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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 71

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Conley, Jan Conley, Pamela Conley, Patrick Conlisk, Erin Conlon, Mark Conn, Brenda Connell, David Connell, Kart Conner, Eileen Conner, Jason Conner, Rebecca Connolly, Jill Connor, Billy Connor, Sharon Connor, Thomas V. Connors, Charles Connors, Joseph Conrad, Heather Conrad, Jody Conrad, Renee Conrardy, Carla Conroy, Colleen Conroy, Faith Conroy, Georgia Conroy, Laurie Conroy, Thomas Constable, Daniel Constance Kosuda, Constance Kosuda Constantine, Carol Contreras, Carlos Contreras, Carlos Contreras, Mario Convertino-Waage, Trever Conway, Beverly Conway, Patty Conway, Rebecca Conway, Robert Michael Conzelman, James Coogan, Josie Cook Jr, David W. and Sara D. Cook, Anita Cook, Christa Cook, Craig Cook, Damon Cook, Fran Cook, Holly

Submission ID 16315 7475 6523 9409 16067 5009 6409 17529 4910 482 5056 4266 13476 6695 16020 6521 6264 11925 3883 11092 16090 3161 9284 7001 15760 15336 11611 11146 7188 7210 17610 10254 13517 3543 2221 9330 16422 14235 7172 12517 9156 4183 5582 8620 15027 4703

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) 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) 14(SR307), 76(SR454), 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) 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) 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), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 72

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Cook, James Cook, Janet Cook, Laura Cook, Mira Cook, Suzanne Cook, Terry Cooke, Chad Cooke, Jeff Cool, Jan Cooley, Marian Coombs, Donna Cooney, Patricia Coons, Joel Cooper, Carolyn Cooper, D Cooper, David Cooper, Debra Cooper, George Cooper, Joe Cooper, Marica Cooper, Melissa Cooper, Neil Cooper, Peggy Cooper, Richard Cooper, Richard Cooper, Tina Cooperman, Emily Cope, Eliza Cope, Greg Cope, Missy Copeland, Bonnie Copeland, Cc Copeland, Margaret Copeland, Mel Copeland, Ross Coppersmith, Terri Coral, Mary Corbat, Rich Corbat, Richard Corbet, Abigail Corbett, Michael Corbett, Tina Corbin, Simon Corby, Kathleen Corcoran, James

Submission ID 4496 7114 5888 16121 15345 15497 4234 2600 10812 11809 2106 3420 486 17559 2084 8802 16860 16042 9081 4084 13365 8324 5901 12440 16600 5058 9472 8194 597 474 10882 5900 8083 16333 14148 512 10894 16837 13567 7994 15818 6663 687 14122 15495

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) 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) 76(SR454) 42(SR106), 35(SR121), 107(SR129), 126(SR409), 109(SR753) 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) 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) 41(SR131), 109(SR224), 127(SR367), 93(SR644), 120(SR777), 54(SR1103) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 76(SR454) 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), 88(SR580) 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 - 73

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Corcos, Anne Cordeau, Stephanie Cordero, Phyllis Cording, Carl Cordova, Jason Cordova, Sherry Corey, Linda Corey, Linda Corie, Kim Corio, Jennifer Corker, Janice Corkrum, Gordon Corkum, James Corliss, Patricia Corn, Marlin Cornelia, Jared Cornelius, Bill Cornelius, Bill Cornell, Lori Cornell, Sandy Cornett, Nina Cornitius, Debbe Corogin, Paul Corr, Fitzhugh Corrales, Elyse Correa, Luisa Correnti, Matt Corriere, Marianne Corrigan, Denise Corrigan, Elizabeth Corsi, Paul Corso, Richard Cortez, Loyd Corwin, Craig Corwin, Stanley & Colette Cory, Christine Coryell, Mark Cosgrave, Julienne Cosgriff, Mark Cosgrove, Michael Cosgrove, Patrick Coslett, Graham Cost, Jennifer Costa, Demelza Costa, Demelza Costa, Francisco

Submission ID 9466 14495 14475 15875 258 13401 13144 14508 17677 6371 12596 14433 17326 5945 15167 2277 299 8056 13501 7023 441 8823 13947 7966 6641 6456 13822 9107 7829 8252 10939 9674 16642 8000 11877 17655 14846 9390 8764 548 7795 14390 16739 12147 16700 3749

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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 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) 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) 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) 8(SR143) 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), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 74

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Costanzo, Renee Costas, Deborah Costeas, Elaine Costeas, Lanie Costello, Edward Costenbader, Karl Cotner, Bob Cotter, William Cotterman, Lisa Cottingham, Brian Cottle, Daniel Cotton, David Cotton, David Cotton, King Cotton, Madeline Cotton, Virginia Cottrell, Kanit Cotugno, Caroline Couch, Jaime Couchman, Robert Coughlin, Jerry Coulombe, Raymond Coulson, Elyse Coulson, Patrick Coulter, Barbara Coulter, Lindsey Council, Nina Council, Nina Councilman, Dave Counts, Vaughan Courser, George Court, Robert Courter, Matthew R Courter, Phyllis Courtois, Heather Covalt, Ginger & Wendell Cover, Esther Covey, Cynthia Covey, John Covington, Laurel Cowens, Meghan Cowley, Teresa Cox, A. Cox, John Cox, Katrina Cox, Leah Cox, Merry

Submission ID 1919 4696 16582 5568 9660 10615 12452 9703 3039 14250 8365 9514 3004 9463 9481 10370 2938 2477 15882 4905 4325 6024 12738 5593 16757 9940 237 12398 16801 5904 16443 9955 14933 3923 10730 4066 2724 2665 12756 4119 10027 15736 7276 12242 13232 16424 6678

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), 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) 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) 45(SR154), 105(SR703) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 75

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Cox, Michele Lee Cox, Millicent Cox, Pete Cox, Stephanie Cox, Thomas Cox, Timothy Cox, Vickie Cox, Wylie E. Coyle, Katherine Coyle, Lauren

Submission ID 17632 4384 10010 17609 10237 7365 6334 15450 11047 17715

Coyne, Steve Coyner, Robert Coyote, Peter Cozzi, Matthew Cozzi, Michael Cozzo, Donna Crabtree, Carolyn Crabtree, David Crabtree, Toni Crabtree-Nelson, Eric Crady, Carrie Craffey, Eileen Crafts, William Cragnotti, Dorina Crago, Diana Crago, Steve Craig, Brian Craig, Ella Craig, Eugene Craig, Paula Craig, Peter Craig, Russell Craig, Velma Craig, Wendi Craig, William Craighill, Marian Crain, Nora Cram, David Cramer, Chrissantha Cramer, Kim Cramer, Mary Crampton-Thomas, Daniel Crandall, Neal Crane, Donna

8087 11060 673 15769 16745 5715 7073 12192 9709 15698 10210 11882 15377 5702 7305 5078 2228 3164 12066 12131 13741 218 1324 12009 5781 1983 12235 5469 15454 2764 2658 11434 5337 11295

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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) 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 110(SR716), 120(SR777) 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) 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), 44(SR138) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 76

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Crane, Ingrid Crane, Michael Crank, Simon Crase, Kirsten Crass, Mr. Chris Cravens, Marisa Cravey, Suzanne Crawford, Hana Crawford, Jerry Crawford, Miguel Crawford, Morgan Crawford, Penelope Crawford, Sherry Crawford, Stehlin Crawford, William Crawfrod, Peter Creamer, Dolores Creatore, Wilma Creek, Eden Creighton, John Cremin, Mallory Cresseveur, Jessica Cresseveur, Jessica Creswell, Cindy Crews, Jackson Crickenberger, Ray Cricket, Jonas Cridge, Kathleen Crihfield, Roger Crimmins, Paul Crist, Linda Criswell, Karen Criswell, Mark Crites, Susan Critz, Catherine Croce, Warren Crocker, Sharon Crom, Alva Crom, Nancy Cromartie, Laura Cromwick, William Cronauer, Linda Crone, Donald Crone, Steve Cronin, Gary Cronin, Gayle

Submission ID 15196 12758 17587 4581 1443 531 14826 17240 6183 10775 13205 3390 9732 13326 11598 8077 10880 10670 180 4402 451 7912 15466 5468 14106 13458 5035 11401 16619 15344 13904 11241 11242 10412 11120 7770 5526 15740 2232 6775 8741 3558 7451 5202 16081 5158

Location of Comments/Responses 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 52(SR242), 79(SR536), 79(SR549), 93(SR644) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 126(SR430) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 77

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Cronin, James Cropp, Norman Crosby, Crosby Crosby, William Croset, Anne Crosetti, Linn Crosland, Benjamin Cross, Alfred Cross, Bradley LFR Environmental Management & Consulting Engineering

Submission ID 5522 8166 7845 16100 10485 10784 7150 5408 16921

Cross, Carol Cross, Doris C. Cross, Doris C. Cross, Michael G.

1976 17024 17458 17729

Crossen, Bruce Crossley, Billie Crotts, Susan Crouch, David Crouch, Dorothy Crouch, Jul Crouch, Juliana Crouch, Michael Crouse, Donna Crow, Marilyn Crow, Sharla Crowell, Holly Crowley, Morgan Crowston, Jennifer Crowther, Janet Cruikshank, Brian Cruise, Tracy Crumbo, Lynn Crupi, Kevin Crusha, Connie Cruz, Ana Cruz, Marian Crystal, Lynn Crystal, Paul-Alexander Csedo, Jackie Csizmas, Jennine Cubbedge, Tim Cubberly, Pamela

7252 4296 3143 9760 3069 3374 263 3078 539 3517 3721 10083 14785 5960 8371 13282 4666 7278 14243 14355 15664 6147 5391 10619 2562 2288 9365 3624

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) 53(1064), 53(1065), 53(1066), 54(1176), 51(SR184), 51(SR188), 51(SR189), 51(SR190), 52(SR243), 53(SR256), 53(SR261), 53(SR262), 53(SR263), 51(SR270), 54(SR286), 54(SR291), 54(SR292), 54(SR293), 54(SR294), 54(SR295), 54(SR296), 54(SR297), 54(SR298) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 19(SR87), 118(SR763) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 78

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Cubides, Nicholas Cucchi, Jessica Cucuzzella, Marisa Cuevas, Julianna Cuevas, Maritza Cuevas, Sylvia Cuff Jr., Kermit Culhane, Leslie Cullen, Brenda Cullen, Karen Cullen, Sarah Culley, Erin Culpepper, Charles Cumming, Cheyne Cumming, Susanne Cummings, Beverly Cummings, Francis Cummings, George Cummins, Bree Cundiff, Janet Cunningham, Barbara Cunningham, Camilla Cunningham, Camille Cunningham, Caroline Cunningham, Debbie Cunningham, Debra Cunningham, Elizabeth Cunningham, Ian Cunningham, Irene Cunningham, J. Cunningham, Michael Cunningham, Steve Cunninghame, Ian Cunov, Kendra Cureton, Joey Curland, Jim Curley, Terry Curleyhair, Woody Curnow, Connie Curnow, CS Curotto, John Curran, Roxann Curran, Sally Curran, Shannon Currie, Marianne Currier, Vaughn

Submission ID 16143 6020 12696 8923 7836 14111 2548 3131 2426 10173 13792 182 4123 14353 14167 11007 386 13070 2656 3312 8200 11332 7510 9642 14865 9809 6155 9084 2890 6992 710 5290 13774 3359 14127 13990 1770 864 16091 15792 4329 1966 7239 12488 3260 15364

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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 76(SR593) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 81(SR561), 83(SR571) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 79

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Curry, Mary P. Curry, Megan Curtin, Robert Curtis, Douglas Curtis, Irene Curtis, James Curtis, Marnelle Curtis, paul Cury, Jennifer Cusack, Odean Cushing, Catherine Cushing, Lara Custard, Colin Custard, Jennifer Custer, John Custis, Tim Cuthbertson, Tim & Honor Cutler, Charles Cutler, Keith Cutting, Amy Cuvan, Kathlyn Cuviello, Pat Cyr, Maurice Cyriac, Cigy Czaster, Gino Czech, Ed Czyzyk, Lorrie Czyzyk, Roberta D. (unreadable), B. (unreadable) D. Petion, Tessie

Submission ID 17065 8182 4791 7962 2800 8309 9634 76 4886 8107 11945 1806 10007 14542 4381 11922 8860 13012 4047 4974 17881 9357 4350 11273 16694 6823 4136 11257 17552 642

D. Widenoja, Raya

663

D.Chee, Da Forno, Vincent Da Rocha, Camille Da Silva Jain, Katherine Daab, Antoinette Dadant, Thomas Dady, Robert Daggett, Becky Dagley, Denise C/- Robinsin IV, Perth Pouch

140 6807 6949 17616 15143 6383 12739 709 5538

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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), 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), 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) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 102(SR358), 126(SR409), 76(SR451), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 54(SR1104) 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) 114(SR728), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 80

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Dahl, Erik Dahl, James Dahlberg, Kate Dahlgren, Shelley Dahn, Harold Daignault, Chari Daignault, Lorre Dailey, Dusty Dailey, Mary Dailey, Steven Daily, Barbara D'Albora, James Dale, Adrienne Dale, Gillian Dales, Ann Dalesky, Karin Daley, Dick Daley, Heidi Dallam, Beth Dallam, Beth Dallett, Karen Dalley, Kenan Dalton, Johanna Daly, Margaret Damarodas, Donna Damashek, Sandy D'Amato, Francesca D'Amato, Mark Dambra, John Dambrosi, Anthony Martin D'Ambrosio, Kim Damesek, Harriet Damian, Van Denburgh Damon, Claudia Damrell, LaVina Damrell, LaVina Damro, Ken Damschen, Ellen Dan, Seth Dandorf, Robert Dane, William Dane, William D'Angelo, Joe Daniel, Amy

Submission ID 15439 15531 12064 10842 17010 438 15839 8696 3446 5292 10059 8015 7705 3091 13380 2058 7650 5742 3266 14745 7011 8872 5707 2853 15682 10433 4473 14206 4212 11365 6485 16561 7343 12342 17759 2093 2198 10704 17402 11623 10218 16644 12549 10576

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) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 51(1094), 58(1112), 88(SR580), 120(SR777) 88(SR601) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 81

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Daniel, Latella Daniel, Marc Daniel, Nineveh

Submission ID 694 10761 534

Daniel, Roger Daniell, William Daniello, Paul Daniels Walter, Shannon Daniels, Dierdra Daniels, Elizabeth Daniels, Joan Daniels, Joan Daniels, Mark Daniels, Shelly Daniels, Shelly Dankwort, Rudy & Kathryn Dann, Jonathan DAnna, Marie Danner, Harry B Danner, Judi Danny, Lee Danson, Joshua Danylchuk, Peter Danzeiser, Deborah Danzi, Camille Danzig, Peter Danzinger, Ryan Dao, Phillip Dapore, Wendy Daraio, Joseph Darden, Jeff Dare, Cheryl Dargan, Annemarie Darnell, Hopi Darst, John & Darlene Dart, Ellen Dartt, Linda Das, Anita Dashe, Julia Dasher, Jennifer Dassel, Bruce Datz, Sheila Dauber, Suzanne Daubert, James Dauderman, Shelley Daugherty, Lisa

10900 4202 16910 4344 10194 10276 7533 15963 10226 10337 15551 15580 8214 10870 3801 7894 17890 9523 13954 6399 3109 10342 12423 17912 16251 7207 2297 12279 3976 10151 4640 8590 4979 8408 6214 8523 13028 11376 3055 3050 4856 15896

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 54(SR286), 97(SR333), 79(SR536), 83(SR573), 119(SR773) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 45(SR154), 52(SR160), 102(SR358), 76(SR451), 105(SR703), 120(SR777), 54(SR1104) 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) 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) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 82

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Daun, Julie Daut, Bonnie Davenport, Patrick Davenport, Robert David, Connie David, Ione David, Silverstone David, Susan Davidge, Mary Davidson Chancey, Brenda Davidson, David Davidson, Diane Davidson, James Davidson, Jason Davidson, Joel Davidson, Kathy Davidson, Kim Davidson, Mary Davie, Dennis Davies, Janet Davies, John F Davies, Sheryl Davila, Michelle Davine, Jill Davis, Adam Davis, Amanda Davis, Andria Davis, Ann Davis, Beverly Davis, Candace Davis, Carla Davis, Carol Davis, Carol Davis, Cheryl Davis, Courtney Davis, Danita Davis, Elizabeth Davis, Jackie Davis, Jean Davis, Joanie Davis, John Davis, Kim Davis, Laura Davis, Laurin Davis, Leta Davis, Lisa

Submission ID 5094 4643 10945 10685 13858 17391 3726 13701 12311 4883 14520 15473 2408 10656 11738 9571 15077 7218 15096 9048 14976 13736 11258 5759 7951 4185 6747 4555 6493 6021 2916 14405 14657 11958 15429 1005 6055 4018 3755 8383 667 4405 5099 5214 13064 12369

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), 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) 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(SR580) 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) 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), 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 83

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Davis, Mary Davis, Melissa Davis, Michelle Davis, Miranda Davis, Myles Davis, Parker Davis, Rob Davis, Ronald Davis, Sandra Davis, Shannon Davis, Shannon Davis, Shellee Davis, Sherry Davis, Shirley Davis, Shirley Dawn Davis, Shonna Davis, Sue Davis, Susan Davis, Susan Davis, Susan Davis, Terrence Davis, Trish Davison, Arlene M. Davison, Brian Davison, Crystal Davisson, Louise Davlantes, Nancy Davlantes, Nancy Davolt, Glenna Dawson Jr, Joe Dawson, Andy Dawson, Peggy Day, Brian Day, Carl Day, Carl Day, Charlie Day, Deborah Day, Douglas Day, Janneen Day, Karen Day, Kathy Day, Sherrie Day, Virginia Dayton, Katie DBP, Unreadable Signature

Submission ID 15692 13531 3851 14851 12197 15360 2695 7506 2424 7055 15342 4511 2835 16083 7611 8617 4255 13796 11403 6224 7657 12841 17346 15198 17377 9441 416 416 11149 9968 10653 15050 6642 10971 15720 5173 6410 10161 6734 4648 12202 522 5190 12434 17000

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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 8(SR141), 45(SR874) 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 - 84

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter de Aragon, Eduardo De Avalon, Ariannah de Carbonel, Lisa De Castro, Ines De Costanzo, Danielle de Falla, Susanna De Forrest, Rochelle De Francesco, Judith De Jasu, Barry de Jesus, Maria De Jong, Pete De Koatz, Carole de Kort, Frank and Linda De La Garza Und Senkel, Patrick de la Garza, Amanda De La Garza, Nancy De Lamar, Adeline De Lautre, Sandra De Marco, Roxanne De Meurichy, Miss Martine De Moraes, Roberto De Petrillo, Mary De Renesse, Yolanda De Soeten, Dick De souza, Aryam de Teran Gamez, Magdalena De Trinis, Bonita de Weese, Douglas Deal, Heidi Dean, Carrie Dean, Lindy Dean, Michael Dean, Patrick Dean, Sue E. DeAngelis, Alice DeAngelis, M. Alice DeAngelis, T DeAntoni, Ms. Carol Dearmont, Marjorie Dearth, Barbara Deason, Jon Deaton, Jeff Deaton, Pam

Submission ID 4382 7448 8461 5390 15343 398 10331 8556 9087 4400 11310 8176 7041 15679 11311 4892 156 2588 3436 1422 7677 2388 3145 1373 1118 15939 5331 2169 2483 5359 8069 4900 4749 6301 16854 13499 10160 1519 6252 2821 3927 8117 5138

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) 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) 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 85

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Deaver, Carlynne DeBacker, Michele DeBacker, Michele Debalko, John Debasitis, Brian DeBin, Joseph Debs, Ammette DeCaires, Margaret DeCenzo, Andi DeCesari, Casey Dechant, JoAnn DeChiazza, Vicki Decker, Barb Decker, Kenneth Decker, Neil Decorte, Guy DeCory, Jace DeCoursey, Barbara Decruyenaere, Joe DeDakis, Emily Deddens, Laurie DeFalco, Damian DeFee Mendik, Natalie Defenbaugh, Cyndi deFerrante, Robert DeFrancesco, Vic DeFranco, Adam Defrin, Elin DeGallier, Glenn DeGiorgio, John Degnan, Peter DeGraff-Grinnell, Leslie deGrasse, Denise DeGrave, Analisa DeGroof, Lillian Dehaan, Diane DeHaan, Virginia DeHart, Michael DeHorn, Jean DeJarld, Debra DeJoseph, Dominic Del Mar, Chivo Del Re, Pete Delaney, D.D.

Submission ID 9557 1041 1042 2450 13992 6668 3743 3575 3725 17379 5563 11549 17612 5646 8719 15491 14579 7076 15677 4937 10294 12875 12146 2064 7917 14650 7755 8092 14998 3712 4714 9792 4472 953 11329 16790 4621 13602 5968 8396 10581 5322 10427 16407

Location of Comments/Responses 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), 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), 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) 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), 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), 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 - 86

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Delao, Jen DeLaO, Ms. Jennifer Delbello, Lori DeLeo, Nanci DeLeone, Barbara DeLeone, J Dell'Agostino, Carole Dellatorre, Laura

Submission ID 6922 1715 4394 5518 11901 5951 9420 17744

Delles, Susan Dellinger, Joseph Delmer, Sunny Deluca, John Delude, Erin Demaso, Nick DeMeo, Stephen DeMerlis, Ann Demers, Sean Demmert, Jane Demuro, Ronnie Demuth, Robert Dencker, Jakob Dene, David Denemark, Gail Dengel, Patricia Denhartog, Jerry Denison, Bill Denison, Lou Denison, Mr and Mrs James Deniston, William Denn, Gina Denneen, Bill Denner, Larry Denney, Alicia Denney, Jerrold Denning, Courtney Dennis, Larry Dennis, Larry Dennis, Leigh Dennis, Leland Dennis, Rene Denniston, Glenda Denny, Margaret Denny, Robbie

11613 10984 14042 11024 12107 3151 10511 7608 9711 8796 13129 16532 1305 2264 5791 2797 12647 13669 6217 15075 12620 11634 17666 7813 7336 2715 16224 8269 14644 15218 17081 8375 15245 3995 6638

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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) 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) 88(SR580) 45(SR874) 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) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 87

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Denny, Wendy Densmore, Maggie Dent, William Dentel, Lois dePadova, E. Depew, John DePuy, Carley Derick, John Dermody, Laurie Derstine, Martin Deruiter, Sophied DeSalvo, Traffy Desbrow, Stacy Desch, Nancy Deschine, Nicholet DesCombaz, Michael DeSena, Rosemary DeSena, Rosemary Desenberg, Diane Deshayes, Thierry Design, Woodman DesJardins, Donna Desmarais, Tina Desmet, Clancy Desmond, Angela Desmond, Louise Desoer, Michele Desreuisseau, Judy Desrochers, Amélie Deters, Gwen DeTora, Danny Deucher, Alex Deutch, Howard Deutsch, John Deutsch, Thomas Devam, Nandi Devendittis, Monte A Dever, Fran Dever, Megan DeVera, melissa DeVere, Kirsten Devi, K Devine, Don Devine, Lauren Devine, Steve & Patti Devlin, Ryan

Submission ID 3898 10104 13004 13812 8527 6703 4742 5737 7388 10146 2812 3868 13965 5020 418 4428 10115 15320 2594 16026 561 5205 7640 8939 16800 5083 7901 11893 7930 9447 15150 12566 8116 14020 7161 12097 8022 3957 8043 11804 12822 15142 7739 9662 13863 9029

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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 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) 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) 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 - 88

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Devor, David Dewalch, Serena Dewalt, Blair Dewangyamplevia, Sandra DeWeerd, Dina Dewees, Sandra Dewet, Elaine DeWig, Vanessa DeWit, Beth DeWitt, Elizabeth Dexter, Ken Dey, Glen Dezurick-Badran, Emily Di Cecco, Adriana Di Gioia, Donna Di Muro, Jerry Diachun, Elizabeth Diamond, Douglas Diamond-Holzem, Lorelei Diamontis, Manny Diana, Patty Dias, Joao Diaz, Alberto Diaz, Anna Diaz, Israel Diaz, James Diaz, Kathleen Diaz, Lorenzo Diaz, Richard Diaz, Victor Diaz, Victor Dibiase, Frank DiCamillo, Jessica Dice, Mary Dick, David Dick, Elisabeth Dick, Fred Dick, Maryellen Dickens, Bart Dickens, Sue Dickerson, Mel Dickey, Kathleen Dickey, Kelley Dickinson, Rebecca

Submission ID 4301 17011 8125 17399 13803 4589 2248 12619 5001 15701 15743 9135 17149 12211 9731 6062 7763 15561 11080 7602 10720 9739 2054 5108 16525 3280 8432 15088 5095 996 15943 2995 3738 13528 13078 10538 10729 14265 5088 16627 15713 7626 14637 16569

Location of Comments/Responses 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 89

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Dickinson, Thomas Dickson, David Dickson, Tara Didia, Kimberly Diehl, Ann Diehl, Sarah Diep, Lena Dier, Joseph Dierig, John Dieter, Jeff Dieter, Patricia Dieterich, Nancy Dietrich, Kristin Dietz, Kerry and Beth Dietze, Clem Diggs, Cynthia Diggs, Gina DiGrazia, Tom DiJulia, Mike Dilauro, Bridget Dillaway, Diana Dilley, Richard Dillion, Christopher Dillion, Ms. Teri Dillion, Teri Dillmann, George Dillon, A Dillon, Deb Dillon, Debra Dills, Linda Dils, Laurie Dilts, Kimberly Dilworth, R Dilworth, Toben DiMarco, Paul DiMaria, Angela diMauro, Lucio Diment, Lisa Dimick, Bill Dimick, Robert Dimster, Dennis Din, Carla Din, Lawrence Dina, Mike Dinan, David

Submission ID 8197 4754 2059 5063 2423 14952 17905 11027 5971 7804 8759 15053 9276 2219 10961 2352 14189 7253 11040 14450 316 7452 10479 1517 4629 11189 4242 15697 7128 16555 16178 11086 10332 16705 3539 12588 4037 9443 16764 16828 10874 17565 11416 8663 8217

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) 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) 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) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 102(SR358), 105(SR703), 120(SR777), 54(SR1104) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 52(1121), 45(SR100) 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 - 90

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Dinh, Quyen Diodene', Glenda Diomis, Ginnie Diomis, Ginnie DiPerna, Jeff DiSalvo, Peter DiSalvo, Sheila Diserens, Erin Dishion, Don & Catherine Dishman, Patricia Diskan, Lance

Submission ID 1401 6346 1628 1251 6842 3007 4975 4876 5600 9899 16926

Disney, Phyllis DiSpigno, Peter Diss, Marybeth DiTolla, Tracy Dittmar, Johathan Ditton, Jim Divine, Fran Dix, Nancy Dix, Steve Dixon, Caroline Dixon, Christa Dixon, James M. Dixon, Jim Dixon, John Dixon, Latoya Dixon, Peggy Dixon, Trudi Djupstrom, Michael Dlugosz, Janice Doak, Elizabeth Dobelmann, Ursula Dobran, Joni Dobrowolski, Rafal Dobski, Deborah Dobson, Cynthia Dobson, Michael Dodd, Mary Jane Dodd-Mathis, Leanne Dodd-Mathis, Leanne Doddy, Ruth Huizar

12427 9384 2187 11044 15689 6561 12980 9352 17453 3175 12906 10560 3393 4756 11682 6915 1988 6682 12989 11480 7741 10163 8670 12736 14493 9964 5130 15759 15751 3669

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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 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) 16(SR7), 35(SR121), 52(SR238), 54(SR289), 102(SR357), 78(SR507), 88(SR596), 114(SR743), 114(SR744), 114(SR745), 121(SR781), 121(SR795), 121(SR796) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 103(990) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 91

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Dodge, Kaitlin Dodson, Lynn Dodson, Rusty Dodson, Willie Doebel, Linda Doedens, Joline Doering, Niki Doerrfeld, Amanda Dogan, Denise Doherty, Jeanne Doherty, Jocelyn Doherty, Joseph Doherty, Melanie Doherty, Michelle Morning Star Doherty, Todd Doing, Colleen Dolan, Anne-Claire Dolan, Jamie Dolan, Joseph Dolan, Michael Dolezal, Bernie Doll, Andrew Doll, Garry M. Doller, Andy Dollins, Randall Dolney, Rachel Dolney, Rachel Dolotta, David Dolowitz, Alexander Domagalski, Jeffrey Doman, Geoffrey Dombroski, Kathleen Domin, Ronald Domingue, John Dominguez, Laura Dominguez, Maria Dominique, Aimee Dominique, Rachel

Submission ID 17390 10426 16466 557 12990 5386 11833 17152 11454 11207 16059 12124 2233 253 8937 2213 5506 14437 7397 10595 3602 6483 15094 16740 2921 7288 16888 10677 6655 13334 14404 7085 5609 487 12086 1313 13719 17700

Domino, Raymond Domnick, Renate Domulevicz, Glen

7286 201 14584

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 109(SR812), 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 88(SR580) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 92

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Domurath, Frank Don, Doty Donagher, Mary Donaghy, Janet Donahue, Linda Donahue, Tammy Donahue-Lynch, Margaret Donais, Cheryl Donaldson, Joseph City of Flagstaff Donaldson, Joseph C. City of Flagstaff Office of the Mayor Donaldson, Krista Donaldson, Kurt Donaldson, Tom Donatiello Neidich, Theresa Donato, Jean Donato, Jean Donato, Jeanette Donato, Joann Donato, rebecca Donigan, Maria Doniger, Hanna Donlin, John Donmon, Renee Donnay, Marguerite Donnelly, Helen Donnelly, Helen Donnelly, Jerome Donnelly, Michelle Donnelly, Stephen Donnelly, Stephen Donnelly, Tracie Donner, B.W. Donner, Carole Donnici, Anthony Donnici, Anthony & April Donoghue, Colin Donovan, Dominique Donovan, Stephan Donovan, Stephan Donovan, Stephan Donovan, Suzanne

Submission ID 4838 5090 2836 3519 11968 8169 2668 3342 17155 104

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) 52(912), 15(SR71), 39(SR135), 102(SR212), 108(SR221), 8(SR228), 108(SR269), 110(SR716), 120(SR777) 109(1022), 53(1046), 120(1244), 52(SR238), 22(SR284), 64(SR381), 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), 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), 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

13924 13427 16524 12037 1664 921 13009 8661 1969 3453 16374 2263 1730 3858 1004 7607 12902 11117 9861 15672 6255 11727 3419 14859 6344 4455 13679 10402 15688 17018 6722

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 93

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Donr, Roger Donston, Kacey Dooley, Patricia Dorchin, Susan Dorer, Jeffery Dorf, Barbara Dorfman, Richard Dorgan, Claire Dorgan, Megan Dorinson, David Dorley, Susana Dorner, Mrs. Jutta Dornheim, John Dornish, Margaret Doros, Cheryl Doros, Cheryl Dorr, Kathryn Dorritie, WJ Dorsky, Nona Dorth, Arabella Dosaj, Soraya Doss-Smith, Patrick Dotson, Dorothy Dotson, Dorothy Doty, Ames Doubet, David Doucet, Paul Doucette, Heath Dougherty, Bill Dougherty, Candidus Dougherty, Christopher Dougherty, David Dougherty, John "Little Goat" Dougherty, Sue Doughty, Paige Douglas, Dianne Douglas, Kristy Douglas, Mrs. Tami Douglas, Sandy Douglas, Virginia Douglass, Karen Douglass, Lowery

Submission ID 17406 5787 9210 16238 3747 16201 3579 17199 4538 11267 16899 1464 6022 11075 10603 14720 1749 13137 4280 16702 13165 8625 9937 16490 2444 1990 13005 13615 9697 8857 3444 16487 951 11930 9060 2035 17052 1387 14290 6118 12883 13386

