIS. The Black Mesa Project Water Models for the C-aquifer have to be thrown out since sinkholes, fault lines, karst and radioactive breccia pipes have not been accounted for in the water model studies. No accurate and precise water model for the C-aquifer has been created and the current water models cannot be used for this BMPEIS Draft. Response: Groundwater from the C aquifer well field test wells contains small amounts of uranium and other radionuclides, which are a natural component of some geologic units in the area. Radionuclide concentrations are below the USEPA maximum contaminant levels for drinking water. The potential area of “capture” of ground water by the well field was defined by a particle tracking analysis using the ground-water flow model. The modeled “capture” area of the C-Aquifer well field is relatively small and does not extend as far north as Leupp. While located in a general area of possible breccia pipe development, no breccia pipes are known to exist within the capture area. The commenter seems to imply that drawdown in the C-Aquifer in the Chevelon Canyon area is overestimated in the model due to the “higher recharge efficiency” created by sinkholes in the area that were not

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-71

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

included in the model. It is possible for sinkholes to locally create more direct pathways for precipitation and surface water reach the groundwater. However, precipitation is low in the well field area and the bulk of the precipitation that supplies the C-Aquifer recharge originates in the Mogollon Highlands many miles south of the known location of significant sinkholes. 53(1100) Comment: The Black Mesa Project EIS does not even discuss Meteor Crater as an artificially created sinkhole by a Meteorite. Meteorite Crater created a depression in the C aquifer (Smith). Water actually flows into Meteor Crater. The Meteorite penetrated through the entire depth of the C-aquifer. The Supai Formation is possible highly fractured due to the impact of the Meteor. The water would flow into the Red Wall limestone and join up with an underground cavern (Hill 2006). The models do not address water flowing into the Red Wall Limestone as underground rivers. Meteor Crater is 10 miles from the Navajo Wellfield. Response: The project does not propose to withdraw groundwater from the Redwall Limestone. Even if the thesis of the commenter were to be correct, it would have no impact on the DEIS analysis and modeling of the C-Aquifer. 53(1101) Comment: Cone of Depression, the C-aquifer has been pumped since 1940s, mainly in the south-central portion of the area. Due to several of these concentrated pumping centers, groundwater levels have declined by as much as 100 feet in this part of the basin. Two pumping centers can be identified by two triangular areas: one formed by Joseph City, Holbrook, and Snowflake, and one formed by Concho, St. Johns, and Springerville. Available data do not indicate that cones of depression have stabilized; however, the cones of depression have not reached the boundary of the aquifer or caused a decline in discharge from springs or baseflow along the periphery of the C-aquifer (USGS, 2002, p. 28). It has been noted that these pumping centers are approximately as distant from each other as the new proposed well field at Leupp. A similar cone of depression may be expected to develop due to pumping of the proposed well field, a cone whose environmental impacts and effects to the local community is not sufficiently analyzed. Response: The environmental impacts of pumping from the proposed C-Aquifer well field on surrounding landforms, water users, biologic resources, air quality, and socioeconomic conditions are addressed in detail in the DEIS. The commenter does not specify which of these analyses are “not sufficiently analyzed.” 53(1169) Comment: The Draft EIS Does Not Adequately Address: C-Aquifer: In the case of a drawdown of the C-Aquifer what alternate source of water will be available for municipal use? Response: Sections 4.4.1.4.1 and 4.24.3.1 describe the effects on C-Aquifer groundwater levels due to all projected on- and off-reservation pumping through 2060. Groundwater modeling indicates that the C-Aquifer can supply the needs of all municipal, industrial, and other users. 53(1194) Comment: Comments on the Draft EIS provided by Errol L. Montgomery & Associates on behalf of Arizona Public Service (APS) focused on the C aquifer model (SSPA) predictions of declining base flow in lower Clear and Chevelon Creeks. APS operates the Cholla Power Plant (Cholla) located about 25 miles east of the C aquifer well field. Cholla is the industrial user closest to Clear and Chevelon Creeks. These comments are summarized below. Response: Input and review of the C aquifer modeling efforts and results were provided by the EIS Technical Advisory Group comprised of hydrologists, geologists, and engineers representing OSM, USGS, Reclamation, BIA, Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Peabody, SRP, and SCE. APS was invited to join the Technical Advisory Group early in the process but declined. The earlier Western Navajo and Hopi Water Supply study reached similar conclusions about the impact of non-Project regional pumping on lower Chevelon Creek – that base flow would be eliminated in Chevelon Creek by about 2070 (HDR 2003; Section 6.0, p. 15). APS was also invited to participate in the Western Navajo and Hopi Water Supply but declined. It is important to note that the primary purpose of the C aquifer model was to evaluate the impact of pumping from a proposed well field near Leupp on wells in the area and on base flow in Clear Creek and Chevelon Creeks. A secondary purpose was to assess the effects of pumping by others on the aquifer in the area of the C aquifer well field. A tertiary purpose was to evaluate the effects of non-project pumping on Clear and Chevelon Creek base flow. None of Montgomery’s comments specifically address the primary and secondary purposes of the model.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-72

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

53(1195) Comment: The model was reviewed in an attempt to determine why the model projections of base flow impacts do not fit the measured data or the logically anticipated hydrologic response to pumping. Response: The model does fit the measured data, particularly the base flow in lower Chevelon Creek. As shown on Figure 16 of the SSPA report, the median daily flow in Chevelon Creek during the winter months (December through February) was about 4 cfs for the period up to 1972. In July 2005, the US Geological Survey collected field measurements of base flow in Chevelon and Clear Creeks. The USGS found that found that the July 2005 base flow of Chevelon Creek was about 2.7 cfs - a decline of a little more than 1 cfs between 1972 and 2005. This measured base flow for Chevelon Creek was precisely along the trend predicted by the SSPA model for the year 2005. These results demonstrate that the reduction in Chevelon Creek base flow shown by the measured data was closely estimated by the groundwater flow model. The model was calibrated to water levels in 13 existing wells and the USGS test wells in the C aquifer well field area. The capture of stream flow by ground-water withdrawal is a well known phenomenon and has occurred in the C aquifer (USGS WRI 02-4026). Thus, base flow depletion in the area of large industrial, agricultural and municipal withdrawals is a “logically anticipated” hydrologic response. 53(1196) Comment: The model grid is too large to simulate changes in base flow in Clear and Chevelon creeks. Response: Base flow in Clear and Chevelon Creeks occurs over a stream channel length of 10-12 miles. The SSPA model used a grid size of (1 mile). The USGS model of the same area used a grid size of 0.5 miles. The earlier HDR model had a grid spacing of 0.25 miles. Reductions in flow due to project pumping in Clear and Chevelon creeks were similar in all three models suggesting that the SSPA model grid spacing does not effect the prediction of base flow depletion due to project pumping. 53(1197) Comment: Alternative distributions of transmissivity and storage values for the aquifer are presented. The alternative distributions are reported to be based on data in the literature and to be more technically supportable. Response: Transmissivity (T) and storage coefficient (S) are considered separately in the Montgomery comments and conclusions are based upon this separate evaluation. This misses a key point of the modeling effort. The primary parameter that controls the rate at which drawdowns in a well or well field are transmitted laterally through aN aquifer is the diffusivity, or the ratio: T/S. Calibration of the SSPA model was accomplished by varying the diffusivity (within the limits of measured data) to allow the best fit between measured historic and modeled data. See Specific Comments below for more discussion of the T and S data and its validity. 53(1198) Comment: The model is biased in favor of the desired result (show more impact on the creeks) Response: The main purpose of the EIS and the model is to predict the impact of project pumping on the hydrologic system. The model predicts very small depletions in base flow in lower Clear and Chevelon Creeks due to project pumping. If the model is, in fact, biased in favor of increased depletions, then the impact due to project pumping is even less than stated in the Draft EIS. 53(1199) Comment: Monitor Well M-23 located between the Cholla pumping center and Chevelon Creek shows no drawdown impacts due to past pumping (1988-2006). The monitor well was installed in 1988. Since the withdrawals at Cholla for the first 10 years was less than in 18 year monitored period we conclude that drawdown impacts have not occurred at M-23, and therefore adjacent to lower Chevelon Creek. Response: As noted above, data from this monitor well were not provided to the EIS team. According to the map provided by Montgomery, there are at least a dozen other monitor wells between the Cholla well field and Chevelon Creek for which no hydrographs were provided. It would be very helpful to have that data to assess if the performance of M-23 is consistent with other wells in the same area. Three wells were used for model calibration in the area between Silver Creek and Chevelon Creek. All three of these wells show relatively flat water level trends, which were well matched by the model. The comment seems to suggest that the water level trend in well M-23 precludes the possibility for any impact on Chevelon Creek baseflows from regional historical pumping. The baseflow data for Chevelon Creek show an impact regardless of what the water level data in well M-23 might suggest. It must be noted, however, that the cumulative change in Chevelon Creek baseflow from 1970 to 2000 is calculated to be about 1 cfs. Any water level changes causing this impact would be integrated over all gaining reaches of Chevelon Creek (10-12 miles) and would thus likely be small and difficult to detect from occasional manual water level measurements of a single well. In fact, from a hydrological perspective, the depletion of base

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-73

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

flow from Chevelon Creek is the primary reason that the expanding cone of depression from the pumping centers slows or stops expanding, at least in this area. 53(1200) Comment: The storage coefficient map (Figure 23) indicates a value of zero (grey area) for most of the area north of the Little Colorado River (LCR). If this is, in fact the case, drawdowns south of the river are inflated. Response: The storage coefficient value shown on Figure 23 for the area noted is a typographical error. The grey area value in the model has an average S value of about 0.00076. 53(1201) Comment: The area south of Chinle has a model S value of 0.001, when in fact the aquifer is dry in this area. Response: The concept of aN aquifer becoming “dry” requires careful consideration in a regional modeling analysis. This assertion is directly contradicted by water level maps prepared by other workers in the C aquifer. See Figure 7 of the SSPA report for a potentiometric surface map showing water levels in this portion of the C aquifer (from Hart et al. 2002). Measured water level data for wells in the DeChelly sandstone used in preparing the model were derived from the NWIS database. Regardless of what the actual condition might be, conditions in this area would have little or no impact on the aquifer characteristics or drawdown observed or predicted in the vicinity of Chevelon Creek, as the area in question is approximately 100 miles distant from Chevelon Creek. 53(1202) Comment: The model shows an area west of Silver Creeks as having an S of 0.15, when it should be on the order of 0.0001. This error casts doubt SSPA’s projections of Abitibi’s pumping impacts on Silver Creek. Response: The model did not predict the impacts of Abitibi pumping on Silver Creek. 53(1203) Comment: The S value (0.1) north of Flagstaff is too large. Response: The USGS test wells near Leupp had a value of 0.05 to 0.08. On a regional basis the variation between 0.05 and 0.1 is well within the natural variability of the aquifer. In any event, the area mentioned is too far away to have any effect on predicted water levels in the C aquifer well field or lower Clear and Chevelon Creeks. 53(1204) Comment: Arbitrarily decreasing the S value in the area of the base flow reaches of lower Clear and Chevelon Creeks is an effective way to increase model-predicted impacts and gives the impression of biasing the model in favor of a desired result. Response: The storage values were not arbitrarily assigned, but were derived through a calibration process that considered: transmissivity and storage values from extended aquifer tests in the C aquifer, long-term water level records in the C aquifer, and measured base flows in Clear and Chevelon Creeks. These values of storage coefficient were assigned because they produced the best model results in terms of historical groundwater level changes and impacts to base flows and springs. The model predicts very small depletions in base flow in lower Clear and Chevelon Creeks due to project pumping. If the model is, in fact, biased in favor of increased depletions, then the impact due to project pumping is even less than stated in the EIS. 53(1214) Comment: Figure D (in the Montgomery comments) shows a more technically supportable distribution of storage coefficient in the C-aquifer based primarily on published and unpublished aquifer test data. Response: The figure gives no wells for the assignment of aquifer test data. Many of the sources cited in the references are either difficult to access or are not publicly available. Without such information, it is impossible to determine if the distribution shown is “more technically supportable.” 53(1215) Comment: While the distribution of T values is somewhat more realistic than the S distribution, there are several important inaccuracies that need to be addressed, including: The SSPA model transmissivity (T) value in the area north of the LCR from Winslow-Joseph City to about half way to Dilkon is 9,000 ft2/day. Unpublished sources give a value of 10,000 ft2/day. Response: As noted above, Montgomery’s unpublished data were not supplied to the EIS team. Further, reported values of transmissivity must be viewed in context. They are interpreted values from test data that are often of relatively short duration and often without data from nearby monitoring wells. As such, they often represent very localized conditions that may have limited applicability on the larger scale. In a regional model, a 10 percent difference in measured and modeled transmissivity is considered acceptable.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-74

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

53(1216) Comment: Model T values in the area of Joseph City are low compared to several aquifer tests in the area. Similarly 
 model T values in the Abitibi well field area are underestimated, making SSPA’s prediction of Silver Creek impacts 
 meaningless. 
 Response: See response above. The SSPA model was not used to predict impacts on Silver Creek.
 53(1217) Comment: In the area of the Springerville Generating Station (SGS) near St. Johns the SSPA model uses a T value of 1,000 ft2/day ignoring data in cited SGS reports that show the value to be about 7,000 ft2/day. Response: Most of the cited SGS reports were authored by Montgomery & Associates. In all cases, only partial copies were provided, and in no case did the provided excerpts include quantitative analyses of aquifer properties. Specific capacities reported for individual wells varied over several orders of magnitude for the same well field. While there may be aquifer tests or related data in the St. Johns area, with which SSPA were not acquainted during development of the model, this area is too remote to the C aquifer well field and Clear and Chevelon Creeks to affect predicted impacts of project pumping. 53(1218) Comment: In the SSPA model, the R aquifer is absent across most of the Navajo and Hopi Reservations when data demonstrate that this is not remotely correct. This call in to question the projects of impact at Blue Springs. Response: The distribution of the R aquifer in the SSPA model is based on oil and gas log data from H. W. Pierce and J. R. Scurlock 1972; Arizona Well Information, R. C. Blakely 1990; Stratigraphy and Geologic History of Pennsylvanian and Permian Rocks, Mogollon Rim Region, Central Arizona and Vicinity; as well as the other regional references cited in the reference list. Any modifications to its geometry, based on subsequent interpretations are unlikely to have a significant impact on the behavior of base flow at or near Chevelon or Clear Creeks. The characterization of the R aquifer in the SSPA model produces reasonable groundwater flow patterns toward Blue Springs and reasonable estimates of the amount of discharge at Blue Springs. Further, the predicted impacts on Blue Springs due to project pumping are very similar between the SSPA, USGS, and HDR models. 53(1219) Comment: In summary the SSPA model does not have the structure, level of detail, or accuracy required to validate the base flow projection shown for Chevelon and East Clear Creeks. The model would have to be reconstructed before and of the streamflow projections could be seriously evaluated. Response: It is not necessary to reconstruct the SSPA model. Calibration of the SSPA model resulted in stream flow, spring flow, ground water level changes, and flow patterns consistent with historical data. The model and results were reviewed by hydrologists and engineers from many agencies and deemed acceptable for use in the EIS. Previous modeling efforts have reached similar conclusions with respect to the impact of regional pumping on stream flow in Chevelon and Clear Creeks. In contrast, the Montgomery comments are based largely on unpublished data and incorrect assertions. 53(SR13) Summary Comment: Select Alternative C because the EIS does not discuss the government-to-tribes relationship, though the Navajo Nation Council passed a resolution to cease pumping N aquifer water to slurry coal. Summary Response: See EIS Section 5.2.2 for a discussion of government-to-government consultation with the tribes. On July 25, 2003, the Navajo Nation Council passed a resolution supporting “the end of pumping of the N-Aquifer by Peabody Western Coal Company for its coal mining and pipeline operations on the Black Mesa no later than 2005.” However, as stated by the Navajo Nation President in an August 11, 2003, press release “To have the effect of law, the Council would have to rescind the existing leases to stop pumping, however, as it stands now the Nation has binding leases which allow use of the N-Aquifer pumping beyond 2005, unless an alternative water source is identified and agreed by the tribes and companies.” The Navajo Nation is a cooperating agency in the preparation of the Black Mesa Project EIS and, as such, has been involved in the development of the EIS document from the beginning. As stated in EIS Section 2.2.1.2.3, if Alternative A were selected and the Black Mesa Project proceeds, the preference is to use water from the C aquifer for the coal slurry and other mine-related and public purposes. However, Alternative A is no longer the proposed project. Alternative B is the proposed project in this Final EIS, which does not include supplying coal via slurry to the Mohave Generating Station.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-75

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

53(SR24) Summary Comment: What and where was water source before deciding upon the C aquifer//N aquifer? Was your other source depleted? Summary Response: N-aquifer water has been used for mine-related purposes and the coal slurry since operation of the mines began. As explained in EIS Section 3.4.3.2.1.1 of the EIS, the N aquifer well field at the Black Mesa Complex consists of eight wells. This well field remains a viable source of water, but under Alternative A the applicants proposed the use of C aquifer water for most of the needs of the Black Mesa Complex because of tribal concerns about use of N aquifer water for the coal slurry pipeline. However, Alternative A, which would require water to deliver coat to the Mohave Generating station, is no longer the proposed project. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS, which does not include supplying coal via slurry to the Mohave Generating Station. 53(SR25) Summary Comment: Would you please do a further study as specified in resolutions no 1404 adopted by Winslow, Arizona, city code on January 23, 2007. We need our water, and communities of the Hopi and Navajo reservations also. Before Black Mesa, Peabody coal mine near Page, Arizona, now the Navajo Reservation, they used water from the Colorado River. Summary Response: Modeling of proposed C-aquifer pumping shows a maximum drawdown of about 3 feet after 50 years at City of Winslow wells (EIS Map 4-2). This drawdown should have no measurable impact on production from these wells. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. 53(SR252) Summary Comment: Will the mine continually pump local water to the Mohave Generating Station even when not transporting coal? Summary Response: No. 53(SR255) Summary Comment: The impacts of pumping the C aquifer on surrounding communities, environment, and wildlife 
 could result in a loss of economic viability by families and municipalities.
 Summary Response: Impacts of C-aquifer pumping on other water users are discussed in EIS Section 4.4.1.4. 
 Maximum change in water level at known municipal wells is less than 5 feet, resulting in a negligible impact. Some
 windmills on the Navajo Reservation may be adversely impacted, the proponents have committed to either supply 
 water directly or deepen or replace wells. 
 53(SR256) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not clearly illustrate that the C aquifer is a viable water supply, especially during drought as it is an unconfined aquifer. Summary Response: Modeling of the C aquifer over a 51-year period indicates that the aquifer can supply all forecasted uses (project, municipal, industrial and agricultural). While the aquifer is unconfined it is also large, with more than 400 million acre-feet of water in storage. 53(SR257) Summary Comment: Water from the C aquifer needs to be used for municipal uses, sustainable and nonpolluting businesses and industries, ranchers, and small-scale farmers and future water needs. Summary Response: These uses were considered and future estimates of use included in the analysis. These uses are expected to continue to be viable in the future. 53(SR258) Summary Comment: Pumping from the C aquifer could result in radioactive materials being placed into suspension or increase salinity and contaminate the water supply. This could contaminate sacred site such as Blue Spring, which is near the sacred Hopi emergence hole near the junction of the Little Colorado River and the Colorado River. Summary Response: Groundwater from the C-aquifer well field test wells contain small amounts of uranium and other radionuclides, which are a component of some geologic units in the area. However, concentrations are below the USEPA maximum contaminant levels for drinking water. Existing groundwater quality at Blue Springs is nonpotable, with a salinity of about 3,000 part per million (EIS Section 4.4.1.4.1 page 4-29).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-76

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

53(SR259) Summary Comment: If pumping begins first for the Black Mesa Project, will other future users have to wait in line behind the Black Mesa coal slurry project before they can make use of water for municipal uses? Summary Response: No. Modeling indicates that forecasted uses can be accommodated. 53(SR260) Summary Comment: The outdated models do not adequately discuss study impacts from pumping the C aquifer.
 These impacts should be studied using real world monitoring data. 
 Summary Response: The Draft EIS uses models updated through 2005 and the most recent available data, including 
 USGS monitoring data through 2004. 
 53(SR261) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS should discuss the increase in energy use to pump water from the C aquifer and
 deliver water to the Black Mesa coal slurry pipeline. 
 Summary Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.4.1.4.1 (Draft EIS pages 4-25 and 4-26).
 53(SR262) Summary Comment: Ninety percent of the existing C-aquifer wells that are producing have a mean discharge of 132 gallons per minute (gpm). The 17 wells under the 6,000 af/yr scenario, expected yield is approximately three times higher than the average yield from existing C-aquifer wells. It seems overly optimistic to plan for individual well yields of 400 gpm when only 10 percent of existing wells in the same aquifer produce at that rate. Summary Response: Most wells in the area of the C-aquifer well field are stock wells equipped with windmills. These wells produce a few tens of gallons per minute. Large irrigation, industrial, and municipal wells produce hundreds of gallons per minute. The USGS test wells in the well field area produced between 450 and 795 gallons per minute (gpm). The estimated average pumping rate of 400 gpm is reasonable. 53(SR263) Summary Comment: If water pumped from the C aquifer becomes salinated, the coal that is slurried with the water may not be acceptable by the power plant due to sodium and chloride concentrations. This could result in mine water production to revert fully to the N aquifer. Summary Response: Modeling of the potential for the C-aquifer wells to “capture” high-salinity water concluded that water quality would be suitable for drinking water and industrial use over the 51-year modeled period. 53(SR264) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS is inadequate because it fails to identify mitigation measures to protect the groundwater quality of the C aquifer such as limits on groundwater withdrawals, groundwater quality monitoring, contributions toward treatment of municipal water supplies and/or other measures identified by the stakeholders after the additional studies of the poor quality groundwater have been completed. Summary Response: Modeling of the potential for the C-aquifer wells to “capture” high-salinity water concluded that water quality would be suitable for drinking water and industrial use over the 51-year modeled period. 53(SR268) Summary Comment: The groundwater change model of the C aquifer model should not be used for purposes such as evaluation of possible drawdown in and around well fields because local conditions such as flow in fractures and heterogeneities not represented in the model may be important at that scale. The groundwater change model also was not designed to evaluate the effects of existing withdrawals throughout the C aquifer on streams of interest including lower Clear and Chevelon Creeks. That purpose would require a calibrated flow model, rather than a change model. Summary Response: The USGS change model was used only to assess impacts on Upper Clear Creek. Impacts on Lower Clear Creek and Chevelon Creek were determined with a calibrated flow model. Refer to EIS Appendix H. 53(SR273) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not provide sufficient information on the hydrological and wildlife impacts of C-aquifer drainage. Summary Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.24.3.1.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-77

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

53(SR366) Summary Comment: There is evidence of radioactivity in the groundwater in the area. There is a concern as to whether the Nuclear Regulatory Agency has been notified. Summary Response: Groundwater from the C-aquifer well field test wells contain small amounts of uranium and other radionuclides, which are a natural component of some geologic units in the area. However, concentrations are below the USEPA maximum contaminant levels for drinking water. The Coconino Sandstone, which contains the C aquifer, is not a known source for uranium or uranium-bearing water. If uranium is present in a water well near Leupp it is likely the result of improper well construction or well damage. An improperly constructed or damaged well could allow uranium-bearing water from the shallow Chinle Formation into the well even if the well was drawing water from the deeper Coconino Sandstone (C aquifer). Development of a water-supply system from the C aquifer, as was proposed under Alternative A (no longer the proposed project), would produce from the Coconino Formation, and uranium-bearing water would not be produced or impact the Leupp area. 53(SR1073) Summary Comment: There is concern regarding the harmful impacts of the C-aquifer water which contains low levels of radioactive materials. Summary Response: Groundwater from the C aquifer well field test wells contain small amounts of uranium and other radionuclides, which are a component of some geologic units in the area. However, concentrations are below the USEPA maximum contaminant levels for drinking water. Category 54: Groundwater – Navajo aquifer 54(1170) Comment: The U.S. Geological Survey has admitted that the Office of Surface Mining’s model to understand the N aquifer is outdated and therefore, OSM needs to conduct a new hydrological study to understand the impacts of continued use of the N-Aquifer. Response: OSM does not have a hydrologic model. The applicant has provided model results that account for all of the pertinent groundwater variables. Peabody has provided model results that account for all of the pertinent groundwater variables. OSM is not aware of any USGS statement that the model is outdated. The Peabody model accurately represents actual conditions. The model’s estimates of future water levels are the best estimates available. Measured water levels to date support the model’s predictions. 54(1171) Comment: OSM’s own monitoring program shows that some wells are down by 100 feet and 7 local springs have decreased by 30%. Under federal law, Peabody has to reduce hydrological impact to adjacent communities. OSM failed to meet their own obligations to minimize the hydrological consequences of the withdrawals from the N aquifer and, in fact, is this permit for Peabody to expand use of the N aquifer. Response: OSM’s monitoring program indicates that as of 2005 the water levels in Peabody N-aquifer production wells dropped nearly 300 feet but that water level recovery in the two Peabody observation wells were 123 feet and 167 feet in just 2006 and 2007. Outside the permit area, USGS N-aquifer wells BM-2, BM-5 and BM-6 fell 90 feet, 90 feet, and 160 feet, respectively. However, as predicted by the Peabody model, well BM-6 has recovered over 4 feet since Peabody pumping was reduced by approximately 70 percent at the end of 2005. Table 4-14 of the EIS indicates that for Alternative B more water level recoveries are expected at several municipal wells. Table 4-15 of the EIS indicates that Peabody’s impact on streams receiving flows from local springs under Alternative B are predicted to be considerably less than 1 percent. Also, the only known gaged spring that emanates from near the N aquifer confined-unconfined boundary is Burro Spring, and historical measurements indicate that its flows are naturally highly variable and low (approximately 0.2 to 0.4 gallons per minute; see Truini and Macy, 2006). The flow in Burro Spring increased 100 percent from 2001 to 2002 (from 0.2 to 0.4 gallons per minute) and fell 50 percent from 1997 to 1998 and from 2003 to 2004 (from 0.4 to 0.2 gallons per minute; see Truini and Macy, 2006). Prior to the significant reduction of N-aquifer pumping at the end of 2005, Peabody had not materially damaged the hydrologic balance outside the permit area. Since Peabody did not cause material damage when it was pumping 4,000+ af/yr until the end of 2005, it is even less likely to cause material damage now that it has reduced N-aquifer pumping by about 70 percent, to an average of 1,236 af/yr. 54(1172) Comment: OSM provides no analysis whatsoever of how the N aquifer will be restored to premining conditions both during and after the proposed Black Mesa operation. This analysis is particularly critical given the Hopi and Navajo tribes use of this aquifer as a public drinking supply. Further, Peabody is now under a mandatory duty to replace the

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-78

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

water depleted from the N aquifer under SMRCA. 30 U.S.C. 1307(b). This statutory requirement was not addressed in the Draft EIS or Peabody’s application. Response: 30 U.S.C. 1307(b) (Section 717(b) of SMCRA) requires the operator of a surface coal mine to replace the water supply of an owner of interest in real property who obtains all or part of his supply of water for domestic, agricultural, industrial, or other legitimate use from an underground or surface source where such supply has been affected by contamination, diminution, or interruption proximately resulting from such surface coal mine operation. 54(1173) Comment: Its failure to acknowledge destruction of the N aquifer as articulated in the NRDC’s ongoing reports, 
 which measure the damage according to OSM’s own CHIA standards (destruction has included drying up of natural 
 springs and washes as well as the development of subsidence and chasms in surrounding lands) 
 Response: OSM currently is revising the CHIA in preparation for making a decision on the permit application. No 
 subsidence or “chasms” have been found that are related to pumping of N-aquifer water. No springs or washes have
 been or are predicted to be “dried up” as a result of the mining and pumping operations at the Black Mesa Complex. 
 54(1174) Comment: OSM continues to rely on simulated modeling results that do not calibrate with the physical monitoring data.” Violations of the CHIA criteria (OSMA’s own standard) have indicated material and irreversible damage. Response: The N-aquifer model has been calibrated with monitoring data. OSM has determined through monitoring that Peabody pumping has not caused material damage to the N aquifer and springs 54(1175) Comment: Most government studies and modeling data of water drawdown effects are wrong. And usage of water grossly underestimated. The N aquifer is already depleted. And many of the wells that have not been dismantled by the BIA have run dry. Response: Monitoring data confirm that the modeling efforts using for analyses of hydrologic impacts are accurate and dependable. Water usage is measured and adequately documented. Water has been used from the N aquifer, but the aquifer has not been depleted. The comment about the BIA wells that have run dry cannot be responded to because the commenter has not identified their location and has not provided information about them. 54(1176) Comment: The Draft EIS author notes that the model used in this evaluation is not designed to simulate discharge to individual springs and washes. Nevertheless, and in apparent contradiction, the Draft EIS report relies on modelpredicted groundwater discharge diminution due to Peabody pumping as the basis for assigning impact levels (Table 4-9). According to the Draft EIS, OSM determined that the GeoTrans model satisfies the intended objectives and is the most comprehensive groundwater assessment tool for predictive impact evaluations necessary to address concerns related to Peabody’s pumping of the N aquifer, yet it is well documented (as noted in the Draft EIS) that the numerical models of the N aquifer were not designed to simulate discharge to individual springs and washes. As such, impacts of pumping from the N aquifer cannot be determined by model results, but rather physical monitoring of discharges. The USGS report “Ground-Water, Surface-Water, and Water Chemistry Data, Black Mesa Area, Northeastern Arizona - 2003--2004” (Truini and Porter 2005) contains recent data for four springs that discharge from the N-aquifer. Of the four springs, three are located on the southwestern side of Black Mesa (Pasture Canyon, Moenkopi School, and Burro) and the other is on the northeastern side of Black Mesa (unnamed spring near Dennehotso). Annual discharge data dating back to at least the early 1990s are provided. Some historic discharge data (pre-development) are also provided. A graph showing trends in discharge for all four springs is presented in the USGS report although the data is plotted on a logarithmic scale making interpretation difficult. Taking a closer look at the data, however, clearly shows an overall reduction in spring discharge for the three springs on the southwest side of the mesa. Discharge from the unnamed spring near Dennehotso has fluctuated over time making a definitive analysis of the overall trend more difficult; however, the two lowest measured discharges observed since annual measurements commenced in 1992 occurred within the last three to four years. Using only the annual data collected at the same location for each spring, estimates of discharge reduction since monitoring began are twentyfour percent at Moenkopi, nineteen percent at Pasture Canyon, and fifty percent at Burro. If other historic spring discharge data were considered, observed discharge reductions would be much greater (seventy percent at Moenkopi and eighty-five percent at Pasture Canyon). In these respects, the EIS both establishes criteria for diminution of discharge to springs or as base flow to washes that are inconsistent with the CHIA and ignores data that demonstrate significant impact. Response: The GeoTrans model does not have sufficient resolution to predict effects on individual springs, but it does have sufficient resolution to predict spring impacts on a regional basis. The model estimates impacts to streams

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-79

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

receiving flow from N-aquifer springs. The potential impact is estimated to be less than a 0.5 percent reduction in streamflow for all but one stream, which has an estimated reduction of just less than 1.5 percent. Pasture Canyon spring, Moenkopi School spring, and the unnamed spring near Dennehotso are located outside of the confined region of the N aquifer and therefore are predicted to be virtually unaffected by pumping by Peabody or other pumping centers within the confined region of N-Aquifer. Other factors, such as pumping within the unconfined region of the aquifer and climatic fluctuations, including droughts, have a much greater influence on flows in these springs than does pumping from within the confined region. The USGS has concluded that data from the only gaged spring that might be discharging from near the important N-aquifer confined-unconfined boundary—Burro Spring— has not had a statistically significant increase or decrease during the period of time that the spring has been measured since 1989. Burro Spring has flowed at less than 0.5 gallons per minute (gpm) over the period of record and has extremely high variability. Just as increases in flows of 100 percent from 2001 to 2002 (from 0.2 to 0.4 gpm) cannot be attributed to Peabody activities, 50 percent decreases in flows from 2003 to 2004 (back to 0.2 from 0.4 gpm) cannot also not be attributed to Peabody pumping. Burro Spring provides no indication of impacts from past pumping at the Black Mesa Complex or from municipal pumping of N-aquifer in closer proximity. 54(1177) Comment: OSM’s Failure to Properly Analyze the Impacts to the Navajo Aquifer Render the Draft EIS Inadequate. In reaching a conclusion that there are “no measurable” or “negligible” impacts to the N aquifer, OSM fails to properly analyze the impacts on many fronts. First, OSM has not based its analysis on existing criteria and data. Second, to the extent OSM maintains that existing criteria and data need to be updated, OSM fails to produce an updated set of criteria and make it publicly available. Third, OSM is asserting levels of significance that have no relationship to existing criteria and data. Fourth, OSM is relying on a model that, at face value, utterly fails to identify and examine the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of N-aquifer water withdrawals. Fifth, even if in the absence of all the aforementioned shortcomings, OSM’s analysis, at face value, is arbitrary, unreasonable, inconsistent and inadequate as demonstrated by independent analyses and hydrological perspectives Response: OSM feels that an adequate analysis of Navajo Aquifer has been conducted. Conclusions have been based on the best and most recent modeling efforts and data collected from both within the permit area and throughout Black Mesa. 54(1178) Comment: The EIS does not adequately address the environmental effects over both short and long time periods. Specifically, the effects of withdrawals from the N-Aquifer on the environment (including both humans and wildlife) is not addressed. Response: The effects of withdrawals from the N aquifer are discussed in EIS Section 4.4.1.5. 54(SR26) Summary Comment: Withdrawals of N-aquifer water for use in the Black Mesa Project should not be allowed to resume. The Hopi and Navajo tribes have passed resolutions ending the use of the N aquifer by 2005, “which Peabody and OSM ignore.” [1556] Summary Response: Kayenta mine use of the N aquifer would be approximately 1,236 af/yr under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS. Under any of the alternatives, there would be some continued use of the N aquifer for domestic needs in and around the Black Mesa and Kayenta mines. On July 25, 2003, the Navajo Nation Council passed a resolution supporting “the end of pumping of the N-Aquifer by Peabody Western Coal Company for its coal mining and pipeline operations on the Black Mesa no later than 2005.” However, as stated by the Navajo Nation President in an August 11, 2003, press release “To have the effect of law, the Council would have to rescind the existing leases to stop pumping, however, as it stands now the Nation has binding leases which allow use of the N-Aquifer pumping beyond 2005, unless an alternative water source is identified and agreed by the tribes and companies.” OSM could not find any Hopi Tribal Council resolution to end N-aquifer pumping. 54(SR249) Summary Comment: Project use of the C aquifer for coal slurry would compete with growing demands on the aquifer from the City of Flagstaff and other northern Arizona communities, as well as local demand for municipal, domestic, agricultural, and other uses. Summary Response: Pumping from the C-aquifer well field, the Flagstaff Bar-T-Bar wells and all other offreservation water users results in a maximum predicted drawdown of 68 feet in the C-aquifer well field. This is a reduction in aquifer saturated thickness of less than 10 percent and would not prevent other planned uses.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-80

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

54(SR285) Summary Comment: Peabody’s use of water has reduced water levels depleting and damaging the aquifer, affected water quality and polluted the N aquifer. As a result, the sacred springs and other natural water sources that the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation depend on are drying up. Summary Response: OSM has determined through monitoring that Peabody pumping has not caused material damage to the N aquifer and springs. 54(SR286) Summary Comment: Given the concerns regarding historic pumping of the Navajo aquifer at lesser rates, increasing the use of the Navajo aquifer by 33 percent is unacceptable. Use of water from the N aquifer is unacceptable because of how impacts to the N aquifer are assessed and the uncertainty regarding the ability and practicality of using the C aquifer as the mine’s water supply source. Summary Response: Under Alternative A, which is no longer the proposed project, the C aquifer would provide the majority of water for mine operations. The 6,000 af/yr N aquifer option would be used only in emergencies, which are highly unlikely, and interruptions to the system. 54(SR287) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not adequately acknowledge impacts on the N aquifer based on the cumulative hydrologic impact assessment (CHIA) standards or from previous pumping. OSM contradicts criteria and findings that it previously made, including the CHIA. Summary Response: OSM finds no contradictions with the standards of the existing CHIA. 54(SR288) Summary Comment: Under Federal law, Peabody must make every effort to minimize hydrological impacts. Summary Response: Comment noted. Under the Federal regulations implementing SMCRA, Peabody must prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area. 54(SR289) Summary Comment: The use of N-aquifer water is projected at a 1.3 percent base-flow decrease based on 1955 estimates. More recent studies using age-dating methods indicate that annual recharge to the Navajo aquifer may be as low as 3,100 acre-feet. OSM should use the most current hydrological model to evaluate impacts and provide sufficient information demonstrating the C aquifer is a viable supply of water, including aquifer recharge rates under climate change worse-case scenarios. Summary Response: OSM has provided sufficient information through analysis of historical observed data, existing hydrogeological reports, and computer models to demonstrate that the N aquifer is a viable supply of water. Since the majority of water extracted from the N aquifer will be derived from aquifer storage rather than recharge, consideration of changes in N aquifer recharge rates due to climate change is speculative and would have minimal impact on simulation results. 54(SR290) Summary Comment: An independent study should be conducted to evaluate impacts on the N aquifer. Summary Response: The USGS has an N-aquifer monitoring program and produces an annual report. 54(SR291) Summary Comment: Mine-related pumping has impacted groundwater elevations and altered groundwater gradients in the same areas where “natural” vertical leakage from the D aquifer has been documented. OSM’s CHIA criteria established that an increase in induced leakage of 10 percent from the D aquifer to the N aquifer was indicative of material damage to the N aquifer. While physically quantifying the amount of induced leakage associated with mine-related withdrawals may not be possible, estimates could be based on the fact that the amount of leakage induced by groundwater withdrawals would increase proportionately to the increased vertical gradient resulting from these withdrawals (i.e., Darcy’s Law: Q(flux) = K(hydraulic conductivity) x I(gradient) x A(area)). Summary Response: OSM monitors potential leakage from the D aquifer to the N aquifer at the Peabody wells were drawdown is greatest. It does so by looking at the amount of total dissolved solids and chloride in the N-aquifer water. To date, there is no indication of increased leakage. 54(SR292) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS based its evaluation on the potential impact of migration of poor-quality groundwater to the N aquifer on modeling results rather than monitoring of vertical gradients. While it is less likely

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-81

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

that poor-quality groundwater will impact the mine well field, induced leakage of poor quality groundwater from the 
 D aquifer could significantly impact water quality in the N aquifer in other areas of Black Mesa. 
 Summary Response: Modeling is an appropriate tool for estimation of the impacts in question. Monitoring vertical
 gradients at discrete locations does not provide the necessary information to determine changes in leakage. 
 Knowledge of the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the geologic units that separate the D and N aquifers is also
 necessary, as is knowledge of vertical gradients across large geographic areas, not only at limited discrete locations. 
 54(SR293) Summary Comment: More recent studies using age-dating methods indicate that the annual recharge to the N aquifer may be as low as 3,100 acre-feet (Lopes and Hoffman 1996). This is different than the amount reported in the older studies (Eychaner 1983). Summary Response: Section 3.4 of the EIS has been modified to state that estimates of N-aquifer recharge range from 2,600 to 20,428 af/yr, although the median value from five studies is 13,000 af/yr. 54(SR294) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS heavily relies on this [GeoTrans] model, these flaws significantly undermine the technical integrity of its hydrogeologic analysis and its conclusions regarding impact. The model, because of its nature, resolution, and data density, is not well suited to the task of assessing potential material damage on springs or baseflow in washes as it was intended to do. Summary Response: The commenter is correct about the GeoTrans model not being constructed to simulate discharge to individual springs. It also was not constructed or calibrated to accurately simulate the discharge to the washes, because of the lack of data on the discharge to the washes and the consumption of water by ET. The HSI GeoTrans and Waterstone (1997) report includes the following discussion about the simulated discharge to the washes. “Because of the aforementioned sparseness of the data set related to spring discharge rates, groundwater discharge rates into the washes are not well-known. As a result, developing a quantitative estimate of the discharge (e.g., 0.1 cfs), or absolute change in discharge, is not feasible. Relative changes in discharge rates (expressed as a percentage change) can be better predicted. Idealizations and assumptions inherent in the model may render questionable an estimate of the absolute discharge. But because these components of the model are identical when predicting a change in discharge, the relative change (predicted change in discharge divided by the predicted discharge) is expected to be more reliable than either the predicted discharge or predicted change in discharge. The effects of the idealizations and assumptions tend to cancel when the change is expressed in relative terms. In addition, the simulated discharge at a single cell is more likely to be in error than that for many cells. A single cell’s discharge rate is determined by the difference between simulated head for that cell, and the specified head for the boundary condition, so that the cell’s discharge rate can be very sensitive to modeling assumptions and simplifications. For example, if the simulated hydraulic head is slightly below the elevation of a drain, no discharge will be simulated. A minor increase in simulated head can cause a significant increase in simulated discharge. For a collection of cells, the cell-by-cell changes are added together, and the single-cell effects are averaged together. Thus, the relative change in the simulated discharge (for example, into Laguna Creek or Moenkopi Wash) can be used as a reasonable estimate of the relative change in actual discharge that would result from a change in recharge or pumping rates, while the estimate for a single cell would be considerably less reliable.” Thus, the model was intended to simulate the relative change in stream discharge (such as a percentage change) and has been used in DEIS accordingly. The commenter’s concern about an upper surface boundary condition putting in effect an infinite amount of water on top of the aquifer system is comment reflects a misunderstanding of the effect of the upper boundary condition. The only way that an “infinite” amount of water would be simulated is if the gradient across the Mancos was simulated as being infinite, which is impossible. The assumption made in the use of the boundary condition is that the water level in the units overlying the Mancos does not change as the result of pumping from the D and N aquifers. The boundary conditions does allow leakage of water through the Mancos into the D aquifer to occur, which is appropriate because there is a gradient causing this flow to occur in reality. The base case model estimates this leakage to be 1,294 acre-feet per year, which is a small component of the water budget for the groundwater system. Pumping will cause the rate of leakage to increase if there is drawdown in the upper part of the D aquifer. The information with which to calculate this increase is provided in the 3D model report. For a simulation in which the effects of Peabody pumpage at 5,700 acre feet per year through 2023 were predicted, the leakage through the Mancos increased by only 33 acre feet per year in 2023. Separation of the effects of community pumpage indicated that Peabody pumping would only increase the leakage by 20 acre-feet per year. The increase in leakage of 20 acre-feet per year is clearly too small to be important in the simulation of the effects of the pumping, and is smaller than would a model which explicitly included the Mancos (through additional model layers) would calculate. The 3D model included the D aquifer because some of the Peabody wells produce water from the

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-82

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

D aquifer, and to allow proper evaluation of the effects of pumping on leakage rates from the D to the N aquifer. It is a more accurate representation of the groundwater system than a model which does not consider the effects of the D aquifer and on the D aquifer. The comment suggests that the inclusion of the D aquifer in the model minimizes the effects of pumping because of the storage characteristics of the D aquifer. It is true that the model simulates release of water from storage in the D aquifer. For example, in a simulation in which Peabody pumping at 5,700 acre-feet per year is simulated through 2023, 507 acre-feet per year is simulated as being released from storage in the D aquifer, with a considerable portion released because of drawdown simulated near the Hopi communities. While the commenter may consider inclusion of the D aquifer in the model, and its associated water in storage, as decreasing the effects of withdrawals, its inclusion more accurately represents the groundwater setting. The first CHIA relied on the two-dimensional model developed by the USGS for setting its Material Damage Criteria. This model used a boundary condition, in which the leakage from the D aquifer was calculated based on the difference in hydraulic head between non-varying hydraulic head in the D aquifer, and model-calculated head in the N aquifer. Use of this boundary condition effectively incorporated infinite storage in the D aquifer (but not an infinite flux of water to the N aquifer). Thus, the USGS model would tend to allow greater “dilution” of pumping effects than the GeoTrans model, if the effects of storage were as the commenter believes. Calibration statistics were provided for the steady-state and transient parts of the model calibration in the HSI GeoTrans and Waterstone report by for the confined N aquifer. These statistics are still valid, as the model parameters have not been changed. However, in Supplement 1, statistics on the quality of agreement between simulated and measured drawdown after the calibration period were not provided. The statistics for the base-case model are included in the following table, for each of the BM observation wells individually. At the time the work for Supplement 1 was being performed, pumping and water-level data were available through mid-2003, so the statistics cover the period between the beginning of 1998 through mid-2003. During the model calibration, the changes in water levels were calculated based on the most recent water-level measurement, rather than the first, because of uncertainty about the quality of the early-time measurements. The residuals evaluated in the following table are based on this approach. Thus, the post-calibration residuals will tend start at low values, and increase in amplitude if there is growing mismatch. 54(SR295) Summary Comment: Upper-surface boundary condition putting in effect an infinite amount of water on top of the aquifer system is inappropriate, particularly in this setting. The boundary condition adds recharge to the [GeoTrans] model well above what is actually available to the flow system being modeled. Summary Response: The commenter is correct about the GeoTrans model not being constructed to simulate discharge to individual springs. It also was not constructed or calibrated to accurately simulate the discharge to the washes, because of the lack of data on the discharge to the washes and the consumption of water by ET. The HSI GeoTrans and Waterstone (1997) report includes the following discussion about the simulated discharge to the washes. “Because of the aforementioned sparseness of the data set related to spring discharge rates, groundwater discharge rates into the washes are not well-known. As a result, developing a quantitative estimate of the discharge (e.g., 0.1 cfs), or absolute change in discharge, is not feasible. Relative changes in discharge rates (expressed as a percentage change) can be better predicted. Idealizations and assumptions inherent in the model may render questionable an estimate of the absolute discharge. But because these components of the model are identical when predicting a change in discharge, the relative change (predicted change in discharge divided by the predicted discharge) is expected to be more reliable than either the predicted discharge or predicted change in discharge. The effects of the idealizations and assumptions tend to cancel when the change is expressed in relative terms. In addition, the simulated discharge at a single cell is more likely to be in error than that for many cells. A single cell’s discharge rate is determined by the difference between simulated head for that cell, and the specified head for the boundary condition, so that the cell’s discharge rate can be very sensitive to modeling assumptions and simplifications. For example, if the simulated hydraulic head is slightly below the elevation of a drain, no discharge will be simulated. A minor increase in simulated head can cause a significant increase in simulated discharge. For a collection of cells, the cell-by-cell changes are added together, and the single-cell effects are averaged together. Thus, the relative change in the simulated discharge (for example, into Laguna Creek or Moenkopi Wash) can be used as a reasonable estimate of the relative change in actual discharge that would result from a change in recharge or pumping rates, while the estimate for a single cell would be considerably less reliable.” Thus, the model was intended to simulate the relative change in stream discharge (such as a percentage change) and has been used in DEIS accordingly. The commenter’s concern about an upper surface boundary condition putting in effect an infinite amount of water on top of the aquifer system is comment reflects a misunderstanding of the effect of the upper boundary condition. The only way that an “infinite” amount of water would be simulated is if the gradient across the Mancos was simulated as being infinite, which is impossible. The assumption made in the use of the boundary

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-83

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

condition is that the water level in the units overlying the Mancos does not change as the result of pumping from the D and N aquifers. The boundary conditions does allow leakage of water through the Mancos into the D aquifer to occur, which is appropriate because there is a gradient causing this flow to occur in reality. The base case model estimates this leakage to be 1,294 acre-feet per year, which is a small component of the water budget for the groundwater system. Pumping will cause the rate of leakage to increase if there is drawdown in the upper part of the D aquifer. The information with which to calculate this increase is provided in the 3D model report. For a simulation in which the effects of Peabody pumpage at 5,700 acre feet per year through 2023 were predicted, the leakage through the Mancos increased by only 33 acre feet per year in 2023. Separation of the effects of community pumpage indicated that Peabody pumping would only increase the leakage by 20 acre-feet per year. The increase in leakage of 20 acre-feet per year is clearly too small to be important in the simulation of the effects of the pumping, and is smaller than would a model which explicitly included the Mancos (through additional model layers) would calculate. The 3D model included the D aquifer because some of the Peabody wells produce water from the D aquifer, and to allow proper evaluation of the effects of pumping on leakage rates from the D to the N aquifer. It is a more accurate representation of the groundwater system than a model which does not consider the effects of the D aquifer and on the D aquifer. The comment suggests that the inclusion of the D aquifer in the model minimizes the effects of pumping because of the storage characteristics of the D aquifer. It is true that the model simulates release of water from storage in the D aquifer. For example, in a simulation in which Peabody pumping at 5,700 acre-feet per year is simulated through 2023, 507 acre-feet per year is simulated as being released from storage in the D aquifer, with a considerable portion released because of drawdown simulated near the Hopi communities. While the commenter may consider inclusion of the D aquifer in the model, and its associated water in storage, as decreasing the effects of withdrawals, its inclusion more accurately represents the groundwater setting. The first CHIA relied on the two-dimensional model developed by the USGS for setting its Material Damage Criteria. This model used a boundary condition, in which the leakage from the D aquifer was calculated based on the difference in hydraulic head between non-varying hydraulic head in the D aquifer, and model-calculated head in the N aquifer. Use of this boundary condition effectively incorporated infinite storage in the D aquifer (but not an infinite flux of water to the N aquifer). Thus, the USGS model would tend to allow greater “dilution” of pumping effects than the GeoTrans model, if the effects of storage were as the commenter believes. Calibration statistics were provided for the steady-state and transient parts of the model calibration in the HSI GeoTrans and Waterstone report by for the confined N aquifer. These statistics are still valid, as the model parameters have not been changed. However, in Supplement 1, statistics on the quality of agreement between simulated and measured drawdown after the calibration period were not provided. The statistics for the base-case model are included in the following table, for each of the BM observation wells individually. At the time the work for Supplement 1 was being performed, pumping and water-level data were available through mid-2003, so the statistics cover the period between the beginning of 1998 through mid-2003. During the model calibration, the changes in water levels were calculated based on the most recent water-level measurement, rather than the first, because of uncertainty about the quality of the early-time measurements. The residuals evaluated in the following table are based on this approach. Thus, the post-calibration residuals will tend start at low values, and increase in amplitude if there is growing mismatch. 54(SR296) Summary Comment: The [GeoTrans] model includes both the D and N aquifers. The CHIA has been developed for the N aquifer only. By including groundwater storage of the D aquifer to the model, more than 43 percent of stored water is added to the system. By adding storage to a system where “most of the groundwater pumped is released from storage,” the effects of withdrawals are effectively diluted. Summary Response: The effects of groundwater pumping are not “diluted” by inclusion of the D aquifer in the model simulations. Most groundwater is released from storage in the aquifer where pumping occurs, which is predominately the N aquifer. In addition, it is standard and accepted scientific practice to include as many hydrogeologic features of the aquifer system being simulated as possible, and inclusion of the D aquifer and other geologic units that overly the N aquifer is appropriate. In fact, some of the Peabody supply wells are screened in both the N and D aquifers, and inclusion of the D aquifer in the simulations allows for more accurate simulation of the groundwater system. The notation that “43 percent of stored water is added to the system” is meaningless; this volume of water is not directly available to offset N aquifer pumping, but rather would need to seep through confining units. 54(SR297) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS heavily relies on this model, these flaws significantly undermine the technical integrity of its hydrogeologic analysis and its conclusions regarding impact. Major technical issues and other inconsistencies that were previously identified and are left unaddressed in the Draft EIS include, but are not limited

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-84

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

to. The model, because of its nature, resolution, and data density, is not well suited to the task of assessing potential material damage to springs or baseflow in washes as it was intended to do. An upper surface boundary condition putting in effect an infinite amount of water on top of the aquifer system is inappropriate, particularly in this setting. The boundary condition adds recharge to the model well above what is actually available to the flow system being modeled. Calibration statistics [GeoTrans model] typically provided in model validation reports are not made available, rather qualitative statements are provided. For example, the model report states that models match observed water level changes at monitor wells “quite well.” Summary Response: This statement is incorrect. The only way that an “infinite” amount of water would be simulated is if the gradient across the Mancos was simulated as being infinite, which is impossible. The assumption made in the use of the boundary condition is that the water level in the units overlying the Mancos does not change as the result of pumping from the D and N aquifers. The boundary conditions does allow leakage of water through the Mancos into the D aquifer to occur, which is appropriate because there is a gradient causing this flow to occur in reality. The base case model estimates this leakage to be 1,294 acre-feet per year, which is a small component of the water budget for the groundwater system. The 3D GeoTrans model included the D aquifer because some of the Peabody wells produce water from the D aquifer, and to allow proper evaluation of the effects of pumping on leakage rates from the D to the N aquifer. It is true that the model simulates release of water from storage in the D aquifer as it is pumped, however, the amount of water released is small compared to the N aquifer (For example, in a simulation (Scenario I, Supplement 1) in which Peabody pumping at 5,700 acre-feet per year is simulated through 2023, 507 af/yr is simulated as being released from storage in the D aquifer, with a considerable portion released because of drawdown simulated near the Hopi communities). The first CHIA relied on the two-dimensional model developed by the USGS for setting its Material Damage Criteria. This model used a boundary condition, in which the leakage from the D aquifer was calculated based on the difference in hydraulic head between non-varying hydraulic head in the D aquifer, and model-calculated head in the N aquifer. Use of this boundary condition effectively incorporated infinite storage in the D aquifer (but not an infinite flux of water to the N aquifer). Thus, the USGS model would tend to allow greater “dilution” of pumping effects than the GeoTrans model, if the effects of storage were as the commenter believes. Calibration statistics were provided for the steady-state and transient parts of the model calibration in the HSI GeoTrans and Waterstone report by for the confined N aquifer. These statistics are still valid, as the model parameters have not been changed. However, in Supplement 1, statistics on the quality of agreement between simulated and measured drawdown after the calibration period were not provided. The statistics for the base-case model are included in the following table, for each of the Black Mesa observation wells individually. At the time the work for Supplement 1 was being performed, pumping and water-level data were available through mid-2003, so the statistics cover the period between the beginning of 1998 through mid-2003. During the model calibration, the changes in water levels were calculated based on the most recent water-level measurement, rather than the first, because of uncertainty about the quality of the early-time measurements. The residuals evaluated in the following table are based on this approach. Thus, the post-calibration residuals will tend start at low values, and increase in amplitude if there is growing mismatch. 54(SR298) Summary Comment: Pumping from the Peabody mine has been curtailed due to the temporary closure of the Mohave Generating Station and Black Mesa mining operation. The pumping was stopped or significantly reduced in December of 2005 and has remained in that state for more than a year. Considering the confined nature of the aquifer in the area being pumped, the GeoTrans model predicted the aquifer to begin rebounding. Monitoring wells used to assess impacts of pumping on the N aquifer are showing no rebound and water levels have continued to decline. Summary Response: This statement is incorrect. N-aquifer water levels near the mine have increased since pumping was significantly curtailed and the rate of observed decline at some monitor wells outside the mine area has been reduced and has begun to show recovery. Just as it took time for the effects of groundwater pumping to propagate out from the Peabody supply wells, it will take time for the effects of reduced pumping to propagate out as well. Analyses of reduced pumping to date indicate that observed water levels at available monitor wells are responding as expected. 54(SR300) Summary Comment: Papadopulos (2005) says there are limitations to a model. The USGS guide instructions for MODFLOW-2000 says not to use a coarse grid and long time steps as it creates error (Ahlfeld, Barlow, and Mulligan 2005). If the error is too high, then one can slide any water model to fit a situation Also, if the pumps are too close together and the grids are too big or time step too long, then the water level of the N aquifer cannot be determined.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-85

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Summary Response: The groundwater models relied upon by OSM have been developed by professionals trained and experienced in this type of work, and the models have also been reviewed extensively by other professionals with similar training and experience. Although it is true that no model is perfect, the models used for the EIS are appropriately constructed and applied given the current state of knowledge and standards in groundwater hydrology. 54(SR301) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS indicates that the N aquifer will not suffer structural integrity failure as a result of drawdown of water near its pumps. Peabody points out that the N aquifer will not suffer structural integrity failure due to well pumping by citing Galloway and others (1999). In Truini (2006), there is increased total dissolved sediments in the southern wells of the N aquifer, which could be the result of tensile fracture failure of the N aquifer. Summary Response: Any increase in total dissolved solids in the southern wells of the N aquifer has not been shown to be due to tensile fracture failure. In addition, most drawdown in this area is due to tribal, rather than Peabody, pumping. 54(SR302) Summary Comment: The EIS is incomplete in that it still does not address seismic events taking place at the Black Mesa mining operation areas and, if so, could it result from the collapses of aquifers [from groundwater withdrawal]? If the aquifer is collapsing, then the recharge figures being used are not applicable. Summary Response: EIS Section 3.2 adequately addresses the seismic potential of the area, which according to USGS Seismic Maps has a relatively low probability for seismic activity. As stated in EIS Section 4-4.1.3 (Draft EIS page 4-24), lowering of the water level has the potential to result in subsidence in unconsolidated aquifer systems due to compression fine-grained layer. Also, the removal of cavity filling material and dissolution of limestone in some limestone aquifers can foster sinkhole development. These effects are not a concern of this study, however, due to the fact the primary water-bearing units of the N and C aquifers are not comprised of unconsolidated material or limestone. 54(SR305) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS fails to acknowledge destruction of the N aquifer as articulated in the NRDC’s [Natural Resources Defense Council] ongoing reports, which measure the damage according to OSM’s own CHIA [Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment] standards (destruction has included drying up of natural springs and washes as well as the development of subsidence and chasms in surrounding lands). Summary Response: OSM is aware of the NRDC report and considered its content in the preparation of the Draft EIS. 54(SR1103) Summary Comment: According to the most recent data, Peabody’s water withdrawals have already caused irreparable physical damage to the Navajo aquifer, violating your own “material damage” criteria. As a result, the sacred springs and other natural water sources that the Hopi tribe and the Navajo Nation depend on are drying up. Summary Response: OSM has determined through monitoring that Peabody pumping has not caused material damage to the N aquifer and springs 54(SR1104) Summary Comment: The OSM needs to update its hydrological model for the N aquifer and provide sufficient information demonstrating the C aquifer is a viable supply of water and that withdrawals will not have adverse hydrological or wildlife impacts. Summary Response: OSM does not have a hydrologic model. The applicant has provided model results that account for all of the pertinent groundwater variables. The Draft EIS uses models and analyses that are state-of-the-art for analysis of hydrologic impacts and are based on the most recent available data. Hydrological and wildlife impacts are discussed in EIS Section 4.24.3. Category 55: Groundwater – Don’t use groundwater for coal slurry 55(1180) Comment: FACTS: AZ supplies fresh water to other neighboring states. The earth is made up of approx. 80% water. 98% is saltwater, not usable. It can be but this is an expensive time consuming effort. 3% is fresh water of this, 2% is from the polar ice caps. The last 1% is fresh water for the entire world. Using fresh water to slurry coal is quickly depleting this valuable resource.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-86