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) 93(SR646), 95(SR665), 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), 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), 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 94

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Dover, Daniel Dovidas, Lisa Dowling, Holly Dowling, Jessie Dowling, Noel Downing, Hilary Downing, Jerilyn Downing, Kristine Downing, Steve Downing, Steve Downs, Chris Downs, Timothy Doyle, Ellen Doyle, Kathy Doyle, Katie Doyle, Lawrence Doyle, Mary Doyle, Nancy Doyle, Racheal Doyon, Lori Draeger, Ramona Drager, Paul Drago, Dinah Drake, Barbara Drake, Cheryl Drake, Christopher

Submission ID 13698 8388 13036 1444 8468 8337 13111 9024 10290 16504 7808 15663 2397 5327 4705 10217 5412 12760 5604 3468 12984 3529 4952 11663 2089 17730

Drake, Melissa Draney, Karl Draper, Glen Draus, Patty Dreisbach, Caitlin Drennen, Rachel Drenon, Korina Drescher, Hilary Dresler, Pat Dreste, Arlene Drew, Craig Drew, Dustin Drewek, Michael Drewes, Jacqueline Dreyfuss, Meri Driban, Bunny Driscoll, Edward Driscoll, Laura Driver, Michael

16810 12319 2791 405 15080 15089 10688 4554 12329 15231 8913 11851 2289 11895 14160 2199 2753 5978 4787

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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 45(SR154) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 95

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Drix, Julian Drolapas, Dimitris Dross, Diane Drost, Elizabeth Drost, Stella Droubi, Lisa Drouin, Lisane Drucker, Jack and Terry Drucker, William Drum, Candyce Drum, Suzanne Drumm, Darrin Drummey, Mickey Drummond, K Druzgal, Marla Drvenkar, Janice Dryad, Anne Dryer, James Drysdale, John D'Souza, Ms. Shereen du Bois, Julie du Bois, Julie du Bois, Julie Du, Yangbo Dubay, Rene Dubinsky, Jeffrey Dubllin, Janette Dubno, Danielle DuBois, Jeanine Dubs, Jake Ducrest, Janell Duda, Tim Dudeck, Theresa Dudek, Carol Dudek, Dudek Dudley, Mary Dudrick, Roseann Dudrow, Maryln Dudzik, Aaron Duenner, Peter Duer, Carol Duff, Karen Duffey, Michael Duffy, Amy

Submission ID 412 17805 3776 4197 16851 7683 5602 2547 14879 3763 15242 16064 9714 3301 6861 12106 12222 16885 12634 1573 14118 1660 16002 12784 13747 11216 5145 12537 7522 330 13181 10890 10498 9340 8487 13808 15014 7433 1120 4503 7551 15265 8268 17664

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 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), 103(SR213) 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) 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) 41(SR131) 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 35(SR121)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 96

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Duffy, Patti Duffy, Terrence Dufour, Jamison Dufresne, Jc Dugan, Julia Dugan, Pat Duggan, Elizabeth Duggan, Eric Duke, Carol Duke, Margaret Dukelow, Robin Dukelsky, Sheila Dukepoo, Ms. Cara Dukes, Thomas Dukes, Thomas Dula, Mary Dulemba, Lorie Dullemond, D.J. Dulock, Michael Duman, Bonnie Dumas, April Dumitru, Eli Dumitru, Judith Dunbar, James Dunbar-Ortiz, Dr. Roxanne Duncan, Allison Duncan, Allison Duncan, Carrie Duncan, Daniel Duncan, Georgia Duncan, Kenneth Duncan, Maggie Duncan, Mary Jean Duncan, Mary Jean Duncan, William Dungan, June Dunham, Doug Dunham, Ericka Dunkerley, Harriet Dunkleberger, David Dunlop, Matt Dunlop, Tara Dunn, Annie Dunn, Catherine Dunn, John

Submission ID 14722 12541 5423 5024 7050 13320 9659 2386 11019 4617 8360 8630 1522 452 452 8793 2840 530 6785 13465 11964 6071 8038 16779 1756 9813 16547 12482 7449 385 456 8105 16956 17442 11520 13056 3053 10103 5304 15845 4990 5476 15383 12504 16536

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 52(SR242), 57(SR340) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 116(SR725), 114(SR754) 116(SR725), 114(SR754) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 97

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Dunn, Jr., Russell USMC Dunn, Judy Dunn, Krista Dunn, Lois Dunn, Maggi Dunstan, Patricia Duprat, Eric Dupuis, James Duran, C.Denise Duran, Christopher Duran, Gonzalo Durant, Dirk & Naomi Durant, Reginald Durante, Charles Durante, Grant Durbin, Marvin Durgerian, George Durkin, Debbie Durkin, R. Durnell, Tim Durner, Barbara Durocher, James Durrah, Jennifer Durson, Elaine Durson, Ms. Elaine Dustin, Laura Dutcher, Melissa DuTemple, Lesley Duthie, Matt Dutro, Deanna Duval, Gene Duvall, Julie Duvall, William Dvorak Jr., David Dvorak, Christine Dwire, Mike Dwyer, Colleen Dyar, Joy Dyas, Katherine Dyas, Melissa Dyas, Melissa Dye, Avery Dye, Dean Dye, Jesse Dyer, David

Submission ID 14095 3804 9120 3887 8837 13497 14470 6384 12455 10106 10611 8603 16311 1920 14366 3589 248 11215 11002 3756 11393 16881 8761 17016 1380 12199 7126 16068 17328 2438 13394 4051 11848 3741 7485 10524 8398 14843 10708 9770 15300 12367 8254 8631 12821

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) 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) 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), 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) 127(SR367), 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 98

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Dyer, Dianne W. and Jeffrey H. Dyer, Naomi Dyleski, Kenneth Dziak, John Dzienius, Susan Dzurik, Danielle Dzwil, Beth E. (unreadable), Rosa E. Smith, Richard F. Eades, Debra Eager, Gail Eagle, Diane Eargle, Geoff Earhart, Shannon Earle, Teresa Earle, Vicki Early, Gayle Earnheart, Edwenna & Richard Earnshaw, Connie Earnshaw, Joan Earthschild, Jaiia East, Fredrick East, Gwendolyn Easter, Margaret Eastman, Ajax Easton, Ryan Eaton, Ed Eaton, Lorrie Eaves, Randa Ebel, Walter Ebeling, Karen Eberhard, Linda Eberle, Jill Eberly, Twila Eckert, Laurel Eckert, Laurel Eckles, Sabrina Eckstrand, Tatyana Ecoman, Brett Economou, Constantina Eddie, Van Surksum Edele, Ruth Edelstein, Brian Eden, Robert Edens, Julie Edgar, Jennifer

Submission ID 3659 8657 16268 660 10965 8312 3034 17268 15453 6258 9239 5388 9944 4272 14193 13694 8123 16369 7346 7059 3255 7591 9079 15246 15717 7457 1617 8115 8827 1946 9328 4221 10787 11494 12060 16439 17100 10008 14827 14977 7923 9102 8167 16005 7396 6543

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) 54(SR285) 35(SR121), 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) 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), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 99

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Edgerton, Carol Edick Bumpus, Deborah Edirisinghe, Roman Edlund, Kenneth Edmonda, Mira

Submission ID 9763 13023 8135 16161 17723

Edmonds, Astara Edmonds, Teresa Edmonston, Nolen Edwards, Brook Edwards, David Edwards, Dylan Edwards, Glenda Edwards, Heather Edwards, Jonathan Edwards, Kris Edwards, Mark Edwards, Michael Edwards, Sheryl Edwards, Tilden Edwards, Walter Edwards, William Edwardson, Stephanie Eeds, Bill and Becky Efross, Monnie Efross, Monnie Egbert, Anne Egelmyr, Mrs. Eva Egen, Ned Eger, Grace Egger, Mark Eggers, Kira Eggink, Rudolphine Eggleston, Diane Egozi, Jeannette Eguchi, Yuuri Ehielking, John Ehret, Hugo Ehrhardt, Jack Ehrlich, Marion Eich, Bill Eich, Bill Eid, Ann

12653 7721 7180 4580 8582 15303 4557 13895 3639 8051 15164 7237 13536 3068 7889 9970 9216 11504 5402 15163 7406 1462 4267 16193 14374 14641 9901 6974 16273 1845 17257 14459 755 3333 595 13697 5053

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) 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) 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), 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) 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) 57(SR334), 121(SR784), 121(SR808), 56(SR920) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 33(SR110), 41(SR131) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 100

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Eiden, Ms. Nicole Eidt, Jack Eiffler, Jeff Eiffler, Jeff Eiholzer, William Eikenbary, Lynn Eilers, Myra Eisenfeld, Mike San Juan Citizens Alliance

Submission ID 1518 14240 10798 14800 16889 2682 5379 17091

Eisenfeld, Mike San Juan Citizens Alliance Eisenfeld, Mike San Juan Citizens Alliance Eisenhauer, Betty Eisenhauer, Betty Eisenhower, Jean Eisenlord, Karen Eisentrager, Evan Eister-Hargrave, Leah Eklund, Dara Ekman, Rand Elahi, Renate Elder, Amanda Elder, Frances Eldridge, Deborah Eldridge, Nancy Elevier, Kathy Elf, Shari Elgart, Zak Elias, Elizabeth Elias, Rev. Brianne Elias, Rev. Brianne Eliason, Gwenda Elizabeth, Naone Elkins, Michael Elkins, Wendy Ell, Christopher

17720 24 1533 1534 250 12169 7375 7701 6278 6000 5732 17515 11449 6574 3020 5641 9643 6686 13733 1449 1450 12406 3097 9363 4776 8221

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) 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) 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) 120(SR777) 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(SR69), 45(SR100), 121(SR780) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 101

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Elle, Janis Ellee, Ellefson, Colin Ellen, Virginia Eller, Jim Ellerby, Jonathan Ellerman, Susan Ellers, George Elletson, Kris Elliott, Andrew Elliott, Benton Elliott, Cristina Elliott, Cynthia Elliott, Linda Elliott, Lynn Elliott, Lynn Elliott, Mary Elliott, Mrs. Claudia Elliott, Taffeta Elliott, Vincent Elliott-Smith, Elise Ellis, Chris Ellis, Gregory Ellis, Jennifer Ellis, Jeremy Ellis, Joseph Ellison, Brian Ellison, Mike Ellison, Rich Ellsworth, Pat & Jerry Ellsworth, Pat & Jerry Ellsworth, Renate Elmore, Constance Elmore, Sam Elms, Cayce Elms, Laurie Elnagar, Romi Elrod, Mimi Elscott, Peggy Elson, Adam Elthie, Gary Ely, Liza Emans Sims, Kate

Submission ID 2574 563 4941 9428 10489 1185 4421 12365 3428 2309 13318 9575 10497 9752 3338 11161 1274 1012 14582 13006 9649 7416 7676 12265 10463 3147 7101 10855 372 400 397 12622 7707 9151 9177 5487 10345 4938 11982 2188 1787 15867 661

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 126(SR409), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 45(SR100), 35(SR121) 5(SR35), 45(SR100), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 51(SR177) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 102

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Emanuelson, Karen Embrey, Stephanie Embry, Judith Emerich, Lorna Emerson, Alan Emerson, Dakin Emerson, Linda and Larry Emerson, Sandra Emerson-Smith, Leigh Emery, Anita Emmel, Christine Emmerich, Gerry Emmerich, Kevin Emmerson, Parker Emming, Jan Emoto, Yuhiro Emoto, Yuhiro Emoto, Yuhiro Ende, Karen Ender, John Enderson, Erik Endoso, Yuko Endres, Danielle Endres, Rachel Endres, Victoria Enfield, Norm and Jeanette Eng, Phillip Engel, Annia M. Engel, John Engel, John Engel, Vicki Engel, Vicki Engel, Vicki Engel, Vicki Engels, Anna England, David Englebert, Erik Engler, Doug

Submission ID 11701 5756 12446 6259 7809 6352 15211 14150 4482 13951 11658 5314 15640 17300 15098 1831 1832 1839 11010 1091 15771 1726 1471 14138 571 7708 9236 3998 5688 13416 17441 17004 17015 17485 7440 9282 2374 13629

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 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) 54(SR249) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 103

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Engler, Pam English, Andrea English, Kim English, Lisa English, Pamela English, Patricia English, Roger English, Roger Engstrom, Dore Engstrom, Neil Ennis, Sonja Enos, Debra Enright, Elizabeth Enriquez, Eduardo Entmacher, Dan Entrekin, Christopher Eppelsheimer, David Epstein, Anne Epstein, Anne Epstein, Barbara Epstein, Gale Epstein, Judy Epting, Mary H Epton, Janis Ercolini, Alice Erdem, Martha Erdman, Tatiana Erickson, Daniel Erickson, Linda Erickson, Molly Erickson, Mr. Nils Erickson, Sue Eriksmoen, August Erikson, Anne Erikson, George Erman, Robert Ermisch, David Ernat, Nate Ernest, Hollie Ernst, Kathleen Erpelding, Bobbie Errea, Mack Errington, Kayleigh Ertle, Jeffrey Erway, Donald Erwin, James

Submission ID 10121 4070 7198 13109 3418 13159 9419 16296 7303 2414 3907 14713 11617 9855 11832 3737 15920 7596 675 5279 12338 13471 8104 7377 17916 14984 13496 11755 10794 9121 1503 2185 13668 12094 17548 2271 6363 4099 933 11153 7386 6105 10408 9878 10423 11345

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), 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) 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) 45(SR874) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 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) 35(SR121), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 104

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Es, Catriona Escamilla, John Eschenfelder, James Esco, Carol Escobar, Annette Escoe, Louise Escudero, Martha Esfandiari, Patty Eshaghpour, David Eskenazi, Phoebe Espinoza Jr., Juan Esposito, Barbara Esposito, Richard Espowood, Sara Esqueda, Elvira Esquibel, Catriona Esse, Christopher Esselstyn, Eugenia Essig, Melinda Esten, Michael Estep, Kristen Estes, Cary Estes, Charlene Estes, Douglas Estes, Marla Esthelle, Betty Estill, Josie Estling, Robert Estrada, Amy and Ray Estrada, Fred Etherington, David Etherington, David Etherton, Stephanie Etsitty, Eva Etsitty, Phillip Etter, Sylvia Etters, Lloyd Eubank, Lynn Eubanks, Louis Euchler, Irene Eustis, Mary Keith Evangelista, Robert A Evanoff, Renee Evans, Audrey

Submission ID 3709 3386 13581 2852 7722 2663 1070 6893 7989 13522 2654 12333 14006 9451 17894 16373 8544 4692 14806 5617 9671 8124 4370 11900 6760 14135 12425 5097 9595 12515 11226 15202 10635 835 730 2293 14834 16279 7489 4548 17086 4174 4632 16817

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 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) 126(SR430), 76(SR454), 81(SR555), 88(SR601), 114(SR746) 57(SR334), 62(SR385), 67(SR392), 68(SR406), 126(SR421), 76(SR450), 88(SR586), 121(SR807) 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) 54(SR286) 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 - 105

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Evans, C Evans, Calvin Evans, Candy Evans, Dinda Evans, Dinda Evans, Dinda Evans, Johathan Evans, Joyce Evans, K Evans, Lisa Evans, Marlene Evans, Patricia Evans, Regina Evans, Rika Evans, Sanford Evans, Sarah Evans, Scott Evans, Scott Evans, Steven C. Evans, Steven C. Evans, Steven C. Evans, Tom Evans, Zane Evarts, William Evarts, William Evarts, William Evelhoch, Frank Even, Danny Eventoff, Franklin Everett, Martha Everett, Theresa Everett, Todd Everman, Victoria Evers, Robert Evilsizer, Susan Evink, Roxy Evjen-Elias, Ingrid Evjion, Virginia Evoniuk, Nancy Ewald, Jörg Ewald, Lynda Ewalt, Maximilienne

Submission ID 6097 9698 8559 6420 16018 16001 16634 9793 16434 6879 7620 15101 8565 2351 10328 1816 4637 4525 17435 16991 17455 13290 6856 12 165 935 2412 7978 8683 1268 14855 2511 11175 7870 2752 13817 262 10234 11289 18 2784 16039

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) 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), 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) 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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), 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 51(SR179), 127(SR367), 88(SR580), 120(SR777) 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 - 106

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Ewbank, Wendy Ewing, Ann Ewing, Carrie Ewing, Ellen Ewing, James Ewing, Jim Ewoldt, Dave Eyges, Jeffrey Fabry, Elizabeth Fadel, Ayman Faford, Lorraine Fagundes, Jack Fahey, Aimee Fahey, Neil Fahlberg, Maureen Fahlgren, Vivian Fahy, Elizabeth Fairbanks, Bruce Fairbanks, Glenn Fairchild, Jamie Fairchild, Jennie Faircloth, Diane Fairfield, John Fairley, M. (unreadable) Faith, Bonnie Faith, Bonnie Fall, William Fallander, Susan Fallon, Dawn Fallow, Dave Fallow, David Falson, Peter Faltinsky, Ron Falvo, Carrie Fanning, Allen Fanning, Don B. Fanos, Nancy Fant, Kathleen Fant, Michele Fanti, RB Fanuele, Vincent Faraoni, S. Farber, Shaurain Farbman, Daniel

Submission ID 9119 6131 9573 5765 16565 14301 15467 7762 1229 11625 9190 16363 9000 11003 7756 9543 10125 2210 8041 4553 9635 6602 6919 17363 11265 16595 9310 1902 11192 16630 10891 9929 12090 5302 11736 132 14112 10737 13634 11857 4931 8774 7178 17668

Fargey, Star

388

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 88(SR580)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 107

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Faria, Adriana Fariello, Grif Farkas, David Farley, Cornelius Farley, Michael Farley, Renee Farlow, Cameron Farmer, Matt Farmer, Veronica Farnan, Marsha Farnham, Elizabeth Farnham, Lois Farnsworth, Adrian Farokhi, Beth Farr, Darla Farrar, Jeff Farrell, Juliet Farrell, Laura Farrell, Robert Farrell, Thomas Farris, Charlie Farrow, Heather Farver, Suzanne Fascione, Chris & Diane Fass-Holmes, Barry Fast, Darlene Fast, Phyllis Fasullo, Jane Fasullo, Jane Faught, Douglas Faulconer, Chris Faulk, Joyce Fauver, Leslie Faux, Peter Fawell, Tom Fay, Beth Fay, Bob Fay, Rebecca Fay, Robert Fazio, Michael Fazzari, Theresa Fazzino, David Fazzino, John Feasler, E I Feathers, Josan Fecke-Stoudt, Br. Ian

Submission ID 7443 6303 11269 17588 11459 3203 7190 16884 15579 4351 11492 11984 10185 13304 10649 12917 3250 16468 16648 12706 14447 4795 9803 12337 12587 9866 7009 13814 16792 12030 2258 6218 17403 15007 12525 1917 14444 10757 10154 3691 2901 6725 7125 15794 14242 1524

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) 41(SR131), 70(SR443) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 108

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Feder, Erik Feder, Patrick & Melissa Federicks, Uda Fedorchuk, Elena Fedorka, Thomas Fedorov, Karen Fedorov, Karen Fee, Jack Fegus, Jeri Fehlauer, Beth Fehr, Alissa Feichtinger, Dennis Feichtmeir, Peter Feig, Hannah Feiring, Janet Felder, Merle Feldman, Brad Feldman, Daniel Feldman, Debbie Feldman, Mark Felfle, Rosalie Felice, Martha Feliciano, Lorissa Felig, Roy Felisa, Meier Felker-Kantor, Max Fellinger, Jeff Fellows, Betty Fellows, Jeff Fellrath, James Felsing, Dawn Felton, Shirley Fendt, Valerie Feng, Susan Fenlon May, Claire Fenn, Timothy Fennell, John Fennessey, Angela R. Fennessey, Jacqueline Fenske, Jill Fentem, Janice Ference, Monica Fergus, Dillon Fergus, Jeri Ferguson, Catherine Ferguson, Cody

Submission ID 10381 7577 17009 10642 11455 9791 16421 15368 9437 9961 13632 12825 8908 6200 8030 3215 3786 17771 5169 14734 6010 4024 15273 5498 14041 1541 11317 6378 16056 10223 6266 9277 480 17783 3073 7235 8660 13016 2680 7847 14146 14251 3263 16807 14126 187

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 41(SR131), 88(SR580), 88(SR596) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 109

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Ferguson, Donna Ferguson, John A. Ferguson, Justine Ferguson, Krista Ferguson, Layvin Ferguson, Linda Ferguson, Marilyn A. Ferguson, Mark Ferguson, Mike Ferguson, Steve Ferguson, Tom Ferguson, Vicki Fernald, Wanda Fernandez, Howard Fernandez, John Fernandez, Susan Fernandez-Flygare, Olga Fernando, Chris Ferrante, Charles Ferrari, Alison Ferrari, Joseph Ferrari, Maristela Ferraro, Mary Ferraro, Scot and Lara Ferraro, Vince Ferre, Patricia Ferree, Jon Ferreira, Al Ferreira, Joanne Ferrell, Evan Ferrell, Joy Ferrero, Betty Ferri, Nancy Ferriero, Virginia Ferris, Frank Ferris, Linda Fertel, Roberta Fessler, Jody Fetters, Thomas Feusner, Jamie Fichandler, Alice Fickes, Kim Fico, Nikia Ficorelli, Darin Fiebig, Michael Field, Dan

Submission ID 12554 9772 5581 4707 3649 8204 11645 7471 5429 11000 8494 6637 12692 2550 4429 2973 8114 9998 2632 13875 3497 5783 7027 2184 8771 1929 11880 11123 11115 8639 5967 12879 8587 8213 1586 8508 10577 15133 17643 9708 1973 4679 15696 7021 11729 9580

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 120(SR777) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 110

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Field, James T. Field, Michael Field, Rebecca Fielden, Jessica Fields, Adrienne Fields, Alicia Fields, Mary Fields, Mitchell Fields, Mr. Joshua Fields, Susan Fifield, Craig Figen, Nola Figiel, Michael Figueiredo, Eva Figueroa, Albert Figueroa, Felicity Figueroa, Julia Figueroa, Landy Fileccia, Yvonne Filip, Michael Filip, Thomas Fina, Christopher Finch, Denise Finch, Sharon Findlay, Cindy Fine, Ashley Fine, Michael Finegan, Chance Finesilver, Matt Finfrock, Andy Fingerle, Stacey Fink, Brian Fink, James Fink, Mark Fink, Ray Finkel, Rick & Allyson Finkelstein, Brett Finlayson, Amanda Finley, Brent Finley, Christopher Finn, Deborah Finn, Michael Finneran, Mary Fiore, Mark J Fiore, Mark J. Fioretti, Pamela

Submission ID 14258 13099 8097 8768 2806 8883 3028 6784 1463 9583 4326 12764 11960 5433 12948 3139 12994 13788 6026 5921 5690 5747 11801 5666 8884 15355 16144 4122 12817 3080 12967 10013 12327 6196 7356 8284 11212 5281 14679 10253 6039 8139 12243 15161 4341 3642

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) 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) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 111

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Fiorini, Mark Firely, Monica Firestone, Anne Firestone, Rabbi Reuven Firestone, Ruth Firinci, Kemal Firshein, David Firth, Robyn Fiscella, Paul Fisch, Jonathan Fisch, Joseph Fischella, Bob Fischer, Corey Fischer, Elaine Fischer, Jessica Fischer, John Fischer, Pam Fish, Marcus Fish, Mary Fish, Warren Montessori Day School Fisher, Andrew Fisher, Brian Fisher, Charles Fisher, Cheryl Fisher, Gayle Fisher, Joyce Fisher, June Fisher, June Fisher, Kenneth Fisher, Kimberly Fisher, Matthew Fisher, Ms. Marissa Fisher, Owen Fisher, Peggy Fisher, R. Fisher, Robert Fisher, Ruth Fisher, Sean Fisher, Sr., James Fisher, Wilma Fisher, Zachary Fishman, Jeff Fishman, Ted Fisk, Bill Fiske, Colin

Submission ID 11534 11071 6646 17675 9507 3591 13771 10483 2485 6691 2904 14622 13672 4716 8314 10771 112 4419 6079 17171 11383 362 9201 2609 7636 16368 17069 16914 12033 2655 7585 1391 8078 3727 17262 2701 7513 3897 17840 16139 10333 13556 4783 12977 4735

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 119(SR769), 120(SR777) 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) 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) 51(SR177) 78(1185), 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), 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) 88(SR580) 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) 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 - 112

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Fiske, Robert Fissinger, Kaye Fitch, Elizabeth Fitch, Jim Fitch, Thomas Fitterer, Barry Fitze, Charles & Kathleen Fitzell, Anne Marie Fitzell, Anne Marie Fitzell, Anne Marie Fitzell, Annemarie Fitzer, Kate Fitzgerald, Nancy Fitzgerald, Penny Fitzgerald, Steven Fitzgibbons, Josette Fitzpatrick, Katherine Fitzpatrick, Kevin Fitzpatrick, Ruth Fitzsimmons, Kristina Fitzwater, Elizabeth Fivecoat, William Fixico, Ms. Wendy Fjux, Ryan Flagler, Lila Flamini, G Flanagan Meehan, Jane Flanagan, Corinne Flanagan, Katy Flanagan, Katy Flanagan, Thomas Flanders, Pam Flannery, Kathleen Flannery, Marcia Flaster, Trish Flaus, Brighton Fleck, Thomas Flehmer, Katie Fleming, Alan Fleming, Jacalyn Fleming, Kathryn Fleming, Michelle

Submission ID 15520 6133 10700 10768 9368 7024 7042 3866 242 16668 1731 6514 7417 10282 5015 9415 2342 7759 16140 10212 7319 4294 1399 12579 5683 2292 207 5166 9453 16491 16114 7588 3580 2634 601 15120 11353 16806 15516 14719 17064 10857

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) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 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) 77(SR481) 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) 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) 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(SR35), 7(SR44), 101(SR56), 107(SR352), 110(SR716), 120(SR777) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 113

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Fleming, S. Fleming, Susan Flemming, Yona Fletcher iv, Robert J Fletcher, Anne Fletcher, Richard Fligel, Thelma Fligg, Katherine Flint, Angela Flint, Douglas Flores, Brenda Flores, Christy Flores, Elizabeth Flores, Esmeralda Xochitl Flores, Gilberto Flores, Isabel Flores, Judy Flores, Tammy Flores, Tessa Flowers, Bobbie Dee Floyd, Kim Floyd, Tina Fluvell, Matthew Flynn, Bridget Flynn, Colin Flynn, Cynthia Flynn, Dan Flynn, Dianne Flynn, Kathleen Flynn, Kevin Flynn, Margaret Flynn, Michele Flynn, Patrick Fodor, Mark Foehl-Schwager, Cheryl Fogarty, James Fogde, Ann Fogelberg, Serena Fogleman, Ellie Foisy, Mark Fojut, Tessa Foley Jr, Robert L Foley, Teresa Foley, Tom Folk, James

Submission ID 2162 3061 5220 7446 17456 2055 13616 11435 10513 6157 3218 12730 6232 1796 1302 3152 17915 3914 13162 1985 14548 4804 17239 15592 4002 13994 5810 14839 12302 14392 13198 7217 2564 16197 12050 9734 5447 4104 5980 6729 8047 7517 11577 8270 2910

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) 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), 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) 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), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 114

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Follett, Jack Folsom, Bill Foltz, John Folz, Sarah Fondren, luke Fonfa, Ann Fong, Christina Fong, Lindsey Foo, Cindy Foote, Papa Forbus, Beth Ford, Amy Ford, Anne Ford, Betty Ford, Brenda Ford, E. L. Ford, Erika Ford, Jennifer Ford, Judith Ford, Julie Ford, Julie Ford, Terry Ford, Wendy Fordham, Chad Foreman, Kent Foreman, Sheila Forester, Melissa Forgnoni, Kirsten Forjohn, Anthony Forman, Don Forney, Maureen Forrest, Kim Forrest, Sandy Fors, Sharon Forsbach, Liz Forschner, Jillian Forsee, Amy Forster, Gail Forster, Revecca Fortin, Kim Fortner, Suzanne Foskett, Maryanna Foss, Janice Foss, Janice Foss, Jessine Foss, Matthew

Submission ID 14999 8367 2684 3429 8877 13777 16769 2566 283 4695 10962 8486 7937 2310 15657 17351 11940 5925 9886 7685 16218 3469 8440 5307 11477 16643 627 1996 4227 15204 16903 14560 15649 12969 3001 5807 5017 13987 2108 4644 16149 13565 10338 16241 3208 10667

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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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), 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) 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) 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 - 115

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Fosse, Idabelle Fosse, Jane Fosse, Kari Fosse, Kariann Foster Scott, Denise Foster, Beverly Joan Foster, Bonita Foster, Chris Foster, Daniel Foster, Douglas Foster, Eric Foster, Gene Foster, Heidi Foster, Jack Foster, Joyce Foster, Julie Foster, Justin Foster, Kaelin Foster, Lorraine Foster, Nan Foster, Phyllis Foster, Robert Foster, Scott Foster, Stephanie Foster, Tammy Foster, Teresa Foster, Tory Foszcz, Russell Fotiadis, Dimitria Fotos, Janet Fotos, Janet Foucart, Julie Foulds, Ms. Jennifer Foulger, Mike & Kim Foulk, Jennifer Foulkrod Jr, Richard L. Fournier, Joe Fourroux, Henri Foushee, Marybeth Foushee, Marybeth Foushee, Marybeth Foutz, Marsha Fowler, Ann

Submission ID 5467 4702 7600 7614 8555 844 5550 8746 5734 6894 16852 4884 2341 6185 4470 12573 8815 845 6667 13223 13083 11700 6505 1925 11111 8501 15186 13703 11022 2101 14337 4914 1484 14141 7942 6613 9337 8148 192 17413 192 12710 10225

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), 8(SR230), 8(SR491), 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) 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) 33(SR112), 51(SR177), 126(SR409), 70(SR435), 72(SR447) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 34(SR114), 35(SR121), 8(SR141), 56(SR313), 34(SR317), 45(SR874), 45(SR874) 41(SR131), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 116

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Fowler, Carly

Submission ID 678

Fowler, Erik Fowler, Patricia Fowler, Russell and Evelyne Fowler, Sandra Fowler, Winston G. Fowlks, Dan Fox, C Fox, Candace Fox, Charles Fox, Charles Fox, Donald Fox, Effie M. Fox, Erin Fox, Eugene Fox, Gene Fox, Janet Fox, Kamla Fox, Kristi Fox, Lauren Fox, Midge Fox, Sat Charn Fralley, Jacqueline Frame, Peter Frances Alderson, George Frances Alderson, George Frances, Sherri Francis, Christopher Francis, Kirk Francis, Michael Francis, Shannon Francisco, Delainie Francisco, Linda Francisco, Ms. Dasray Franck, Margaret Franck, Matthew Franco, Angie Franco, Paige Franco, Richard Francois, Anne-Lise Frangiadakis, Thanae Frank, Blair Frank, Harriette

6836 8100 7469 5510 6254 16428 4416 5249 437 437 10979 4957 13762 14462 11152 15275 3715 2608 11360 5554 6907 8571 12000 496 496 14151 13292 15816 2628 995 5862 11692 1440 5119 8968 41 9707 10851 11305 2082 16362 13348

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) 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) 107(996), 103(SR128), 52(SR241) 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) 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) 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 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 - 117

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Frank, Harriette Frank, Todd Franke, Damon Frankel, Allen Franklin, Douglas Franklin, Irene Franklin, Jonathan and Cindy Franklin, Marylin Franklin, Priscilla Franks, Beth Franks, Steve Frantz, Glenn Frantz, Michael Franzoni, Miles Fraquelli, Chad Fraser, Caroline Fraser, Laura Fraser, Mark Fraser, Sarah Fraser, Sarah Frasher, Chuck Frasieur, Forest Fratus, Dan Fravel, Lacey Fraza, Matthew Frazer, Mark Frazier, Adrian Frazier, Anna Frazier, Anna M. Frazier, Margaret Frazier, Nita Frazzetta, Vincent Frecon, Suzan Frederick, Nicholas Fredericks, Denise R. Frederiksen, Chris Fredricks, Susan fredrickson, George Fredrickson, John Freeberg, Jim Freeberg, Jim Freed, Donald Freed, John Freedman, Arnold Freeland, Chris Freeland, Mandy

Submission ID 14372 13426 2016 12798 16919 17560 10037 16124 768 2979 14744 12263 16679 3701 6863 15461 8106 10745 12351 15756 8608 15987 8174 8462 11996 12964 6507 17353 736 4347 7940 13378 11856 9997 846 5427 7015 7216 2498 4157 14453 1997 13690 11536 4829 10608

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) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 88(SR586) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 88(975), 69(SR413), 121(SR805) 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) 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) 125(1211), 102(SR210), 114(SR748), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 121(SR806) 126(SR429), 78(SR528) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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(1012), 55(1180), 53(SR24), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 118

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Freeman, Allison Freeman, Dan Freeman, David Freeman, Jon Freeman, Julie Freeman, Lorraine Freeman, Mark Freeman, Michael Freeman, Russell Freeman, Sally Freeman, Tina Freese, Lisanne Freese, Robin Freidhof, Zach Freimuth, Erika Freisthler, Lorie Freitas, Julene Fremont, John French, Connie French, Daniel French, Kelly Frenzen, Amy Freshley, Megan Fresnedo, Daisy Freson, Neil Freudiger, Sabine Freund, Helga Frewin, Terry Frey, Jeff Frey, Matthew Frey, Scott Fried, Andrew Fried, Ethel Fried, Hannah K.

Submission ID 2503 1975 2832 9018 14406 10205 2789 15485 2974 4410 1991 3198 7567 15441 17523 7964 15338 16477 3625 16610 10315 8322 17292 1918 9332 7053 2375 14781 3070 12098 15575 15985 6609 17685

Friedenbach, Maggie Friedl, Barbara Friedland, Rachel Friedland, Sandie Friedlander, Daniel Friedman, Carolyn Friedman, Emily Friedman, Jeremy Friedman, Mara

15482 10187 4803 14514 11045 11561 8940 12955 9103

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) 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), 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) 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) 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) 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) 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 - 119

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Friedman, Melissa Friedman, Stanley Friedman, Valerie Friedmann, Vivian Friedrichs, Kai Fries, J Friese, Chandra Friesen, Debbie Friesen, Debbie Friess, Helga Friessen, Michelle Friscia, Sal Frisk, Charles Frisk, Julia Friske, Linsey Frith, Jennifer Fritsch, Karen Fritts, Tina Fritz, John Fritz, Timothy Fritze, Gary Fritzinger, Dennis Frock, Shanna Froehlich, Angie Froehlich, Kristin Frohmader, Jerry Frohn, Joyce Fromer, Arlene Fromholz, Eric Fromm, Mitchel Frost, Christopher Frost, Veronica Frost, Vicki Froyd, Irene Frugoli, Tina Frullo, Denise Frutchey, Karen Frybarger, Amy Frye, Ellen Fuccillo, Arlene Fuchs, Carolyn Fuchs, Carolyn Fuhrer, Carol

Submission ID 1332 10666 16696 7632 9930 11037 1794 8755 15216 12511 2365 8829 8669 10796 5860 8302 1908 2767 13523 1234 12444 16606 12326 16327 6776 13727 17661 5595 9927 7915 4699 12903 13058 8589 9083 6127 5444 7842 10907 10143 1076 12004 10101

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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), 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), 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) 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), 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 - 120

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Fujii, Naoko Fujisawa, Sakae Fujiyoshi, Ronald Fukasawa, Yasuhiro Fukuyama, Atsushi Fulcher, Kaye Fulgham, Chas Fulk, Travis Fulkerson, David Fullard, Christina Fuller, Alfred S. Fuller, Angelika Fuller, David Fuller, Kaori Fuller, Michelle Fuller, Roy Fuller, Shelly Fuller, W Fullerton, Kathy Fullerton, Sumer Fulmer, Thomas Fulner, Lauren Fultz, Laura Fulwiler, Jeremy Blue Fumiko, Sakuragi Funakoshi, Ms. Megumi Fundal, Erling Funk, Gayle Funk, Sam Davis Funkhouser, C Furcap, Darren Furgang, Steve and Irene Furlong, Kevin Furst, Stefan Furuya, X Fusco, Judi and Felix Fussner, Mary Futako, Wataru Fynan, Dave

Submission ID 1283 1039 1711 1685 1830 11881 7949 9068 13597 5466 9560 2155 15357 1693 2718 7979 11134 14300 3322 13867 7844 16244 11432 7913 1179 1473 5312 3170 6104 16756 17507 8209 14592 10057 1231 14562 5076 1169 7032

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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 121

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter G., W. Gaar, Susan Gabel, Scott Gabella, Dominique Gabrielle, Maria Gabrisko, Tracie Gabrisko, Tracie Gaede, Marc & Marnie Gaede, Marnie Gage, Mary Gage, Matthew Gage, Steven Gagliano, Ruth Gagliardo, Pamela Gagnon, Megan Gagnon, Richard Gagomiros, Keith Gaia, Florence Gaid, Dawn Marie Gailey, James Gainen, Gail Gaines, Allen Gaither, Michelle Gakeler, Debra Gakeler, Debra Galante, Carol Galante, Theresa Galbraith, Judith Galbraith, Mark Galdamez, Deborah Gale, Kate Gale, Lennie Gale, Van Ausdall Galey, Beverly Galie, Paula Galieti, Ronald J. Gall, Casey Gall, Erin Gall, Mark Gallagher, Kevin Gallegos, Dawnica Gallomore, James Gallup, Rick Galst, Liz Galton, Christopher Galusha, Amber

Submission ID 17161 8595 2033 11717 9841 11564 16106 3018 14257 15742 11944 8382 10951 13593 8128 5194 16414 6782 10944 3718 2571 7229 7973 2317 16728 199 10589 13678 8605 4936 11371 9004 384 5367 13094 5884 3106 10567 2989 6237 15753 8426 12465 10711 12540 3899

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) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 122

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Galuska, Michael Galvanek, Janel Galvin, Paul Galvin, Peter Gamber, Lisa Gambino, Jennifer Gamble, Evelyn Gamble, Megan W. Gamboa, Marge Games, Ruth Gammon, Jeff Gammon, Melinda Gamonal, Elba Gan, Monica Ganahl, Erin Ganassi, Jill Gandolfi, Stefanie Gannon, Michele Gapp, Deborah Garbacz, Christina Garbato, Kelly Garbato, Kelly Garber, Joyce Garber, Joyce Garber, Marc Garces, Laurence Garcia Coll, Cynthia Garcia, Anthony Garcia, Carolyn Garcia, Christine Garcia, Christine Garcia, David Garcia, Dena Garcia, Guadalupe Garcia, Haydee Garcia, Holland & Beth Garcia, Hugo Garcia, Joel Garcia, Kevin Garcia, Lisa Garcia, Lisa Garcia, Marco Garcia, Margarita Garcia, Miriam Garcia, Nora Garcia, Paula

Submission ID 7331 4460 9421 16038 6272 14078 7502 12166 11552 16905 6040 16079 15083 13617 15010 12025 14983 12034 9625 12947 7031 15138 12143 12144 6336 1933 4773 12708 802 4711 14627 12224 7850 15997 13903 13406 12982 1057 8749 6967 4200 9922 9399 4520 17378 11500

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) 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) 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) 127(SR367), 63(SR378) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 123

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Garcia, Shelley Garcia, Steven Garde, Donna Gardelle, Jennifer Garden, Rose Gardiner, Jessica Gardiner, Shayna Gardner, Ben Western Washington University Gardner, Diane Gardner, Gabriel Gardner, George Gardner, Gwynne Gardner, Jane Gardner, Jean Gardner, John Gardner, Kyle Gardner, Kyle Gardner, Len Gardner, Paul Gardner, Phil M Gardner, Stephen Garet, Barbara Garfield, Henry Gargiulo, Charles Garibay, Aleks Garisto, Mary Garland, Anthony Garland, Emily Garlit, Donald Garman, Elizabeth Garnanez, Tina Garnant, Gregory Garner, Angela Garner, Harry Garnett, Anne Garofalo, Vincent Garramone, Anne Garrels, Sharon Garrett, John Garrett, Kelley Garrett, Rick Garrett, Robert Garrett, Susan Garrido, A Garrigues, Lisa

Submission ID 8794 13659 11472 5649 2702 4556 5308 2635 14614 13682 2276 4053 4985 305 5417 10233 15411 8276 306 15314 2348 221 8465 3029 10788 5018 10476 1971 16189 1903 1297 189 17506 6166 8635 5125 387 14871 7559 15498 8678 11637 6495 10777 71

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) 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) 52(SR242) 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) 120(SR777), 45(SR874) 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) 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) 88(SR580), 120(SR777) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 124

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Garrison, Ann Garrison, Ann Garrison, Erin Garrison, Sandra Garrity, Dennis and Jeanie Garron, Steve Gartlan, Alison Gartmann, Marc Gartner, Ted Garton, Jan Gartson, Jake Garvey, Andrea Garvey, Lydia Garvin, Michael Garvin, Michael Garwood-Maxwell, Ann Gary, Cynthia Garza, Arlett Garza, Luis Gassaway, Bill Gassert, Katelynn Gassman, Paul Gaston, Kate Gathing, Nancy Gatto, Judi Gault, John Gauthier, Dawn Gauthier-Campbell, Catherine Gavegan, Bonny Gavin, J Gavin-McNeill, Caroline Gawlik, Jessica Gay, Caeleb Gayne, Carrie M. Gayou, Teva Gazzarato, jay Gazzola, Linda Gearon, Jihan Gearon, Jihan Gebhardt, Peter Gebhart, Curt Gebhart, Gerry Geer, Lisa Geerken, Kristin Gehrke, Barbara

Submission ID 566 17832 9896 9294 15798 15378 12698 15969 15031 16446 805 8850 16511 13494 16735 16355 5942 14716 6809 5717 3238 10989 1542 12477 5643 13939 15469 3840 5598 6664 6932 11650 17618 17170 15301 7353 14858 1811 16875 2525 2250 14860 15666 14224 9212

Location of Comments/Responses 57(SR336) 8(832), 45(875), 121(1027), 88(1044), 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 45(SR874) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 125

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Geier, Rosalie Geiger, Andes Geiken-Joyner, J Wayne Geikenjoyner, Mark Geikenjoyner, Mark Geise, Barry Geist, Darrell Gekler, Sandra Gelfman, Emily Geller, Anderson Gellert, Larry Gelwicks, Emilie Genandt, Judy Gendron, Robert Geneczko, Paul Genevich, Genny Genevro, Dave Genevro, Sarah A. Genovese, Sharon Genser, Maida Gentile, Diane Gentner, Darcy Gentry, Barbara Gentry, Rebecca Gentz, Cynthia George, Christy George, David George, Helga George, Katy George, Kimberly George, Marvin George, Mary Georgevich, Militza Geraghty, Barbara Geraghty, Cassie Gerarden, Elisa Gerber, Balfour Gerdan, Stephanie Gerdeman, Diane Gerfen, Joann Gergel, Inna Gerke, David Gerke, Susan Germain, Amy Germer, Mark

Submission ID 4940 15609 14652 1953 14395 7107 14864 10376 4409 210 8899 5966 7175 13641 10545 15627 17251 17253 6744 16118 7820 2847 3946 14490 7936 4207 2964 12881 8805 8947 4151 2205 11555 11356 11358 5762 16312 5132 7395 14863 10044 8522 10793 5226 13585

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), 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) 7(SR44), 35(SR121), 107(SR352), 109(SR753), 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), 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 126

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Germond, Henry Gerner, Steven Geroge, Patricia Gerratana, Carol Gerrek, Monica Gerrie, Michelle Gerson, Norine Gerwe-Perkins, Samantha Gerwick, Leonard Geslien, Jessica Gesner, Jo Getsee, Malcolm Geyer, Marilou Ghan, Mr. Ghaus, Sabrina Gheen, Nathan Ghigliotty, Janet Ghioto, Gary Gianni, P. Gianopoulos, Deanna Gibb, Mary Gibb, MaryEllen Gibb, Pamela Gibb, Wayne Gibbons, Brian Gibbons, Brian Gibbons, Eva Gibbons, Heather Gibbons, Lauraine Gibbs, Eden Gibbs, Edward Gibbs, Lisa Gibson, Anne

Submission ID 3937 16876 9631 14498 8659 16186 5233 12286 9496 14445 7146 6590 16936 1652 12712 3375 5351 15165 2960 3640 4086 14346 7794 13418 12227 14322 13579 8474 9568 3417 11487 16867 680

Gibson, Christen Gibson, Donald Gibson, Gale Gibson, James Gibson, K Gibson, Kathleen Gibson, Lacy Gibson, Lacy Gibson, Lee Gibson, Lee Gibson, Martha

3051 897 3228 16398 12839 10493 15045 15051 10746 16716 11902

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) 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) 114(SR754) 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) 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) 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), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 127

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Gibson, Pam Gibson, R John Gibson, Sara Gibson, Virginia C Gicela, Raymond Giese, Dale Giese, Mark Giese, Mark M Giese, Peter Gieseke, Renae Gifford, Barbara Gifford, Brian Gifford, Elizabeth Gifford, Katherine Gifford, Natalie Gifford, Sandy Gigante, G Gigliello, Kenneth Gil, Claudia Gilarski, John Gilbert, Marilyn Gilbert, Mrs. Tavia Gilbert, Rebecca Gilchrist, Clarice Gilck, Mike Gildea, Jessica Giles, Al Giles, Connie Gill, Katheen Gill, Percy Gill, Steven Gill, Susan Gillam, Thomas Gilland, James Gilland, James Gilland, Mr. James Gille, Greg Gillespie, M Rush Gillespie, Morgan Gillett, Julia Gillette, Phillip

Submission ID 14621 9467 16863 10043 2437 5792 9100 15352 13029 8842 1372 13591 6614 4112 14409 9806 1807 4040 17261 2568 974 1423 5723 15401 6870 9603 4970 10295 2060 696 11785 6202 13341 12999 472 1446 3797 3593 3678 13176 15890

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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), 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), 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) 126(1239), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 97(SR341), 88(SR580), 119(SR773), 121(SR822) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 128

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Gillette, Shereen Gilliam, Rhonda Gilliland, Dawn Gilliland, Donna Gillin, Brian Gillis, Patricia Gillman, Kathy Gilman, Daphne Gilmore, Carl Gilmore, Penny Gilmore, Ruth Gilmore, Timothy Gilmore, Tom Gilmour, Kenneth Gilsinan, George Gilvin, Laraine Ginder, Hannah Ging, Jolynn Gingold, Faye Gingras, Teresa Ginnebaugh, Diana Ginsburg, Dan Ginther, James Ginther, Michelle Gintz, Aimee Giordano, Cindya Giordano, Deborah Giordano, Joseph Gioscia, Mike Giovannoni, Catherine Girod, Sharon Giselbrecht, Jutta Giser, Stanley Giuliani, Rachelle Given, Karen Givens, Nancy Givens, Robin Gladfelter, Betsy Gladstone, Karla Glahn, Herb Glancey, Allison Glaser, Blair Glaser, Jean Glaser, Madeleine Glaser, Rowan Glasier, Pete

Submission ID 5147 4000 10452 9959 6226 3132 5579 14681 3031 10171 857 7411 17169 17835 13015 11072 9095 3052 11058 11929 8717 8970 9779 9788 7185 5431 5450 5430 12217 4290 7294 11675 17512 5948 6298 10624 15152 10520 8822 9604 2903 4599 12158 5530 4840 9268

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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 81(SR560), 88(SR586) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 102(SR358), 105(SR703), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 129

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Glasner, L Glass, Mark Glass, Mary Glasscock, Rebecca Glasser, Dara J.

Submission ID 10229 17249 3729 17074 17719

Glasser, Janice Glasser, Mark & Susan Glasser, Roslyn Glassoff, Pam Glaubitz, Joe Glavina, Sonja Glavina, Vesna Glazer, Jeremiah Gleason, Catherine Gleeson, Jill Glendye, Leslie Glenn, Andrea Glenn, Michele Glesne, Jane Glidden, Aelred Glielmi, Lynn Gliva, Stephen Gloede, Lori Glooch, John Glose, Anne Gloss, Glenda Glover, Julie Glover, Miss Samantha Glover, Tim Glum, Karen Glynn Jr, John Glyshaw, Gina Gnamt, Sean Gocke, Christine Godbey, Maria Goddard, Peggy Godesky, Jason Godfrey, Liz Godinez, Mr. Luis Godshall, Allison Godwin, Brooks

9094 13259 2545 5982 3556 8179 8191 6987 10639 8606 2666 8206 15229 13376 6343 2649 13219 10098 9401 14289 5757 13467 1384 2208 8637 12043 14282 867 950 11739 6803 1119 15567 1580 2598 10941

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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) 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), 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) 14(SR310) 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), 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 - 130

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Godwin, Jordanne Goebner, Nancy Goecke, Linda Goedde, Richard Goedert, Michelle Goehl, Natalie Goeken, Murlin Goepel, Johanna Goepfert, Jesse Goerler, Ellen Goers, Tiffany Goetinck, Jean and Glenys Goetze, David Goff, Frances Goggins, Alan Goggins, Cathlyn Goitein, Ernest Goldberg, Lucy Goldberg, Susan Goldblatt, Kimmer Goldbloom, Erica Golden, Amanda Golden, Amanda Golden, Connie Goldenberg, Helen Goldfarb, Alexandra Goldfarb, Aviva Goldfeld, Anne Goldin, Ellen Goldman, Eugene Goldman, Mia Goldman, Phyllis Goldsbury, Robert B Goldsmith, Benjamin Goldsmith, Ken Goldsmith, Lois Goldstein, Carol Goldstein, Freya Goldstein, Helen Goldstein, Judith Goldstein, Libby Goldstein, Roz Golec, Jaimie Golembiewski, Mark & Alicia Goll, Eva Gollannek, Armin

Submission ID 16657 501 3298 12724 11227 13461 13096 13801 3800 3983 10354 5556 7738 7250 16572 10537 14939 3281 8173 12424 11105 5042 15639 8845 11293 1364 11705 16354 8722 3439 13842 3293 10806 5373 15749 7109 6243 7899 8563 9623 9768 3767 3724 13937 13100 10274

Location of Comments/Responses 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 14(SR307), 76(SR454), 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 131

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Golloher, Andrea Gols, L Golser, Wolfgang Gomes, Sofia Gomez Villanueva, Dante Gomez, Maria Gomez, Nickolas Gomez, Richard Gomez-Barris, Lorena Gomillion, Amanda Gomond, George Gonnella, Anne Gonyea, Tamara Gonyer, Emily Gonzales, Diane Gonzales, Joe Gonzales, Linda Gonzalez, Alicia Gonzalez, Christina Gonzalez, Claudia Gonzalez, Daniel Gonzalez, Lisa Gonzalez, Melissa Gonzalez, Rob Gonzalez, Roberto Gonzalez, Sabrina Gonzalez, Sharon Gooch, Ginger Gooch, Nancy Good, Bambi Good, Dahe Good, Leisa Good, Pat M Good, Riana Good, Teresa Goode, Brenda Goodell, Sue Gooden, Mark Gooding, Judith Goodkind, Sara Goodley, Donna Goodlin, David Goodman, Janice Goodman, Linda Goodman, Lori

Submission ID 7737 2735 453 3528 2393 3292 17324 8600 10304 11933 11411 3572 13866 12703 1977 14530 14317 9554 3675 7426 17273 1336 8784 14511 1904 4108 11553 12888 8159 11842 6487 4333 3171 4875 9394 6213 13309 8640 2052 3523 8370 15067 3369 5340 17227

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR244), 57(SR340) 35(SR121), 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 114(SR748)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 132

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Goodman, Lori Goodney, E. Goodremote, Sharon Goodrich, Goodrich Goodrich, Timothy Goodridge, John Goodwin, Bradford Goodwin, Kate Goosey, Doug Goosey, Doug Goral, Edward Goraly, Nitzan Gorczyca, Alicia Gordan, Alexandra Gordon, Billie Gordon, Heather Gordon, Ivy Gordon, Ivy Gordon, Ivy Gordon, Judith Gordon, Lowen Gordon, Marcy Gordon, Mr. Jeff Gordon, Sandra Gordon, Sandra Gore, Dan Gorecki, Charles Gorecki, Jean Gorg, Mr. Alan Gorg, Mr. Alan Gorg, Mr. Alan Gorham, LaFonda Gorham, LaFonda Gorman, Jaime Gorman, Juliet A. Gorro, Jack Goslar, Joel Gosling, Chris Gosnell, Evelyn Gosney, William

Submission ID 756 17309 8981 3645 6428 15946 15071 5209 9393 14756 12711 13350 12269 9550 3808 2765 16998 17476 17438 11664 17304 14981 1392 9465 17656 5497 801 11780 1014 1661 1015 8839 8840 9966 7296 4727 7916 5793 15835 9564

Location of Comments/Responses 101(SR186), 114(SR748) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 79(SR539), 76(SR587) 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), 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) 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 - 133

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Goss, Emerson Goss, Eva Gosselin, Barbara Gossett, Adam Gossett, Claudine Gossett, Suzanne Goss-Santos, Adriana Gotham, Colleen Gottesman, Judith Gottlieb, Alison Gottscho, Andrew Gotvald, Mark Goudey, Linda Gould, Andy Gould, Julianne Gould, Kerin Gourley, Jacquelyn Gourley, Jerry Gowaty, Laura Gower, Meaghan Gower, Meaghan Goyings, Brandon Grab, Denise

Submission ID 1002 6106 7928 7274 9414 5895 16320 14071 16543 7214 15145 11033 10409 9300 2133 13402 13466 5326 16324 1292 1293 8832 368

Grabcheski, Alex Grabiel, Tim

13658 16942

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) 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), 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 134

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Grabiel, Tim Natural Resource Defense Council

Submission ID 16921

Grabiel, Tim Natural Resources Defense Council Grabiel, Tim Natural Resources Defense Council Grace, Edward Grace, George Gracian, Patricia Grady, Amy Gradziel, Mary Graeber, Glenn Graf, Al Graf, Catherine Graff, J. Graffius-Ashcraft, Karen Grafstrom, Amy Grafton, George Grafton, Matthew Graham, Aaron Graham, Anna Kirkwood Graham, Charlene Graham, Charlie Graham, Frances Graham, Jerry Graham, Judith Graham, Kristi Graham, Laura Graham, Lee Graham, Susan Graham, W Graham, Wade Grahn, Charlene Gramlich, Lauren Gramling, Amelia Gramstedt, Alfred Granat, Gary Granberg, Arline Grande, Ronald Granger, Diane

96

Location of Comments/Responses 53(1064), 53(1065), 53(1066), 54(1176), 51(SR184), 51(SR188), 51(SR189), 51(SR190), 52(SR243), 53(SR256), 53(SR261), 53(SR262), 53(SR263), 51(SR270), 54(SR286), 54(SR291), 54(SR292), 54(SR293), 54(SR294), 54(SR295), 54(SR296), 54(SR297), 54(SR298) 120(SR777)

17701

120(SR777)

4310 16811 433 2813 7197 7766 11873 7856 5711 13231 8265 2480 1054 659 6468 3221 16426 7993 149 7094 13448 869 615 11209 9925 14173 14873 14329 13871 6085 8537 8666 13492 13030

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 41(SR131), 45(SR154), 54(SR305), 14(SR307), 126(SR412), 70(SR434), 76(SR451), 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) 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) 102(SR210) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 135

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Granholm, Gini Grant, Gordon Grant, Gordon P Grant, James Grant, Sarah Grant, Valerie Grant, William Grant, William Grass, Jones Grassi, Catherine Grassman, Betina Grattan, Patrick Grauer, Rita Graustein, Jean Gravely, Nancy Graves, Gary Graves, Patrick Gray, Candace Gray, Cyn Gray, Jeffrey Gray, Jim Gray, Joel Gray, John Gray, Judith Gray, Lynne Gray, Monica Graziano, Kristin Graziano, Pauly Graziosa, Sara Greblick, Delphine Greblick, Jay Greco, Andrea Greco, Claudia Greco, Jose Luis Gredvig, Mikkel Greek, James Green, Amanda Green, BettyJean Green, Bill Green, David Green, Erik Green, Joe Green, Julius Green, Keith Green, Kenneth Green, Kevin

Submission ID 2500 6666 14421 5333 13079 9329 12621 15548 732 11048 1190 12190 4289 8259 1928 12405 16742 12067 1347 2911 15064 12674 13873 3324 17654 9139 3723 6797 15028 14217 14216 6098 6101 6128 13608 12827 7307 4708 16418 11173 5995 7463 5729 10455 11781 13786

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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 81(SR557), 81(SR558), 95(SR666) 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), 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) 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) 88(SR580) 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) 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 - 136

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Green, Lisa Green, Mary Green, Mary Green, Mindy Green, Pamela Green, Pamela Green, Susan Green, Susan Green, Will Greenberg, Corinne Greenberg, Corrine Greenberg, Jill Greenberg, Stephen Greenblatt, Karl Greene, Belen Greene, Christie Greene, David Greene, Lauren Greene, Marjorie Greene, Michael Greene, Sande Greene, Solo Greene, Steven Greene, Suzanne Greene-Manzi, Catherine Greeney, Robert Greenleaf-Maple, John and Macha Greensfelder, Sara Greensill, Sally M Greenstein, Jim Greenwood, Jean Greenwood, Ken Greenwood, Molly c/o Carol Dingman Greer, Amy Greer, Amy Greer, Andrew Greer, Carolyn Greer, Helen Greer, Marsha Greer, Patricia Greer-Laura, Nancy Gregg, John Gregg, Kayleigh Gregg, Robin

Submission ID 8372 2646 7745 1851 9741 8509 834 15976 4418 8906 15340 9488 13127 15506 12603 2005 6181 2484 5039 15836 13468 4339 7141 15779 7330 4322 11906 1741 16880 2577 12524 9482 3287 9611 3734 5829 4337 12829 9903 13586 4229 8323 15921 14742

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), 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) 5(SR35), 5(SR40), 5(SR97), 101(SR685) 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) 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), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 137

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Gregg, Steve Gregor, Ami Gregorio, Joseph Gregory, Ashley Gregory, Camilla Gregory, Jeremy Gregory, Jon Gregory, Karen Gregory, Mark Gregory, Melissa Gregory, Rachel Gregway, Audrey Greiff, Juan de Greig, Cynthia Greig, June Greiner, Jim Grekin, Paul Gremminger, Elaine Grenland, Dianne Gresher, Meridith Grey Wolf Billington, Francis Grey, Blair Greyeyes, Deyoun Greyhat, Justina Greyhat, Mary D. Grice, Gary Griego, Yvonne Monique Mescalero Apache Nation Grieman, Diane Gries, Kirk Little RedHawk Griffin, Eileen Griffin, Fred Griffin, Gretchen Griffin, Kathy Griffith, David Griffith, Dian Griffith, Jennifer Griffith, Kris Griffith, Linda Griffith, Rosemary Griffith, Sharon Griffith, Sharon

Submission ID 7487 4017 12464 105 14088 11136 6244 12936 114 15573 17640 7497 14960 9690 11921 9729 11503 15486 15952 12807 15959 7778 780 1345 1371 4182 1112 12200 6788 10785 10930 5146 10853 10130 1680 14810 12963 1658 12882 1339 16896

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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 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) 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) 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) 97(SR333) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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), 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 138

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Griffith, Steve Griffiths, Elizabeth Grigg, Jamin Grigsby, Mrs. Sylvia Grigsby, Natalie Grill, John Grim, Timothy Grimes, Jeffrey Grimes, Mary Grimm, Sharon Grimwade, Elizabeth Grindle, Russell Grinnell, Jon Grisham, Deanka Griswold, Dave Gritts, Barbara Groat, Candice Grobe, Nicola Groff, Ed Groff, Joan Groff, Philip Grohoski, Nicole Gronlund, Nancy Groome, Malcolm Gross, Aarin Gross, Martin Gross, Rob Gross, William Grossman, Gale Grossman, Janet Grossman, Robert E Grosveld, Mrs. Susette Grotegut, Bette C Grout, Jennifer Groux-Holt, Mrs. Caroline Grove, Paul Grove, Richard Grover, Ravi Grow, Elaine Grubb, Rick Grubbs, Irene Gruenther, Laura Grundfest, Jill Grunert, Maia Grunert, Maia

Submission ID 2815 3282 7805 1570 6048 15923 12051 10329 6108 2674 11473 3988 4887 2804 5809 7208 15532 14875 4929 3137 14035 4752 9975 10772 6025 13948 12277 14893 3399 8062 815 1448 16866 5050 1419 10795 11375 15644 13995 16169 2790 13351 4908 2986 16838

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), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 58(927), 57(1107), 52(SR240) 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) 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) 88(SR580) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 139

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Gruss, Kristin Guancione, Karen Guarracino, Vicky Guarrusso, Neil Gubernick, David Gubrud, Kurt Gudelanis, John Gudmundsson, Steinthor V. Guenther, Beth Guenther, James Guenther, Joel Guenther, Matthew Guerreiro, Juan Guerreiro, Mike Guerreiro, Mike Guerrero, Annette Guerrero, Peter Guest, Sharon M. Guetschow, Brooks Guggenheim, David Guglielmi, Mara Guha, Arijit Guidi, Rita Guild, Adam Guiles, Zachary Gulish, Kathleen Gulley, Avalon Gullickson, Kyle Gunale, Swati Gundelfinger, Monica Gunder, Jenn Gundersen, Dan Gunderson, Carol Gundlach, Michael Gunnell, Dr. Jana Gunsell, Pearl Gunshor, Audrey Sherry Gunter, Karlene Gunther, Donald H & Alberta S Gunther, Peter Gunther, Robert Gupta, Ravi Guptail, Matthew Gural, Jeanne

Submission ID 435 3643 12978 15926 16214 10138 9816 2226 3711 5853 1797 2267 14970 11522 14261 14971 12323 2770 7212 10384 14163 8964 15856 5886 13346 13794 1017 13347 6846 11041 14482 9939 6631 8978 1670 8991 13495 8924 15694 6236 12413 11521 3423 7742

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 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) 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) 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 - 140

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Gurner, Tina Guruswamy, Dharm Gustafson, Judith M Gustafsson, Carina Gustafsson, Carina

Submission ID 3984 14783 14513 72 246

Gustafsson, Linda Gustavsson, Ann Gustavsson, Ann Gustavsson, Ann Gütermann, Stephan Gutgsell, Billie Guthmann, Heather Guthrie, Barbara Guthrie, Kristen Guthrie, Rand Guthrie, Rand Gutierrez, Alberto Gutierrez, Xavienne Gutkowski, Marie Gutmann, Ralph Gutmann, Todd Gutnick, Fred Guttormsen, Kathy Guy, Colleen Guy, Ronald & Giselle Guyer, Tracy Guyette, Richard Guymon, Amy Guyton, Brenda Guyton, Tom Guzman, Alicia Guzman, Yahaira Gwin, Patricia Gwinn, Anita Gwinn, Julia Gwynne, Andy

1566 78 78 1568 1227 14308 11694 6440 10838 5505 16820 1044 8195 11616 3973 2953 6347 13399 7066 6194 12175 997 1040 11876 10732 14403 13053 9657 8825 9179 445