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Response: Comment noted. Alternative A, which would require water to deliver coal to the Mohave Generating Station, is no longer the proposed project. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS, which does not include supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station. 55(1181) Comment: Pursuant to 26 NTC 103, the Navajo Nation Council recognized the Leupp Chapter, as the local governmental entity of the Navajo Nation, with the authority to review and approve all maters pertaining to its constitutes as deemed appropriate and that will benefit the community; and Leupp Chapter as a governing body over it’s constituents and the land base within it’s boundary, has seriously considered the Black Mesa Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement and is opposed to the plan as it consists of plans to re-start Black Mesa Coalmine with the use of Coconino Aquifer to slurry coal from Black Mesa to Mohave Generating Station; and 3. Leupp Chapter opposed the plan back from 2002 with several resolutions from the on-set of the discussion to use C-Aquifer as alternative transportation for coal slurry and Leupp Chapter continues to oppose the plan; Response: Comment noted. Alternative A, which would require water to deliver coal to the Mohave Generating Station, is no longer the proposed project. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS, which does not include supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station. 55(1182) Comment: Both the Navajo and Hopi Tribes have already passed resolutions ending the use of the N aquifer for coal slurry. Do not ignore these resolutions, and further hdrm the N aquifer and communities which depend on these resources for basic and future survival. Response: On July 25, 2003, the Navajo Nation Council passed a resolution supporting “the end of pumping of the N-Aquifer by Peabody Western Coal Company for its coal mining and pipeline operations on the Black Mesa no later than 2005.” However, as stated by the Navajo Nation President in an August 11, 2003, press release “To have the effect of law, the Council would have to rescind the existing leases to stop pumping, however, as it stands now the Nation has binding leases which allow use of the N-Aquifer pumping beyond 2005, unless an alternative water source is identified and agreed by the tribes and companies.” OSM could not find any Hopi Tribal Council resolution to end N-aquifer pumping. Alternative A, which would require water to deliver coal to the Mohave Generating Station, is no longer the proposed project. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS, which does not include supplying coal via the coal-slurry pipeline to the Mohave Generating Station. 55(SR22) Summary Comment: OSM ignores the [August 2003 Navajo Nation?] resolution calling for the end of use of the N aquifer for coal slurry by the end of 2005. Summary Response: On July 25, 2003, the Navajo Nation Council passed a resolution supporting “the end of pumping of the N-Aquifer by Peabody for its coal mining and pipeline operations on the Black Mesa no later than 2005.” However, as stated by the Navajo Nation President in an August 11, 2003, press release “To have the effect of law, the Council would have to rescind the existing leases to stop pumping, however, as it stands now the Nation has binding leases which allow use of the N-Aquifer pumping beyond 2005, unless an alternative water source is identified and agreed by the tribes and companies.” Alternative A, which would require water to deliver coal to the Mohave Generating Station, is no longer the proposed project. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS, which does not include supplying coal via the coal-slurry pipeline to the Mohave Generating Station. 55(SR175) Summary Comment: Groundwater mining has severe impacts; do not use water to slurry coal. 
 Summary Response: Comment noted. Alternative A, which would require water to deliver coal to the Mohave
 Generating Station, is no longer the proposed project. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative 
 in the Final EIS, which does not include supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station. 
 55(SR817) Summary Comment: In 2005, the Governor of Arizona mandated a state-wide water conservation strategy and this project violates that. Summary Response: Comment noted. Until December 2005, the project had been operating since the early 1970s and agreements for the use of had been in place. However, Alternative A, which would require water to deliver coal to the Mohave Generating Station, is no longer the proposed project. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS, which does not include supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-87

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 56: Climate 56(1055) Comment: The Draft EIS does not address carbon dioxide (CO2) or other greenhouse gases to be emitted from the Mohave Generating Station. But such emissions can be quite significant. Due to its sheer size, Mohave Generating Station will be a significant contributor to global warming pollution in the West, with an estimated 11.9 million tons of carbon dioxide emitted to the air each year. Its annual carbon dioxide emissions would be akin to the annual carbon dioxide emissions from over 2 million cars. As can be seen in the Table 2, MGS would increase heattrapping carbon dioxide emissions from the existing coal- fired power plants in the West by approximately 5%, and it would rank among the top ten carbon dioxide emitters of all western coal-fired power plants. Response: Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action (Alternative B) would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS has been revised to include a qualitative discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave and Navajo Generating Stations (despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed project or alternative actions). As stated in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and recent Department of the Interior guidance, current climate models are less precise regarding the impacts of individual projects on global climate trends, and prediction of global climate-related changes within relatively small study areas. 56(1208) Comment: The Little Colorado River water and air shed is being willfully sacrificed by the Black Mesa Project EIS use of groundwater for coal transportation and energy generation at the very time in history when nationally funded research and scientific consensus on climate impacts is publicly ignored by Peabody Energy Company, Salt River Project, Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc. and Mojave Generating Station. According to the Carbon Disclosure Project and investors queries as to their risk management mitigation strategies, these companies do not acknowledge or incorporate government findings for its investors. Response: Comment noted. 56(SR315) Summary Comment: The EIS did not address the impact of re-opening the Mohave Generating Station on global warming. Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Section 4.23 for discussion of the indirect effects associated with resuming operation at Mohave Generating Station, including climate. 56(SR318) Summary Comment: Peabody should switch its focus from mining coal to developing renewable energy. Summary Response: This EIS is a response to Peabody’s application to revise the mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex. Consideration of energy conservation and development of alternative energy sources is outside the scope of this EIS. However, alternative energy sources and energy efficiency were addressed in a separate study conducted in accordance with California Public Utilities Commission Decision 04-12-016, issued December 2, 2004. The study evaluates potential alternatives to, or complementary energy resources form the Mohave Generating Station (EIS Section 2.4.6).This EIS is a response to Peabody’s application to revise the mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex. Consideration of energy conservation and development of alternative energy sources is outside the scope of this EIS. However, alternative energy sources and energy efficiency were addressed in a separate study conducted in accordance with California Public Utilities Commission Decision 04-12-016, issued December 2, 2004. The study evaluates potential alternatives to, or complementary energy resources form the Mohave Generating Station (EIS Section 2.4.6). 56(SR319) Summary Comment: The EIS indicates that the Mohave Generating Station would contribute a negligible amount of carbon to the atmosphere, but if this were the case then the amount of electricity the plant would generate also would be “negligible.” You need to evaluate the carbon output against the electrical output. Summary Response: In EIS Section 4.23.3, it states that Mohave Generating Station would contribute 11.9 million tons of carbon dioxide per year to the atmosphere. It further states that any of the alternatives would not cause a significant impact on global climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action (Alternative B) would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS has been revised to include a qualitative discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave Generating Station (which currently is not in operation) and Navajo Generating Station.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-88

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

56(SR321) Summary Comment: There are multiple Congressional bills limiting CO2 emissions so any plans to slurry coal to Laughlin or Page are dubious at best. Summary Response: Comment noted. Reconstruction of the slurry line is contingent on the resumption of Mohave Generating Station operations. Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS, would not result in supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station. 56(SR322) Summary Comment: This project will contribute to global warming through the commercial and diesel vehicles used on-site. Summary Response: Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action (Alternative B) would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS has been revised to include a qualitative discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave and Navajo Generating Stations. As stated in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and recent Department of the Interior guidance, current climate models are less precise regarding the impacts of individual projects on global climate trends, and prediction of global climate-related changes within relatively small study areas. 56(SR323) Summary Comment: This project will harm Black Mesa-area aquatic life because of the project’s contributions to global warming. Summary Response: Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action (Alternative B) would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS has been revised to include a qualitative discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave and Navajo Generating Stations. As stated in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and recent Department of the Interior guidance, current climate models are less precise regarding the impacts of individual projects on global climate trends, and prediction of global climate-related changes within relatively small study areas. 56(SR324) Summary Comment: Since continuing the operation of coal-fired power plants contributes to global warming, transition the Mohave Generating Station into a solar thermal plant instead. Summary Response: This EIS is a response to Peabody’s application to revise the mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex. Consideration of energy conservation and development of alternative energy sources is outside the scope of this EIS. 56(SR325) Summary Comment: Global warming is reducing water supply through decreased rainfall so it doesn’t make sense to depend on this water to slurry coal. Summary Response: Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS, would not result in slurrying coal from the Black Mesa Complex to the Mohave Generating Station. 56(SR326) Summary Comment: The EIS states that the amount of CO2 contributed by the Mohave Generating Station would be negligible, but the project’s yearly emissions would erase about 40 percent of a year’s targeted Kyoto Protocol reduction for the entire planet, showing that the amount of CO2 emitted by the Mohave Generating Station is globally significant. The EIS’s logic that the one Mohave Generating Station’s emissions are insignificant is flawed. Summary Response: Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action (Alternative B) would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS has been revised to include a qualitative discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave and Navajo Generating Stations. As stated in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and recent Department of the Interior guidance, current climate models are less precise regarding the impacts of individual projects on global climate trends, and prediction of global climate-related changes within relatively small study areas. 56(SR327) Summary Comment: The EIS failed to describe whether this project’s use of coal is an efficient means of generating electricity and failed to support its implicit claim that coal-fired power plants remain suitable energy producers in the face of global warming.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-89

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Summary Response: Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action (Alternative B) would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS has been revised to include a qualitative discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave and Navajo Generating Stations. As stated in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and recent Department of the Interior guidance, current climate models are less precise regarding the impacts of individual projects on global climate trends, and prediction of global climate-related changes within relatively small study areas. 56(SR328) Summary Comment: The EIS failed to disclose the economic and social costs of the project’s greenhouse gas emissions. Summary Response: Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action (Alternative B) would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS has been revised to include a qualitative discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave and Navajo Generating Stations (despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed project or alternative actions). As stated in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and recent Department of the Interior guidance, current climate models are less precise regarding the impacts of individual projects on global climate trends, and prediction of global climate-related changes within relatively small study areas. 56(SR920) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not address the impact on global climate change that coal-fired power plants have. This project is in violation of UNFCCC rulings. It is an inadequate EIS. Summary Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.23 and 4.24. Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action (Alternative B) would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS has been revised to include a qualitative discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave and Navajo Generating Stations (despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed project or alternative actions). As stated in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and recent Department of the Interior guidance, current climate models are less precise regarding the impacts of individual projects on global climate trends, and prediction of global climate-related changes within relatively small study areas. 56(SR1105) Summary Comment: OSM is facilitating these companies by not using updated hydrological models or climate change factors and is flagrantly violating its responsibility for the climate future of the citizens of the American Southwest. Summary Response: OSM relies on the latest hydrological models that have been calibrated and validated with a great deal of data collected throughout Black Mesa. Category 57: Air quality 57(921) Comment: Coal-fueled electrical plants are known to contaminate the air with up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear reactors, due to coal-burning emissions from the stacks. No appropriate technology is in use to control this carcinogen-inducing practice. Response: Due to the multiple redundant overlapping safety features inherent in their design, nuclear power plants release virtually no radiation; therefore, the comparison is meaningless. While some western coals have exhibited low levels of radioactivity, the levels involved do not even require employee protection under OSHA and MSHA rules. Although immeasurably small, radioactivity associated with pulverized coal, and resultant fly ash, would be captured in the power plant’s PM control equipment. 57(1106) Comment: Given my limited amount of time to review and comment, I wanted to voice my concern with the fact that the review of environmental impact to the proposed well-field site is cursory and inadequate. The Draft EIS doesn’t address the impact of the generation of particulate matter when the wells, transmission lines, and storage tank will be constructed. I have nieces aged 5 and 3 who live in the area. They will be susceptible to asthmatic effects of the increase in PM. Your study too easily dismisses this possibility and does not cite studies justifying such a flip attitude. Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.6.2 for discussions of pipeline construction emissions and Section 4.6.6 for discussions of fugitive dust and health-related issues.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-90

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

57(1107) Comment: Provide specifics on the current air quality and potential reduction in air quality by release of PM10 and PM2.5 particulates. The air quality refers to both visibility and impact on human health especially the PM2.5 Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.6 for discussions of particulate matter emissions from mining activities and construction. 57(1108) Comment: Failure of the USDOI - Office of Surface Mining to enforce air quality standards. Fires from spoils have been reported but no action taken to enforce the company to put the fires out. Response: Comment noted. 57(1109) Comment: Please don`t let the plant open again, it has been so nice to see clear skies and not having all the soot all over our property!! I hope it never reopens but if it does I would hope they would have to install scrubbers and comply with all environmental rules Response: Refer to Section 4.23.2 for a discussion of air pollution control equipment and permitting at the Mojave Generating Station should it be re-opened. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in thE Final EIS, which would not result in supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station. 57(1110) Comment: Finally, the Draft EIS fails to analyze the cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas and mercury emissions from Mohave and Navajo Generating Stations. Coal deposits mined from the Black Mesa and Kayenta operations and burned at Mohave and Navajo Generating Stations are major sources of greenhouse gas (including carbon dioxide) and mercury pollution in the Southwest. Response: Refer to EIS Sections 4.23.2, 4.24.3, and 4.24.1 for discussions of air quality cumulative effects. Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action (Alternative B) would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS has been revised to include a qualitative discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave and Navajo Generating Stations. As stated in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and recent Department of the Interior guidance, current climate models are less precise regarding the impacts of individual projects on global climate trends, and prediction of global climate-related changes within relatively small study areas. 57(1111) Comment: OSM needs to address carbon dioxide as a pollutant in the context of this EIS. Response: CO2 is not a federally regulated pollutant at this time. Refer to EIS Sections 4.23.2, 4.23.3, and 4.24.1 for discussions of CO2 gases in the context of the proposed project (Alternative B). 57(SR330) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS should include the Mohave Generating Station as potential source of air pollution. Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Section 4.23.2 and Section 4.24.1. 57(SR334) Summary Comment: Construction and operation of this project will result in air quality degradation and affect the environment. Clouds of pollution from coal fires and coal dust are frequently witnessed on the landscape. Inversion layers trap pollutants and this could maintain high concentrations of pollutants that drift with the wind and could affect a large area including the Hualapai tribe and its resources. Can OSM ensure that Clean Air Act guidelines are adhered to? Summary Response: Atmospheric inversion layers, however frequent, are a natural meteorological phenomenon, not part of a proposed project pursuant to this EIS. Peabody must comply with the Clean Air Act. 57(SR335) Summary Comment: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality should act as a neutral party to oversee the air quality on Black Mesa. Summary Response: The USEPA and NNEPA already fulfill that role. ADEQ has no jurisdiction over Indian lands. 57(SR336) Summary Comment: Allowing carbon emissions trading credits to occur could result in increased air pollution as plants will not be required to install scrubbers.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-91

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Summary Response: It is not clear if the commenter is referring to proposed federal legislation, but there is currently no such CO2 scrubber. If a market-based carbon emissions credit/allowance funding program is enacted, this would crate financial incentives for industry to reduce emissions, in the same way that the federal acid rain program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions (e.g., SO2 allowances). 57(SR337) Summary Comment: Has the closure of the Mohave Generating Plant since 2005 improved visibility and air quality in the Grand Canyon? Summary Response: According to the National Park Service (NPS) Air Resources Division (personal communication between Carl Bowman, NPS, and Sara White, URS, August 25, 2008), there has been no specific attribution of improved air quality at the Grand Canyon due to suspension of operations at the Mohave Generating Station. Current trends are showing visibility improvements on the best days and an end to a steady decline in visibility on the worst days. These improvements are attributed to to a wide range of visibility protection measures implemented over the past several years including fuel and engine improvements in motor vehicles and point-source controls. 57(SR338) Summary Comment: Dust control for the project must use fresh water. Reclaimed water from the City of Flagstaff has contaminants. Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Section 4.19.2.2.1, for discussion of air-quality controls at the Black Mesa Complex. Refer to Section 4.19.3, for discussion of air-quality controls for reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline and construction of the C aquifer water-supply system. 57(SR339) Summary Comment: Wind does not blow southward from the location of where Peabody currently mines. The air monitoring equipment are not properly placed therefore does not measure appropriate amount of particulates in the air. These data are erroneous. Summary Response: The ambient air quality and meteorological monitoring stations at the MBC are sited and operated in accordance with stringent USEPA requirements. There is no indication that the data are invalid. 57(SR340) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS should discuss the re-opening of the Mohave Generating station and past air quality violations that shut it down. Summary Response: Operation of the Mohave Generating Station is not a part of the project; however, EIS Section 4.23 describes the indirect effects associated with resuming operation at Mohave Generating Station. Category 58: Vegetation 58(927) Comment: The EIS should detail the potential impact on ...the existing flora and fauna Response: Refer to Section 4.7 for discussions on the impacts of the project to vegetation and Section 4.8 for impacts to fish and wildlife. 58(1112) Comment: The mining operations have caused considerable environmental damage already that does not need reports to document or describe. One example is the drastic alterations in the landscape filled with coal residue, poisoning native plants such as juniper. Response: Comment noted. 58(SR354) Summary Comment: The removal of vegetation by the project can affect climate. Summary Response: As explained in the EIS, areas disturbed by project activities (e.g., construction, mining) are reclaimed as soon as possible following the completion of the activity. Vegetation must be established to equal premining levels of vegetative cover and production. Appendix A-1 of the EIS details mining and reclamation procedures for the mining activities. These are the same procedures that are currently employed at the active Kayenta Mine and closed Black Mesa Mine, both regulated under SMCRA. More than 15,000 acres of mining disturbance have been reclaimed to date at the two mines. Annual reclamation activities and revegetation monitoring results have been submitted to OSM for more than 25 years. Revegetation monitoring data have demonstrated successful vegetation establishment on reclaimed lands. The reclamation plan contained in Appendix A-1 details the current reclamation program in affect at the active Kayenta Mine and reflects the evolution and application of Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 M-92 Appendix M – Comments and Responses

specific best technology practices (BTCA) applicable to revegetation in an arid environment necessary to achieve the postmine land use goals and address vegetation concerns. 58(SR356) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not include an adequate discussion on the reclamation of vegetation after mining. Summary Response: Reclamation is discussed in EIS Section 4-19 and Appendix A, pages A-1-17 through A-1-19. The discussion in the EIS is adequate for an overview. The great detail is set out in the permit application. Vegetation must be established to equal premining levels of vegetative cover and production. Appendix A-1 of the EIS details mining and reclamation procedures for the mining activities. These are the same procedures that are currently employed at the active Kayenta Mine and closed Black Mesa Mine, both regulated under SMCRA. More than 15,000 acres of mining disturbance have been reclaimed to date at the two mines. Annual reclamation activities and revegetation monitoring results have been submitted to OSM for more than 25 years. Revegetation monitoring data have demonstrated successful vegetation establishment on reclaimed lands. The reclamation plan contained in Appendix A-1 details the current reclamation program in affect at the active Kayenta Mine and reflects the evolution and application of specific best technology practices (BTCA) applicable to revegetation in an arid environment necessary to achieve the postmine land use goals and address vegetation concerns. Category 60: Vegetation – Noxious weeds and invasive species’ 60(SR371) Summary Comment: Native vegetation in the area is being replaced by new species of weeds that are brought into the area and not used by livestock. Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Section 4.19.1, for discussion of noxious weed and invasive species control. Category 61: Vegetation – Culturally important plant species 61(1113) Comment: The Canyon Diablo ecosystem is a very rare gem of turquoise for the Navajo. It has a vast profusion of grasses to be found no place else across the entire Navajo Reservation. It also has many plants useful for domestic and medicinal purposes very important to the Navajo. For example, I know of no other area within the Navajo territory which has three different types of wild parsley. In addition, there are wild onions. But that is just the beginning of the list. Sages and mints are to be found. Broad-leaf yucca is fairly abundant Fremont barberry, wild grapes, sumac and walnut are also present in the area. The foregoing list is good for preparation of food. Vegetal dyes for the weaving of rugs are obtained from rabbit brush, Fremont barberry, walnut, mountain mahogany, Mormon tea, purple aster and Indian paintbrush. Virtually every plant at Canyon Diablo is useful for medicinal and healing purposes. It may look like there is much of nothing out here; on the contrary, there is a whole lot of everything out here. It is enough to make a good living off the land. In fact, that is the reason why my ancestors came to this location prior to the Long Walk period in the 1860s. Response: Comment noted. 61(SR372) Summary Comment: Culturally important plant species no longer exist in the area. The EIS does not adequately address impacts on these species from the use of groundwater in the N and C aquifers. Summary Response: Peabody has worked with the Hopi Tribe to reestablish culturally important plants during reclamation and revegetation of mine areas. The impact of the project activities on culturally important plants is considered minor and the Hopi Tribe has proposed that all the plant species impacted during construction of the water-supply pipeline and coal-slurry pipeline, under Alternative A, would be replanted during reclamation of those areas disturbed. Category 62: Vegetation – Wetlands and riparian habitats 62(928) Comment: OSM should have considered an alternative that requires the applicant to treat and return this water to the riparian areas that have been deprived of their natural rates of flow. Response: About half of the water used to transport the coal in the slurry can be reclaimed and used for cooling and other purposes at the power plant (EIS Section 2.4.3). However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed and the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-93

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

62(929) Comment: The Draft EIS Does Not Address: Negative effects of impoundment dams on riparian plant communities. Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.7.1.1. 62(SR375) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not provide a current vegetation survey for the Clear Creek and Chevelon riparian areas south of Winslow nor was a vegetation study conducted for the Little Colorado River Basin. Summary Response: Surveys of special status plant and wildlife species would be completed as required by the responsible agency. Vegetation surveys are addressed in the EIS Section 4.20.1, vegetation monitoring. 62(SR385) Summary Comment: We are unanimously opposed to the continued water impoundment methods currently being conducted by Peabody Western Coal Company because of impacts on plants used by local residents and spiritual leaders for traditional practices. Summary Response: Potential effects on culturally important plant species are addressed in the EIS Section 4.7.1.1, Section 4.7.1.2.1 and Section 4.7.1.3.1.2.2. 62(SR592) Summary Comment: Hopi and Navajo religion requires the use of locally collected plants. If the plants needed are no longer available to the practitioners the basic right to practice their ancient religion has been violated. This devastation to the plant habitat is in direct opposition to the AIRFA. For countless centuries Hopi and Navajo herbalists have practiced a sustainable symbolic relationship with Earth Mother and her healing plants. These tenacious herbalists perpetuated their craft and spirituality despite conscious efforts by greedy corporations to destroy the very habitat that nurtured their cultures for millennia. Summary Response: As explained in the EIS Section 4.7.1.1, the revegetation plan for the Black Mesa Mine Complex includes the reestablishment of culturally important plants (see Appendix F-2). Under Alternative A, the impact of construction activities on culturally significant plants along the coal-slurry and water-supply pipelines is considered to minor. The Hopi Tribe proposed that all of the plant species impacted during construction of the water-supply and coal-slurry pipelines be replanted when the project areas are revegetated. Category 63: Fish and wildlife 63(SR376) Summary Comment: The additional power lines proposed would adversely affect raptors. Summary Response: As stated in the EIS Section 4.19.3, electrical transmission lines would be designed to prevent or minimize the risk of electrocution, using methods described in Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1966 (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee). These practices are currently in place at the Black Mesa Complex. 63(SR377) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS should include additional information about impacts on wildlife from pumping the C aquifer. Summary Response: Information regarding effects on wildlife from pumping of the C aquifer is found in the EIS Section 4.8.1.3.1.1, and additional text regarding effects on wildlife habitat has been added to the document. 63(SR378) Summary Comment: Impact on wildlife habitat is too great under of the alternatives considered in the Draft EIS. Summary Response: Comment noted. Refer to the EIS Section 4.8, for discussion of the effects of the proposed project on wildlife habitat. While some effects on wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the proposed project, mitigation measures would limit and/or minimize these effects to the extent practicable. 63(SR930) Summary Comment: The DEIS does not discuss the poorly treated water in impoundments on the coal mine site as well as the waste of water for coal washing that endangers wildlife, migratory fowl and the Mexican spotted owl. Summary Response: Water in coal mine impoundments are of generally good quality and are not a threat to wildlife that use them. Impacts to wildlife resulting from withdrawal of C- and N-aquifer water were, and continue to be, addressed in EIS Sections 4.8.1.3.1.1 and 4.8.1.3.2.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-94

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 64: Fish and wildlife – Wildlife habitat 64(932) Comment: Canyon Diablo is consider a sensitive habitat according to JJ CLACS & Company (2005) page 82....On February 3, 2007 a small pool was found inside Canyon Diablo at the following UTM Coordinates 12 S, 490383 Easting, 3895698 Northing, CONUS NAD-27. The pool of water had rocks and boulders including corixidae and filamentous green algae which is part of the habitat for Little Colorado River Spinedace. Response: Comment noted. 64(SR380) Summary Comment: Use of water from the C and N aquifers would adversely affect wildlife and wildlife habitat. Summary Response: Comment noted. Refer to the EIS Sections 4.8.1.3.1.1 and 4.8.1.3.2, for discussion of potential impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat from pumping of the C and N aquifers. While some effects on wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the proposed project, mitigation measures would limit and/or minimize these effects to the extent possible. 64(SR381) Summary Comment: The minimum base flows on Chevelon and Clear Creek need to consider impacts on golden eagle and other wildlife habitat. Summary Response: Impacts on wildlife and their habitats have been addressed in the EIS Section 4.8.1.3.1.1. Potential effects on golden eagles would be minimal as they are generally not reliant on riparian habitats for prey or nesting habitat. 64(SR382) Summary Comment: The conversion of piñon/juniper woodlands to grasslands would adversely affect native wildlife. Summary Response: While conversion of piñon/juniper woodlands to grasslands may decrease habitat for some native wildlife species, it also would increase available habitat for others. The Hopi and Navajo also look to improved grassland habitats as grazing forage for their cattle and sheep. Many of the areas in question have become overgrown with piñon/juniper and would benefit from some conversion to grassland. However, the amount of conversion that will occur as a result of the project is so small in comparison to the entirety of the Hopi and Navajo reservations, that the beneficial impact of conversion to grassland is considered negligible. Category 65: Fish and wildlife – Fish and aquatic habitats 65(938) Comment: this plant will threaten wildlife in both Clear Creek and Chevelon Creek Response: The comment is unclear. 65(SR79) Summary Comment: Alternative A may have an adverse impact on native fish species. 
 Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Sections 4.8.1.3.1.1, and 4.4.1.4 for discussion of potential impacts on native 
 fish. Alternative A is no longer the proposed project; Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative 
 in this Final EIS. 
 65(SR384) Summary Comment: Mercury from the Mohave Generating Plant will increase the amount of mercury in fish. Fish affected by this will be inedible. Summary Response: Black Mesa coal has relatively low mercury content when compared with coal from the Powder River Basin or other locations. These other coal supplies would likely be resorted to in order to produce the power deficit that would result from nonuse of Black Mesa coal, thus producing a net increase in mercury beyond what would occur from continued use of the Black Mesa coal. Recent studies to evaluate the mercury impacts of a proposed coal-fired plant on fish within the San Juan River in northwest New Mexico indicate that the predicted impacts are well below established regulatory thresholds.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-95

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 66: Special status species – plants (threatened and endangered, state-listed, agency sensitive, tribal sensitive) 66(941) Comment: The habitat of rare and endangered plant species as well as culturally significant plants is already showing signs of devastation. Washes that once flowed year round and were used for irrigating cornfields and gardens are bone-dry today. In many Hopi villages, water levels in wells have dropped over a hundred feet. Response: Comment noted. 66(942) Comment: Change in ground water level and in surface water collection dramatically effects plant association and is a concern because of danger to the occurrence of special status plants (including culturally significant plants) in the area. Response: Comment noted. 66(943) Comment: The Draft EIS does not adequately address the impact of the C- Aquifer pumping on the endangered species habitat in the Chevlon and Clear Creek drainages south of Winslow, Arizona. Response: Potential effects of water withdrawal are addressed in the EIS Section 4.7.1.3.1.1. Additional analysis of impacts to endangered species habitat in Clear and Chevelon Creeks (both are south of Winslow) has been added to the EIS Section 4.8.1.3.1.1. 66(SR387) Summary Comment: Changes in ground water level and in surface water collection dramatically affect plant association and [could affect] special status plants (including culturally significant plants) in the area. Many plants are naturally rare while others have become rare and endangered through human activities. Summary Response: Potential effects on vegetation from lowering of the groundwater levels is addressed in the EIS Section 4.7.1.3.1.1 and Section 4.7.1.3.2. 66(SR388) Summary Comment: The habitat of rare and endangered plant species as well as culturally significant plants is already showing signs of devastation because of decreases in water. Summary Response: Potential effects on vegetation from lowering of the groundwater levels are addressed in the EIS Section 4.7.1.3.1.1 and Section 4.7.1.3.2. Category 67: Special status species – fish and wildlife (threatened and endangered, state-listed, agency sensitive, tribal sensitive) 67(937) Comment: The Draft EIS fails to discuss alternatives for how the Black Mesa Project will mitigate impacts to Clear Creek., Chevelon Creek, and Blue Springs, or to species listed under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Hydrologic modeling by the Bureau of Reclamation shows that impacts to drainages into Clear Creek and Chevelon Creek will accompany groundwater pumping from the C-aquifer at the levels specified in the Draft EIS. Both Clear Creek and Chevelon Creek contain habitat for listed ESA species, including the threatened spinedace. While the Draft EIS recognizes that such species are likely to be impacted, it does not address how impacts to ESA-listed species or habitat will be mitigated and how compliance with the ESA will be achieved. Blue Springs is the most significant perennial source of water into the Little Colorado River; the Little Colorado River is the only spawning ground in the lower basin of the Colorado River for the endangered humpback chub. The Draft EIS fails to discuss how it will mitigate impacts to the humpback chub and conserve its habitat. Response: EIS Section 4.18 explains the suite of conservation measures that were proposed under Alternative A to offset the potential adverse effects of stream baseflow depletion that could be caused by the proposed project. The purpose of the conservation measures is to aid in the survival, conservation, and recovery of the Little Colorado spinedace and roundtail chub. The measures also would serve to improve and conserve Little Colorado spinedace designated critical habitat. The conservation measures were developed collaboratively by the biologists representing FWS, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Bureau of Reclamation, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, SCE, and SRP. However, Alternative A is no longer the proposed project; Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS. Alternative B would not result in use of C-aquifer water.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-96

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

67(944) Comment: The Draft EIS, however, fails to recognize the critical nature of the Chevelon Creek spinedace by selecting a preferred alternative that can be expected to directly lead to its extirpation. Such action can be reasonably predicted to result in a change of listing status to endangered and to the significantly increased likelihood of the extinction of the species. Response: Alternative A is no longer the proposed project; Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS. Alternative B would not result in use of C-aquifer water that could contribute to the effects on the species. 67(SR391) Summary Comment: Project water use and land use could impact and potentially destroy sensitive species. Summary Response: Comment noted. Potential effects of groundwater withdrawal are addressed in the EIS Section 4.7.1.3.1.1 , and Section 4.7.1.3.2 Effects on sensitive species from project water and land use could occur; however, the effects associated with the proposed project would be fully mitigated. Refer to EIS Section 4.9.1.1 for discussion of effects on land use at the Black Mesa Complex. 67(SR392) Summary Comment: There is not enough information on the impacts on endangered species. 
 Summary Response: The comment does not indicate how the discussion of impacts n endangered species is
 insufficient. Potential impacts on special status species are adequately addressed in the EIS Sections 4.7 and 4.8. 
 67(SR393) Summary Comment: Water mining to support the project would result in the final disappearance of the rare and endangered Little Colorado spinedace from Chevelon Creek (critical habitat for the spinedace). Summary Response: Potential impacts of implementing Alternative A on the Little Colorado spinedace are addressed in the EIS Section 4.8.1.3.1.1. Effects on sensitive species from project water and land use could occur; however, the effects associated with the proposed project would be fully mitigated. Current municipal, agricultural and industrial pumping from the C aquifer approximately 100,000 acre feet annually would continue and is projected to increase over time. These uses will account for almost all impacts to the habitat of the fish species in question. The impact attributable to the project is almost immeasurable as pointed out in the EIS. 67(SR394) Summary Comment: The EIS does not address the report that the threatened Little Colorado spinedace lives near the area of the proposed water-mining sites, and does not address how water withdrawals would impact their habitat. Summary Response: Potential impacts on the Little Colorado spinedace are addressed in the EIS Section 4.8.1.3.1.1. 67(SR395) Summary Comment: Mitigation plans are not adequate to protect the Little Colorado spinedace from drawdown of the C aquifer. Summary Response: EIS Section 4.18 explains the suite of conservation measures that were proposed under Alternative A to offset the potential adverse effects of stream baseflow depletion that could be caused by the proposed action under Alternative A. The purpose of the conservation measures is to aid in the survival, conservation, and recovery of the Little Colorado spinedace and roundtail chub. The measures also would serve to improve and conserve Little Colorado spinedace designated critical habitat. The conservation measures were developed collaboratively by the biologists representing FWS, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Bureau of Reclamation, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, SCE, and SRP. 67(SR396) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS states that effects on the Little Colorado spinedace, a federally listed species, “are likely to be major.” That statement is correct, because the proposed project could lead to the extinction of this species. The 0.07 cfs depletion rate is for 2060. The value of 3 cfs is the base flow rate as estimated right now, before project initiation. On page 4-172 OSM admits that, “the baseflow on lower Chevelon Creek declines from almost 3 cfs in 2000 to about 0.3 cfs in 2060.” The depletion of base flow in 2060 due to this project most assuredly is not 2.5 percent as stated, but 0.07 cfs of 0.3 cfs, a number closer to 25 percent of base flow! It is no surprise that Peabody’s experts will use whatever rhetorical flourishes and statistical misdirection they can to support their client’s position, but OSM should not be repeating their efforts uncritically....The conclusion is remarkable. OSM, in the absence of a Cumulative Hydrological Impacts Analysis (CHIA), has chosen a preferred alternative that could lead to steamflow reduction rates in Lower Chevelon Creek of 50 percent or more. Even using a best-case scenario, OSM admits that “effects on the spinedace are likely to be major.” Yet the Executive Summary (page ES-16)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-97

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

concludes, “project-related groundwater pumping is not expected to contribute to appreciable long-term impacts on lower Chevelon Creek. . . .” Summary Response: The calculations of the reduction from 3 cfs to 0.3 cfs, and the 0.07 cfs reduction from the proposed project are calculated correctly at approximately 2.5 percent of the total reduction in flow. Calculations are as follows: 3.0 cfs (current flow levels) - 0.3 cfs (future flow levels) = 2.7 cfs (total decrease in flow) 0.07 cfs/2.7 cfs = 0.025 0.025 x 100 = 2.5 percent of the total reduction in flow. 67(SR399) Summary Comment: The project would destroy about 8,500 acres of piñon/juniper woodland and fragment a considerably larger area, affecting the threatened Mexican spotted owl. Summary Response: Potential impacts on Mexican spotted owls are addressed in the EIS Section 4.8.1.1. Most Mexican spotted owl (MS) foraging and other activities tend to be concentrated within or near Protected Activity Centers (PACs). While mining activities could remove some limited amount of potential foraging habitat, it is unlikely that this would significantly affect the Mexican spotted owl, as no areas within any PACs would be mined. 67(SR400) Summary Comment: The EIS does not list any endangered species in Diablo Canyon, but there are several. There is an endangered fish that lives in Canyon Diablo that spawns only whenever there is rain such as the summer monsoons. The color of the fish ranges from yellow and black. There is also an endangered collared lizard, which can run on two feet if threatened. The endangered fish will die if project well-field pumps dry out the C aquifer. Summary Response: A search of the State Heritage Database Management System and conversations with Navajo biologists did not indicate the presence of known endangered or threatened species in Canyon Diablo. Because the C aquifer is below the surface of the bottom of the canyon it does not provide any baseflow to the area. Because C aquifer pumping would not affect baseflow, it would not affect the amount of water in the canyon and, therefore, would not affect any Little Colorado spinedace or other species potentially found in the canyon. 67(SR401) Summary Comment: Local residents in the area report that the threatened Little Colorado spinedace lives in Canyon
 Diablo. 
 Summary Response: A search of the State Heritage Database Management System and conversations with Navajo
 biologists did not indicate the presence of any known endangered or threatened species in Canyon Diablo. Because 
 the C aquifer is below the surface of the bottom of the canyon it does not provide any baseflow to the canyon. 
 Because C aquifer pumping would not affect baseflow, it also would not affect the amount of water in the canyon, 
 and therefore would not affect any Little Colorado spinedace potentially found in the canyon. 
 67(SR402) Summary Comment: Peabody’s mining activities at Black Mesa are violating Federal Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Acts. Summary Response: For those Peabody proposals requiring consultation, OSM consults with the FWS under the Endangered Species Act. OSM is consulting with FWS on the mine permit application that is analyzed as Alternative B of this EIS. FWS has not found that Peabody is in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 67(SR403) Summary Comment: The birds that traditionally migrated to Moencopi Wash no longer come because the wash has dried up. Instead of letting the water evaporate in impoundments, Peabody must treat and release impoundment water. OSM must demonstrate they are protecting the wildlife that depends upon this water [such as migratory birds and endangered species like the Mexican spotted owl]. Summary Response: The comment is not specific to alleged violations of the Endangered Species and Migratory Bird Treaty Acts. SMCRA requires that provisions of the Acts be complied with in order to acquire an approved mining permit from OSM. Peabody operates under permit AZ-0001D. As required in the permit, PWCC monitors for designated threatened and endangered and special interest species (federal state and tribal listings) and conducts general wildlife monitoring on an annual basis. As a part of the LOM permit revision, intensive vegetation and wildlife baseline studies were conducted that also addressed species with the potential to occur on Black Mesa. Where required, specific actions for endangered species have been or are currently being conducted (e.g., seven year Mexican spotted owl monitoring and ongoing black footed ferret surveys). Nearly 250 bird species have been documented on Black Mesa as a result of intensive monitoring over the last 25 years (see LaRue 1994). Many of the species are present because of enhanced wildlife features such as water impoundments. Wildlife monitoring reports are submitted to OSM on an annual basis and are a part of the public record.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-98

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

67(SR404) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS is not even consistent in it basic assessment of the habitat suitability for different species. For example, it acknowledges that a goshawk nest was displaced from piñon/juniper forests that were studied in the 1990 EIS, but one page later states that goshawk nests are not found in piñon/juniper forests. Draft EIS 4-76, 4-77. The document states that Mexican spotted owls are not found in the area, but then states that as many as three (the document’s authors cannot evidently determine whether it is one, two, or three) protected activity centers overlap the mining area. The document tells us that “direct impacts on active nesting activity would be minor” because Peabody only removes active nests when the breeding season is over. Draft EIS 4-77. But the document does not reveal what the impacts on the species are from systematic, incremental removal of nests and nesting habitat. Summary Response: As stated in Section 4.8.1.1 of the Draft EIS (Riparian Habitats and Species), there may under Alternative A be localized reductions in Moenkopi Wash tamarisk habitat, which is used by numerous migrating bird species. This reduction would be due to interception of runoff on the mining areas, but monitoring of alluvial groundwater on the Black Mesa Complex has shown negligible effects from impoundments. Category 68: Land use 68(953) Comment: The other issue is the Hopi and Navajo recently entered into a compact which is an inter-Tribal agreement, which establishes certain stipulations to protect golden eagles and their habitat, and are the two Tribal Councils prepared to enforce the compact, because there are areas, particularly in the Leupp area where the well fields are going to be established, that will be applicable as far as the compact provisions. Response: The Hopi and Navajo tribes are bound by the terms of an intergovernmental Compact that prohibits new development within an 800 meter (0.5 mile) “no development” zone around golden eagle nesting sites and requires notification of development within a 1,600 meters (1 mile) zone around those sites. The well field is large enough that wells will be located outside the “no development” zones in the Canyon Diablo area. 68(SR3) Summary Comment: This project must demonstrate compliance with Endangered Species Act Section 7. The Biological Assessment must be complete before the Draft EIS can be reviewed. Summary Response: OSM and the cooperating agencies have worked collaboratively with the FWS since the preparation of the EIS began. All parties agreed with the schedule developed for the EIS and the Biological Assessment. 68(SR130) Summary Comment: Peabody should first look at environmentally, economically, and socially acceptable ways of operating before they begin this destructive project that will have so great an affect on so many. Impacts of the proposed project would be too great for land, air, wild and domestic life, plants, and people. Summary Response: Peabody conducts surface coal mining and reclamation operations at the Black Mesa Complex with conditions necessary to meet the requirements of the SMCRA and all other applicable Federal laws (EIS Appendix A-1). 68(SR406) Summary Comment: The EIS does not adequately explain project impacts on ranchers and farmers in the “impact area” [on Black Mesa]. Summary Response: The EIS in Chapter 4, Section 4.9.1.1 it describes the environmental consequences of the proposed alternatives on the land uses of grazing and farming in the vicinity of the mines. A primary postmining land use is grazing and the reclamation plan described in Appendix A is structured to fulfill this. Peabody has monitored about 15,000 acres of reclaimed lands on Black Mesa for a number of years and the data shows significant improvements in livestock forage quantity and quality compared to the native lands. Since 1998 Peabody has implemented a successful grazing program on reclaimed lands at Black Mesa and has successfully returned mined lands back to Tribal use for grazing. Impacts on livestock operators and farmers are short term. residents who have an approved customary use area (Navajo Nation) are compensated for grazing loss by Peabody for any lands made temporarily unavailable as a result of mining operations. 68(SR433) Summary Comment: Mining operations should cease and land should be reclaimed so Black Mesa residents (17 Black Mesa residents; “72 or more homes”) can resume traditional lifestyles, religious practices, and livelihoods.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-99

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Summary Response: Comment noted. Land will be reclaimed followed the end of the permit period. 68(SR441) Summary Comment: I have not seen the right-of-way permits for the main proposed pipeline in the proposed Navajo well field and the collector lines. I demand to see the right-of-way permits as the pipelines cross my customary use area. I have not given permission to do exploratory drilling, pipeline right-of-way, and for collector lines. The Navajo Nation has violated my property and protective interest rights and customary use rights. Summary Response: Right-of-way permits have not been granted. 68(SR620) Summary Comment: Mining has brought with it an influx of people into the area who are not respectful of the needs of local residents: the land has been stripped bare of firewood essential for cooking and for warmth, jeep trails are causing erosion, trash is left behind, and there is no management or care for the land. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 69: Land use – Residences 69(955) Comment: A coal mine on my tribe’s reservation is threatening to reopen. This will result in the relocation of 72 Navajo families, including my own, from lands our families have lived on for generations. Response: Under Alternative A, 17 Navajo residences (families), and under Alternative B, five residences, living within the lease area boundaries, would have new single family housing built for them between 2005 and 2026 if and when mining activities were to affect the land on which they live (EIS Section 4.9.1.1). Any such housing and the move would be at the expense of Peabody and new housing locations most likely would be within the residents’ customary use areas (e.g., where ranching activities take place and/or where sociocultural ties exist). 69(956) Comment: It is unacceptable that this proposal could further the termination of indigenous cultural existence. The U.S. government has previously passed laws that terminate indigenous ancestral ties to these lands by currently restricting access to their lands and enforcing relocation. The LOM permit calls for additional restricted access to ancestral lands and relocation. This is simply an outrage and an act of terrorism against indigenous people. Terrorism (as defined by The National Partnership for Workplace Mental Health at www.workplacementalhealth.org) is a “...threat against human life or the stability of a community or society” This proposal is a threat to the stability of the indigenous people’s lives, communities and society. Response: Comment noted. 69(SR410) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not acknowledge that eventual plans under a “life-of-mine” permit could include future lease area expansion, and further relocations of residents until the entire coal seam is removed. Summary Response: OSM is not aware of any plans for expanding the lease areas. 69(SR412) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS fails to provide an option that would not involve relocation of families from traditional homelands. Summary Response: As noted in the EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.11.1.1 (Draft EIS, pages 4-88, 4-108), 17 Navajo residences (families) on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled out of the areas to be mined, which are within the leased areas. In this case, the leases are between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when resettling of residences due to mining activities becomes apparent, Peabody works with the Navajo Nation. These households would have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time. 69(SR413) Summary Comment: Who will pay for relocation?
 Summary Response: Any moves necessitated by mining would be entirely at the expense of Peabody (EIS 
 Section 4.9.1.1). 


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-100

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

69(SR414) Summary Comment: Project EIS does not identify land withdrawn and compensation to permittees. 
 Summary Response: Lands are not withdrawn, rather, Peabody has leased lands from the Hopi Tribe and Navajo 
 Nation for the right to mine the underlying coal. 
 69(SR415) Summary Comment: [The Black Mesa Project is unacceptable because] 55 residences located within the area identified for the C-aquifer well field would be impacted by lack of grazing for livestock, and traffic of vehicles and heavy equipment would disrupt the homestead of the residents. [Resolution No. LP12-026-2007, 1 Ell Leupp Chapter] Summary Response: As stated in the Draft EIS Section 4.9.1.3.1, approximately 55 residences exist within the well field. Although residences would be avoided during the development of the well field, access to residences or associated use areas may be disrupted during short-term construction activities. Wells would be dispersed within the well field, spaced about 1.2 to 1.5 miles apart, and each well would require approximately 0.06 acre of permanent right-of-way for a well pad and associated equipment. A spur road to access each well would be needed and the pipeline from each well would be buried in the spur road. 69(SR418) Summary Comment: They said during the presentation that there were 70 homes along the pipeline. Our study from our organization is there are over 160 landowners [“people actually living there”] along that pipeline. There are over 160, not 70. That number is like half of what it should be. Summary Response: Comment noted. Alternative A, which includes the construction of the C aquifer water-supply pipeline, is no longer the proposed project. 69(SR649) Summary Comment: Noise from construction is unacceptable. The noise study is highly skewed. High frequency highway noises are measured and compared to construction machinery. High frequencies fade away quickly whereas construction machinery put out lower frequency vibrations which can travel long distances especially in the Kaibab Limestone and air. The low vibrations will disturb the quiet time of the family and elderly residents at my house. Summary Response: Noise from construction would be temporary. Category 70: Land use – Grazing 70(SR434) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not respond to the concerns of Leupp community members whose way of life threatens to be transformed through forced relocation and the loss of 160 acres of traditional grazing land. Summary Response: As stated in the EIS Section 4.9.1.3.1, approximately 55 residences exist within the well field. Although residences would be avoided during the development of the well field, access to residences or associated use areas may be disrupted during short-term construction activities. The 160 acres that would be displaced by wellfield facilities are not be a single parcel, rather, would be dispersed over the entire area of the well field. Wells would be dispersed within the well field, spaced about 1.2 to 1.5 miles apart, and each well would require approximately 0.06 acre of permanent right-of-way for a well pad and associated equipment. A spur road to access each well would be needed and the pipeline from each well would be buried in the spur road. An overhead power line would be constructed to each well to provide electricity to each pump. 70(SR435) Summary Comment: The project would reduce forage and grazing areas [without compensation] customarily used by families and thereby affect traditional livelihoods and homesteads, with potential impacts for current and future generations. Summary Response: Residents are resettled off mining areas according to procedures developed by the Navajo Nation and at Peabody’s expense. Residents are justly compensated for relocation, and temporary loss of grazing lands as well. Customary use areas used to determine grazing compensation are agreed to by the Navajo Nation and the residents. The primary permittee is compensated for loss of grazing lands on a set timetable and for as long as mining and reclamation are ongoing. As explained in the Draft EIS Appendix A beginning on page A-1-17, Peabody has developed a plan in the permit application for establishing a reclaimed landscape that would minimize erosion and support post-mining land uses. The revegetation plan has been developed to meet the requirements of 30 CFR 816. Revegetation success standard and their evaluation are structured to meet the criteria of 30 CFR 816.111 and 816.116. Standards are based on a combination of native reference areas and approved technical standards that reflect environmental site conditions, ecological considerations, and post-mining land uses. The criteria for

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-101

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

evaluation follow both 30 CFR 816 requirements and other Federal guidelines and address parameters of cover, production, woody density, and diversity. 70(SR438) Summary Comment: Most of the people here are ranchers and mining activities are incompatible with grazing; animals have been killed and grazing areas have been damaged, and injured parties have not been compensated. Summary Response: Annual vegetation monitoring data reported to OSM shows that reclaimed areas at the Kayenta and Black Mesa Mines is dominated by vegetation with a high utility for livestock and wildlife use. Grazing levels in reclaimed areas have been demonstrated to be substantially higher than native areas in both quantity and quality of forage. Grazing of reclaimed areas at Black Mesa and Kayenta Mines has been conducted since 1998 and has also demonstrated livestock grazing utility. These data and supporting information are submitted to OSM annually. These procedures are to be applied to any new mining disturbance associated with mine expansion. Customary use areas used to determine grazing compensation are agreed to by the Navajo Nation and the residents. The primary permittee is compensated for loss of grazing lands on a set timetable and for as long as mining and reclamation are ongoing. 70(SR439) Summary Comment: The Black Mesa Project should not be permitted because [among other things] the EIS states 55 residences located within the area identified for the C-Aquifer well field will be impacted with lack of grazing. 160 acres of grazing land within the well field area will be permanently lost due to construction of support structures; Summary Response: As stated in the EIS Section 4.9.1.3.1, approximately 55 residences exist within the well field. Although residences would be avoided during the development of the well field, access to residences or associated use areas may be disrupted during short-term construction activities. The 160 acres that would be displaced by wellfield facilities are not a single parcel, rather, would be dispersed over the entire area of the well field. Wells would be dispersed within the well field, spaced about 1.2 to 1.5 miles apart, and each well would require approximately 0.06 acre of permanent right-of-way for a well pad and associated equipment. A spur road to access each well would be needed and the pipeline from each well would be buried in the spur road. An overhead power line would be constructed to each well to provide electricity to each pump. 70(SR442) Summary Comment: Regarding fences, our animals used to roam everywhere without a fence to detour them back; however, with fencing installed by the mine some of the boundary joining fences we’ve built are keeping our animals in check which I’m grateful for. Summary Response: Comment noted. 70(SR443) Summary Comment: Many of us have had land disturbance from the mining activities and have been reclaimed; however, we’ve been asking for these lands back for grazing. The excuse is that we cannot have the land back for grazing because of regulations. Why is it so hard to resolve it for our uses? We’re here meeting because some of the leases have expired. Summary Response: Grazing of reclaimed areas at Black Mesa and Kayenta mines has been conducted with residents in selected areas since 1998 and has also demonstrated livestock grazing utility. Reclaimed lands have been released in the former N-1 N-2 mining area and are pending in the N-7/8 former mining area. There are many stakeholders involved in formal return of reclaimed lands which extends the process. SMCRA regulations require reclaimed lands be held for 10 years following seeding before they can be released. Grazing compensation will continue as long as the lands are not released. The leases have not expired. 70(SR444) Summary Comment: Regarding rights-of-way in the Leupp area, will our animals still have access to the water holes to drink? Summary Response: As stated in the EIS Section 4.9.1.3.1, wells would be dispersed within the well field, spaced about 1.2 to 1.5 miles apart, and each well would require approximately 0.06 acre of permanent right-of-way for a well pad and associated equipment. A spur road to access each well would be needed and the pipeline from each well would be buried in the spur road. An overhead power line would be constructed to each well to provide electricity to each pump. Short-term construction activities could disrupt access temporarily.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-102

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

70(SR445) Summary Comment: The C-aquifer pumps will suck the C-aquifer water from my surface grass via fault lines and cracks and eventually kill the grass. The C-aquifer water pumps will dry out my surface grass and the grass in Canyon Diablo rendering my only living as terminated since my cows, sheep, and horses have no place to forage and get water. I would lose my kids and my parents. I water my sheep at the proposed pumping site 3(PW-2B). I would become homeless as the land will become a wasteland. Summary Response: Alternative A, which would result in the construction of the C aquifer water-supply system, is no longer the proposed project. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS, which does not include construction of the C aquifer water-supply system. Category 72: Land use – Hunting (as a use of the land) 72(SR447) Summary Comment: Do not expand mining operations on Black Mesa because people here like to hunt. 
 Summary Response: The mining operation would not expand beyond the boundaries of the lease area, within which,
 hunting is not allowed. 
 Category 75: Land use – Access to use(s) 75(SR448) Summary Comment: Commenters are concerned that vehicular access to water tanks and animal pens will be cut off by project construction and operation in the Leupp area. Summary Response: Short-term construction activities may disrupt access temporarily. As stated in the EIS Section 4.9.1.3.1, wells would be dispersed within the well field, spaced about 1.2 to 1.5 miles apart, and each well would require approximately 0.06 acre of permanent right-of-way for a well pad and associated equipment. A spur road to access each well would be needed and the pipeline from each well would be buried in the spur road. An overhead power line would be constructed to each well to provide electricity to each pump. 75(SR449) Summary Comment: Commenters are concerned that they will no longer have free use access to wells. (Residents concerned that they will be told by OSM, water is for industrial use only.) Summary Response: Residents would continue to have free access to wells. Category 76: Cultural resources 76(958) Comment: And speaking of far reaching impacts, the cultures of the Hopi and Navajo people have suffered greatly from the mining activities on their land. They have been robbed of sacred sites and resources which figure not only in their survival but their spiritual practice and freedom. The mining company has, again, shown no compassion, nor even an indication of awareness, of the people whose lives there activities most effect. Peabody’s complete lack of integrity, historically, in this matter puts in adamant opposition to their newly proposed plans. They’re work thus far has been nothing but detrimental to the people, their culture, their communities and the land on which they must survive. Response: Comment noted. 76(959) Comment: The Draft EIS notes that Alternative A with the C-aquifer water supply system could adversely affect archaeological, historical and traditional cultural resources. The Hopi Tribe takes any potential effects on traditional cultural resources very seriously, but is confident that such effects will be avoided, minimized, and otherwise mitigated to an acceptable level. To this end, the Hopi Tribe is participating with other Tribes, State Historic Preservation Officers, OSM and the applicant on a consultation process to develop a programmatic agreement under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Other Federal, State, and Tribal laws including the NAGPRA, ARPA, AAA, ABA, and Hopi tribal law, impose additional requirements. In addition, the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office is conducting a cultural resources study of the Hopi reservation in connection with this project. This ongoing consultation and study, coupled with existing statutory and regulatory requirements, should ensure that Hopi cultural resources are protected. Response: Through the cooperation of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, cultural resources that could be affected on the Hopi Reservation, as well as traditional Hopi cultural resources beyond the reservation, have been well inventoried in conjunction with the preparation of the EIS. The Section 106 programmatic agreement that has been developed will ensure that adverse effects to significant cultural resources will be avoided, reduced, or Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 M-103 Appendix M – Comments and Responses

mitigated in consultation with the participating agencies and tribes. No cultural resource studies will be conducted on the Hopi Reservation unless the tribe approves the issues a permit as required by Hopi Tribal Ordinance 26. 76(961) Comment: Another example of Draft EIS’s inadequacy in this regard is its failure to adequately analyze and disclose the impact of the project on specific religious resources collected from the mountain or impacted by the project. From this mountain, medicine men are known to use and collect many religious resources that are necessary for the performance of some sixty (60) ceremonies that are associated with Dzilijiin. These include, but are not limited to, T’eesh chiih, Tadidiin dootlizh (aka Larkspur (Delphinum)) and a coal residue, which are all used for sand paintings and ceremonies. The DEIS provides no disclosure or analysis of how strip mining will impact these specific resources. In yet another case, the DEIS fails to disclose that the 8,500 acres of piñon and juniper trees that will be permanently cleared play a role in religious practices of the Dine.’ OSM’s failure to analyze what, if any, adverse impact the project will have on these religious resources renders it inadequate and calls for supplementation. Response: Traditional cultural concerns about sacred or ceremonial sites and resources within the mining area on Black Mesa are being addressed pursuant to Special Condition 1 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D (EIS Section 4.10.1.1 [Draft EIS page 4-93]). The EIS acknowledges that surface water sources are important traditional Navajo (p. 4-100). Hydrological modeling indicates that the impacts on springs and streams from continued pumping of the N aquifer or development of a new water supply from the C aquifer for mining purposes would be negligible (EIS Section 4.4.1.4 and 4.4.1.5 [Draft EIS pages 4-26 to 4-29, 4-32 to 4-37]). A Navajo Nation Archaeology Department study team interviewed local residents and tribal members knowledgeable about traditional practices in compiling an inventory of traditional Navajo cultural resources. The proposed project is not expected to restrict the right of American Indians to believe, express, and exercise traditional religions. Additional details about traditional cultural resources are provided in a cultural resources technical report that is made available to regulatory reviewers and the decision maker. If the proposed project were approved, measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse effects to significant traditional cultural resources would be implemented pursuant to a Section 106 agreement developed for the project (Draft EIS page 4-93). 76(962) Comment: In the Draft EIS section devoted to analyzing the proposed Project’s impact on wildlife, however, there is no mention of cultural significance or culturally significant species.’ Although raptors are finally mentioned later, in passing, as being culturally significant for “ceremonial uses,” the potential adverse impacts are unreasonably minimized without explanation or analysis.’ For example, there is only brief mention of traditional eagle collecting sites in the well field area and within the 1-mile corridor surrounding the proposed water supply pipeline. However, once again the analysis is unreasonable and incomplete regarding the impact the project will have on traditional and cultural uses of these raptor sites.”` It is not possible for the public or the decision maker to be sufficiently informed to consider these impacts if the information is not reasonably disclosed or provided. Response: Traditional cultural concerns about sacred or ceremonial sites and resources within the mining area on Black Mesa are being addressed pursuant to Special Condition 1 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D (EIS Section 4.10.1.1 [Draft EIS page 4-93]). The EIS acknowledges that surface water sources are important traditional Navajo (EIS Section 4.10.1.3 [Draft EIS page 4-100]). Hydrological modeling indicates that the impacts on springs and streams from continued pumping of the N aquifer or development of a new water supply from the C aquifer for mining purposes would be negligible (EIS Section 4.4.1.4 and 4.4.1.5 [Draft EIS pages 4-26 to 4-29, 4-32 to 4-37]). A Navajo Nation Archaeology Department study team interviewed local residents and tribal members knowledgeable about traditional practices in compiling an inventory of traditional Navajo cultural resources. The proposed project is not expected to restrict the right of American Indians to believe, express, and exercise traditional religions. Additional details about traditional cultural resources are provided in a cultural resources technical report that is made available to regulatory reviewers and the decision maker. If the proposed project were approved, measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse effects to significant traditional cultural resources would be implemented pursuant to a Section 106 agreement developed for the project (EIS Section 4.10.1.1 [Draft EIS page 4-93]). 76(963) Comment: The American Indian Religious Freedom Act requires OSM to protect places integral to American Indian Religious Freedom AIRFA74 was passed to guarantee to Native Americans the ability to exercise their traditional religions. For a traditional Hopi or Navajo, the damage being caused to Black Mesa water is akin to damaging a church. Or, as one Hopi explained to this Jewish writer as we stood over the place where Moenkopi wash once flowed freely, “we don’t go to a building to pray. This is our temple. Having our water taken is like someone