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) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 120(SR777) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 35(SR121)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 141

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Gyamerah, Akua H, Cari H. (unreadable), T. (unreadable) H. Ellerby, Jonathan Haas, Margaret Haas, Stephanie Haas, Tory Haase, Gary Haber, Jim Haber, Kat WILD Foundation Hackett, Catherine Hackett, Julia A. Hackney, Patti Hadacek, Matthew Haddad, Emily Haddock, Brenda Haden, Kara Hader, Birgit Hadley, Cami Hadley, Debbie Hadley, Rebecca Hadman, Amy Hadnott, Roxanne Hadnott, roxanne Haehne, Siegfried Haenel, Amy Hafemann, Elizabeth Hafer, Sarah Hafner, Amanda Hagaman, Casey & Katherine Hagan, Dawn Hagen, Alice Hagen, Andrew Hager, Jon Hagerman, Mark Hagerman-Beizer, Cathe Haggard, Kale Haggerty, Cindy Hagler, Douglas Haglund, Roger Hagopian, Darlene Hahlen, Laurel

Submission ID 17520 16375 17306 232 8681 3395 16030 2497 1289 229 14916 5260 9241 4850 5840 15873 12649 1290 14647 7103 7754 4615 9654 14849 32 3251 8484 13743 223 9366 6965 12713 16568 9952 4362 11502 6265 5230 16332 15648 7885 16836

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), 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), 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 142

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hahn, Joshua Hahn, Kim Hahn, Michael Hahn, Mikayla Hahn, Todd Hailey, Melissa Haines, Gregg Haines, Kelly Haines, Kyle Haines, Patricia Hains, Jenna Haire, Brad Haire, Daniel Haissig, Peggy Hajun, Norah Antioch Student Mail Room Hakkert, Carola Halbe, Denise Halberstadt, Carol Halberstadt, Carol Halberstadt, Carol Haldeman, Jamie Hale, Allain Hale, Bill Hale, Jerry Hale, John Hale, Kimberly Haley, Carla Halkin, Barry Hall, Ashley Hall, BC Hall, Brett Hall, Brian Hall, Brook and Linda Hall, Dawn Hall, Diana Hall, Dona Hall, Duane Hall, Eliza Hall, Fred Hall, James W Hall, Janna Hall, Keith Hall, Larry C. and Gimone Hall, Lee Hall, Marie

Submission ID 12814 9116 12168 1565 10396 15543 11506 8475 16651 10232 8177 9953 4478 11869 17243 7984 8126 243 374 244 10952 2866 5141 11565 14103 11104 4398 4166 13580 331 7344 10018 11018 12774 10204 12663 12968 16181 14291 17817 11752 2956 2875 11081 3872

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), 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) 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) 127(SR367), 45(SR874) 116(SR725) 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) 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) 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), 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 - 143

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hall, Melissa Hall, Pamela Hall, Patrice Hall, Robert Hall, Stephen Hall, Tessa Hall, Thomas Hall, Veldee Hall, William T. Haller, Lori Hallett, Regan Halley, Chris Halligan, Mary Hallin, John Halloran, Neal Halloran, Tina Halm, Steve Halperin, Hagit Halpern, Alicia Halpern, David Halpern, Samantha Halsey, Bronwen Halsey, Bronwen Halsey, David Halsey, Macdonald Halsey, Theresa Haltenhoff, Ken Halverson, Faith Halverson, Lucy Halvorson, Greg Halvorson, Jeanne Ham, Chooneui Ham, Chooneui Ham, Chooneui Hamburg, Adam Hamburg, Stacey Hamburg, Stacey Hamburg, Stacey Hamburg, Stacey Hamill, Warrior Hamilton, Barbara

Submission ID 1937 15474 12275 16025 8745 4574 13074 13464 6592 9592 2446 15968 15793 5458 5305 1351 8833 3758 13968 11253 6451 142 142 9250 4576 1829 11155 2501 12421 11425 4612 1277 1278 1279 17374 436 124 17544 124 8593 9746

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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), 41(SR131), 55(SR175), 120(SR777), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 144

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hamilton, Deborah Hamilton, Debra Hamilton, Dianna Hamilton, Healy Hamilton, Helen Hamilton, Jonathan Hamilton, Laurel Hamilton, Lois Hamilton, Mary Hamilton, Michelle Hamilton, Patricia Hamilton, Steven Hamilton, Thomas Wm. Hamilton, Traci Hamilton, Traci Hamilton, Van & Lois Hamilton, Van & Lois Hamilton, Walter Hamilton, William Hamlin, Diana Hamlin, Janet Hamlin, Karen Hamlin, Spencer Hamlyn, Laura Hamm, Lynn Hamm, Steve Hammann, Mary Hammar, Ned Hammel, Rick & Laurie Hammer, Diana Hammer, William & Melody Hammersley, RossKateEmerson Hammon, Molly Hammond, Alice Hammond, Craig Hammond, Demaris Hammond, Jeanne Hammond, Kristen Hammond, Marcella Hammond, Mary Hammond, Theresa Hammond, Thomas P Hammond, Timothy Hammons, William Hampson, Donna

Submission ID 2627 4277 11725 14076 6005 11955 6913 3430 13726 5441 9783 10580 7941 1245 1244 8222 15032 15459 4265 3962 6953 10800 6563 7500 11541 8090 12687 11252 15539 14155 12220 6869 17412 6975 4585 9576 14678 12469 12805 13893 14658 15235 16360 13108 8756

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), 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) 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), 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 145

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hampson, Donna Hampson, James Hampton, Donald Hampton, Susan Hamrick, James Hanafi, Lauren Hanakahi, Haumea Hanan, Rachel Ann Hance, Maria Hancock, Allan Hancock, Karen Handforth, Donna Handke Jones, Laura Handley, Vance Handschuh, Dawn Handt, Mary Handwerk, Jill Handwerker, Steven Handy, Robert Hanes, Amanda Hanes, Marina Hanes, Richard Haney, Barbara Haniff, Samirah Hankel-Rolph, Ann Hankins, Mike Hankley, Heidi Hanks, Chris Hanks, Laura Hanlen, Roberta Hanley, Donna Hanlon, James Hanna, Kim Hanna, Susan Hannah, Daryl Hannah, Wesley Hannen, Mike Hannisch, William Hannon, Keith Hannum, Christine Hanover, Susan Hansen Krajewski, Karen Hansen, Dan Hansen, Debra Hansen, Gage-David

Submission ID 14689 8315 5768 15224 15026 17359 16575 11379 7311 11262 9947 12322 13098 13216 3495 12751 14677 12105 9203 6930 3219 16357 9832 7481 16829 7016 15009 16226 1931 12803 13470 3314 5144 12788 381 17530 6450 14945 4137 16730 10488 4147 2708 3189 13209

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) 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), 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 146

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hansen, Gayle Hansen, Janet Hansen, Joanna Hansen, Kevin Hansen, Lene Hansen, Marsha Hansen, Michelle Hansen, Sheldon Hansen, Susan Hanson, Art Hanson, Art Hanson, Brian Hanson, Edward Hanson, Jerry Hanson, Marilyn Hanson, Natalie Hanson, Robert Hanson, Robert Hanta, Hashi Hantsbarger, Gary Hara, Ayako Hara, Ayako Harada, Carol Harcarik, Patricia Hardaker, Dawn Harden, Cory (Martha) Harden, edgar Harder, Carol Harders, Cheryl Hardin, Abigail Harding, Grete Harding, Lynn Hardy, Bernice Chee Hardy, Kee Hardy, Kee Hardy, Lisa Hardy, Nick Hardy, Rick Haren, Sammie Hargrave, Dr. Karen Hargrove, Glen Hargrove, Nancy Harig, Laurel

Submission ID 11974 10247 13997 11628 7938 8282 3358 9454 7514 11408 7434 6578 5057 6525 16316 5605 5761 5771 4443 15772 1725 1826 3425 11718 7616 51 4320 3504 6309 2363 7202 9597 777 765 17579 9784 5471 5184 11049 1736 5240 6831 13857

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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 126(SR409), 88(SR601) 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 41(SR131), 43(SR137), 126(SR421), 88(SR601), 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), 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 - 147

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Harigaya, Yukie Harings, Nicole Harison, Clarissa Harken, Rob Harkey, Warren Harkins, Hugh Harkins, Joanne Harkins, Lynne Harkins, Lynne Harkrider, Harkrider Harlan, Marilyn Harlow, Linda Harman, William Harmon, Ben Harmon, Benjamin Harmon, Pollyana Harmsen, Douglas Harp Cruces, Salime Harp, Rene Harpe, Lynda Harper, Barbara Harper, Gary Harper, Laura Harper, Robyn Harper, Sonia Harpham, Bruce Harrah, Berton Harrell, James Harrell, Jan Harrigan, Dan Harrington, Elizabeth Harrington, Gerri Harrington, Gerri Harrington, Julie Harrington, Michelle Harrington, RJ Harrington, Susan Harris, Alex Harris, Alicia Harris, Beverly Harris, Bradley Harris, Christian Harris, D C Harris, Debra Harris, Ed Harris, Gary

Submission ID 886 16573 5816 8782 16237 4497 5636 8088 16752 6966 3075 10621 10921 16796 13824 3884 3264 4458 8072 1537 10453 7333 6865 16284 5352 16550 16004 12476 9318 16448 11223 9344 8743 10741 3845 11800 11131 3894 13154 10726 6380 2616 10385 14367 16612 9183

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) 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), 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(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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 148

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Harris, JA Harris, Jack Harris, James Harris, Jennifer Harris, Jeremy and Jane H. Harris, Jillian Harris, Joan Harris, Kate Harris, Kathy Harris, Lance Harris, Lynn Harris, Melissa Harris, Patricia Harris, Peter Harris, Sharon Harris, Shona Harris, Stephen Harris, Velva Harris, Wesley Harrison, Bert Harrison, Gwen Harrison, Lisa Harrison, Nathaniel Harrison, Paige Harrison, Randy Harrison, Thomas Harrity, Michael Harrod, Florence Harron, Kelley Harron, M. Harrow, Robert Harry Rovin, Robert Harsh, Sidney Hart, Brigid Hart, Craig Hart, Debbie Hart, Jeremy Hart, Jonathan Hart, Joyce Hart, Lori Hart, Marie Hart, Michael Hart, Mimi Hart, Rick Hart, Sarah Hart, Vaughn Harte, Franklin

Submission ID 16591 15069 9572 14454 2119 4467 3262 3158 8995 13841 7339 14594 11768 10382 13479 4253 7575 5481 13970 3451 6973 12731 9308 8727 6047 11784 2066 2539 6162 5328 5754 8890 14274 8878 16123 6546 11009 6444 4874 9304 4526 2430 15285 11084 7359 10976 8540

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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 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 - 149

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Harte, Jackie Hartenstine, Dennis Hollow Point Homestead Harter, Margery Harter, Nancy Harth, Adele Hartin, Kris Hartland, Tom Hartley, Albert Hartley, Catherine Hartman, Audrey Hartman, Gail Hartman, Gayle & Bryan G. Hartman, Georgiana Hartman, Gregory Hartman, John Hartman, Ken Hartman, Nicholas Hartman, Roseanne Hartmann, Lauren Hartnagel, Mark Harts, I Hartsough, Robert Hartten, Erik Hartwell, Patricia Hartwig, Paul Hartwig, Sarah Hartz, John Hartzell, Beth Harvey, Bartlett Harvey, Deborah Harvey, John Harvey, John Harvey, Marcia Harvey, Richard Harvey, Ron Harvey, Stacy Harvey, Steve Harvey, Tonia Harvey-Sh, Frankie Harville, Kai Harwood, Sarah Harzewski, Erica Hasebe, Yuko Hasegawa, Ms. Naomi

Submission ID 3531 13133 12553 9587 11220 15110 2356 6710 12047 7067 8391 6645 15955 14373 10845 16319 10815 10833 9407 14723 10924 7156 4534 14319 11744 12259 6316 7376 3354 11674 9134 10093 11283 3621 16206 9884 16032 16306 8060 14789 3368 8574 1157 1469

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 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), 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 - 150

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hashizume, Shigeru Haskell, Karen Haskell, Taylor Haskin, Honey Haskins, Bill Hass, Ramon Hasson, Ed Hasten, Darryl Hastings, Kelli Hatch, Katherine Hatch, Rob Hathaway, Susan Hathaway, Wilhelmina Hatland, Cornelia Hatley, Gretchen Hatmaker, Jayleen Hattersley, Juliet Hattler, Richard Hauenstein, Cathleen Hauer, Jonathan Hauer, Mary Haughey, Jim Haun, Caroline Hauptman, Henry Haurwitz, Frank Haus, Dwayne Hauser, Aaron Hauser, Mary Hauser, Sarah Hauwert, Nico Havard, Jim Haverlock, Kristin Havill, Marilyn Havill, Scott Hawes, Joyce Hawes-Domingue, K.C. Hawkey, Rachael Hawkins, Julie Hawkins, Julie Hawkins, Kathleen Hawkins, Kecia Hawkins, Paul

Submission ID 1182 11975 14930 2527 16787 11641 14852 5576 10832 3688 2465 11697 4471 7323 4868 8429 4365 7859 12396 1403 1269 5339 6498 9527 3674 16478 7262 13720 9839 3694 544 6249 1058 1060 7289 12331 9894 3086 14941 13393 4847 3901

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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) 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) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 151

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hawkins, Zachary Hawley, Debra Hawley, Ed Haworth, Mark Hawthorne, Anne Hawthorne, Sean Hayashi, Hazuki Hayashi, Ms. Masumi Hayden, Ayisha Hayden, Jason Hayduke Grenard, Mark Hayduke Grenard, Mark Hayes, Amanda Hayes, David Hayes, Deanna Hayes, Deborah Hayes, Diana Hayes, Graham Hayes, Jane Hayes, Janet Hayes, Juliet Hayes, Linda Hayes, Sara SENAA West

Submission ID 12568 13220 7057 13175 16074 8196 1855 1688 3889 9416 13081 16136 2194 2768 15100 12360 14100 16879 5861 14847 7279 11208 1763

Hayes, Sara Hayes, Toni Haymes, Cherie Haymes, Fortune Hayner, Eric Haynes, Ayanna Haynes, Franca Haynes, Patrick Haynes, Starla Hays, Sandy Hays, Zona Hays, Zona Hazama, Kaoru Hazama, Kazuo Hazard, Joel Hazell, Christopher J. Hazen, Jeff

820 2442 12726 7578 4110 4867 4946 11769 4494 3581 8246 15335 264 1140 11648 611 5109

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 103(SR213) 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 121(1023), 54(1174), 125(1209), 55(SR22), 5(SR39), 35(SR121), 107(SR129), 54(SR286), 14(SR307), 107(SR353), 69(SR415), 114(SR736), 114(SR756), 119(SR769), 119(SR775), 120(SR777), 114(SR791), 121(SR792), 107(SR811), 125(SR1034) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 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) 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 - 152

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hazen, Maureen Head Jr., Jim Head, Jennifer Head, Jim Healy, Alexander Healy, Marbella Healy, Patricia Heaps, Joan Heard, Jennifer Heard, Patricia Hearn, Stewart Heart, Eagle Heath, Linda Heath, Matthew Heaton, Daniel Heaton, Timothy Hebblewhite, Mary Hebeisen, Brian Heberling, Tamra Hebert, Donna Hebert, Esther Hebert, Joan Hebert, John Heck, Matthew Heckler, Susan Hedberg, John & Anne Hedge, Joanne Hedlund, John HedstrÃm, Ms. Lotta Hedström, Lotta Heejoo, Park Heffernan, Jenna Heffner, Heather Hegeman, Elizabeth Hegg, Lynda Heggenhougen, A. Hegner, John Hegole, Nischit Heicher, Mary Heighberger, Holly Heijn, Laurie Heiler, Theresa Heilke, Claudia Heimberg, Erica Heimbinder, Michael

Submission ID 14973 14137 8157 14624 9917 10638 14534 11976 13683 4406 8656 8439 2425 12111 8153 15565 2261 3847 11977 11124 13925 3173 11927 5622 3064 12401 10266 7227 1603 88 17873 13758 10374 12873 2596 7496 1795 17644 16472 8858 4812 1982 13584 14951 10142

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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 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) 35(SR121), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 153

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Heimler, Cindy Hein, Claudia Hein, Jill Heine, Henry Heinecke, Angela Heineman, Annemarie Heines, Carolyn Heinlen, Emily Heinz, Carol Heinze, Cynthia Heinzig, Dennis Helenek, Stella Helgesm, Mary Hellar, Cherita Heller, Ahna Heller, Elizabeth Heller, Eric Heller-Gutwillig, Annie Hellman, Ellen Helm, Dejuana Helman, Mark Helmer, Susan Helmeste, Michael Helms, Judith Helmstetter, Barbara Helmstetter, Susan Helsel, Richard Helwig, Anne Hemmer, Cheryl Hemmer-Kapp, Janet Henches, Elizabeth Henderson, Beth Henderson, Carla Henderson, Dewitt Henderson, Donna Henderson, Hugh Henderson, Joyce Henderson, Kathleen Henderson, Kay Henderson, Liz Henderson, Sharron Hendrickson, Anne Hendrickson, Joyce Hendrickson, Phil Hendrickson, Roshen Hendrix, Deborah

Submission ID 10394 16463 16337 7692 15387 13661 10866 14171 7436 14197 15268 8110 17027 13170 9348 15715 7108 552 3710 10748 3850 8514 6580 5298 10020 11039 12973 14991 7519 2779 9026 8321 8448 13625 11235 10553 12812 2683 8943 15906 11450 16788 8255 8225 8907 8633

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), 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) 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), 41(SR131) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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 - 154

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hendrix, Tammy Hengstebeck, Eric Heninwolf, Eva Henio-Adeky, Sarah Henize, Tina Henke, Margaret Hennessey, Maureen Henning, Linda Henninger, Maryann Hennington, Daian Henri, Lyn Henricks, Jolie Henrie, Derek Henriksen, Deborah Henriques, Joy Henry, Brenna Henry, Brian Henry, Carole Henry, Christine Henry, Christopher Henry, Chuck Henry, Lisbeth henry, mac Henry, Mallika Henry, Seth Henry, Stephen Henry, Steve Hensley, Fiona Henson, Lance Hepler, Stephen DEP Air Quality Program Herbelin, Maggy Herbener, Steve Herbert, Elizabeth Herbert, Shirley Herbozo, Guillermo

Submission ID 6111 12082 9665 42 2113 8708 6540 2007 8612 14032 7075 15175 4459 11966 9146 6751 12193 12151 11020 8451 9773 5357 2793 7174 16509 10048 11928 2240 1410 8975 15381 5669 7907 13752 392

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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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), 93(SR644), 127(SR1053) 97(SR341), 97(SR343), 63(SR378), 88(SR596) 9(845), 70(SR435), 77(SR481), 118(SR764) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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)

Herder, Charisse Herder, Daniel Herder, Lorraine Herfindahl, Anne Herm, Joel Herman, Shawn Herman, Trish Hermann, Barbara Hermann, Liza

831 17581 832 3121 7622 10569 12339 5000 15192

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 155

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hermann, Mai Herms, Colleen Hern, Michele Nordi Hernandez, Ivan

Submission ID 15139 6685 9022 17743

Hernandez, Jennifer Hernandez, Maricela Hernandez, Mark Hernandez, Michelle Hernandez, Toni Hernandez, Vanessa Hernando, Lara Herner, betty Jean Herold, Brigid Herold, James H. Herold, Joan Heron, Joan Herr, Joe Herren, Peggy Herrera, Annie Herrera, Diana Herrera, Kyle Herrera, Maria Herrera-Vasques, Ileana Herrick, Thaddeus Herrin, Elizabeth Herring, Melinda Herring, melissa Herrington, Kelsey Herrington, Randy Herriott, Tim Herrlinger, Roth Herrold-Garcia, Melanie Herron, Cindy Herron, Rex Herscovitch, Lara Hersh, Emily Hershfield, Joshua Hershman, Connie Hershman, Keeth Herson, Gail Hertel, Mera Herten, Margaret Hervey, Jeanne Herwitz, Jesse

17901 17875 2287 6038 15813 12049 2098 16204 6757 8374 16814 17658 5635 2029 17585 7646 4079 981 13389 3629 7797 15519 12486 10763 10202 6432 10660 13639 15522 15524 4077 2103 17496 8251 491 3874 6526 5473 7540 333

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) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 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) 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) 86(1190), 35(SR121), 81(SR569), 94(SR655) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 156

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Herzberg, William Herzbrun, Jack Herzog, James Heskin, Kathy Hess, Dawn Hess, Edward Hess, John Hess, Karl Hess, Kathryn Hess, Martha Hesse, Phil Hetem, Judith Heuser, John Hevey Jr, Robert Hevner, Joseph Hewitt, Dawn Hewitt, Lisa Hewitt, Mrs. Christine Hexter, Scott Heyman, Jody Heyward, Joslin Hiatt, Caspar Hiatt, Ettus Hibbard-Rode, Mr. David Hibel, amy Hickey, Alanna Hickey, Jane Hickey, Konstanze Hickey, P Hickey, Terry Hickey, Therese Hickman, Tiffany Hickman, Tiffany Hicks, Aaron Hicks, Aaron Hicks, Cynthia Hicks, James Hicks, Janet Hicks, John Hicks, Kris Hicks, Robert Hidalgo, Merlin Hideki, Mana Higgins, Kay

Submission ID 9147 12438 15020 12415 8690 14170 3934 5070 7731 10527 13197 5730 6228 12046 5614 12575 11108 1493 2943 3660 12719 7958 7144 1441 5802 11101 13811 6152 5069 10689 15105 17209 17130 7542 14767 4130 6840 13505 11006 8502 2281 5885 11997 5592

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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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), 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), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 157

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter High, Bob High, Carin High, Warren Hightower, Craig Hildebrand, David Hildebrand, Judy Hildenbrand, Denis Hildner, William Hilgartner, LK Hill Jr., Richard Hill, Amalie Hill, Anna Hill, Apryl Hill, Bob Hill, Brad Hill, Carolyn Hill, Cheryl Hill, Elden Hill, Gary Hill, Jeannette Hill, Jeffery Hill, Kim Hill, Kirsten Hill, Lois Hill, M.A. Hill, M.A. Hill, Margaret Hill, Martha Hill, Megan Hill, Robert Hill, Tanya Lara Hill, Willow Hillard, Shanin Hiller, P.J. Hillery, Karie Hillman, Jerry Hills, Jan C. Hillton, Daroyle Hilton, Jeanie Hilty, Emmaline Himmelein, John Hind, David Hindery, Derrick Hinds, John Hinds, Mathew

Submission ID 6435 16080 14182 11163 11114 11939 4565 13228 16348 10809 11077 5472 5855 4768 2163 11684 15642 568 10141 14247 7908 3267 14766 12479 17159 17090 5358 13845 4180 12291 1783 12787 8894 8994 15471 4896 11533 3276 7678 11594 5660 2216 12544 2075 16035

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) 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) 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), 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), 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) 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 - 158

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hinely, Bill Hinerfeld, Lee Hines, Blaire Hines, Carla Hines, Dave Hines, LoRita Hines, Richard Hinkle, Sandie Hinks, Christianne Hinshaw-Osgood, Elisabeth Hinson, William Hinton, Maria Hipsher, Linda Hirakawa, Munenobu Hirakawa, Sachiko Hirano, Mayuka Hirning, Carolyn Hiro, Not Available Hiroshi, Yoshida Hirsch, Connie Hirschhorn, Janet Hirschler, Jean Hirshfield, Jeanne Hirt, Betty Hirt, James Hitchcock, Tammy Hitoshi, Kashiwai Hitoshi, Kashiwai Hitoshi, Kashiwai Hitt, Kelly Hitt, Sam Hitt, Teri Hittel, Kenneth Hittelman, Katina Hitzfelder, Paul Hix, Hildegard Hjelmeir, Korey Hlavin, Linda Hnilicka, Kristin Ho, Roxana Hoagland, Anna

Submission ID 13441 14305 7410 10724 15803 3117 16188 5176 14799 5724 11826 12572 13352 1306 980 1702 8570 1310 943 12673 3864 6337 14866 11083 9230 6529 1172 1173 1174 8684 15272 6310 14435 3125 4312 5237 7955 14899 2946 11130 12239

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) 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), 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), 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) 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), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 159

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hoaglund, Judith Hoak, Gail Hoard, Robyn Hoban, Mona Hobbs, Kathy Hocevar, John Hoch, Albert Hochstatter, Jeanette Hodge, Christina Hodge, William Hodges, Carey Hodges, Herman Hodges, Tara Hodgins, Liza Hodgson, John Hodgson, Lynn Hodsdon-Trips, Donna Hoeflich, Lauren Hoefner, Lisa Hoefs, Carole Hoeksema, Marc Hoeksma, Nicole Hoekstra, Ray Hoelter, Patricia Hoenig, Leo Hoff, Steven Hoffberg, Judith Hoffelt Olson, Sandra Hofferkamp, Paul Hoffman, Chris Hoffman, David Hoffman, J.A. Hoffman, Jeff Hoffman, Jeff Hoffman, Jim Hoffman, Karen Hoffman, Lilli Hoffman, Michelle Hoffman, Rose Hoffman, Sarah Hoffmeier, Alana Hofford, William Hofman, Jim Hogan, Barbara Hogan, Beth Hogan, Elaine

Submission ID 2012 5508 10451 12313 4385 15349 4770 13686 12010 12005 3947 15499 3569 12975 6465 7643 16015 2080 3895 7782 3415 12379 8818 4150 8413 3461 10440 4413 10391 10220 16399 4592 1264 15970 6632 13993 15392 3513 9327 15905 14446 14895 11819 5420 15724 40

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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 160

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hogan, Elaine Hogan, Ms. Phyllis Hogan, Phyllis Arizona Ethnobotanical Research Association (AERA)

Submission ID 12970 1611 816

Hogan, Thomas Hoge, Carolyn Hoger, Jason Hogg, Jeff Hogue, Adam Hoguet, Deidre Hoilman, Gene Hojo, Gisin Hoke, Beth Hokin, H L Holck, Jill Holcomb, Susan Holcomb, Timothy Holcombe, Gwynne Holcombe, Sara Holden, Nelda Holden, William Holder, Alan Holder, Emma Holdren, Peter Holeman, Heidi Holguin, Stella Holian, Holy Holily Holland, Erin Holland, Flournoy Holland, Martha Holland, Miranda Holland, Ronald Holland-Eytan, Barbara Holle, Andrea Hollenbeck, Tom Holley, Millisa Holliday, Jenny Hollinger, Georgia Hollinger, Randy Hollingshead, Jill Hollis, Linus Hollister, Rebecca

11847 8054 12191 14357 4842 6817 11910 1082 6330 15624 8610 16352 12796 3278 5133 15348 15319 6002 230 8610 9500 14642 6138 13778 6004 10475 10303 2370 6804 14413 8141 3745 14748 4249 5835 2384 600 13664

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 50(886), 62(929), 66(941), 66(942), 66(943), 50(973), 109(1004), 53(1169), 125(1229), 35(SR121), 54(SR249), 61(SR372), 76(SR373), 62(SR375), 62(SR385), 66(SR387), 66(SR388), 78(SR389), 62(SR592), 108(SR710) 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) 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 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) 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) 33(SR109) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 161

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hollister, Richard Holljes, Deborah Holloway, Heather Holloway, Randi Holm, Celia Holm, Gary Holman, Tammi Holmen, Roger Holmes Family, The Holmes Fatooh, Audrey Holmes, Gerald Holmes, Heather Holmes, Howard Holmes, John J. Holmes, Judith Holmes, Judy Holmes, Laura Holmes, Nancy Holmes, Scott Holmes, Suzanne Holmes, Sylvia Holmes, Tara Holmgreen, Jack & Anne Holodnick, Evan Holst, Kristin Holst, R Holstein, George Holstein, Solon Holsten, Lydia Holstine, Janet Holt, Carla Holt, Dave Native Peoples California Holt, James Holt, Jesse Holt, Jesse Holt, Jo Holt, Kathy Holt, Kent Holt, Mary B Holt, Robert Holt, Sarah Holton, Brandon Holtz, Desiree Holtz, Roslyn Holtzclaw, John

Submission ID 10854 16444 3163 3134 108 4100 6918 2512 3220 16221 7149 6414 10367 11967 3335 5956 14819 10192 11980 9842 1675 10986 5858 2478 15820 13563 17592 12126 12604 11384 12494 2758 14124 3926 14661 8869 8052 3765 15182 469 1597 16897 2330 12287 13257

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) 17(SR133), 39(SR134) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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), 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) 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) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 162

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Holzberg, Steve Holzer, Lisa Homes, Holly Homewood, Meyen Homeyer, Yvonne Homma, Sachiko Honawa, ferry Honawa, Jerry Honawa, Jerry Honawa, Jerry Honda, K. Hong, Celeste Hong, Helen Hons, Mary Honyaoma, Todd Honyaoma, Todd Honyaoma, Todd Honyaoma, Todd Hopi Tribe Honyestewa, Esther K Hood, Andrew Hood, James Hood, Mary Hood, Stephen Hood, Stephen Hood, Susan Hoodbhoy, Tanya Hooks, Chandra Hooper, Denise Hooper, Steven Hooper, William Hoover, Jonathan Hope Sullivan, Christine Hope, Cathy Hope, Cinders Hope, John Hopey, Mark Hopkins, Chris Hopkins, David Hopkins, Jane Hopkins, Jeff Hopkins, Jeff Hopkins, Khristine Hopkins, Mary

Submission ID 2421 8586 6769 17148 14765 1886 715 17154 738 17834 1350 5381 16826 12718 17430 16954 16980 17140 17214 14940 14429 239 3484 15600 13570 3482 14 4694 10416 7455 4603 16776 10379 12570 7814 14662 10778 3378 14145 7914 16626 10960 8853

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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 54(SR286), 120(SR777) 120(SR777) 121(SR10), 35(SR121), 63(SR376), 114(SR737), 119(SR769), 119(SR774), 11(SR823) 8(833), 52(960), 109(1006), 120(SR777) 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) 83(SR571), 120(SR1019) 120(SR1019) 120(1036), 83(1189), 120(SR1019) 76(959), 79(1187), 28(SR149), 29(SR150), 8(SR306), 83(SR571) 52(SR242), 78(SR515), 116(SR726) 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) 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(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 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) 45(SR874) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 163

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hopkins, Paul Hopkinson, Pete Hopper, Megan Hopson, David Hoptroff, Mary Hopwood, Brandy Horan, Rayseen Horan, Terrence Horie, Mr. Takashi Horikawa, Chisato Horjus, Maika Hormann, Rebecca Horn, Dane Horn, Jillian Horn, Karen Horn, Maryphyllis Horn, Patricia Horne, Jeff Horne, Lee Horner, John Hornfeld, Gary Horning Ostergaard, Laura Horning, Barbara Horowitz, Mary Horowitz, Michael Horowitz, Roberta Horowitz, Tina Horrigan, Caitlin Horseherder, Nicole To' Nizhoni Ani

Submission ID 13435 7777 12639 15830 14455 5847 9846 8473 1478 1037 5631 3071 16574 15433 4411 3885 9789 8393 15924 9133 4792 3092 14054 9778 13193 3536 14586 12230 16942

Horseherder, Nicole To' Nizhoni Ani

96

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 120(SR777)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 164