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-104

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

coming into your temple and taking your Torah.” For Christians, it would be akin to stealing the waters from the baptismal fountain. Response: The project is not expected to restrict the right of American Indians to believe, express, and exercise traditional religions. Traditional cultural concerns about sacred or ceremonial sites within the mining area on Black Mesa are being addressed pursuant to Special Condition 1 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D (EIS Section 4.10.1.1 [Draft EIS page 4-93]). 76(964) Comment: Cultural Heritage. What is the impact of the Life of Mine proposal on the whole of the ecosystem of the Little Colorado watershed? This area is under active assessment for designation as a World Heritage Site based on its extraordinary cultural and environmental features specifically related the wealth of agricultural practices. Response: Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, and Hualapai Tribe study teams evaluated traditional cultural resources that could be affected by the project. Black Mesa (known at Nayavuwaltsa to the Hopi and Dzlijiin to the Navajo) is identified as a significant traditional cultural resource (EIS Section 3.10.1 [Draft EIS page 3-98]). Traditional cultural concerns about sacred or ceremonial sites and resources within the mining area on Black Mesa are being addressed pursuant to Special Condition 1 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D (EIS Section 4.10.1.1 [Draft EIS page 4-93). Springs and streams are identified as having traditional cultural significance (EIS Section 4.10.1.2 [Draft EIS pages 4-96 to 4-104]). Hydrological modeling indicates that the impacts on springs and streams from continued pumping of the N aquifer or development of a new water supply from the C aquifer for mining purposes (which would reduce uses from the N aquifer by 90 percent) would be negligible (EIS Section 4.4.1.4 and 4.4.1.5 [Draft EIS pages 4-26 to 4-29, 4-32 to 4-37]). 76(966) Comment: OSM Fails to identify the N-Aquifer as a Traditional Cultural Property in the area of potential adverse impacts and violates OSM regulations OSM fails to address cultural impacts caused by the potential increased demand for N-aquifer pumping. Despite the fact that Peabody’s proposal calls for more than a 30% increase in water pumping from either the C or the N-aquifer, and that Hopi and Navajo people have been complaining for years that Peabody’s pumping is materially damaging the N-aquifer, resulting in the depletion of sacred springs and washes, OSM does not discuss any of the cultural impacts of its N-aquifer water use. OSM fails to understand that the N-Aquifer in and of itself is a TCP due to its’ clear connection to existing TCP’s and the fact that it clearly meets several of the NHPA criteria for TCP designation....Peabody’s reliance on the work of the Black Mesa Archaeological Project (BMAP) to satisfy its responsibilities for cultural resource protection is misplaced, since BMAP has never considered the use, depletion and damage to the N-aquifer in its cultural context....According to that protocol, OSM should require the applicant to conduct further research and analysis if “there is a “substantial likelihood” of the presence of unevaluated properties that may be eligible for the National Register.” Based on the substantial evidence referenced in these comments, OSM should conclude there is such a substantial likelihood. Response: Compliance pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act has been completed for the Black Mesa Mine Complex. Information needed for Section 106 compliance was collected for the well field, watersupply pipeline, and coal-slurry line. A Programmatic Agreement pursuant to Section 106 compliance would negotiated with relevant parties if the project is approved; however, Alternative A is no longer the proposed project. The 20-year Black Mesa Archaeological Project, conducted between 1967 and 1986, fulfilled Section 106 requirements in effect at that time for the coal mining on Black Mesa (EIS Section 4.10.1.1 [Draft EIS page 4-93]). Consideration of traditional cultural resources and the requirements of the subsequently enacted Native American Graves Protection Act are being addressed by Special Conditions 1 and 4 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D (pp. 4-93 and 4-94). OSM initiated Section 106 consultation for the proposed project in conjunction with the preparation of the EIS, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has been involved in those consultations. A Section 106 Programmatic Agreement has been developed and is ready to circulate for signatures by the participating parties. Hydrological modeling indicates that the impacts on springs and streams from continued pumping of the N aquifer or development of a new water supply from the C aquifer for mining purposes would be negligible (EIS Section 4.4.1.4 and 4.4.1.5 [Draft EIS pages 4-26 to 4-29, 4-32 to 4-37]). 76(1114) Comment: The water under their land is the heritage of the Native Americans who live there. Response: Comment noted.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-105

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

76(1115) Comment: It [the slurry pipeline] also impacts traditional cultural property of the Hualapai. Response: Archaeological sites and human remains have been identified and mitigated according to Federal regulations including NHPA, NAGPRA, ARPA, and AIRFA. (Hopi SV) If burials cannot be avoided, they will be treated in accordance with Federal, State, and Tribal regulatory requirements. On Tribal and Federal lands, human burials will be treated in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Hopi Tribal Ordinance 26, and the Navajo Nation Jisch?? policy. On State lands, burials will be treated in accordance with Arizona Antiquities Act and the Arizona Burial Law. The Hopi Tribe wants all ancestral human remains disturbed by the Black Mesa Project to be respectfully moved outside of the impact area and reburied as close as possible to their original location. The historic properties that need to be considered to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are identified and discussed in EIS Section 3.10 (on Draft EIS pages 3-92 to 3-106). Disturbance of human remains and funerary objects are among the most sensitive potential impacts. The treatment of human remains is discussed in EIS Section 4.10 (Draft EIS pages 4-92 to 4-94, 4-105, and 4-140). Efforts would be made to avoid disturbing human burials wherever possible. If disturbance by mining cannot be avoided, the burials would be respectfully removed and repatriated pursuant to Special Condition 4 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Hopi Tribal Ordinance 26, and the Navajo Nation Jischáá policy (EIS Section 4.10.1.1 [Draft EIS pages 4-93 and 4-94]). Any human burials that cannot be avoided by other components of the project would be addressed pursuant to a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement developed for the project and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Hopi Tribal Ordinance 26, and the Navajo Nation Jischáá policy, Arizona Antiquities Act, Arizona Burial Act of 1990, or Nevada Protection of Indian Burial Sites Act (p. 4-93). The Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and Navajo Nation would participate in consultations regarding treatment of human burials. Traditional cultural concerns about sacred or ceremonial sites within the mining area on Black Mesa are being addressed pursuant to Special Condition 1 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D. During preparation of the EIS arrangements were made for the Hualapai Department of Cultural Resources to inventory traditional Hualapai cultural resources that could be affected, and those impacts were considered. 76(SR373) Summary Comment: Hopi and Navajo traditional herbalist and ceremonial practitioners tell us that the hydrologic imbalance they have observed is disturbing the occurrence and abundance of the plants they collect for healing. Summary Response: It has been observed that the ongoing regional drought has had an affect on the presence or occurrence of culturally significant plants from time to time in the region. Seasonal and annual distribution and amounts of precipitation can have a profound affect on the presence or absence of many of these species. It is unclear what “hydrologic imbalance” refers to. Specific information is needed to understand ecological relationships and develop mitigation measures. As explained in EIS Section 4.7.1.1, the revegetation plan for the Black Mesa Mine Complex includes the reestablishment of culturally important plants (see Appendix F-2). Under Alternative A, the impact of construction activities on culturally significant plants along the coal-slurry and water-supply pipelines is considered to minor (Section 4.7.1.1, 4.7.1.3.1.2.2). The Hopi Tribe proposes that all of the plant species impacted during construction of the water-supply and coal-slurry pipelines be replanted when the project areas are revegetated. Hydrological analyses have not identified any springs that have been dried up by pumping of groundwater from the N aquifer for the mines on Black Mesa. Other users pumping from other aquifers have drawn down water tables that may have affected springs. Hydrologic modeling indicates that use of the N-aquifer and C-aquifer will result in negligible effects on stream or spring flow (EIS Sections 4.4.1.4.1 through 4.4.1.5.2), and therefore should have no effect on riparian plant species (EIS Sections 4.7.1.3.1.1, 4.7.1.3.2, 4.10.1.3.1, and 4.10.1.3.3). In fact, implementation of the C-aquifer pipeline would reduce historic mine related pumping of the N aquifer by almost 90 percent. Current static water levels in the C aquifer in the well field ranges from 226 to 615 feet below ground surface (EIS Section 3.4.3). Current static water levels in Peabody’s N aquifer well field range from 945 to 1,374 feet below ground surface (EIS Section 3.4.3). Water in these aquifers is far below the root zone of grasses and trees. Changes in the aquifer water levels would have no impacts on natural vegetation within the well fields. 76(SR379) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not mention eagle-gathering sites that occur in the project area. Hopi culture depends on the survival of the golden eagle so this EIS simply does an injustice to Hopi people by not conducting a specific social impact study. Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Section 4.10.1.3.2, Table 4-42, and Section 4.10.1.3.3 for discussion of eaglecollecting sites important to the Hopi.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-106

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

76(SR450) Summary Comment: Human remains and archaeological sites (ancient Anasazi and Navajo sacred sites and burials) have been destroyed or disturbed by the mining in the past. There are still burial sites associated with Navajos distributed throughout the entire southwestern quadrant of the Navajo Nation (which includes portions of Canyon Diablo, Padre Canyon, and the San Francisco Wash). The burial sites likewise need to be respected, mapped as thoroughly as possible, and efforts made to preserve them. The project impacts traditional cultural property of the Hualapai. Another example of Draft EIS’s inadequacy in this regard is its failure to adequately analyze and disclose the impact of the project on specific religious resources collected from the mountain or impacted by the project. Summary Response: Archaeological sites and human remains have been identified and mitigated according to Federal regulations including NHPA, NAGPRA, ARPA, and AIRFA. 76(SR451) Summary Comment: Black Mesa is our sacred mountain. Peabody’s mining activities at Black Mesa are impacting Hopi and Navajo cultural resources and spiritual practices because coal extraction destroys the environment and sites of great importance to Native Americans. OSM has a fiduciary duty to safeguard the natural resources of Native American tribes, therefore, OSM should identify springs that have dried up. OSM should consider the Black Mesa itself eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Summary Response: Comment noted. Historic properties, including traditional cultural resources, that need to be considered to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are identified and discussed in Section 3.10. Traditional cultural concerns about sacred or ceremonial sites within the mining area on Black Mesa are being addressed pursuant to Special Condition 1 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D (p. 4-93). Hydrological analyses have not identified any springs that have been dried up by pumping of groundwater for the mines on Black Mesa. Coal on Black Mesa is mined pursuant to contracts signed by the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation and approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 76(SR452) Summary Comment: As a result of irreparable physical damage to the Navajo aquifer, the sacred springs and other natural water sources that the Hopi tribe and the Navajo Nation depend on are drying up. OSM’s trust responsibility to the Hopi and Navajo people elevates its duty to protect cultural resources The potential effects of an increase in pumping of the N aquifer by more than 30 percent when the aquifer is already showing sure signs of damage are enormous. Indeed, the destruction of the only source of drinking water for an ancient desert tribe whose cultural basis is the reverence for water is nothing short of catastrophic. Summary Response: Comment noted. Pumping from the N aquifer is predicted to have a negligible effect on the water resources of Black Mesa (EIS Section 4.4.1.5 ). Historic properties, including traditional cultural resources, that need to be considered to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are identified and discussed in EIS Section 3.10. Traditional cultural concerns about sacred or ceremonial sites within the mining area on Black Mesa are being addressed pursuant to Special Condition 1 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D (EIS Section 4.10.1.1 [Draft EIS page 4-93]). Hydrological analyses have not identified any springs that have been dried up by pumping of groundwater for the mines on Black Mesa. Coal on Black Mesa is mined pursuant to contracts signed by the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation and approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 76(SR453) Summary Comment: I object to the Draft EIS [because of] its failure to find a path for the 273-mile slurry and 108-mile water-supply pipeline that will not destroy sacred sites. Summary Response: There are numerous traditional sacred sites in the project area, and it is not feasible to avoid them all. If Alternative A were approved, potential effects would be considered, and measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse effects would be implemented pursuant to a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement developed for the project as final designs are prepared for the project. The Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and Navajo Nation would participate in those consultations. 76(SR454) Summary Comment: Agencies must protect the cultural and natural values of the Black Mesa plateau by acknowledging the severe impacts of groundwater mining, considering alternative power generating technologies and requiring a no-water alternative to transport coal. Summary Response: Pumping from the N aquifer is predicted to have a negligible effect on the water resources of Black Mesa (EIS Section 4.4.1.5). The relationship between N aquifer pumping and surface streams and springs has been addressed by studies completed by the USGS, GeoTrans, Brown and Eychaner, and others. These studies included annual monitoring data collected for more than a decade and development of multiple groundwater models.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-107

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

They indicate that pumping to date has not measurably affected the monitored N aquifer spring flow. Anecdotal accounts of fluctuations in spring flow may be due to variations in precipitation (Section 3.4), and Daniel B. Stephens & Associates has noted that such fluctuations may also be attributable to Hopi and Navajo municipal and domestic pumping. The proposed alternative would reduce the mine-related use of the N aquifer by about 90 percent. Hydrological modeling indicates that the impacts on springs from continued pumping of the N aquifer or development of a new water supply from the C aquifer would be negligible (EIS Section 4.4.1.4.1, 4.4.1.5 to 4.4.2). The project will comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and other Federal legislation designed to consider the effects of Federal undertakings on cultural and natural values. Traditional cultural concerns about sacred or ceremonial sites and human burials within the mining area on Black Mesa are being addressed pursuant to Special Conditions 1 and 4 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D (Section 4.10.1.1). Potential impacts of the proposed project on cultural and natural resources are being considered pursuant to the NEPA, National Historic Preservation Act, and other Federal laws. Hydrological modeling indicates that continued pumping of groundwater is not expected to adversely affect any cultural resources (EIS Sections 4.4.1.4, 4.4.1.5, and 4.10.1.2.1 to 4.10.1.3.3). 76(SR455) Summary Comment: Does the EIS address the potential impact on human remains as part of mitigation by the proponents? What happens when culturally sensitive areas are found? Does the project stop? The Hualapai, Hopi and Navajo people want to have a say in what happens to remains. Summary Response: The treatment of human remains is discussed in EIS Sections 4.10, 4.11 and 4.19.1. Disturbance of human remains and funerary objects are among the most sensitive potential impacts. If burials cannot be avoided, they will be treated in accordance with Federal, State, and Tribal regulatory requirements. On Tribal and Federal lands, human burials will be treated in accordance the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Hopi Tribal Ordinance 26, and the Navajo Nation Jischáá policy. On State lands, burials will be treated in accordance with Arizona Antiquities Act and the Arizona Burial Law. Disturbance of human remains and funerary objects are among the most sensitive potential impacts. The treatment of human remains is discussed in EIS Sections 4.10 (on Draft EIS pages 4-92 to 4-94, 4-105, and 4-140). Efforts would be made to avoid disturbing human burials wherever possible. If disturbance by mining cannot be avoided, the burials would be respectfully removed and repatriated pursuant to Special Condition 4 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Hopi Tribal Ordinance 26, and the Navajo Nation Jischáá policy. Any human burials that cannot be avoided by other components of the project would be addressed pursuant to a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement developed for the project and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Hopi Tribal Ordinance 26, and the Navajo Nation Jischáá policy, Arizona Antiquities Act, Arizona Burial Act of 1990, or Nevada Protection of Indian Burial Sites Act. Hopi, Hualapai, and Navajo Nation tribal representatives would participate in consultations regarding treatment of human burials. 76(SR456) Summary Comment: Does the EIS recognize Hopi Tribal Ordinance 26, which is the cultural resources protection ordinance which recognizes the villages as having primary responsibility on how best to preserve and protect our cultural resources, including archeological sites and burials? Summary Response: The treatment of human remains is discussed in EIS Section 4.10 (on Draft EIS pages 4-92 to 4-94, page 4-105, and page 4-140). Disturbance of human remains and funerary objects are among the most sensitive potential impacts. If burials cannot be avoided, they will be treated in accordance with Federal, State, and Tribal regulatory requirements. On Tribal and Federal lands, human burials will be treated in accordance the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Hopi Tribal Ordinance 26, and the Navajo Nation Jischáá policy. On State lands, burials will be treated in accordance with Arizona Antiquities Act and the Arizona Burial Law. Disturbance of human remains and funerary objects are among the most sensitive potential impacts. The treatment of human remains is discussed in EIS Section 4.10 (on Draft EIS pages 4-92 to 4-94, 4-105, and 4-140). Efforts would be made to avoid disturbing human burials wherever possible. If disturbance by mining cannot be avoided, the burials would be respectfully removed and repatriated pursuant to Special Condition 4 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Hopi Tribal Ordinance 26, and the Navajo Nation Jischáá policy. Any human burials that cannot be avoided by other components of the project would be addressed pursuant to a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement developed for the project and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Hopi Tribal Ordinance 26, and the Navajo Nation Jischáá policy, Arizona Antiquities Act, Arizona Burial Act of 1990, or Nevada Protection of Indian Burial Sites Act. Hopi, Hualapai, and Navajo Nation tribal representatives would participate in consultations regarding treatment of human burials.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-108

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

76(SR458) Summary Comment: The N aquifer is also of great spiritual significance. OSM is well aware of the religious significance the N aquifer has to the Hopi people. This is reflected in Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall’s insistence that the Hopi’s contract with Peabody have provisions for groundwater protection added to the lease. Summary Response: Comment noted. 76(SR459) Summary Comment: The EIS fails to consider the basic concept of whether cultural landscapes and religious resources can actually be “reclaimed” to their pre-project cultural and religious significance once the land has been destroyed by mining. Summary Response: Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, and Hualapai Tribe study teams evaluated traditional cultural resources that could be affected by the project. Potential impacts were acknowledged (EIS Section 4.10). The analysis did not conclude that adverse effects to such resources could ever be reclaimed and restored to pre-project conditions. 76(SR462) Summary Comment: The Navajos have lived in the Canyon Diablo area for a very long time. There are ruins of numerous hogans primarily of female origin, and there are even some of male origin present throughout the entire area. These hogan sites need to be thoroughly mapped and efforts made to preserve them for they are a part of the history of the Navajo in the Canyon Diablo area. Summary Response: The Navajo Nation Archaeology Department surveyed areas along the proposed C aquifer water-supply system for archaeological and historical sites. If the proposed project were approved, supplemental surveys would be conducted within the well field pursuant to a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement developed for the project (EIS Section 4.10.1.1). Measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse effects to significant historical sites, including historical Navajo residential sites, would be implemented pursuant to the agreement. Mitigation would include mapping and documentation of historic Hogan sites that could not be avoided. The Navajo Nation would participate in those consultations. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. 76(SR463) Summary Comment: Canyon Diablo is a heritage to the Navajo Nation. Within its enclaves is the vestiges of a very important trail. This trail is referred to as Shadi ‘ciah Atiin, the South Trail. The trail has been recorded in historical times as the Navajo Trail. This trail was very important for hunting and gathering purposes, collection of sacred plant and animal species, trade and warfare. Tanning of animal skins was done exclusively within Canyon Diablo. Also, there is a battle site at Tse Giizhi, Rock Gap, which was played out by the Navajos against the Tonto Apache and Yavapai people. These points are lacking in the Black Mesa Project Draft EIS. Summary Response: Most of Canyon Diablo is outside the areas that could be affected by the proposed C aquifer water-supply system. A Navajo Nation study team inventoried traditional cultural resources in the C aquifer well field area and did not identify the trail or battle site within the area of potential effects (EIS Section 4.10.1.3.1). If the project were approved, cultural resources would continue to be considered pursuant to a Section 106 programmatic agreement, and supplemental cultural resource inventories would be conducted as warranted and the trail and battle site would be documented if they are within the area of potential effects. Measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse effects to any significant cultural resources would be implemented pursuant to that agreement. The Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and Navajo Nation would participate in those consultations. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer watersupply system would not be constructed. 76(SR464) Summary Comment: Although the Draft EIS acknowledges that Black Mesa, Dzilijiin, is “a significant traditional cultural resource because of its role in traditional stories and ceremonial and clan traditions...[and] [b]ecause it is an area where traditional resources are obtained [Navajo people] feel that development of the mines has adversely affected their traditional lifeways,” DEIS at 398, the DEIS fails to disclose or discuss what the role of the mountain is in the stories, songs, prayers, medicine, and ceremonies associated with Black Mesa.’ Without this information, the public and the decision maker are left uninformed. For example, Dzilijiin is considered the female mountain to Dine people and it interacts and communicates with the male mountain, Lukachukai. The continued disruption of this communication and the adverse effects caused by such disruption are not discussed in the DEIS. This discussion cannot take place, however, unless or until the role of the mountain in the context of the Dine’ world view is adequately and reasonably discussed and disclosed to the public and the decision maker. In its current form, the

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-109

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

DEIS fails to provide this crucial information. In summary, the Draft EIS fails to adequately discuss the importance of Black Mesa to the Dine people in general and religious practitioners in particular and fails to discuss the importance of particular religious resources and how those will be impacted. The reason for this unreasonable and incomplete analysis of the cultural environment appears to stem from the exclusion of medicine people from the scoping process. When considering cultural resources and traditional cultural properties, it is essential to tap into the body of knowledge held by experts, such as medicine men. Without such information, OSM cannot take the requisite hard look at the impacts of continued mining on the Navajo cultural environment. Moreover, without such information, OSM cannot properly scrutinize the project through the lens of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration, both of which may prevent the project from going forward. In this case, the Draft EIS needs to be supplemented to include this information so that the public and the decision maker can be adequately and reasonably informed about the proposed project. Summary Response: Traditional cultural concerns about sacred or ceremonial sites and resources within the mining area on Black Mesa are being addressed pursuant to Special Condition 1 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D (EIS Section 4.10.1.1 [Draft EIS page 4-93). The EIS acknowledges that surface water sources are important traditional Navajo (EIS Section 4.10.1.3 [Draft EIS page 4-100]). Hydrological modeling indicates that the impacts on springs and streams from continued pumping of the N aquifer or development of a new water supply from the C aquifer for mining purposes would be negligible (EIS Section 4.4.1.4 and 4.4.1.5 [Draft EIS pages 4-26 to 4-29, 4-32 to 4-37])). A Navajo Nation Archaeology Department study team interviewed local residents and tribal members knowledgeable about traditional practices in compiling an inventory of traditional Navajo cultural resources. The proposed project is not expected to restrict the right of American Indians to believe, express, and exercise traditional religions. Additional details about traditional cultural resources are provided in a cultural resources technical report that is made available to regulatory reviewers and the decision maker. Measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse effects to significant traditional cultural resources will continue be implemented pursuant to a Section 106 agreement developed for the project. 76(SR465) Summary Comment: The environmental fragility of the whole landscape and the dependence of wildlife on such ecosystems for survival have been totally ignored by this analysis. Further, such adverse impact on these areas including Canyon Diablo, has not had a full analysis as far as impact on Hopi culture. Summary Response: The EIS recognizes that golden eagle nesting areas occur in certain areas along the C-aquifer pipeline route, including those nests in the Canyon Diablo area. EIS Section 4.8.1.3 (Draft EIS page 4-85). The EIS recommends that project construction not occur in these areas during the eagle breeding season. The Hopi Tribe agrees with this recommendation. The Hopi Tribe will be consulted pursuant to a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement to seek ways to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse impacts. Canyon Diablo is outside the areas that could be affected by the C aquifer water-supply system under Alternative A. A Hopi study inventoried traditional Hopi cultural resources within the area of potential effects of the C aquifer water-supply system. The EIS recognizes that there are golden eagle nesting areas in certain areas in the vicinity of the C aquifer well field and along the C aquifer pipeline route, including the Canyon Diablo area. The Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation have entered into an intergovernmental agreement that prohibits new development of any kind within 800 meters (0.5 mile) of eagle nesting sites identified in the agreement. Notification of new development is required out to a boundary of 1,600 meters (1 mile) around such sites. This agreement will govern project design, siting and construction in order to maintain the integrity of these non-development zones. If the proposed project were approved, measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse effects to significant traditional cultural resources, including eagle collection areas, would be implemented pursuant to a Section 106 agreement developed for the project. Those measures are likely to include restriction of construction activity in the vicinity of eagle nesting areas during the eagle breeding season. The Hopi Tribe agrees with this recommendation. The Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and Navajo Nation would participate in the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement consultations. 76(SR467) Summary Comment: Peabody’s application violates the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) Regulations Governing Section 106. According to the ACHP, “the coordination of Section 106 review has raised a number of policy issues regarding the ability of the Office of Surface Mining to adequately meet the intent and spirit of historic properties, of Section 106” in the context of OSM-approved state regulatory schemes. The ACHP calls the “provisions for addressing Section 106 review for SMCRA permits” “inadequate.” ...OSM is required to start the Section 106 process “early in the undertaking A’s planning.” To our knowledge, the Section 106 process has not yet begun nor has a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement been prepared. OSM merely relies on the old Black Mesa Archaeological Project to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act for the Black Mesa complex as well as

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-110

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Peabody’s existing policies under the Life of Mine Permit AZ-0001D. OSM needs to rely on current information from not only the existing studies of the permit area, but surveys should be completed by traditional practitioners to ensure that the importance of Black Mesa to the tribes can be respected. Summary Response: Compliance pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act has been completed for the Black Mesa Mine Complex. Information needed for Section 106 compliance was collected for the C-aquifer well field and water-supply pipeline, and the coal-slurry pipeline. A Programmatic Agreement pursuant to Section 106 compliance will be negotiated with relevant parties if the project is approved. The 20-year Black Mesa Archaeological Project, conducted between 1967 and 1986, fulfilled Section 106 requirements in effect at that time for the coal mining on Black Mesa . Consideration of traditional cultural resources and the requirements of the subsequently enacted Native American Graves Protection Act are being addressed by Special Conditions 1 and 4 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D. OSM initiated Section 106 consultation for the proposed project in conjunction with the preparation of the EIS, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has been involved in those consultations. Under Alternative A, a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement was developed and is ready to circulate for signatures by the participating parties. Hydrological modeling indicates that the impacts on springs and streams from continued pumping of the N aquifer or development of a new water supply from the C aquifer for mining purposes would be negligible (EIS Section 4.4.1.4 and 4.4.1.5 [Draft EIS pages 4-26 to 4-29, 4-32 to 4-37]). However, a Programmatic Agreement is not needed under Alternative B, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS. 76(SR468) Summary Comment: OSM does list potential impacts on more than 57 archaeological sites and 102 traditional cultural sites along the eastern route of the C-aquifer pipeline route including the proposed coal haul road, C-aquifer well field, and coal-slurry pipeline reroute. The alternative western route of the C-aquifer pipeline route would impact more than 400 estimated sites, although no official surveys were done. (Draft EIS 3-103). OSM acknowledges that the vast majority of sites impacted would have adverse effects. Summary Response: The Hopi Tribe conducted limited field work to identify traditional cultural properties along the western water-supply pipeline route. A records and literature review documented that impacts of the western route on cultural resources would be considerably greater than those of the proposed route. If Alternative A were approved, measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse effects to cultural resources would be implemented pursuant to a Section 106 agreement developed for the project (EIS Section 4.10.1.1). The Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and Navajo Nation would participate in those consultations. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative A, the components associated with supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station would not be constructed. 76(SR469) Summary Comment: Peabody has not considered the effects of pumping on Old Oraibi, although accounts by individuals Hopis describe dry springs, which are attributable to Peabody’s pumping....[Also] the village of Bacavi is listed on the National Register of Historic Places in large part because of its famed terrace farms, which were traditionally fed by Bacavi’s five springs. At least one of those springs, the one lying lowest in the canyon, is in danger. Summary Response: The relationship between N-aquifer pumping and surface streams and springs has been addressed through a variety of studies completed by the USGS, GeoTrans, Brown and Eychaner, and others. These studies have included both annual monitoring data collected for more than a decade and the development of multiple groundwater models. They indicate that pumping to date has not measurably affected the monitored N-aquifer spring flow. These and other studies further indicate that the preferred alternative would have a negligible effect on N-aquifer and C-aquifer stream and spring flow. The EIS Section 3.4 (Draft EIS page 3-16) explains that anecdotal accounts of fluctuations in spring flow may be due to variations in precipitation, and Daniel B. Stephens & Associates has noted that such fluctuations may also be attributable to Hopi and Navajo municipal and domestic pumping. In addition, the preferred alternative would reduce the historic mine-related use of the N-aquifer by approximately 90 percent. Accordingly, it would further significantly reduce any possibility that continued operation of the mine and slurry system would adversely affect stream and spring flows. Hydrological modeling indicates that the impacts on springs from continued pumping of the N aquifer or development of a new water supply from the C aquifer would be negligible (EIS Section 4.4.1.4 and 4.4.1.5 [Draft EIS pages 4-26 to 4-29, 4-32 to 4-37]). However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed and the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-111

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

76(SR471) Summary Comment: OSM has an obligation to abide by the Executive Order on Native American Sacred Sites. The Executive Order on Indian Sacred Sites was created to ensure that Federal agencies, such as OSM are responsive to the concerns of Native Americans regarding their sacred sites. One of the goals of the Executive Order is to “avoid adverse effect on the physical integrity of such sacred sites.” Although the letter of the law pertains to Federal lands rather than Indian lands, the spirit of the law evinces intent to respect sites held sacred by Native Americans. OSM makes no mention of this Executive Order in the Draft EIS and a supplemental Draft EIS should take into account this Executive Order. Summary Response: Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) is recognized as an authority governing the Black Mesa Project, along with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. As noted, Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, signed on May 24, 1996, does not apply to tribal lands. Executive Order 13007 and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act are recognized as applicable to Federal lands. OSM consulted with interested tribes about potential impacts on traditional cultural resources, including sacred sites, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 76(SR472) Summary Comment: Impacts on Hualapai Tribe’s traditional cultural properties are not adequately addressed in the Draft EIS. The coal-slurry pipeline crosses the lands of the Hualapai Tribe and impacts several significant traditional cultural properties. Hualapai traditional practitioners regard springs as being sacred categorically. Tackayou Spring has been impacted by the original coal slurry pipeline by slicing through the spring’s surface water run off. OSM needs to direct BMPI to take corrective action no matter if an alternative slurry line is built or not. A new slurry line will adversely impact Tackayou Spring. The Draft EIS mentions a historical cemetery 1 mile from the proposed Kingman reroute of the coal-slurry pipeline. The Draft EIS mentions that, “reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline along that reroute is not expected to affect the cemetery” (Draft EIS 4-98). In conversation with Hualapai tribal members, Sierra Club representatives were informed that this cemetery was the site of several thefts of gravestones at great emotional distress to many Hualapai tribal members. There was concern expressed that the lack of protective fencing or protocol for coal-slurry pipeline workers could threaten the cemetery with additional impacts. The Draft EIS fails to take into account Hualapai tribal concerns and requires another look. Summary Response: The coal-slurry pipeline does not cross any Hualapai tribal land. During preparation of the EIS, arrangements were made for the Hualapai Department of Cultural Resources to inventory traditional Hualapai cultural resources that could be affected, and those impacts were considered. OSM conducted a hydrological investigation at Tuckayou Spring and concluded that the existing pipeline has not disrupted surface and subsurface flow in the channel below the spring and that the proposed reconstruction of the pipeline also would not disrupt flow. The Kingman Field Office of Bureau of Land Management administers the Federal land where the historical Hualapai cemetery is located and is consulting with the Hualapai Tribe about management of the cemetery. Under Alternative A, the reconstruction of the pipeline, adjacent to an existing street about 1 mile from the cemetery is not expected to affect the cemetery. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed. 76(SR474) Summary Comment: OSM anticipates that the groundwater level in the area will plunge to a lower level, permanently drying certain springs. “Some springs could return, but some will not. There could also be a decrease in groundwater quality, both from increased total dissolved solids and fbanation of acid water pockets.” ‘Though Peabody is required to provide alternative water supplies, the replacement policy allowed by the Draft EIS treats unique tribal water supplies as fungible and does not consider that some resources are important because they are associated with sacred landscapes and qualitatively-in a religious and cultural sense-may be in-applicable. Summary Response: This comment refers to the localized Wepo and alluvial aquifers within the Black Mesa Mine Complex. Research of anthropological literature did not yield information about specific Hopi cultural activities at any of these springs. Hydrological modeling indicates that the impacts on springs and streams from continued pumping of the N aquifer or development of a new water supply from the C aquifer for mining purposes would be negligible (EIS Section 4.4.1.4 and 4.4.1.5 [Draft EIS pages 4-26 to 4-29, 4-32 to 4-37]). Under Alternative A, water sources identified as having traditional cultural importance should not be adversely affected. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-112

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

76(SR476) Summary Comment: Residents near the mining area have been forced to watch the unearthing of graves by mining activities. Where are the remains being taken? There are more graves in and around the mining area that may be disturbed. This is an insult and hurtful to the Navajo people. Summary Response: Archaeological sites and human remains have been identified and mitigated according to Federal regulations including NHPA, NAGPRA, ARPA, and AIRFA. (Hopi SV) If burials cannot be avoided, they will be treated in accordance with Federal, state, and tribal regulatory requirements. On tribal and Federal lands, human burials will be treated in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Hopi Tribal Ordinance 26, and the Navajo Nation Jischáá policy. On State lands, burials will be treated in accordance with Arizona Antiquities Act and the Arizona Burial Law. The Hopi Tribe wants all ancestral human remains disturbed by the Black Mesa Project to be respectfully moved outside of the impact area and reburied as close as possible to their original location. The historic properties that need to be considered to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are identified and discussed in EIS Section 3.10 (on Draft EIS pages 3-92 to 3-106). Disturbance of human remains and funerary objects are among the most sensitive potential impacts. The treatment of human remains is discussed in EIS Section 4.10 (on Draft EIS pages 4-92 to 4-94, page 4-105, and page 4-140). Efforts would be made to avoid disturbing human burials wherever possible. If disturbance by mining cannot be avoided, the burials would be respectfully removed and repatriated pursuant to Special Condition 4 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Hopi Tribal Ordinance 26, and the Navajo Nation Jischáá policy. Any human burials that cannot be avoided by other components of the project would be addressed pursuant to a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement developed for the project and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Hopi Tribal Ordinance 26, and the Navajo Nation Jischáá policy, Arizona Antiquities Act, Arizona Burial Act of 1990, or Nevada Protection of Indian Burial Sites Act. The Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and Navajo Nation would participate in consultations regarding treatment of human burials. Traditional cultural concerns about sacred or ceremonial sites within the mining area on Black Mesa are being addressed pursuant to Special Condition 1 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D (p. 4-93). During preparation of the EIS arrangements were made for the Hualapai Department of Cultural Resources to inventory traditional Hualapai cultural resources that could be affected, and those impacts were considered. 76(SR482) Summary Comment: Canyon Diablo, itself, is a heritage of the Navajo Nation. Within its enclaves is the vestiges of a very important trail. This trail is referred to as Chada Ahteen (phonetic,) the south trail. That trail has been recorded in historical times as the Navajo Trail. This trail is very important for hunting and gathering purposes, selection of sacred plant and animal species. It was used for trade and warfare in times past. Tanning of animal skins was done exclusively within Canyon Diablo. Also, there is a battle site at Sikeusha [phonetic] rock gap, which was played out with the Navajos against the Tonto Apache and Yavapai people. Again, these points are lacking in the Black Mesa Project Draft EIS. Summary Response: Most of Canyon Diablo is outside the areas that could be affected by the proposed C aquifer water-supply system. A Navajo Nation study team inventoried traditional cultural resources in the C-aquifer well field area and did not identify the trail or battle site within the area of potential effects (Final EIS pages 4-109 to 4-111). If the project were approved, cultural resources would continue to be considered pursuant to a Section 106 programmatic agreement (Final EIS page 4-104), and supplemental cultural resource inventories would be conducted as warranted and the trail and battle site would be documented if they are within the area of potential effects. Measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse effects to any significant cultural resources would be implemented pursuant to that agreement. The Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and Navajo Nation would participate in those consultations. 76(SR483) Summary Comment: The EIS mentions no eagle-gathering sites listed for Navajos. The Hopi people also use several canyons for eagle-gathering and to not analyze this in a social context is inappropriate. Summary Response: A Navajo Nation study team inventoried traditional Navajo cultural resources that could be affected by the project. The study team did not identify any eagle-gathering sites used by the Navajo. If the proposed project were approved, supplemental inventories would be conducted pursuant to a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement as final designs are prepared. The Navajo Nation would be involved in implementation of that agreement. If additional traditional cultural resources, such as eagle-gathering sites used by the Navajo, were identified, they would be addressed at that time.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-113

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

A Hopi Cultural Preservation Office study team inventoried traditional Hopi cultural resources that could be affected by the project. Potential impacts on Hopi eagle collecting areas were discussed in EIS Sections 4.10.1.2 and 4.10.1.3, (Final EIS pages 4-107 to 4-115). Clan-specific eagle collecting areas are identified in Final EIS Table 4-37 (page 4-107), Table 4-40 (page 4-111), Table 4-42 (page 4-114), and Table 4-43 (p. 4-115). Three eaglecollecting areas [Hotvela (Sun Clan), Rabbit Clan, and Young Corn Clan] were identified along the eastern watersupply pipeline by the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office but were inadvertently left off Table 4-42 (Draft EIS Table 4-43). The Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation have entered into an intergovernmental agreement that prohibits new development of any kind within 800 meters (0.5 mile) of eagle nesting sites identified in the agreement. Notification of new development is required out to a boundary of 1,600 meters (1 mile) around such sites. This agreement would govern project design, siting and construction in order to maintain the integrity of these nondevelopment zones. 76(SR587) Summary Comment: Give weighted consideration to the spiritual, historical and cultural values this land has to the native population. These values, long cherished by these native peoples will be violated by this proposal. Summary Response: Comment noted. 76(SR589) Summary Comment: The impact on the daily lives and traditional rituals so sacred to the Hopi and Navajo would be dramatic and unforgivable. They have already lost enough at Black Mesa and throughout the Southwest. Summary Response: Comment noted. 76(SR590) Summary Comment: If you use our water it will force some people to move out of the Navajo Nation and away from the protecting four sacred mountains. The worst part is some Navajos might not move away, they might die because of thirst. Same thing with the Hopis, they will have to move. Soon we won’t know our language then there will be no more Navajo language or traditional culture. This is my home my language, my culture and my future. Summary Response: Comment noted. 76(SR593) Summary Comment: The continued devastation that would occur to the Hopi and Navajo is enough consideration to halt any further plans of short-term fuel extraction. Their contributions to the larger society are beyond measure in agriculture, music, clay crafting, and language (i.e., the code talkers WWII et al) to name a few. They can be a vibrant and self-sufficient point on our continent or we can continue to nudge them down the road as another welfare tax burden to society. Summary Response: Comment noted. 76(SR713) Summary Comment: The EIS fails to adequately analyze cumulative impacts on cultural resources and land because it does not give ample consideration to the possibility that disturbances over time have or could have a significant adverse affect on cultural resources and land. For example: there is no mention of how past mining has impacted the use of the mountain for cultural or religious purposes; there is inadequate consideration of the impact the removal of human remains has had on the families; there is little to no mention of what religious resources have already been lost by past mining; there is no mention of how past mining has impacted the interface between the male mountain and the female mountain; there is no mention of the how mining has and will impact the practices of medicine men; there is no mention of the impacts mining has and will have on ceremonies, medicine, and the practice of religion; there is not adequate consideration of the issues surrounding reclamation from a cultural prospective; there is inadequate consideration of the possibility of future spills from the slurry line; and there is inadequate consideration of effects of draw-down from the C aquifer and/ or continued reliance on the N aquifer. By asserting that “prior disturbance” reduces the severity of current and cumulative impacts to cultural resources, OSM misinterprets its duty under NEPA. Summary Response: The cumulative impacts of the project on cultural resources are considered in EIS Section 4.24.1. The EIS acknowledges that traditional Hopi and Navajo feel that coal mining on Black Mesa has adversely affected their lifeways and future mining would continue to affect their cultural traditions (EIS Section 3.10.2 and 4.10.1.1). The cumulative impacts of the project on cultural resources are considered in EIS Section 4.24.1.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-114

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 77: Community values and traditional knowledge 77(967) Comment: Black Mesa is our sacred mountain. We do offerings to this female mountain. It was foretold that Black talking god was the only one given the authority to burn coal. It was said that if people begin using this there will be great danger to our well being. We see this now. Perhaps generating electricity form coal is all together is a dangerous idea. Frankly, we are appauld at the continuous exploitation of our land and people by greedy corporations. Further, we are strongly against relocaion of indigenous peoples from their land. Response: Comment noted. Historic properties, including traditional cultural resources, that need to be considered to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are identified and discussed in Section 3.10. Traditional cultural concerns about sacred or ceremonial sites within the mining area on Black Mesa are being addressed pursuant to Special Condition 1 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D. Hydrological analyses have not identified any springs that have been dried up by pumping of groundwater for the mines on Black Mesa. Coal on Black Mesa is mined pursuant to contracts signed by the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation and approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 77(1183) Comment: Of great concern is the people who will be effected by this plan. Their way of life is a national treasure. To further interfer with the culture for short term profit is a huge mistake. Response: Comment noted. 77(1184) Comment: I would like to have people’s spiritual needs respected as well as people’s needs for various growth projects. Please help the situation below by supporting mediation processes. I believe and have often seen it work out that if all the needs of the parties are put on the table a mutual solution can be worked out. Response: Comment noted. The EIS process provides an opportunity for affected public and agencies to comment or raise issues or concerns regarding the project. 77(SR127) Summary Comment: Given the history of Hopi and Navajo concern over the use of N-aquifer water, OSM should explicitly address unresolved conflicts over this resource in the Draft EIS. Rather than discussing such concerns and conflicts, however, OSM proffers Alternatives A and B, each of which would issue a revised LOM permit rescinding the administrative delay on the permit for the Black Mesa mining operation. This rescission would eliminate the ability of the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe to use the delay of the LOM permit to negotiate an end to Peabody’s use of N-aquifer water for coal slurry and mine-related purposes. In essence, the Navajo and Hopi would lose an important decision made at their request by the Secretary of the Interior to delay the issuance of a LOM permit to the Black Mesa mining operations because of their objection to using N-aquifer water for coal-slurry and mine-related purposes. Summary Response: Comment noted. Under Alternative A, water for the project is proposed to come primarily from the C aquifer with some use of the N aquifer water. It would be the applicants’ intent to no longer use water from the N aquifer for slurry use and to minimize its use for mine-related uses. The existing N aquifer water-supply system would continue to supply up to 500 af/yr, to maintain the wells in operational condition, for mine-related and domestic uses and also would be used as an emergency back-up supply in the event that the C aquifer were to fail for an extended period of time (which is not expected). Pumping the N aquifer for project-related uses would cease when the water is no longer needed for project-related uses, including reclamation. The leases require the N aquifer wells to be transferred to the tribes in operating condition once Peabody successfully completes reclamation and relinquishes the leases. 77(SR374) Summary Comment: Canyon Diablo is a rare gem of turquoise. I know of no other area within the Navajo territory
 that has three different types of wild parsley. In addition, there are wild onions, but that is just the beginning of the 
 list. There are sages. There are mints. Broad leaf yucca is fairly abundant. Fremont barley, wild grapes, wild nuts.
 These are also present in the area. The foregoing list is good for preparation of foods. Vegetable dyes for weaving of
 rugs are obtained from rabbit brush, Fremont barberry, walnut, mountain mahogany, Mormon tea, purple aster, 
 Indian paintbrush. C aquifer water should be used wisely. 
 Summary Response: Comment noted. Also, a number of the species noted by the commenter are found on native 
 and reclaimed areas at Black Mesa. 


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-115

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

77(SR477) Summary Comment: We, as a community, must know what other comments are presented regarding the destruction of our sacred mountain, earth, and people. Summary Response: Comment noted. 77(SR478) Summary Comment: Water withdrawals have depleted and damaged the aquifer, drying up the sacred springs and other water sources that the Hopi and Navajo people rely on for drinking, irrigating crops, making medicines and carrying out spiritual traditions Summary Response: Groundwater modeling of the regional N and C aquifers shows no measurable impact on the aquifers or on springs due to project pumping. Locally some springs and wells in the Wepo Formation have been impacted on the mine leasehold. Peabody is required to make alternative water supplies available. 77(SR479) Summary Comment: The EIS has disregard for damage to the Hopi religion, caused by the damaged aquifer that may no longer provide water to natural springs that play a crucial role in Hopi ceremonies. Summary Response: Comment noted. 77(SR480) Summary Comment: Commenters show concern over the lack of responsiveness to the concerns of Leupp community members whose way of life threatens to be transformed through forced relocation and the loss of 160 acres of traditional grazing land. Summary Response: No residents within the well field would be resettled. As stated in the EIS Section 4.9.1.3, approximately 55 residences exist within the well field. Although residences would be avoided during the development of the well field, access to residences or associated use areas may be disrupted during short-term construction activities. The 160 acres that would be displaced by well-field facilities are not be a single parcel, rather, would be dispersed over the entire area of the well field. Wells would be dispersed within the well field, spaced about 1.2 to 1.5 miles apart, and each well would require approximately 0.06 acre of permanent right-of-way for a well pad and associated equipment. A spur road to access each well would be needed and the pipeline from each well would be buried in the spur road. However, Alternative A, which would result in the construction of the C aquifer water-supply system is no longer the proposed project. 77(SR481) Summary Comment: This land and water is sacred. Protect and respect this heritage. Summary Response: Comment noted. 77(SR484) Summary Comment: We live out there and we are opposed to this proposal. There is life because of water. Water gives us strength now and into the future. It is because of water that we have our sovereignty symbolizing our heritage. Summary Response: Comment noted. 77(SR487) Summary Comment: The Hopi’s sacred springs and way of farming and way of life are much more important and real than Peabody’s claim to the water for the coal-slurry pipeline. Summary Response: No Hopi farms should be displaced or significantly impacted by the project. Any affects on Hopi agriculture and livestock grazing would be minor to negligible; i.e., only 4 acres of grazing land and 3 acres of agricultural fields would be affected under Alternative A. However, Alternative A is no longer the proposed project. 77(SR591) Summary Comment: People need their land to live so that their children can take feel a connection with that place that their ancestors have called home since the dawn of time. Summary Response: Comment noted. 77(SR704) Summary Comment: We are not considering those yet to come, and we are shortening their lives by wasting the water. Summary Response: Comment noted.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-116

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

77(SR705) Summary Comment: The value of water and natural lands in the Southwest far outweighs the short-term profits of coal extraction. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 78: Community values and traditional knowledge – Individual lifeway/lifestyle 78(968) Comment: I am a long lived Canyon Diablo Residence. I was born there and raise their. I was a sheep hearder for many years before going to school. But to this day I still resided their w/some sheep. It is a peaceful place to be. I don’t like it that our Navajo Nation President is selling our life, water to strangers and destroying our homes and taking away our dignity. Reconsider the foolish deal you made. Put us first as your people and the history our past needs to be respected. Stay off our lands and leave our waters undisturbed/alone. The white man (white devils) are only interested in selfish gains. Soon will be like our people in Sanders, AZ gathered in and unknown/limited place. NOT US, NOT CANYON DIABLO, AZ Residence. Many voices as one voice. Hear us out! Please! Thank you. Response: Comment noted. 78(969) Comment: On my land, ancient Anasazi and Dineh burial sites, ceremonial Hogan’s, sacred sites, including a talking rock used by medicine people to heal people, all were destroyed by the mine. Then two years ago, Peabody came with bulldozers threatening my cemetery and sacred sites where I have held many ceremonies and sacred sites where I make offerings. 1 told Peabody workers to stop digging there, there are burials. The workers called their boss and the foreman came around. He told me they were going to put in a pond and I said get out of there. They threatened to bulldoze me or put me in jail if I interfered and continued bulldozing. They uncovered Anasazi and Dineh remains, including an Anasazi leg bone, jaw bone and other body parts. That afternoon an employee was killed. MSHA called it a high level of negligence. We filed Citizens Complaints about the desecration and when we were on an OSM inspection OSM told us Peabody said this was only the work of Archeologists trying to mitigate future disturbance. David Brugge, an Archeologist and Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) expert and Marsha Monestersky, Consultant noted that Archeologists do not work with bulldozers. Furthermore, we know the bulldozer operator that works for Peabody that did this. I tried to stop power lines from going through the cemetery and sacred ceremonial sites. I was assured by OSM that Peabody would reroute them and not make any further disturbance of this area but Peabody did it anyway. And then Peabody told me I couldn’t go near that place anymore. This is my land. Peabody and OSM make up lies. Response: Efforts would be made to avoid disturbing human burials wherever possible. If disturbance by mining cannot be avoided, the burials would be respectfully removed and repatriated pursuant to Special Condition 4 of LOM Permit AZ 0001D. Traditional cultural concerns about sacred or ceremonial sites within the mining area on Black Mesa are being addressed pursuant to Special Condition 1 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D. OSM investigates any reported violations of permit requirements. 78(974) Comment: Residents in the mining area have been jailed by the tribal governments if they try to prevent the destruction of burial or sacred sites. A great grandmother, Bah Begay had to watch as bulldozers unearthed the graves of her twin sisters and turned the site into a disposal area. Ataid Lake, another great grandmother was threatened with arrest and being run over when she tried to stop bulldozers from destroying a talking rock sacred to the Dineh people and from unearthing a site containing the graves of many Anasazi and Dineh. Mabel and Lucille Benally were jailed for trying to stop a bulldozer from expanding a coal stockpile outside of their front door and told they would remain in jail unless they agreed not to protest the mine. Response: Efforts would be made to avoid disturbing human burials wherever possible. If disturbance by mining cannot be avoided, the burials would be respectfully removed and repatriated pursuant to Special Condition 4 of LOM Permit AZ 0001D. Traditional cultural concerns about sacred or ceremonial sites within the mining area on Black Mesa are being addressed pursuant to Special Condition 1 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D. OSM investigates any reported violations of permit requirements. 78(1185) Comment: In short, the Salt River Project and Peabody Western Coal Company’s plans for Black Mesa would devastation, depletion of its resources and destruction of indigenous peoples’ way of life. Their identity & spirituality, their teachings and culture arc rooted in the land and are in relationship with it and its natural laws. Response: Comment noted.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-117

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

78(1186) Comment: My family lives both on Hopi and Navajo reservations in that part of AZ, and have been apart of the 30 year struggle to close down the Black Mesa mine in the first place. This is something that is very close to me, not only for all the aforementioned reasons but because someday I want to be living there with my family and not have to fight a new form of stealing/desecrating on my homeland. We just want to live together and not do any unnecessary damage to our sacred mother Earth. Response: Comment noted. 78(1227) Comment: I object to the Draft EIS [because of] its disregard for damage to the Hopi religion, which relies on the damaged aquifer to provide water to natural springs that play a crucial role in Hopi ceremonies. Response: The EIS acknowledged that sources of surface water have traditional cultural significance for the Hopi. Hydrological modeling indicates that the impacts on springs and streams from continued pumping of the N aquifer or development of a new water supply from the C aquifer for mining purposes would be negligible. Therefore, no adverse effects on water sources were identified. 78(1228) Comment: My concerns are the ...disruption of Hopi and Navajo relationships with their landscape. Response: Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, and Hualapai Tribe study teams evaluated traditional cultural resources that could be affected by the project. Potential impacts were acknowledged (EIS Section 4.10). If the proposed project were approved, measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse effects would be implemented pursuant to a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement developed for the project as final designs are prepared for the project. The Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation would be involved in implementation of that agreement. 78(SR389) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not address the hardship that traditional healers and their apprentices suffer when forced to collect herbal medicines out side of their normal range due to disturbances to their collecting areas. Summary Response: As explained in EIS Section 4.7.1.1, the revegetation plan for the Black Mesa Mine Complex includes the reestablishment of culturally important plants (see Appendix F-2). The impact of construction activities on culturally significant plants along the coal-slurry and water-supply pipelines is considered to minor (Section 4.7.1.1, 4.7.1.3.1.2.2). The Hopi Tribe proposed that all of the plant species impacted during construction of the water-supply and coal-slurry pipelines be replanted when the project areas are revegetated. However, Alternative A, which includes the construction of the C aquifer water-supply system and reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline, is no longer the proposed project. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS. 78(SR488) Summary Comment: I have to travel 40 miles round trip to haul water for my use and my animals. Most Black Mesa 
 area residents on the Hopi Partition Land do not have running water or electricity. I have lived this way all my life. 
 What benefit is there to the destruction of Black Mesa for your profit?
 Summary Response: Comment noted. 
 78(SR490) Summary Comment: Mining coal at Black Mesa is unacceptable as it could further the termination of the Hopis. Summary Response: The Black Mesa Project is an economic development project for the benefit of the Hopi Tribe and its people. Mining at the Black Mesa Complex provides a significant revenue stream to the Hopi Tribe for use by the tribe in delivering essential governmental services to the Hopi villages and the Hopi people. Law enforcement, health services, education and all other social services are heavily revenue dependent and do not spontaneously deliver themselves in the absence of strong and dependable revenues. Revenues from the project will also allow the Tribe to invest into new economic ventures, which in turn will reduce the tribes dependence on coal development and thereby diversify the tribe’s economy. Tribal government cannot survive and maintain their sovereignty without the support of a strong local economy. In order to maintain a strong cultural connection to the land and resources of the Hopi Reservation, local people must have the economic means to support themselves and their families. New generations of Hopi will be unable to remain on the land, practicing their culture, if they do not have the jobs and economic opportunities that allow this to occur. Cultural integrity is always dependent on a strong economic system that allows people to provide for themselves and participate in cultural activities. The Hopi tribal government is constantly called upon to balance cultural concerns with economic realities in an effort to protect the Tribes cultural heritage while at the same time preserving the tribe’s future through economic development. The Black Mesa Project represents a sensible balance between these two intertwined interests.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-118

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

78(SR492) Summary Comment: Over the centuries in the Native traditions nature is revered and protected. Their people have an understanding of spirit and of earth’s role...it’s time that we started listening, as that is the “still small voice” of our nation. Is there something they know that we don’t? Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR493) Summary Comment: [When the mine was originally built, it] started to affect the culture, it will effect everything and be destroyed. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR494) Summary Comment: When I left the reservation, people were speaking their language, we had our culture, people still had the horses, people still had their wagons and all the natural resources were there. And when I came back, I saw the modern train going through the reservation. It just, didn’t look right to me. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR495) Summary Comment: We are losing our language because there’s too many resources (such as coal) taken away from our Navajo land, Hopi land, that we have survived on. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR497) Summary Comment: I think this a repeat of history, going back to 140 years ago, when the U.S. cavalry came to the 
 reservation to convert our tribe to be farmers. And at that time there was a social experiment, a cultural 
 experimentation that happened and they removed our ancestors from the land to make them farmers in New Mexico.
 [This is] another social experiment to say that they are trying to get us to live the American lifestyle. 
 Summary Response: Comment noted. 
 78(SR498) Summary Comment: They want to relocate me or my family from where I grew up. Summary Response: Comment noted. It is unclear where the commenter grew up. 78(SR500) Summary Comment: [The EIS] shows the mine with 28,000 – or 48,000 acres of property that’s gonna be put back to grazing land. If you look at the areas they’re talking about, there’s gonna be a vast improvement, so for cultural significance of the Navajos and Hopis to graze their animals, I see it as a win/win situation. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR501) Summary Comment: The Resolution and the community members have deemed the project as life-threatening, because it threatens the way of life of the people. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR504) Summary Comment: The proposed project creates adverse cultural impacts on the indigenous people of the area. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR505) Summary Comment: Protect the human rights of the Navajo and Hopi in safeguarding their way of life and religion, which has been dependent on this water for generations. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR506) Summary Comment: The applicant failed to adequately address the impacts on our way of life, our traditions, our ceremonies, our knowledge about water. Summary Response: The EIS addresses in significant detail the cultural resources of the Hopi Tribe as well as the social and economic conditions of the tribe in the EIS Sections 3.10 and 3.11. The effects of the project on the cultural environment and on social and economic conditions are discussed in Sections 4.10 and 4.11. Consultation with the tribe and others on these issues is detailed in the EIS Section 5.0.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-119

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

78(SR507) Summary Comment: While the Draft EIS makes brief mention of endangered fish, and some reference to “grasslands with improved grazing,” the lasting environmental impacts on the present and future daily lives of human Native American populations, even their mere ability to continue existing on a portion of the Earth occupied for centuries before the rise of technological industrialism are conveniently ignored entirely. The “benefits” to the tribes are expressed exclusively in short-term monetary gain, once again a definition to the benefit of the applicant at the permanent expense of others. Summary Response: The Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation manage their tribal assets with Bureau of Indian Affairs oversight. After weighing short-term and long-term benefits, both tribal governments decided to support the proposed project. Impacts on tribal assets are discussed in EIS Section 4.13. 78(SR508) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS fails to address the significance of grazing to the livelihood and culture of these families and the impact that temporary and/or permanent relocation from grazing activities will have on such families. Such information and analysis must be provided and discussed to reasonably consider alternatives and to take the requisite hard look at the environmental impacts. Summary Response: The Black Mesa Project would have little adverse impact on Hopi grazing and livestock activities. Mining activities will continue to be restricted to the existing mine leasehold and grazing is not currently allowed in active mining areas. Under Alternative A, the entire length of the C-aquifer pipeline would be buried. Much of the C-aquifer pipeline right-of-way would be within existing road rights of way, most of which are not available for grazing in any event. Impacts on grazing are discussed (EIS Section 4.9.1.1). Navajo land grazed by 138 sheep or 32 cattle and horses would be unavailable during mining, but post-mining reclamation would substantially increase forage. Seventeen Navajo families living with the lease area boundaries would be resettled between 2005 and 2026 if and when mining activities were to affect the land on which they live (Section 4.9.1.1). Any resettlement would be at the expense of Peabody and new locations most likely would be within the residents’ customary use areas (that is, where ranching activities take place and/or where sociocultural ties exist). The pipeline under Alternative A would not require any residents to relocate. 78(SR509) Summary Comment: All Hopis are taught that one is to seek refuge in the valleys away from the villages where sometimes negativity prevails. For me, this special landscape is where I find solace and connection with my environment. This is the place where I can look at the clouds and feel the presence of my ancestors. This is the place where the dark night allows me to see the stars as I contemplate humanity’s existence. This is where I can talk to my fellow farmers about good things without distractions. Will this project take our land and farms from us? Many farmers think so. Summary Response: The Hopi Tribe recognizes the traditional cultural importance of farming in the Oraibi Valley. The final design of the water-supply pipeline under Alternative A would be planned in consultation with farmers to reduce adverse effects and develop mitigation measures that take cultural values into account. 78(SR510) Summary Comment: Peabody’s depletion of the sole source of drinking water for Hopi and Navajo living on Black Mesa constitutes an adverse cultural impact. Peabody’s depletion of sacred springs associated with traditional ceremonies constitutes an adverse cultural impact. The threat to and fear of losing the ability to live on Black Mesa in an interdependent self-sustaining way because of the depletion of water is an adverse cultural impact. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR511) Summary Comment: Hopi ceremonial practitioners are so plagued by worries about the health of the springs, that the usual clarity of mind and soul that Hopis need for their cultural and spiritual practice is clouded. Hopis believe they have a covenant with a deity named Ma’saw to safeguard the springs. There is real fear that unless Hopis stop Peabody’s pumping, their sacred covenant will be broken. Thus, Hopi traditional cultural practices are being severely impacted. Mr. Kuwanwisiwma explained that some practitioners believe that by interfering with the natural balance of Hopi water, the water spirits are made so angry that they won’t accept petitions for good things to come to the Hopi people. “These concerns integrally affect practitioners.” Summary Response: Comment noted. The effects of the project on water resources (hydrology) are considered in EIS Section 4.4. The cultural importance of that the Hopi place on springs and water is discussed.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-120

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

78(SR514) Summary Comment: I live on the Navajo Reservation and I plan on staying here for as long as I can. I lived here all my life. I came into this world with the DinA(c) People by my side. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR515) Summary Comment: The Native Americans depend on the earth to survive. We depend on the water, land, and other natural resources to survive. As Hopis, we are of the land. We need to keep Mother Earth balanced or she will explode like hurricane Katrina. We must respect the sun, the moon, the Earth, the sky. We must all take care of what was given to us from our own Creator. We cannot continue to tear Mother Earth apart! She has feelings “...and we are her children. Water is very special and valuable to the Hopi people. It has a purpose for everything. Water is used to bless a new baby, water is used in ceremonial events, water is the life of the people. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR516) Summary Comment: The old way of life is gone. I was raised back when my mom and dad had livestock they still do, but back then shearing season was profitable not any more. Then lambing season came in the spring it was profitable none of that exist anymore so why is all these people talking about going back to the old ways the old ways is gone. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR518) Summary Comment: We have a right to continue our religion, culture, and traditions living on land given to us by the Holy People, the Natural world we live in within the Four Sacred Mountains, the Natural world of the Din? Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR519) Summary Comment: Navajo Spirituality and Common Law: The belief of stewardship over natural resources is fundamentally sacred to the Navajo people’s cultural survival....The Navajo Nation Council passed the DinA(c) Natural Resources Protection Act on April 19, 2005. Part of its purpose is to “ensure that no further damage to the culture, society, and economy of the Navajo Nation occurs because of uranium mining within the Navajo Nation and Navajo Indian Country and that not further damage to the culture, society, and economy of the Navajo Nation occurs because of uranium processing”. However, it is ironic that these sentiments do not apply to other extractive industries, such as coal mining. The same strict standards also should cover the coal industry, which also conflict with traditional beliefs of stewardship over elements. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR520) Summary Comment: He’s [Navajo Nation President] is a medicine man; a question was posed to him while on the airwaves from KTNN about the sacred offering sites that could be damaged. Then in response he said, “Sacred offering sites changeable one can place offering where they choose.” To that statement I lost all respect for him by his insulting answer. I asked what kind of a medicine man he was [not knowing the practitioners’ rites] claiming to be a respectful man of such. Water is life sustaining, revered, and offered corn pollen with sacred prayers. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR521) Summary Comment: The more Navajo and Hopi people move to different places their children and grandchildren will not be able to speak their own language and their traditional ways will disappear, just because of what Peabody is doing with our water. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR522) Summary Comment: The western Navajo Reservation is where I live and shall remain. We need our water. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR523) Summary Comment: There are no materials written about how the effects will affect our psychology, our emotional being nor our soul and spiritual being. The materials do not reference anything about how this might affect the next generations coming up after us, after them. There’s a psychological connection between upcoming generations of

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-121

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

grandchildren and how they are affected by the make-up of their beings to their grandparents. There’s nothing written about it. Summary Response: The effect of the project on traditional Hopis, who believe that continued mining will impact their cultural traditions, is addressed in EIS Section 3.10.2 and 4.10.1. The EIS acknowledges that traditional Hopi and Navajo feel that coal mining on Black Mesa has adversely affected their lifeways and future mining would continue to affect their cultural traditions (EIS Section 3.10.2 and 4.10.1). Given the degree of prior and ongoing mining activity and disturbance, the EIS concluded that the proposed project would not result in detectable social effects (EIS Section 4.11.1.1). 78(SR524) Summary Comment: The people and ecosystems of the Flagstaff area rely heavily on the water from the N aquifers. It is a sacred nature resource that is needed to replenish the people and their descendents. If Peabody persists in mining coal then all of the beauty, and glory of America will be lost forever. We were put on this earth to respect it and live with it in harmony not to bleed the grounds, and dig, and dig until there is nothing left and the ground is left hollow. Like those before me have said “What we do to the Earth, we do to ourselves.” I am here to do whatever it takes to see that the security of the sacred lands is held intact. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR525) Summary Comment: When a non-native, when a non-Navajo talks about environment, they usually just look at the land, the resources there, the water, the air, the vegetation, the resources that are in – on or in Mother Earth. A Navajo or an Indian definition for environment always includes the people, the residents of that area. They never separate the environment from the people, from itself. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR526) Summary Comment: The EIS needs to look into a cultural impact and human impact, especially with residents that have been living there for many, many generations. Summary Response: Cultural effects of the project are considered in EIS Section 4.10 on cultural environment and Section 4.12 on environmental justice. 78(SR527) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS fails to adequately discuss the cultural and religious significance of Black Mesa to the DinA(c) and the religious resources that will be impacted by the project. Although the Draft EIS acknowledges that Black Mesa, Dzilijiin, is “a significant traditional cultural resource because of its role in traditional stories and ceremonial and clan traditions., .[and] [b]ecause it is an area where traditional resources are obtained [Navajo people] feel that development of the mines has adversely affected their traditional lifeways,” Draft EIS at 398, the Draft EIS fails to disclose or discuss what the role of the mountains in the stories, songs, prayers, medicine, and ceremonies associated with Black Mesa. Without this information, the public and the decision maker are left uninformed. For example, Dzilijiin is considered the female mountain to DinA(c) people and it interacts and communicates with the male mountain, Lukachukai. The continued disruption of this communication and the adverse effects caused by such disruption are not discussed in the Draft EIS. This discussion cannot take place, however, unless or until the role of the mountain in the context of the Dine’ world view is adequately and reasonably discussed and disclosed to the public and the decision maker. In its current form, the Draft EIS fails to provide this crucial information. Summary Response: Traditional cultural concerns about sacred or ceremonial sites and resources within the mining area on Black Mesa are being addressed pursuant to Special Condition 1 of LOM Permit AZ-0001D. A Navajo Nation Archaeology Department study team interviewed local residents and tribal members knowledgeable about traditional practices in compiling an inventory of traditional Navajo cultural resources. The proposed project is not expected to restrict the right of American Indians to believe, express, and exercise traditional religions. Additional details about traditional cultural resources are provided in a cultural resources technical report that is made available to regulatory reviewers and the decision maker. Measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse effects on significant traditional cultural resources will continue be implemented pursuant to a Section 106 agreement developed for the project. 78(SR528) Summary Comment: There’s a lot of petroglyphs and all that kind of stuff over in the Canyon Diablo area. We’ve gone onto it to visit the area, took a survey of that, and there is a lot of that over there, and that should be preserved,

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-122

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

and there is a law in environmental justice, a law that protects – the NEPA, professional environmental policy act, that protects a lot of the sacred sites and a way of life and the sacred – the herbs and the way that we live. To destroy that, is to destroy the people. Summary Response: Comment noted. Few, if any, petroglyphs sites would be impacted if Alternative A were implemented. No petroglyph sites in the Canyon Diablo area are known to be within the impact zone where wells will site. Most of Canyon Diablo is outside the areas that could be affected by the proposed C aquifer water-supply system. Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation study teams inventoried cultural resources within the area of potential effects of the C aquifer water-supply system (EIS Section 4.10.1.3). One site with a petroglyph was identified in the well field area outside the canyon and it is unlikely to be affected. If the proposed project were approved, supplemental surveys would be conducted within the well field pursuant to a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement developed for the project. Measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse effects to significant historical sites, including petroglyph sites or traditional gathering areas, would be implemented pursuant to the agreement. The Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation would participate in those consultations. 78(SR530) Summary Comment: The lowered water table has interfered with the ability of those living near Black Mesa to survive, not to mention to continue traditional lifestyles, a form of genocide has been committed. This cannot be allowed to continue, much less to expand to other communities. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR531) Summary Comment: We think that if the project people suck up all our water then all the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe will eventually die out or none of them will live on the reservation anymore. If that happens, then the people will not keep their language and culture and the land will dry up. Summary Response: Comment noted. 78(SR532) Summary Comment: Its disregard for damage to the Hopi religion, which relies on the damaged aquifer to provide water to natural springs that play a crucial role in Hopi ceremonies Summary Response: Comment noted. The relationship between N aquifer pumping and surface streams and springs has been addressed through a variety of studies completed by the USGS, GeoTrans, Brown and Eychaner, and others. These studies have included both annual monitoring data collected for more than a decade and the development of multiple groundwater models. They indicate that pumping to date has not measurably affected the monitored N-aquifer spring flow. These and other studies further indicate that the preferred alternative would have a negligible effect on N-aquifer and C-aquifer stream and spring flow. The EIS Section 3.4 explains that anecdotal accounts of fluctuations in spring flow may be due to variations in precipitation, and Daniel B. Stephens & Associates has noted that such fluctuations may also be attributable to Hopi and Navajo municipal and domestic pumping. In addition, the preferred alternative would reduce the historic mine-related use of the N-aquifer by approximately 90 percent. Accordingly, it would further significantly reduce any possibility that continued operation of the mine and slurry system would adversely affect stream and spring flows. Hydrological modeling indicates that the impacts on springs from continued pumping of the N aquifer or development of a new water supply from the C aquifer, under Alternative A, would be negligible. 78(SR533) Summary Comment: Safeguard of Navajo and Hopi livelihood and religion. Water, especially the N aquifer, is the 
 source of important seeps and springs that play critical roles Navajo and Hopi day-to-day spiritual practices. 
 Preservation of cultural and national heritage and natural resources of indigenous peoples of the southwest.
 Industrial use of groundwater is disrespectful to water and the people who have depend on this water for countless 
 generations. Water should be used for human consumption and preserve for future generations of Black Mesa and 
 Leupp communities. 
 Summary Response: Comment noted. The impacts of the project on water resources (hydrology) are considered in
 Section 4.4. The cultural importance of that the Hopi place on springs and water is discussed. 
 Category 79: Social and economic conditions 79(971) Comment: As a person with Native American ancestry, I am particularly appalled at your cavlier attitude towards the rights of our native peoples. It is bad enough that our brothers and sisters who inhabited this land for thousands of years prior to the arrival of our European ancestors have been deprived of the use of the lands they once depended

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-123

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

upon for their livelihood, but it is particularly egregious that the greed of a corporation should be placed ahead of the basic necessities of survival, including access to the clean water that underlies the little bit of land allocated to them. This water belongs to the Navajo people, and not only should further access be denied to the Peabody Western Coal Company, but the company should be required to compensate the Navajo nation for the theft of the water taken to date, and for any water withdrawn at any time in the future. Response: Comment noted. 79(972) Comment: What will be the benefits to the people if C - Aquifer is used? People need jobs, water, power, and good
 roads. Can people use water, power, and roads going through their land? Can local residents be hired to fill the jobs
 needed? These things should also be addressed in the EIS.
 Response: Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, 
 the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. 
 79(1187) Comment: The economic importance of the Project to the Hopi Tribe is demonstrated by the substantial reductions in Tribal employment, government operations, and education that have occurred during the past year as a direct result of the suspension of operations at the Mohave Generating Station in December 2005. Without the Project, these economic conditions are likely to continue, and even worsen, during the foreseeable future. Response: Comment noted. 79(SR535) Summary Comment: The Navajo Nation needs to use the C aquifer in the development of industries or they will lose it to other off-reservation entities. Summary Response: Comment noted. 79(SR536) Summary Comment: The mine hasn’t fulfilled promises of employment, electricity, running water. The benefits the people expected did not come. Can more benefits be brought back to the people living in the mine lease area, such as water, power and roads? Summary Response: The decision whether or not and when these benefits will be provided rests with the Navajo Nation government. 79(SR537) Summary Comment: The economic benefits to all the societies, the Navajo and Hopi Nations and all the communities involved with mining the coal and shipping the coal to Mohave and using it as a fuel source to make cheap electricity for putting it on the grid far outweighs any of the minor problems in the short term and long term. Summary Response: Comment noted. 79(SR538) Summary Comment: Royalties from Peabody and Pittsburgh Midway to the Navajo Nation provide money for college scholarship funds and high paying jobs for local people. Summary Response: Comment noted. 79(SR539) Summary Comment: Using the water from the aquifers in this mining effort could limit economic development from
 other industries. 
 Summary Response: Alternative A, which would use up to 6,000 af/yr of water, is no longer the proposed project, 
 Alternative B, which would use up to 1,236 af/yr of water is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the 
 Final EIS. 
 79(SR542) Summary Comment: If the mine is to reopen, we would like to see housing available for all of its employees. It’s been a struggle to travel a great distance. The Nation is also aware of the housing shortage. Summary Response: There is no provision in the coal leases that allows Peabody to provide housing. Any decision to provide housing would have to be made by the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-124

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

79(SR543) Summary Comment: Mining would help Navajo society move forward and adopt a more mainstream society, despite negative cultural effects. In general, Navajos are turning away from traditional ways of life and adopting nontraditional livelihoods. Summary Response: Comment noted. 79(SR544) Summary Comment: OSM fails to account for the social and economic impacts of mine closure on local communities. Id. at 3-112 OSM characterizes the mine’s economic contribution a “major beneficial effect.” Id. at 4-107. OSM’s review of the mine’s social and economic impacts, however, omits any meaningful consideration of the major adverse effects of mine closure on the local and regional economies. The following questions deserve an agency response: Will termination of employment occur gradually or abruptly as mining operations and reclamation cease? What are some of the economic and social consequences of sharp increases in unemployment? How will businesses that depend upon the spending of employees fare after mine closure? How will the substantial drop in revenues affect the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation (e.g. will any social programs be cut or services terminated)? Additionally, the closure of the mines will cause the relocation of miners and vendors. Summary Response: The majority of the work force would be laid off when mining ceases. A smaller work force would be retained to perform final reclamation (an approximately 3-year process). A small handful of employees would be retained during the 10-year reclamation liability phase to perform various maintenance activities, minor reclamation activities, and environmental monitoring and reporting activities. Other socioeconomic effects are described in EIS Section 4.12. 79(SR545) Summary Comment: We view the C-aquifer pipeline as a significant benefit not only to the Village of Kykotsmovi and the entire Hopi Reservation. The continued mining of coal from the Black Mesa mines will provide a major source of revenue for the Hopi Tribe and the Hopi villages. Services delivered by the Villages to individual members are paid for using these revenues. In addition, the Tribe and the villages will benefit greatly by having an additional source of water on the Hopi Reservation for municipal, commercial and industrial development. This is an opportunity that we will not likely see happen again and therefore the Village of Kykotsmovi strongly supports this important initiative. Summary Response: Comments noted. 79(SR547) Summary Comment: Where in the EIS does it discuss money to pay for piping water to local people? Summary Response: The Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation would have an option to pay the incremental costs of increasing water production from the C aquifer and increasing the size of the water-supply pipeline; however, as stated in the EIS, the construction of these water-distribution systems is not currently proposed and is not analyzed in this EIS. 79(SR548) Summary Comment: The town of Kayenta did not economically benefit from the mining. In the last thirty years we haven’t gotten a decent hospital or an adequate shopping center. Our stores are very small. Summary Response: Comment noted. The decision whether or not and when these benefits have or would be provided rests with the Navajo Nation government. 79(SR549) Summary Comment: Can some of the royalties stay in the community for emergency purpose and scholarship for our children and grandchildren? Summary Response: The decision on how the revenue is allocated rests with the governments. 79(SR550) Summary Comment: Following closure and reclamation of the Black Mesa Complex, the Navajo Nation would gain access to an additional 6.000 af/yr of water, formerly used for project purposes at Black Mesa. OSM notes, in Section 4.11.1.3, a number of the social and economic benefits that the increased water supply would bring to the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. OSM does not, however, provide the information about water supply development necessary to help local residents make an informed decision regarding the positive and negative effects of C aquifer water extraction. OSM explains that the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation would be required to pay “the incremental costs of increasing water production from the C aquifer and increasing the size of the water-supply pipeline in anticipation of the potential future uses of the system for tribal purposes.” id, at 4-117. The. Draft EIS does not

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-125

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

suggest to readers what those costs would be. The economic contribution required by the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation might be substantial. Summary Response: It is correct that the costs to develop water distribution to local communities are not included in this EIS. As stated in the EIS Section 1.1, under Alternative A, the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation have proposed that the C aquifer water-supply system could be expanded to provide an additional 5,600 af/yr of water for tribal domestic, municipal, industrial, and commercial uses. Although this is not a part of Alternative A to meet the purpose of and need for the project, both tribes have indicated that upsizing the pipeline and expanding the well field of the system is an alternative that would fulfill the needs of both tribes to significantly expand and improve tribal water supplies at a relatively modest cost. Plans for the water-distribution systems have not been developed and the construction of these water-distribution systems are not currently proposed and are not analyzed in this EIS and would be the subject of future NEPA review processes, if and when appropriate. However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS and, under Alternative B, the C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed. 79(SR551) Summary Comment: A more critical omission is OSM’s failure to estimate the cost of replacing or reconstructing the C aquifer water-supply system in 2060, when the estimated 50-year life of the pipeline concludes. Summary Response: As stated above, plans for the water-distribution system have not been developed to allow estimating costs. 79(SR563) Summary Comment: If the wells dry up and there is no water for the animals, I do not have a living. I will lose my economic livelihood and must be compensated for moving off of the reservation. I would have to be compensated for certain things that are not currently part of my lifestyle, such as yearly property taxes. In addition, higher building codes would force me to buy water and electricity, which would require lifetime compensation. The present value of the corral, house, outhouse, and all improvements is $250,000. I am allowed due process for the taking of my land, water, and livelihood. My life is tied to the sheep, cows, horses, and the land. Summary Response: Comment noted. 79(SR567) Summary Comment: When the mine closed, it had a domino effect. Not only to miners, but the vendors were laid off, too, and money going into local businesses decreased. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 80: Social and economic conditions – Demographics and population 80(SR622) Summary Comment: All of these revenues that are coming in are not directly impacting the people that are there. There’s no...substantial capital improvement. There’s no running water, no electricity, no improvement of roadbeds, no public health facilities, no schools are close by. Summary Response: The Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation governments are responsible for capital improvements for the people living in the on their respective reservations. Category 81: Social and economic conditions – Employment and unemployment 81(SR553) Summary Comment: The economic argument offered on Page ES-16 is flawed since local residents are not hired and Peabody does not honor local preference in their hiring practices. Summary Response: Approximately 90 percent of Peabody employees at the Black Mesa Complex are Navajo. 81(SR555) Summary Comment: There should be an employment preference for the local/native people so there will be economic benefit for the local/native people. Summary Response: Approximately 90 percent of Peabody employees at the Black Mesa Complex are Navajo. 81(SR556) Summary Comment: I find it objectionable that a lot of our own tribal members have been laid off without employment preference [over non-members]. Summary Response: Approximately 90 percent of Peabody employees at the Black Mesa Complex are Navajo.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-126

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

81(SR557) Summary Comment: Mine provides work for young people (children and grandchildren) who will return to the reservation after they finish school. Summary Response: Comment noted. 81(SR558) Summary Comment: When the mining shut down, it left a lot of people unemployed. Summary Response: Comment noted. 81(SR560) Summary Comment: Keep the mine closed because it doesn’t provide employment for youth. Summary Response: Comment noted. 81(SR561) Summary Comment: We need jobs on the Navajo Nation because most of the Native Americans of Black Mesa have gone off to find jobs and unemployment is very high. Summary Response: Comment noted. 81(SR568) Summary Comment: Employment at the mine provides people with a better life. They have homes, transportation and their children are well educated. Summary Response: Comment noted. 81(SR569) Summary Comment: I want the mine to continue because it will provide future employment opportunities for my children and grandchildren. Summary Response: Comment noted. 81(SR570) Summary Comment: It is a fair amount of jobs, but nothing to really impact the local people, because people come from all around to take jobs that local people would take, and they throw trash along our roads and they run over our animals and our dogs, and stuff, and that is just not right. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 82: Social and economic conditions – Income 82(SR562) Summary Comment: We want to let Black Mesa Mine start back up because it supports individuals and the surrounding community. Some people don’t have coal to burn for heat and businesses within the mining area are suffering because people do not have as much money to spend. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 83: Social and economic conditions – Revenue 83(1189) Comment: The Black Mesa Project is an important economic development project that will benefit the Hopi Tribe by facilitating development of Hopi natural resources for the long-term welfare of the Hopi Tribe and its people. The Project will enable the Tribe to generate revenues necessary to support the continued delivery by the Tribe of essential governmental services for the benefit of the Tribe, its villages and the Hopi people in general. Response: Comment noted. 83(SR559) Summary Comment: Many of the workers displaced from the Black Mesa Mine’s closure have been reassigned to the Kayenta Mine, just north of Black Mesa, so it’s unclear exactly how many jobs have been affected. There has been no discernable impact to the tribes since the mine’s closure in December 2005. Summary Response: Comment noted. 83(SR571) Summary Comment: The Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe need royalties from the project to fund economic development. “The Project will enable the Tribe to generate revenues necessary to support the continued delivery by the Tribe of essential governmental services for the benefit of the Tribe, its villages and the Hopi people in general.” “The direct revenues that [the project] provides to the Hopi Tribe will help to improve the low standard of living and Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 M-127 Appendix M – Comments and Responses

impoverished conditions in the Hopi villages. In addition, the C-aquifer water supply system will provide the secure supply of additional water that is necessary for future economic growth and opportunity. Taken together, the economic benefits of the Project will allow the Tribal Government to continue providing for the general welfare of the Hopi people and facilitate Hopi Tribal investment in future economic development, including evolving clean coal technologies and renewable energy projects.” “The Black Mesa Project would provide jobs, revenue and economic benefits for the Tribes. Specifically, resuming operations at Black Mesa would create more than $53 million in new tribal revenue and increase revenues to the State of Arizona by $18 million annually, About 400 mining jobs would be restored and about 80 new jobs would be created.” “Shutting down the mines shouldn’t be an option because both tribes are suffering financially because of the cuts on their royalties (utilities, waterlines and Chapter programs have come to a halt).” Summary Response: Comment noted. 83(SR572) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not identify how much (royalties) would be paid to the tribes. Summary Response: The EIS provides this information in Section 3.11.2.4. 83(SR573) Summary Comment: Commenters are concerned that revenue going to the Navajo Nation does not benefit the local people. How are revenues distributed to provide assistance to local citizens? Summary Response: The distribution of revenues from mining activities paid to the governments of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation is under the purview of those governing bodies. This action is beyond the scope of this EIS. 83(SR574) Summary Comment: One-third of Hopi and one-sixth of Navajo’s governmental operating revenues come from royalties from the mine. Nonetheless, both tribes have other investments and draw some revenue from the federal government. There has been no discernable impact on the tribes since the mine’s closure in December 2005. Summary Response: The revenues of both tribes have been affected since the suspension of operations at the Black Mesa mining operation. Refer to EIS Section 4.11. 83(SR575) Summary Comment: Project EIS does not identify how much SRP and other owners including Peabody is earning in
 Federal tax breaks and/or credits. 
 Summary Response: Information about supposed Federal tax breaks and/or credits is beyond the scope of this EIS. 
 Category 84: Social and economic conditions – Fiscal conditions 84(SR576) Summary Comment: Put a price on the water usage (as comparable to the market value of water). 
 Summary Response: Section 3.11.2.4 presents information on the water royalty payments Peabody has paid to both
 the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation in accordance with the lease agreements. 
 84(SR577) Summary Comment: The unfair bargaining practices between Peabody and the tribes is estimated to have resulted in a $600 million loss to the Navajo. Approval of a life-of-mine permit for Peabody will further these losses. Summary Response: Comment noted. 84(SR583) Summary Comment: Native Americans should not have to subsidize Peabody with their water since the coal-slurry pipeline exists only because groundwater is essentially free to Peabody. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 86: Social and economic conditions – Health care (services) 86(1190) Comment: President Shirley does not even assist people living in the Black Mesa area. Some of the royalties should come back to the local people here to use for medical reasons, and related situations. Response: Comment noted.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-128

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 88: Environmental justice 88(975) Comment: Who is going to benefit from the substation? Will our community benefit from this? We certainly lack infrastructure here in Leupp. I understand that this is not in your study. Response: Local distribution of electricity is the responsibility of the Navajo Tribal Utilities Authority. 88(976) Comment: I am writing to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Black Mesa Project. I have been a resident of Black Mesa for 35 years. When Peabody’s mine first began we were promised that the land would be reclaimed to itts original landscape, grazing woiuld be provided, water and coal would be made available at all times. Since that time, the land has not been usable, rolling hills and kentucky bluegrass was planted for reclamation, The springs have dried up, fences have divided familys, sink holes have appeared and the water is unfit to drink. Your new proposal will have a devastating effect to the other communitys in the same way. Response: OSM is responsible for ensuring that all mine lands are reclaimed following cessation of mining. 88(1037) Comment: This is not only an environmental issue. It is also a sovereinity issue. The Hopi and Navajo have a right to use the water on their place of residence. If they siphoned water from underneath corporate property, they would be called thieves. Response: Comment noted. 88(1039) Comment: My family, as well as tribe, have been negatively impacted by Peabody coal corporation, and the policies that have allowed for the exploitation of my families’ homeland. I’m from the Black Mesa area. I vote at the Forest lake Chapter house, and can testify to the violations that have been commited by Peabody Coal, the BLM( Bureau of Land Management) and other governmental agencies. They have failed to pay proper royalty rates, leaked contaminates, mined outside of thier permit area, destoyed sacred sites, misled the public on the irreversible damage done to the NA aquifer, as well as caused traumatic stress upon the Navajo culture and way of life. The benefits are miniscule, in comparison to these atrocities that would not be tolerated in your own community Mr. Winterringer. Response: Comment noted. 88(1041) Comment: Water was that much important for Hopi and Navajo. Because of all these lobbies and corrupted politics, even U.S. government took Peabody’s side. Public Law 93531 and Senate Bill 1003 are few of the evidences of the incessant ties between Peabody and the U.S. government. Senate Bill 1003 let the mining companies to achieve continual legal right on Navajo and Hopi lands, under what is termed the “Life of the Mine” decree. Public Law 93531, also known as Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act, is resulted in the destruction of a Navajo and Hopi people. Response: Comment noted. 88(1042) Comment: Impacts on human communities directly affected by the proposal would be enormous. Concerning past Black Mesa mining activities, the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights has spoken out and this remains the only instance of the United States being internationally investigated for violation of the freedom of religious practice. The European Union has also called on the US to stop its human rights violations at Black Mesa. Response: Comment noted. 88(1043) Comment: The draft EIS, a 758-page document, spends just over three pages on environmental justice consequences. Rather than use that scant attention to identify and address environmental justice concerns, the draft EIS makes qualitative statements of the benefits of permit approval to tribal populations. In this way OSM avoids identifying and addressing environmental justice, a conspicuous omission in light of 35 years of controversy, and a violation of its trust responsibilities. A revealing example is OSM's review of N-aquifer withdrawals. OSM spends a total of seventy-three words to describe the environmental justice consequences of sole reliance on the N-aquifer at increased rates. The following comprises OSM’s entire discussion: “If the N aquifer were used as the sole water supply, the continuing and increased use of the N-aquifer wells by the Black Mesa Complex would37 Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act 15-16 (1997), available at http://ceq.eh.doe.govinepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf. 38 Drawdown; see, also, 512 DM 2 (need to

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-129

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

identify rationale for recommended decision and explain how decision is consistent with Department's trust responsibility). result in continued concern that withdrawing water from the N aquifer for mine-related purposes would interfere with water use for grazing, agriculture, and domestic wells. Almost all of the use of the N aquifer other than by the Black Mesa Complex is by the American Indian population.” These seventy-three words an environmental justice analysis does not make, and represent a clear violation of NEPA and implementing regulations on environmental justice, EO 12898, and the Department of Interior's trust responsibilities. Response: Because of the controversy surrounding the use of N-aquifer water by the mining operation, Section 4.12.1.3.2 of the Draft EIS and Final EIS accurately states that there would be continued concern about use of the N aquifer if it is the sole source of water for mine-related purposes under Alternative A. Section 4.4.1.5.2 divulges the impacts to the water supply that would occur as the result of this scenario. 88(1044) Comment: I can thus only imagine that it must have cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce this 750-page abomination, full of full-color glossy photographs and misleading diagrams about how much aquifer water runs beneath the ground at Big Mountain/Black Mesa, without explaining how little of it is accessible, or why Peabody Coal must use only the most –-i.e., only, without great technological expense – –accessible water there. The hundreds of millions of dollars that I must believe went into producing this document should have gone to the communities ravaged by years of coal mining, coal slurrying, and filthy coal-fired power produced by the dirtiest coal-fired plant in this country, a plant that even the current EPA felt compelled to close for pollution violations. These hundreds of millions of dollars that must have gone into researching, writing, producing, printing, and distributing all these abominable lies, in 750 pages with full color glossy diagrams and photos, could and should have instead gone to the Hopi and DinA(c) Navajo people to build their solar farm and begin to rebuild their communities. That would be a worthwhile, and sustainable use of our federal tax dollars. Response: This EIS is a response to Peabody’s application to revise the mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex. Consideration of energy conservation and development of alternative energy sources is outside the scope of this EIS. However, alternative energy sources and energy efficiency were addressed in a separate study conducted in accordance with California Public Utilities Commission Decision 04-12-016, issued December 2, 2004. The study evaluates potential alternatives to, or complementary energy resources form the Mohave Generating Station (EIS Section 2.4.6).OSM, in coordination with the cooperating agencies, directed the preparation of the EIS. The preparation of the EIS was funded privately, rather than with Federal monies. 88(SR580) Summary Comment: The Anglos must stop exploiting the resources of the Indian people. It is reprehensible to sacrifice the cultures, and even the lives, of traditional tribal and rural peoples to satisfy the uncontrolled energy consumption of a politically dominant group. It is shameful and wrong for Anglos to take for their own use and give nothing back to the people impacted. Focus your attention on alternative energies that can benefit both Indian and Anglo populations. Summary Response: Comment noted. 88(SR582) Summary Comment: Native residents opposed to the project have been treated unjustly and have not been listened to. Summary Response: Comment noted. 88(SR583) Summary Comment: Native Americans should not have to subsidize Peabody with their water since the coal-slurry pipeline exists only because groundwater is essentially free to Peabody. Summary Response: Comment noted. 88(SR584) Summary Comment: Taking water for mining is taking life from the Navajo and Hopi people. Summary Response: Comment noted. 88(SR585) Summary Comment: Local people feel left out of the decision-making processes that have taken place between the 
 Agencies and the Navajo Government. 
 Summary Response: Comment noted. 


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-130

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

88(SR595) Summary Comment: It is unacceptable that this proposal could further the termination of indigenous cultural existence. Summary Response: Comment noted. 88(SR596) Summary Comment: The mine benefits people outside the mine area, but the people living on the mine area are absorbing a disproportionate amount of its negative impacts and are not economically benefiting, either. Summary Response: Comment noted. Refer to Section 3.11.2.4 for discussions on the economic benefits to the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation as a result of mining activities. 88(SR598) Summary Comment: The EIS should include the unsettling history between OSM and the Native peoples, who have not always been dealt within an honest fashion. Summary Response: This EIS is a response to Peabody’s application to revise the mining plans for the Black Mesa Complex. 88(SR599) Summary Comment: This project is an environmental justice issue for the entire country, not just for Black Mesa residents, because the proposal calls for nonrenewable energy. Summary Response: Comment noted. 88(SR601) Summary Comment: The water in the area should be for local Navajo and Hopi people’s use, who can’t afford to lose it or they will lose their traditional lifestyles. Summary Response: Comment noted. 88(SR602) Summary Comment: The water in the area should be for local people’s use, who can’t afford to loose it, and the tribal government has no right to allocate local people’s water. Summary Response: Comment noted. 88(SR603) Summary Comment: The water in the Winslow area should be for local people’s use, who can’t afford to lose it. The mine has no benefit for the people of Winslow. Summary Response: Comment noted. 88(SR604) Summary Comment: The EIS imposes injustices on community members, livestock, traditional cultural resources, and traditional lifeways. It also takes away drinking water. Summary Response: Comment noted. 88(SR605) Summary Comment: The EIS was intentionally released in such a way as to silence opposition. Summary Response: The EIS was released to the public and affected agencies through a variety of means to ensure opportunities for participation by affected individuals and agencies. The original comment period of 60 days was extended twice and OSM continued to accept comments for more than one year following the closure of the comment period. Refer to EIS Chapter 5. 88(SR606) Summary Comment: If the mine uses the water, I would be forced to drive to get water. This will cause more expense on my vehicle as the primitive dirt roads will cause more wear and tear on my vehicle plus gasoline expense. Summary Response: Modeling indicates that adequate groundwater would be available for both mining and other customary uses. Should local wells be affected, Peabody would deepen the wells or provide a source of water for customary uses. 88(SR607) Summary Comment: The EIS does not adequately address environmental justice concerns. OSM’s analysis of environmental justice leaves out information that is critical to determine whether these disproportionately high and adverse effects have occurred or will occur and also fails to consider the cumulative environmental justice impacts Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 M-131 Appendix M – Comments and Responses

of mining at Black Mesa. For example, OSM documents the positive response of the communities to economic inputs, but fails to identify the community structures that could prevent an economic crisis when coal production ends. Additionally, an adequate consideration of environmental justice impacts in not possible absent of research into the baseline considerations of the affected populace. Summary Response: Information regarding the social and economic conditions of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation, as it pertains to this project, can be found in Sections 3.11 and 4.11 (socioeconomics) and in Sections 3.13 and 4.13 (Indian trust assets) in addition to the environmental justice sections (3.12 and 4.12) to which the commenter refers. 88(SR608) Summary Comment: OSM fails to consider the impacts of air pollution on the affected local populations. Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 and the CEQ’s guidance on environmental justice within NEPA, OSM must provide a more thorough analysis of the relationship between fugitive dust, particulate matter, and incidence of asthma among local populations. Summary Response: Comment is too general in nature to provide anything more than a general response. Pollutants from the mine are generally of two types, PM10 and NOx emissions. Projected impacts from emissions of these pollutants are discussed in the EIS Section 4.6.3.3. Emission control activities at the mine site are described in the EIS, section 4.6.3.3.1. The Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Black Mesa Project EIS contains a thorough description of emission control activities. 88(SR609) Summary Comment: Property rights were violated as people were not told about taking away land, water, and water rights. Summary Response: The comment lacks specific information. OSM has notified the public about the project and the Black Mesa Project EIS through newspaper notices, radio broadcasts, public meetings, and over the internet. In addition, media releases were sent to newspapers and radio stations. OSM’s radio broadcasts were in English, Navajo, and Hopi and translators were available at all public meetings. The Executive Summary of the EIS was translated into Hopi and Navajo and recorded in a video presentation that was available for viewing in Hopi villages and Navajo Chapter Houses. OSM is not aware of any violations of property rights. 88(SR610) Summary Comment: International Human Rights Law behooves OSM to do everything in its power to safeguard Black Mesa water. The United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms the rights of indigenous peoples “to strengthen their distinctive spiritual and material relationship with the lands, territories, [and] waters...which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations.” Please let human rights be respected in all development projects, including rights to territories and resources, to culture and knowledge, and to internal and external self-determination, based on free, prior and informed consent. Summary Response: Comment noted. 88(SR611) Summary Comment: The tribal governments do not represent the local people, and the tribal government is receiving benefit at the cost of the local people. Summary Response: Comment noted. 88(SR612) Summary Comment: We’ve been informed that we receive money from Peabody; however, we don’t receive the money here. Summary Response: Peabody pays taxes and royalties to the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe. Distribution of those revenues is outside the purview of OSM. 88(SR614) Summary Comment: This project would have serious and long-lasting negative effects on the lands the net environmental integrity of the Navajo Nation, Additionally, these plans do not consider the social implications that will arise as a result. These include but are not limited to relocation of effected Navajo families, and the destruction of a fragile ecosystem. Summary Response: The comment is not specific in how the commenter feels the EIS is insufficient. The EIS addresses the effects referred to.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-132

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

88(SR616) Summary Comment: What would happen in the future when one of the tribal members asks for water? Commonly we are ask to show proof of a permit and also asked whether people who live around agree with you to receive water to your area. This proposed project is similar Peabody request by application to OSM for water; it is up to OSM to approve or disapprove the request. Summary Response: The comment is unclear. 88(SR617) Summary Comment: Three of the environmental justice topics that have not been adequately analyzed are the social and economic impacts of mine closure, the provision of water and electricity to local communities, and the impacts of particulate matter on the health of local residents. Summary Response: The effects of mine closure is addressed in EIS Section 4.11. The provision of water and electricity is beyond the scope of this EIS. The potential effects of particulate matter and health issues is addressed in EIS Section 4.6.6. 88(SR625) Summary Comment: Listen to those directly affected by mining to ensure that economic, social, and environmental justice concerns are thoroughly and equitably considered. Summary Response: Comment noted. 88(SR828) Summary Comment: Consideration of the current as opposed to the pre-mining environment as a baseline for impact assessment is wrong. Summary Response: The impacts of the proposed project were assessed using the current condition of the environment as the baseline by which to compare. 88(SR1191) Summary Comment: This letter is in adamant protest to Peabody Corporation’s planned and continued exploitation of Navajo land and people. Peabody Corporation has sustained a legacy of fear, removal, disease and maltreatment of the Navajo Nation. Reminiscent of nearly all Native peoples, the Navajo have remained a target of the U.S. government for hundreds of years. Attacked by the U.S. government, the Navajo have had to endure genocide, forced removal and relocation, constant attempts at cultural and religious eradication, boarding schools, diseases, and economic, political, physical, cultural and psychological exploitation.’ Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 89: Indian trust assets 89(977) Comment: By the Treaty obligations We have with the Natives , it would be a breach of thee agreements to allow contamination of their water supply . Response: 20 years of monitoring have not indicated any contamination of the aquifer by mining activities. 89(SR626) Summary Comment: The U.S. Department of the Interior must legally fulfill its obligation and trust responsibility (which “obligates the federal government to protect tribal interests, especially when the government exercises control over natural resources on tribal lands.”) Summary Response: The Department of the Interior is and will continue to fulfill its obligation and trust responsibility. 89(SR628) Summary Comment: Peabody is supposed to replace that water, that amount that they have used from the beginning of mining until now, the amount of water, the same quality and quantity. Where is it? Why haven’t you [OSM] – you have the sole responsibility – Trust responsibility on us, but yet you haven’t pushed that on this company. Summary Response: A SMCRA regulation requires that “Any person who conducts surface mining activities shall replace the water supply of an owner of interest in real property who obtains all or part of his or her supply of water for domestic, agricultural, or other legitimate use from an underground or surface source, where the water supply has been adversely impacted by contamination, diminution, or interruption proximately resulting from the surface mining activities” (30 CFR 816.41(h)). Peabody’s use of N-aquifer water has not contaminated, diminished, or interrupted the water supply. Peabody has leases from the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation to use the amount of water

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-133

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

necessary for its mining operations. Under the terms of the leases, Peabody compensates the tribes for the water it uses. 89(SR629) Summary Comment: We’ve found out that the main reason these people want the water from under our land is because it is the best quality and quantity of water in northern Arizona, the Black Mesa Basin. It is the Navajo and Hopi’s land but because of the treaty we have with the Federal Government, the “in trust” situation, the government thinks it can make all of the decisions about land and water for us. But we know we can think for ourselves and we do not want our land turned into a path for a pipeline, taking our water. Summary Response: Comment noted. 89(SR630) Summary Comment: The BIA has trust responsibility to protect us but they are the ones that have dismantled our water resources. Reintroduction of native species of plants is not done and inadequate, Reclamation is inadequate, reclaimed areas are improperly sloped, non-native species are the only ones that grow, if at all. The reclaimed lands remain idle, unfit for return to the people. Summary Response: Peabody’s reclamation plan is designed for the semi-arid environment and revegetated areas currently support viable plant communities and a diversity of wildlife. As explained in EIS Appendix A, beginning on page A-1-17, Peabody has developed a plan in the permit application for establishing a reclaimed landscape that would minimize erosion and support post-mining land uses. The revegetation plan has been developed to meet the requirements of 30 CFR 816. Revegetation success standard and their evaluation are structured to meet the criteria of 30 CFR 816.111 and 816.116. Standards are based on a combination of native reference areas and approved technical standards that reflect environmental site conditions, ecological considerations, and post-mining land uses. The criteria for evaluation follow both 30 CFR 816 requirements and other Federal guidelines and address parameters of cover, production, woody density, and diversity. SMCRA requires that the land be reclaimed successfully. The comment is not specific as to the basis of any failure. Peabody has conducted annual vegetation monitoring for over 20 years at the Black Mesa Complex including both random sampling and monitoring of over 75 permanent transects. Data from this comprehensive monitoring program demonstrate successful revegetation. Further, there have been two successful Termination of Jurisdiction releases and a Phase II bond release application which could only occur with successful revegetation. Successful grazing programs on reclaimed lands began in 1998 and the level has increased every year since then. Annual vegetation and reclamation monitoring reports demonstrate these results and are held by OSM as part of the public record. Category 90: Visual resources 90(SR632) Summary Comment: There will be a loss of aesthetic and economic value of the area, as tanks and transmission lines will obstruct views and change the character of the land. Summary Response: Comment noted. 90(SR635) Summary Comment: We still have the aesthetic visual from the past and want to keep it that way for our own health. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 91: Transportation 91(SR23) Summary Comment: An application that proposes to conduct surface coal mining activities within 100 feet of a public road or within 300 feet of an occupied dwelling must meet the requirements of Section 761.14 or Section 761.15 of this chapter respectively. Crushing coal in a ball mill and conveyance is a surface coal mining activity. Washing of coal is also a coal surface mining activity. The permit premises is within 100 feet of a public paved and dirt road. Summary Response: The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 761 prohibit surface coal mining operations within 100 feet, measured horizontally, of the outside right-of-way of any public road unless Peabody has valid existing rights or has obtained a waiver from OSM. The closest public road to the Black Mesa Complex existing crushing coal-crushing facility, proposed coal-washing plant, and existing coal-slurry preparation plant is Bureau of Indian Affairs road N-41. This road is located well over 100 feet away from all of these operations.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-134

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

91(SR636) Summary Comment: Our dirt road is destroyed due to more vehicles traveling that road we used and random pile of dirt near the water source. We were told that the land would be restored to its original state. Summary Response: If the disturbances were a part of the surface coal mining operations, the disturbances would have to be controlled and reclaimed according to the SMCRA regulations. If the disturbances were indirectly caused by the mining operations, the SMCRA regulations do not apply, but there may be governmental entities that are responsible for maintaining the road and related disturbances. Category 92: Recreation 92(SR637) Summary Comment: There is also going to be a loss recreational value of the area. Painting tanks a certain color will not diminish their interference with free movement upon the land for activities such as hiking, running, and horseback riding. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 93: Health and safety 93(979) Comment: Furthermore, it will undermine the water security for many communities in northern Arizona, including those that are already underserved on the Navajo and Hope reservations. Response: Groundwater modeling indicates that there would be adequate water for both mining through 2026 and continued municipal uses. 93(SR51) Summary Comment: The old slurry pipe is a potential 283-mile-long bomb if they don’t take it out.
 Summary Response: BMPI, the owner and operator of Black Mesa coal-slurry pipeline will ensure that the pipeline 
 is purged of any remaining coal fines, which are inert and nontoxic (EIS Appendix A pages A-2-15 and A-2-16).
 The pipeline then would be capped and abandoned in place. Removal of the pipeline would result in greater surface
 disturbance and increased environmental impact. 
 93(SR588) Summary Comment: Because of this project, the DinA(c) will not have enough water to drink in the future. Summary Response: Groundwater modeling indicates that there would be adequate water for both mining through 2026 and continued customary uses. 93(SR638) Summary Comment: We are experiencing tornadoes, great winds, intense heat from the sun, high rates of skin cancer, black lung, lung cancer, silicosis, high rates of kidney failure, diabetes, depression, repression, and poverty. Summary Response: Comment noted. Refer to EIS Section 4.6.5 regarding dust and health-related issues. 93(SR639) Summary Comment: The people that are living in the area are impacted by the dust and the smoke. 
 Summary Response: Dispersion modeling of PM10 and NO2 impacts from the proposed mining activities are 
 conservatively shown to be below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Refer to the EIS Section 4.6.6 for a 
 discussion of dust and health-related issues. 
 93(SR643) Summary Comment: When they drill, the whole earth shook. Summary Response: Comment noted. 93(SR644) Summary Comment: Coal mining has resulted in physical and psychological health problems in the residents of the surrounding communities. Summary Response: Comment noted. 93(SR646) Summary Comment: Mining operations are causing cancer, respiratory problems, such as silicosis, asthma and coughing. Summary Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.6.5 for a discussion regarding dust and health-related issues.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-135

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

93(SR647) Summary Comment: Residents’ medical conditions warrant electricity, running water and the repair of the one-mile stretch of dirt road we live on extending from Peabody Water Well 9 to our residences, as it is impassable for weeks at a time which can prevent emergency medical rescue. Summary Response: Comment noted. 93(SR653) Summary Comment: The people of Black Mesa are psychologically and emotionally distraught, depressed and long for our untainted homestead we love dearly; piñon and juniper berry picking area, memories cut short of paternal and maternal grandparents grazing land under gray overburden and pollutions strained vegetation. Summary Response: Comment noted. 93(SR654) Summary Comment: In relation to relocations and health the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights notes that, in indigenous communities, the health of the individuals is often linked to the health of the society as a whole and has a collective dimension. In this respect, the Committee considers that development related activities that lead to the displacement of indigenous peoples against their will from their traditional territories and environment, denying them their sources of nutrition and breaking their symbolic relationship with their lands, has a deleterious effect on their health. Summary Response: As noted in the EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.11.1.1 (Draft EIS, pages 4-88, 4-108), 17 Navajo residences (families) on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled out of the areas to be mined, which are within the leased areas. In this case, the leases are between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when resettling of residences due to mining activities becomes apparent, Peabody works with the Navajo Nation. These households would have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time. OSM has no authority over the coal-mining leases and, therefore, has no decision authority over resettling residences. As stated in the EIS Section 4.9.1.3.1, under Alternative A, approximately 55 residences exist within the C-aquifer well field. Although residences would be avoided during the development of the well field, access to residences or associated use areas may be disrupted during short-term construction activities. Wells would be dispersed within the well field, spaced about 1.2 to 1.5 miles apart, and each well would require approximately 0.06 acre of permanent right-of-way for a well pad and associated equipment. A spur road to access each well would be needed and the pipeline from each well would be buried in the spur road. 93(SR657) Summary Comment: When they were drilling around us the noise from the machine was unbearable. They would add pebbles to the mixture and our homes were laden with white powder for a while. When they drilled the well the earth would tremble sending vibration through [and] causing things to fall in our homes. This is not right. Summary Response: Comment noted. 93(SR658) Summary Comment: Native Peoples are suffering from kidney diseases due to lack of water. Summary Response: Comment noted. 93(SR978) Summary Comment: The noise from the mining activities including blasting is affecting our hearing and our health in general. Summary Response: Section 4.14.1.1 and 4.14.2.1 in the EIs discuss noise from the mining activities including blasting. The combined increase in blasting signals, blasting, and truck activity for Alternative A is estimated to increase about 1 to 2 decibels in location that are considered quiet, a minor to moderate impact, since a change of 3 decibels is considered the limit of detection for the average human ear. Blasting an truck activity will not increase from existing levels for Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-136

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 94: Health and safety –Safety policies, procedures, and enforcement 94(980) Comment: There is insufficient Enforcement and Inspection occurring at the Black Mesa Complex of mine prescribed safety and environs protection measures. Response: OSM conducts 50 inspections per calendar year at the Black Mesa Complex. Of these, 34 are planned as complete inspections, meaning that all performance standards required by SMCRA are reviewed, and 16 are planned as partial inspections, meaning that not all performance standards are reviewed. An inspector usually spends at least 3 full days on the mine complex when conducting a complete inspection and one or two days conducting a partial inspection. Therefore, in any given year, OSM inspectors are present on the Black Mesa Complex a total of at least 118 person-days. This is sufficient inspection of mining and reclamation activities at the Black Mesa Complex to identify any problems as they occur and require correction to ensure environmental protection. 94(1074) Comment: Another thing Dine [people] work under unsafe conditions. Many people have died because of unsafe working conditions. People gather fuel a few feet within blasting zones. If the mine is to re-open we request enclosure like P M mine near Window Rock, Arizona, they’re safety conscious and not let people within the mining proximity. Response: Safe mining operations are guided by OSHA requirements. People who are not associated with mining operations should not be accessing the mine site due to safety issues. 94(SR655) Summary Comment: I want to see the mine re-open, but it needs to be enclosed by a security at the gate to allow inside only those who work there in order to tighten safety at the mine. Summary Response: Comment noted. 94(SR659) Summary Comment: When the mine was open, they would blast whenever they needed to but people would be collecting firewood nearby. The mine needs to be fenced off. Summary Response: Peabody follows strict procedures, required by the OSM, and contained in the Permit Application Package, to ensure people are kept a safe distance away from blasting areas. 94(SR660) Summary Comment: There is a problem with coal fires in the strip mines, the open pit mines and the open storage piles. The mine doesn’t have a procedure to put them out. This must be addressed in the Draft EIS. Summary Response: Peabody is required to extinguish coal fires in the within 24 hours of discovery. Peabody also has a procedure in the Permit Application Package to extinguish spoil fires. 94(SR664) Summary Comment: The EIS does not identify how OSM will enforce air quality standards. Summary Response: OSM is not the agency that enforces air quality standards. The USEPA and NNEPA are the federal agencies responsible for enforcing the Clean Air Act within the Navajo Nation. The USEPA and various state and local agencies are the agencies responsible for enforcing the Act off the reservation. The myriad of statutes and implementing regulations are not part of the scope of the EIS and are too voluminous to describe here. Category 95: Health and safety –Hazards and contaminants 95(983) Comment: Other evidence of sinkholes is uranium coming out of breccia pipes which also issues forth radioactive water and uranium (Billingsley, G., Wenrich, K., Huntoon, P., (2000). From Fellows, L., (2001). Energy Resources in Arizona, Figure 3, A “Areas with coal deposits are shown in brown. Breccia-pipe uranium deposits may be present within the area shown in yellow. Orange-colored areas have low-to-moderate temperature ground water.” Leupp and the C aquifer Well Field have the potential for breccia pipes including uranium. There is uranium in the water at Dry Well north of Leupp Arizona which is a cancer risk according to JJ CLACS & Company (2005) page 43. More evidence for uranium is from Hoffmann, J.P., Bills, D.J., Phillips, J.V., and Halford, K.J., 2006 page 28 Table 6 and page 29. If the C aquifer Wells start up they will stir up uranium and radioactivity destroying the C aquifer in this area. A radiation spill at the Black Mesa Mine would cause environmental hazards beyond belief. Where I live in Doney Park near Flagstaff, Arizona the water radioactivity is 5 pico-curies per liter. The water company tried to filter the radiation, but that caused them to fall under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and more regulation. This evidence of breccia pipes and sinkholes in the C aquifer Well Field that extend into the Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 M-137 Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Redwall Limestone. All the water models are not valid for this area. Has the Nuclear Regulatory Commission been contacted? Response: Groundwater from the C aquifer well field test wells contains small amounts of uranium and other radionuclides, which are a natural component of some geologic units in the area. Radionuclide concentrations are below the USEPA maximum contaminant levels for drinking water. The potential area of “capture” of groundwater by the well field was defined by a particle tracking analysis using the groundwater flow model. The modeled “capture” area of the C-Aquifer well field is relatively small and does not extend as far north as Leupp. While located in a general area of possible breccia pipe development, no breccia pipes are known to exist within the capture area. 95(SR665) Summary Comment: The disposal of wash water and ultra-fine refuse into the unified coal pits that sit above the N aquifer would have adverse effects on both the land and the ground water. Summary Response: The impacts of the coal-washing facility, which would be operated by Peabody, are addressed in the EIS Section 4.4.1.1.2.1. Peabody has revised Chapter 18, Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) in the LOM application and submitted responses in September 2005 and April 2006 to OSM technical comments that are directly related to assessments of the hydrologic impacts of plans to dispose of coal-washing plant refuse. In addition, Peabody submitted responses to OSM in April 2006 that addressed the USEPA’s technical comments on coal-washing plant disposal plans and impact assessments. The revised PHC, Peabody’s responses to agency technical comments, and plans for operating the coal-washing plant presented in the LOM and summarized in the EIS adequately demonstrate that no significant impacts on local aquifers or surface water sources would occur as a result of refuse disposal, and applicable Federal regulations would be adhered to. However, the coal-washing facility is a component of Alternative A, which is no longer the proposed project. Under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative, the coal-washing facility would nt be constructed. 95(SR666) Summary Comment: Whenever there is mining activity going on, there will be side effects such as dust and noise, but if the operators of the mine comply with all environmental laws and regulations, many of these problems will be eliminated. Summary Response: Peabody is required to adhere to all Federal regulations. 95(SR667) Summary Comment: The coal slurry pipeline will leak, as it is only designed to last 30 years, as it has in the past. Summary Response: This issue is addressed in the EIS at A-2-13 to 16. 95(SR668) Summary Comment: The water in the project area is being contaminated by the coal. 
 Summary Response: Peabody has conducted an extensive hydrologic monitoring program for over 25 years. The 
 results of that program are closely reviewed by OSM. There is no indication coal is contaminating water in and
 surrounding the mines. 
 95(SR669) Summary Comment: More pipelines will contaminate washes. Summary Response: This issue is addressed in the EIS at A-2-13 to 16. 95(SR670) Summary Comment: There is a plan to build a railroad from Winslow to the lower plateau by Cameron on the north
 side, but this is all a uranium belt right where the railroad tracks are that goes all the way up to the silo in Black 
 Mesa. 
 Summary Response: Building a railroad is beyond the scope of the Black Mesa Project. 
 95(SR673) Summary Comment: When the coal seams are disturbed chemicals are released into the environment, kicking up the toxic dust. Summary Response: Chemical analyses of the coal indicate very low concentrations of certain metals that could be considered toxic. In addition, Peabody practices extensive dust control, including watering coal while it is being loaded to minimize dust. Comment is too general in nature to warrant a response. Pollutants from the mine are generally of two types, PM10 and NOx emissions. Projected impacts from emissions of these pollutants are discussed in EIS Section 4.6.3.3. Emission control activities at the mine site are described in EIS Section 4.6.3.3.1.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-138