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Horst, Lynne Horstman, Brian Horton, Dana Horton, John Horton, Mary Horton, Myra Horton, Rachael Horton, Randa Horwath, Patricia Horwitz, Jonathan Horwitz, Shayna Hoscheidt, Heidi Hosey, Robyn Hosier, Bailey Hoskin, Mary Hossler, Marguerite Hossler, Ryan Hotmer, Greta Hotopp, Kristen Houbolt, Kyla Houck, Alexandra Houck, Holiday Houghton, Justine Houghton, Natalie Houle, Susan Hountingwold Billington, Tonya House, Anita House, Randy House, Sarah Houseknecht, Alice Houseworth, Bradley Houston, Ann Houston, Jer Houston, John Hovey, Russell Howal, Robert Howald, William Howard, Bonnie Howard, Carl Howard, Dana Howard, Howard Howard, Jen Howard, JoAn Howard, Margaret

Submission ID 348 7601 2140 8190 13297 17367 6231 4032 9881 15980 9056 15463 6765 1353 8810 5623 16533 16346 10783 2144 11710 7670 17513 16845 5180 15965 5366 8381 6027 9895 15865 2741 6429 11495 7597 7074 2985 13298 10292 17332 5976 13773 4996 12676

Location of Comments/Responses 54(SR26), 41(SR131) 51(SR177) 35(SR121), 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) 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) 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), 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), 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 165

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Howard, Margaret Howard, Ross Student Mailroom Antioch College Howard, Tammy Howard, Vicki Howatt, Gail Howe, Jana Howe, Judy Howe, Katherine Howe, Kathleen Howe, Matthew Howe, Peter Howe, Russell Howell, Emily Howell, Lakin Howell, Oakley Howell, Richard Howell, Tom Howenstein, David Howenstein, David Howie, Mary Elizabeth Howson, Debra Howze, Russell Howze, Russell Höykinpuro, Anne Hoyt, Cathy Hoyt, Charles Hoyt, Darcy Hrabe, Stacie Hrdina, Delores Hritz, Clifford Hsiao, Elaine Hsu, Bill Huang, Eileen Huang, Lorraine Huang, Oihao Hubatch, Curt Hubbard, Jay Hubbard, Jordan Hubbard, Sandra Hubbard, Shaun Hubbs, Earl Hubbs, Earl and Dorothy Hubbs, Julie

Submission ID 6466 17210

Location of Comments/Responses 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), 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) 57(SR334), 88(SR580) 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

11112 254 6276 7268 15232 13787 10109 7991 5038 17005 10605 2707 4281 4853 10571 13765 14887 3454 268 525 525 4906 11433 5607 15404 10107 8328 10599 13538 10565 2362 16965 17799 1079 9688 3094 5841 282 12283 14708 3381

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 166

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hubbs-Chang, Nancy Huber, Christina Huber, Norene Hubsmith, Shan Hudson, Joyce Hudson, Keitha Hudson, Liz Hudson-DiTraglia, Priya Hueber, Paul Huebner, David Huebner, Julie Huebner, Wendy Hueneke, Edward Huesemann, Michael and Joyce Huesken, Timothy Huey, Gregory Huezo, Daniel Huff, Chris Huff, Chris Huggins, Marie Huggins-Arms, Linda Hughes, Angela Hughes, Angela Hughes, Ann Hughes, Beau Hughes, Brendan Hughes, Charles Hughes, Charmaine Hughes, Christopher Hughes, Chuck Hughes, Dave Hughes, Gail Hughes, Jane Hughes, Jane Hughes, Ken Hughes, Kenneth Hughes, Kimberly Hughes, Leah Hughes, Leigh Hughes, Lilia Hughes, Mary Hughes, Michelle Hughes, Milton Hughes, Nan Hughes, P.J. Hughes, Pamela

Submission ID 5535 5534 4924 12163 7553 8308 15040 3685 11676 2922 16402 16395 15707 396 7612 14653 9051 12252 16174 17095 3739 5828 11915 9489 3509 16804 5676 7822 12456 5677 90 3370 10908 15528 1562 6946 6814 13612 11636 10406 9847 5675 2740 14665 12652 14519

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) 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) 15(SR16), 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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), 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 167

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hughes, Philip Hughes, Richard Hugi, Chuck Hugins, Charles & Phillis Huibregtse, Anne Hukill, Neely Hulette, Denise Huling, Karlynn Hull, Ms. Tina Hull, Toby Hulligan, Rose Hulligan, Rose Hulse, Carol Hultquist, Sharon Hultquist, Sharon Hults, Joanne Humke, Byron Humowiecki, Jennifer Humpal, Lindsay Humphrey, Craig Humphrey, Kelley Humphries, Sandra Hunnewell, Lila Hunnewell, Sarah Hunnicutt, Mary Hunsaker, Kevin Hunt, Carole Hunt, Elizabeth Hunt, Gregory Hunt, Heidi Hunt, James Hunt, Jim Hunt, Jim Hunt, Jonathan Hunt, Kevin Hunt, Linda Hunt, Linda Hunt, Otto Hunt, Ron Hunt, Sarah Hunt, Stephanie Hunt, Susan Hunter, Dennis Hunter, Eva Hunter, Heather Hunter, Jo Ann

Submission ID 14524 10419 13280 6895 11246 9854 11059 196 1581 10706 21 23 15061 6658 16342 12880 4356 3787 4039 6506 15288 8330 1986 9628 14774 12586 7926 8238 6790 9963 5445 11471 3583 10802 15961 8044 16262 16678 12431 12904 9293 2038 10502 5383 10703 13317

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) 33(SR102), 35(SR121), 53(SR257) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 77(SR477), 116(SR725), 120(SR777), 45(SR874) 77(967), 120(SR777) 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) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 168

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hunter, Joan B Hunter, John Hunter, Karen Hunter, Katherine Hunter, Keith Hunter, Rachel Hunter, S hunter, suzanne Hunter, Vance Huntoon, Amber Hunts, Stephen Hurd, Evan Hurd, Gwyn Hurd, Lynne Hurley, Robert Hurschik, Kimberly Hurst, Christian Hurst, Joy Hurston, Ronald Hurt, Terence Husky, Velma Hutchcroft, Dennett Hutcheson, Leigh Hutchins, Leslie Hutchinson, James Hutchinson, Marcia Hutchinson, Reva Hutchinson, Ridley Hutchinson, Terrance Hutchison, Luke Huther, Stephen Hutko, Susan Hutton, Carol Hutton, Joann Huttter, Rosalie Huynh, Ngan Tuyet Hyatt, Gregory Hyde, Carl Hyde, Don Hyde, J Hyde, Jane Hyde, Jane Hyde, Leigh-Anne Hyde, Martha Hyde, Martha Hyde, Susan

Submission ID 16855 15699 8001 1343 13273 17532 11792 12589 5287 16344 15029 13460 12084 5749 16557 9379 9033 6714 11632 16658 758 10113 2652 6791 12040 9812 2492 4430 2862 16871 15881 8543 6544 8109 3972 17789 7402 8039 656 8412 6625 6659 15362 7592 13607 9756

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), 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 114(SR736), 121(SR786), 16(SR825) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 45(SR154), 51(SR182) 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) 114(SR751) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 169

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hyde, Theresa Hyer II, Robert Hynes, Wendy Hypolite, Trish Iaccarino, Ed Iacob, Ruxandra Iacono, Arlene Iannone, Karen Iasiello, Ray Ibreighith, Ali Ice, Greg Ichikawa, Hiroshi Icntfbiodiv, Lindsey Idol, Kimberly Ievins, Janet Ievins, Paul Igaki, Sin Igaki, Sin Igaki, Sin Igaki, Sin Ignaczak, Carol Ihrig, Eileen Iizuka, Keiko Ikue, Uyama Iler, Scott Iles, Alique Illes, Judika Image, Sweet Imahori, Yoko Imamura, Kyoko Iman, Bassam Imler, Gail Inada, Ryoko Inatsugi, Reiko Incognito, Lou Inden, Tara Inden, Tara Indrisano, June

Submission ID 11143 8498 6251 4948 17641 7943 9653 13279 15744 2174 9221 1158 15478 12483 12164 10401 1030 1031 1028 1029 6556 3488 910 1825 13041 4311 9769 7287 1270 1077 15972 4657 1850 1881 7238 8189 8180 3475

Location of Comments/Responses 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), 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), 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), 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), 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), 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 170

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Ingalls, Ted Inganni, Miranda Ingledue, Carolyn Ingraham, Norma Ingram, Glee Ingram, John Ingram, Maia Ingram, Mike Inloes, Roger and Terri Inman, Loran Inniss, Lenore Innocenti, Mark Inoue, Curtis Inoue, Kiyoshi Inoue, Souta Inskeep, James Insley, Brooke Interntional, Amar Interpreter, Mr. Christopher Ionita, Dana Irby, Steven Ireland, Chaparral Ireland, CK "Chaperral" Ireland, David Irion, Lindsay Irohlich, Corri IronEyes, Charlie Irons, William Irwin, Lynn Isaacs, Elaine Isaacs, Pat & Jim Isaiah A. Rubin, Enid Iselt, suzanne Isen, Alicia Ishaya, Rodasi Ishibashi, Kazuko Ishii, Jeanine Ishii, Maki Ishii, Ms. kazue Ishii, Ms. kazue

Submission ID 13278 13284 12325 12270 2685 11657 15534 16773 1900 4309 3412 7220 4587 1818 908 2837 4778 8231 1437 6837 6689 797 17539 2372 2691 17242 14152 2463 6036 6500 16578 497 6799 11424 4903 887 15149 1087 1689 1690

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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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), 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 171

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Ishii, Ms. kazue Ishikawa, Emiko Ishikawa, Keiichi Ishikawa, Kyoko Ishisaka, Joanne Isis, Dawn Iskow, Eli Itaru, Mr. Ota Ito, Masami Ito, Nabi Ito, Ryuichi Itou, Akiko Ivanoff, R. Ivanoff, R. Iversen, Jeri Iverson, Karla Ives, Sarah Iyer, Sheela S. Izlar, Kay Izumi, Daisuke Izumiya, Yoshinobu Izutsu, Chiharu Izzo, Martha J.Michael Tilley, 12 Fels Ave. Jaber, David Jaccard, Wendy Jack, Cary Jack, Leslie Jackman, Jubilee Jackson Maki, Cynthia Jackson, Amy Jackson, Carol Jackson, Clay Jackson, Eleanor Jackson, James & Susan

Submission ID 1691 909 1166 961 13649 6517 13977 1755 900 919 5394 1843 1126 1127 13367 9452 9618 6391 11823 1838 1308 1253 4213 3982 186 13723 8654 11993 8490 1865 3772 7625 2519 14119 8879

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), 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), 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), 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) 8(SR141), 54(SR249) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR586) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 172

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Jackson, Kathy Jackson, Lisa Jackson, Margaret Jackson, Tina and Tom Jackson, Tom Jacob, Heidi Jacob, John

Submission ID 9852 6207 14029 5451 3112 12531 650

Jacobs, Jacobs Jacobs, Leigh Jacobs, Maggie Jacobs, S. Christopher Jacobs, Shannon Jacobsen, Heidi Jacobsen, Kelcey Jacobson, Chani Jacobson, Don Jacobucci, Robert Jacoby, Sharon Jacques, Sally Jacquet, Colette Jaeger, Teresa Jaffe, Jon Jaffe, Tamara Jagerson, Sheryl Jaggers, Steve Jahr, Marc Jakaitis, Vilia Jamerson, Janet James, Cameron James, David James, Gordon James, Karen James, Krista James, Laura James, Marvin James, Megan James, Mrs. Cynthia James, Sharon James, Sue James, Tony Jameson, Daniel

12137 15476 4004 11716 5422 8181 5267 11166 16437 2559 8307 12006 13910 13680 2057 8131 5570 5663 11822 6161 10770 10686 12453 492 15912 5186 7538 17582 8636 1427 17106 2190 9532 8531

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) 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) 54(SR26) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 114(SR746) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 173

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Jamieson, Alexandra Jamieson, Ruth Janda, Karen Jane, du Brin Janey, Cornelia Janik, Nina Janik, Nina Janikowski, Branden Janover, Sally Janowitz-Price, Beverly Janson-Smith, Toby Janusko, Robert Janzen, Gayle Jaqua, Connie Jarboe, JoLynn Jarger, Joanna Jarr, Tiffany Jarvis, Barbara Jasin, Alvidas Jasinski, Chris Jasoni, Marilyn Jasper, Alan Jasper, Jack Jasper, Jessica Jaszczerski, Carla Jayakumar, Prerana Jaymes, Shari Jaynes, Scott Jean, Audrey Jean, Catherynne Jeanette, Kruse-Baron Jech, Arlene Jeffcoat, Caroal Jeffereys, Katelon Jeffers, Angela Jeffers, Christine Jefferson, Kao Jeffery, Duane Jeffery, Patricia Jeffrey, Michele Jeffrey, Terry Jeffries, Emma Jeffries, Lynne Jeffries, Michael Jehle-Oldoerp, Christine Jelic, Jovan

Submission ID 12657 4873 11532 5625 13117 9804 16236 10801 3803 15504 16717 7138 10196 8171 11686 17369 9928 9372 8160 12934 4540 4909 15090 9982 16870 7243 13140 5071 17601 13624 5891 11805 9725 4391 2982 6341 17887 194 6959 3852 6160 986 7477 16869 4276 13177

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) 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) 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) 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) 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), 88(SR580), 120(SR777), 56(SR920) 35(SR121), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 174

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Jellison, Nancy Jelm, June Jenkins, Daniel Jenkins, Jacqueline Jenkins, Jon Jenkins, Kyen Jenkins, Lindsay Jenkins, Mary Elin Jenkins, Pam Jenkins, Steve Jenkins, Susan Jenkins, William O Jenks, Jean Jennings, Colleen Jennings, Judith Jennings, Pamela Jensen, Cynthia Jensen, Donna Jensen, Jill Jensen, Jonah Jensen, Justine Jensen, Lisa Jensen, Matthew Jensen, Nancy Jensen, Paul Jensen, Sue Jenuleson, Suzanne Jernigan, Ms. Kasey Jerolaman, Judy Jervis, Oliver Jeska, Renee Jessica, Pijoan Jessler, Darynne Jessler, Darynne Jessop, Frances Jeudevine, Hazel Jeune, Gail Jeunelot, Kathleen Jewell, Richard Jewell, Wendy Jewett, Mike Jewett, Mr. Kevin Jimenez, Leticia Jimenez, Ms. Sky Jin, Shirley

Submission ID 11398 3305 4728 1909 8806 12656 4343 717 5507 2908 3026 10028 14370 4533 3308 4158 12489 8952 5273 7110 2131 6887 7327 14588 6275 15291 10248 1560 8283 14784 12260 6794 9509 16759 9989 3870 3588 4722 10872 3823 13263 1497 17798 1559 16156

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) 33(SR103), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 103(SR213) 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) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 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 - 175

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Jirotka, Marina Jirus, Julie Jo-Anne, Jo-Anne Joannou, Jr., Benjamin Jobe, Cindie Jobe, Laura Jocelyn, Morgan Jod, R Jod, R. Jodka, Paul Jodz, Theresa Joe, Reza Joergenson, Ann Johansen, Joanne Johanson, Wynn John, Nancy Johns, Jackie Johns, Kathryn Johns, Wahleah Black Mesa Coalition

Submission ID 8972 14917 7922 12507 11619 15173 10691 17129 17207 2138 10170 5988 13010 12648 1951 7063 9679 9097 17091

Johnsen, Joy Johnson, Adam Johnson, Amber Johnson, Amos Johnson, Amos F. Johnson, Amos F.

7684 13946 13160 865 733 833

Johnson, Amos F.

782

Johnson, Andrea Johnson, Ann Johnson, Ann Johnson, Anne Johnson, Bettemae Johnson, Bill Johnson, Bonnie

8329 6778 16495 3304 7837 12271 131

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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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(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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 57(1108), 54(SR290), 81(SR555) 35(SR244), 97(SR341), 97(SR344), 81(SR555), 88(SR586) 125(1222), 126(1225), 53(SR13), 26(SR148), 8(SR245), 54(SR305), 107(SR353), 83(SR572), 83(SR575), 94(SR660), 94(SR664), 104(SR699), 118(SR766), 115(SR767), 109(SR812), 45(SR874) 7(876), 109(1007), 26(SR148), 54(SR249), 54(SR287), 107(SR353), 69(SR414), 83(SR572), 102(SR663), 94(SR664), 104(SR699), 116(SR725), 114(SR748), 107(SR811), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 54(SR26), 120(SR777), 45(SR874)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 176

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Johnson, Bruce Johnson, Caleb Hopi Tribal Council Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Calvin Dine' for the C-Aquifer

Submission ID 12497 866 17231 16942

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 119(SR769) 76(SR450), 96(SR681), 121(SR800), 121(SR801), 47(SR1077) 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) 120(SR777) 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 121(1025), 121(1243), 35(SR244), 121(SR781) 35(SR121), 121(SR781) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Johnson, Calvin Dine' for the C-Aquifer Johnson, Calvin Dine' for the C-Aquifer

96 17091

Johnson, Candace G Johnson, Carla Johnson, Carla Johnson, Carol Johnson, Carol Johnson, Charlie Johnson, Charlie Johnson, Charlie Johnson, Christine Johnson, Curtis Johnson, David H. Global Owl Project Johnson, Debra Johnson, Elaine Johnson, Elsa Johnson, Elsa Johnson, Eric

3614 7203 15389 11981 14923 9124 14239 15290 15902 17078 247 16084 12065 582 580 11299

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 177

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Johnson, Frank Johnson, Grace Johnson, Gregory Johnson, Helen Johnson, Ingrid Johnson, James Johnson, Janet Johnson, Janice Johnson, Jennifer Johnson, Joann Johnson, Jonna Johnson, Judith Johnson, Julie Johnson, Karen Johnson, Karolina Johnson, Kathy Johnson, Kenneth Johnson, Kim Johnson, Kim Johnson, Linda Johnson, Linda Johnson, Linda Johnson, Lizabeth Johnson, Loree Johnson, M. Ellen Johnson, Marshall Johnson, Marshall To'Nizhoni Ani

Submission ID 12161 17323 4982 14684 10590 13143 10435 17137 17277 5926 231 5215 13799 11587 4237 13524 14574 14491 14805 17014 5903 17836 2777 2881 2653 17549 17091

Johnson, Michelle Johnson, Myralyn Johnson, Myriah Johnson, Nancy Johnson, Nancy Johnson, Nefestiti

3382 639 634 5165 3703 17676

Johnson, Patricia A. Johnson, PJ Johnson, Raymond

1979 5297 13439

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR201), 102(SR358), 105(SR703), 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) 120(SR777) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 116(SR757) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 32(SR126), 69(SR412) 78(SR498) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 178

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Johnson, Rebecca Johnson, Renee Johnson, Rex Johnson, Robert Johnson, Sandi Johnson, Sarah Johnson, Sexangary Johnson, Sharon Johnson, Stuart Johnson, Sufi Johnson, Tai Johnson, Tim Johnson, Tim Johnson, Vicki Johnson, William Johnson-Martin, Lynn Johnsonv, Michael Johnston, Alison Johnston, Bethany Johnston, Carol Johnston, Dale Johnston, Denver Johnston, Mark Johnston, Molly Johnston, Ms. Lyla Johnston, Pamela Johnston, Steve Johnston, Steve Johnstone, Penelope Joiner, Monica Joinville, Joan Jolley, Alison Jolley, Carolyn Jolton, Eva Jonas, Pauline Jonat, Philip Jones, Anna Jones, Barbara Jones, Barbara Jones, Barbara Jones, Barbara Jones, Beverly Jones, Brian Jones, Carla

Submission ID 9991 15790 16747 15730 5774 4926 5998 13746 4775 8086 288 13269 3607 5161 2392 11569 5698 5692 9271 6698 9446 14915 15948 17287 1582 16043 4014 15199 5474 14187 8442 10563 14910 8366 3179 11827 15805 1716 1553 2381 14856 8918 16470 2950

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) 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) 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) 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) 45(SR874) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 179

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Jones, Catherine Jones, Catherine Jones, Celena Jones, Celeste Jones, Charles Jones, Connie Jones, Curtis Jones, Daniel and Maureen Jones, Darold Jones, David jones, david h Jones, Derek B Jones, Diane Jones, Dick Jones, EJ Jones, Emily Jones, Feather Jones, Gina Jones, Hali Jones, Hedy Jones, Hollis Jones, Irene M Jones, J Lisa Jones, Jeff Jones, Jeffrey Jones, Jennifer, Dr. Mary L. Zupanc, M.D. Jones, Joe Jones, Karen Jones, Karen Jones, Karen Jones, Karen Jones, Kerry Jones, Kyle

Submission ID 11298 4995 849 850 8777 10742 9301 2820 13526 12366 16474 318 15928 13432 17087 10179 155 11230 427 12088 9252 8034 14769 6940 2308 5648 2970 16995 14064 17480 17437 10178 425

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121) 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) 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) 116(SR725), 114(SR754) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 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) 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), 51(SR177), 88(SR580), 120(SR777) 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) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 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) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Jones, Leslie Jones, Lupita Jones, Margaret Jones, Margaret Jones, Margaret Jones, Maria

14704 818 17432 16986 17454 14277

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 180

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Jones, Mary Jones, Michael Jones, Nancy Jones, Neil Jones, Nelson Jones, Patricia Jones, Ruth Jones, Ryan Jones, Scott Jones, Stephen & Debby Jones, Stewart Jones, Teresa Jones, Travis Jones, Wahleah Black Mesa Water Coalition

Submission ID 2137 5693 5185 13116 11431 12078 4890 11501 16751 14431 17096 4822 12528 16942

Jones, Warren G Jones, Zachary Jones-Giampalo, Mary Joos, Sandra Jordan, Adran Jordan, Dorothy Jordan, Elle Jordan, Jennifer Jordan, Jessica Jordan, Kristine Jordan, Nicole Jordan, Sterling Jordan, Thomas Jorgensen, Carlyn Jorgensen, James H Joseph Weinstein, Adela Joseph, Jay & Evelyn Joseph, Nancy

5206 14824 16396 8518 9160 5092 2448 4549 4270 9052 12390 15854 3584 11646 12189 499 12612 8199

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) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR244), 120(SR777), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 181

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Joseph, Parente Josephs, Paul Joshevama, .Jr, Valgean Joshevama, Elgean Joshevama, Jr., Valjean Joshevanma, Valgean Joslin, Aaron Jost, Aimee Jouthas, Lori Joy, Darrel Joy, Helene Joyal, Lou Ann Joyce, Emilie Joyce, J Joyce, Jeany Joyce, Julie Joyce, Mary Anne Joyce, William Ju, Andrea Juarez, Luis Juchartz, Andrea Juck, Chris Judah, Marilyn Judd, Gabriel Judd, Schuyler Judelson, Mark Judge, Melissa Judge, Sabrina Judith Carter, Judith Judson, Gilbert and Blair Judy Schilling, Judy Schilling Judy, Elaine Juhan, Nicole Juilfs, Glenna Juilfs, Glenna Julia, Lopez DeVinaspre Julian, Arlette Julianto, Deborah Julianto, Deborah Julio, Paz Juneau, Michelle

Submission ID 999 9722 17154 735 17208 715 6458 4790 8143 543 6045 1296 10361 15673 7995 14590 2031 17345 2502 17061 5142 14417 4224 6916 15444 13453 13631 7133 2020 3873 10550 6623 12820 8962 15530 5502 16456 1263 1262 17889 7414

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 120(SR777) 125(1213), 35(SR121), 114(SR724) 35(SR121), 44(SR138), 77(SR704) 54(SR286), 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) 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) 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), 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) 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) 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) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 182

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Jungblut, Erika

Submission ID 17501

Juracka, Robert Jurash, Andrew jurkovic, mike Jurovic, Caroline Jurriaans, Kim Jenna Justen, Leila Justice, William and Marie Justus, Robin Juszczak, Cecelia K Gretsch, K K, L K, O K. (unreadable), E. (unreadable) K. (unreadable), R. (unreadable) Kaas, Jason Kaczmarczyk, Mary B. Kadane, Edward Kadian, Angela Kadowaki, Doko Kadrmas, Tim Kadrmas, Tim Kady, Roy Kady, Roy Kaeser, Anne Kafford, Mysti

8720 13936 5378 9066 17322 6199 153 12919 16484 11028 1635 10574 17400 17634 7315 10534 10501 5201 1255 7263 15052 1368 1369 2855 17727

Kafka, Nicole Kafoed, Kenneth Kahl, Robert Kahn, Joshua Kahn, Patricia Kahre, Mark Kaisem, Clarence Kaisem, Clarence Kaisem, Clarence Kaisem, Clarence Kaiser, Harvey Kajitani, Shoji

8356 10081 13400 10175 4275 1989 16974 17429 17423 17184 12561 1187

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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 79(SR535), 79(SR536) 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) 76(SR451) 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), 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), 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) 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) 79(SR544) 79(SR544) 126(SR409) 126(SR409), 79(SR567) 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 - 183

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Kakiba-Russell, Karyn Kale, Rebecca Kalk, Miriam Kalka, Steven Kalman, Eliot Kalman, Eliot Kalman, Janet Kalman, Janet Kaltenborn, Arthur Kalusa, Anna Katrina Kamae, Mika Kamata, Aiko Kamath, Tara Kames, Jospeh & Ms. Mary Pesez-Kames Kamikura, Mr. Toru Kamin, Andrew and Alicia Kaminski, Nancy Kaminsky, Keri Kammer, Karen Kammerer, Matthew Kamzelski, Debra Kanaan, Gene Kanal, Shobhana Kandel, Cheryl Kandel, Joan Kane, Laura Kane, Linda Kane, Michael Kane, Michael Kane, Robert Kaneoka, Terri Kang, Una Kano, Hiroko Kanoff, Alexandra Kantar, David Kaori, Kotaki Kapcia, Ruth Kaplan, Audrey Kaplan, Caren Kaplan, Eliot Kaplan, Jennifer

Submission ID 14694 8499 11337 3875 17001 17439 2197 14364 12768 15823 1877 998 3811 5395 1482 3677 16413 13643 3349 9678 713 6441 3441 15248 15630 13543 7379 13889 5927 7613 3613 11232 267 5493 11234 1692 7192 12555 4160 10663 7872

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) 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 53(SR260), 102(SR358), 120(SR777) 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) 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) 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) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 184

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Kaplan, Karen Kaplan, Phil & Susie Kaplan, Seth Kaplan, Stephen Dept Of Psychology Kaplan, Steven Kaplan, Ted and Trina Kappleman, Hanson Kapraun, Dustin Kapsalis, Terri Karafokas, Angela Karakashian, Jane Karanatsanis, Alec

Submission ID 8151 12428 12513 8504 13520 12715 2452 8697 8704 15557 6221 17726

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) 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), 126(SR421), 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 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) 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) 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), 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)

Karcher, Julia Karen, Kaplan Kargol, Dave Karlen, Roy and Eva Karlowski, Tom Karlson, Susan Karlsson Good, Elizabeth Karlsson, Kent Karlsson, Krister Karlsson, Marie Karlsson, Marie Karney, Dan Karnofsky, Bill Karp, Michael Karp, Michael Karras, Giulietta Karstens, Rose Karwatowski, Erik Kasdan, Gloria Kasdorf, Katherine Kaselausks, Patricia Kashak, Jeffrey A. Kasman, Deborah Kaspar, Patricia Kasper, Joan Kass, Caroline Kass, David Kassar, Chris Kasserman, Katherine Kastern, William

14327 447 3835 11712 7090 1295 79 14369 1348 80 352 13434 14540 7354 15102 14676 3337 4156 5843 8278 3594 17797 5519 457 12737 4282 3496 14786 11162 5345

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 185

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Kastner, Margean Kasturi, Tejaswi Kasunic, Denny Kasuya, Yukimasa Katagi, Tracey

Submission ID 2401 1111 6477 5499 17694

Katchen, Lee Katenay, Bahe Katerinsky, Bess Kathy Allen, Bruce Katin-Borland, Bruce Kato, Chiharu Kato, Chisato Kato, Masashi Kato, Megumi Kato, Mr. Takaaki Katsuhiro, Maehama Katsura, Deushi Katsuya, Unknown Katumi, K.Suzuki Katz, Demian Katz, Judith Katz, Ralph Katz, Shari Katzin, Tam Kaub, Steve Kaufer, George Kauffman, Don Kauffman, Kim Kauffman, Kim Kauffman, Kimberly A. Kauffman, Lori Kauffman, Maryann Kaufman, Marc B. Kaufman, Murray Kaufman, Nancy Kaufman, Richard

8632 1069 9334 479 13390 1712 290 1101 228 1479 963 1074 917 1316 11962 1942 9701 4971 7654 4839 5235 8649 2458 16674 17645 8929 14200 9538 15333 2606 8407

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 14(SR307), 76(SR454), 120(SR777), 45(SR874) 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), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 186

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Kaufmann, Manfred Kaulukukui, Fabian Kavanah, George Kavanaugh, Michael Kawakura, Hayato Kay, J. Antioch College Kay, Kenneth Kay, Sue Kayser, Gabrielle Kazel, Carolyn Kazzykawakami, Kazzy Keady, Monica Kealhofer, Robert Keane, Elizabeth Keane, Penelope Kearney, Cynthia and Matt Kearney, Frank Kearney, Mary Ellen Kearns, Caledonia Keaten, Patricia Keating-Glonek, Nannette Keating-Secular, Karen Keats, Adam Keck, Carol Kee, Christee Kee, Christopher Keefe, Sean Keegan, Marilyn Keegstra, Yuri Keeler, Meghan Keeler, Meghan Keenan, Shirley D Keene, Garwin Keeney, Sally Keeton, Dewey Kegerise, Claire Kehl, Dave Kehoe, Adam Kehoe, Tim Keim, Krista Keiser, Agnes Keiser, John L. Keitelman, Mary

Submission ID 1254 13373 3963 6257 146 17334 12558 12908 6737 13802 1080 2256 10779 4834 12248 2738 2573 12658 15690 11442 167 11296 14919 16566 10239 10186 12659 4232 5356 654 1786 4133 8775 7437 12939 8885 7372 13307 4165 12237 5949 13130 214

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 127(SR367) 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), 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) 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) 50(935), 76(958), 5(SR38), 50(SR163), 9(SR272), 57(SR334), 88(SR586), 120(SR777), 47(SR1077) 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) 52(SR241)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 187

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Keiter, Carol Keiter, Lindsay Keith, Andrew Keith, Ann Keithley, Penelope Kelin, Zackeree

Submission ID 2877 3831 4069 4571 10753 17756

Kell, Jonathan Kellaway, Jean Keller, Doug Keller, Jeffery Keller, Marianna and Arthur Kellerman, Shirley Kelley, Brooks Kelley, Dan Kelley, Guy Kelley, Maureen Kelley, Miss Meara Kelley, Tico Kellogg, Nathan Kellogg, Nathan Kelly, Ann Kelly, Anthony Kelly, Barbara Kelly, Barbara kelly, bev Kelly, Carol Kelly, Dylan Kelly, Erin Kelly, Jeanne Kelly, Joanne Kelly, Lisa Kelly, Matthew Kelly, Michael Kelly, Nancy Kelly, Ralph Kelly, Robert Kelly, Rosemary Kelly, Sandy Kelly, Shay Kelly, Simon Kelly, Sondra Kelly, Theresa

3190 12905 9569 13186 13919 16758 15595 4633 7998 12937 1491 7867 8808 2088 2933 3095 10467 11378 10366 16157 3041 5932 5560 8098 14484 6328 15508 7399 3836 952 13084 406 7857 2464 13146 4208

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) 76(962), 16(SR7), 108(SR218), 52(SR242), 97(SR348), 126(SR409), 126(SR419), 126(SR420), 126(SR421), 102(SR459), 76(SR474), 78(SR527), 79(SR544), 79(SR550), 79(SR551), 88(SR607), 88(SR617), 76(SR713) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 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), 78(SR490) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 188

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Kelman, Bernice Kelner, Robert Kelsey-Taber, Melissa Kelsheimer, Nicole Kelso, Michael & Lisa Kelso, Randy Kemarly, Keith Kemble, Greg Kemmochi, Makiko Kemp, Brian Kemp, Kathleen Kemp, Margaret Kemp, Marie Kemper, Heather Kemper, Jennifer Kendall, Brian Kendall, Elaine Kendall, Michael kendall, nathan Kendig, Joanna Kendler, Ady Kendrick, Cindy Kennedy Casto, Marita Kennedy Castro, Marita Kennedy, Alison Kennedy, Arthur Kennedy, Bruce Kennedy, Judy Kennedy, Karen Kennedy, Karen Kennedy, Rachel Kennedy, S Kennedy, Sandra Kennedy-Castro, Marita Kennelly, Chris Kenney, Diane Kenney, Mahina Kenney, Martha Kenny, Betty Kenny, Emily Kensinger, David Kent, Ed Kent, James

Submission ID 4566 3006 4552 11720 8452 9152 3389 9906 1146 13555 8597 12932 11437 4601 9036 5411 2222 10490 16599 13566 8834 11605 16994 17484 11280 363 3120 14283 14037 14957 9512 511 12280 1547 13846 8698 17254 9681 281 16629 12801 7224 5544

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) 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) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777) 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) 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 - 189

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Kent, Linda Kenyon, Lucy Kephart, Penny Kepner, Susan Kerata, Jan Kercell, Laurie Kerchevall, Charlene Kermode, Christa Kern, Alicia Kernan, Alvin Kernohan, Aileen Kerns, Loretta Kerstein, Harvey Kertman, Matthew Kerwin, Kathleen Kerwin, Susan Kesarah, Eletheah Keske, Janis Kesman, Alexandra Kessler, Brian Kesting, Erik B. Ketchum, Tad Ketels, Shaw Kettlewood, Maggie Keulig, Mr. Steffen Kevin, Collins Kevin, Maya Kevis, Rhiannon Kevit, Kathryn Key, Deborah Keybl, Elizabeth Keyes, Josh Keyes, Tow-bee Keys, Sharon Keystone, Grady Khajeh-Noori, Jeri Khalid, Omar Khalsa, Dr. Mha Atma S. Khalsa, Dr. Santokh Singh Khalsa, Kirtan-Singh Khalsa, Mha Atma S Khalsa, Suraj Kaur Khanlian, Richard

Submission ID 10096 6417 9794 12029 658 15512 7773 4198 5650 15005 8847 12867 12972 10776 2354 11815 2094 9031 1742 15011 1329 12312 8821 11254 1397 15257 10641 954 15855 2383 4925 12317 17043 5263 16834 6648 15188 17036 17620 10762 279 17620 16105

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) 44(SR138), 108(SR216), 105(SR703), 107(SR708), 120(SR777) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 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) 35(SR121), 97(SR341) 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) 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) 79(971) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 190

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Khanlian, Richard C. and Ann Khatibi, Mehrdad

Submission ID 7231 613

Khodlova, Nada Khoury, Valentina Kiaer, Alita Kida, Ms. Sanae Kidd, Jeremiah Kidd, Jeremiah & Katy Kidd, Katy Kidder, Alice E. Kiddoo, Stephen Kido, Yukiko Kidwell, Amy Kidwell, Amy Kidwell, Amy Kidwell, Mary Kiefer, Paula Kielarowski, Henry E Kiepe, Andrea Kies, Julie Kiesling, Jonathan Kiffmann, Suzanne Kiger, Mary Ann Kihl, Juliet Kilbourne, Willa Kilbrade, Tara Kilcomons, Patrick Kiley, Judy Kilgallon, Kathy Kilian, Melanie Killgore, John Killian, Brian Killian, Paul Killian, Terrence

1639 3557 12441 1669 15013 12335 12340 9122 8178 147 1093 1094 1095 16479 3689 1640 439 9184 11586 7896 15956 1808 3620 17054 5075 8140 10263 15179 15877 5804 4338 8275

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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), 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), 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) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 102(SR186), 97(SR333), 105(SR703), 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 191

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Killion, Nicole Kilpatrick, Norma Kim, Christina Kim, Jennifer Kim, Miho Kimball, Steven Kimber, Greg Kimble, Dawn Kimmich, Paula Kimmich, William Kincaid, Carolyn Kincaid, Peggy Kincanon, Lynn Kinch, Paul Kindland, Suzanne Kindland, Suzanne Kindley, Charles King, Audrey King, Christine King, Denise King, Janet King, Jesse King, Judith King, Julie King, Mrs. Janet King, Patty king, raye King, Roger King, Ronna King, Sharon King, Theresa King, Wendy E. King-Ellerby, Monica Kingery, Cathy Kingery, Joel Kingsbury, Whitney Kingsford-Smith, Glacier Kingsford-Smith, Stephen Kingsley, Elizabeth Kinnell, Sterling Kinnell, Sterling Kinney, Becky Kinney, Natalie Kinsel, Ron

Submission ID 13737 13644 9037 2509 1438 3719 11447 14053 15308 15488 11284 12052 12512 3498 11119 16264 15221 2686 8915 12138 93 15993 13861 10477 1381 2475 8353 7609 6261 2755 7378 8303 1242 8480 11840 2244 13888 13890 3150 476 476 8957 8882 225

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) 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) 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) 120(SR777) 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) 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), 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) 41(SR131), 120(SR777), 52(SR914) 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), 70(SR435), 77(SR481)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 192

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Kinsel, Ronald Kinsey, Graeme Kinslinger, Howard Kinslow, Janis Kinslow, Kellyanne Kinsman, James Kinter, Andrew Kintz, Francis Kinz, Nema Kinzinger, David Kiphart-Cross, Christine Kipping, Susan Kirby, Alison Kirby, Justin Kirch, Jan Kirchoff, A Kiredjian, Suzanne Kirk Smallman, Shirley Kirk, Amanda Kirk, Karisha kirk, kristin Kirk, Laurie Kirk, Lorena Kirkbride, Sepia Kirkhoff, M.D., Mary Kirkpatrick, Ann Kirkpatrick, Ann Kirkpatrick, Ann Kirkwood, Sylvia Kirsch, Marilyn Kirschenbaum, Mickey Kirschenheiter, Alicia Kirschenheuter, Phyllis Kirstern, Tracey Kirtley-Hill, Amy Kishi, Shigemitsu KIshimoto, Takemi Kishpaugh, Charles Kisiel, Hanna Kisken, Bob Kisner, Elizabeth

Submission ID 1613 3184 2326 2011 1752 12321 12871 1317 2338 6274 8886 14036 9021 16861 3279 12686 15576 4376 6121 13174 198 9473 2514 7972 2714 17471 16982 16953 10482 7105 3524 2636 9232 15569 2440 971 976 7151 10293 7223 12997

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) 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) 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) 120(SR777) 114(SR724), 120(SR777) 116(SR725), 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 193

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Kitanouma, Kazue Kitanouma, Kazue Kitanouma, Kazue Kitchen, David Kitchen, Francine Kitchen, Sharon Kitchens, Elizabeth Kite, Karen Kitlas, Shannon Kitral, Annie Kittel, Barbara Kitterman, Lenna Kittner, Cary Kizzie, Susan Kladzyk, Rene Klar, David Klassen-Landis, Talitha Klaus, Robert Klausewitz, Kay Kleber, Keith Klec, Dave Kleehammer, Michelle Klees, Klehr, Mandy Kleier, Jeremy Klein, Barry Klein, Bill Klein, Hans Klein, Heidi Klein, Jason Klein, Jem Klein, Jonathan Klein, Jonathan Klein, Karin Klein, L Klein, Leslie Klein, Lois Klein, Megan Klein, Stuart & Jeanne Kleindl, Gerhard Klein-Hegge, Sandy

Submission ID 1740 914 1739 377 5594 378 12386 14162 5289 7751 7768 3306 3159 5080 17327 13033 8912 6295 5096 14578 4262 15174 5157 5251 1114 3286 11474 11116 2593 2290 8317 5037 2302 15280 15784 15219 11328 2851 15721 14015 14177

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) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 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), 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 194

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Kleinrichert, Jennifer Kleinsasser, Arlen Kleinsasser, Arlen Kleinsasser, Arlen Kleinsmith, Cathy Kleiser, Jane Klemetson, Terri Kleshinski, Frank X. Kleymeyer, Joshua Kliegman, Sarah Klien, Jane Kliese, Kathleen Klimchak, Amre Kline, Cheryl Kline, James Kline, Jann Kline, Nancy Kline, Scott Klingel, Jon T. Klinger, Garry Klinker, Leo Klinkert, Jessica Klinzman, Liz Klish, Mark Klock, William Kloetzer, Ulla Klokkevold, Emily Klopp, Basey Klopp, Basey Klosterman, Peter Klostermeyer, Aaron Klotz, Pat Kluba, Corri Klubertanz, James Klucsor, Carmen Kluepfel, Rosemary Kluever, Bryan Klump, Marcus Klure, Chris Kluttz, Diane Knackstedt, Lori Knapp, Chuck Knapp, John Knauss, Robert Kneedler, Chris Kneedler, Margaret Kneidl, Joshua

Submission ID 5074 14130 17561 15435 14585 11053 16010 3606 6551 10628 7838 4959 11783 13472 13482 9287 5300 13110 15021 16336 7790 4960 15574 6361 13377 1625 3237 10789 16650 16391 11309 9608 13075 4800 11089 6270 16585 9602 15831 2472 7503 16281 12068 5232 13927 8207 3515

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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 195

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Kneiper, Sandra Kner, Carol Knesl, Johannes Kniaz, Wally Knickerbocker, Dana Knickerbocker, Deanna Knies, Beth Knight, Candice Knight, Michelle Knight, Victoria Knighton, Paula Knippenberg, Candy Knoblauch, Lisa Knoll, Carolyn Knoll, Kristie Knoll Farms Knopf, Jille Knott Sr, Thomas Knott, Mary Ellen Knotter, Frida Knotts, Trina Knowles, Jerry Knowles, Portia Knowlton, Kim Knox, August Knox, Janet Knox, John Knox, Linda Knudsen, Lisa knudsen, wenke Knudson, Cynthia Knudson, Cynthia Knutsen, Karl Knutson, Carol Kobayashi, Minami Kobi, Madlen Kobi, Madlen Kobierski, Andrew Koch, Chris Koch, Liz Koch, Shane Kocher, Kerry Kochikar, Ambrish Kochis, Jim

Submission ID 11362 4988 7904 16334 5516 12690 11465 8887 9730 14715 10268 12914 1823 9967 17667 2265 16191 3457 9180 9973 14321 5972 3537 7985 7368 5969 3376 15848 16055 5922 15236 6269 13702 1223 1221 1222 13941 3372 9132 13963 9873 9585 6818

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) 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) 15(SR16), 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) 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) 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), 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 - 196

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Kochmeister, Jan Kochmeister, Sharisa Kocsis, Rachel Koczela, Ruth Koehl, Lisa Koehn, Shelley Koelble, Sandra Koenig, David Koenig, Holly Koenig, Janet Kofler, Roger Kohan, Shayna Kohl, Steve and Sybil Kohler, Bruce E. Kohler, John Kohler, John Kohler, Lakota Kohler, Lisa Kohlman, Alyssa Kohlmeyer, Jan Kohm, Andrew Kohn, Ari Kohn, Steve Kohn-Lau, Annette Kohring, Clarence Kois, Ginny Koivisto, Ellen Kojima, Mrs. Fumiko Kokabi, Kasra Kokeyama, Kousuke Koko, Marie Kolarek, Frank Kolarik, John Kolaski, Anna Kolb, Marcia Kolb, Tom and Linda Kolber, Regina Kolcinski, David Kollen, David Komar, Kevin Komar, Richard Kominowski, Anne Kondis, Brigitte Kondo, Yuko Kondreck, Janine

Submission ID 15209 15226 5647 3212 15916 16359 3512 11334 12282 4564 4105 3000 11397 17663 7165 16708 335 14079 13558 4761 7619 9945 2306 12410 3538 9715 12284 1474 7458 1813 15738 14195 7464 2809 16857 2280 12020 5821 15521 3985 2282 14397 9164 1810 12523

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) 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) 114(SR768) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 197

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Konds, Taiki Kong, Min Konigsberg, Paula Konishi, Miss Kazumi Konrad, Karen Kontise, DudeMan Konzelman, Daniel Kook, Jannine Koontz, Rachel Koontz, Rachel Koopmans, Matthijs Kopczynski, Anna Kopel, Jon Kopf, Sasha Kopich, Greg Kopicki, Susan Koplik, Elaine Koplik, Mark Kopp, Helen Kopp, Michael Kopp, Zachary Kops, Nancy Kordell, Vicki L. Koric, Katrina Kormendy, Marie Kornbluth, Sarah Kornfeind, Paul Kornmann, Christopher Korrell, Sharon Korsmo, Chris Kortlever, Ken Koschmeder, Teresa Kosek, Shirley Koselke, Nancy Kosem, Tim Kosharek, Todd Koski, Marci Koslik, David Koslowsy, Melissa Kosmicki, Stephen Kossman, Nina Koteen, Dana Koteles, Patty Kotler, Arnold Kotte, Merry

Submission ID 17863 17761 9798 1758 2225 2083 13065 6397 1499 1643 13630 7945 5613 16743 9110 11908 11014 11043 11742 16108 8676 4392 9019 8803 5060 14099 4536 9373 10690 7716 6142 14212 14342 4656 11673 9950 16372 4725 12422 5181 7139 9240 3402 1744 10052

Location of Comments/Responses 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 88(1041), 52(1146) 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) 69(SR415) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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 - 198

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Kotte, Merry Brook Kotte, Robyn Koudijs, Gijs Koulish, Laura Kouvel, Alex Kovacs, Michael T. Kovacsi, Jennifer Kovarik, Dina Kowal, Joanne Kowal, Steven Kowalchuk, Helen Kowalchuk, Stephen Kowalczyk, John Kozak, Allison Kozaka, Josef Kozart, Dr. Michael Kozdron, Allison Kozisek, Summer Kozlowski, David Kozlowski, David Kozlowski, Thaddeus Kozuh, Laura Kozura, Jack Kraemer, Mark Kraft, Kevin kraft, natalie Krahn, Jay Krakauskas, Theresa Krakowski, Pamela Kramar, Paul Kramer, John Kramer, Kyle Kramer, Laura Kramer, Lauren Kramer, Nancy Krampe, Leigh Krampetz, Bruce Kranda, Vanessa Kraner, Dan Krantz, Jaclyn Krasney, Zoe Krasny, Eric Krass, Sharon Kraus, Andrea Kraus, Jr., Gary Kraus, Michael

Submission ID 15203 12236 7152 12569 15529 11626 273 9814 15801 10602 12150 6745 10625 16774 6541 1576 12766 3605 4324 14884 6354 9430 5632 8454 5455 14065 7863 1938 10791 13161 3042 10790 9346 14451 12924 10640 13437 15375 4796 5898 4801 9234 11381 16968 5987 12153

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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 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) 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), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 199

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Krause, Brad Krause, David Krause, Henry Krause, Karen Kraushar, Rae Kraushar, Rae Krauss, Sabrina Krausz, Lisa Krauszer, Jak Krauthamer, Sara Kravette, Stephen Kravitz, Jennifer Krawisz, Bruce Kraynak, Thomas Krebbs, Karen Krebs, Kathleen Kreemer, Constance Kreide, Caroline Kreider, Nancy Kreisberg, Jennifer Kremer, Erica Kremer, Julie Kremer, Kirsten Kremith, Jean Kreml, Liz Kreml, Susan A Krenke, Melissa Kreutter, Katie Kriebel, Tina Krieger, D Krieger, Diane Krieger, Penny Kriegler, Bertha Kriesel, Leslie Kriger, Melissa Krihak, Jonathan Krikorian, Linnell Krimen, Marc Kriner, Wanda Kring, Juli Kristianson, Hayden Kristina, Isabella Kristjanson, Tannis Krivach, Jeanine Kroczek, Slawomir Kroehler, Corbett

Submission ID 17896 6109 6285 14632 143 143 13051 4218 4268 4573 6880 12355 10876 8150 15448 9683 8644 15267 8624 14280 16815 12201 11321 6981 15119 13922 8718 3057 12267 9283 15322 5671 5239 5270 6781 3917 12354 6322 6687 5880 10529 11282 8585 11759 13767 2918

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 41(SR131), 52(SR242), 54(SR285), 76(SR452), 76(SR454), 120(SR777), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 200

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Kroener, Caitlin Kroening, Dubear Kronenberger, Kathy Lou Kroon, Mary Krouskop, Aimee Kruckenberg, Kamaria

Submission ID 14936 12450 11920 13955 14857 17714

Krueger, Anaiah Krueger, Fred and Betty Kruhly, Grant Krull, Marcia Krupka, Jamie Krupnick, Wendy Krupp, Laurie Krupp, Paula Kruschwitz, Vicki Kruse, Ann Kruse, Dale Kruse, Nikki Kryger, Mike Krymkowski, Jill Krymkowski, Jill Krymkowski, Jill Krymkowski, Jill Krymkowski, Jill Krzesinsk, Tricia Ksander, Gary Ku, Henry Kuba, Alfredo Kubli, Larry Kubo, Janice Kubrick, Vivian Kucera, Cynthia Kuchino, Emi Kuchino, Emi Kuchnia, M. Kuegeler, Carol Kuehl, Carrie Kuehl, Scott Kuehn, David Kuehn, Randy

3371 5920 4740 12156 15819 5691 9392 13059 6333 5720 6565 14619 11074 1178 1189 1180 1181 1186 13183 5795 7910 12213 13153 12433 7529 10213 1256 1257 11426 3911 5023 4577 4096 442

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) 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) 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), 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), 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) 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) 120(SR777)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 201

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Kuehn, Randy Kuelper, Carol Kugler, Peter Kuhlman, Lewis Kuhn, Nat Kuhn, RoseMarie Kuhn, Susan Kuhnel Ph.D., Dr. Vit LFR Environmental Management & Consulting Engineering

Submission ID 442 16087 11721 9020 11994 11032 2554 16921

Kuhta, Lark Kuiperij, Kate Kujawa, Tom Kulber, Heathor Kuligowski, Rebecca Kulis, Susan Kumpf, Sharon Kundrat, Don Kunin, Joab Kunkler, Karen Kunkli, Zoltan Kuno, Yuh Kuntar, Monika Kuntz, Laurie Kunze, Dr. Volkmar Kunze, Volkmar the Karl May Foundation Kuoppakangas, Petteri Kupke, Mark Kurath, Joan Kurcab, Kim Kurcab, Kimberly A. Kurie, Edith Kurihara, Goro Kuris, Gabriel

12142 6472 11270 8723 8049 2175 11102 13550 10999 4359 14841 327 17364 8707 17479 19 1237 7689 15437 14561 2971 2272 1184 17739

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) 53(1064), 53(1065), 53(1066), 54(1176), 51(SR184), 51(SR188), 51(SR189), 51(SR190), 52(SR243), 53(SR256), 53(SR261), 53(SR262), 53(SR263), 51(SR270), 54(SR286), 54(SR291), 54(SR292), 54(SR293), 54(SR294), 54(SR295), 54(SR296), 54(SR297), 54(SR298) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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(SR580) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 45(SR874) 8(SR141), 8(SR491), 120(SR777) 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) 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), 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)

Kurobe, Chie Kurobe, Chie Kurobe, Chie

1894 1895 1896

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 202

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Kurobe, Hiroko Kuroda, Mr. RYo Kurt, Sandra Kurtz, Christian Kurtz, Norma Kurtzhall, James Kurtzhall, James Kurtzhall, Teresa Kurtzhall, Teresa Kus, Robert Kusner, Josie Kusnetz, Nicholas Kutcher, Celia Kutcher, Gary Kuthcer, Celia Kutil, James Kutil, James Kutnyak, Cary Kuwanwisiwma, Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Leigh J. Kuzniar, Jason Kwiatkowski, John Kwiecinski, Vickie Kwo, Kenneth Kwon, Donna Kyle, Kevin Kyser, Larry & Kathy L. (unreadable), V. (unreadable) La Ching, Yani La Ford, Kenneth La Mar, Marie La Rose, Sydney La Spada, Erica La Zarr, Mailie Labadie, Kevin Labao, Cynthia LaBrosse, Gina Lacer, Vanessa Lacey, Dave

Submission ID 969 1842 4999 2732 11535 62 1298 34 1299 9834 11387 8361 7888 638 16676 17126 17205 4095 734 17150 7714 3174 13287 4784 8264 4918 8558 17624 13957 286 787 9960 9843 8023 3253 7093 5026 6773 5462

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), 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 35(SR17), 3(SR33), 7(SR46), 45(SR100), 38(SR152), 49(SR161) 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) 68(953), 114(1015), 35(SR121), 44(SR138), 76(SR456), 114(SR730), 114(SR735), 109(SR812), 11(SR823) 125(1210), 76(SR379), 64(SR381), 76(SR465), 78(SR509), 17(SR826) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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), 35(SR121) 44(SR138), 9(SR272) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 203

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Lacey, David Lackey, Mark Lacoangeli, Jason LaCognata, Dale LaCognata, Dale LaDeur, Penny Laedtke, Cody Laesser, Gerti Laffey, John Kevin Laflam, Jon LaFleur, Danielle LaFoley, Michael LaFord, Kenneth LaForest, Delaware Woman (Carol) Lagno, Patricia LaGreca, Brandon Lahaie, Ann Marie Lai, Myrissa Laib, Christa Lainhart, Edwin Lair, Avis Laird, Amy Laird, Glenda Laird, Michael Laity-Snyder, Natasha & Mark Lake, Ated Lake, Randall Laker Merritt, Janet Laki, Ms. Kizzen LaKind, Joshua Lakota-Ryan, Maggie Lally, Mary LaLonde, Dave Lam, Alexandra LaMar, Chris Lamar, Steven Lamb, Bob Lamb, Jonathan Lamb, R Terence Lambarski, Nadine Lambert, Donna (Khadija) Lambert, Mary Lamberty, Douglas Lambusta, Ruth

Submission ID 14179 517 9136 15583 15846 4194 17146 11090 14793 8515 11438 8985 9800 7771 3168 11889 10949 10404 13444 12133 15438 12249 16195 12899 13561 17221 13457 12318 1521 8817 5389 14711 2327 5324 14087 11989 5213 12866 15146 2120 12315 7310 16589 12207

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 41(SR131), 105(SR702), 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), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 70(SR435) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 204

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Lamm, Kenneth R Lamont, Juliet Lamontagne, Cynthia Lamontagne, Paul Lampe, Ruth Lampert, Barbara Lampke, Karen Lamplugh, Rick Lampton, Danny Lamun, Laura Lancaster, Beth Lancaster, James Lancaster, Joel Lance, Randall Land, Joseph Land, Susan Landa, Alana Landa, Alana Landau, Jessica Landen, Eric Lander, Susan Landers, CSG, Sister Ann Landner, Sofie Landor-Yama, Jonah Landress, Judy Landry, Rachael Lands, Lark Landskroner, Ron Landwehr, Thorsten & Mary Lane, Amanda Lane, Amanda Lane, Barb and Gary Lane, Charles Lane, Damon Lane, Don Lane, Don Lane, Emily Lane, Gary Lane, Kari Lane, Marcia

Submission ID 17050 16859 8682 13900 3590 11603 5503 9150 3011 1805 4393 12426 4044 9548 1790 5743 293 332 15507 5911 11165 17031 10856 16923 13132 15527 5496 10082 4917 11865 466 2523 15109 7675 5589 14969 17339 6411 17778 1622

Location of Comments/Responses 65(938), 114(1014), 35(SR121), 52(SR240), 126(SR409), 45(SR874) 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), 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) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 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) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 205

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Lane, Marcia Lane, Marcia Lane, Michael Lane, Stephanie Lane, Susan Lane, Zachary Lanesey, Annmarie Laney, Alaric Lang, C. Lang, John Lang, Karen Lang, Warren Langdon, Abby Langdon, Jason Langdon, Lea Lange, Barbara Lange, Jan Lange, Marlena Langelier, Charles Langelier, Regis Langevin, Dori Langevin, Nancy Langford, Jean Langheld, Jennifer Langille, Therese Langley, erin Langley, Jane Langley, Lois Langlois, Gerard Langlois, Miss Diane Langreck, Lillia Langston, Heidi Langston, Jeannie Lanham, Lou Lanigan, Adrienne Lannin, Sue Lanning, Lorne Lansa, David Lansbury, Mark Lansdale, Nolan Lanser, Christian Lanteigne, Louisette Lantz, L. Lanza, Fabio

Submission ID 934 6430 2067 16259 14906 10859 7348 14516 10618 4330 11219 8354 8546 11170 12651 6454 4774 15074 2948 2947 325 4947 3511 11300 14143 205 8144 12900 3969 1785 5241 4283 5218 6571 5175 9358 5274 1207 13255 12205 16521 8902 12753 13991

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) 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), 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) 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 206

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Lapides, Jeff LaPlaca, Nancy LaPlaca, Nancy LaPlante, Chris Laplante, Sharron Lee Lapsal, Zeyney Largay, John Lariz, Mondy Larke, Charmian Larkin, Gloria Larkin, June Larkin, Laura Larkins, Dennis Larock, Susan LaRose, Jesse LaRotonda, Chiara Laroussa, Robert LaRoussa, Sharon Larrain, Casey Larrain, Casey Larro, Stephanie Larsen, Alice Larsen, JoAnne Larsen, Karen Larsen, Karla Larsen, Martha Larsen, Natascha Larsen, Rebecca Larsen, Sven Larson, Christine Larson, Gary Larson, Gayle Larson, Gil Larson, Jane Larson, Janet Larson, Jennifer Larson, Joanna Larson, Michael Larson, Monty Larson, Paul Larson, R A Larsson, Annika Larsson, Olivia LaRue, Shari Lasaga, David Lasage, Clearysage

Submission ID 1901 4463 16701 6672 13372 17534 15725 16228 5377 3676 334 6596 5616 10614 3661 7249 8852 11017 7927 177 10176 11361 3443 5486 3714 5155 13253 4843 14014 2872 16586 10647 11320 12794 9521 14203 11036 5572 6581 7970 16813 63 10617 9858 12962 7265

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), 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) 54(SR288), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 207

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Lasahn, Jacqueline LaSalle, Coralie LÃsch, Sandro Black Mesa Project Lash, Cal Lasher, Gregory Laskowski, Eloise Lasky, Steve Laslie, Mary Lassila, Jean Lassiter and Family, Robert Lassiter, Laura Lassiter, Mark Lassites, Cynthia Laster, Tammi Lastiri, Bob Latimer, Enrique Latin, Bernadette Latsch, Steve Lattanzi, Francis Lauber Doherty, Diane L.

Submission ID 7666 11382 1632 15513 5536 14913 11579 2111 11878 12776 14529 3272 17070 8905 2149 15705 10271 12092 10678 137

Lauby, Adrienne Laudadio, Heather Lauder, Leona Laufer, Liina Laufer, Scott Laughter, Derek Laughtland, Josh Laura, Ed Lauran, Emilie Lauran, Michael Laurie, Annie Laurie, Annie Laurie, Jeanne Laursen, Inger Marie Lauver, Thomas Laux, David Lauxmann, Timothy LaVaccare, Sue Lavayectios, Mardell LaVelle, Liselotte Lavender, Deane Lavender, Shell Lavrin, Andrew Law, Carolyn

31 9001 6796 9539 3616 860 7117 4228 2053 7106 11185 15766 6241 2173 5361 7181 14320 3951 17057 14964 4820 8935 8814 12132

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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) 54(SR285) 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) 53(SR255), 52(SR546), 79(SR567) 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) 102(989), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 102(SR358), 88(SR599), 5(SR674), 104(SR697), 121(SR783), 109(SR812), 45(SR874) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 208

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter LaWent, Maureen Lawler, Michael Lawler, Mike Lawlor, Michael Lawrence, Lee Lawrence, Rhett Lawrence, Sandi Lawrence, Suzy Lawrus, Nicholas Laws, Anna Laws, Brennen Laws, Miki Lawson, Noreen Lawson, Rachel Lawson, Susan Lawton, Lawton Lawton, Richard Lax, jill Lay, Christina Lay, Skipper Layden, Patricia Layefsky, Jonny Layton, Charles Laz, Louis Lazar, Krisztina Lazarus, Eric Lazarus, Judy Lazarus, Judy Lazarus, Lory Lazarus, Max Lazzarini, Howard Le Beau, Cheryl Le Rose, Tisha C Leach, Lynda Leaf, Autumn Leaf, Elizabeth Leaf, Joan Leahy, Dennis Leake, Marjorie Leamon, Jodi Learmann, Prisca Learn, Mary Leary, Joanna Leathers, Jonathon Leaverton, Dan Leavitt, David LeBlanc, Cobbie

Submission ID 4279 5740 5822 2897 3857 15190 3561 3341 10523 13967 9833 428 7505 13899 2132 5344 4141 7345 4827 15619 9672 7281 8948 16502 4199 16364 342 342 17816 2925 5653 5051 16906 10118 12851 2466 2405 6393 6653 9492 13164 4030 4661 6372 9629 16624 3471

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) 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), 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777) 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) 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) 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 - 209

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Leblanc, Elsa LeBlanc, Inis LeBlanc, Lawrence LeBlanc, Rena Leccese, Geralyn Lechner, Robert Lechtanski, Cheryl Lechuga Disalvo, Erika Leck, Christopher LeClaire, Renee Lecours, Carolina L'Ecuyer, Sara Ledbetter, William

Submission ID 2454 4306 1621 11871 3432 4546 14371 13512 6941 17398 2367 2102 17693

Ledden, Iris Ledesma, Audrey Ledesma, Evelyn Ledgerwood, Lynn Ledo, Suzanne Lee Lewis, Carla Lee, Beverly Lee, Brian Lee, Deanna Lee, Dr. Anthony Dine Hataalii Association

4060 5179 4563 9584 6001 8797 13681 2909 12115 16927

Lee, Dylan Lee, Ellen Lee, Grace K.