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

The Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Black Mesa Project EIS contains a thorough description of emission control activities. Category 96: Health and safety –Hazards and contaminants –Blasting 96(984) Comment: When we wake up in the morning the horizon is thick with dust from overnight operation of drag lines that remove the top layers of earth to expose the coal. Blasting is frequent and frightening. Response: Comment noted. 96(SR680) Summary Comment: Peabody is not a good neighbor to the local people because there was night-time blasting and overloaded explosives to produce cannonballs. Summary Response: Alleged night-time blasting was investigated by OSM as a result of a citizen’s complaint. No evidence of night-time blasting was found. Peabody’s blasting plan specifically prohibits night-time blasting. 96(SR681) Summary Comment: The limestone layer is a very hard rock thereby when it’s being blasted it can kill livestock. Summary Response: No limestone exists in the Wepo formation - the formation containing the coal seams. Peabody’s blasting plan contains precautions to control fly- rock caused by blasting. 96(SR682) Summary Comment: Bombing or blasting might knock residents off part of the canyon; they might have to move and they wouldn’t be compensated in this case. Summary Response: Peabody’s blasting plan contains precautions to control ground vibration and air overpressure shock caused by blasting to protect residents and residential structures. Monitors are in place to monitor every blast to ensure compliance with the plan. 96(SR683) Summary Comment: Dynamite blasting has caused cracks in people’s homes. Summary Response: Peabody’s blasting plan contains precautions to control ground vibration and air overpressure shock caused by blasting to protect residents and residential structures. Monitors are in place to monitor every blast to ensure compliance with the plan. Peabody’s blasting plan contains precautions to control ground vibration and air overpressure shock caused by blasting to protect residents and residential structures. Monitors are in place to monitor every blast to ensure compliance with the plan. Category 97: Health and safety – Hazards and contaminants – Air quality 97(SR333) Summary Comment: Residents are concerned that the operation of the mine and coal-fired plants will affect human health due to reduced air quality. Summary Response: Dispersion modeling of PM10 and NO2 impacts from the proposed mining activities are conservatively shown to be below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Refer to the EIS Section 4.6.6 for a discussion regarding dust and health-related issues. Resuming operation of the Mohave Generating Station is beyond the scope of this EIS; however should operations be resumed, it would be required to achieve the air quality standards to comply with its permit. 97(SR341) Summary Comment: The project will cause asthma, breathing difficulties and respiratory illnesses such as silicosis (Black Lung). The EIS must address silicosis, which it does not currently, and another health survey of local residents to determine health impacts must be undertaken. Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Section 4.6.6 for discussion of fugitive dust and health-related issues. 97(SR343) Summary Comment: The project has and will continue to create coal dust, which gets into the air causing breathing and other health serious problems. Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Section 4.6.6 for discussion of fugitive dust and health-related issues.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-139

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

97(SR344) Summary Comment: OSM has failed to enforce air quality standards at the Black Mesa Complex. Fires at the site have been reported, but no action was taken to put them out. This leaves a haze which leads to health problems such as asthma and black lung disease. Summary Response: It is the USEPA (and NNEPA on the Navajo Reservation), rather than OSM, that enforce air quality standards. Refer to the EIS Section 4.6.6. 97(SR345) Summary Comment: There must be a way around the health problems caused by poor air quality near the mine, as the economic benefits of continuing mine operations are important as well. Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Section 4.6.6 for discussion of fugitive dust and health-related issues. 97(SR346) Summary Comment: Coal mines and power plants in the Four Corners Region already release chemical toxins into the air that cause health problems for Navajo and Hopi people and others living in that region. Summary Response: Comment is too general in nature to provide a response. 97(SR347) Summary Comment: As a result of mine activities, the health of mine workers and local residents has been affected. 
 Additionally, a fine black dust gets everywhere: clothes, counter-tops, inside the barrels used to store drinking water.
 There are even black spots on the organs of butchered animals. 
 Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Section 4.6.6 for discussion of fugitive dust and health-related issues. 
 97(SR348) Summary Comment: Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 and the CE’s guidance on environmental justice within NEPA, OSM must provide a more thorough analysis of the relationship between fugitive dust, particulate matter, and incidence of asthma among residents. Summary Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.6.6 for a discussion regarding dust and health-related issues. 97(SR985) Summary Comment: The EIS fails to identify the illnesses that may affect the health of the local populations due to coal mine dust in the air. Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Section 4.6.6 for discussion of fugitive dust and health-related issues. Category 98: Health and safety –Hazards and contaminants –Traffic congestion and accidents 98(SR684) Summary Comment: Impacts of increased traffic on existing roads need to be adequately addressed. Fuel, lubricant, 
 and industrial solvent spills and run-off from roads and work sites could potentially contaminate already scarce 
 groundwater, soil, wildlife, livestock, plant and human communities. 
 Summary Response: Alternative A, which would have resulted in these increases, is no longer the proposed project. 
 Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS. 
 Category 101: Health and safety –Hazards and contaminants –Hazardous materials and wastes 101(SR56) Summary Comment: The risk of environmental contamination if the slurry pipeline were to break is too great. Summary Response: Comment noted. Refer to the EIS Appendix A-2, page A-2-13 through A-2-16, for a discussion of coal-slurry pipeline operation and maintenance, including pipeline releases. 101(SR170) Summary Comment: How are hazardous materials being taken care of at the mine? Livestock have gotten into them and died in the past, or drank from contaminated springs and died. Summary Response: Peabody is required to dispose of hazardous waste in accordance with the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). USEPA and NNEPA periodically inspect Peabody’s hazardous waste handling and disposal activities to ensure compliance with RCRA. All areas containing hazardous materials, including areas below truck wash facilities, are fenced to exclude livestock access to hazardous waste and contaminated water that has not yet been treated.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-140

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

101(SR186) Summary Comment: There should be a bond so that if something goes wrong [related to the C-aquifer water withdrawal], the bond would cover the damages. Summary Response: In accordance with 30 CFR 800.14, OSM requires a bond in the amount sufficient to assure completion of the reclamation plan if the work has to be performed by it in the event of bond forfeiture. 101(SR207) Summary Comment: Long-term damage has occurred to the Hopi sacred springs as a result of coal mining and related chemicals. Peabody has created long-term damage to local springs in the Wepo aquifer. Summary Response: The EIS notes that some Wepo Formation springs have been mined out. Locally, near the mine pits, water levels in the Wepo formation have dropped. Outside the permit area, the Wepo Formation and its water content remain essentially unaffected by the mining operation. Research of anthropological literature did not yield information about specific Hopi cultural activities at any of the Wepo springs. Hydrological modeling indicates that the impacts on springs and streams from continued pumping of the N aquifer or development of a new water supply from the C aquifer for mining purposes would be negligible (EIS Section 4.4.1.4 and 4.4.1.5 [Draft EIS pages 4-26 to 4-29, 4-32 to 4-37]). Water sources identified as having traditional cultural importance should not be adversely affected. 101(SR208) Summary Comment: There is uranium in the water at Dry Well north of Leupp, Arizona, which is a cancer risk. If the C aquifer wells start up, they will stir up this uranium and radioactivity, destroying the C aquifer in this area. See #153. Summary Response: Groundwater from the C aquifer wellfield test wells contain small amounts of uranium and other radionuclides, which are a component of some geologic units in the area. However, concentrations are below the USEPA maximum contaminant levels for drinking water. 101(SR685) Summary Comment: Page A-1-7, paragraph 2, last line states: “Emissions from the storage and use of magnetite, prior to becoming mixed with water, would be controlled by a bag house.” There is no further explanation of where the collected dust from the bag house is to be dumped and how it is to be contained after it is dumped. The map (Figure A-1) or process layout does not show any system for piping contaminated water runoff or any process for removing the collected dust from the magnetite bag house. Page A-1-10, paragraph 1 last line states, “No refuse piles or coalmine-waste impoundments are proposed.” 40 CFR 261, Sec. 266.112 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act does not specifically list magnetite as exempt from the designation of hazardous waste thereby requiring the application of those provisions in the RCRA to apply to the handling of magnetite waste. No such provision is apparent in the Refuse Disposal section of the EIS in question. Magnetite waste cannot be disposed of in unlined mine pits. Summary Response: Normal operation of a baghouse involves occasional purging of dust from the filter bags. This process is a reversal of the flow of air so that the dust is released from the bag and deposited into the bin or onto the belt from which it originated. The Black Mesa magnetite baghouse would be designed and operated in this manner. 101(SR686) Summary Comment: Further, the Draft EIS does not analyze the sufficiency of Peabody’s proposal to add 104 additional impoundments. In particular, there is simply no analysis of whether the requirements of SMCRA have or will be met by the installation of additional impoundments. 30 U.S.C. A§1265(b)(8). Given the ongoing problems with Peabody’s current impoundments, it must be concluded that the addition of yet more impoundments will compound ongoing environmental harm. OSM must address and analyze the impacts of these additional impoundments, as well as SMRCA performance standard compliance, in the Draft EIS. See e.g., 40 CFR A§1508.20. Summary Response: Chapter 15, Hydrologic Description, in the Black Mesa and Kayenta Mine PAP for Permit No. AZ0001D and Annual Hydrologic Data Reports submitted to OSM and other agencies annually provide a substantial amount of surface water data collected on Black Mesa since 1980 and has used this information to characterize the hydrologic functions of the major drainages (Chapter 15). The USGS has also monitored streamflow at select locations along Moekopi Wash downstream of the leasehold prior to and following 1980, and Peabody used much of this data in Chapter 15 to support the characterizations. Chapter 18, Probable Hydrologic Consequences in the Black Mesa and Kayenta Mine PAP for Permit No. AZ0001D provides analyses of both Peabody and USGS streamflow data to evaluate whether significant impacts to the prevailing hydrologic balance (including streamflow in the major drainages) will occur as a result of Peabody’s Black Mesa mining plans including the construction of temporary and

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-141

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

permanent impoundments. The analyses indicate that the impoundments constructed and planned for the LOM at Peabody’s Black Mesa leasehold will have no significant impact on surface water flows in receiving streams due to channel transmission losses and the nature of runoff in the Moenkopi drainage basin. 101(SR688) Summary Comment: Peabody’s Report also noted the leachate composition of the coal-processing waste indicates that leachate produced as a result off water infiltrating the waste material likely contains much higher concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, barium, mercury, selenium, vanadium, zinc nitrate and nitrate and nitrate concentrations than does natural groundwater in the vicinity of the J-23 and N6 Mining Areas. Peabody’s Report also concluded that while leaching may not occur within the life of the mine, leaching from the waste into groundwater would nonetheless occur and thus, the waste disposal would have an adverse impact on hydrologic balance and water quality. In fact, leaching from pit N-6 could occur as early as 25 years from the beginning of disposal. Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Appendix A, pages A-1-6 through A-1-10, for a discussion of the coalwashing facility including refuse disposal, and refer to Section 4.4.1.1.2.1, for a discussion of effects of coalwashing refuse disposal. Peabody has revised Chapter 18, Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) in the LOM application and submitted responses in September 2005 and April 2006 to OSM technical comments that are directly related to assessments of the hydrologic impacts of plans to dispose of coal-washing plant refuse. In addition, Peabody submitted responses to OSM in April 2006 that addressed the USEPA’s technical comments on coalwashing plant disposal plans and impact assessments. The revised PHC, Peabody’s responses to agency technical comments, and plans for operating the coal-washing plant presented in the LOM and summarized in the EIS adequately demonstrate that no significant impacts on local aquifers or surface water sources would occur as a result of refuse disposal, and applicable Federal regulations would be adhered to. Results of the Wash-Plant Refuse Disposal Hydrologic Impact Evaluation showed that potential downgradient concentrations of selected inorganic solutes may increase slightly in Wepo groundwater. Nearby alluvial wells, on the other hand, showed greater or near the same ambient concentrations as the modeling results for the Wepo aquifer. Although the model results indicate some increases in groundwater solute concentrations in the Wepo aquifer may occur, in general, the impact is small. The potential change in concentrations, in some cases, is within laboratory analytical error and within ambient concentration ranges of groundwater at the mine. 101(SR689) Summary Comment: Peabody’s proposal to dispose of coal-processing wastes also presents Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) compliance issues which not addressed by the Draft EIS or Peabody. As identified by Peabody’s Report, the coal-processing wastes contain hazardous wastes regulated under subtitle C of RCRA. 42 U.S.C. A§6903(5). Thus, these wastes must be regulated as hazardous wastes and disposed of in a RCRA compliant waste facility. Assuming arguendo OSM demonstrates post-hoc the absence of hazardous wastes, Peabody’s disposal operation is still subject to RCRA subtitle D. Subtitle D, among other things, prohibits open dumping of nonhazardous wastes, such as that being proposed by Peabody. In sum, Peabody’s proposed dumping 20 million tons of coal-processing waste over the next 20-years is in violation of RCRA. Summary Response: OSM does not agree that disposal of coal-processing wastes presents RCRA compliance issues, as none of the materials that will be disposed of as wash plant refuse can be characterized as hazardous waste. The refuse materials will be non-coal materials derived from the rock surrounding the coal, and some small amounts of magnetite. Magnetite does not exhibit any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste as defined at 40 CFR 261.3, is not regulated as a CERCLA hazardous substance (40 CFR 302.4), is not regulated as a SARA Title III extremely hazardous substance (40 CFR 302.4 and 355.40, is not regulated as a SARA Title III Section 313 chemical (40 CFR 372.65), is not regulated under OSHA process safety (29 CFR 1910.119), and does not contain any component listed as a hazardous air pollutant under Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. 101(SR690) Summary Comment: It is not clear if pumping the C aquifer at the well field proposed would cause a plume of either radioactive minerals or chromium towards existing Leupp community wells or future wells used by the Cities of Flagstaff and Winslow, because OSM fails to address this in the Draft EIS. Summary Response: No known plume of radioactive minerals or chromium plume has been identified in the area of the C aquifer well field. Uranium and chromium are present as natural constituents of water produced by the C aquifer well field test wells. Concentrations are below USEPA drinking water standards. 101(SR691) Summary Comment: The chief problem, as is true for many of the issues not properly analyzed by the Draft EIS, is the lack of a current Cumulative Hydrological Impacts Analysis (CHIA). Impacts of surface run-off are,

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-142

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

consequently, improperly ignored by the Draft EIS....OSM needs to front up to the reality of the surface water leaks: widespread nature, their level of toxicity, their potential impacts and the lack of a plan to eliminate their adverse impacts. Draft EIS 3-24 “indicates 158 impoundments to (sic) exist in 2005 under SMCRA to control sediment transport from mined areas into the washes.” Only data from 2005 are presented but it appears that at least 41 impoundment failures were sampled for toxicity levels. It is not clear whether more failures went unsampled but in any case this represents a failure rate of at least 26%. This is the rate of failure for a single sample period with on­ going monitoring and a relatively short timeframe. The Draft EIS gives no indication that Peabody undertakes additional engineering work to repair leaks. In fact, the Draft EIS claims that about a third of impoundments are proposed to be “permanent.” That is an interesting choice of words for sediment structures already showing an extremely high failure rate. Impoundment failures can be expected to increase in both number and severity over time, leading eventually to instances of catastrophic failure. OSM has expressed no concern about this inevitability and failed to analyze such impacts. SMCRA (section 172.05 [4]) requires the removal of all settling ponds upon completion of mining activities. Exceptions are made in certain circumstances (see 30 U.S.0 A-816.49 (b)) but these exceptions do not include impoundments already failing. To get a better picture of Peabody Coal Company’s problems with water violations, OSM should provide the list of all Clean Water Act (CWA) violations for all coal mining that Peabody was required to report as part of their completed permit. Such information is owed the public and is necessary to accurately predict the impacts of this project, as required under NEPA. See e.g. 40 C.F.R. A§1500.1. Further, impoundments, especially those envisioned as “permanent” are disrupting minimum stream flows on Black Mesa and as such may be a violation of CWA section 401. Likewise, OSM seems unconcerned with the toxicity of the effluent discharging from the impoundment failures. To downplay toxicity, OSM uses a Peabody study of “stormwater” run-off as a point of comparison with impoundment discharge. These numbers are irrelevant as a point of comparison. The implication by OSM is that the toxic chemical concentrations presented by Peabody on Draft EIS 3-24 represent some natural baseline. Draft EIS 3-26 refers to this water as natural stormwater flow.” In fact, this “stormwater” is run-off from a strip mine! It in no way represents a point of comparison, nor is it a legitimate reason to lower the standard for effluent from impoundment failures. This is all made especially obvious when the “stormwater” data must be altered to eliminate a magnesium chloride spill that affected several samples. Draft EIS 3-24. No indication is given, but to reiterate, water coming off a stripmine is not equivalent to natural stormwater run-off in the area before strip-mining. Summary Response: OSM reviews surface water quality data collected by Peabody from streams and impoundments on a quarterly and annual basis. With the submittal of Peabody’s LOM plan application, OSM is in the process of updating the CHIA. 101(SR692) Summary Comment: Further, the only standards for toxicity presented besides stripmine run-off are a highly limited set of livestock watering standards. OSM fails to consider threats to wildlife from ingesting toxic effluent, bathing in it or ingesting organisms farther down the food chain that might be biomagnifying such toxics, especially metals. The livestock standards themselves ignore National Academy of Sciences recommendations that such standards should include aluminum, boron, fluoride, nitrate, nitrite, total dissolved solids and vanadium. Draft EIS 3-26. Standards have been developed for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, zinc and pH. Of these, only values for selenium and pH are referred to in the Draft EIS. Further, the data that are reported inexplicably fail to include some permanent impoundments on Map 3-7. Draft EIS 3-26. On DEIS 3-26, OSM claims that, “with the exception of Impoundment Site #N2-RA, the quality of water in these impoundments is similar in range to natural stormwater flow.” The above-discussion of stripmine run-off as “natural” aside, this statement is still not true, as Table 3-2 values for #N1-RA for pH or #N1-RA and #113 values for alkalinity clearly show in. comparison with Table 3-1. These toxicity values are for impoundment water samples. The Draft EIS (p. 3-27) notes that discharge effluent from these impoundments often exhibits elevated concentrations of a number of chemicals of concern. According to Draft EIS 3-27, 21 percent of samples (6 of 28) of impoundment effluent exceeded standards. This is an extremely high exceedance rate. Still, the reporting of these data remain mysterious to the reader. Why were 41 samples taken but data from only 28 sites reported? Why were less than 10 percent (3) of these samples analyzed for all relevant parameters? Why were the results of this more extensive chemical analysis not reported at all? Is this mariner of reporting data arbitrary and capricious or intentionally biased to hide problematic data? It is worth noting that the Peabody response to pools of toxic effluent from its stripmining impoundments is not to stop the leaks, but to fence them off from livestock. OSM needs to analyze beyond this “band-aid” solution. For heavy metals and some other substances, toxic concentrations where impoundments fail will continue to increase over a long period of discharge and evaporation. Effects will increase in parallel. OSM has failed to note any of the myriad reports of livestock deaths due to impoundment failures or other surface water run-

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-143

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

off issues. The proposed project seeks to increase the number of impoundments. The Draft EIS gives no indication that OSM will require the applicant to institute management practices to eliminate or even to reduce the rate or degree of impoundment failures. (Draft EIS A-15.) OSM needs to analyze the impacts of such discharges, including impacts to wildlife and to the possibility of human consumption of fouled surface or groundwater. Summary Response: The EIS addresses impoundment and seep water quality in Section 4.4.1.1.1, and mentions additional measures Peabody will be required to employ to insure compliance with water quality standards and CWA requirements as a part of the soon to be renewed NPDES permit. The permit is currently up for renewal, and in Section 4.4.1.1.1. of the EIS it mentions both USEPA and Peabody are working on a modification of the Seepage Management Plan to eliminate problem seeps that have not met water quality standards. OSM is also working with Peabody and USEPA to finalize the Plan modifications. 101(SR693) Summary Comment: Peabody intentionally dumped hazardous wastes out on the ground and allowed toxic chemicals to leak into the soil. Summary Response: Peabody is characterized as a large quantity generator of hazardous waste, and disposes of such wastes in accordance with the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. A comprehensive Superfund site investigation conducted by USEPA in the mid 1990’s did not result in the detection of any illegal waste disposal sites or toxic chemicals in the soil or water around the mines. Category 102: Mitigation, best management practices 102(986) Comment: Another area of deep concern are the long term consequences on the land and soil quality after the development occurs. “No issue asscoiated with the current energy debate is more in the center of this conflict between demand and conservation than is the surface mining of coal. Our most adundant domestic fossil fuel is coal, and much of it occurs at depth where it can be mined by surface methods. Surface mining destroys the existing natural communities completely and dramatically. Indeed, restoration of a landscape distrubed by surface minig, in the sense of recreating the former conditions, is not possible. The coal lands of the western united State are quite different from others in the nation...The ecological process pf vegetation succession, or the orderly process pf community change, is exteremely slow under such arid conditions. Where natural revegetation pf a distrubed site may develope in five to twenty years on a high rainfall eastern U.S sire, it may take decades or even centuries for natual vegetation tp develop in a desert. The precarious nature of these dryland ecosystem should suggest caution by prudent in a dilberate distrubance of an arid site” (Laduke 1999). It is therefore simple to assest that the development of the coal mine and the distrubance of these arid lands would irrepreably harm the ecosystem and quality of Navajo Nation lands. Response: The Kayenta mining operation is permitted to mine coal through 2026. 102(989) Comment: What are the provisions for protecting water quality of the Aquifer? Response: The Black Mesa Complex operates the N aquifer production wells in accordance with SMCRA requirements and SDWA requirements. Chapter 16, Hydrologic Monitoring Program of the approved AZ-0001D Permit requires Peabody to monitor the water levels and quality from the N aquifer production wells, and these data are provided to OSM in quarterly and annual monitoring reports. The USGS operates a cooperative monitoring program of the N aquifer that involves collecting continuous water levels from six monitoring wells, periodic water levels and quality from community pumping wells, flow and water quality data from springs that emanate from the N aquifer, and stream gaging stations on washes that receive in part discharges from the N aquifer. The USGS publishes reports approximately annually, and combined with monitoring data reports submitted by Peabody, OSM evaluates the data to assess impacts based on material damage criteria developed by OSM. In addition, the quality of N aquifer water supplied to workers at the Black Mesa Complex and the public is protected by the Navajo Nation EPA under the Nation’s Safe Drinking Water Act. Peabody has been issued a Navajo Nation SDWA permit, and must comply with numerous requirements under the permit including periodic monitoring for water quality, well head protection, backflow protection, and other stringent requirements under this permit. 102(1051) Comment: We were told that the land would be restored to its original state. They’ve even used our own equipment from our water department to destroy our land. The equipment are all broken now, they’ll pay us for the broken equipment as well.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-144

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Response: Peabody must remain in compliance with the requirements of SMCRA. Refer to the EIS, Appendix A, pages A-1-17 through A-1-19 for discussion of reclamation. 102(1192) Comment: C-Aquifer will deplete and windmills will dry up. No other potable water will be made available for 
 residents and livestocks. 
 Response: Alternative A, which would result in the construction and operation of the C aquifer water-supply system, 
 is no longer the proposed project. Pumping the C aquifer is not proposed under Alternative B, the proposed project 
 and preferred alternative in this Final EIS. 
 102(SR55) Summary Comment: Areas disturbed by coal-slurry pipeline construction/reconstruction and repair should be reseeded with grass seed so that topsoil would be maintained and livestock can graze in those areas. Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Section 4.19.3.5 for a discussion of restoration of the construction right-of­ way. 102(SR186) Summary Comment: There should be a bond so that if something goes wrong [related to the C-aquifer water withdrawal], the bond would cover the damages. Summary Response: In accordance with 30 CFR 800.14, OSM requires a bond in the amount sufficient to assure completion of the reclamation plan if the work has to be performed by it in the event of bond forfeiture. 102(SR210) Summary Comment: Who would be held responsible for environmental damage or depletion of the [C] aquifer? Who will pay to have water hauled to the people of the reservations? Summary Response: As stated in the EIS Section 4.4.1.4.1, depending on the specific design of the C aquifer well field and distribution facilities, some affected well owners could receive replacement water from the proposed well field. Other impacted owners could require that wells be deepened or new wells drilled. Specific actions would be taken to address impacts on existing water users in coordination with the tribes. However, Alternative A, which includes construction and operation of the C aquifer water-supply system, is no longer the proposed project. Pumping of the C aquifer is not proposed under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS. 102(SR211) Summary Comment: Discuss the mitigation measures to restore flow to Moenkopi Wash using impounded water from the mine. Summary Response: Moenkopi Wash has been ephemeral since before mining began. Flow occurs only after rainfall events. Studies have shown that releases from impoundments would quickly infiltrate into wash alluvium. 102(SR212) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS needs to consider how the project will affect the water supply and water security for the City of Flagstaff and the City of Winslow and any groundwater mitigation measures related to the project. A It fails to discuss alternatives for how the Black Mesa Project will proportionately mitigate any impact on Clear Creek and Chevelon Creek if mitigation is required by the agencies having jurisdiction thereof. Summary Response: Modeling of proposed C-aquifer pumping shows a maximum drawdown of about 1 feet after 50 years at City of Winslow wells (Draft EIS Map 4-2). This drawdown should have no measurable impact on production from these wells. There is no predicted change in water level at Flagstaff and Doney Park. 102(SR355) Summary Comment: So far, reclamation measures have not been undertaken and there is a concern for where the monies for this effort will come from. Summary Response: Reclamation has been an ongoing process since mining began on Black Mesa in the early 1970s. Peabody is required by Federal law to reclaim the land after mining. Refer to the EIS Appendix A, pages A-1-17 through A-1-19 for discussion of reclamation. Federal law also requires Peabody to post a reclamation bond sufficient to cover the cost of reclaiming all land currently affected by the mining operation. Peabody has obtained bonds sufficient to cover reclamation requirements. 102(SR357) Summary Comment: The reclamation language of the Draft EIS is too vague. It fails to describe in detail what reclamation measures would be taken for disturbed land areas and waters. Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 M-145 Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Summary Response: As explained in EIS Appendix A, beginning on page A-1-17, Peabody has developed a plan in the permit application for establishing a reclaimed landscape that would minimize erosion and support post-mining land uses of livestock grazing, cultural plant use, and wildlife. The revegetation plan has been developed to meet the requirements of 30 CFR 816. Revegetation success standard and their evaluation are structured to meet the criteria of 30 CFR 816.111 and 816.116. Standards are based on a combination of native reference areas and approved technical standards that reflect environmental site conditions, ecological considerations, and post-mining land uses. The criteria for evaluation follow both 30 CFR 816 requirements and other Federal guidelines. 102(SR358) Summary Comment: OSM must require that the operating firms put up bonds for rehabilitation of present and future damages to lands and waters. OSM is in violation of SMCRA. Summary Response: In accordance with 30 CFR 800.14, OSM requires a bond in the amount sufficient to assure completion of the reclamation plan if the work has to be performed by it in the event of bond forfeiture. 102(SR364) Summary Comment: The mining company has destroyed the land. The land must be reclaimed and there must be 
 restitution.
 Summary Response: Refer to EIS Appendix A, pages A-1-17 through A-1-19 for discussion of reclamation.
 Peabody must remain in compliance with the requirements of SMCRA. 
 102(SR365) Summary Comment: Peabody’s reclamation methods, which are not applicable to a semi-arid environment, have completely failed and the mined areas are all wastelands. It is imperative to reclaim the Black Mesa Mine. Summary Response: Peabody’s reclamation plan is designed for the semi-arid environment and revegetated areas currently support viable plant communities and a diversity of wildlife. As explained in EIS Appendix A, beginning on page A-1-17, Peabody has developed a plan in the permit application for establishing a reclaimed landscape that would minimize erosion and support post-mining land uses. The revegetation plan has been developed to meet the requirements of 30 CFR 816. Revegetation success standard and their evaluation are structured to meet the criteria of 30 CFR 816.111 and 816.116. Standards are based on a combination of native reference areas and approved technical standards that reflect environmental site conditions, ecological considerations, and post-mining land uses. The criteria for evaluation follow both 30 CFR 816 requirements and other Federal guidelines and address parameters of cover, production, woody density, and diversity. SMCRA requires that the land be reclaimed successfully. The comment is not specific as to the basis of any failure. Peabody has conducted annual vegetation monitoring for over 20 years at the Black Mesa Complex including both random sampling and monitoring of over 75 permanent transects. Data from this comprehensive monitoring program demonstrate successful revegetation. Further, there have been two successful Termination of Jurisdiction releases and a Phase II bond release application which could only occur with successful revegetation. Successful grazing programs on reclaimed lands began in 1998 and the level has increased every year since then. Annual vegetation and reclamation monitoring reports demonstrate these results and are held by OSM as part of the public record. 102(SR407) Summary Comment: Reclamation that has already occurred is not what people want: it is done poorly and the grass is cheap. Summary Response: As explained in EIS Appendix A, beginning on page A-1-17, Peabody has developed a plan in the permit application for establishing a reclaimed landscape that would minimize erosion and support post-mining land uses. The revegetation plan has been developed to meet the requirements of 30 CFR 816. Revegetation success standard and their evaluation are structured to meet the criteria of 30 CFR 816.111 and 816.116. Standards are based on a combination of native reference areas and approved technical standards that reflect environmental site conditions, ecological considerations, and post-mining land uses. The criteria for evaluation follow both 30 CFR 816 requirements and other Federal guidelines and address parameters of cover, production, woody density, and diversity. 102(SR436) Summary Comment: The reclamation practices used to date in this arid environment have been ineffective. Summary Response: Peabody’s reclamation plan is designed for an arid environment using native species, restoring cultural plants, and establishing woody vegetation. Revegetated areas currently support viable plant communities and a diversity of wildlife. The reclamation plan in the EIS contains the same procedures that are currently employed at the mines, both regulated under SMCRA. It reflects the evolution and application of specific best

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-146

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

technology practices (BTCA) applicable to revegetation in an arid environment that are necessary to achieve the postmine land use goals and address vegetation concerns. More than 15,000 acres of mining disturbance have been reclaimed to date at the two mines. Annual reclamation activities and revegetation monitoring results have been submitted to OSM for over 25 years and are part of the public record. Revegetation monitoring data have demonstrated successful vegetation establishment on reclaimed lands at Black Mesa. As explained in EIS Appendix A, beginning on page A-1-17, the plan in the permit application would continue to establish a reclaimed landscape that would minimize erosion and support the designated post-mining land uses. The revegetation plan has been developed to meet the requirements of 30 CFR 816. Revegetation success standard and their evaluation are structured to meet the criteria of 30 CFR 816.111 and 816.116. Standards are based on a combination of native reference areas and approved technical standards that reflect environmental site conditions, ecological considerations, and post-mining land uses. The criteria for evaluation follow both 30 CFR 816 requirements and other Federal guidelines and address parameters of cover, production, woody density, and diversity. 102(SR437) Summary Comment: There are concerns that the coal mining company will fail to rehabilitate and reseed the mine site following closure so that it can be used for grazing. Summary Response: As explained in EIS Appendix A, beginning on page A-1-17, Peabody has developed a plan in the permit application for establishing a reclaimed landscape that would minimize erosion and support post-mining land uses, which historically has been grazing primarily sheep and goats. The revegetation plan has been developed to meet the requirements of 30 CFR 816. Revegetation success standard and their evaluation are structured to meet the criteria of 30 CFR 816.111 and 816.116. Standards are based on a combination of native reference areas and approved technical standards that reflect environmental site conditions, ecological considerations, and post-mining land uses. The criteria for evaluation follow both 30 CFR 816 requirements and other Federal guidelines and address parameters of cover, production, woody density, and diversity. 102(SR459) Summary Comment: The EIS fails to consider the basic concept of whether cultural landscapes and religious resources can actually be “reclaimed” to their pre-project cultural and religious significance once the land has been destroyed by mining. Summary Response: Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, and Hualapai Tribe study teams evaluated traditional cultural resources that could be affected by the project. Potential impacts were acknowledged (EIS Section 4.10). The analysis did not conclude that adverse effects to such resources could ever be reclaimed and restored to pre-project conditions. 102(SR663) Summary Comment: The EIS does not identify the protection of local public water wells and alternatives to provide public water following change in the water quantity or quality. Summary Response: OSM’s rules at 30 CFR 816.41(h) would require Peabody to replace valid water supplies if they were adversely impacted by contamination, diminution or interruption proximately resulting from the Black Mesa Complex surface mining activities. Since none of these impacts have been demonstrated or are anticipated, no plans to replace any such water supplies are provided in the permit application, Accordingly, no plans for water replacement are analyzed in the EIS. 102(SR695) Summary Comment: There is concern that the Draft EIS does not fully describe how Peabody can accomplish the environmental performance standards as designated by SMCRA. The reclamation performance bond submitted by Peabody in connection with its mine permit application is inadequate. It is not supported by a meaningful hydrologic reclamation plan. The bond program provides no funding to reclaim or replace the N aquifer water source or the C-aquifer water source, no funding to reclaim or dispose of 20 million tons of coal-processing waste in pits N-6 and J-23, and no funding to reclaim or replace damaged surface waters. There is no plan for reclamation of the mine itself. Summary Response: As explained in EIS Appendix A, beginning on page A-1-17, Peabody has developed a plan in the permit application for establishing a reclaimed landscape that would minimize erosion and support post-mining land uses. The revegetation plan has been developed to meet the requirements of 30 CFR 816. Revegetation success standard and their evaluation are structured to meet the criteria of 30 CFR 816.111 and 816.116. Standards are based on a combination of native reference areas and approved technical standards that reflect environmental site conditions, ecological considerations, and post-mining land uses. The criteria for evaluation follow both 30 CFR 816

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-147

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

requirements and other Federal guidelines and address parameters of cover, production, woody density, and diversity. 102(SR696) Summary Comment: Substantial mitigation measures will be required to satisfy stakeholders regarding the continuation of coal and groundwater mining. “A crack in the Supai Formation created by a shock wave would devestate [sic] the whole area depriving the Navajo people in the area of water including local ranchers. Sometimes cracks form in the area and standing pools of water would disappear. The Kaibab limestone must be excavated with rock hammers. Low level explosives, no-delayed explosions, and delayed explosions of dynamite will upset the hydrostatic equilibrium of the water causing damage to the C-aquifer and Supai formation. Explosives must be secured and locked away to keep criminals and terrorist from obtaining weapons. All hazardous material from the construction must be hauled away and properly disposed of. No criminal activity must occur. All solid waste must be remove and disposed of properly. Local and visiting employees must pass a background check and no sexual predators in the area as this is a family area with children. Personnel must drive in marked vehicles, wear uniforms, carry ID badges, no weapons allowed. Strangers in a family area is highly uncomfortable as I am watching out for my children and elderly, housebound parents. Personnel must not disturb families at night. There must be high security in the area to keep strangers out, written monitor reports or spills, security breaches, accident incidents. Accident incidents must be made public and remedies initiated. Fines and suspension of permits must occur for environmental damage and fines up to $10,000 per day per incident until the spill is cleaned up. Solvent spills must be cleaned up immediately. Solvent measurements must ensure there is no air in the water sample and must be checked for dissolved air bubbles. No alcohol or parties at the site. No inviting of friends at the well site. Visitors must wear a badge to enter the well area. Surveyors must wear badge, uniform, company vehicle, certified State of Arizona surveyors, GPS surveys and no criminals. No lying to the people in the area or say there is a misunderstanding. Verbal and written dispute resolution with a favorable outcome for the people living in the well area. No stealing of cows, sheep, lambs, horses, and personal property. Stay away from the homes unless invited or by written notice of 2 weeks. Install security cameras at the well sites with the camera downloaded daily. All criminal activity must be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law via Navajo Nation courts, Arizona State Courts or Federal Courts. There must be convictions for violations of the law. The well must be made of stainless steel casing to prevent corrosion and minimize construction activity in the area which adds to noise pollution. The well water including the site well must be monitored continuously to ensure no bacteria enters the C aquifer. All bacterial, coliform, and fungus must be eradicated if detected.” Summary Response: Alternative A, which includes construction and operation of the C aquifer water-supply system, is no longer the proposed project. Pumping water from the C aquifer is no proposed under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS. 102(SR1193) Summary Comment: The OSM must also require that the operating firms, in this case Peabody Western Coal Company and the Salt River Project, put up bonds that would pay for any future damage to the land and the aquifers. Summary Response: Prior to issuance of a permit, Peabody would have to post a performance bond that is sufficient to assure completion of the reclamation plan if the work has to be performed by OSM in the event of bond forfeiture. OSM’s rules at 30 CFR 816.41(h) would require Peabody to replace valid water supplies if they were adversely impacted by contamination, diminution or interruption proximately resulting from the Black Mesa Complex surface mining activities. Since none of these impacts have been demonstrated or are anticipated, no plans to replace any such water supplies are provided in the reclamation plan. Because replacement of a water supply is not a part of the reclamation plan, such replacement will not be covered by the performance bond. Category 103: Conservation measures 103(990) Comment: the city of Flagstaff does not have an abundant supply of potable water. In order to maintain on adeqet supply for current city water customers conservation measures have had to be involved. Response: Comment noted. 103(SR128) Summary Comment: The proposal to re-open the mine and reconstruct a 270-mile pipeline to ship water and coal from the Hopi and Navajo reservations to the Mohave Generating Station is wasteful of limited resources. Summary Response: Comment noted.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-148

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

103(SR213) Summary Comment: We must protect our precious water. Summary Response: Comment noted. 103(SR214) Summary Comment: They are wasting the water we should be using for drinking and livestock use. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 104: Monitoring 104(SR697) Summary Comment: What are your plans for monitoring the state of the N aquifer?
 Summary Response: Peabody has been monitoring the quantity and quality of the N aquifer for more than 20 years. 
 104(SR699) Summary Comment: The EIS does not identify how the project will monitor surface and ground water, air quality, 
 or the health of the people living in the area. 
 Summary Response: With regard to monitoring of air quality, refer to the EIS Section 3.6.4 for discussion of the 
 monitoring network at Black Mesa Complex. 
 104(SR700) Summary Comment: Will there be monitor wells to measure the impact of pumping? Summary Response: Yes. Refer to EIS Section 4.20. 104(SR701) Summary Comment: The EIS indicates that “monitoring [of species health] will occur,” but there is no indication that the findings of this monitoring will result in any policy changes. Summary Response: The Black Mesa Complex operates the N aquifer production wells in accordance with SMCRA requirements and SDWA requirements. Chapter 16, Hydrologic Monitoring Program of the approved AZ-0001D Permit requires Peabody to monitor the water levels and quality from the N aquifer production wells, and these data are provided to OSM in quarterly and annual monitoring reports. The USGS operates a cooperative monitoring program of the N aquifer that involves collecting continuous water levels from six monitoring wells, periodic water levels and quality from community pumping wells, flow and water quality data from springs that emanate from the N aquifer, and stream gaging stations on washes that receive in part discharges from the N aquifer. The USGS publishes reports approximately annually, and combined with monitoring data reports submitted by Peabody, OSM evaluates the data to assess impacts based on material damage criteria developed by OSM. In addition, the quality of N aquifer water supplied to workers at the Black Mesa Complex and the public is protected by the Navajo Nation EPA under the Nation’s Safe Drinking Water Act. Peabody has been issued a Navajo Nation SDWA permit, and must comply with numerous requirements under the permit including periodic monitoring for water quality, well head protection, backflow protection, and other stringent requirements under this permit. Category 105: Short-term vs. long-term productivity 105(SR496) Summary Comment: Protect the traditional lifestyle. I talk to and see a lot of the elders and they say they don’t want mining companies destroying their homeland. Peabody provides money now, but will leave a land unable for the hunter-gathers to survive. Summary Response: Comment noted. As explained in EIS Appendix A Peabody has developed a plan in the permit application for establishing a reclaimed landscape that would minimize erosion and support post-mining land uses, which historically has been grazing sheep and goats. The revegetation plan has been developed to meet the requirements of 30 CFR 816. Revegetation success standard and their evaluation are structured to meet the criteria of 30 CFR 816.111 and 816.116. Standards are based on a combination of native reference areas and approved technical standards that reflect environmental site conditions, ecological considerations, and post-mining land uses. The criteria for evaluation follow both 30 CFR 816 requirements and other Federal guidelines and address parameters of cover, production, woody density, and diversity. 105(SR702) Summary Comment: Please weigh carefully the long-range environmental and socio-cultural impact of accelerating the depletion of the Navajo aquifer, and explore less destructive alternatives to transporting the Black Mesa coal. Summary Response: Comment noted.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-149

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

105(SR703) Summary Comment: This project would only provide a short-term supply of greenhouse gas-emitting, nonrenewable energy sources while causing irreparable environmental and cultural damage, the relocation of people from their homes and far too much water use. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 106: Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources 106(SR702) Summary Comment: Please weigh carefully the long-range environmental and socio-cultural impact of accelerating the depletion of the Navajo aquifer, and explore less destructive alternatives to transporting the Black Mesa coal. Summary Response: Comment noted. 106(SR707) Summary Comment: Coal mining, no matter what method is used, has resulted in irreversible damage to the ecosystem and to the health of the larger community. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 107: Indirect effects associated with resuming operation at Mohave Generating Station 107(996) Comment: The Black Mesa coal-slurry pipeline is the only such pipeline in the country, and exists only because the groundwater is essentially free to Peabody. But the Hopi and Navajo people should not have to subsidize Peabody with their valuable water. Response: Comment noted. 107(SR129) Summary Comment: The EIS must include the Mohave Generating Station in its scope. Summary Response: Refer to EIS Chapter 1 (Draft EIS Section 1.4.2, beginning on page 1-4) for an explanation of why the actions at the Mohave Generating Station are not addressed in the Black Mesa Project EIS. Also refer to EIS Section 4.23 for a summary of the effects associated with the potential resumed operation of the Mohave Generating Station in January 2010. In addition, cumulative effects are addressed in Section 4.24. 107(SR171) Summary Comment: The water used by the Mohave Generating Station sits in ponds that pollute the ground, the 
 Colorado River, and evaporate to cause acid rain. 
 Summary Response: The Mohave Generating Station is not a part of the proposed Project. 
 107(SR320) Summary Comment: Reconstructing the 273-mile coal slurry pipeline does not make sense as the Mohave Generating Station’s recommission is contingent on upgrades that haven’t been approved or financed. It is unknown if this is even feasible. Summary Response: Comment noted. Alternative A, which is intended to continue supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station is no longer the proposed project. Under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in the Final EIS, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed. 107(SR352) Summary Comment: The Mohave Generating Station would contribute to air pollution at the Grand Canyon.
 Continued monitoring by EPA is necessary.
 Summary Response: Comment noted. 
 107(SR353) Summary Comment: The EIS must identify the status of the plans to install air pollution control measures at the 
 Mohave Generating Station.
 Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Section 1.4.
 107(SR708) Summary Comment: The pollution in the air has been reduced since the closure of the Mohave Generating Station.
 The Mohave Generating Station doesn’t help northern Arizona; instead, all its power will go to cities such as Las 
 Vegas and Los Angeles. It should remain shut down.
 Summary Response: Comment noted. 


Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-150

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

107(SR809) Summary Comment: The EIS’s excuse to not include the Mohave Generating Station of a “regulatory exemption” under NEPA is invalid. Summary Response: Alternative B, which does not include supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station, is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS. 107(SR810) Summary Comment: The EIS must clarify the partnership between the Mohave Generating Station and the rest of the project to show how Mohave is entitled to the water. Summary Response: Alternative A, which includes continuing to supply coal to the Mohave Generating Station, is no longer the proposed project. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS. 107(SR811) Summary Comment: The EIS does not identify all the project applicants or the owners of the Mohave Generating 
 Station. 
 Summary Response: The project applicants and co-owners of the Mohave Generating Station were identified in 
 Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS, which proposed Alternative A as the proposed project and preferred alternative. 
 However, Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS and Peabody is the 
 applicant.
 Category 108: Cumulative effects 108(993) Comment: The EIS does not adequately address the environmental effects over both short and long time periods. 
 Specifically...there is not adequate protection for unforeseen impacts. Experience has shown, and logic dictates, that 
 it is impossible to predict all the effects from environmental actions, especially those as severe as this. 
 Response: As stated in the comment, it is not possible to predict all the effects from environmental actions. 
 108(1000) Comment: An additional failure is the lack of public availability of critical assumptions. The Draft EIS fails to
 release assumptions on expected Hopi, Navajo and other withdrawals, both present and future, municipal and
 industrial, for both the C and N aquifers. 
 Response: Assumptions of the models are contained in the model documentations referenced in the EIS. 
 108(1001) Comment: The Draft EIS should have disclosed an analyzed, at a minimum, the proposed project’s cumulative impacts in light of the many other coal fired power plants proposed and under construction around the country (NJPIRG 2006; NETL 2005 Response: The EIS addresses other power plants in the region of the Black Mesa Project. 108(SR216) Summary Comment: What are the long-term cumulative effects of the increased drawdown on the N and C aquifers with an updated hydrological analysis? Summary Response: The EIS uses models updated through 2005 and the most recent available data. Cumulative effects are discussed in the EIS Section 4.24.3. 108(SR217) Summary Comment: If, as is stated in this EIS, increased regional pumping from the C aquifer is expected to cause widespread declines in groundwater elevations, especially near major pumping centers, does the Leupp well field site become a major pumping center when combined with the Hart Ranch and Red Gap Ranch which all are adjacent to each other? If pumping begins first for the Black Mesa Project, will other future users have to wait in line behind the Black Mesa coal slurry project before they can make use of water for municipal uses? Summary Response: The EIS was written before the acquisition by Flagstaff of Red Gap Ranch. However, the EIS assumed that Flagstaff would locate wells on the Bar-T-Bar Ranch, which is adjacent to the Red Gap Ranch. Pumping from the C-aquifer well field, the Flagstaff Bar-T-Bar wells and all other off-reservation water users results in a maximum predicted drawdown of 68 feet in the C aquifer well field. This is a reduction in aquifer-saturated thickness of less than 10 percent and would not prevent other planned uses.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-151

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

108(SR218) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS fails to evaluate the cumulative impacts of water withdrawal from the N and C aquifers. One alternative for water supply to the Black Mesa Complex involves continued reliance on the N aquifer. This is a secondary alternative, serving as a substitute for development of the C aquifer water-supply system. According to OSM, the increased pumping that would become necessary would “result in continued concern that withdrawing water from the N-aquifer for mine-related purposes would interfere with water use for grazing, agriculture, and domestic wells.”(Draft EIS at 4-115) * In addition to these land use impacts, relying solely on N-aquifer water could reduce groundwater flow in a number of washes and springs that are considered to be significant traditional cultural resources by the Hopi. In 1990, the Secretary of the Interior imposed an administrative delay on OSM’s permanent Indian Lands Program permitting decision for the Black Mesa mining operation. The concerns of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation surrounding use of the N aquifer for coal-slurry and mine-related purposes were the cause for this administrative delay, which has yet to be withdrawn. In light of unresolved problems, OSM should clearly state that it will not permit continued use of the N aquifer, beyond what is necessary to keep the wells operational. * Though the Black Mesa Complex has not, thus far, made use of the C aquifer, it is currently used for “municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses in the vicinity of Holbrook and Joseph City.” Id. at 4-173. Groundwater models show that increased pumping from the C-aquifer “is expected to cause widespread declines in groundwater elevations, especially near major pumping centers.” Id. At least two water sources will be drastically affected by the cumulative impacts of project and nonproject pumping: “Base flow in Clear Creek is projected to decline by 20 to 25 percent between 2000 and 2060 . . . , and by about 90 percent in Chevelon Creek.” Id. In Section 3.10.4.2, OSM states that Clear Creek and Chevelon Creek, as well as the wildlife they support, have traditional cultural significance. In fact, a “Hopi shrine is located at Clear Creek where water is collected for ritual use.” Id. at 3-104. While the impact of C-aquifer water withdrawal for mining and coal-slurry purposes may not be independently significant, the cumulative impact of regional withdrawals should call for heightened consideration of alternative proposals. As OSM writes in Section 3.10.4.2, “[t]he Hopi consider all sources of surface water, whether in springs, or ephemeral or permanent streams, to have traditional cultural significance.” Id. Summary Response: Cumulative impacts of water withdrawals are discussed in the EIS Section 4.24.3. 108(SR221) Summary Comment: A The hydrological impact of the Black Mesa Project is incomplete unless the cumulative impacts of future C-aquifer groundwater withdrawals by the Cities of Winslow and Flagstaff are considered. Summary Response: The cumulative impacts of future water withdrawals by the cities of Flagstaff and Winslow are discussed in the EIS Section 4.24.3. 108(SR222) Summary Comment: I understand that Arizona Public Service is drilling wells south east of Joseph City, Arizona, to expand the Cholla power plant, also tapping this aquifer or at least the water supply in this area. Can our water tables support this usage? Summary Response: The EIS assumes that pumping by APS at the Cholla Power Plant near Joseph City will increase to 15,000 af/yr. This pumping plus all other off-reservation water users results in a maximum predicted drawdown of 68 feet in the C aquifer well field. This is a reduction in aquifer saturated thickness of less than 10 percent and would not prevent other planned uses. 108(SR269) Summary Comment: The EIS fails to adequately analyze the effect of cumulative groundwater withdrawals on the poor quality groundwater plume in the C aquifer. Summary Response: Modeling of the potential for the C aquifer wells to capture high-salinity water concluded that water quality would be suitable for drinking water and industrial use over the 51-year modeled period. During other outages or interruptions of supply from the C-aquifer well field water would be pumped from the N aquifer, as described in the EIS Section 4.4.1.5.1. Table 4-9. 108(SR351) Summary Comment: The Mohave Generating Station has been shut down and should remain shut down because of the amount of water it uses. Summary Response: Refer to the EIS Section 4.23, for discussion of the indirect effects associated with resuming operation at Mohave Generating Station.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-152

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

108(SR709) Summary Comment: EIS impacts must account for the construction phase, ongoing maintenance, prevention of and responses to industrial accidents, as well as facility upgrades, reconstruction and expansion for the “life” of the mine, including future lease area expansions. Continuous and increased infrastructure investment by the BMP “life of mine” applicants will doubtless encourage future proposals that could exhaust the entire, massive coal seam and impact the broader Colorado Plateau ecosystem. Summary Response: Throughout Chapter 4, the Draft EIS analyzed the impacts of construction, operation, and maintenance of proposed project components. Appendix A-2 of the Draft EIS (pages A-2-14 and A-2-15) discussed coal-slurry pipeline plans for controlling and remediating spills due to pipeline failure. Section 4.4.1.5.1 of the Draft EIS analyzed the worst-case impacts of having to use N-aquifer water as a backup supply for mining or slurry operations if the C-aquifer water supply were to fail for a period of time. As required by the CEQ regulations, Chapter 4.24 of the Draft EIS analyzed the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 108(SR710) Summary Comment: The current EIS does not adequately address the cumulative impact impoundment dams will have on the overall vegetation of Moencopi and Dinnebeto Washes and the surrounding areas. Through observation, it is evident that if the current impoundment dams are allowed to continue unabated Moencopi will suffer irrecoverable harm. Summary Response: The effect of mine impoundments on streamflow in Moenkopi and Dennibito washes is described in Section 4.4.1.1.1. The impact on flow would be small compared to that lost through channel infiltration and would be difficult to measure. 108(SR712) Summary Comment: The cumulative impact of dumping nearly 20,000,000 tons of untreated toxic waste into two 
 unlined pits over the next 20 years was not analyzed by the EIS.
 Summary Response: Refer to EIS Appendix A pages A-1-6 through A-1-10, for a discussion of the coal-washing
 facility including refuse disposal. 
 108(SR714) Summary Comment: OSM fails to consider the cumulative impacts of continued mining on the affected environmental justice populations. OSM fails to comply with these directives in at least two areas: first, the cumulative impacts of water withdrawal from the N and C aquifers are not given inadequate attention; second, OSM minimizes the cumulative impact of mining disturbance and relocation on the residents living at or within close proximity of Black Mesa Summary Response: Cumulative effects of pumping in N and C aquifers is discussed in EIS Section 4.23.3. Included are the effects on water levels in wells and on groundwater discharge to streams and springs. 108(SR715) Summary Comment: It is not enough, for the purposes of this discussion, to consider the proposed action in isolation, divorced from other public and private activities that impinge upon the same resource; rather, it is incumbent on OSM to assess cumulative impacts as well. It will be necessary in this case to consider at least the cumulative impacts of (1) the proposed activities on the present and future health of the N aquifer, and its dependent springs and washes, should an alternative water supply be unavailable, (2) the proposed activities and water withdrawals on the well yields, structural integrity, salinity, and availability of the C aquifer given the current and probable water requirements of the burgeoning local, aquifer-dependant populations, (3) water withdrawals of the N and C aquifer on their dependent springs and washes, (4) withdrawals on the subsidence documented in lands surrounding the leasehold; and (5) the environmental and health effects of continued operation of the Mojave Generating Station (MGS). Summary Response: Cumulative effects of pumping in N and C aquifers is discussed in EIS Section 4.23.3. Included are the effects on water levels in wells and on groundwater discharge to streams and springs. Category 109: Consultation and coordination 109(1002) Comment: We see a lot of vehicles – unknown vehicles that I say are trespassing, that have nothing to do with the people that live out there, and nothing to do with the studies. We get people that come from Holbrook to suddenly do water testing themselves. We get people that come from Winslow. We get people that come from Flagstaff. We get people that come from Peabody themselves and they tamper with our water. They drive around, and basically

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-153

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

what they have is an implied ownership already, and we’re always told that the Chapter House knows, so, therefore we should know, and we don’t know, and neither does the Chapter House. Response: Comment noted. 109(1003) Comment: Lack of collaboration with vested stakeholders. To mitigate against harmful impacts, and to plan for a more secure future, both the Navajo and Hopi Tribes have passed resolutions ending the use of N-aquifer water for coal slurry. Peabody chooses to ignore this and proposes, additionally, to increase its water use through boosting drawdown of the N-aquifer and expanding pumping to the adjacent C-aquifer. What are the impacts on the existing and burgeoning future human population in this area? Arizona is at or near the top ranked states in population growth. Have projections for construction starts and city planning been harmonized with changes in assured water levels resulting from C and N aquifer draw down? Where is the interagency coordination between regional municipalities, state water resource regulators and private industry? This isn’t the Wild West. Just because Peabody got their foot in the door through crooked and exploitive back room deals doesn’t mean we have to continue down that path today. Response: On July 25, 2003, the Navajo Nation Council passed a resolution supporting “the end of pumping of the N-Aquifer by Peabody Western Coal Company for its coal mining and pipeline operations on the Black Mesa no later than 2005.” However, as stated by the Navajo Nation President in an August 11, 2003, press release “To have the effect of law, the Council would have to rescind the existing leases to stop pumping, however, as it stands now the Nation has binding leases which allow use of the N-Aquifer pumping beyond 2005, unless an alternative water source is identified and agreed by the tribes and companies.” OSM could not find any Hopi Tribal Council resolution to end N-aquifer pumping. The N- and C-aquifer impact analyses take into consideration increased pumping by municipalities. 109(1004) Comment: The Governor of Arizona in 2002 established a statewide water conservation strategy and a drought preparedness plan. Reopening and rebuilding of the 273- mile coal slurry pipeline is a direct contradiction to the governor’s mandates. Response: The project proposed in this Final EIS, Alternative B, does not include supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station. 109(1005) Comment: Its utter disregard for the Navajo and Hopi Tribal Councils’ passage of resolutions to cease extraction from the N-Aquifer for mining purposes as of December 2005 Response: On July 25, 2003, the Navajo Nation Council passed a resolution supporting “the end of pumping of the N-Aquifer by Peabody Western Coal Company for its coal mining and pipeline operations on the Black Mesa no later than 2005.” However, as stated by the Navajo Nation President in an August 11, 2003, press release “To have the effect of law, the Council would have to rescind the existing leases to stop pumping, however, as it stands now the Nation has binding leases which allow use of the N-Aquifer pumping beyond 2005, unless an alternative water source is identified and agreed by the tribes and companies.” OSM could not find any Hopi Tribal Council resolution to end N-aquifer pumping. 109(1006) Comment: OSM has promised everyone that the Hopi Tribe was a cooperating agent. In their initial press release announcing the restarting of the Draft EIS process, OSM actively promoted Hopi. What OSM may not know, is that Jerry Sekayumptewa, who penned the January 26, 2007 letter of support, has been removed from office. It was found he exceeded his authority to speak for all Hopi and was subsequently forced to step down because the Hopi Tribal council has never voted on any resolution to support this DEIS. Should the Office of Surface Mining continue, they can not do so in good faith without invoking the trust responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior. No leadership is at the helm. The Office of Surface Mining most certainly can not show they have any Hopi Chairman supporting the Draft EIS proposal. They can not show any resolutions passed by tribal council. The Office of Surface Mining only has two council members who usurped Hopi Tribal letterhead and wrongly claim they have to authority to speak for the Tribe. They do not. Response: On July 25, 2003, the Navajo Nation Council passed a resolution supporting “the end of pumping of the N-Aquifer by Peabody Western Coal Company for its coal mining and pipeline operations on the Black Mesa no later than 2005.” However, as stated by the Navajo Nation President in an August 11, 2003, press release “To have the effect of law, the Council would have to rescind the existing leases to stop pumping, however, as it stands now the Nation has binding leases which allow use of the N-Aquifer pumping beyond 2005, unless an alternative water