8726 8966 17564

Lee, Jay Lee, Jennifer Lee, John Lee, Johnny Lee, Justin Ross Lee, Linda Lee, Lindsey N. Lee, Mark Lee, Min-Soo Lee, Peter Lee, Sandra Lee, Sharon

8737 12992 11122 17869 17646 11824 17144 14121 17860 5187 4777 2625

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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) 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) 76(961), 16(SR7), 108(SR218), 58(SR356), 126(SR419), 126(SR420), 76(SR459), 76(SR464), 78(SR508), 79(SR544), 88(SR607), 88(SR608), 76(SR713), 108(SR714), 121(SR795), 88(SR828) 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) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 210

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Lee, Susan Lee, Susan Lee, Tanya Lee, Todd Lee, Travis Lee, Virginia Lee, Vivien Leech, Sharon Leeder, Michael Leeds, Frank Leeds, Kleo Leeds, Robert W Leefeldt, Hilda Lee-Park, Grace Leezer, Kate Leezer, Katee Lefavour, Nicole LeFebvre, Vivian Leffler, Daniel Leffler, Kay Lefkowitz, Lisa Lefler, Susan Lefler, Terri Lefort, Michelle Leger, Nikki Legrand, Patricia Legus, Christopher Lehman, Eugene Lehman, Julie Lehman-Budd, Cynthia Lehmann, Catherine Lehmann, Erika Lehmann, Janine Leiden, Charles Leider, Charles Leigh, Danea Leighton, Daniel Leighton, Elayne Leighton, Milbrey Leiken, Ron Leimkuhler, Eric Leino, Helen Leirer, Olivia Leirer, Olivia Leite, Elizabeth

Submission ID 6191 10929 790 2987 17774 8024 9345 9260 11464 5678 9259 2630 7403 9877 3248 16483 3533 7358 13718 12748 8961 15718 7147 12204 545 12359 13339 11034 15894 4162 6003 16170 8500 15897 12225 13577 8974 11681 8751 4572 12689 6268 17112 17192 10630

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 76(SR458) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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 - 211

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Leith, Carolyn Leithmann, Juliesther Leitner, Clark Leitsch, Brian Lela, Zilth Leland, David Lelayumpteur, Marvell Lellouche, Mary Lemanski, Kathryn LeMay, Karen LeMay, Mysteri Lembeck, Helen Lemmon, Jill Lemmons, Tiffany Lemoin, Lisa Lemoine, Gano Lemons, David Lemus, Fernando Leneman, Cecile Lenihan, Tracy Lennard, Mary Lenox, Jane Lentz, Barry Leo, Dominick & Geraldine Leo, Lori Leof, Linda Leon, Christina A. Leonard, Betsy Leonard, Cory Leonard, Daniela Leonard, Jerry Leonard, John Leonard, Larry Leonard, Richard Leonard, Valerie Leonardi, Valmaree Leonardo, teresa Leos, Stephanie Lepain, Andrea Lepiane, Darrel Leppala, Maarit Leppanen, Dennis Leppla, Joan Lepzelter, Carey Lequient, Magali Lerch, Donovan

Submission ID 6618 6702 8293 1934 17573 15263 17053 2273 6728 15828 9536 7480 4477 2449 10519 10227 6084 2245 8673 9755 6136 11970 11846 7672 15712 11518 17598 4627 5573 9759 14391 3654 13950 3508 5709 8431 15988 5531 14074 11831 8866 3492 4943 5380 16408 9893

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), 114(SR730) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 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 - 212

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Lerch, Ginnie Lerch, Ginnie Lerman, Susannah Lesher, Mark Lesher, Mark LeShure, Matthew Leslie, F. Richard Leslie, Leslie Leslie, Leslie & Jacques Leslie, Richard Leslie, Williams Lessard, Stephanie Lessels, Linda Lester, Summer Lesyk, Jack Letavis, Sherry Letendre, Michael Letseoma, Paula Lettiere, John Leung, Emily Leutner, Elizabeth Lev, Marjorie Levasseur, Virginia Levens, Dane Leventer, Jerry Levermann, Linda Leverone, Paul LeVieux, Edward Levin, Brian Levin, Jon Levin, Ross Levine, Carlisle Levine, Harriet Levine, Michele Levine, Nancy Levine, Steven G Levin-O'Leary, Faye Levitin, Michael Levitt, Robert Levow, Ruth Levreault, Michael Levy, Morton Lew, Crystal Lewey, Julie Lewis, Anne Lewis, Babette

Submission ID 6755 15033 14687 5227 15584 1000 4669 5789 8732 14377 17572 14705 11410 9808 10314 13080 15762 17076 8237 15878 8262 12850 5680 9565 11249 4747 4673 10129 7784 12350 16731 13707 14640 9735 14576 16664 16665 5414 3827 16378 3182 4516 10883 9076 12394 11666

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), 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) 114(SR746) 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) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 213

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Lewis, Bethe Lewis, Cheryl Lewis, Constance Gratop Lewis, Donna Lewis, Ellen Lewis, Jeremy Lewis, Karen Lewis, Kristin Lewis, Kristin Lewis, Leslee Lewis, Leslie Lewis, Lori Rose Lewis, Louise Lewis, Marv Lewis, Mary Lewis, Mary Lewis, Owen Lewis, Pixie Lewis, Raymond Lewis, Red Lewis, Rick Lewis, Sherry Lewis, Timothy Lewis, Victoria Lewis-Dougherty, Cathy Lewis-Murphy, Zack Leyrer, Bill Li, Bing Li, Michelle Lian, Linda Libby, Dominic Libman, Laura Lich, Stephen Lichorowicz, Barbara Licht, Suzanne Lichtman, Alan Liddle, Bill Liddle, Thomas Lidell, Amber Lidestri, Barbara Lieber, Susan Lieberman, Julie Lyonn Lieberman-Brill, Joan Liebermann, Jerry Lien, David Lien, David

Submission ID 5336 3310 7969 9457 10393 15385 7920 8435 15661 3211 10805 14120 4507 315 4709 9485 12501 3138 11558 6999 12971 4167 10592 6168 13574 2019 9733 17787 7555 10439 9286 1355 14580 7392 17606 7968 14208 10256 17302 9336 13745 376 3773 7228 12015 16682

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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), 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 214

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Lien, Erik Lieu, Allen Lieurance, Franceliaz Liewehr, David Life has Meaning, Ms. Lifson, Robert Liggon, Cinda Lightcap, Jim and Norma Lightner, Stephanie Lightning, Jane Lightstone, Karin Likens, Jessica Likovich, Andrea Lilley, Susan Lilligren, Sandra Lillow, Linda Lilly, Harold Dean Lilly, Terry Lima, Isabel Lima, Kristie Lima, Paul Limmer, Abby Limon, Gladys Limvere, Bear Lin, Charles Lin, David Lin, Francis Lin, Jennie

Submission ID 8658 17918 10299 8785 1765 3910 16633 8016 9931 13831 9932 3841 8758 6656 10881 5899 14016 2321 10578 7432 7753 11008 17882 10731 17814 6390 17877 17679

Linarez, Karen Linarez, Karen Lincoln, Owusu Abraham Lincoln, Shelley Lind, Dr. Roger and Joanne Lind, Dr. Roger and Joanne Lind, Eleanor Lind, Eric Lind, Karen Lind, Karen Lind, Lisa Lind, Neeta Lind, Robert Linda, Griffith Lindall, LaVonne Lindberg, Keri Lindbergh, Wendy Lindell, Pamela

2786 14664 15472 9010 1526 1527 7026 6075 11422 17638 16683 7617 11202 13 10135 9013 10319 2285

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 77(1183) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 45(SR100) 45(SR100) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 215

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Linden, Susan Linder, Jeannine Linders, Edward Lindh, Ruth Lindley, Michael Lindner, Lorin Lindqvist, Mia Lindsay, Linda Lindsay, Patricia Lindsay, R. Kevin Lindsey, John Lindsey, Judi Lindstrom-Junker, Christine Linell, Thomas Linford, Larry Ling, Martin Linger, Doug Link, Andrea Link, David Link, Debra Link, Tracey Linkes, John Linn, Andrew Linn, Diane Linn, Meredith Linnerooth, Steve Linse, Jen Linsley, Stephen Linss, Irmgard Liolis, Donna & Christy Lion-Storm, Nancy Liotta, Liana Lipari, Philip Lipman, Ethan Lipofsky, Judith Lipovec, Rachel Lippe, Kenneth Lippert, Amy Lippin, Arnold Lippincott, Patricia Lippman, Alicia Lippman, Susan Liptak, Ryan Lisa, Carrie Lisa, Nunag Liscia, Laurent Lish, Chris

Submission ID 4739 6780 3587 15791 8652 15998 75 9220 2905 8203 14056 15907 2459 4743 570 8900 15870 2043 7956 10168 6821 10114 9162 8963 12375 14735 5052 16540 13382 14275 14944 12001 3597 13250 14376 2311 11608 5449 6169 9143 10162 4238 10926 11749 17888 10430 1949

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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 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), 105(SR702) 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) 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) 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) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 216

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Lisiewski, Kitrina Liss, Gary Liss, Kathy Liss, Mary Lister, S. Everett Lister, Tricia Litke, Alex Litoff, Jacob Litt, Lisa Little, Avis Little, Bill Little, Eko Little, Erika Little, Erika Little, James Little, Mark Little, Mark Little, Mary Little, Ryan Littleton, Matt Littrell, Linda Litwiller, Dan Litwin, Edie Litwin, Julie Litwin, Peter Litz, Cameo Liu, Jessica Liu, Lisa Livermore, Mike Livesay, Marisa Livingston, D Livingston, Nicole Livingstone, Eileen LiVolsi, Elizabeth Lizotte, Geoff Llanas, Cassie Llovet, Teddy Lloyd, A. Lloyd, Emily Lloyd, Kathy Lloyd, Lloyd Lloyd, Nancy Lluch, Javier Lober, Carly

Submission ID 16135 12779 4153 10968 17072 17066 6598 5126 15645 13190 13249 15379 594 15126 15180 16999 16999 2528 15330 622 6018 8623 8216 14550 6290 8927 4849 2963 5461 9433 11820 8119 2139 3037 6204 16904 2532 5704 3340 16677 5432 11589 7102 3065

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), 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), 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) 53(1069), 53(SR257), 88(SR609) 53(1069), 53(SR257), 88(SR609) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 41(SR131), 54(SR287), 126(SR409), 83(SR559), 83(SR574), 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) 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) 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 - 217

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Loberg, Neville Lobrose, Joli Loch, Thomas Lochner, Jan Lock, Anita Locke, Carol Locke, David Locke, David Locke, Mike Locke, Sandra Lockhart, Susan Locklear, Clyde Alan Locklear, Heather Lockridge, Donna Lockridge, Kathryn Lockwood, Ellen Lodge, Amy Lodico, Anna Loe, Tommy Loeben, Greg Loeper, Mark Loera, Joe Loffreda, Daniele Loftus, Lucy Loftus, Marvel Logan, Alice Logan, C Logan, Ed Logan, Laura Logan, T Logsdon, Jimi Loh, Melody Loh, Val Lohr, Diane Lohse, Pamela Loiola, Lori Loken, Deborah Lomaqhuahu-Yazzie, Joyce Lombard, Richard Lombardo, Linda London, Brian Long, Brian Long, Gregory Curtis Long, J. Gregory Long, Jeannie Long, Jeffrey

Submission ID 10727 4323 3781 11512 10928 12929 12938 12925 3289 2078 4321 16541 11937 6926 6153 11025 3707 8744 2603 9849 1139 2780 7046 5798 14925 4808 15655 14351 6752 5716 16287 17780 13007 17650 11113 15840 5387 13847 15841 8762 12763 2923 839 775 6822 2808

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), 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), 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) 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) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 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) 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) 61(1113), 35(SR121), 54(SR249), 76(SR379), 76(SR463) 35(SR121), 77(SR374), 76(SR462), 76(SR482), 76(SR483) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 218

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Long, Joe Long, Kathy Long, Kit Long, Maggie Long, Paul Long, T.J. Long, Vanessa Long, Walter Longhi, Betty Longoria, Wanda Longstreth, Susan Looby, Judy Loomis, Beverly Loomis, James & Virpi Loomis, Laura LoParrino, Camille Lopez, Anthony Guy Lopez, Ashley Lopez, Cristina Lopez, Gina Lopez, Henry G. Lopez, Janet Lopez, June Lopez, Kathy Lopez, Kathy Lopez, Liana Lopez, Mary Lopez, Rick Lopez, Valarie Lopez, Vincent Lopez, Willie Lopez-Pruitt, Nicole Lopuck, Mary Lorah, Randi Loram, Deeya Loranger, Linda Lorca, Pamela Lorch, Jason Lord, Don Lore, Joseph Lorence, Veronica Lorensen, Ron Lorenz, D. Scott Lorenz, Paula

Submission ID 1964 9942 8424 5939 12480 16972 1206 4164 4035 4372 7919 11264 838 9050 813 11388 16085 17260 11210 11056 17803 5010 16389 185 173 8934 13020 12859 14026 13876 13260 13869 10001 8667 4712 2243 5238 10347 2320 4377 2246 6364 2204 160

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) 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) 29(954), 65(SR79), 35(SR121), 44(SR138), 51(SR187), 114(SR739) 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), 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) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 64(SR380) 10(SR57) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 219

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Loreto, Sergio Loria, Steven Lorimer, Paula Loring, Hillary Loring, Keith Lorraine, Nelson Lorrig, Mike Losasso, Wendi LosCalzo, Susan Lösch, Sandro www.blackmesaproject.de Lotz, Elizabeth Lotz, Shelley Loucks, Robert Loudin, Frank and Janet Loughery, Gina Loughery, Kristen Louie, Jennifer Lourie, Ann Love, Charlie Love, Mike Love, Valerie Love, Virginia Lovegren, Sven Lovejoy, Ann Lovejoy, Bill Lovejoy, Bill Lovejoy, Nancy S Lovelee, Andy Loveless, Michael Lovitch, Derek Lovoy, Melissa Low, Richard Low, Richard Lowe, Beth Lowe, Karen Lowe, kim Lowe, Nancy Lowe, Nancy Lowe, Pamela Lowe, Sandra Lowe, Stacey Lowe, Valerie Lowell, John Lowen, Steven Löwenstein, Michael Lowinger, Leslie

Submission ID 11140 3465 4083 6046 14559 17236 4152 14966 2130 35 14326 3387 8093 11853 2798 12167 8788 10993 8410 2968 1500 5195 13196 14623 10583 14787 14823 16037 10399 5882 10065 7586 7508 11515 8730 5601 346 346 49 2505 3233 7338 9738 10664 339 10287

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), 126(SR409), 70(SR435) 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(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 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) 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) 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) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 220

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Lowit, Gwen Doddy Loyd, Debbie Lozano, Luis Lozano, Mark Lu, Carole Lu, May Lubarsky, Sandra Lucas, Claudia Lucas, Jeremy Lucas, Jeremy Lucas, Laura Lucas, Steven Lucchese, Barbara Lucia, Sheila Lucius, Marcia Luck, Pup Luck, Wendy Lucke, Tracy Luckring, Eve Lucky, Laura Luczkowiak, Christopher Ludden, Chelo Ludeman, Mark Ludtke, Terri Ludwig, Jessica Luebbers, P.E., Michael Luehrmann, Paul Luerken, Walt Lufkin, Ann Lufkin, Thomas Lugii, Christa INCOMINDIOS Luhn, Robert Luhn, Robert Luhrs, Jeffrey Lui, Dr A H Lui, Dr. A. H. Lui, Lydia Lujan, Giancarlo Lujan, Ruben R Lukacs, Theresa Lukasiewicz, Elane Luke, Keth Lukon, Shelly Lum, June Luminoso, Mary

Submission ID 6357 11121 11992 7029 9369 6952 395 13544 8601 15325 16261 15702 10909 15617 15860 4114 6811 1637 12733 12250 2456 5093 3021 4293 2537 2965 449 3779 10312 16429 17318 351 17202 10272 43 1698 14185 8286 7866 7717 2193 10931 4788 12682 14387

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), 51(SR184) 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) 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 102(SR365), 110(SR716), 120(SR777) 54(SR285), 77(SR478), 120(SR777) 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 221

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Lumpkin, Kirk Lumpkins, Amanda Luna, Douglas Luna, Katherine Lund, Denise Lund, Sierra Lund, Sierra Lunde, Janet Lundgren, Erick Lundquist, Elizabeth Lundsten, Myrel Lundy, Linda Lundy, Tracie Lunsford, Thomas Luntz, Susan Lupenski, Stephanie Lupo, Jack Lurty, Susan Lusk, Janice Lutz, Don Lutz, Florence Lutz, Richard Lux, Brian Luzenske, Dave Lvgaia, Weatherford Lyall, Jay Lydon, Dotti Lydon, Gerry Lyerly, Linda Lykins, Mary Lyle, Katherine Lyman, Joan Lyman, Judy Lyman, Stephan Lynch, Ashley Lynch, Brian Lynch, Dennis Lynch, Dennis Lynch, Frances Lynch, Jane Lynch, Jeffrey Lynch, Jimmy Lynch, Justin Lynch, Laura Lynch, Laura Lynch, Margaret

Submission ID 9645 14043 13750 5728 6884 13119 14296 8363 9127 255 3411 14348 2618 5628 8341 11179 11596 3670 5349 2349 10172 7550 9632 4895 15012 12806 2849 13215 5874 12840 2050 6238 10140 5784 13135 8055 8310 16480 11203 11516 2402 10582 4299 3452 2859 11538

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) 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) 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) 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) 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 - 222

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Lynch, Marlene Lynch, Mary Lynch, Mike Lynch, Robert Lynn, Adele Lynn, Andy Lynn, David Lynn, Pat Lyon, James Lyons, Beverly Lyons, Christopher Lyons, James Lyons, Jonathan Lyons, Judith Lyons, Katie Lyons, Larry Lyons, Timothy Lyou, Marie Lytle, Denise Lytle, Denise Lytle, Heather Sponsel M Kaun, Alexandra

Submission ID 302 13530 15347 9023 9891 6990 11898 8464 7851 2552 5172 16057 6906 2333 14760 4646 5799 13454 5529 16824 6427 668

M, Charles M, Stephan M. (unreadable), Justin Maassarani, Tarek Mabry, George Mac Allister, Carol Mac Arthur, June Mac Bean, William MacAdams, John Macaluso, Kelly Macaux, Robert MacCallum, Dr. Crawford Macchia, Joanne Maccilli Smith, Toni MacCluskie, Kathryn MacDonald, Barbara Macdonald, BC MacDonald, Eleanore MacDonald, Emily MacDonald, Jody

17099 10680 17321 14416 12921 7801 14102 8332 10738 9883 13573 1681 5620 17017 4013 13188 11715 1130 6777 12194

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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), 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 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), 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 - 223

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter MacDonald, Kelsey MacDonald, Michael MacDonald, Stephanie MacDougall, Barbara MacDougall, Caroline MacDougall, Mike MacDowell, David Mace, Elisa MacEnery, Joan MacFarland, Charlotte MacFarlane, Bruce Macfarlane, Bruce Macferrin, S. Tiffany Macgowan, Piero MacGregor, Ian MacGuire, Mike Machado, Julie Machado, Kelly Macias, Nancy Maciocia, May Macisco, Elizabeth Mack, Rande Mackanic, Janice MacKay, Catherine Macke, John & Katie Mackechney, Kathy MacKenzie, Meghan MacKenzie, Noelle MacKenzie, Randy Mackey, Robin Macklem Jr, Gordon F Mackowski, Frank Mackura, Patricia MacLachlan, Elissa MacLennan, Jamie MacMerchys, Susinn MacMillan-Lunak, Kristin MacMullan, Robert Macnab, Shea Macomber, Jessica MacVittie, Mela Madden, Hope Madden, Susan Maddison, C J Maddox, Charles Maddox, Jason

Submission ID 17311 3997 6494 6042 3541 14773 12645 11154 7119 6443 6627 15376 4016 10932 14229 7134 16158 10917 3798 1847 2385 8266 3596 5259 5859 2629 14965 9053 3222 12206 4817 15137 11001 11670 9825 5482 9211 8925 6877 4258 8703 9374 9159 14465 9810 14166

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) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 224

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Maddox, Kim Maddox, Kim Mades, Natalie Madias, Michael Madigan, Noreen Madis, Eric Madison, Mary-Carol Maes, Raina Magaldi, Jessica Magee, P MaGee, Peggy Magers, Pamela Maggard, McKenzie Maggetti, Kelley Maggied, Maggied Maggio, Toni Maggs, Robert Maghuson, William

Submission ID 9956 16520 6186 10278 3900 13422 9802 9908 9410 16070 7297 12735 9724 12976 5557 12481 10692 17737

Magiasis, Dimitrios Magill, Robert Magnan, Florence Magness, Brian Magoffin, Patricia Maguire, J Maguire, Joel Maguire, Robin Mah, Andrea Mah, Elizabeth Mahaffey, Shana Mahammar, Joakim Mahannah, Sarah Mahar, Suki Mahdavi, Omid Maher, Michael Mahkee, Wells Mahler, Catherine Mahlis, Larry Mahon, Claudia Mahon, Claudia Mahrt, Jack Maib, Bob Maier, Gregory Maietta, Vic

9675 5868 4387 7000 7573 9918 12635 9248 5606 17880 10359 1629 14412 14697 16019 11610 15361 12381 5485 54 1649 6671 5171 7823 13751

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) 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) 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) 88(SR580) 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) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 225

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Main, Ms. Angela Mainville, Karen Maior, Philip Maitland, Bryan Maizel, Joshua Majer, Julie Major, Jason Makhan, Ralph Maki, Jessica Maki, Sara Maki, Sasaki Makiko, Ode Makin, Darlene Makino, Yutaka Makruski, Adam Malafronte, Christine Malafronte, Dana Malafronte, Pat Malagon, Margo Malaise, Amy Malasky, Bruce & Kathleen Malcher, Susan Malcolm, Pat Maldonado, Elaine Malecki, Jimmy Malek, Eric Malhame, Robert Malinowski, Emily Mall, Amy Mallard, Angela Malley, Karen Malley, Ryan

Submission ID 1520 4771 11678 4012 2024 4545 16280 3550 9275 2984 1233 1086 5494 1036 2966 7491 7660 7713 3178 9546 4423 11935 10119 5116 16392 16438 13760 9552 5527 16669 9974 17736

Mallik, Norbert Mallon, Mavis Mallory, Kathy Mallory, Stephen Malmid, Wendy & Stuart Malmid, Wendy and Stuart Malmuth, Sonja Malone, Jenna Malone, Lynne Malone, Michael

97 15329 2203 6288 15607 16988 9593 7757 12038 12705

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) 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) 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 226

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Maloney, Barry P. Maloney, David Maloney, David C. Maloney, Emily Maloney, Ken Maloney, Margaret Maloney, Robin Malott, Darlene Malsbury, Kate Malt, Barbara Mamott, Susan Mancillas, Dora Mandel, Olivia Mandell, D. Mandell, Peter Maners, Lisa Manges, Laura Mangham, Bill Mangus, Lorna Mania, Sharon Manion, Timothy J.

Submission ID 7438 12188 609 5994 14961 13785 11231 6499 9460 10867 8930 17801 4623 6705 11118 11439 4531 5997 7929 5047 17569

Maniscalco, Peter Renew Community Earth Manker-Seale, Kathryn Manker-Seale, Kathryn "Kat" Mankey, Gene Mankikar, Divya

57 1340 17319 9910 631

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 125(1206), 35(SR17), 10(SR66), 45(SR100), 49(SR161), 98(SR684), 108(SR709) 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) 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 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) 50(965), 54(SR26), 41(SR131), 45(SR154), 54(SR287), 126(SR409), 70(SR434), 84(SR577), 120(SR777), 17(SR826) 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) 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) 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)

Mankin, Max Manley, Tara Mann, Fred Mann, Hubert Mann, Sandra Mann, Todd Manners, Jane

14995 4278 12187 7176 7205 10848 17672

Manning, Brook Manning, Meaghan Manning, Nancy Manohar, Shanta Manrique, Alonso Mansfield, Carl

2831 4025 11704 16138 5763 11327

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 227

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Mansfield, John Manson, Laura Manthei, Veronica Mapatis, Frank Mara, Joan Marangio, Michael Marashinsky, Amy Sophia March, Jeff March, Lori March, Sally Marchese, John Marchese, Tiara Marchi, Sherrie Marchini, Maria Marchione, Cierra Marcialis, Donna Marckini, Dave & Julie Marcus, Ashley Marcus, David Marcus, Genevieve Marcus, Karen Marcus, Karen Marcus, Lisa marcus, miriam Marcus-Fletcher, Suzanne Marczak, Jodi B. Marczyk, Ronald Mardueno, Ashley Marean, Rob Mareck, Katherine Mareck, Katherine Marek, Cecelia R. Marek, Cecelia R. Marencik, Evelyn Marett, Susan Margalit, Florence Margolis, Sandra Marie Magee, Marie Magee Marie, Sylvia Marin, John Maringer, Elizabeth

Submission ID 10153 15626 8325 837 13172 14840 6816 11444 7352 6688 10193 6338 6461 11528 4109 13430 13757 9099 17546 11488 4519 8346 7662 4404 1001 1921 12234 13246 8411 128 128 1204 1205 7715 7367 9914 2533 11067 13982 5674 1374

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) 76(1115), 56(SR325), 126(SR409), 76(SR453), 95(SR668) 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) 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 228

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Maringer, Gawan Marino, Nathan Marino, Regina Marino, Regina Marinucci, William Mariotti, Lisa Maris, Shannon Mark, Darian Mark, Marie Mark, Robert Mark, Steve Mark, Steve Marker, Dinah Markert, Anett Markey, Sharon Markic, Michael Markland, Thomas Markoff, Luba Markov, Claudia Markovic, Robert Markowitz, Susan Marks Azar, Lynn Marks, Elise Marks, Elise Marks, Jeremy Marks, Luan Marks-Block, Tony Markson, Craig Markus, Lucille Marlatt, Randy Marley, Carol Marlowe, Alfred Marmaluk, Daria Marmolejo, Jessica Maroney, Patrick Maroney, Patrick Maroney, Thomas Marquart, Ron Marriott, David Marrs, Cynthia Marrs, Jamie Mars-Burke, India Marsden, Ann Marsh, Kathleen Marsh, Susan Marsh, Timothy

Submission ID 1375 4425 5139 5135 6065 16078 11198 3334 16809 14620 9030 15306 8018 91 4594 6603 3562 3225 2719 13657 11576 8456 12694 16840 11703 12974 17589 13271 13155 463 12045 11423 6961 6639 4462 354 11042 15019 5397 12545 7861 10861 13335 9149 9845 13976

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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 103(SR128), 52(SR242) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 229

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Marshall, Amanda Marshall, Bob Marshall, Carissa Marshall, Edna Marshall, Edward Marshall, Emily Marshall, Greg Marshall, Jennifer Marshall, Jennifer Marshall, Jolene Marshall, JP Marshall, Kaathyrn Marshall, Keith Marshall, Letha Marshall, Linda Marshall, Lisa Marshall, Lisa Marshall, Margaret Marshall, Pearl Marshall, Rebecca Marshall, Richard Marshall, Robert Marshall, Thomas Marshek, Pamela Marsolek, Michael Martell, Jeni Martelle, Kristen Martelli, Arnold Martelli, Arnold Martelli, Helen Marteslo, Alexis Marth, Cristina Martillo, Ruth E Martin, Aki Martin, Ben Martin, Brad Martin, Dan Martin, Darlene Martin, David Martin, Dr. Brad Martin, Drew Martin, Dwaine Martin, Elandriel Martin, Elizabeth Martin, George

Submission ID 11723 10807 11863 4844 15282 9266 13706 1398 1027 7065 11624 3960 16031 6413 9511 13804 15247 5365 7054 2711 11754 7078 16917 2713 5250 5121 14728 459 459 6534 3339 2217 15765 16645 4052 10588 7798 13391 10923 1501 16709 6382 4751 14512 9826

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), 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 230

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Martin, Glenn H. Martin, Hugh Martin, Hyun Martin, Jeff Martin, Jeffrey Martin, Joseph Martin, Kelly Martin, Lara Martin, Lara Martin, Matthew Martin, Mickey Martin, Miriam Martin, Paul Martin, Paul Martin, Randee Martin, Rudolf Martin, Sam Martin, Sara Martin, Saralyn Martin, Shelley Martin, Sherry Martin, Susan Martin, Susan Martin, Tim Martin, Todd and Stephanie Martina, Michele Martinek, Sarah Martinez, Donna Martinez, Francine Martinez, Hector Martinez, Janie Martinez, Katherine Martinez, Kathy Martinez, Kathy Martinez, Michael Martinez, Mildred Martinez, Oscar Martinez, Pablo Martinez, Roberto Martin-Hay, Carol Martino, John Martinson, Elizabeth C. Martinson, Sue Ann Martire, R. Martucci, Marilyn Marvil, Rebecca

Submission ID 9388 2952 4687 3316 14117 6845 13790 5343 15864 12332 3732 16292 7840 15310 12681 5714 5955 7004 4062 8851 9424 10934 12646 8108 15477 10045 8909 4432 6675 14003 4274 11731 6948 14509 3968 12633 8376 14780 599 11843 6899 9377 975 1955 10584 10102

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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 231

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Marvin, Doyle Marx, Gregg Marxen, Jeannette Marxuach, Antonio Marzec, Thomas A Masala, Kenya Masarik, Charlotte Masaru, Mr. Masayesva, Vernon Masayesva, Vernon Black Mesa Trust Masayesva, Vernon Black Mesa Trust Masayesva, Vernon Black Mesa Trust

Submission ID 3009 6576 6305 9362 14485 3546 16596 1025 702 822 17557 16942

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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 114(SR736) 121(SR27), 16(SR28), 9(SR275) 46(877), 16(SR28), 121(SR804), 121(SR805) 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) 114(SR724), 114(SR738) 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)

Masayesva, Victor Maselli, June Maser, J. (unreadable) Maskey, Amy Maslanka, Geraldine Maslin, Linda Mason, Charlotte Mason, K. Mason, Ken Mason, Ken Mason, Lynette Mason, Michelle Mason, Nicole Mason, Richard Massa, Joyce Massett, Deborah Massman, John Mast, Scott

739 3959 17421 12135 2070 5007 7422 11172 11187 11169 4602 10982 5061 9111 308 11369 10228 3017

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 232

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Mast, Suzanna Masters, Marie Masters, Mary Masterson, Rik Mastracchio, Giovanni Mastri, Francis Mastri, Francis Mastry, Linda Masuchi, Satomi Masuda, Carol Masuda, Carol Mata, Refugio Matanle, Caitlin Matar, Adam Mathai, Alex Matherwson, M Mathes, Mollie Mathews, Andrea Mathews, Kate Mathewson, Curtis Mathieu-Dendrinos, Jeanne Mathis, Robert Mathis, Robert Mathiss, Barb Mathiss, Barbara Matisse, Loralei Matotek, Kelly Matsuda, Ami Matsuda, Noriko Matsuda, Thomas Matsuda, Thomas Matsuki, Shingo Matsuki, Shingo Matta, Lygia B. Matteson, Peter Matthaei, Konrad Matthaei, Marcella Matthews, Eric Matthews, Jennifer Matthews, Nicola Mattingly, Lynne

Submission ID 2940 4048 5722 9244 6674 8875 15950 540 13915 11654 14881 2696 1201 2957 10710 15382 10765 15212 11513 4911 11693 819 987 16911 5477 10532 14066 907 1848 973 1577 1192 1194 15085 7791 11947 5338 9498 12266 13344 10600

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) 105(SR702) 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 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), 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) 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 - 233

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Mattis, Jason Mattison, Nicholas

Submission ID 10884 17689

Mattocks, Kurt Mattox, Drew Mattson, Tim Matulewicz, Darcia Matus, Carolena Matz, Aurora Maufer, Deborah Maughan, Emma Maurer, Siljoy Maurin, Margaret Maury, Jonathan Max, David Maxson, David Hollins University Maxwell, Adrienne Maxwell, Elizabeth Maxwell, Jane Maxwell, Jennifer Maxwell, Lawrence Maxwell, Mary Catherine Maxwell, Rachel Maxwell, Robert May, Alexander May, Amie May, Brent May, Cyril May, Cyril May, Ed May, Jeane M. May, Tara M. Maybruck, PJ Mayer, Michelle Mayer, Olive Mayer, Thomas Mayer, Toni Mayer-Daniels, Michaela Mayers, Mindy Mayers, Mindy Mayfield, Lily Mayhew, Paul Maynard, Kim Maynard, Matt

6882 6381 7649 2260 11651 14330 12804 1454 15653 2692 4210 9630 4649 14058 11767 16755 4798 8901 4575 9667 11400 16808 11858 11292 340 513 10442 17312 8347 11458 9943 16848 15978 5665 45 7254 14617 5199 17630 10886 6615

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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) 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) 120(SR777) 14(SR307), 120(SR777) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 234