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-154

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

source is identified and agreed by the tribes and companies.” OSM could not find any Hopi Tribal Council resolution to end N-aquifer pumping. 109(1007) Comment: Project EIS does neither identify nor adhere to the government-to-tribal relationship, whereas the Navajo Nation Council passed a resolution to cease the pumping of the N aquifer to slurry coal. Response: Refer to EIS Section 5.2.2 regarding government-to-government consultation. On July 25, 2003, the Navajo Nation Council passed a resolution supporting “the end of pumping of the N-Aquifer by Peabody Western Coal Company for its coal mining and pipeline operations on the Black Mesa no later than 2005.” However, as stated by the Navajo Nation President in an August 11, 2003, press release “To have the effect of law, the Council would have to rescind the existing leases to stop pumping, however, as it stands now the Nation has binding leases which allow use of the N-Aquifer pumping beyond 2005, unless an alternative water source is identified and agreed by the tribes and companies.” 109(SR223) Summary Comment: A regional groundwater plan should be in place before any action is taken on the project. Summary Response: Comment noted. 109(SR224) Summary Comment: There are material damages to the aquifers due to Peabody drawdowns. OSM has violated NEPA in this and must conduct investigations and report the findings in the Draft EIS. Summary Response: Prior to issuing the permit for the Kayenta Mine in 1990, OSM found in its CHIA that material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area would not occur. Since then, no material damage has occurred. In preparation for a decision on the current permit application, OSM is preparing an updated CHIA. The CHIA is prepared after the issuance of the Final EIS and prior to the decision on the SMCRA permit application. OSM would not issue the SMCRA permit unless it finds that material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area would not occur. Material damage is a SMCRA, not a NEPA concept. The EIS divulges the predicted impacts that would occur. 109(SR753) Summary Comment: Flagstaff should have been included as a cooperator. 
 Summary Response: Flagstaff did not become a cooperating agency because it had no action to take on any project 
 proposal. It still had an opportunity for input in the EIS through the comments it submitted on the Draft EIS. 
 109(SR812) Summary Comment: Property owners, citizen organizations, clan leaders, tribal leaders, community leaders are requesting that they be respected, afforded cooperating status and be consulted with before any actions are taken on their lands. People feel that they do not know what is happening around them. There is concern as to whether private property will be taken from property holders. Also, resolutions have been passed by both the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe and ignored by the Federal Government to stop groundwater and coal mining. Summary Response: The relationship between the tribes and the United States is a government-to-government relationship. A tribal government represents the entire tribe on matters of tribal policy. Individual tribal members are represented in the tribal government by their elected representatives. Individuals also have the opportunity to participate in the EIS process through public scoping meetings and through public comment. On July 25, 2003, the Navajo Nation Council passed a resolution supporting “the end of pumping of the N-Aquifer by Peabody Western Coal Company for its coal mining and pipeline operations on the Black Mesa no later than 2005.” However, as stated by the Navajo Nation President in an August 11, 2003, press release “To have the effect of law, the Council would have to rescind the existing leases to stop pumping, however, as it stands now the Nation has binding leases which allow use of the N-Aquifer pumping beyond 2005, unless an alternative water source is identified and agreed by the tribes and companies.” OSM could not find any Hopi Tribal Council resolution to end N-aquifer pumping. 109(SR815) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS violates NEPA, SMCRA, and ESA. Summary Response: The comment is too vague to enable a response.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-155

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 110: Consultation and coordination – Cooperating agencies 110(SR716) Summary Comment: The City of Flagstaff requests and should be afforded cooperating agencies status. The City of Flagstaff has purchased a property to serve as a well field east of town for its own groundwater mining from the C aquifer. Summary Response: Flagstaff did not become a cooperating agency because it had no action to take on any project proposal. It still had an opportunity for input in the EIS through the comments it submitted on the Draft EIS. 110(SR720) Summary Comment: The City of Winslow requests formal cooperating status for this project. 
 Summary Response: Winslow did not become a cooperating agency because it had no action to take on any project 
 proposal. It still had an opportunity for input in the EIS through the comments it submitted on the Draft EIS. 
 Category 112: Consultation and coordination – Formal consultation – Biological resources 112(SR721) Summary Comment: Because of failure to address impacts of associated greenhouse gas emissions, OSM is violating section 2, 7, 9, of the Endangered Species Act. They must analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of this project on species that do not occur in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, OSM must analyze the two listed coral species, elkhorn and staghorn corals found in subtropical waters. Summary Response: Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action (Alternative B) would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS has been revised to include a qualitative discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave and Navajo Generating Stations (despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed project or alternative actions). As stated in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and recent Department of the Interior guidance, current climate models are less precise regarding the impacts of individual projects on global climate trends, and prediction of global climate-related changes within relatively small study areas. Category 114: Public participation 114(1009) Comment: Unless we, the concerned Navajo and Hopi people, stop the so-called public participation NOW, OSM could issue the Record of Decision while we sleep. At that point the game is over, they win, we lose again. Response: Comment noted. 114(1010) Comment: The numbers should count; the numbers of concerns-Department of Interior have Trust Responsibility to us, I ask why the department does not support our efforts. Response: The comment does not explain the concerns. As written in EIS Section 1.5 and in Appendix M, numerous concerns about the actions and alternatives, environmental impacts, and process have been expressed and documented. 114(1011) Comment: We are all opposed however, EIS work is already in progress; our concerns should be included by June. We can use legal means to prolong the project too people get tire of blockage and hinderance and then they give up hope. Here the book with all this information we can use. I’m disclosing what I’ve gathered about the EIS study from my reading last evening. Thank you. Response: Comment noted. 114(1012) Comment: Observation/Concern How important is the voice of the Native people in making a final decision? An extremely strong opposition is voiced by the majority of those concerned. All decisions made concerning Native issues are made unjustly. As First Nations people living under the U.S. Constitution, we are denied our human & equal rights as citizens. We were the first people here but the last to get our citizenship. Response: Comment noted. 114(1014) Comment: the lack of careful analysis of the many proposed actions needed to restart the plant threatens fair treatment of people-we cannot launch this initiative without clearly communicated facts with the communities and people involved Response: Restarting the Mohave Generating Station is beyond the scope of this EIS. Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 M-156 Appendix M – Comments and Responses

114(1015) Comment: I need to know when the scoping meetings were held out to Hopi. Also I want to know if the scoping meetings that were held on the Hopi, whether or not there was any specific consultation with the Hopi Villages, with the Hopi clans, c-l-a-n-s, and also Hopi individuals such as Farmers, and if there was, I would like to obtain a record of that. Response: Of the 12 scoping meetings conducted in early 2005, a meeting was held in Kykotsmovi on January 5, 2005. Public open houses to receive comments on the Draft EIS were held in early 2007 including Kykotsmovi on January 4, 2007. OSM conducted government-to-government consultation meetings with the Hopi Tribe on three occasions— June 2006, November 2006, and September 2008. Also, the Hopi Tribe is a cooperating agency participating in the preparation of the EIS. Meetings specifically with Hopi clans and/or individuals have not been held. 114(SR722) Summary Comment: OSM should have been more considerate of the non-English-speaking population that will be affected by this project by allowing more time for them to translate and understand the EIS. Translators should have been provided to assist in this effort. Summary Response: Translators for Hopi and Navajo speakers were provided for the scoping meetings and public meetings to receive comments on the Draft EIS. A DVD was prepared to explain the project in both Hopi and Navajo languages. Also, the Hopi Tribe is a cooperating agency participating in the preparation of the EIS. 114(SR724) Summary Comment: The DEIS public comment meetings should have been more like public hearings so everyone could hear, and representatives could respond to, all comments, rather than the informational public meetings that were held. People felt they could not speak to or get adequate responses from Agency or company representatives. This is not following guidance of NEPA. Summary Response: The purpose of the meetings was to obtain comments on the Draft EIS. OSM, in consultation with the cooperating agencies, decided to informal open houses where attendees could (1) watch a video about the Black Mesa Project EIS, (2) view project displays boards and discuss the proposed action and alternatives one-on­ one with project team members (3) submit oral comments to a court reporter and/or translator, and (2) submit written comments. Neither NEPA nor the Council on Environmental Quality regulations specify how such meetings are to be conducted. 114(SR728) Summary Comment: Some participants felt the public meeting(s) they attended were poorly run. Summary Response: Comment noted. 114(SR730) Summary Comment: OSM should have included more people in the process. Each community in the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe is locally governed and autonomous, so OSM must communicate with each one, not just with the tribal governments, and give each the status of cooperating agency. Special care must be taken to involve local people who will be affected by the project (people living on Black Mesa, for example). Summary Response: Scoping meetings were held in early 2005 at one location on the Hopi Indian Reservation and five on the Navajo Indian Reservation. Public meetings on the Draft EIS were held at one location on the Hopi Indian Reservation and six locations on the Navajo Indian Reservation. Refer to EIS Chapter 5 for locations and dates. All meetings were widely announced by newsletter, news releases, legal notices, posters, paid radio broadcasts (in native languages), and website posting. Translators for Hopi and Navajo speakers were provided for the meetings on the reservations. 114(SR732) Summary Comment: Where can I get a copy of the scoping report?
 Summary Response: The scoping report can be obtained from OSM and OSM’s project website.
 114(SR733) Summary Comment: When will public meetings be held in Phoenix to tell consumers where they will be getting their energy from? Summary Response: Informing consumers about sources of energy is beyond the scope of this EIS.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-157

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

114(SR734) Summary Comment: The public meeting location changed last-minute in one instance and many people were confused. Summary Response: Comment noted. The public meeting location was changed by the management of the facility. 114(SR736) Summary Comment: It feels as though all real discussion has happened behind closed doors, that the public meetings were only a formality and that the public’s opinions will not be incorporated into the analysis. OSM is not taking the public’s complaints seriously. Summary Response: All substantive comments received from the public are analyzed and considered by OSM in making their decision regarding the proposed project. All substantive comments and responses to them are provided in this Appendix M of the Final EIS. 114(SR737) Summary Comment: The public meetings should better respect Native American tradition by using a format that allowed for discussion and question and answer sessions lasting significantly longer than three hours. Summary Response: Comment noted. 114(SR738) Summary Comment: The EIS drafts weren’t distributed properly and some locations did not receive them. Summary Response: OSM coordinated with the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation regarding distribution of the Draft EIS. 114(SR739) Summary Comment: There should have been more notification for the public meetings. 
 Summary Response: . All meetings were widely announced by newsletter, news releases, legal notices, posters, paid
 radio broadcasts (in native languages), and website posting. Translators for Hopi and Navajo speakers were provided
 for the meetings on the reservations. Refer to EIS Chapter 5 for locations and dates of the meetings. 
 114(SR740) Summary Comment: The video doesn’t show Hualapai land.
 Summary Response: The Hualapai Reservation would not be affected by any of the alternatives addressed in the 
 EIS. 
 114(SR743) Summary Comment: I am concerned about who OSM deems a “legitimate” commenter and who is dismissed and unheeded. I don’t like that the BMPI, OSM and others who support this project call the people against it “resisters” or “protesters” or “professional agitators.” Summary Response: All comments received by OSM throughout the EIS process were accepted, documented, and analyzed. OSM considers all comments regardless of content. 114(SR744) Summary Comment: The assertion that legitimacy is somehow geo-located, and that only persons who live in direct proximity to the mine, the slurry line, the power-transmission lines, etc., are entitled to participate in the EIS process demonstrates an illegal contempt for and systematic exclusion of those who oppose OSM’s intentions. Summary Response: Any interested party is entitled to participate in the process. 114(SR745) Summary Comment: The OSM representative at the meeting made clear that, in his mind, while OSM quite definitely had legal responsibilities to the tribes, OSM had no special or unique responsibilities other than those it owned to every other constituency in America. Additionally he stated that OSM had completely fulfilled its obligations by meeting with tribal governments. Apparently, in his view there were no legitimate Native individuals, only legitimate Caucasian individuals. Summary Response: Comment noted. 114(SR746) Summary Comment: The tribal council should not have made a settlement without involving the local people that this project will affect. The tribe needs to consult local people and listen to their opinions. The tribe didn’t even come to the public meetings, and they are the ones that are supposed to be representing the local people. Summary Response: Comment noted.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-158

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

114(SR747) Summary Comment: OSM failed to adequately involve our [Black Mesa Trust] people in the scoping process. Summary Response: Any interested party is entitled to participate in the process. 114(SR748) Summary Comment: The Navajo translation of the video was inaccurate and cut off at the ends of sentences, leaving out information. There are concerns about the translations involving the life-of-mine and 5,600 acre-feet per year groundwater discussions. Improper translations are illegal. Summary Response: Navajo and Hopi translators were provided at the public meetings to help non-English speaking commenters ask questions in their native language. The translated audio portion of the video overview of the project did truncate some sentences; however, efforts were made to correct this error. 114(SR751) Summary Comment: The public meetings were not accessible to certain members of affected communities because of either distance (i.e., there were not enough meetings in various locations), winter road conditions, or Hopi religious practices. Summary Response: From January 2 through 11, 2007, OSM held 12 public meetings over a wide area of northern Arizona and southeast Nevada to receive comments on the Draft EIS. Weather was not inclement at that time. The comment period ran from November 22, 2006, through February 6, 2007. On April 9, 2007, OSM notified the Hopi Tribe that OSM would consider additional comments on the Draft EIS which it received from practitioners of Hopi traditional religion by May 11, 2007. On May 1 and 3, 2007, the Hopi Tribe was present at the Hopi Abandoned Mine Land Office to receive oral and written comments. A Hopi translator was available to take oral comments. 114(SR752) Summary Comment: There were no copies of the DVDs available at the public meetings. Summary Response: Comment noted. 114(SR754) Summary Comment: I demand compliance with D.O.I. Departmental Management Manual Part 301 Chap. 2.6, USC 30 A§1263 & 5 A§ 552 et seq. What do we get for $67 million? We must have public participation in this Black Mesa EIS. Summary Response: The referenced parts of the Department of the Interior Manual concern facilitation of public involvement. There were many opportunities for public involvement in the EIS process. See EIS Section 5.3. 30 USC 1263, which is Section 513 of SMCRA, concerns public notice and hearings for permit applications. Informal conferences, as provided in this section, were held concurrently with the EIS scoping meetings. 5 USC 552 of the Administrative Procedure Act concerns public information and agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings. This section has many provisions, and it is not clear what the commenter specifically intended in citing it. 114(SR755) Summary Comment: Commenters state that they did not receive information regarding the times and locations of the meetings until the meetings were over. Summary Response: OSM and USEPA announced the availability of the Draft EIS for review and comments in Federal Register notices. The availability of the Draft EIS, deadline for public comments, and locations, dates, and times of public meetings on the Draft EIS were announced in media releases, paid legal notices, and radio announcements. Radio broadcasts would in English, Hopi, and Navajo languages. Refer to EIS Section 5.5 for a list of the legal notice publications and radio announcements. 114(SR756) Summary Comment: The video used for informational purposes at the public meeting was difficult to hear at times and the background music appeared to intentionally cover up important information. The video was too complex and confusing for many to understand. There is a concern about fraudulent intent and the video’s skew towards Peabody. Summary Response: There was no intent to confuse the audiences at the public meetings with the video overview of the project. No effort was made to distort the audio to prevent the audiences from hearing all relevant information provided. There was no intent to skew the information provided in Peabody’s favor. The information was put out in a nonbiased manner for all audiences.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-159

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

114(SR768) Summary Comment: Have the Hopi and Navajo People have been involved in this decision? Are they aware of all the science and geology involved in decision? Summary Response: The Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation are participating as cooperating agencies, OSM has met with both as part of government-to-government consultation, and a number of the resource departments of both tribes have participated. 114(SR791) Summary Comment: Comments provided during the review of the Draft EIS were not made public.
 Summary Response: The comments provided from the review of the Draft EIS are provided in this Appendix M of
 the Final EIS. 
 114(SR826) Summary Comment: Local American Indian communities have not been fully consulted regarding right-of-way. Navajo Nation law recognizes property rights of residents along the pipeline routes, and five Hopi villages (Kykotsmovi, Orayvi [Old Oraibi], Paaqavi [Bacavi], and perhaps Songoopavi [Shongopavi] and Hot’vela [Hotevilla]) potentially will assert original jurisdiction on the “Hopi” route (which pre-dates the establishment of the Hopi Tribal Council in 1936). Also, the EIS has failed “to find a path for the ... 108-mile water supply pipeline that will not destroy sacred sites.” Summary Response: Under Alternative A, the routes considered for the C aquifer water-supply pipeline were developed in coordination with the Hopi Tribe. Tribal right-of-way decisions will be made according to the requirements of Tribal law. Category 115: Public participation – Public meetings (on the adequacy of the Draft EIS) 115(1016) Comment: So I’m calling out to my leaders, Joe Shirley, attorney general. I don’t know who’s here from Navajo Nation. How come you haven’t come to tell our people about this? John Stucker, where are you? You need to be accountable to our communities and Navajo Nation. I don’t know where the Navajo Nation employees are, too. How can you hide this information from us? How can you lie to us? You don’t – you probably never read this book yet, but you’re going along with it because of the money. I’m really upset. Response: Comment noted. 115(SR21) Summary Comment: OSM did not effectively educate the stakeholders regarding their alleged approval of test well drilling. Stakeholders claim that Indian Health Services went door to door asking for approval to run water to residences. The approvals were given for one thing and then used for another. This was deceitful. Summary Response: OSM did not have jurisdiction on the test well drilling. OSM is only concerned with the actions involving the lease area. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was the lead agency in coordinating the C aquifer study. The Navajo Nation was a cooperating agency to the C aquifer Study and the Black Mesa EIS. As a cooperating agency, the Navajo Nation sought approval of the C aquifer study test wells. The Indian Health Service is not a cooperating agency for the C aquifer study or the Black Mesa EIS. The Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources is the agency coordinating the domestic and municipal water development plans in the C aquifer study area. The Leupp Chapter in coordination with the Navajo Department of Water Resources and the Indian Health Service is drafting a water plan. The Leupp Chapter requested a water plan to document the future water demands for the chapter. With that request, IHS was requested to update their list of residences in the Leupp area. 115(SR767) Summary Comment: Select Alternative C because the Draft EIS is not adequately translated into the Navajo language and because providing your comments to a recorder is not a public hearing. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 116: Public participation – Public meetings – Meeting format 116(SR725) Summary Comment: Make the meeting process public so everyone can hear each other’s comments and representatives can respond publicly, and change the format to allow a proper discussion to take place, as is traditional to Native Americans.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-160

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Summary Response: OSM choose to hold public meetings rather than public hearings to afford a greater opportunity for the public to ask questions of project representatives on a one-on-one basis. This method allows for greater participation on an individual level. 116(SR726) Summary Comment: The format of the public meetings was not right, as it did not allow for people to ask and get answers to their questions about the project. Summary Response: The open house format of the public meetings is used to allow the lead agency to provide a project overview to a group of people and then to allow the public to speak one-on-one with project representatives and technical specialists in addition to reviewing poster board presentations of project components. 116(SR757) Summary Comment: The format should be redesigned to allow for proper and lengthy interaction with Indian stakeholders who speak as communities not individuals. Summary Response: OSM consulted with the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation regarding the format of the meetings to provide information to the public on the Draft EIS. 116(SR758) Summary Comment: The meeting was not a meeting, but a public information session.
 Summary Response: A number of opportunities for comment were provided. [URS to expand this response] . 
 116(SR760) Summary Comment: Failure to hold open hearings only results in bad feelings between stakeholders and the government. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 118: Public participation – Public meetings – Hearings 118(SR726) Summary Comment: The format of the public meetings was not right, as it did not allow for people to ask and get answers to their questions about the project. Summary Response: The open house format of the public meetings is used to allow the lead agency to provide a project overview to a group of people and then to allow the public to speak one-on-one with project representatives and technical specialists in addition to reviewing poster board presentations of project components. 118(SR761) Summary Comment: These are not public hearings. When will the public hearings be held?
 Summary Response: OSM choose to hold 10 public open houses or meetings to allow the lead agency to provide a
 project overview to a group of people and then to allow the public to speak one-on-one with project representatives 
 and technical specialists. 
 118(SR762) Summary Comment: There is a concern that environmental justice and water use was not discussed at the public “hearing.” Summary Response: OSM choose to hold 10 public open houses or meetings to allow the lead agency to provide a project overview to a group of people and then to allow the public to speak one-on-one with project representatives and technical specialists. 118(SR763) Summary Comment: Not enough people attended the public “hearings” to make a public decision. 
 Summary Response: The public meetings were one opportunity for the public to gather information and provide 
 comments on the Draft EIS. While approximately 600 hundred individuals attended the public meetings, over 
 17,000 commented by postal mail, electronic mail, fax, and phone. OSM as the lead agency is the decision-maker. 
 118(SR764) Summary Comment: BIA should be involved in the public “hearings.” Summary Response: BIA representatives attended the public meetings.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-161

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

118(SR765) Summary Comment: The public did not appear to understand that the open house format of the meeting was intended to provide them with information on a one-to-one basis in a neutral environment so they could provide their comments on the project on a more personal level. Summary Response: Comment noted. 118(SR766) Summary Comment: Select Alternative C because the format of the public hearing was not correct: listening to a video and talking into a recorder is not a public hearing Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 119: Distribution and review of the Draft EIS 119(SR769) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS was released without proper notification, with inadequate time for review and not to those stakeholders who are most affected. This is illegal. Summary Response: The Draft EIS was released to the public and affected agencies following the publication of a Federal Register Notice of Availability as required by NEPA. Copies of the Draft EIS were provided to requesting individuals and agencies, it was posted on the Black Mesa website for maximum distribution, it was supplied to numerous libraries and chapter houses in the project area, and it was provided, as available, at public meetings. Sixty days were allowed for the initial review which was extended twice. Comments continued to be received and addressed by OSM for over one year. 119(SR772) Summary Comment: The website set up by OSM was difficult to read because the print was too small. 
 Summary Response:
 Using his or her web browser, the viewer of the web page should have been able to adjust the font size of the print.
 119(SR773) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS was too complex and confusing a document to review. 
 Summary Response: OSM and the cooperating agencies were conscious of the complexity of the project (e.g., 
 Alternative A and its subalternatives, the depth and specificity of SMCRA requirements) and strived to be as concise
 ad clear as practicable. However, certain resource studies, such topics as air quality, climate, and groundwater 
 hydrology are highly technical and had to be described in both common and scientific terms. 
 119(SR774) Summary Comment: There is no place to sign the comment form; therefore, it must not be a legal document. Summary Response: Comment forms provided at the public meetings did not require signatures to be considered valid. All comments received by OSM were subjected to the same analysis and treated in the same manner. 119(SR775) Summary Comment: One should not be expected to write down page and line numbers when reviewing the Draft 
 EIS. 
 Summary Response: This technique is used to ensure that the comment reviewers can locate the source of comments 
 regarding the adequacy of the document and to ensure that the most appropriate response is provided. 
 Category 120: Distribution and review of the Draft EIS – Extend the public comment period 120(1018) Comment: I have been informed that the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (“OSM”) is considering an extension of the public comment period on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) relating to the construction of a wellfield and pipeline to’ produce and-transport water from wells located on land of the Navajo Nation.’ The purpose of the wellfield, pipeline, and the related C-Aquifer project is to: permit the ‘use of an alternative source of Water, for the Coal Slurry Pipeline that makes operation of the Mohave Generating Station (“MGS”), possible: As President of the .Navajo Nation; I would like to express the opposition of the Nation to; any delay in the EIS process which could adversely affect effort to reopen MGS. Response: Comment noted.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-162

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

120(1036) Comment: We want to underscore the fact that the Hopi individuals who seek an extension of the Public comment period do not represent the Hopi Tribe, but are instead voicing their personal views. While these individuals have every right to voice their opposition to the Black Mesa Project, their opposition should in no manner be viewed by your agency as a matter of Hopi Tribal Government policy. Response: Comment noted. 120(1244) Comment: Additional time is required to retain experts to evaluate the proposed plan and potential impacts on the City’s long-term water supply. Response: The C-aquifer groundwater hydrology studies and modeling were directed by a team of hydrologists with expertise in the region (i.e., Technical Advisory Group representing OSM, many of the cooperating agencies, and the proponents), and those studies and models addressed cumulative effects of the project, as well as the effects from other groundwater users, on the hydrology of the region. 120(SR777) Summary Comment: Commenters request an extension of the public comment period for the Draft EIS up to 10 months for more detailed review and comment primarily because the complex document was released during the winter holidays and at a period of ceremonial activities for the Hopi. Roads in the winter can be impassible preventing individuals from participating in public meetings. Summary Response: The original and extended comment period on the DEIS officially ran for 75 days from November 22, 2006, through February 6, 2007. Unofficially, OSM accepted and considered all comments received by February 28, 2007. To accommodate practitioners of Hopi traditional religion, OSM notified the Hopi Tribe on April 9, 2007, that it would consider additional comments on the Draft EIS it received from practitioners of Hopi traditional religion by May 11, 2007. In 2008, OSM officially reopened the comment period for 45 days on the Draft EIS from May 23 through July 7. The official original, extended, and reopened comment periods totaled 120 days, a period of 4 months that was adequately long for persons to submit comments on the Draft EIS. 120(SR1019) Summary Comment: The Hopi Tribe requests no further extension of the public comment period and urges OSM to move forward in an expeditious manner. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 121: Concerns with EIS Process 121(1020) Comment: The Interior, either by intent or ignorance is taking control of our resources for the benefit of rich corporations like Salt River Project and Peabody against our will. OSM is acting like it owns our coal, our water and our lands. Back in the old days, the U.S. Government would sent a Calvary to take Indian lands. Now the federal government, acting through OSM, is using the EIS process to do the same thing. This is made clear in the confidential letter SRP (September 15, 2006) wrote to OSM telling them what to do. Since SRP is paying for the EIS, they feel they can tell OSM what to do and how to proceed. In the letter they asked OSM to complete “public comments” by the middle of December 2006 and to finalize the EIS by the middle of 2007. Response: The suggestions of the project proponent are taken as recommendations by the lead agency, not as directions. OSM directed and managed the EIS process. 121(1021) Comment: Your premature approval of an EIS without serious consideration of our legal, property rights, cultural values jeopardizes my survival. Response: The EIS has not been approved. OSM as the decision-maker will make a determination of the action in a Record of Decision, which will be published following publication of the Final EIS. 121(1023) Comment: While comments made during the Scoping process were made available for those interested to read, comments made during the present meetings are done in a secretive manner so that no one knows what is being said, therefore, not allowing anyone the opportunity to make sure that any comments not made in English are translated correctly. These comments have not been made available for others to view during the current process as they were during the Scoping process. What are you hiding? All appears to be nothing more than a tactic to undermine the transparency of the EIS process.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-163

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Response: All substantive comments made by the public and affected agencies are available in this Appendix M of the Final EIS. 121(1024) Comment: OSM’s release of the Black Mesa DEIS is premature and a supplemental DEIS should be prepared that includes a wider range or alternatives... Response: Refer to the EIS Section 2.4, for a discussion on alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. The lead and cooperating agencies have determined that the EIS is adequate. 121(1025) Comment: As a resident of Forest Lake, I want an end to Black Mesa Mine and Mohave Power Plant. This activity has severely depleted our N-Aquifer and irreversibly damaged our environment. The EIS public comment method was obviously slanted in OSM’s favor. Response: The public comment method of affording the public and affected agencies the opportunity to review the Draft EIS and comment via postal mail, electronic mail, fax, phone, orally at public meetings was in accordance with NEPA and CEQ guidelines. 121(1026) Comment: The Kayenta and Black Mesa mines are regulated under two distinct permits. Each mine delivers coal to a distinct end-user; each mine is subject to distinct CHIA criteria; and each mine operates under distinct permits. Under SMCRA and implementing regulations, the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining permits exist independently of each other. As a result of OSM’ s improper treatment of these distinct mines, the public has been denied an adequate environmental review and alternatives analysis. Response: In Chapter 2, the EIS clearly states that the purpose and need of the Black Mesa operation was to supply coal to the Mohave Generating Station and that the purpose and need of the Kayenta mining operation is to supply coal to the Navajo Generating Station. Under Alternative A, the EIS analyzes the impacts of operations associated with supplying coal to both the Mohave Generating Station and the Navajo Generating Station. Under Alternatives B and C, the EIS analyzes the impacts of supplying coal to only the Navajo Generating Station. The Black Mesa mining operations do not have a permanent program permit. Since 1990 they have continued to occur under the initial program because OSM administratively delayed its decision on the permanent program permit application for these operations. Peabody proposes to incorporate the Black Mesa mining operations area into the permanent program permit area for the Kayenta mining operations. If approved, there will be one permit area encompassing both the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. Prior to making a decision on the permit application, OSM will prepare a CHIA that analyzes the entirety of impacts occurring as the result of both the Kayenta and Black Mesa mining operations. 121(1027) Comment: I would like to know the cost, to federal taxpayers, of writing, printing, and distributing this enormous document, this 750 pages of lies...I would like to know the cost, to federal taxpayers, of preparing this deeply demeaning document. Response: The EIS process was funded by the project proponent and directed and managed by OSM. Private rather than Federal monies funded the preparation of the EIS. 121(1241) Comment: the public has been denied the benefit of both the Section 106 process and NEPA process before having to submit comments on the Black Mesa Mine Permit Application. Response: The National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, NEPA EIS, and SMCRA permit application activities are occurring concurrently. As required by NEPA, the EIS fully discloses impacts of the proposed project, including impacts on cultural and historic resources and threatened and endangered species. 121(1242) Comment: OSM Unlawfully Segments or “Piecemeals” Environmental Analysis By Failing to Analyze the Environmental Effects of the Mohave Generating Station and Alternatives Thereto. As an initial matter, OSM misrepresents the purpose and need for action, artificially truncating environmental review and alternatives analysis. Response: Refer to EIS Section 1.4.2 for an explanation why the Mohave Generating Station is no a component of Alternative A.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-164

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

121(1243) Comment: The EIS public comment method was obviously slanted in OSM’s favor. Response: The comment does not provide adequate detail to allow response. The public comment method of affording the public and affected agencies the opportunity to review the Draft EIS and comment via postal mail, electronic mail, fax, phone, orally at public meetings was in accordance with NEPA and CEQ guidelines. 121(SR9) Summary Comment: The Government must adhere to the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo granting the free right to religious expression in dealing with the Indian stakeholders with regard to the Draft EIS comment period being held during traditional Hopi ceremonial periods. Summary Response: During the initial period established for commenting on the Draft EIS (November 22, 2006 to January 22, 2007), OSM received numerous requests for an extension of the comment period, which is a minimum of 45 days. Subsequently, OSM extended the date to February 6, 2007. In response to these requests, the ViceChairman of the Hopi Energy and Water Teams sent to OSM a letter, dated January 23, 2007, in which they stated the Tribes opposition to extension of the comment period beyond February 6, 2007. The Teams considered the Hopi ceremonial calendar and determined that the comment period did not constitute an interference with Hopi religious ceremonies and individual Hopi religious responsibilities. Moreover, all comments received through July 11, 2008 have been considered in preparing the Final EIS. 121(SR10) Summary Comment: There is a concern that the Kayenta and Black Mesa Mining projects were merged to avoid having to undergo the in-depth NEPA process required and to allow the taking of Navajo-aquifer water illegally. Summary Response: The Black Mesa Project is adhering to Federal, tribal, and State regulations as well as all NEPA requirements. 121(SR27) Summary Comment: The Black Mesa Project Draft EIS is premature, incomplete, and is in violation of Section 510(c) of the Code of Federal Regulations 30 USC 1202, and 40 CFR 1500.4 aka programmatic EIS. The first regulation cited above requires that a request for permit must be administratively complete. The Black Mesa Project EIS fails to meet this requirement for several reasons. I cite, in particular, failure to conduct an objective cost analysis of the true value of water and environmental impact of surface water impoundments. Water is the heart of Black Mesa mining, without the coal slurry, the Mohave Generating Station cannot re-open as a coal-fired generating plant using Black Mesa coal. Summary Response: Cited Section 510(c) of SMCRA pertains to the requirement for an applicant, or any surface mining operation owned or controlled by the applicant, to correct violations before OSM could issue a permit. Contrary to what the commenter states the cited section of the statute does not pertain to administrative completeness of a permit application. The commenter may have intended to cite Section 510(b) of SMCRA, which does pertain to OSMs completeness determination on a permit application. This statutory requirement is relevant to OSMs permit decision, but it is not relevant to the EIS, which is a NEPA analysis of the environmental consequences of the proposed project and alternatives. 121(SR489) Summary Comment: I object to the Draft EIS [because of] its lack of responsiveness to the concerns of Leupp community members whose way of life threatens to be transformed through forced relocation and the loss of 160 acres of traditional grazing land. Summary Response: No residents within the well field would be resettled. As stated in the Draft EIS Section 4.9.1.3.1, approximately 55 residences exist within the well field. Although residences would be avoided during the development of the well field, access to residences or associated use areas may be disrupted during shortterm construction activities. The 160 acres that would be displaced by well-field facilities are not be a single parcel, rather, would be dispersed over the entire area of the well field. Wells would be dispersed within the well field, spaced about 1.2 to 1.5 miles apart, and each well would require approximately 0.06 acre of permanent right-of-way for a well pad and associated equipment. A spur road to access each well would be needed and the pipeline from each well would be buried in the spur road. An overhead power line would be constructed to each well to provide electricity to each pump.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-165

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

121(SR780) Summary Comment: The EIS process is supposed to be an advocate of the people, not of big business. Summary Response: The NEPA process provides a nonbiased analysis of impacts to resources by proposed alternatives. 121(SR781) Summary Comment: There is concern that the EIS process has been tainted and that final decisions have already
 been made by the Government in favor of Peabody.
 Summary Response: Comment noted. No decisions have been made by OSM.
 121(SR782) Summary Comment: There is a concern that not all issues of significance to stakeholders were analyzed fully. Summary Response: Comment noted. Comments received during public scoping were used to identify issues and concerns of the public. 121(SR783) Summary Comment: There is concern that if a Record of Decision was approved that would indicate that the mining permit would be automatically approved also. Summary Response: This is not the case. 121(SR784) Summary Comment: The presentation provided during the Draft EIS comment meetings was inadequate in that it failed to discuss the Hualapai, the Havasupai, and Fort Mohave tribes. Summary Response: The video presentation at the public meetings was an overview of the proposed project and the alternatives. Not all information in the Draft EIS could be provided in that manner in a reasonable length of time. Hardcopy Draft EISs and executive summaries, as well as compact diskettes containing those documents were available at the public meetings. Additionally, representatives of the cooperating agencies and technical specialists were on hand to discuss concerns one-on-one with the public. 121(SR785) Summary Comment: The Indian people want to know how much time they will have to conduct their own EIS to compare against that of the OSM EIS. Summary Response: The Indian people have had as much time as OSM to analyze issues and concerns important to them. The public was made aware of the intent to prepare an EIS by release of a Federal Register Notice of Intent published December 1, 2004. The Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation received letters of invitation to participate as cooperating agencies in August, 2004. They accepted shortly thereafter. 121(SR786) Summary Comment: It seems as though there should be a greater adverse impact overall than is described in the 
 EIS. 
 Summary Response: The analysis described in the EIS was conducted in a scientific and non-biased manner in
 accordance with NEPA and CEQ guidelines. 
 121(SR787) Summary Comment: Who actually conducted the field work and analysis or was it even done. 
 Summary Response: The consultant assisting OSM in the preparation of the EIS conducted limited field review. 
 Cultural resources surveys were conducted by the Navajo Nation Archaeology Department, Hopi Cultural
 Resources, and, off the reservation, the EIS consultant.
 121(SR788) Summary Comment: The environmental analysis is invalid because of the short period of time it took to conduct it. Summary Response: Existing data were used in the analysis to the extent possible and agencies were contacted to update data. Other data were collected both in real time and from existing sources such as the USGS monitoring data. Some analysis involved modeling of past, present and future conditions based on gathered and existing data. 121(SR792) Summary Comment: There is concern as to whether the entire EIS process on this project is legal. Summary Response: OSM, the cooperating agencies, and the USDI Office of Environmental Planning and Compliance have determined the EIS to be adequate.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-166

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

121(SR793) Summary Comment: It appears as though an effort is being made to minimize public comment. 
 Summary Response: Many efforts were undertaken by OSM to maximize public comment including 10 public
 meetings, distribution of the EIS to requesting individuals, libraries and chapter houses in the project area, and 
 placement of the EIS on the Black Mesa website in its entirety (broken down into manageable chapters and 
 appendices). Commenters were provided the opportunity to comment via postal mail, electronic mail, fax, phone, 
 and orally or through translators at the public meetings. 
 121(SR794) Summary Comment: There is concern regarding Peabody’s refuse sampling and waste plan because it was undeveloped at the time of Draft EIS release. Summary Response: This information will be made available in the SMCRA permit. 121(SR795) Summary Comment: The EIS has been poorly prepared, it is inadequate, it is pre-decisional and it appears as though the government and Peabody are working together to obfuscate the truth. It must be redrafted and recirculated. Summary Response: The EIS process has been conducted in accordance with NEPA and CEQ guidelines under the direction and management of OSM and in agreement with the recommendations of the cooperating agencies. 121(SR796) Summary Comment: The government, specifically the OSM and Department of the Interior, are perpetrating a fraud upon the public via this process, which is obviously in favor of Peabody. Summary Response: The EIS process has been conducted in accordance with NEPA and CEQ guidelines under the direction and management of OSM and in agreement with the recommendations of the cooperating agencies. 121(SR797) Summary Comment: The N aquifer CHIA must be updated and released in a supplemental Draft EIS to allow a more informed selection of alternatives. Summary Response: OSM is updating the CHIA and the results will be evaluated before a decision is made on the SMCRA permit application. 121(SR798) Summary Comment: The Navajo Nation remains apprised of all activities of the OSM in this process and fully approves of the schedule for the Draft EIS. Summary Response: Comment noted. 121(SR800) Summary Comment: There is the appearance of conflict of interest in that SRP is funding the Draft EIS. Summary Response: There is no conflict of interest. The proponent of the proposed project commonly funds a nonbiased third party consultant to prepare the NEPA document. OSM as the lead agency, however, is responsible for directing and managing the EIS process. The EIS process has been conducted in accordance with NEPA and CEQ guidelines under the direction and management of OSM and in agreement with the recommendations of the cooperating agencies. 121(SR801) Summary Comment: The video presentation did not discuss relocation, loss of acreage for grazing or loss of water. Summary Response: The video presentation at the public meetings was an overview of the proposed project and the alternatives. Not all information in the Draft EIS could be provided in that manner in a reasonable length of time. Hardcopy Draft EISs and executive summaries, as well as compact diskettes containing those documents were available at the public meetings. Additionally, representatives of the cooperating agencies and technical specialists were on hand to discuss concerns one-on-one with the public. 121(SR802) Summary Comment: There is a concern that the tribal leaders have not been fully involved or given their approval for the project. Summary Response: The Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation have been cooperating agencies in the EIS from the beginning and OSM has met with both to exchange information and to comply with government-to-government consultation requirements.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-167

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

121(SR803) Summary Comment: Although most of the Indian people disapprove of the project, their tribal leaders have approved it against their wishes. Summary Response: Comment noted. 121(SR804) Summary Comment: The Black Mesa Project Draft EIS is premature, incomplete, and is in violation of Section 510(c) of the Federal Code of Regulation 30 USC 1202, and 40 CFR 1500.4 aka “programmatic EIS.” The first regulation cited above requires that a request for permit must be “administratively complete.” The Black Mesa Project EIS fails to meet this requirement due to failure to conduct an objective cost analysis of the true value of water and environmental impact of surface water impoundments. Summary Response: SMCRA Section 510(c) does not contain requirements for OSM finding that a permit application is administratively complete prior to further processing the application. Nevertheless OSM found Peabody’s permit application for the Black Mesa Complex to be administratively complete in June 2004 far in advance of release of the Draft EIS in November 2006. It is not clear what the commenter means in citing 30 USC 1202, because this is Section 102 of SMCRA, which states the general purposes of the law. The Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations at 40 CFR 1500.4 at paragraph (i) has a requirement to reduce excessive paperwork by using “program, policy, or plan” EISs and tiering from statements of broad scope to those of narrower scope, to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues. How this regulation has applicability to the Black Mesa Project EIS is unclear. With respect to the part of the comment concerning “objective cost analysis of the true value of water and environmental impact of surface water impoundments,” the EIS at section 4.11 assesses the socioeconomic impacts of water use and at section 4.4.1.1.1 assesses the impacts of impoundments at the Black Mesa Complex. 121(SR805) Summary Comment: The C aquifer EIS is related to the Black Mesa Draft EIS; therefore, people must be made aware of it and it must be completed before the Black Mesa EIS. Summary Response: The water-supply system, which uses C aquifer water, is a component of Alternative A of the Black Mesa Project and is addressed in the Black Mesa Project EIS. 121(SR806) Summary Comment: All participating owners of the Mohave Generating Station should participate in the EIS process. Summary Response: The co-owners of the Mohave Generating Station did participate in the EIS process to the extent appropriate. 121(SR807) Summary Comment: Who will have the final say in this project? Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, OSM, or Peabody? Summary Response: OSM is the decision-maker as the lead agency. 121(SR808) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS is in breach of public trust in that it fails to describe the reopening of the 
 Mohave Generating Station.
 Summary Response: The re-opening of the Mohave Generating Station is beyond the scope of this EIS. However,
 EIS Section 4.23 addresses the indirect effects associated with resuming operation at the Mohave Generating 
 Station. 
 121(SR820) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS and proposed project are not suitably professionally prepared and the analysis of impacts and alternatives is inadequate. Summary Response: The EIS process has been conducted in accordance with NEPA and CEQ guidelines under the direction and management of OSM and in agreement with the recommendations of the cooperating agencies. 121(SR822) Summary Comment: I would like to request that you put up enough dollars to hire respectable expert which is not part of the Federal Government, an outside independent expert, that would further study the impact of this whole package, that it will have on the people and our culture.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-168

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Summary Response: The EIS process has been conducted in accordance with NEPA and CEQ guidelines under the direction and management of OSM and in agreement with the recommendations of the cooperating agencies. A number of specialists and experts contributed to the preparation of the EIS. Category 122: Groundwater – Groundwater contamination 122(1028) Comment: Bezene is known to cause cancer. No organics must enter the water table. As organics are less dense than water, the organics will flow down stream contaminating springs. Organics can also act as a solvent for metal and inorganics. Here are typical organics from coal sludge: Aniline Acenaphthene, Acenapthylene, Anthracene, Benzidine, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(ghi)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoroanthene, Benzyl alcohol, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, bis(2-chloroethoxy)-methane, bis(2­ chloroethyl)ether, bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether, Butyl benzyl phthalate, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Dibenzofuran, Dibutyl phtalate, Diethyl phthalate, Dimethyl phthalate, Dioctylphthalate, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Hexachlorobenzene, Hexachloroethane, Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, Isophorone, N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine, NNitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene, Nitrobenzene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Acrilamide, Hexachloro-1,3-Butadiene, Hexa-C1-1,3-Cyclopentadiene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,2- Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-Dichlorobenzene, 1,4­ Dichlorobenzene, 2,4-Dinitrotoluene, 2,6- Dinitrotoluene, 2-Chloronaphtalene, 2-Methylnapthalene,12-Nitroaniline, 3-3’- Dichlorobenzidine, 3-Nitroaniline, 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether, 4-Chloroaniline, 4- Chhlorophenyl phenyl ether, and 4-Nitroaniline (Sludge Safety Project, 2007). A metal or inorganic that dissolves into an organic will flow downhill as the leach pit is slightly tilted to a drainage wash. A leak of coal sludge into the Wepo Formation would eventually end up in the D Aquifer and eventually into the South East portion of the N aquifer. There are North West to South East Anticlines and Synclines on Black Mesa. There is also an area on Black Mesa where the coal has burned underground altering the rocks in the Wepo Formation and the Mancos Shale. The burned coal area allows water to flow from the Wepo Formation to the D Aquifer. Eventually, the N aquifer in the South East corner would be contaminated with inorganics, metals, and inorganics. Response: Appropriate safeguards are in place to prevent “coal sludge” from making its way into Wepo Formation water. Also, between D-aquifer and the Wepo Formation is a massive layer of Mancos Shale which prevents downward migration of water from the Wepo Formation to the D aquifer. The D aquifer is unaffected by and isolated from the mining process. 122(1029) Comment: OSM has failed to demonstrate, compliance with the Clean Water Act. Here, discharge of leachate into
 the Wepo aquifer from the minefill that includes coal-processing wastes would be considered a point-source 
 discharges subject to the Clean Water Acts’ NPDES program. 33 U.S.C. A§1362. Courts have found that discharges
 into groundwater that are hydrologically connected to surface water are subject to the NPDES program. See e.g., 
 Friends of Santa Fe County v. LAC Minerals, 892 F.Supp. 1333, 1357-1358 (D.N.M. 1995); Sierra Club v.
 Colorado Refining Co., 870 F.Supp. 1428, 1434 (D.Colo. 1993). 
 Response: Peabody and OSM are in compliance with the Clean Water Act. 
 122(1032) Comment: Peabody’s Report also noted the leachate composition of the coal-processing waste indicates that leachate produced as a result of water infiltrating the waste material likely contains much higher concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, barium, mercury, selenium, vanadium, zinc nitrate and nitrate and nitrate concentrations than does natural groundwater in the vicinity of the J-23 and N- 6 Mining Areas. Peabody’s Report also concluded that while leaching may not occur within the life of the mine, leaching from the waste into groundwater would nonetheless occur and thus, the waste disposal would have an adverse impact on hydrologic balance and water quality. In fact, leaching from pit N-6 could occur as early as 25 years from the beginning of disposal. Peabody’s Report was not independently evaluated or analyzed by OSM Response: Impacts on groundwater as a result of disposing coal washing waste materials in the N-6 and J-23 pits is addressed in Section 4.4.1.1.2.1 of the EIS. The report mentioned by the comment did include laboratory leachate metal concentrations that were higher than the natural groundwater. However, the report also pointed out the laboratory methods used to derive the leachate utilized rigorous physical (pulverized) and chemical manipulation (strong acid digestion) of the surrogate samples. It is expected that metals concentrations in groundwater induced leachate at both the N-6 and J-23 proposed refuse disposal areas will be less than indicated by the laboratory results because the groundwater near both pits and lease-wide is not acidic (pH greater than 7.0). The report did not conclude that the waste disposal would have an adverse impact on the hydrologic balance and water quality. The report analyzed potential migration of leachate from the N-6 pit using the conservative assumptions of laboratory-

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-169

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

derived concentrations under total saturation conditions, and predicted a 7 percent increase in laboratory derived concentrations at a distance of 500 feet in 25 years. The report has been reviewed by OSM, USEPA, and other agencies. 122(1033) Comment: I’m aware that there’s water in the vicinity of Tolani Lake however, it not potable water. This water might contaminate the pristine water. Response: The comment is not understood. Category 123: Out of scope 123(SR244) Summary Comment: Using water from the aquifer could cause loss or damage to local water supplies and springs
 that are fed by the aquifers. 
 Summary Response: Impacts on wells, streams, and springs are discussed in the EIS Section 4.4. Impacts on
 N aquifer water-supplies and springs are negligible. Within the leasehold some springs and wells may be impacted. 
 Peabody is required to supply alternative water in as close a proximity to the original supply as possible. 
 Category 124: Spam 124(SR719) Summary Comment: “In the life of permit application for the Black Mesa Project, the legal owners says the Navajo and Hopi Tribe. The real owners of the coal inside the Moqui Reservation is the Hopi and “other indians” for their use and occupancy as defined by law. The Navajo Tribe is not a valid Surface and Mineral owners - Leasehold pursuant to 30 CFR 778.13(a) in the Hopi area, but the “other Indians.” Peabody Western Coal Company does not have Right of Entry pursuant to 30 CFR 778.15 as they have not obtained permission from the “other Indians.” Summary Response: This comment is not pertinent to the EIS. Peabody’s leases for the Black Mesa Complex are with the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. Peabody cites these leases in the right-of-entry section of the mine permit application. Category 125: Miscellaneous 125(1205) Comment: As an example, let me point to Section 510(C) of the Federal Code of Regulations 30 USC 1202, which makes its abundantly clear that when “any surface coal mining operation owned or controlled by applicant” is in violation of SMCRA, the permit shall not be issued. The applicant, Peabody Western Coal Co., violated this regulation by hiding who the true applicant is. It is BMT’s contention that Peabody Energy Corporation, not Peabody Western Coal, is the true applicant. It is up to OSM to determine who the true applicant is. Until this question is resolved, the application is not “administratively complete”. Response: Peabody is the applicant for the permit. OSM has determined that the application is administratively complete. 125(1206) Comment: Reconstructing the 273-mile coal slurry pipeline to Laughlin, Nevada doesn’t make sense as the Mohave Generating Station’s recommission is contingent on upgrades that haven’t been approved or financed. Considering current, multiple Congressional bills limiting CO2 emissions to curb climate change from global warming, plans to slurry coal to Laughlin or Page, Arizona plants are dubious at best. Response: There are no proposals to slurry coal to Page, Arizona; coal is delivered to the Navajo Generating Station from the Black Mesa Complex by an electric train. Should the Mohave Generating Station be reopened as a coalfired generating plant it would be required to adhere to all agreed upon air-pollution control measures as well as USEPA permit requirements. 125(1207) Comment: HRS some years ago tried to mine uranium via solution mining, but was unsuccessful. HRS was a
 subsidiary to URS. Is URS trying to start uranium solution mining near Leupp, Arizona?
 Response: URS Corporation is the third party consultant hired to prepare the EIS. There is no intent on the part of
 URS Corporation to engage in uranium solution mining near Leupp, Arizona. 
 125(1209) Comment: The coal-mining leases provide Peabody rights to prospect, mine, and strip leased lands for coal and kindred products, including other minerals, except for oil and gas, as may be found.” What hasn’t been made clear Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 M-170 Appendix M – Comments and Responses

here is any identification of what these “kindred products” are. Because it is known that there is uranium in the areas mined, and because it is widely known that there are companies who want to begin mining the uranium found there, does this mean that Peabody will stretch their operations to include uranium mining as well even though the Navajo Nation has a moratorium on any further uranium mining? Response: No. Peabody has no intention of mining uranium at the Black Mesa Complex. 125(1210) Comment: At the January 4, 2007 EIS public meeting, I was personally informed that there was no preferred 
 alternative including a choice of pipeline routes. This is apparently not the case at all. On Page ES-17, first 
 paragraph; there is clearly a lead agency and cooperating agencies preference which is Alternative “A”. 
 Response: Alternative A was identified in the Draft EIS as the proposed project and preferred alternative; however,
 a decision is not made in the Draft EIS. The proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS is 
 Alternative B. A decision will be made and documented in a Record of Decision.
 125(1211) Comment: Peabody coal does not have a permit, the permit to transport coal elsewhere, why is that? Maybe someone can answer our question in time I believe that’s what we were told that we would receive answers to out questions too. Peabody used to excavate uranium in the past and they did not reclaim the land in many places, too. That’s what happen and continues to happen. Thank you. Response: Peabody does not transport coal from the Black Mesa Complex. Peabody mines and sells to the coal purchaser per contractual arrangements. In the case of the Navajo Generating Station, the coal is transported to the Navajo Generating Station by electric train operated SRP. 125(1212) Comment: I strongly oppose the reopening of the Black Mesa Project and request that your office review (1) the legality and (2) the conflicting interests of Peabody Western Coal Company and the mission of your organization. The Office of Surface Mining is charged with balancing the nation’s need for continued domestic coal production with protection of the environment. Obviously you cannot question the first part of your mission, which is that the nation actually needs continued domestic coal production. The reopening of the BMP is in direct conflict with the second part of your mission. First, if the mission is to balance coal production with protecting the environment, the effects of coal production in this particular case must be adequately addressed. Response: In carrying out the purposes of SMCRA, OSM does have the responsibility for balancing the nation’s need for continued coal production with the protection of the environment. The effects of coal production by the Black Mesa Complex are analyzed in the EIS. 125(1213) Comment: So I will go on and say that no matter how many ways that we can express our concern over the deficiencies of the Draft EIS, especially regarding the water issues, we will still not be surprised again that this proposed mining plan will probably be approved. So I hope that those major concerns will be noted that, first of all, we have an agency – a Federal agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is supposed to look out for our rights, for our opportunity to receive justice, and over the years that has not happened very well, and therefore, other federal agencies who have responsibilities such as the Office of Surface Mining in preparation of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement, can pretty much write those documents as they wish, without any kind of maybe adversarial relationship with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Response: The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a cooperating agency in the EIS process. OSM is the decision-maker as they have authority over mining operations. The EIS adequately provides analyses of the impacts of the alternatives to resources in the project area. 125(1220) Comment: If the Nation wants to keep any of the Warehouses, we can utilize this for sudden emergency purposes. Response: Comment noted. 125(1222) Comment: Recommend Alternative C - Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) due to: unable to identify all the project applicants or owners of the Mohave Generating Station. Response: Under Alternative C, the unpermitted area of the Black Mesa mining operation would not be incorporated into the permanent permit; however, the approximately 8.5 million tons of coal that has been mined from the Kayenta mining operation would continue to be mined through 2026. Addressing renewable energy development is beyond the scope of this EIS. The Navajo Generating Station is permitted for operation, the coal leases and

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-171

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

agreements to supply coal to the Navajo Generating Station from the Kayenta mining operation are in place, and the Kayenta mining operation is permitted under SMCRA through 2026. The applicants under Alternative A are identified in Chapter 1 of the EIS. The applicant under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS, is Peabody. 125(1229) Comment: The DIES does not seek to provide guidance to water users within the state nor does it strive to develop the building blocks for a long term, conservation strategy. Response: The Draft EIS is an analysis of the impacts of the alternatives on the resources in the project area. It is not a policy or guidance-producing document. 125(1230) Comment: SMCRA is unequivocal in its requirement that “[any permit issued [by OSM] to conduct surface coal mining operations shall require that such surface coal mining operations will meet all applicable performance standards ... and such other requirements as [OSM] shall promulgate.” 30 U.S.C. A§1265(a). Here, there is no indication that most, if not all, of SMRCA’s environmental performance standards either have or will be achieved. Response: OSM has determined that the permit application is administratively complete and ready for review to determine if the permit would be granted or not. The Draft EIS provides an analysis of the impacts of the alternatives on the resources in the project. The SMRCA permitting process involves a separate analysis. 125(1231) Comment: Are private friends [funds?] from Mohave Generating Station being used to fund a public agency & its environmental review? Response: No. 125(1234) Comment: This is an issue that concerns me because the governor of my state, Nevada, is proposing that we “import” coal to Nevada and process it here to make liquid fuel using 5 gallons of water to produce one gallon of fuel. I am concerned of the precedence [the Black Mesa Project] project will set. Response: It is unclear what precedent would be set by the Black Mesa mining operation continuing to provide slurried coal to be to the Mohave Generating Station. 125(1236) Comment: OSM does a lousy job of monitoring Peabody, and that’s sad to say because they have a trust responsibility to the people on Black Mesa, and they don’t fulfill that responsibility. Response: The comment does not provide sufficient information on how OSM does an inadequate job of monitoring Peabody coal mining operations to allow a response. 125(1237) Comment: The Kayenta mining operation and the Black Mesa mining operation are two distinct mining operations. The Kayenta Mine operates under a permanent permit (AZ-0001D) issued in 1990, the Black Mesa Mine continues under an interim permit (AZ-0001) issued in 1982. The Kayenta mining operation supplies coal to the Navajo Generating Station by rail. The Black Mesa mining operation supplies coal to the Mohave Generating Station by slurry. The main relationship between the two mines under the current proposal is Peabody’s attempt to subsume the Black Mesa mining operation into the Kayenta mining permit, a beclouding that OSM and the courts have previously resisted: To the extent that action on the Kayenta mining operation is necessary, it must be treated distinctly, subject to its own EIS. As a matter of law, the draft EIS must analyze the environmental effects of and alternatives to the Mohave Generating Station, including the installation of new pollution controls and other related modifications. Yet OSM’s maintains that “installation of pollution controls and other related modifications contemplated for the Mohave Generating Station are not addressed in this EIS.” To justify this determination, OSM refers to, but fails to cite, an unspecified regulatory exemption under NEPA for air-pollution-control projects. Contrary to OSM’s musings, environmental impact statements are required by NEPA for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Certain exemptions exist, indeed, most notably the exemption in cases considering Environmental Protection Agency duties under the Clean Air Act. But this exemption only applies to EPA’s responsibility to prepare environmental impact statements under NEPA; it does not affect OSM’s responsibilities. As an agency whose primary purpose is the management of surface. mining, OSM cannot fail to review the impact Mohave Generating Station. As lead agency, it is OSM’s responsibility to produce an adequate environmental impact statement that informs not only OSM but ensures that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and actions are taken.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-172

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Response: Refer to EIS Chapter 1 for the reason that actions at the Mohave Generating Station are not addressed in this EIS. 125(SR50) Summary Comment: How can maintenance of the coal-slurry pipeline and the water pipeline be guaranteed given 
 the history of spills and contaminations?
 Summary Response: Refer to EIS Appendix A-2 beginning on page A-2-13 for a discussion of coal-slurry pipeline 
 operation and maintenance, including pipeline releases. 
 125(SR358) Summary Comment: OSM must require that the operating firms put up bonds for rehabilitation of present and future damages to lands and waters. OSM is in violation of SMCRA. Summary Response: In accordance with 30 CFR 800.14, OSM requires a bond in the amount sufficient to assure completion of the reclamation plan if the work has to be performed by it in the event of bond forfeiture. 125(SR565) Summary Comment: I need a written guarantee from the Navajo Nation and Peabody that my family will continue to live in the area even though the water dries up and the soil blows away (caused by the water wells for the project). If the water is lost, I will need fresh water for my grass, the cornfield, my animals, and for the family until the C aquifer returns and hydrostatic equilibrium is established. Summary Response: As stated in the EIS Section 4.4.1.4.1, under Alternative A, depending on the specific design of the C-aquifer well field and distribution facilities, some affected well owners could receive replacement water from the proposed well field. Other impacted owners could require that wells be deepened or new wells drilled. Specific actions would be taken to address impacts on existing water users in coordination with the tribes. 125(SR719) Summary Comment: “In the life of permit application for the Black Mesa Project, the legal owners says the Navajo and Hopi Tribe. The real owners of the coal inside the Moqui Reservation is the Hopi and “other indians” for their use and occupancy as defined by law. The Navajo Tribe is not a valid Surface and Mineral owners - Leasehold pursuant to 30 CFR 778.13(a) in the Hopi area, but the “other Indians.” Peabody Western Coal Company does not have Right of Entry pursuant to 30 CFR 778.15 as they have not obtained permission from the “other Indians.” Summary Response: This comment is not pertinent to the EIS. Peabody’s leases for the Black Mesa Complex are with the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. Peabody cites these leases in the right-of-entry section of the mine permit application. 125(SR1034) Summary Comment: There is no purchaser for the coal as the Mojave Generating Station closed several years ago. What is the point of the DEIS? Summary Response: Alternative A, which is no longer the preferred alternative and proposed project, addresses supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station, which remains permitted for operation (has not been decommissioned) with operations suspended. Although it appears that implementing Alternative A is unlikely, it nonetheless remains a viable alternative. Because implementing Alternative A appears unlikely, Peabody wishes to proceed in revising its permit to incorporate the unpermitted surface facilities and coal resource areas of its adjacent Black Mesa mining operations; that is, Alternative B. 125(SR1035) Summary Comment: Salt River Project, the only active owner of the Mohave Generating Station, is funding the Black Mesa project EIS. This means that private funds are being used to fund a public agency and its environmental review! This is a conflict of interest! Summary Response: The environmental studies and preparation of the EIS were conducted under a third-party contractual arrangement; that is, the consulting firm is funded by the project proponent, but all work on the EIS is directed by the lead agencies in collaboration with the cooperating agencies. An impartial analysis of impacts has been conducted per 40 CFR 1500-1508. OSM, in coordination with the cooperating agencies, provides the direction for the EIS’s preparation and receives no private funding for its involvement. Category 126: Land use – Residences – Relocation 126(1225) Comment: Recommend Alternative C - Disapproval of the LOM Revision (No Action) due to: Project EIS does not identify land withdrawal and compensation to permittee. Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 M-173 Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Response: The land has been leased to Peabody by the tribes for the purpose of mining coal. Peabody’s leases allow exclusive use of the surface for mining and related activities. Under agreement with the Navajo Nation Land Department, Peabody compensates the historic users of record for the loss of grazing as a result of mining disturbance. These payments are allocated to individual(s) (whole or percentage) based on customary use boundaries defined by the Navajo Nation Land Department. The compensation is paid the first year of disturbance (initial) and then every five years (extended) until the reclaimed lands are released of liability and returned to tribal, and permittee control. 126(1226) Comment: I don’t know which way they want to relocate us, because they said they going to make the line for the pipe, and they will make the road. They made electric lines, so they going to – we had the good grass over there. It is just like holy land, is what I pray every day at night. We always have the breeze there, and we have the nice place, and we bought range grass, different kinds. We have planted. We don’t want them to destroy all those, is what I was thinking. I have to use the area up there for so many times. I run there. I raised there, and I like it right there. I don’t want to be disturbed. I want please them to leave us alone. Response: There would be no relocations in the Canyon Diablo area under Alternative A. 126(1239) Comment: You also talk about possibly relocating 15 – 17 family up here, and 55 family down there, affecting 55 households down in the southern part. You forgot to count the number of family in between that point and this point, the water line. Response: It is anticipated that 17 residences within the mine lease area would be relocated through 2026. As noted in the EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.11.1.1 (Draft EIS, pages 4-88, 4-108), 17 Navajo residences (families) on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled out of the areas to be mined, which are within the leased areas. In this case, the leases are between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when resettling of residences due to mining activities becomes apparent, Peabody works with the Navajo Nation. These households would have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time. No other residences would be relocated. 126(1240) Comment: The bottom line is Leupp Chapter will lose part of it’s land base, eventually lose drinking water; and relocation of community members will occur, which is a repeat of Navajo Hopi Relocation that some of our community members living in the well fields area went through and it affected them traumatically; Response: No relocations would occur in the Leupp well field area under Alternative A. If groundwater levels were affected by pumping, wells would be deepened and/or groundwater provided to those affected by project water use. Alternative A is no longer the proposed project; Alternative is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS. Alternative B does not include construction and operation of the C aquifer water-supply system. 126(SR409) Summary Comment: Families should not be forced off their land to accommodate mining activities on Black Mesa; families have been there for generations, and consequences would be felt by successive generations. We are strongly against relocation of indigenous peoples from their land. Summary Response: Comment noted. As noted in the EIS Section 4.11.1.1, 17 Navajo residences on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled out of the areas to be mined, which are within the leased areas. In this case, the leases are between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when resettling of residences due to mining activities becomes apparent, Peabody works with the Navajo Nation. These households would have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time. 126(SR412) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS fails to provide an option that would not involve relocation of families from traditional homelands. Summary Response: As noted in the EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.11.1.1 (Draft EIS, pages 4-88, 4-108), 17 Navajo residences (families) on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-174

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

out of the areas to be mined, which are within the leased areas. In this case, the leases are between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when resettling of residences due to mining activities becomes apparent, Peabody works with the Navajo Nation. These households would have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time. 126(SR419) Summary Comment: OSM fails to evaluate the cumulative impacts of mining disturbance and relocation on residents living at Black Mesa. In addition to relocating 17 families from their current homes on Black Mesa, permitting of the expanded operations will result in a number of direct impacts: Increasing coal production at the Black Mesa mining operation would result in an increase in disturbances to the nearby residences that could cause increased intrusions to the rural setting and lifestyle within the local area of influence; however, it is expected this increase would not be detectable given the amount of disturbance already ongoing or that occurred on a regular basis prior to 2006. Draft EIS at 4-109. The second half of this statement directly conflicts with OSM’s responsibility to evaluate cumulative impacts under NEPA. Rather than using prior disturbances to minimize the significance of adverse effects, OSM should consider how past disturbances have made residents more vulnerable to local conditions. Nowhere does OSM’s analysis of cumulative impacts seem more incomplete than in the discussion of residential relocation. OSM merely recognizes that renewed coal mining will require that 17 families be displaced from their current homes. The Draft EIS explains that these families will have three choices: (1) relocate to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e. where future mining would not require another relocation), (2) relocate elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and relocate on their own. Peabody would pay for relocation (or pay cash) one time. Id. at 4-108. The Draft EIS contains no discussion of the effects that such relocation will have on the relocated families. There will likely be significant economic, social, and cultural consequences of relocation, impacts for which a one-time reimbursement cannot account. These impacts may be especially adverse, given the fact that these families have, for years, been living with the most direct effects of mining. Of the 30 residences already relocated at Black Mesa, a few have been moved more than once. OSM does not mention in the Draft EIS whether any of the families currently facing removal have already had to leave their homes to accommodate mining. A second or third relocation should certainly be considered cumulative and of greater significance. Even if residents will be displaced for the first time, OSM must determine the significance of these relocations in light of the broader familial connections and cultural lifeways that will continue to be disturbed by the Black Mesa Complex. Summary Response: Alternative A, which includes continuing to supply coal to the Mohave Generating Station, is no longer the proposed project. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS. As noted in the EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.11.1.1 (Draft EIS, pages 4-88, 4-108), 17 Navajo residences (families) on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled out of the areas to be mined, which are within the leased areas. In this case, the leases are between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when resettling of residences due to mining activities becomes apparent, Peabody works with the Navajo Nation. These households would have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time. 126(SR420) Summary Comment: Forced relocation of Navajo people is not thoroughly analyzed in the Draft EIS. Summary Response: As noted in the EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.11.1.1 (Draft EIS, pages 4-88, 4-108), 17 Navajo residences (families) on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled out of the areas to be mined, which are within the leased areas. In this case, the leases are between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when resettling of residences due to mining activities becomes apparent, Peabody works with the Navajo Nation. These households would have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-175

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

126(SR421) Summary Comment: Relocation of Indian stakeholders for pipeline or mining development to other tribal lands is not a suitable substitute because of the cultural and spiritual ties to land that will be broken and which cannot be readily translated into a monetary value. Summary Response: As noted in the EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.11.1.1 (Draft EIS, pages 4-88, 4-108), 17 Navajo residences (families) on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled out of the areas to be mined, which are within the leased areas. In this case, the leases are between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when resettling of residences due to mining activities becomes apparent, Peabody works with the Navajo Nation. These households would have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time. No families would be relocated due to construction and operation of the water-supply pipeline, which is not longer a component of the proposed project. 126(SR423) Summary Comment: There is concern as to whether or which families will be required to relocate or not. Summary Response: As noted in the EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.11.1.1 (Draft EIS, pages 4-88, 4-108), 17 Navajo residences (families) on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled out of the areas to be mined, which are within the leased areas. These families are not identified at this time. In this case, the leases are between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when resettling of residences due to mining activities becomes apparent, Peabody works with the Navajo Nation. These households would have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time. 126(SR424) Summary Comment: Stakeholders want to know how long it will be before they can reoccupy the homes and lands from which they will be forced to relocate. Summary Response: Refer to ES-11 where it states that the families would be able to return to their original home sites after about 20 to 25 years. 126(SR425) Summary Comment: Stakeholders are frightened because of lack of education as to what is going on around them and perceived threats from the mining company that if they do not comply with orders to relocate, relatives will be fired from mine jobs. Summary Response: As noted in the EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.11.1.1 (Draft EIS, pages 4-88, 4-108), 17 Navajo residences (families) on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled out of the areas to be mined, which are within the leased areas. In this case, the leases are between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when resettling of residences due to mining activities becomes apparent, Peabody works with the Navajo Nation. These households would have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time. 126(SR426) Summary Comment: In the past “Many living in the path of mining operations were forced to relocate, abandoning huge customary use areas for just a few acres. Many received no compensation at all. Others were handed small amounts of cash, not enough for replacement housing, became homeless and just wandered off, finding out there were no provisions made for their children and grandchildren.” Summary Response: As noted in the EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.11.1.1 (Draft EIS, pages 4-88, 4-108), 17 Navajo residences (families) on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled out of the areas to be mined, which are within the leased areas. In this case, the leases are between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when resettling of residences due to mining activities becomes apparent, Peabody works with the Navajo Nation. These households would have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-176

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

126(SR427) Summary Comment: It is not accurate to say that 55 residences will be relocated. Because up to 4 or 5 families occupy a homestead, it should say that 55 homesteads will be relocated and that could be as many as 200 to 250 families. Summary Response: As stated in the EIS Section 4.9.1.3.1, under Alternative A, approximately 55 residences exist within the C-aquifer well field. Although residences would be avoided during the development of the well field, access to residences or associated use areas may be disrupted during short-term construction activities. Wells would be dispersed within the well field, spaced about 1.2 to 1.5 miles apart, and each well would require approximately 0.06 acre of permanent right-of-way for a well pad and associated equipment. No residences would be relocated in the area of the well field (Alternative A). 126(SR428) Summary Comment: The relocation of stakeholder families disproportionately impacts several communities and is out of compliance with environmental justice concerns. Summary Response: As stated in the EIS Section 4.9.1.3.1, under Alternative A, approximately 55 residences exist within the C-aquifer well field. Although residences would be avoided during the development of the well field, access to residences or associated use areas may be disrupted during short-term construction activities. Wells would be dispersed within the well field, spaced about 1.2 to 1.5 miles apart, and each well would require approximately 0.06 acre of permanent right-of-way for a well pad and associated equipment. A spur road to access each well would be needed and the pipeline from each well would be buried in the spur road. 126(SR429) Summary Comment: When Indian stakeholders have been relocated for the mining efforts in the past there has been no type of rehabilitation effort aimed at those stakeholders to teach them new ways to support themselves after they have been relocated from their traditional grazing lands and way of life. Summary Response: As noted in the EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.11.1.1 (Draft EIS, pages 4-88, 4-108), 17 Navajo residences (families) on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled out of the areas to be mined, which are within the leased areas. In this case, the leases are between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when resettling of residences due to mining activities becomes apparent, Peabody works with the Navajo Nation. These households would have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time. 126(SR430) Summary Comment: Peabody must accommodate all families affected by the expansion of the mine to the satisfaction of the stakeholders. Summary Response: As noted in the EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.11.1.1 (Draft EIS, pages 4-88, 4-108), 17 Navajo residences (families) on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled out of the areas to be mined, which are within the leased areas. In this case, the leases are between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when resettling of residences due to mining activities becomes apparent, Peabody works with the Navajo Nation. These households would have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time. 126(SR434) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not respond to the concerns of Leupp community members whose way of life threatens to be transformed through forced relocation and the loss of 160 acres of traditional grazing land. Summary Response: As stated in the EIS Section 4.9.1.3.1, approximately 55 residences exist within the well field. Although residences would be avoided during the development of the well field, access to residences or associated use areas may be disrupted during short-term construction activities. The 160 acres that would be displaced by wellfield facilities are not be a single parcel, rather, would be dispersed over the entire area of the well field. Wells would be dispersed within the well field, spaced about 1.2 to 1.5 miles apart, and each well would require approximately 0.06 acre of permanent right-of-way for a well pad and associated equipment. A spur road to access each well would be needed and the pipeline from each well would be buried in the spur road. An overhead power line would be constructed to each well to provide electricity to each pump.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-177

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

126(SR1223) Summary Comment: As directly tied to spiritual land, displacement of the Navajo and Hopi is an act attacking Navajo and Hopi culture. Since 1974 Over 15,000 Navajo and 100 Hopi have been displaced from their ancestral homes in Arizona. The Bureau of Indian Affairs estimates that less than a few hundred Navajo remain on Black Mesa and John McCain’s Senate Bill 1003 would require their imminent removal by 2008. Summary Response: The comment is not entirely understood [what is the relationship with the McCain Bill?]. As noted in the EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.11.1.1 (Draft EIS, pages 4-88, 4-108), 17 Navajo residences (families) on the Navajo partitioned land and/or exclusive Navajo surface land would need to be resettled out of the areas to be mined, which are within the leased areas. In this case, the leases are between the Navajo Nation and Peabody and, when resettling of residences due to mining activities becomes apparent, Peabody works with the Navajo Nation. These households would have three choices: (1) move to a place of their choice on or near their customary use area with which the tribe and Peabody concur (i.e., where future mining would not require another move); (2) move elsewhere on the reservation off of Black Mesa, or (3) accept cash and move on their own. Peabody would pay for the move (or pay cash) one time. Category 127: Ecology 127(SR367) Summary Comment: The damage that this [mining] project is doing to the planet is too severe. Protect the environment and the ecosystems of plants, animals, water and people from the harm caused by coal and groundwater mining. Summary Response: Comment noted. Refer to the Draft EIS Appendix A, pages A-1-17 through A-1-19 for discussion of reclamation mitigation measures, protection of the environment, and restoration of land use. The reclamation discussion in Appendix A reflects the current BTCA reclamation practices conducted at the active Kayenta mine and closed Black Mesa Mine. Reclamation activities and revegetation monitoring data for the existing 15,000 acres of reclamation at Black Mesa are reported annually to OSM. 127(SR1052) Summary Comment: The purpose and need for the project is nullified when considered against mining’s detrimental impacts on the local and global environments and on people’s lives. Summary Response: Comment noted. 127(SR1053) Summary Comment: Resumption of mining could destroy a fragile ecosystem already critically injured by mining and have impacts on health. Summary Response: As explained in the Draft EIS Appendix A, beginning on page A-1-17, Peabody has developed a plan in the permit application for establishing a reclaimed landscape that would minimize erosion and support post-mining land uses. The revegetation plan has been developed to meet the requirements of 30 CFR 816. Revegetation success standard and their evaluation are structured to meet the criteria of 30 CFR 816.111 and 816.116. Standards are based on a combination of native reference areas and approved technical standards that reflect environmental site conditions, ecological considerations, and post-mining land uses. The criteria for evaluation follow both 30 CFR 816 requirements and other Federal guidelines and address parameters of cover, production, woody density, and diversity. Peabody’s reclamation plan is designed for an arid environment using native species, restoring cultural plants, and establishing woody vegetation. Revegetated areas currently support viable plant communities and a diversity of wildlife. The reclamation plan in the Draft EIS contains the same procedures that are currently employed at the active Kayenta Mine and closed Black Mesa Mine, both regulated under SMCRA. It reflects the evolution and application of specific best technology practices (BTCA) applicable to revegetation in an arid environment and that are necessary to achieve the postmine land use goals and address vegetation concerns. More than 15,000 acres of mining disturbance have been reclaimed to date at the two mines. Annual reclamation activities and revegetation monitoring results have been submitted to OSM for over 25 years. Revegetation monitoring data have demonstrated successful vegetation establishment on reclaimed lands at Black Mesa.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-178

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Table M-1
 Index of Commenters (2006 and 2007) 

Commenter (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) Submission ID 852 848 825 843 133 851 612 904 905 906 902 903 14245 13521 9280 3585 9471 13513 13477 9742 14202 9291 13578 9382 13333 13443 9256 9429 9257 13445 9885 9267 13918 9395 3582 13483 14198 9423 5685 13929 Location of Comments/Responses 78(968), 35(SR121), 126(SR409) 35(SR121) 10(SR57) 35(SR121), 67(SR391), 126(SR409) 35(SR121), 44(SR138), 116(SR758) 35(SR121) 126(SR409) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 1

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld)

Submission ID 13711 13793 9442 9636 424 389

(Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (Name Withheld) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable)

14472 14904 14344 15893 15132 15676 15631 15613 14770 15586 14502 14448 15468 15787 14467 16862 14836 14468 14982 16846 15763 14286 15313 15909 15936 14471 15518 17289 17597 17408 17381 17550 17600

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 2

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), (unreadable) (unreadable), C. (unreadable) (unreadable), E. (unreadable) (unreadable), E. (unreadable)

Submission ID 17635 17246 17264 17283 17602 17274 17265 17365 17248 17267 17414 17611 17590 17357 17303 17278 17593 17380 17370 17314 17355 17619 17686

(unreadable), J. (unreadable) (unreadable), J. (unreadable)

17352 17615

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 3

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter (unreadable), Joan (unreadable), K. (unreadable) (unreadable), Karessa (unreadable), Meredith A. (unreadable), N. (unreadable), Roslon (unreadable), Tracy K. (unreadable), V. (unreadable) A Garron, Charlotte A, Kelly A, R Aanestad, Christina Aaron, Frank Aaron, William Abadia, Teos Abate, Andrew Abate, Andrew Abbadessa, Alan Abbasi, Tala Abbey, Jon Abbott, Doug Abbott, Lawrence Abbott, Nancy-Alyce Abbott, Steven

Submission ID 17294 17299 17380 17545 17631 17136 17396 17315 541 17121 13834 1595 15402 6763 6933 11560 14869 2927 6960 14399 16419 5483 2757 17708

Abdou, Michael A'Becket, Suzanne Abel, Judith Abel, Roy D. Abela, Alice Abell, Bryan Abe-Martinez, Susan Aberle, Jeffrey Abernathy, Shannon

4809 13514 4866 12920 14558 3846 7697 7082 6379

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 126(SR409) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 4

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Abernathy, Shannon

Submission ID 555

Abernethy, Bill Abney, David Abney, David L Abney, David L Abraham, Philip Abraham, Sabine Abrahamson, Sasha Abrams, Daniel Abrell, Leif Abro, Nowar Abruzzo, Joan Ace, Ryan Acerro, Theresa Acerro, Theresa Acevedd?, Paige? Acevedo, Nk Acheson, Ms. Amanda Achter, Jonathan Ack, Brad and Nicole Ackerman, Amanda Ackerman, Frank Ackerman, Janet Ackerman, Janet Ackerman, Laura Ackerman, Lynn Ackler, Dorothy Ackroyd, Mary Acosta, Albert Acosta, Roxanne Acosta, Roxanne Acton, Michelle Acuff, Carolyn Acuff, David S. Acuna, Lorrie Adair, Debra Adair, Joan Adalian, Jr., David P. Adam, John Adam, Margaret Adam, Mary

8881 111 794 17118 2848 14727 7030 7427 16361 7541 8299 7164 6405 16219 17082 6445 1530 14098 14328 417 3090 10200 14393 8725 15568 13598 5838 5399 9462 16314 11734 8095 17528 11352 7269 9728 4345 2295 16040 10420

Location of Comments/Responses 1(839), 54(1171), 50(SR1), 68(SR3), 5(SR35), 5(SR35), 5(SR35), 5(SR39), 5(SR43), 15(SR69), 31(SR93), 45(SR100), 52(SR160), 50(SR163), 51(SR177), 51(SR180), 20(SR246), 54(SR249), 14(SR308), 97(SR333), 125(SR358), 67(SR403), 126(SR409), 78(SR533), 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 56(SR920), 125(SR1034), 125(SR1035) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 120(SR777) 76(SR458), 120(SR777) 121(SR9), 114(SR751), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 88(SR583) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 52(1164), 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 51(SR229), 102(SR358) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 5

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Adam, Paul Adames, David Adamietz, Karilyn Adams Bond, Heather Adams, Alyce Adams, Carolyn Adams, Cecile Adams, Delbert J. Adams, Don Adams, Evelyn Adams, Jane Adams, JT Adams, Kelly Adams, L Adams, Margaret Adams, Martha Adams, Michelle Adams, Robert Adams, Roger Adamski, Thomas Adan, Elizabeth Addington, Paul Addleman, Katherine Adelhardt-Slay, Kristi Adelstein, Fey & Elizabeth Aden, Marty Aderhold, Steven Adest, Gary Adezio, Andrew Adkins, David Adomaitis, Colleen Adshead, Amy Advani, Justine Aegerter, Bob Aegerter, Bob Aenlle, William Affolter, Angela Afroja, Shimuna Aftab, Kathy Afzal, Kenneth Agatone, Jen Agee, Susan Agliardo, Michael Agnew, Jason Agren, Elizabeth K Agtuca, John

Submission ID 1974 5745 15315 12775 6724 5752 6838 17385 12219 15681 12520 10046 10318 7758 14012 7179 10818 10865 3229 7301 10654 10450 9035 13113 1013 5309 11468 4106 5400 11451 10626 16882 7460 7627 16601 15996 13156 8910 8385 4729 13141 2591 7526 3728 15391 17917

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 41(SR131) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 6

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Aguado, Debbie Aguila, Shirley Del Aguilar, Grace Ahearn, Dennis Ahehee, Unknown Ahlers, James

Submission ID 9398 17862 1281 5532 16946 391

Ahlgren, Dorothy Atlantic Media Ltd Ahmadzadeh, Ariana Ahoss, Patsy Ahrens, Antero Ahrens, Hazel Ahring, Tracey Aiello, Maria Aikin, Brandon & Kelsey Aikman, Carrie Airey, David Aisling, Brian Aitchison, Patrick Aja, Loretta Akamine, Francis Akerley, Jeanne Akialis, Isadora Akikusa, Nana Akira, Morita Akira, Morita Alabdulrahim, Yasmeen Alapa'i, Shawna Alarcon, Leslie Alba, Larry Alba, Nick Alba, Svitlana Albach, Melissa Albano, Sylvia Alber, Shay Albers, Carla Albert, Nicole Alberts, Barbara Alberts, Ken Albertson, Glen

7629 10421 17401 1349 4811 12492 2294 5115 11525 12609 4631 11683 1945 4543 6419 2884 892 1176 1177 17337 8147 16367 3632 3766 3631 1604 16616 10822 4094 11786 14019 9923 12159

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 50(SR164), 97(SR341), 61(SR372), 76(SR451) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR580) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 7

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Albornoz, Natasha Albrecht, Louise Albrecht, Steve Albright, Evan Albright, Patricia Alden, Jon Alderman, Michael Aldershof, Yukiko Aldrich, Louise Aldridge, Ellen Ales, Julie Alessio, Julie Alexakos, Irene Alexander, Bob & Marlene Alexander, Carol Alexander, Clytie Alexander, Constance Alexander, David Alexander, Gayle Alexander, Heather Alexander, James Alexander, Jennifer Alexander, Jonathon Alexander, June Alexander, June Alexander, Kathleen Alexander, Mark Alexander, Marsha Alexander, Michael Alexander, Peggy Alexander, Rachel Alexander, Rachel Alexander, Ricky Alexander, Sarah Alexander, Susan Alexander, Vicki Alexandre, Charlotte Alford, Elissa Alford, Janette Alfred, Andrea Alfred, Gonzales Al-Haddad, Sharon Ali, Sarah Alice Kelly, Alice Kelly Alito, Joan Allain, Steve

Submission ID 7727 3673 9531 13923 7967 5800 7088 1868 5513 15540 9065 559 14611 15004 14456 10386 5571 4658 16141 11764 15489 16685 8769 8423 14031 3949 4120 3769 2518 14804 17316 14040 2269 3752 9661 10723 12254 9375 10533 8208 17859 10905 3742 11950 4517 16996

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 69(956), 88(SR595) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 8

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Allebe, Adrienne Allegrezza, C. Allen, Bridget Allen, Cindy Allen, Dee Allen, Geraldine Allen, Gordon Allen, Janice Allen, Jay Allen, Jay Allen, Jim Allen, Judy Allen, Kari Allen, Leslie Allen, Rebecca Allen, Richard Allen, Timothy Allen, Tracey Allen,Sr., Mary Alice Allenbaugh, Matt Allender, Jillian Allen-Yazzie, Christine Allers, Leah Allerton, George Colby Alleshouse, Zephyr Alley, Doug Alley, Lynn Allgire, Karen Allgood, Gerri Allison, Barry Allison, Ben Allison, Donna Allison, Sue Allman, Kerry Allman-Van Zee, Alexandra Almager, Rhonda Almeida, Mariana Aloidi, Avia Alott, Spanks Alouf, Teresa Alpert, Benjamin Alpert, Shara Alsberg, Kristi Alsbury, David Alsenas, Laura Alsip, Lois

Submission ID 4352 5177 6993 10705 1003 9264 2105 11011 13676 7010 12185 3205 4584 14646 3319 7003 13001 6406 4578 13475 13849 12877 11463 5514 13998 14557 8403 12855 12445 148 8433 14039 2211 8294 2722 9063 7653 17922 4354 12496 14741 4902 9223 2296 8297 11816

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 9

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Alspach, Brent Alston Claud, Maggie Altenau, Edward Alter, Susan Al-tigar, Laurel Altman, Gela Altman, Jason Alton, Karie & John Altshuld, Steve Alvarez, Claire Alvarez, Joseph Alvarez, Linda Alverson, David Alves, Gloria Alvey, Jade Alvey, Kathleen Alzuro, Carla Amadio, Patricia Amador, Janelle Aman, Steve Amaro, Hector R Amaya, Janine Ambos, Richard Ambrogina, Canobbio Ambrose, Ms. Erin Amdetsion, Fasil

Submission ID 10940 226 6081 11228 9215 4170 16538 14295 10758 1378 14361 9911 9174 6100 9994 12016 8598 11368 9874 6636 7982 17791 5234 505 1528 17687

Amel, Dean Amelang, Loren Ames, Diane Ames, Pamela Ames, Scott Ames, Stephen Ami, Ramona N. Amico, Diane Amolsch, Nina Amoroso, Juliette Amos, Arielle Amoss, Lezlee Ampel, Carol Ampudia, Avril Ancheta, Bibiana Tulalip Tribes Andelin, Clark

13315 7018 11272 3762 11004 8430 17395 5005 9157 10405 12667 174 5533 3257 17553 10050

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 54(SR305), 14(SR307), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 103(SR213), 77(SR481) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 10

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Anders, Josh

Submission ID 17684

Andersen, Beate Andersen, Bonnie Andersen, David Andersen, Erick Andersen, Lane Andersen, Tracy Anderson, Amy Anderson, Chad Anderson, Clifford Anderson, Clyde Anderson, Danica

4642 12823 6286 3627 6277 5946 6704 420 2961 12602 662

Anderson, David Anderson, Deanna Anderson, Derek Anderson, Eileen Anderson, Emily Anderson, Emily Anderson, Erika

11575 9272 4252 3166 516 516 17724

Anderson, Evelyn Anderson, Fred Anderson, Ian Anderson, Ileene Anderson, J Anderson, J Anderson, James Anderson, Janet Anderson, Jeffrey Anderson, Jeffry Anderson, John Anderson, John Anderson, John H. Anderson, Jon Anderson, Judy Anderson, Julie Anderson, Karen Anderson, Karin Michele Anderson, Kathleen Anderson, Kyle Anderson, Megan Anderson, Melissa Anderson, Michael

7251 16205 13195 15492 9158 4871 10825 6007 13321 9096 13766 14636 5413 9542 6611 10344 5032 5642 4395 9529 15556 4523 11849

Location of Comments/Responses 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR69), 14(SR307), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 11

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Anderson, Michael Anderson, Michael Anderson, Michael Anderson, Missy Anderson, Neal Anderson, Pamela Anderson, Paul Anderson, Rhonda Anderson, Samuel Anderson, Sean Anderson, Steven Anderson, Val Anderson, William Anderson, Zach Andersson, Monika Andes, Ryan Andich, Lucy Ando, Kathryn Andolina, Gary Andrade, Paul Andre, Jim Andresen, Sherry Andrew, Jennifer Andrew, John Andrew, Kathy Andrews, Leslie Andrews, Leslie Andrews, Phyllis M. Andrews, Sperry Andrien, Zachary Aneiros, Margaret Anestis, Stephanie Angelino, Paul Angell, Jenefer Angell, Thomas Angelosmith, Consuella Angelus, Joshua Angle, Gregory Anglin, Nancy Anibas, Robert Anick, David Anifantakis, Christine Ankney, Jennie Annecone, Kristi Annonymous, Annonymous

Submission ID 10438 10516 15889 14668 13366 10039 3437 12527 5439 17764 7765 14552 4802 4558 12110 3434 4058 14797 10117 7095 15457 6854 10983 5369 10407 1840 1841 1367 7355 10566 11396 8686 10320 12123 8059 11277 9351 15367 5489 3955 11517 3782 12231 11961 47

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 78(1186) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 12

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Anonymous, Anonymous

Submission ID 737

Anonymous, Anonymous

17347

Anonymous, Anonymous Anonymous, Anonymous Anonymous, Bob and Helen Anonymous, Ethan Anonymous, Frances Anonymous, Rafael Anshin, Judith Anshin, Judith Anstead, Chris Anstey, Cynthia Antalick, Dan Anthony, Ms. Leah Anthony, Pat Anthony, Robert Antilla, Liisa Antonides, Chelsea Anu, Elil Anundson, Blair Anway, S. Apelgren, Paul Apfel, Amelia Apfel, Amelia Apfel, Sarah Apgar, Edith Apgar, Jean Apodaca, Ray Apostolou (Kehler), Stephanie Appeltans, Yvonne Apper, Lorna Apperson, Robert Appleton, Thomas Aqopian, Zachary Aquilino, Christine Arachy, Chet Araki, Benjamin Arana, John Aranaydo, Martin Arao, Daria

16952 61 209 699 726 85 13179 16134 4161 14706 4882 1574 7284 15757 10546 14672 6885 9796 16129 6569 12966 16649 8566 11649 5996 5255 10897 4088 15366 14643 2355 17407 3902 9805 1232 12353 1104 1822

Location of Comments/Responses 109(1002), 35(SR121), 126(SR409), 126(SR421), 70(SR438), 96(SR682), 114(SR736), 121(SR782), 47(SR1077) 78(974), 96(984), 35(SR121), 50(SR164), 97(SR341), 97(SR343), 97(SR347), 76(SR450), 76(SR476), 88(SR586), 88(SR611) 35(SR121), 120(SR777) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 7(SR48), 57(SR330) 53(SR255), 97(SR333) 35(SR244) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 13

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Arbour, Stephen Arbuckle, Nancy Arce, Paula Arceneaux, Diane Archard, Lee Archard, Lee Archer, Elisabeth Archer, Katie Archer, Katie Archer, Naomi Archer, Rick Archey, Sheri Archibald, Brandon Arcolino, Emily Arday, Susan Arena, Eileen Arevalo, Lea Argani, Sholey Argondizza, Andrew ArgoRay, Lorissa Argote, Aimie Aria, Constance Arieno, Andrea Aripotch, Steven Arisaka, Yoko Arkins, B. Armato, Frank Armbrecht, Carrie Armbrust, Clayton (C J) Armbrust, Sherry Armenta, Olivia

Submission ID 12466 3244 11497 6017 5082 15815 5615 17201 17125 686 10575 7595 8569 17008 4907 11064 17495 10310 10494 12238 17629 15922 8811 10495 380 12357 9651 8244 15837 1926 419

Armenta, Victor Armijo, Salme Armstead, Betty Armstrong, April Armstrong, April Armstrong, John Armstrong, Paul Arneberg, Linda Arni, Tom Arnold, Angela

9167 16827 6092 13331 13619 4992 5319 5778 8304 12640

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 102(SR364), 78(SR504), 110(SR716), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 14

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Arnold, Jean Arnold, Roberta Arnoldi, Catherine Arnoldi, Sharon Arntz, Laura Aronoff, Anita Aronov, Elise Aronson, Marilyn Arouh, Marc Arrubla, catalina Art, Benet Artemieff, Suzanne Arter, Jonah Artley, Dick Artley, Richard Arush, Larry Arvelo, D Asano, Yumiko Asbell, Michael Asbury, Anna Asbury, Craig Lee Asbury, Craig Lee Aschemeyer, Mark Ascher, James Ash, Kuba Ashby, Dale Asher, Ben Asher, Beverly Asher, Gretchen Asher, Timothy Ashihara, Miyako Ashihara, Tetsuya Ashike, Wendy Ashkenes, Kathie Ashley, Hope Ashley, Sharon Ashmoon, Juliette Ashmore, Robert Ashton, Cyrus Ashton, Leo Ashurst, Caroline Ashurst, Caroline

Submission ID 12285 6015 16271 14515 6963 2802 5894 10751 13960 3348 7084 14962 14156 364 506 15994 6886 922 16457 15594 11413 16913 7702 12592 16515 7981 12913 9948 9988 14169 278 1225 17524 12887 2085 7589 1103 5919 14702 10036 1123 1124

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 52(SR240) 35(SR121) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 78(SR531), 89(SR629) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 15

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Ashurst, Caroline Askren, Anne Asmundson, Jill Asplund, Ilse Asplund, John Asplund, Julie Asselin, David Aster, Diana Astner, Karen Asur, Sujai Atchity, Vincent Atchley, Suzanne Athey, Roger Athos, Dean Atiles, Dennessa Atkin, Roger & Paula Atkins, Loretta Libby Atkins, Lori Atkins, Lynn Atkins, Sarah Atkinson, Cathie Atkinson-Burgos, Pia Atrosh, Steve & Chris Atsumi, Hiroyuki Attanasio, Mary Attebury, Carlie Atterholt, Judy Atto, Katherine Atwood, Sarah Au, Timothy Auble, Debby Audesirk, Teresa Audleyv, Barbara Auerbach, Matt Auerback, Robin Augur, Wayland Augustaitus, JoAnn Augustine, John Aulisio, George Auman, Abby Aurelio, Ann I. Aurelio, Jennifer Aurilia, Christine Ausborn, Mary Ausman, Candi Ausman, Candi

Submission ID 1125 14407 12165 799 7599 8828 14025 12070 8010 10414 4846 15962 16580 13245 4530 6240 15566 8951 13063 9605 10174 9483 14184 11821 7007 9607 5470 14922 321 17876 8619 16246 3834 6359 15802 14402 12869 16894 14782 13199 3941 13605 3058 10461 7264 16383

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(913), 76(964), 109(1003), 15(SR69), 15(SR74), 45(SR100), 54(SR285), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 16

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Ausmus, Clinton Austerman, Darla Austin, Amanda Austin, Diane Austin, Mark Avallone, Carey Avallone, Chris Aversa, Amy Avery, Jayn Avery, Luke Avey, Holly AvRutick, Alice Axelrod, Emily Ayala, Dee Ayala, Gabrielle Aydelott, Steve Aylward, John Aylward, Joseph Ayres, Beth Ayres, Christine Ayrsman, Tom Azar, Daniel Azar, Daniel Azar, Ms. Genevieve Azar, Ms. lynn Azar, Ms. lynn Azar, Rebecca Azevedo, William Azevedo, William Azzarello, Joseph B, C B, Jen B, John B. (unreadable), Adrien B. (unreadable), Amanda B. (unreadable), David B. (unreadable), Erin

Submission ID 9900 13150 8626 12535 12598 4650 10885 1916 13031 15514 13354 6844 13809 13404 13956 7204 3030 3027 15622 8938 17491 1424 6657 1400 1406 1407 1404 510 510 12273 16014 11417 16168 17291 17417 17298 17368

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 54(SR305), 14(SR307), 120(SR777), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 17

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter B. (unreadable), J. (unreadable) B. (unreadable), M. (unreadable) B. (unreadable), Mary B. (unreadable), Robert J. B., Heather Babb, H Babbie, Monica Babbitz, Sara Babcock, Bruce Babiak, Katherine Babiak, Katherine Bach, Linda Bachand, Thomas Bachant, Donald Bachelet, Dominique Bachor, John R Back, Caroline Backman, Cristina Backman, Rebecca Backstrom, Philip Bacorn, Tommy Bade, Kathryn Bader, John Bader-Wechseler, Giliane Baechle, Daniel Baen, Noah Baenen, Nicholas Baer, Howard Baer, Lori Baeringer, Lisa Bafik-Vehslage, Michelle Baggen, Shannon Bagley, Paul Bagley-Murray, Janne Bagnall, Laird Bagot-Parker, Lynda Bagott, Daniel Bahira, Channahzohara Bahm, Matt Bahner, Linda Bahti, Yuri Baide, Cindy Baier, Dawn

Submission ID 17393 17537 17419 17331 16176 10340 8193 4303 8005 8079 15092 6452 16711 16274 11100 17428 1258 11078 4414 3860 4513 9208 9850 5193 11647 3746 2154 10508 3185 13167 15842 9737 5603 9224 12491 4569 14010 10446 16647 8535 9976 5189 5562

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 52(SR240) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 18

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Baierlein, Ralph Bail, Christopher Bail, Christopher Bail, Joseph Bail, Lisa Bailar, Gregor Bailey, Brad Bailey, Brenda Bailey, Helen Bailey, Holly Bailey, Kim Bailey, Lucy Bailey, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Robin Bailey, Robin Bailey, William Bailey-Pruc, Susan Bainbridge, Linda Baird, Angela Baird, Rachel Baizel, Bruce Bakens, Martien Baker Gierlach, Marian Baker, Angela Baker, Anne Baker, Arlene Baker, Barbara Baker, Brigid baker, christine Baker, Deborah Baker, Donna Baker, Gene Baker, Jonathan Baker, Lucy Baker, Marla Baker/ Merine Family Foundation Baker, Martena Baker, Nancy Baker, Natasha

Submission ID 533 5033 15250 16892 14273 11469 4810 7878 6151 14628 2556 12449 1405 1511 3384 10948 4786 7785 3948 16830 16706 4189 16278 2792 11885 3486 14870 9637 6090 4134 11268 11620 10076 2930 6501

Location of Comments/Responses 109(SR223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

3795 8242 17665

Baker, Neal Baker, Nicole Baker, Rich Baker, Richard

10843 5315 16780 14535

35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 19

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Baker, Sarah Baker, Scott Baker, Sonia Baker, Stanley baker, steve Baker, Susan Baker, Tanya Bakken, Lanny Balan, Bruce Balani, Laju Balasky, Kimberly Balch, Diane Balcomb, Stuart Baldewicz, L. Baldez, Laura Baldino, John & Rhea Notta Farm Baldwin, Laura Baldwin, Marilyn Baldwin, Tom Bale, Jennifer Balesteri, Elizabeth Balga, James Ball, Cecilia Ball, H. Ball, Julien Ball, Pamela Ballard, Anne Ballard, Gary Ballard, Jana Ballard, Jim Ballard, Kimberly Ballard, Tami R, Ballard, Tom Ballengee, Libby Ballentine, Eusebius Ballew, Catherine Ballou, Carol Balluff, Maureen Balmer, Karen Balog, Shawna Balogh, Steven Balshem, Valerie Balshen, Valeria Baltimore, Terry S. Balzli, James

Submission ID 7918 10465 3651 2136 5248 7832 13735 190 2238 13964 3167 5055 10954 7719 2818 12383 4257 12420 8402 13301 5150 10544 1915 8609 7482 2339 17181 11420 8588 12157 7767 16163 2207 3699 12660 9188 7049 2867 15416 15826 9951 17123 17200 12581 12210

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 54(SR1104) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 126(SR409) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 20

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Bambara, Vincent Bamonte, Virginia Bancroft, Doris Banerjee, Samiran Banfield, Annika Banfield, David Bangham, Tara Bangs, Jennifer Bankroff, Tim Banks, Diane Banks, Janice Banks, Jerry L Banks, Karl Banks, Michael Banks, Robin Banner, Gideon Bannister, Julie Banoczy, Jennifer Banwell, Elizabeth Baptiste, Ameke Baptiste, Kristie Barajas, Eli Barancik, Steve Barba, Luke Barbara, Banbury (B.) Barbara, Vaile Barbary, Sherrill Barber, Alex Barber, Dawn Barber, Janet Barber, Jennifer Barberi, Debra Barbier, Dennis Barbone, Shannon Barbutti, Pat Barchak, Christina Barcikowski, Tanya Barclay, Martha Barclay, Reid Bard, Greg Bardsley, Alta Bardy, Robert M. Bare, Alan Barfield, Amber Barfield, John Barker, Don & Nicci

Submission ID 6431 12448 4358 12495 1634 11867 7652 10899 3259 9890 6761 13984 9296 13239 12933 9039 7129 8770 15859 8734 10695 12693 16192 12666 4921 1791 7380 6830 15949 7750 16117 11491 11698 8192 16670 4598 11062 13490 16583 4794 9887 1051 13218 4353 7963 17166

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 41(SR131) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 76(SR451) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 41(SR131), 53(SR257)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 21

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Barker, Ellie Barker, Robert Barkin, David Barkley, Daniel Barlow, Thelma Barnell, Todd Barnes, Aimee Barnes, Christina Barnes, John Barnes, Kimberly Barnes, Pliny Barnes, Reginald Barnes, Sandra Barnes-slocum, JoAnn Barnes-slocum, JoAnn Barnett, Janice Barnett-Loro, Vanessa Barney, Ellen Barney, Kristopher Rough Rock, Navajo Nation Barney, Kristopher Rough Rock, Navajo Nation Barney, Kristopher Rough Rock, Navajo Nation Barnhardt, Rebekah Barnhart, Robert Barnum, X Baron, Geraldine Baron, Geraldine Barondes, Lisa Barr, Elaine Barr, Elaine M Barr, Gina Barr, Thomas Barraclough, Jonathan Barre, Daniel Barrett, Charles Barrett, Cynthia Barrett, Cynthia Barrett, Dave Barrett, DAve Barrett, David Barrett, Delia Barrett, Diane

Submission ID 14825 9680 916 10086 17482 614 10068 3783 11811 14749 2252 3567 4889 345 345 11828 2009 6610 1759 1760 1761 2017 13463 1067 7062 14610 3760 17473 16997 2776 1849 8735 7831 4668 7313 317 9598 16045 7098 7818 3952

Location of Comments/Responses 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 51(SR177), 126(SR409), 70(SR435) 35(SR121), 114(SR736) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 22

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Barrett, Emily Barrett, Gordon Barrett, Linn Barrett, Linn Barrett, Linn D Barrett, MInna Barrett, R Barricklow, Darryl Barrilleaux, Jon Barrineau, Susan barrington, robert Barrio, Veronica Barrios, Elizabeth Barron, Keith Barron, Misty Barrow, Ryan Barrows, Roy Barry, Amanda Barry, Hathaway Barry, Laura Barry, Richard Bartelt, Stephanie Barth, Ellen Barthel, Carolyn Barthel, John Barthel, John Barthelson, Roger Bartholomew, John Bartl, Alan Bartl, Alan Bartlett, Ashley Bartlett, Brad Energy Minerals Law Center

Submission ID 6182 10206 17489 6570 17028 12909 8946 8868 9408 3477 8819 8004 13449 4967 13880 2046 5480 12870 3861 4986 4977 6815 16286 11349 4111 14942 15452 14908 14954 14956 9007 16924

Bartlett, Brad A. Energy Minerals Law Center Bartlett, Charles Bartlett, Mr. Bartley, Benjamin Bartley, Michael Bartley, Philip Bartolacelli, Richard Barton, Angela Barton, Roberta

17748

10836 1590 14299 8789 6601 2366 11171 12559

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 54(SR1103) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 103(SR213), 76(SR451) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 50(887), 50(888), 51(901), 122(1029), 125(1230), 52(SR1), 50(SR169), 51(SR172), 51(SR191), 51(SR192), 52(SR240), 51(SR270), 102(SR358), 101(SR686), 5(SR687), 101(SR688), 101(SR689), 102(SR695), 108(SR712), 121(SR794), 121(SR795), 51(SR818), 51(SR819) 122(1032), 51(1078), 54(1172), 4(SR20), 5(SR41), 50(SR165), 50(SR169), 51(SR192), 52(SR241), 102(SR358), 102(SR695), 121(SR797), 14(SR824) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 23

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Bartos, Laura Bartter, Martha A. Baruch, Duncan Barve, Nita Bashen, Melinda Basil, Joyce Basil, Toby Basile, Kathleen Basile, L.A. Baskauf, Carol Basnar, Lee Bass, C. (unreadable) Bass, Darlene Bass, Joyce Bassett, Angela Bassoff, Trina Bastarache, Corinne Bastian, Ed Basu, Priyanka Basualdo, Carlos Basye, Mae Batcheldor, Brenda Bateman, joseph Bateman, Joseph Bateman, Richard Bates, Angela Bates, Barbara Bates, Bates Bates, Jeremy Bates, Mr. Dana Bates, Zed Bathon, Julia Batlle, Coni Bat-Shimon, Yael Batte, Leone Batterson, Linda Baty, Jonathan Baty, Jonathan Batzlca, Vickie Bauchau, Mijanou Baudissin, Maxima Bauer Jr., Louis Bauer, A

Submission ID 13537 17029 5681 16022 13206 13713 14867 11606 8288 12081 12459 17409 2863 2980 16294 15621 11907 311 6683 3258 5252 8520 11540 16746 3146 9438 4595 3812 15443 1584 8729 8118 9823 10436 3303 6650 8516 16323 17145 14028 13854 2249 17117

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 24

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Bauer, Ernest Bauer, Gayle Bauer, Isabel Bauer, Jerome Bauer, Ken Bauer, Kim Bauer, Pauline Bauer, Wendy Bauer, X Baugher, Mark Baughman, Jeanne Baum, Anna Baum, Diane Bauman, Eileen Bauman, Elizabeth Baumann, Burkhard Baumann, Steve Baumbach, Rodney Baumgart, Adam Baumgartner, Nicole Baur, Lena M. Bautista, Melanie Bavry, Tony Baxter, Gary Baxter, Joslyn Bay, Julia Bayani, N. Bayless, Kimberly bayley, joseph Baylin, Frank Bayne, Rochelle Bbrinker, Barbara Beach, Bob Beach, Gary L Beach, Nancy Beadman, Hannah Beadman, Hannah Beainy, Karen Beal, Carl Beal, Geraldine Beal, John Beall, Blair Beall, Jo Beam, Jan Beam, Jan

Submission ID 12993 9856 5710 3045 5222 9712 8674 4805 1246 2587 2494 5294 12761 8583 8359 4488 16660 15783 8089 4529 304 3283 9561 13034 9562 3153 17270 2858 8401 9418 6991 7744 8096 14411 5282 7876 16093 11466 14215 9383 5917 11193 14207 1132 15537

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 16(SR7), 35(SR121), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 25

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Beamer, Linda Bean, Andy Bean, Jeffery Bean, Ms. Jessica Bean, Tom Beane, Ann Beane, Hannah Beane, Hannah Bear, Rhonda Beard, Lara Beard, Lisa Beard, Liz Beard, Margaret Beard, Susan Bearden, Karen & Joe Beardsley, Laurel Bearson, Adam Beasley, Kristin Beattie, Mary Beatty, Ali Beatty, Diane Beaty, Lee Beauchamp, Marcia beauchamp, pat Beauchamp-Hunt, Cheri Beaudette, Barbara Beaudin, Russ Beaver, Deborah Beaver, Kelly Beaver, William Beavers, Audrey Bechtel, Susan Beck, Charles Beck, Connie Beck, Diane Beck, Kathryn Beck, Larry Beck, M.J. beck, margret Beck, Marian Beck, Randy Becker, Bobbie Becker, Bobbie

Submission ID 15606 14988 17056 1512 598 16607 8084 16255 16825 15395 1059 1053 15324 13308 8880 5878 6398 5640 5200 13753 13000 14975 4899 9195 2676 13708 9027 2861 13343 17218 15554 8705 13642 16291 458 3192 2932 6750 16177 5943 13852 17333 448

Location of Comments/Responses 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 10(SR61), 24(SR63), 30(SR90), 30(SR92), 39(SR135), 108(SR217), 52(SR240), 23(SR250), 53(SR259) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 52(SR240) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 52(SR241), 57(SR340), 108(SR351) 15(SR16), 35(SR121)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 26

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Becker, Bruce Becker, Cary Becker, Eric Becker, Jeffrey Becker, Joseph Becker, Joshua Becker, Katherine Becker, Kerstin Becker, Martha Becker, Paul Becker, Sue Beckerman, Gary Beckerman, Gary Beckett, Jill Beckington, Andrew Beckman, David NRDC

Submission ID 15388 14629 8368 6607 1396 11713 4723 9589 12058 5658 16071 11954 15710 5547 2467 16942

Beckman, Jen Beckman, Richard Bedford, Michael Bedford, Patricia Bedford, Theresa Bednaz, Noel Bedrick, Jeffery Beecham, Patty Beecham, Troy Beekman, Carolyn Beemon, Billy Beene, Joyce Beer, Julie Beers, Skip Beers, Suzanne Beeson, C

4753 8618 12765 11291 15768 15885 12785 2585 13700 3193 11926 8893 16691 6076 16920 15674

Location of Comments/Responses 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 8(831), 8(834), 1(838), 15(851), 2(879), 52(900), 51(903), 51(904), 108(1000), 121(1026), 88(1043), 56(1055), 51(1079), 51(1083), 51(1084), 51(1085), 51(1086), 51(1087), 51(1088), 51(1089), 51(1090), 51(1091), 51(1092), 51(1093), 51(1096), 51(1098), 53(1101), 50(1116), 52(1147), 52(1148), 52(1149), 52(1150), 52(1151), 52(1152), 52(1153), 52(1154), 52(1155), 52(1156), 52(1157), 52(1158), 52(1159), 52(1166), 52(1167), 54(1177), 125(1237), 121(1242), 16(SR28), 15(SR69), 16(SR80), 42(SR106), 107(SR129), 41(SR131), 44(SR138), 1(SR151), 46(SR156), 51(SR193), 51(SR194), 51(SR195), 52(SR242), 53(SR256), 54(SR285), 54(SR287), 54(SR289), 51(SR303), 67(SR402), 76(SR451), 88(SR607), 108(SR715), 118(SR726), 114(SR748), 51(SR750), 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 121(SR795), 107(SR809), 15(SR850), 45(SR874), 56(SR920), 53(SR1073) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 27

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Begalke, Donald Begay, Alice and Kee Z. Begay, Michelle Begay, Mr. Stacy Begay, Mrs. Rainy Begay, Nicolas Begaye, Enei Begaye, Enei Black Mesa Water Coalition Behan, Darren Behan, Maria Behdjou, Laura Behl, Daniel Max Behm, Pete Behne, M. Belinda Behrakis, Deborah Behrman, Jo Behrman, Jo Beier, Virginia Beinlich, Brian and Sharon Beinner, Michelle Beirnaert, Sonja Belendez, Zaida Belikoff, Noah Belina, Heather Belindo, John Belisle, Joseph Belknap, Robert Bell, Adam Bell, Blakeney Bell, Cathie Bell, Elise Bell, Gail Bell, James Bell, James & Carol Bell, Jennifer Bell, Jennifer Bell, Jim Bell, John Bell, Katherine Bell, Kimberly Bell, Kristin Bell, Melinda Bell, Rachel

Submission ID 415 17325 17174 1394 1395 17490 705 96 12113 8289 12893 7796 13194 12299 16602 15091 17022 8229 13131 3904 14252 17075 3448 7342 1561 10127 9360 2237 2432 3964 10739 13038 10484 12499 4500 15078 16436 3697 17180 6143 8102 16465 10150

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 43(SR137), 114(SR755), 119(SR772) 93(SR646), 93(SR647) 7(SR45), 53(SR252), 64(SR382), 126(SR409) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 51(SR177), 52(SR238), 76(SR590) 116(SR726), 116(SR727) 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR580) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 28

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Bell, Richard Bell, Shelly Bell, Teja Bell, William Bellafiore, K. Bellagio, Paula Belleau, Shelly Bellefeuille, Lara Beller, Zanita Bellinger, Kristy Bellis, Krista Bellovary, Chris Bellovary, Chris Belmont, Chris Belmonte, J Michael Belovsky, Jennifer Belt, Annie Belt, Jennifer Belvill, Debra Benabderrazik, Martine Benallie, Brandon Benally, Berta Benally, Clayson Benally, Elsie Benally, Elsie Benally, Fern

Submission ID 16597 8987 10428 11093 13158 3634 6982 8355 14775 3930 11612 462 462 15654 12642 15238 9175 2395 2673 4412 408 1819 1766 17575 731 17216

Benally, Fern Benally, Fern

781 17216

Benally, John

16947

Benally, John Benally, Klee Benally, Klee Benally, Klee Benally, Leonard Benally, Leonard

16929 25 66 1676 16948 17570

Benally, Leonard

118

Location of Comments/Responses 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 45(SR874) 88(976) 88(1039), 76(SR451), 93(SR644), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 79(SR536), 79(SR548), 81(SR561), 83(SR573), 93(SR644), 93(SR653) 97(SR343), 126(SR409), 126(SR424), 83(SR573), 80(SR622), 98(SR684), 93(SR978) 94(980), 114(1010), 35(SR121), 101(SR170), 51(SR198), 52(SR240), 57(SR339), 97(SR341), 81(SR555), 81(SR556), 101(SR693) 35(SR121), 81(SR555), 81(SR570), 88(SR586) 94(980), 114(1010), 35(SR121), 101(SR170), 51(SR198), 52(SR240), 57(SR339), 97(SR341), 81(SR555), 81(SR556), 101(SR693) 121(1021), 54(1175), 35(SR121), 50(SR164), 97(SR333), 102(SR358), 126(SR409), 76(SR454), 93(SR646), 95(SR667), 95(SR670) 8(910), 35(SR121), 97(SR333), 97(SR341), 102(SR358), 126(SR409), 76(SR454), 89(SR630), 95(SR669) 119(SR769), 120(SR777) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 54(SR26), 35(SR121), 126(SR409), 88(SR580) 7(SR47), 8(SR141), 8(SR231), 54(SR285), 126(SR423), 76(SR451), 78(SR518), 88(SR580), 93(SR644), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 35(SR244), 54(SR285), 78(SR488), 93(SR638), 121(SR781)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 29

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Benally, Louise Benally, Lucille Benally, Mable Benally, Norman Benally, Norman Benavidez, Susana Benco, Andrea & Mike Bendell, Justin benedek, melinda Benesch-Granberg, Barbara Bengala, Kim Bengtson, Frances Bengtson, Kristina Benigo, Mary Lou Beningo, Shirley Benjamin, Donna Benjamin, Elizabeth Benjamin, Lucas Benjamin, van der Veen Benn, Maggie Benner, Ashley Benner, Ed Bennett, Allen Bennett, Andrew Bennett, Anna M. Bennett, Barry Bennett, Bruce Bennett, Dan Bennett, Dianna Bennett, Henry Bennett, James Bennett, Jane Bennett, Karen Bennett, Marsha Bennett, Nancy Bennett, Paul Bennett, Ricki Bennett, Susan Bennett, Tracy Bennett, Virginia Bennon, Natalie Ben-Poorat, Jacob Bensel, Seth

Submission ID 700 17580 17222 17464 728 6426 12384 16 7720 473 10933 7478 9226 1193 12627 3123 10280 4128 7882 12298 4239 13756 7865 16842 1265 2340 6150 12930 13972 5610 11544 14912 6545 7656 8450 13933 12376 12577 16345 7124 15220 8545 13825

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 45(SR874) 93(SR644), 127(SR1053) 97(SR341), 70(SR435), 88(SR586), 93(SR639), 93(SR644), 98(SR684) 52(917) 125(1236), 57(SR335), 105(SR496), 78(SR497), 94(SR660), 105(SR703) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 20(1060), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 30

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Benson, Bettina Benson, D. E Benson, Kc Benson, Kristi Benson, Mary Benson, Michael Benson, Sheila Benson, Todd Bentilla, Jennifer Bentley, Jann Bentley, Jo Ann Bentley, Rebecca Benton, Andrew Benton, Michael Bentov, M Bentz, Sally Bentz, Susan Benvenuto, Kecia Benya, Lilo Benz Heins, Ann-Marie Beppu, Kimi Bequette, Alicia Beran, Doug & Brenda K. Berens, Marc Berentsen, Phyllis Berge, Brent Berge, Mariana Bergen, Peggy Berger, Hanspeter Berger, Leah Berger, Nancy Berger, Patricia Berger, Yerda Bergeron, Terry Bergh, Colleen Bergholm, Yvonne Bergman, Sarah Bergmann, Anna Bergmann, Richard Bergstrom, Dena Bergstrom, Stephanie Bergstrom, Stephanie Beringer, Laurie

Submission ID 8243 12195 11614 11281 10262 3595 3297 249 13840 5931 12377 3696 3404 17143 138 6518 5448 7111 2488 15656 1762 14928 13019 6051 13398 3700 7780 12032 1898 14414 5881 12830 8409 5117 13620 8344 15481 8888 11160 11338 1326 1327 5964

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 77(SR481) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 31

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Berkeley, Deborah Berkheimer, Nicole Berkman, Ran Berkofsky, Vicki Berkshire, David Berkson, Julie Berlingeri, Julio Berman, J Berman, John Berman, Mark Berman, Rebecca Berman, Spencer Berman, Virginia Bermingham, Bryce Bern, Nanci Bernard, Bruce Bernard, Casey Bernard, Cory Bernard, Henry and Judith Bernard, Jared Bernardo, Kathleen Berne, David Bernet, Maurita Berney, Kathleen Berns, Richard Bernstein, David Bernstein, Scott Bernstock, Jennifer Berrigan, Mary Berry, Craig Berry, Janet Berry, Laura Berry, M Berry, Michelle Berta, Christine Bertels, Stephanie Bertelson, Peter Berthelot, Jennifer Bertini, Meg Bertoldo, Brittany Bertonneau, Judith Bertter, Martha A. Beschler, Marc Bescript, Linda Bescript, Linda Bescript, Ruth

Submission ID 2235 14778 7539 12910 7900 2642 11217 15685 6095 14545 7423 16103 8553 5656 9245 13654 6149 2843 5991 16671 12395 16687 3438 6212 4125 2229 13540 2443 2794 13945 5465 14460 15910 5163 3553 12073 16984 7764 7775 1217 2967 17460 12584 4559 15351 12372

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 40(SR197) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 32

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Bescript, Ruth Bessler, Andy Bessler, Andy Sierra Club's Environmental Partnership Program Bessler, Andy Sierra Club's Environmental Partnership Program

Submission ID 16729 724 752

Location of Comments/Responses 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 114(SR724) 56(SR920)

17091

Bessler, Andy Sierra Club's Environmental Partnership Program Bessler, Andy Sierra Club's Environmental Partnership Program Best, Emily Tuthill Beth, Joshua Better, William Bettinger, Anne-sophie Bettis, Joanna J.

60

45(837), 1(878), 5(907), 76(963), 76(966), 121(1024), 53(1068), 121(1241), 16(SR7), 38(SR19), 5(SR35), 107(SR129), 52(SR160), 51(SR193), 108(SR216), 53(SR255), 53(SR256), 20(SR266), 54(SR285), 56(SR315), 97(SR341), 76(SR452), 76(SR467), 76(SR468), 76(SR469), 76(SR471), 76(SR472), 78(SR510), 78(SR511), 88(SR610), 101(SR690), 114(SR730), 114(SR748), 114(SR751), 118(SR765), 120(SR777), 121(SR797), 109(SR812) 120(SR777)

17695

120(SR777)

3853 13878 7060 1121 17710

Betts, JoEllen Betz, Mark Betz, Reid Betz, Robert Beuchat, Carol Beverstock, David Beves, Peter Bevington, Azure Bewley, Leighton Bhatt, Ramesh Bhattacharji, Sita Bhouraskar, Ashwin Bianco, Amy Bianco-Jessen, Christina Bias, Viviane Bibayoff, Larry Bickel, Bettina Biddle, Christopher Bidney-Singewald, Kathleeen Bieder, Robert E. Biedka, Jill

3180 11978 4816 12826 16604 2209 5296 11770 8662 17049 8904 9801 2373 3066 14909 14331 14747 5999 3740 4509 3195

35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 33

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Bieganek, Terri Biel, Timothy Biersmith, Edward Biesanz, Karen Bigelow, Tacy Bigelow, Valerie Bigg, Richard Bigger, Carolyn Bigley, Mark Bilenky, June Billie-Branch, Ellen Billik, Shelley Billings, Robinson Billingsley, Stacy Billington, Francis Bills, Brian Bilton, Carolyn Bilwin, Gina Binder, Gene Binder, Harry Binder, Mary Beth Binderova, Natalia Binderova, Natalia Bindra, Priya

Submission ID 3770 9556 15215 14924 12288 13489 926 9740 2999 7854 743 8950 4512 2081 16951 8859 4140 9054 12221 6927 5950 1571 1572 17740

Bindrich, Glen P. Biner, Rita Binet, Betsey Binggeli, Tamsen Binks, Katherine Binnie, Alan Binnig, Mark Bippen, Teresa Bird, Deborah Bird, Nancy Birden, Tawnya Birdy, Marisa Biro, Robert Bis, Konrad Bischoff, Mark Biser, James Bish, Cynthia Bishop, Megan

5167 10369 10631 12518 9477 16552 8783 4969 3135 6052 5291 8710 9836 14092 4758 16432 11597 14115

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 51(SR202), 102(SR437), 76(SR455), 51(SR619), 95(SR667), 45(SR874), 47(SR1077) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 34

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Bishop, Ted Bishop, Terry Bisk, Chad Bisk, Chad Bissell, Bruce Bisso, Robert Bisson, Robert Bitterolf, Leean Bittle, David Bittner, Jill Bittner, Mary Bixler, Mary Bizzarri, Anastasia BjÃrklund, HÃ¥kan Bjork, Mary Bjork, Robert Bjorklund, Paul Bjornlie, Stuart Black, Ben Black, Ellen Black, James Black, Jennifer Black, Karina Black, Kevin Black, Lacrecia

Submission ID 6490 6864 7783 15646 4374 16992 15665 3067 6735 4495 6608 11990 5833 1631 10011 6620 829 10348 4286 14601 8352 4750 2553 4772 17576

Black, Laurie Black, Lucrecia

10306 17338

Black, Lucresha Black, Nancy Black, Russell Blackburn, Lee Blackburn, Sandra Blackgoat, Danny Blackgoat, Mr. Blackketter, Elizabeth Blackman, Rosemarie Blackmon, Justin Blackstone, Linore Blackwell-Marchant, Pat Blackwood, Jean Blair, Hanita

740 7068 4677 7360 11631 789 1575 10606 3722 8702 2622 12218 9075 13829

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 102(SR210), 104(SR700) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 10(SR58), 35(SR121), 57(SR334), 97(SR341), 126(SR409), 70(SR435), 81(SR555), 90(SR635), 93(SR639), 93(SR646) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 102(1051), 35(SR121), 103(SR214), 70(SR438), 88(SR612), 91(SR636), 93(SR644), 93(SR657), 93(SR978) 126(1226), 35(SR121), 43(SR137), 44(SR138), 93(SR643) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 44(SR138), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 35

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Blair, Patricia Blair, Peter Blair, William Blaire, Janice Blaisdell, Philip Blaise, Sharlane Blakely, Carmen Blakely, Carmen Blakely, Carmen Blakely, Charity Blakely, Charity Blakely, Steve Blakely, Steve Blakeway, Harmony Blalack, Russell Blanchett, Nancy Blanchett, Rick Bland, Dean Bland, Donna Bland, Emilia Bland, Margaret A. Blaney, Thomas Blaney, Weston Blank, D Blank, Richard Blankenship, Amy Blanton, Teri Blasche, Theodore Blasco, Tara Blasingame, Elise Blatchford, Verne Blau, Barbara Blaustein, Philip Blaut, Gia Blaylock, Lynn Blayney, Fran Silva Bleich, Lori Blessing, Jay Bletzer, Siri Bleu, Roland Blevins, Jim Blevins, Shawna Bliss, Mary Ann Block, Chuck

Submission ID 9249 3326 2951 10397 9888 16321 8953 8936 16210 15399 14700 8945 14418 7472 13090 16902 15611 16918 17749 16918 17750 16718 15829 13905 2074 11213 13145 8960 5687 17540 1335 10792 8983 17349 11370 8801 14069 14345 2517 13844 16159 6684 13507 9181

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 52(SR238), 88(SR603) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 52(SR238), 88(SR603) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 36

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Block, Dixie Black Mesa Indigenous Support Block, Dixie Black Mesa Indigenous Support Block, Marilyn Block, Steven Block-Reiner, Susan Blomgren, Jennifer Blomstrom, Eric Blondey, James Bloom, Aramie Bloom, Claudia Bloom, Megan Bloom, Toni Bloomer, Jerry Blossom, Scott Blount, Stacey Bloustein, Elise Blubaugh, Kim Blue, Robin Blum, Charles Blum, Jodie Blum, Marina Blumeneau, Audrey Blumenfeld, Joy Blumenfeld, Myron Blumenfeld-Schaap, Diane Blundon, Felicity Blunt, Keith Bobo, Orion Bobrow, Ken Bobrow, Yssa Bochantin, Leona Bochnak, John A. Bock, Maryanna Bockman, Barbara Bodde, Mary Boddicker, Ron Bodeau, Carol Bodine, Steve Bodine, Trina Bodling, Ann Bodoh, Taw Bodonyi, Becky Bodonyi, Becky Bodosi, Fleeta

Submission ID 1608 102 9555 14281 10060 8967 12183 2328 966 191 9790 9319 15549 15394 6524 9123 2390 4596 8036 7290 3814 14790 12385 11142 2001 13667 14486 8305 8816 8227 5896 14060 9333 15503 12011 15511 8933 6189 4797 6325 10092 444 444 7398

Location of Comments/Responses 10(SR59), 10(SR60), 35(SR121), 126(SR409) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 37

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Boe, Amanda Boeckman, Abbey Boeger, Dustin Boeker, Martha Boergers, Kathleen Boeve, May Bogert, Reid Boggs, Guy Boggs, Kyle G. Boggs, Laurie Bogolub, Larry Bohlcke, Beth Bohr, Ron Boitano, Connie Boka, Erika Boldt, Todd Bolehi, Cameron Bolemon, Joanne Bolender, Charles Boles, John Bolger, Sean Bolin, Alice Bolin, Amy Bollen, Alan Bollen, Robert Bollens, Tracy Bolles, Elizabeth Bolt, Mitchell Bolt, Patricia Bolyai, Melani Bomar, CJ Bomberger, Nicole Bomberry, CA Six Nations of the Grand River Territory Bomberry, Ms. Crystal Bommarito, Barbara Bond, Alyssa Bond, Alyssa Bond, Julie Bond, R. Bond, Rhonda Bonds, Julia

Submission ID 9860 16112 7442 3201 12530 928 14880 5491 150 11972 9761 9837 7686 4422 16562 15703 17358 4965 5585 2347 13487 11542 5546 4833 16680 12808 10316 16340 13208 15892 10122 12388 569

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 8(SR141), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 68(SR3), 97(SR333), 102(SR358), 76(SR451), 8(SR491), 125(SR1034) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

1549 12616 3877 14803 14415 6983 3790 992

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 38

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Bonds, Julia Bonelli, Dave Bonetti, Carla Bonetti, Donna Bonfante, Robert BonFleur, Gen Bongiorno, Daniela Bonham, Robert K. Bonham, Robert K. Boni, Allen Bonk, Marliese Bonn, Lara Bonn, Stephen Bonner, Elizabeth Bonner, James Bonner, James Bonner, V. John Bonney, Patty Bonnie, Raitt Bonnie, Roberts Bookman, Zachary

Submission ID 1615 9754 7817 16467 12777 15799 1965 1673 588 11735 4373 11956 5553 10675 5701 15072 16435 5957 550 4031 17568

Boomer, Cindy E Boone, Carol Boone, Carol Boone, James Boone, Joseph Boone, Mary Boone, Victory Boongang, Kim Booth, Elaine Booth, Howard G. Booth, John Boothby, Aaron Booz, Martha Boraby, A. Borden, Barbara Borden, John Bordenave, Michael Border, Barbara Borders, Dorothy Borelli, Elizabeth Boren, Gary

14339 3510 15858 502 6175 9519 14180 1276 2062 16400 4092 12615 4904 11688 3188 11855 15686 5299 12943 14158 9269

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 52(SR241) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 39

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Borges Foster, Jennifer Borgono, Debbie Borgono, Debbie Borgstrom, Sharon Boring, Connie Borkowski, George Borkowski, Mary Ann Born, Craig Born, Mary Bornstein, David Boronski, Melinda Borough, Gemariah Borr, Thomas Borske, Cindy Borst, Carolyn Borst, Laura Borton, Marlene Bosch, David Boschert, Sherry Bosko, Dand

Submission ID 14985 2286 14821 17648 10182 12714 5072 7081 11584 8613 2924 11430 12093 16832 15217 17 6938 9339 9764 17699

Bosnian, Ms. Tracy Boss, Diane Bossart, Joan Bosson, Jo-Ellen Bossong, Lynn Bostic, Gregory and Jessie Bostick, Amy Bostick, Carol S. Both, Jeffrey Botkin, James Botten, Julie Botting, Ilene Bottom, Brian Bottoms, Holly Botvin, Irma Bouche, Jovana Boucher, Elizabeth Boucher, Tasha Bouchot Strabic, Marina Boudreau, Michelle Boukhira, Jo Boulafentis, Johna Boulan, Cassidy Bouley, Paola Boulton, Amanda

1753 11550 11046 9704 15479 2439 14886 2706 13695 9695 15933 379 7020 12268 2218 8333 16535 9309 8496 12403 11196 14047 6126 16449 6134

Location of Comments/Responses 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 84(SR576) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 127(SR367), 93(SR644), 120(SR777), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 40

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Boulton, Jonathan Bourgault, Annette Bourgeois, Eric Bourgeois, Eric Bourgeois, Lorie Bourne, Richard Bourscheidt, Hank Bousman, Gayl Boutcher, Amanda Boutcher, Amanda Bovinet, James Bovone, Adriane Bowden, Robin Bowden-Dickson, Karen Bowdish, Caroline Bowe, John Bowen, Bryan Bowen, Christopher Bowen, Gilbert Bowen, Mr. Leland Bower, Susan Bowers, Bruce Bowers, India Bowers, Samantha Bowersock, Erin Bowes, Marilyn Bowie, Mary Bowler, Michael Bowles, Louise Bowles, Michelle Bowling, Beth Bowman, Candy Bowman, Candy Bowman, Jason Bowman, Kenneth Bowman, Scott Bowman-Kreitmeyer, Judith Boxie II, Robert P.

Submission ID 3809 16697 3704 16252 4169 3122 15670 6503 3856 16570 9980 10139 13169 10277 12846 3142 1548 4441 5769 1592 16841 10966 1056 2152 2749 13114 7349 9713 6605 14802 7549 9059 15908 2536 11164 10596 2495 17702

Boyd, Doyle Boyd, Edward Boyd, Heather Boyd, Jeanne Boyd, Leah

9553 5382 3833 13684 3928

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 41

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Boyd, Nancy Boydston, Jean Boyer, Delores E. Boyette, Karen Boyiazis, Anna Boyle, Kenneth Boyle, Mary Boyle, Rachel Boyle, Richard Boyles, Pamela Boyne, Hal Bozeman, Kasey Brabec, Odette Brabham, Richard Brabner, Sister Braccini, Ruthann Brace, Warren Bradbury, David E. Braddock, Alan Braden, Greg Braden, Julie Braden, Sebastiamn Bradfield, Amy Bradfield, Jo Bradford, Deborah Bradley, Rodney Bradley, Roland Bradman, Tara Bradshaw, Jane Bradshaw, Kathy Bradshaw, Linda Bradshaw, Sharon Bradshaw, Valinda Brady, Anne Brady, Christopher Brady, Jacquelyne Brady, Randall Brady, Sandra Brady, Shelagh Bragonier, Emily Brailsford, Molly Brakefield, Thomas Brakoniecki, Karen Brampton, Hazel Bramstadt, Jason

Submission ID 11919 12864 17754 7669 7921 13191 9285 208 11380 4334 8099 9391 13210 7013 4945 13821 2582 15410 10958 2182 10543 8338 5912 5566 10073 8235 4922 9547 9404 403 2428 12754 15602 13202 12960 856 5363 4023 11778 15059 6767 2959 12792 2415 9566

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 52(SR238), 88(SR603) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 16(SR144) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 42

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Branch, Ethel

Submission ID 589

Branch, Ethel

17691

Branch, G. Branch, Steve Branch, Steven Branch, Will Branchini, Caesar Brand, Maximillian Brand, Timothy Brandariz, Anita Brandeberry, Erin Brandeen, Corina Brandes, Michael Brandes, Susan Brandon, William Brandt, Christine Brandt, Kathryn Brandt, Rhianna Brandt, Robert Branham, Barbara Brannan, Diane Brannan, Lynne Brantley, Julie Branyan, Jane Bratman, Rafi Brauer, Joel Braumiller, Tanya Braun, Amanda Braun, Beth Braun, Clait E. Braun, Donna Braun, Justin Braun, Lois Braun-Greiner, Kolya Braunreiter, Mary Braunstein, Susan Braus, Joseph Bravo, Ana Bray, Suzannah Breadon, Elizabeth Breault, Annie Breault, MAtt

762 15770 8493 10665 3366 14091 7971 3329 3716 16017 3087 15732 2874 3522 8798 2223 12306 6583 14307 6028 11190 7043 15261 12487 9990 13008 5221 16227 10955 7618 2626 8848 12297 1800 13266 2631 13370 12478 16639 6801

Location of Comments/Responses 41(873), 57(1106), 115(SR21), 10(SR65), 41(SR131), 43(SR137), 88(SR596), 90(SR632), 92(SR637), 116(SR757), 120(SR777), 121(SR795), 121(SR820), 45(SR874) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 88(SR596), 116(SR725), 121(SR788) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 43

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Breazeale, Joseph Breazeale, Joseph Brechter, Felicia Breed, William Breedlove, Elizabeth Breedlove, Josh Breen, Bob Breheny, Dan Brehm, Joseph Breiding, Joan Breiding, Joan Breisch, Carrie Breitenbach-Dirks, Rachel Breitengross, Charmaine Brekke, Erika Brekke, Julie Bremer, Karl Breneman, Scott Brenke, Richard Brennan, Edward Brennan, Timothy Brenner, ? Brenner, Carol Brenner, Debbie Brenner, Nadia Brenner, Noah and Natasha Brenner, S. (unreadable) Brenner, Thomas Brescoll, Daniel Breslin, Madeline Breslow, Mike Brett, Derek Brett, Richard and Lola Brettillo, Joe Brewe, Eric & Crystal Brewer, Anne Brewer, Judy Brewer, Stephanie Erin

Submission ID 2679 14566 14618 824 5019 7047 14768 6652 11325 3459 15546 7700 4118 14176 9341 6902 10481 10365 8187 13254 14335 17124 9924 3156 6294 14577 17141 17115 6057 8675 16122 8397 10799 15373 4107 11167 808 17733

Brewer, Suzanne Brewster, Karla Northern Arizona University, Honors Program

2122 245

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 65(SR384) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 10(SR57) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 44

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Brewster, Karla Northern Arizona University, Honors Program Breznikar, Vesna Bribitzer-Stull, Matthew Bricken, Rivers Brickman, Miriam Briedis-Ruiz, Erika Briggs, Austin Briggs, Lois Briggs, Scott Brigham, Richard Brightwell, Lawrence Briley, Gillian Brimm, Ashley Brimm, Martha Brineman, T. Brink, Katrina Brink, Kim Brinkerhoff, Aaron Brinkerhoff, Aaron Brinkerhoff, Jeremy C. Brinkerhoff Brinkhurst, Cyndi Brinkley, Barbara Brinkley, Kim Brinkman, John brinkman, john Brinkmeier, Karl Brinkmeyer, Tom Brinson, Cynthia Briones, Patricia Briseno, Jon Brissette, Pam Brister, Bob Briswalter, Janet Brito, Russell Brittain, Cindy Brittenbach, Dennis Britton Blanck, Jamie Britton, Ann Britton, Audrey Britton, Bill Britton, Burnett Britton, Kathryn Brklycica, Stephen Broad, Robbin Brocato, Linde

Submission ID 245

Location of Comments/Responses 34(SR114), 35(SR121), 8(SR141), 56(SR313), 34(SR317), 45(SR874), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

11524 10355 2531 5651 7959 10090 6599 10350 3994 11331 12898 14101 7255 2470 5393 15099 12996 15641 1447 16423 13996 13204 9838 16741 8127 15254 6016 4297 7833 4505 16440 14238 5577 7187 13853 3113 6535 6537 6532 8271 8434 11351 14946 16542

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 45

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Broch, Roslyn Brochman, Mark Brochman, Mark Brock, Martha Brockman, Blaise Brockman, Deborah-Joy Brockman, Richard Brockmiller, Margaret Brockway, Frank Broda, Kate Broderick, Eileen Broderick, Jean Broderick, Susan Brodersen, Shelagh and Bob Brodeur, Annie Brodkin, Henry Brodman, Barbara Broeckel, Kenneth Brogan, Neil Brohl, Lisa Brohmer, Willow Broide, Barbara Broihier, Christiane Brokaw, Eileen Brokaw, Lisa Brolan, Paul Bromer, Peter Bromley Jr., George Bromley, Mary Bronk, Richard Brook, Robyn Brooke, Robyn Brooker, Eric Brooker, Jim Brookman, David Brooks, Aaron Brooks, Ben Brooks, Paula Brooks, Shaun Brophy, Jeanne Broska, Robert Brosnahan, Isabelle Brostrom, Ellen Brother, Steven

Submission ID 7516 2557 16795 3162 6850 164 8175 4082 13275 11127 13313 8547 6176 14004 9919 15612 8026 8941 14801 6860 2079 4609 9624 11051 2313 947 12669 13302 3638 13865 14670 3610 5062 15213 4485 2661 11748 9222 7834 11129 5908 17361 10458 17336

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR580) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 46

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Brotman, R. Brotman, Sally Broussard, Michael Brown, Aaron Brown, Aaron Brown, Adam Brown, Albert Brown, Alexandra Brown, Alicia Brown, Alisabeth Brown, Annie Brown, Ayra Brown, Belinda Brown, Bethany Brown, Brenda Brown, Carolyn Brown, Carolyn Brown, Cathy Brown, Cathy Brown, Charles Brown, D Brown, Daniel Brown, Danielle Brown, Darby Brown, D-C Brown, Edgar Brown, Ellsworth R. Brown, Geoffrey & Mrs.Patria Brown, Georgine Brown, Gwendolyn Brown, Harry Brown, Harry Brown, Hilary Brown, Jackie Brown, Jennifer Brown, Joan Brown, Karen Brown, Kevin Brown, Kirby Brown, Ky Brown, Laura Brown, Lisa Brown, Lyle Brown, Marie Brown, Mary

Submission ID 6469 9495 7445 6834 16772 11679 8260 8754 9647 3667 17527 16713 13071 1344 7266 17688 17751 13047 15260 13503 4068 16397 9439 16257 5164 4567 15111 13300 5664 2004 11355 11357 17269 4135 10510 607 4518 6942 4879 6066 12402 16537 3838 4691 11531

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 76(SR454), 120(SR777), 45(SR874) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 47

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Brown, Max Brown, Megan Brown, Melissa Brown, Melissa Brown, Michael Brown, Michael Brown, Michael Brown, Michael Brown, Rich Brown, Richard Brown, Roger Brown, Ronald Brown, Ronnie Brown, Sally Brown, Sandra Brown, Sara Brown, Sarah Brown, Sarah Brown, Shelley Brown, Shoshana Brown, Sr. Joan Brown, Stacy Brown, Steve Brown, Steven Brown, Tahnee Brown, Warren Browne, Barbara Browne, R. Browne, Susan Browning, Cassandra Browning, Diana Browning, Margie Browning, Patricia Brozell, Chris Brt, Jon Brubaker, Steven Bruce, Edie Bruce, Marian Bruell, Marc and Debbie Bruening, Paul Bruins, O. William Brundidge, Ann Brunje, Chris Brunk, Nevlyn and David Brunner, David

Submission ID 13833 5091 7092 8489 11951 12307 4489 16147 2332 1545 14073 12953 17185 6726 13943 5867 5152 8219 5682 3748 1523 15259 4049 10920 863 10343 9663 9787 3657 15006 4724 1987 3784 16781 10180 11643 7594 10235 5937 8568 16366 13429 2045 9897 11795

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 114(SR743) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 48

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Brunner, Eva Brunner, Isaac Bruno, David Bruno, Elizabeth Bruns, Dirk Brunton, Anna Bruny, Nancy Brushaber, Adam Brush-Hoover, Juliette Bruss, Deborah Brussmann, Petr Brust, Keith Bruun, Walter Bryan, Chris Bryan, Rick Bryant Jr, Lawerence and Roberta Bryant, Chad Bryant, Deborah Bryant, Donna Bryant, Ellen Bryant, Karen Bryant, Ned Bryant, Pam Bryant, Reino Bryant, Tamera Bryner, Dale Buazard, Sharon Buazard, Sharon Bubala, Louis Bubbers, Susan Bubbins, Harry Bubbins, Selena Buccola, Laura Buchanan, Anthony Buchanan, Dan Buchanan, Megan Buchanan, Miss Grainne Buchanan, Patti Buchbinder, Joseph Bucher, Laura Buchheit, Melissa Buchmann, Ken Buck, Bradley Buck, Peter

Submission ID 9247 7014 6067 821 326 2291 7425 7877 10819 10674 14794 16531 5443 12834 16567 14746 4689 6463 11957 5933 8651 8982 3398 13258 10260 17535 12139 14505 16150 15811 579 578 6376 13256 4720 184 1556 13224 6141 4184 10681 2981 11307 9570

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 41(SR131), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 110(SR716), 120(SR777) 126(SR409), 78(SR524), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 49

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Buckheim, Kurt Bucki, John Buckley, Aaron Buckley, Kimberley Buckley, Maura Buckley, Patricia Buckner, Lynne Buckner, Marian Budd, Keenzia Budge, Heidi Budington, Randy and Lori Budnick, Brooke Budrys, Tim Buell, Janett Buell, Rebecca R. Buettner, Laurie Bufe, Charles Buford, Tim Buga, Scott Bugbee, Sheryl Buishas, Mary Bukovnik, Amber Bukowski, Patrick Bulla, J Bulletts, Kevin Bullock, Debra Bullock, Ervin Bullock, n. Bumbulis, Sally Bumgarner, Tom Bummolo, Guy Bumpas, Linda Bumpus, Angela Bunch, Joanne Bunch, Van Bundy, Jennifer Buness, Cynthia Bunge, Russell Bunger, Samuel Bunn, Omari Buntin, Simmons Bunting, Lawrence Burbank, Jeri Burch, David Paul Xavier Burchard, Christian

Submission ID 14807 2499 6402 4528 9205 9364 16786 468 1532 14249 8438 6198 17025 7774 17500 14131 13638 13042 3223 3702 5320 4434 6962 10224 3235 6748 7459 10981 6262 12361 7641 11151 9648 6956 8149 9297 15553 8201 9819 13225 10444 5103 1315 6470 9920

Location of Comments/Responses 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 50

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Burchers, Darci Burchiellaro, Emilia Burczyk, Carol St. Frances Cabrini Parish Burden, Donna Burdge, Anthony Burfield, Robin Burg, Leslie Burgard, Donald James Burger, Ann Burger, Jeffrey Burgess, Jeffery Burgess, Karen Burgess, Kim Burgess, Laura Andrade Burgett, Barry Burgett, Sandra Burggraff, David Burich, Anne Burk, Jennifer Burk, Joyce Burkart, Gregory Burke, Barbara Burke, Bonnie Margay Burke, Brin Burke, Colleen Burke, Colleen Burke, Eileen Burke, Janice Burke, Joanne Burke, Kelli Burke, Kolean Burke, Kristen Burke, Maddie Burke, Mary Burke, Michelle Burke, Ms. Milan Burkhardt, Kerry Burkhart, Milissa Burks, Paul Burks, Rev. Paul Paul Burley, Lynne Burnet, Greg Burnett, Andrew

Submission ID 3076 9311 14062 16338 10860 2689 7946 3440 4858 9705 13740 3996 11341 2886 989 990 13314 10216 10259 15695 5961 3363 7321 7163 7811 15002 11135 2099 7802 7789 10950 13645 5428 6029 16618 1445 14194 9478 14848 1516 9727 10255 3023

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 51

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Burnett, Elizabeth Burnett, J Burnett, Laura Burnett, Mary Burnette, Tiffany Burnham, Angie Burnham, Jeff Burns, Anthony Burns, Audrey Burns, Bruce Burns, Carole Burns, Cecilia Burns, Elizabeth Burns, Jessica Burns, Kelly Burns, Lois Burns, Paula Burns, Robert & Carolyn Burns, Sean Burns, Vicki Buroker, Shannon Burpo, Leslie Burrage, Ellen Darlene Burress, Nicole S Burroughs, Shawn Burrows, Jon and Janet Burson, Susan Burton, Canary Burton, Mary Burton, Tyanna Burton, Tyanna Burwinkel, Mark Busby, Kate F. Busch, Cara Busch, Paul Buser, BOM, Sister Danetta Bush, Charles Bush, Christa Bushong Whitehead, Pat Buss, Holly Buss, Kyle Buss, Louise Busse, Barbara Busse, Barbara Bussey, Mary Bussmann, Rainer

Submission ID 9074 523 8377 9799 8517 11762 12780 16234 11016 12261 6120 3288 8599 809 16727 6190 9117 15572 7122 15977 8757 14350 126 13498 16916 9171 6829 5825 10062 193 193 10389 16958 7337 10714 17031 6365 9753 8287 6497 4483 11402 4335 14385 3501 11145

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 45(SR154) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR323) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121) 34(SR114), 35(SR121), 8(SR141), 56(SR313), 34(SR317), 45(SR874), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 52

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Butcher, Matt Butela, Becky Butler, Antoinette Butler, Ava Butler, Christine Butler, James Butler, Jennifer Butler, Kirk Butler, Linda Butler, Linda Butler, Lois Butler, Lois Butler, Maria Butler, Maria Butler, Merrily Butler, Ms. Juanita Butler, Nora Butler, Thomas Butrick, Yvonne Butscher, Alicia Kai Butterfield, Peter Butterworth, L Butterworth, Leslie Butterworth, Leslie Buttinger-Foerster, Barbara Button, James Buwalda, Lindsay Buyan, Brett Byerly, Caroline Byerly, Gayla Byers, Andrea Byker, Troy Byrd, Amy Byrd, ELizabeth Byrne, Brenda Byrne, Brenda Byrne, Charles Byrne, Kim Byrne, Scott Byron, Barbara Bzdak, Ewa C (unreadable signature), L C. (unreadable), Amanda

Submission ID 7282 9445 2607 14817 8655 6539 15804 2325 2728 14352 11563 16797 9912 16253 10540 1436 10032 11604 6324 2845 13882 15632 2928 14828 1252 6901 9981 2191 4614 5272 12301 399 2378 10134 6954 14630 10977 4291 15127 14312 8873 17058 17418

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR69) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 53

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter C. (unreadable), G. (unreadable) C. (unreadable), Lauren E. C. (unreadable), Ricardo Cabaniss, Brian Cabrera, Jennine Cabreros, Jr., Irineo Caccia, Carla Caccia, David Cacko, Kimberly Cadieux, Gregory Cadora, Eric Cady, Joan Cady, Michael Cady, Richard Cady, Scott Caesar-Dare, Wendy Caffery, Philip Cagle, Rev. Amanda Cahill, Thomas Cai, Julia Caillouet, Tania Cain, Linda Cain, Tim Cairns, Karen Cairns, Karen Cairns, Maureen Cairns, Todd Caisse, Cynthia Cajilog, Lilia Calabro, Richard Calabro, Richard

Submission ID 17301 17330 17293 9946 6110 9025 8507 16420 6677 7369 7748 8687 14394 14492 17594 6210 3799 1602 7025 11551 12233 10942 3160 4448 15618 4101 10505 15424 1883 217 233

Calbert, Anita Calder, Amanda Calder, Amanda Calder, Graeme Caldwell, Edward

12916 17107 17188 16611 7760

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 1(839), 54(1171), 50(SR1), 68(SR3), 5(SR35), 5(SR35), 5(SR35), 5(SR39), 5(SR43), 15(SR69), 31(SR93), 45(SR100), 52(SR160), 50(SR163), 51(SR177), 51(SR180), 20(SR246), 54(SR249), 14(SR308), 97(SR333), 125(SR358), 67(SR403), 126(SR409), 78(SR533), 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 56(SR920), 125(SR1034), 125(SR1035) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 54

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Caldy, Stephanie cale, fabiana Calef, Chris Calhoun, Judith Calhoun, Steve Cali, Judy Califano, Theresa Callaghan, Michael Callahan, Kelli Callahan, Marilyn Callen, Peter Callender, Jon Callicott, Burton Callow, Bennett Calouro, Janis Caltabiano, Eleanor Calvano, Ina Camarena, Camargo, Tanya Cameron, Alexander Camille, Raven Camilli, Anthony Camillus, Joe Camorati, Nancy Camp, John Camp, Ryan Campbell Ferry, Constance Campbell, Alicia Campbell, Alicia Campbell, Barbara Campbell, Connie Campbell, Dave Campbell, Doug Campbell, Jeff Campbell, Joan Campbell, Kerri Campbell, Kris Campbell, Landon Campbell, Lenora Campbell, Melissa Campbell, Mike Campbell, Patrick Campbell, Richard Campbell, Sarah Campbell, Susan

Submission ID 1022 16681 653 2515 4634 11722 12399 10261 9413 4175 16060 1667 14400 5645 14686 13810 4508 955 4469 9303 11633 7079 426 4841 2508 7332 3500 4806 15603 15148 3204 2535 15353 16160 11659 2657 2888 8285 12539 11890 7581 15158 5548 13559 13920

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 76(SR451), 54(SR1104) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 55

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Campbell, Tomas Campbell, Velene Campbell, Velene Campbell, Velene Campbell, Wendy Campos, Isaac Canchola, Erica Candiloro, Bree Canelro, Amanda Canja, Suzanne Canlandee, Jenn Cannavo, Judith Canning, Stephen Canning, Stephen Cannon, Crystal Cannon, Cynthia Cannon, Donald Cannon, Hana Cannon, John Cannon, John Cannon, Mike Canon, Dene' Canon, Eric Canova, James Cant, Read Cant, Read Canterbury, Anne Cantin, Marie Cantlin, Rachel Cap, Trish Capa, Alp R. Capanzano, Joe & Laura Capezio, Jeff Caplin, Drew Capozzelli, J Capozzelli, J. Capozzille, R Cappelletti, Nancy Cappetta, Mark Capuano, Janyce Capuli, Tere Caputo, Maryann Caramore, Nancy

Submission ID 16874 12036 12056 16379 10474 6673 10858 14276 17051 9279 17297 7177 17175 823 4457 12680 11199 1323 5045 16886 5036 12750 10980 9622 17002 17041 154 3408 7873 9696 16012 7633 16077 7718 16957 2604 14521 3296 6754 3002 3191 10879 14093

Location of Comments/Responses 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 76(SR452) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 56

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Carapetian, Armen Caravelli, Alia Carberry, Christiane Carbonell, Isabelle Carden, Michelle Cardenas, Hope Cardenas, Luis Cardenas, Mike Carder, Mark Cardiff, Lynn Cardin, Shawna Cardinale, Larry Cardinale, Pam Cardona, Vanessa Cardozo, Bradley Carey, Bernadette Carey, Cecilia Carey, Pamela Carissimi, Aileen Carley, Holly Carlin, Kathleen Carlisle, Ann Carlisle, Harriette Carlson, Cathleen Carlson, Chris Carlson, James Carlson, Jeffrey Carlson, Lawrence R. Carlson, Mathieu Carlson, Sara Carlson, Susi Carlton, Douglas Carlton, Keith Carlton, Sylvia Carmichael, Randall Carniglia, Dianne Carnine, Leah Carpenter, Corena Carpenter, Jeremy Carpenter, Laura Carpenter, Michelle Carpenter, Nancy Carpenter, Regina Carpenter, Robert Carpenter, Victoria

Submission ID 2069 8614 16109 7168 8138 9302 17281 2215 6862 3300 3931 4638 10699 17865 16922 11888 8032 10903 7729 8274 11559 11441 6392 9192 14932 9935 8380 16089 9292 6140 6350 5048 14703 2521 6783 3450 1793 14986 3102 13092 2541 4061 12854 13211 6554

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 57

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Carper, Cindy Carper, Maximillian Carpineelli, Janet Carpio, Anthony Carpio, Anthony Carr, Carolyn Carr, Colleen Carr, Gaile Carr, Hope Carr, Jessie Carr, Kenneth and Donna Carr, Ms. Jessie Carr, Sarah Carr, Stever Carrao, Gary S. Carrasco, Steven Carrasquillo, Amanda Carreiro, Daron National Native American Law Students Association Carr-Fingerle, Joelyn Carrillo, Brydget Carrillo, Mariana Carrillo, Rosalyn Carrillo, Sandra Carringer, Nancy Carrington, Martha Carroll, Amelia Carroll, Andrew Carroll, Christie Carroll, Debbie Carroll, Deborah Carroll, Dianne and Eric Carroll, Eric Carroll, Glen Carroll, Joyce Carroll, Kathleen Carroll, Kathryn Carroll, Keri Carroll, Laura Carroll, Maureen Carroll, Peter Carroll, Sandra Carroll, Sarah Carr-Young, Nell Carse, Mary Carsen, Dan

Submission ID 8954 4090 9882 8443 15123 9757 3656 2429 6058 17085 12493 1555 15911 15633 12134 11707 12685 17508

13776 5959 16229 9516 6762 6572 6044 4570 11572 14253 14974 9154 3759 4635 8334 2590 11440 15207 2906 14422 10157 3966 14410 2662 13478 5079 15634

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 58

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Carson, Christopher Carson, Patricia Carson, Thomas Carsten, Toni Carswell, Anita Carter, Anna Scott Carter, Brenda Carter, Charlene Carter, Clarissa Carter, Dru Carter, Gary Carter, Helen Carter, Jan Carter, Julie Carter, Laura Carter, Merrill Carter, Michael Carter, Paul Carter, Penelope Carter, Rebecca Carter, Sherry Carter, Stacy Carter, Yvonne Cartier, Jeff Cartwright, Jim Carty, Claudia Carver, Bernice Carver, Billie Carver, Sue Cary, Amida Cary, John Casale, Matt Cascio, Linda Case, Cynthia Casella, Donna Casey, Brenda Casey, Donna Casey, Jena Casey, Joyce Casey, Kelly Casey, Rai Cashman, Janis Casper, Chris Casperson, Serah Casriel, Laurie Cass, Lorraine

Submission ID 10744 12771 10562 320 16370 8740 6936 12348 10422 8081 10049 8006 4087 5128 2664 12346 16654 4188 6114 4745 10346 11274 13431 178 3367 9534 120 6033 6116 4831 10286 5203 12931 1354 4461 10709 4222 14651 12292 10159 11091 6227 9718 10902 6582 14368

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 45(SR100), 51(SR177) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 52(SR241), 56(SR315), 57(SR340), 67(SR391), 114(SR756), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 127(SR1052) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 59

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Cassady, Mary Cassara, Rebecca Cassatt, Wayne Casselberry, JoAnn Cassell, Mary Casseri, Elizabeth Cassidy, Doris Cassidy, Jackie Cassidy, Joy Cassidy, Mary Casson, Maria Castagna, Sammy Castagnino, Daniela Castaldo, Janine Castaneda, Cristina Castaneda-Mendez, Kicab Castanheira, Juana Castelow, June Castillo, Castillo Castillo, James Castillo, Jessica Castillo, Mary Castillo, Susan Castillo, Theresa Castle, Sue Cataldo, Robert Catapano, Lisa Cathy Tinder, Cathy Tinder Catolfi, Tiziana Caton, Barbara Catone-Huber, Adrienne Caton-McGill, Christine Catozzi, Richard Caudill, Rich and Maya Caul, Robert Cave, Linda Cavell, Scott Caveness, Emily

Submission ID 13800 9517 3047 9306 11591 7687 6013 13783 3317 8158 14845 12595 12514 8233 7040 13715 4475 11055 1470 4190 4897 13916 2279 8263 7869 12294 11236 10558 2312 12345 8779 3099 13738 14779 15629 9231 15755 17738

Cayford, David Caylor, Rob Cayot, Lani Cazares, P. R. Ceballos, Bodil Cecil, Jan

7167 6868 9289 12356 1325 10672

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 60

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Cecil, Jesse Cecil, Jon Cecot, Theresa Cee, Daniel Celli-Jones, Angela Cemanovic, Melina Ceniceros, Olivia Centeno, Everett Centner, Randy Centracchio, Donna Cerles, Sarah Cerling, Claire Cerra, Nicole Cerrato, Esquire, Michael Cerutti, Aaron Cervene, Amy Cervera, Francisco Cervera, Francisco Cespedes, Karen Cespedes, Melinda Cespedes, Nichole Cespedes, Sarah Cestaro, Giro Cetrola, Maria Cevasco, John Chacalos, Payton Chachere, Richard Chadil, Teo Chadwick, Jerry Chaiklin, Joseph Chaille, Holly Chaix Kissling, Richard & Elmone Chalker, Mikki Chambadal, Philippe Chamberlain, Jeannie Chamberlain, Karen Chan, Joshua Chan, Tina Chan, Toni Chan, Vincent Chan, Wallace Chancey, Landon Chandler, Janet

Submission ID 4789 16539 1413 4367 11509 14876 13547 8739 15778 6742 8298 16155 5555 6056 2769 8290 157 157 9934 4256 8641 3913 14427 15432 11436 15964 5983 4028 804 3599 14772 13420 8168 11107 6508 13928 17904 17785 329 17793 4022 1605 4045

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 52(SR238), 20(SR248), 102(SR436), 110(SR716), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 9(SR272), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 61

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Chandler, Joyce Chandler, Margaret Chandler, Tara Chaney, Kathryn Chaney, Kevin Chaney, Kimberly Chaney, Nancy Chang, Aubrey Chang, Emery Chang, Helen Chang, Jorge Chang, Patricia Chapanis, Roger Chapdelaine, Dawn Chapek, S. Chapgier, Florence Chapin, Donna Chapman, Deborah Chapman, Deborah Chapman, Josh Chapman, LaRita Chapman, Laura Anne Chapman, Stewart Chapman, Victoria Chapochnikova, Korie Chappell, Donna (Geyatahi) Chaput, Rachel Chaput, Russell Chard, Leslie Chard, Sue Charette, Jane Charette, Sheila Charkowski, Elaine Charles, Jennifer Charles, Jim-George Charles, Michelle Charles, Robert Charloff, Ruth Charney, Carolyn Charniga, Jessica Charpied, Mr. Larry & Ms. Donna Chartier, Michele Chase, Arlo Chase, Everett Chase, George Chase, Lisa

Submission ID 3545 7826 7848 9499 5918 10283 12411 5541 6943 6064 1100 5512 15183 7637 12026 10919 6296 13749 5316 16608 12442 722 13311 1379 7931 5068 15884 16526 7113 4685 13819 3826 59 5940 17813 5454 7579 14157 11573 10250 16638 4233 8830 11096 11271 14129

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR580) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 114(SR724) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 62

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Chase, Lisa Chastain, Charles Chauser, Jacqueline Chauvaux, Charlene Chavez, Nick B Chavez, Phyllis Chayefsky, Helen Chazin, Julian Chazin, Mildred Checchi, Sheila Chee, Audrey Chee, Jeanette

Submission ID 6690 3082 8267 8357 10735 2335 10862 4568 3813 4837 1624 16928

Chee, Jerry Chee, Laura Chee, Laura Chee, Laura Chee, Laura Chee, Leonard Cheek, Fred Cheema, Sandeep Cheeseman, Doug Cheeseman, Gail Cheffer, Eric Chen, Allan Chen, Cathy Chen, Nick Chen, Sandy Chenail, Amy Chenault, Terri Chenevert, A. Cheng, Vivian Cheng, Yen Pu Chenu, Eve Chenven, Morning Chen-Williams, Shiang Chequer, Bradley Cherner, Beverly

806 17448 16993 778 3172 774 9835 17872 16603 16637 2860 11445 2345 1910 17772 5525 5770 5306 16625 17883 8911 4284 14254 5434 16761

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 48(882), 122(1028), 53(1030), 53(1031), 53(1067), 53(1072), 51(1080), 51(1095), 51(1097), 53(1099), 53(1100), 52(1118), 52(1168), 125(1207), 91(SR23), 7(SR32), 5(SR35), 5(SR42), 10(SR64), 16(SR84), 16(SR85), 35(SR121), 49(SR162), 50(SR167), 53(SR255), 53(SR258), 9(SR276), 54(SR300), 54(SR301), 57(SR338), 102(SR355), 127(SR367), 67(SR400), 67(SR401), 126(SR421), 68(SR441), 70(SR445), 52(SR546), 79(SR563), 125(SR565), 88(SR606), 69(SR649), 7(SR652), 102(SR696), 125(SR719), 124(SR719), 119(SR773), 121(SR795), 109(SR812), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 53(SR1073) 42(SR106), 44(SR138), 126(SR409), 88(SR580) 53(SR1073), 47(SR1077) 35(SR121), 44(SR138), 47(SR159), 88(SR586) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 78(SR525), 88(SR586) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 63

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Cherniak, Robert Cherry, Danielle Cherry, Randall Cherubin, Margaret Chesebrough, Peter Chesley, Mattias Chesner, Donna Chesner, Donna Chester, Colby Chester, Greg Chetron, Avram Chi, Anson Chi, Lee Yuen Chiaki Z, Ms. Chiaki Z, Ms. Chie, Moriya Chief, Karletta

Submission ID 10056 8447 12819 2729 11585 9941 946 14536 15541 602 11373 8460 17788 1034 1035 1672 558

Chien, Benny Chilas, Christopher Chilcoat, Rose Child, Sam Chiles, Ashley Chin, Andrew Chin, Malina Ching, Delwyn Ching-Ju Ko, Betty Chiodo, Michael Chiras, Dan Chiricuzio, Sossity Chisholm, Frank Chism, Edgar Chitouras, Jeff Chiu, Laura Chizever, Jodee Chmara-Huff, Gwynyth Cho, Rachael Choate, Julie Chojnowski, N. Cholewa, Mitch Chopra, Sameer Chorba, Holly

16563 17462 15369 2762 6566 13040 7225 5873 17770 3944 15500 7309 5031 9113 10528 7726 3048 11776 17858 15502 17498 4474 17811 16900

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 52(SR1), 5(SR35), 15(SR69), 45(SR100), 22(SR280), 126(SR409), 68(SR433), 88(SR586), 5(SR678), 120(SR777) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 88(SR580) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 64

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Chou, Andrew Chow, Gabe Chowning, Todd Choy, Duane Chretien, Michel Christal, Santos Christensen, Betty Christensen, Bradley Christensen, G. V. Christensen, Gary Christensen, Nevin Christenson, Dan Christhilf, Sandra Christian, B. Jane Christian, David Christiansen, Scott Christine, Broderick Christine, Mikhael Christman, Angela Christner, John Christopher, Stephanie Christopher, Young Christy, Michael Christy, Michelle Chronister, Alan Chrostowski, Lenny Chu, Hsiao-Yun Chulsky, Courtney Churchman, Michael Chutich, Michael Chvilicek, Elizabeth Ciampa, Michael Ciaramitaro, Joseph Ciccone, David Ciccone, Erin Cichlar, Gerald Cichy, Katie Cieri, Josephine Ciesla, Christina Ciha, Jim Cilley, Rachel Ciminillo, Lisa Cincotti, Laura Cinquemani, D.L. and F.L. Cipher, Melanie Cisneros, Bert

Submission ID 17919 17900 2558 8551 68 17884 7080 7688 16516 3821 6766 2337 17838 12582 3733 1361 5984 17893 12833 5655 4041 17895 7038 14038 4869 15289 1960 4081 6579 2371 13901 12119 15423 9586 10517 15494 5266 1612 9118 5869 7064 9089 9687 14829 5905 8736

Location of Comments/Responses 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 65

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Citizens' Initiative Omega, Citizens' Initiative Cizmar, Ali Claesges, Danielle Claiborne, Patricia Clancy, C Clancy, Marie Clare, Jennifer Clark Reed, Amanda Clark, Abigail Clark, Beth Clark, Brian Clark, Cassie Clark, Christopher Clark, Denise Clark, Diane Clark, Diane Clark, Donald Clark, Glenn Clark, Glenn Clark, James Clark, Jason Clark, Jennifer Clark, Jennifer Clark, Jessica Antioch Student Mailroom Clark, Kathleen Clark, Ken Clark, Ken Clark, Loralee Clark, Loralee Clark, Margaret Clark, Marguerite Clark, Mark Clark, Morgan Clark, Nancy Clark, Pamela Clark, Paula Clark, Peter Clark, Roger Grand Canyon Trust

Submission ID 11132 12468 5280 7974 13609 3246 13491 9090 3876 4029 15141 14638 14683 2124 13168 15731 15065 701 15509 9202 16165 3176 14389 17313 12316 9431 8715 2417 14420 2104 3081 13553 10297 3653 11760 8488 5989 17753

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 9(SR233), 116(SR760) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 21(857), 31(863), 67(937), 57(1110), 15(SR69), 77(SR127), 1(SR151), 51(SR205), 108(SR221), 52(SR242), 33(SR304), 21(SR312), 107(SR353), 70(SR435), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 52(SR242), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Clark, Sheridan Clark, Steve Clark, Stuart E. Clark, Susan Clark, Susan

5401 8577 280 1913 12769

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 66

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Clarke, Debbie Clarke, G. Clarke, Krista Clarke, Marcia Clarke, Sandra Clarke, Virginia M. Clarkson, Phillip Clasher, Brian T. Clasher, Brian T. Clausen, Cathy Clauson, Jeanne Claussen, Joan Clawson, Gertrude Clawson, Jim Clay, Margaret Clay, Metric Clayborn, Sierra Claypool, Marc Clayton, Anna Clayton, Joh H. Cleary, Lisa Cleary, Lynne Cleaveland, Carri Cleaver, Karen Cleaver, Melissa Cleckley, Patricia Cleland, Thomas Cleland, Trena Clemans, Chris Terry Clemens, Rev. Nancy Clement Klammer, Barbara Clemente, Lori Clemons, Leigh Ann Clemow, Thomas Clemson, G Clenaghan, Neill Clermont, Roberta Cleveland, Karen Clifford, Kathryn Clifford, Rob Clift, Joshua Clifton, Dan Clifton, Jean

Submission ID 4652 10400 4364 4006 11238 15016 11087 17030 17493 8688 14396 10158 2142 8326 13532 15636 17911 13305 15517 13039 6786 14030 2934 13510 6459 5488 5739 14044 16496 1789 12349 6708 5731 4785 8787 5317 1107 12818 13870 10431 1684 6937 4826

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 52(SR241) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 67

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Cline, Brett Cline, Elizabeth Cline, Terry Clinton, Robert Cliver, Keith Clodfelter, Elizabeth Cloer, Susan Clopton, Michelle Clopton, Ray Cloud, Michael Cloud, Tom Clouser, Rosie Cloutier, Alexia Clover, Dan Clover?, Ryan? Clover-Owens, Ryan Clusen, Chuck Clutter, Marcie Cly, Catherine Clynch, Susan Coad, Ceoreanne Coady, Kathleen M. Coakley, Doyle Coakley, John Paul Coats, Kay Coats, Marilyn Cobb, Kylie Cobb, L. D. Cobb, Stephen Cobb, Susan Coberly, Calla Coble, Donna Coble, George Coble, Teresa Coburn, Irving Coburn, Pamela Coccaro, Ron Cochran, Joshua Cochran, Peter Cochrane, Barbara Cochrane, Helen Cochrane, Helen Cochrane, John Cockerill, Joanne Cody, Christine

Submission ID 4148 5040 4852 9621 16460 7799 12986 15460 16183 10701 5831 12638 8386 7364 17079 1768 15136 16493 649 12944 15384 12184 14882 5893 375 10454 8311 12878 3680 2037 13628 9041 11932 15106 6049 14543 12320 11627 16632 9689 948 13286 14635 15700 8575

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR580) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 68

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Cody, Leroy Cody, Linda Cody, Sharon Cody, T. Stephen Cody, Thomas Cody, Thomas L. Leupp Chapter Coe, Barbara Coers, Amanda Coffeen, Peter Coffer, Curtis Coffey, Gerald Coffey, Gerry Coffey, Nick Coffinger, Morgan Coffman, Douglas Cogan, Priscilla Cohara, Sarah Cohen, Alicia Cohen, Benita Cohen, Brian Cohen, Brian and Rita Cohen, Dana Cohen, E Cohen, Howard Cohen, Leslie Cohen, Mimi Cohen, Misha Cohen, Mr. Cohen, Myrna Cohen, Natalie Cohen, Nayana Cohen, Nicholas Cohen, Peter Cohen, Richard Cohen, Sam Cohen, Shirley Cohen, Thea Cohn, Norman Cohn, Sharilyn Cohn, Sharilyn Coil, Kristen Colbeck, Mary Cole, Kathleen Cole, Robert Cole, Vera Colebank, Darryl

Submission ID 17232 4009 17819 12256 17226 840 11031 9141 13660 4187 12460 14567 12644 17179 11245 4733 5004 11386 3049 3015 11595 4966 11098 16482 3652 10773 10357 1390 2346 6573 3392 8101 9650 12229 15393 7564 7173 9403 8799 8701 7556 8417 2170 3526 8958 14788

Location of Comments/Responses 27(SR52) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 51(939), 52(1119), 79(SR547) 55(1181), 126(1240), 52(SR240), 69(SR415), 70(SR435), 70(SR439), 76(SR451), 88(SR604) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 55(SR22), 88(SR580) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 69

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Colella, Gabe Coleman, Bobbie Coleman, Chuck Coleman, Debra Coleman, Laura Coleman, Marisa Coleman, Pamela Coleman, Shaz Cole-McManus, Deirdre Coles, Herbert Colgan, Ms. Aislyn Colis, Lorri Ann Colla, Elizabeth Collas, Christopher Collazo, Jaime Colledge, Jeff College Sheridan, The Concord Mission Colley, Ann Collier, Fran Collier, Pat Collin, Neal Collings, Andrew Collings, David Collingwood, Anne Collins, Alysha Collins, Amy Collins, Barbara Collins, Brian Collins, Brian Collins, Clayton Collins, Craig Collins, David Collins, Jennifer Collins, Joseph Collins, JP Collins, Jr, William Collins, Judy & Merl Collins, Karin Collins, Lauren Collins, Mary Collins, Oliver Collins, Rich Collins, Shan Collins, Shan Collins, Steven Collins, Tybee

Submission ID 12293 9400 2003 4963 4764 6437 9872 11854 12039 1943 1385 13200 11315 6496 4171 10887 2825 10837 16707 15046 2318 11452 13826 515 10042 9411 14027 8327 8578 14634 7733 11699 4863 12095 16690 12637 4815 16505 6600 9015 15185 9108 2650 16198 8813 3586

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR580), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 70

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Collins-Fleming, Karen Collinson, Ellie Collinsworth, Seth Collinsworth, Van Colombi, Chiara Colon, Alex Colosi, Sherry Colson, Rosemary Colson, Tracy Colville, Gavin T. Colvin, Michael Coman, Ilene Coman, Ilene Combs, Patricia Comeau, Barbara Comer, Dorothy Comerford, Laura Comfort, David Comins, Chip Compel, Christopher Compinsky, Dorothy Compton, Cynthia Compton, Justin A. Compton, Nilsa Conable, Sherry Conable, Sherry Conahan Decking, Teresa Conahan, Teresa Conant, Jackie Conant, Laura Conder, Sandra Condit, Cecelia Condit, James Condit, Stephen Cone, Erin Cone, Frances Cone, Frances Cone, Janice Conefrey, Roberta Confectioner, Vira Conger, Kerri Conkey, Debra Conklin, Erik Conlan, Michael Conlan, Robert J. Conley, Amy

Submission ID 9043 10650 4074 15412 10066 10715 8712 10473 16485 17255 7295 413 413 10311 9540 9389 14359 9775 6701 11566 17627 2944 10911 4145 11662 15662 7130 284 11753 4611 13721 7537 11514 9270 2669 12278 14751 12556 5025 14690 7404 7158 14553 11322 9510 4605

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 52(SR254) 35(SR121), 88(SR580) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121),