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Mayne, Patricia Mayo, Celia Mayo, Heather Mayo, Lynette Mayo, Steve Mays, M. Maywhort, Phyllis Mayzum, Mandy Mazairz, Robert Mazik, Kim Mazur, Marilyn Mazure, David Mazure, David Mazzola, Lori McKeny, James McMillan, Robert McPherran, Donna McWard, Jim McAdam, Kyle McAdams, Shawnie McAlary, Rebecca McAleenan, Marian McAllister, Bud McAlpine, Paul McArdell, Laura McAree, Mira McAuley, Rachel McAwley, Della McBride, Ellen McBride, Marjorie McBride, Mary McBride, Pamela McBroom, Bobi McCabe, Bennie McCabe, Constance McCabe, Eileen McCabe, Louise McCabe, Louise McCabe, Patricia McCabe, rita McCafferty, Siobhan McCaffrey, Nancy McCain, Edward McCain, Edward McCain, Karma McCaleb, Dorothy

Submission ID 13728 9776 16652 6995 13518 8057 14002 8969 11891 14926 12884 16973 16113 10165 5954 10969 4717 7136 11923 5268 9200 6730 15542 16102 13248 5149 15931 9879 14633 4124 4630 2962 13590 16937 6083 991 17234 759 14196 4624 10456 3327 9321 15425 11244 9359

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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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), 22(SR623), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 76(SR451), 114(SR752) 121(SR787), 107(SR810) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 235

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter McCall, Donna McCall, William McCallister, Ann McCallister, Elizabeth McCandlish, Karen McCann, Christian McCanna, Melissa McCarley, Lisa McCarry, Jane McCarthy, Brian McCarthy, Erin McCarthy, Glenda McCarthy, Jack McCarthy, James McCarthy, Jeffery McCarthy, Jim McCarthy, Jim McCarthy, Judith McCarthy, Kati McCarthy, Pat McCarthy, Sharon McCartney, Cathy McCarty, Kevin McCarver, Debby McCarver, Robert McCauley, Vicki McClafferty, Kathleen McClaskey, Veronica McClenahan, Judi McClintock, B McClintock, William McCloskey, Elizabeth McClure, James McClure, Margie McClure, Marianne McClure-Rose, Siobhan McClurg, David McClusky, Mailie McCoey, Tracy McCollum, Robert McCombs, Richard McConaghy, Alex McConnell, Heather McConnell, Jennifer McConnell, Kelly McCooey, Christine

Submission ID 13813 5758 8627 14188 12160 6789 10644 2275 13157 12600 10241 12942 3321 14523 2100 714 841 16076 100 8045 13303 11899 3115 10230 11148 12946 2730 15278 7824 11602 10840 14009 16812 14360 15304 2871 15414 3493 3608 7644 7441 4269 11934 1280 2581 7028

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), 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), 114(SR728) 8(835), 15(SR15), 35(SR121), 41(SR131), 102(SR211), 126(SR409), 88(SR596), 120(SR777) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 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) 7(844), 77(SR487) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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 - 236

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter McCook, Jennifer McCord, Douglas McCormack, James McCormack, Regina McCormack-Maitland, Colleen McCormick, Amber McCormick, Donald McCormick, Jude McCormick, Michelle McCosham, Anthony McCoy, Linda McCoy, Sean McCracken, Joann Mccraw, Frank McCraw, Mia McCrea, Jason McCready, Holly McCreary, Caitlin McCreary, Jan and Pat McCreight, Randolph McCrery, Michael McCrohan, Shawn McCroskey, Carol McCue, Connie McCulloch, Jamie Mcculloch, Jim McCullough, Joseph McCullough, Timothy McCulty, Jo McCune, Rosemary McCurdy, Ross McCurdy, Thomas McDade, Ed McDaniel, Lila McDaniel, Margaret McDaniel, Tiffany McDaniel, Tiffany McDaniels, John McDermed, Joanna McDermott, Marianne McDermott, Patti McDermott, Paul McDermott, Shane McDermott, Sydney McDevitt, Robert McDonald, Carrol and John

Submission ID 8596 11991 14114 13328 8358 8763 8165 11728 12247 8567 4514 12336 6082 1215 11409 3993 16088 4313 15365 12341 11529 3683 3447 8747 4586 508 4438 4360 11746 12485 6289 7351 2407 5523 2379 11917 16171 8212 7690 16094 4019 11844 14362 13806 6035 14730

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), 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 237

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter McDonald, Claude McDonald, Claude McDonald, Kirstin McDonald, Mary McDonnell, Devin McDonough, Christopher McDonough, Elizabeth McDonough, Gail McDougal, Suzanna McDougall, Tim McElfish, Briana McElroy, Lucy McElveen, Jeff McErlane, Sharon McEvoy, Barbara P. McEwen, Geralyn McFadden, Kelly McFadden, Steven McFadden, Steven McFall, Mary McFarland, Dennis McFarland, Michael McFarland, Tammi McFarland, Tracy McGannon,RSM, Marietta McGarr, Niclole McGarty, Andrea McGarvey, Lynn McGavock, Edwin H. Errol L. Montgomery & Associates, Inc. McGee, Alisa McGee, Brian McGee, Foster McGee, Jacob McGee, Jacob McGee, Jacob David McGee, Nan McGee, Robert McGill, Ann C. McGill, Janet McGill, Katherine McGill, Linda McGill, Marilyn

Submission ID 6731 14714 7504 14236 9504 3352 6077 2254 823 2042 2579 4654 10317 7199 3890 3564 2242 52 1496 2479 10012 10531 11656 14721 14048 14816 4214 10696 17717

2427 11757 15493 17093 10148 17160 15446 13677 4672 3119 9091 12215 12716

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 53(1194), 53(1195), 53(1196), 53(1197), 53(1198), 53(1199), 53(1200), 53(1201), 53(1202), 53(1203), 53(1204), 53(1214), 53(1215), 53(1216), 53(1217), 53(1218), 53(1219) 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) 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 - 238

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter McGillivary, Marilee McGilvray, Bonny McGinnis, Rebecca McGinnis, Rebecca McGowan, Cate McGowan, Cathleen McGowan, Cathy McGowan, Christine McGowan, Daniel McGowan, Daniel McGowan, Dave McGrath, Andrew McGrath, Laura McGrath, Shelly Mcgrath, Sue McGraw, Melanie McGraw, Rita McGroarty, Kent McGuire, Aiden McGuire, Jackie McGuire, Judith McGuire, Judith McGuire, Matthew McGuire, Michael McGuire, Trish McHam, Laura Mcharg, Cameron McHenry, Susan McHugh, Colin McHugh, Cornelius McHugh, Jamie McIntosh, Celia Mcintosh, Jodie McIntosh, John McIntosh, M. McIntyre, Nancy C. & J. McIver, Paul D. McIvor, Jenny McKay, Eugene McKay, Megan Mckay, Mischo McKay, Nelle McKee, Craig McKee, Gerald McKee, Kaitlyn

Submission ID 11942 11448 1814 6676 13635 9795 15244 5342 44 117 9596 5084 3842 13832 4535 4146 4097 10131 17212 5753 6488 15917 14336 14979 9370 4915 13329 3563 9633 7280 6415 15445 6808 2224 9831 6086 14269 8554 6145 13769 8223 14458 17424 7012 14533

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 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) 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 239

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter McKee, Mariann McKee, Martha McKee, Taryn McKelvie, Patricia McKelvy, Erin McKenna, Alexis McKenna, Colleen McKenna, Dale McKenney, Kate McKenzie, Mike McKeon, Mary McKernan, Linda McKibben, Ann McKim, William McKinnon, Christopher McKinnon, Erin McKirnan, M Dan McKnight, Audrey McKnight, Genette McKnight, Jim McKnight, Lauren McKnight, Shoshanah McKnight, Shoshanah McKnight, Vanessa McLaine, Shawn McLane, John McLaughin, Blair McLaughlin, Janet McLaughlin, Janet H McLaughlin, Michael McLaughlin, Rachelle McLaughlin, Rodney McLaughlin, Rohana McLaughlin, Susan McLean, Hope McLean, Judy McLean, Robin McLean, Sarah McLean, Vicky McLearon, Eric McLeary, Harold McLellan, Kristin Mclellan, Mary McLendon, Barbara McLendon, Barbara

Submission ID 8800 2364 17427 5111 1588 9218 6670 13077 11013 9978 1984 3307 14153 12028 9848 15675 10167 2885 2883 7909 17422 7099 16615 2882 12418 14159 16133 7547 15178 14597 2049 12198 11912 13237 13014 4561 14663 7314 12008 7002 8013 14526 10358 11689 16427

Location of Comments/Responses 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 240

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter McLeod, Adrienne McLeod, Paul & Kim McLinden, Michelle McLintock, Josh M'Closkey, Kathy McMahan, James McMahon, Gail McMahon, Nicolee McMahon, Paul McManus, Dennis McManus, J W McManus, Mike McMillan, Erik McMillan, Randy McMillen, Joseph McMillen, Monika McMillin, James McMonagle, Anya McMorrow, Jennifer R McMullan, Nita McMullen, Colleen McMullen, Jack McMullen, Wallace McMullin, William McMurdie, janine McMurtry, Caitlin McNall, Pamela McNallie, Marcia McNally, Megan McNally, Shannon McNamara, Vivian McNatt, Mary McNaughton, Brian McNaull, Sarah McNeill, Douglas McNeill, Norma McNiece, Maria McNutt, Richard McPhee, Marnie McQuade, McQuade McQueen, William McQueeney, George McQuinn, Donald McRae, Patricia McRae, Regina McRee, Livia

Submission ID 4976 6843 4583 5775 16190 13173 7044 2977 8349 15034 14365 7039 1905 7682 3977 2023 220 11771 14717 5626 15222 6418 110 14568 12670 7461 9518 1962 16734 11903 2620 14575 9396 6709 6314 2445 3789 7704 9299 1743 4131 10846 15651 5627 10449 15269

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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 241

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter McReynolds, Patricia McRight, Blue McRory, Nicole McSpadden, Celeste McSwigan, Melissa McTeigue, Michael McTigue, Gerald McVan, Kevin McVay, Erin McVein, Barbara J McVey, James McWhorter, Karin Meacham, Nancy Mead, Adam Meade, Gwendolyn Meader, Rex Meador, Cody Meaker, Nelson Means, Kathleen Measelle, Barbara Meche, Kim Medders, B. Medeiros, Leigh Medeiros, Lisa Medeiros, Pat Medley, Debra Mee, Diane Meehan, Bartholomew & Tatyana Zigadlo Meehan-Litras, Veronica Meeker, Anna Meeker, Mona Meese, Gail Mefford, Paul Meggitt, Jane Meghelli, Nabia Mehew, Joan Meidenbauer, Eric Meier, Robert Meiers, Susan T. Meigs, Berkeley Mein, Joenie Meiners, Anna Meiners, Chris Meinz, Sherlyn Meislohn, Jennifer Meissner, Ed

Submission ID 9307 7419 5818 4179 8503 5578 5779 6478 2761 7992 15129 3033 8526 2487 9206 6764 8650 2748 14033 8728 2865 6215 10551 16621 4254 11261 17614 6696 9829 15879 11285 3360 10974 16325 11761 10671 4993 14853 4813 16028 7148 16789 14554 1970 6512 8425

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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 242

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Meissner, Peter Melby, Melby Melchi, Steven Melchior, William Melichar, Charlotte Melick, Virginia Melin, Ronnie Melino, Linda Melkonian, Narineh Mellberg, Christian Mellgren, Alycia Mellinger, John & Rebecca Mellor, Paul Mellring, Sarah Melnick, Heather Meloney, Cheryl Melora, Carolann Menard, Rose Menconi, Elissa Mende, Irmgard Mendelson, Linda Mendez, Hugo Mendez, Troy Mendieta, Vince Mendoza, Durango Mendoza, Tina Mendrola, Jeannine Menduni, Joseph Menendez, David Rosa Menendez, Marisa Mener, K. Meng, Eve Menier-Weselis, Susan Menn, Natasha Mensch, Amy Mensing, Patricia Mercado, Dorothy Mercer, Jeffrey Mercer, Matthew Mercer, Robin Merchant, David and Marlyn Mercier, Kristina Merck, Josephine Mergler, Randy Merical, J.

Submission ID 2868 6491 3169 8989 6074 11695 5524 2723 12691 11803 6994 8257 7887 5148 15128 8002 10740 11394 8129 3256 5492 949 1948 15117 12447 15596 6263 5334 16024 6360 17376 11952 4010 17132 5708 7939 17874 7329 12443 4456 3731 6368 11590 6908 11887

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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 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) 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 - 243

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Merilatt, George Merilatt, George Merithew, Marcia Merk, Kristin Merkli, Susan Merkowitz, Jennifer Merow, Mr. Hiragiya Merriam, Dylan Merrick, Andrew Merrick, Becky Merrick, Kelly Merril, Sean Merrill Williams, Candace Merrill, Cole, Ph.D. Merrill, Elaine Merrill, Jibralta Merrill, John Merrill, Sean Merritt, Mandy Merritt, Mandy Mertig, Theodore Merville, Kim Meshbane, Alice Mesina, Eva Messerschmitt, Susan Messick, Scott Messih, Matt Messing, Mark Mestrow, Anita Metcalfe, Linda Metheny, Chandra Method, Gregory Metler, Brad Mette, Alex Metz, Frederick Metz, Nancy Metzler, Douglas Meuse, Jessica Mew, Benjamin Meyer, Allyn Meyer, Andy Meyer, Ari Meyer, Barbara

Submission ID 8616 15225 12741 3854 11652 10078 1483 17077 12505 5285 12516 17299 3105 7408 10839 3886 15986 2110 5751 15436 16289 14178 5703 8716 7531 13529 16386 8580 2481 8029 4159 8550 16132 17275 9432 8942 16196 7560 1544 12324 10486 3633 8008

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), 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), 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) 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) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 244

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Meyer, Carla Meyer, Carla Meyer, Christina Meyer, David Meyer, Donald Meyer, Elena Meyer, Hans Meyer, Laurie Meyer, Marc Meyer, Margaret Meyer, Marianne Meyer, MaryJoel Meyer, Nancy Meyer, Paul Meyer, Raymond Meyer, Virginia & Robert Meyerhofer, Eric & Jill Meyerhoff, Robert Meyers, Ann Meyers, Marc Meyers, Mary Meyers, Melanie Meyers, Tamar Mezey, Lillian MFEM, MFEMF Miazga, M Miazga, Mike Miceli, Pete Michael Warren, Michael Warren Michael, Garza Michael, House Michael, Joe Michael, Kunkel Michael, L. Michael, Louise Vista Michael, Mr. Clayton Michaels, Jill Michaels, P Michaut, Evelyne Michel, Coky Michel, Joan Michel, Mia Michelle, Van Asten Michels, Kristi Mick, Lawrence Micsenyi, Matthew

Submission ID 359 7543 10460 14175 8646 15230 9578 13097 3792 10760 6827 11224 5712 14034 596 16175 6591 8677 11457 10183 15455 16282 2639 6135 12308 11460 16656 8154 10826 3686 11260 2824 1301 6089 15861 1505 4502 4317 7363 16047 12048 13103 5619 8226 12890 9062

Location of Comments/Responses 51(SR177) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 20(SR247), 126(SR409), 88(SR601), 63(SR930) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 245

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Middendorf, Bobbye Middlebrooks, Will Middleton, Terri Mideaker, James Midgett, Jeanne Mier, Sandy Miezal, Voytek Migdow, Jeff Mighton, Bruce Miguel, Chris Mihal, Laurie Mihaly, Robert Mikaelsson, Lilian Saami Association in Stockholm Indigenous of Europe Mikaelsson, Lilian Mikalson, Amanda Mikalson, Claire Mike, -­ Mikesoll, D. Andrew Black Mesa Pipeline Miki, Terasawa Miki, Terasawa Mikilitus, Tess Miklich, Alison Miklich, Christy Miklich, Mary Miksa, John Mikulski, Kathleen Mikulski, Michael Milacek, Mary Milatovich, L.A. Milatovich, Lisa Milczarek-Desai, Gavin & Shefali Miler, Cady Miles, Christopher Miles, James Miles, Richard Milks, Jason Millar, Claudia Millecam, Aart Millegan, James Miller Cook, Suzanne

Submission ID 8889 16266 17647 5782 16128 14349 12117 5879 3806 16962 10536 15647 58

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777)

179 4408 6037 17340 871 1235 2270 12289 13500 12393 6377 10088 13835 7189 7121 14500 4178 14284 17320 10609 7706 6239 3892 3843 16225 12940 4328

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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 14(SR309), 57(SR337) 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) 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) 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 - 246

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Miller Fances, Ann Miller, Allison Miller, Ariel Miller, Barbara Miller, Carey Miller, Carol Miller, Dianna Miller, Donald Miller, Donna Miller, Doug Miller, Ed Miller, Elizabeth Miller, Ellen Miller, Frances Miller, Frances Miller, Gerald Miller, Gerald Miller, Gifford Miller, Gordon L Environmental Studies Department Miller, Grant Miller, Howard Miller, J. Bryan Miller, Jana Miller, Jason Miller, Jean Miller, Jennifer Miller, John Miller, John Miller, John Miller, Justin Miller, Karen Miller, Katherine Miller, Kathryn Miller, Kelsey Miller, Laura Lee Miller, Lori Miller, M. Miller, Margaret Miller, Marin Miller, Megan Miller, Melissa Miller, Mike & Janet Miller, Norma Miller, Norma

Submission ID 17703 4314 2819 5191 13562 16308 13147 6293 8844 13392 2021 17518 10275 11706 14596 8306 16577 5219 812

Location of Comments/Responses 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 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) 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(SR324), 76(SR589), 120(SR777)

10023 12583 13775 3540 12896 7860 12522 12490 5930 13455 5127 14639 9921 12618 1798 6955 6977 7292 13744 2300 9986 5574 12061 465 465

35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 88(SR583) 15(SR16), 35(SR121)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 247

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Miller, Patricia Miller, Peggy Miller, Robin Miller, Roger Miller, Russell Miller, Ruth Miller, Samuel Miller, Sandra Miller, Sandra E Miller, Spring

Submission ID 7997 6481 4542 16545 12014 11817 3445 3975 323 17670

Miller, Stephen Miller, Tara Miller, Theresa Miller, Thomas Miller, Thomas Miller, Vivian Miller, Zinaida

574 4980 6117 2914 8472 14487 17674

Miller, Zinaida

17566

Millerick, Tim and Carol Millet, Saralaine Millett, Johah Millett, Peg Milliken, Gerry Milliken, Gerry Milliken, Gerry Milliken, Gerry Milliken, Mr. Gerry Milliman, Alison Milliner, Susan Millow, Michael Mills, Harriet Mills, Krystal Mills, Mr. Travis Mills, Phoebe Mills, Richard G. Mills, Shirleen Milne, Theresa

10030 10383 14709 15628 16976 17416 17466 15055 1656 14223 13087 2315 4544 2266 1461 546 6006 8390 7037

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) 52(SR242), 88(SR580), 120(SR777), 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), 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) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 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) 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) 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), 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), 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 - 248

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Milone, Charles Milstein, Tema Milstein, Theresa Milton, J.W. & Mary Lee Milton, Mardelle Mims, Alisa Min, Beau Min, Leslie Minard, Cindy Minault, Kent Minchew, Tessa Mincieli, Julie Miner, David Miner, Mr. Michael Miner, Rain Minesinger, David Mingle, Elizabeth Minichiello, Virginia Miniman, Susan Minkin, Bonnie Minkler, Sam Minkovsky, Natalie Minniti, Jackie Minter, Lewin Minton, Elza Minton, Joanne Minuzzo, Anni Miralia, Quilla Miranda, Carol Miranda, John Miranda, Michelle Miranne, Paul Miraula, Nicole Mirgeler, Frank Miriam Kirsten, Edward Mirsky, Hank Misewicz, Monique Missy Love, Don Mistretta, Jill Mitchel, William Mitchell III, Charley Mitchell III, Charley Mitchell, Anne C.

Submission ID 3489 15297 13985 5452 2796 9290 1128 1129 5301 14854 2899 4645 13330 3408 10684 16051 5735 2129 10849 10597 711 9591 14607 4173 16276 15888 13136 15312 2744 15440 6462 13362 11297 13088 470 14972 9093 9699 7083 14507 1109 1110 16959

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), 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), 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(SR736) 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) 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), 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) 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) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 249

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Mitchell, Barbara Mitchell, Barbara Mitchell, Chris Mitchell, D Mitchell, David Mitchell, David Mitchell, Heidi Mitchell, Janis Mitchell, Joan Mitchell, Joan Mitchell, John Gail Mitchell, Joyce Mitchell, Joyce Mitchell, Joyce Mitchell, Mary Mitchell, Melissa Mitchell, Ms. Janet Mitchell, Stephanie Mitchell, Tara Mitchell, Todd Mitchell, Zephyr Mitry, Raja Mitrzyk, Beatriz Mitsuda, Michael Mitz, Mark Miura, Keiko Miura, Keiko Miura, Keiko Miura, Keiko Miura, Keiko Miura, Keiko Mixon, Patricia Mixon, Vidette General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of The United Methodist Church Miyagi, Koshiro Miyashita, Michiko Miyawaki, Tomohiro

Submission ID 12809 10725 11312 15093 11790 8145 2772 11860 2983 3098 7201 8533 14996 16839 6564 6374 1551 12868 5064 13360 4240 10063 10054 11248 6234 1772 1773 1774 1891 1776 1777 2010 95

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) 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) 35(SR121), 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), 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) 120(SR777)

1828 1699 1853

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 - 250

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Miyawaki, Tomohiro Mizhir, Tina Mo, Lisa Moan-Nachreiner, Margrit Mobley, David Moceri, Rick Mochizuki, Mimako Mockovak, Michael Moeller, Elke Moeller, Elke Moench, Brian Moench, Heather Mogensen, Vernon Mohning, Kathleen Mohr, Cathleen Mohr, T Mohrmann, Brad Moiseyev, Maya Moitoret, Cathryn Moix, Jennifer Mokelke, Susan Mokma, Deb Moldovan, Robert J. Molfetta, Jennifer Molk, John Molk, John Moll, Carol Mollenhauer, Paul Möller, Elke Mollman, Kathleen Moloney, Kevin Molotoks, Amy Molthen, Robert Mona, Christina Monagan, Parthenia Monaghan, Edie Monarch, Michael Mondragon Abbott, Dove Monestersky, Marsha

Submission ID 1854 1980 11904 4439 10238 9748 1164 9743 17023 17497 8549 13714 4663 2681 4383 15615 5100 6851 4704 15125 8648 9469 13270 9088 17111 17191 13381 8898 536 9016 5764 10249 5696 3155 13044 11511 10786 7245 113

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) 35(SR121), 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) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 45(SR100), 52(SR160), 102(SR358), 64(SR380), 126(SR409), 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) 7(SR46), 125(SR50), 35(SR121), 51(SR204), 123(SR244), 54(SR285), 107(SR320), 127(SR367), 76(SR450), 81(SR553), 88(SR582), 89(SR626), 7(SR676), 96(SR680), 121(SR781), 109(SR812)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 251

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Monestersky, Marsha Monestersky, Marsha Monestersky, Marsha Mongan, James Monge, Ally Monge, Annette Mongia, Amal Monique, Danielle Monnig, Dan Monroe, Jayna Monroe, Katrina Monroe, Molly Monson, Ronald Monstovich, Bruce Montagne, Donald Montague, Susan Montalvo-Moramarco, Linda Montealegre, Mijanou Monteith, Mark Montesinos, Daniela Montesinos, Luis Montfort, Mark Montgomery, Dorothy Montgomery, Mackie Montgomery, Mary Monthie, Drew Montoliu, Raphael Moody, Edward Moody, Glenn Moody, Mark Moody, Moira Mooere, Jesi Moon, Eileen Moon, Giles Mooney, Angela Mooney, Mary Mooney, Therese Mooradian, Mary Moore, Audrey Moore, Barbara Moore, Barbara Moore, Brad Moore, Carey Moore, Christopher

Submission ID 16949 16950 16945 12382 16912 5405 17628 9417 10424 14750 4142 14595 11385 3592 4235 16754 10612 10943 1370 2811 2783 8122 14812 12810 8505 12089 16791 4021 8642 11730 2096 15716 3232 8021 3268 2584 11772 3822 13932 13506 4688 12407 3103 5824

Location of Comments/Responses 7(909), 125(SR50), 101(SR170), 107(SR320), 76(SR450), 81(SR553), 114(SR826) 78(969), 97(SR341), 97(SR343), 126(SR425), 126(SR426) 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) 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), 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 252

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Moore, Connie Moore, Diana Moore, Dottie Moore, Elaine Moore, Janie Moore, JoAnn Moore, Joanna Moore, Kira Moore, Mallu Moore, Mary Jane Moore, Philip Moore, Rebecca Moore, Rebecca Moore, Ruth Moore, Sharlissa Moore, William Moore, William Moorhead, Jasmine Moose, Mary Moose, Mary Etta Moot, Noah Moracco, Jennifer Morace, Dean Moralee, Glenda Morales, Alfonso Moramarco, Nick Morano, Denise Mordan, William Morehart, Moorea Moreira, Joseph Morejohn, Justin Morelli, Daniel Morello, Phyl Morency, James Moreno, Gilbert Moreno, Kim Moreno, Olivia Moreno, Paul Moreno-Diaz, Kathy Moretti, Ron Moretz, Jeffrey Moretz, Jessica Moretz, Larry Morey, Kathy Morey, Robert Morgan, Bonnie Morgan, Bruce

Submission ID 565 13151 10472 7052 12290 7565 8245 12625 10469 15582 16277 4378 6841 13823 12629 7983 16013 9530 7499 7483 10296 5151 7892 8849 2694 9977 9142 6078 5242 13024 3970 9758 15359 6031 11302 11069 10871 14771 8700 3400 5902 3655 3646 13045 13886 6172 17526

Location of Comments/Responses 120(SR777) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 253

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Morgan, Cheri Morgan, Gaila Morgan, Gwendolyn Morgan, Jared Morgan, Josephine Morgan, Justine Morgan, Martha Morgan, Mr. Justin Morgan, Neil Morgan, Neil Morgan, Pamela Morgan, Pamela Morgan, Patricia Morgan, Paul Morgan, Roni Morgan, Sharon Morgan, Susan Morgen, John B. Morgenlander, Margo Morgenstern, Jack Mori, Toshihiko Moriarty, Andrew Moriarty, William Morin, Daniel Morin, Toochis Moring, Serena Morini, Sarah Morisob, Hatley Morken, Lydia Morlon, Jeanne Morningsong, Cynkay Morningstar, Barbara Morningstar, Patricia Morrall, Elaine Morrell, Kim Morresi, Gian Andrea Morresi, GianAndrea Morrill, Gary Morris, Cheryl Morris, Cheryl Morris, Heather Morris, Katherine Morris, Kathleen Morris, Katie Morris, Keith

Submission ID 1583 2510 2504 7456 11364 13060 7366 1408 3692 16853 12679 15451 7576 11618 8449 14587 15523 5484 8584 2375 1043 2996 5067 3820 6219 9781 11184 11911 4757 9080 6403 14225 10991 238 8028 15667 11336 4246 10781 3598 6813 5906 15722 8706 4442

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR244) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 254

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Morris, Lauren Morris, Mary Morris, Meghan

Submission ID 7536 2578 17543

Morris, Mike Morris, Peter Morris, Robert Morris, Robin Morris, Roger Morris, Roger Morris, Sharon Morris, Sharon Morris, Shawna Morris, Todd Morrish, Suzanne Morrison, Andrew Morrison, Douglas Morrison, Glenn Morrison, Mike Morrison, Terri Morrison-Kunkle, Suzette Morrissey, Darrell Morrissey, Joe Morrissey, Joseph Morrissey, Marie Morrissey, Shawn Morrow, Christine Morrow, Mr and Mrs. Jack L. Morrow, Scott Morse, Elaine P. Morse, Karen Morse, Karen Morse, Keir Mort, Stuart Mortashed aka Macklin, David Mortellito, Nina Mortimer, Claire Morton, Ann Morton, David Morton, Jeffery Moscarelli, David Mosedale, Melissa Moser, Janet Moser, Rich Moshel, David Mosher, Moya

14900 16529 10009 12109 5329 15914 460 460 17604 15419 2926 3521 6484 8248 9609 2159 13054 8917 2954 16534 15008 12300 16898 16184 4916 356 2156 16098 15501 13671 15354 15809 5398 14739 9077 366 6876 8444 12255 16431 14539 15739

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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 255

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Mosher, Scott Moski, Alison Moss, Julie Moss, Marjorie Moss, Melody Moss, Melody Moss, Mikasa Moss, Mikasa Moss, Paul Moss, Paul Moss, Rhea Moss, SeEtta Mosser, James Mosser, James Mostov, Elizabeth Motel, Seth Motheral, Dorothy Motley, William Mott, Macey Mott, Marcie Mott, Stephen Mott, Susan Motz, Mona Mouhollur, Charles R. Moulton, Mr. Paul Charbonnet Mount, R. Mower, Amy Moye, Joe Moyer, Philip Moylan, Carrie Moyse, Helaine Mozer, Elizabeth M'rabet, Léa Mroz, Marci Mroz, Nancy Mt. Joy, Greg Mt. Joy, Greg Muangi, John Muckle, Robert and Melanie J. Mudrick, Stephen Muehlhausen, Eric Muelken, Walter Mueller, Karsten

Submission ID 9228 9338 12836 11259 1084 1085 9979 14358 551 16519 2810 256 521 521 14692 5755 14501 6871 10352 14232 11808 6530 13163 17164 1425 5224 7132 11690 16733 2231 14572 2870 5170 12470 3466 503 503 17763 7948 4597 8804 8061 16763

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), 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) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 15(SR69), 120(SR777), 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) 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), 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 256

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Mueller, Kevin Mueller, Robert Mueller, Sean Mueller, Ursula Mueller, Ursula Mugglestone, Lindsay Mugica, Yerina Muhammad, Ryan Muhly, Ernest J Mui, Patricia Mulford, Mr. Shawn Mulinare, Gregory Mull, Steven Mullane, Sharon Mullarkey, Michael Mullen, Ann Mullen, Elizabeth Mullen, John Mullen, Karen Mullen, Lynne Mullen, Sandra Mullen, Sandra Mullendore, Marc Mullens, Martha Mullens, Troy Muller, Rick Muller, Sue Mullet, Timothy Mulligan, James Mulligan, Mary Ann Mulligan, Vicky Mullins, Dawn Mullins, Jeff Mullins, Katherine Mulroy, Vicky Multer, Karen Mulvey, Lori Mulvill, John Mundstock, David Mundt, Brian Mundy, Ken Mundy, Ken Mundy, Kenneth Munger, D. Muniz, Alice Muniz, Richard

Submission ID 13709 16698 15958 567 55 10334 1958 12012 15750 7651 1421 3499 9229 2941 2750 5826 3347 7925 8542 4247 553 553 8521 5808 5813 6984 6800 16522 2563 14963 4830 5087 15781 16725 13068 6099 16137 5254 11125 8320 5591 15240 14522 8342 12709 14457

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), 45(SR874) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 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) 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) 5(SR35), 8(SR142), 52(SR160), 102(SR358), 120(SR777) 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) 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) 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) 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 - 257

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Munk, David Munoz, Axhel Munoz, Gary Munoz, Jeanne Munro, Alan Munro, David Munro, Karen Munsell, Sandy Munson, Christine Munson, Jacob Munson, Shannon Munson, Susan Munster, Misti Munz, Carroll Mura, Kate Mura, Kiatsushi Mura, Kiatsushi Mura, Kiatsushi Mura, Kiatsushi Mura, Kiatsushi Murakami, Hisako Murata, Takashi Murata, Takashi Murch, Donna Murdoch, Dawn Spinda Murdoch, Merrie Murdoch, Peter Murdoch, Wendy Murdock, Ilse Murfee, Molly Murillo, Uma Murman, Faye Murnane, Kevin Murphy, Bob Murphy, Bonnie Murphy, Brian Murphy, Caitlin Murphy, Carol Murphy, Carol Murphy, Colleen Murphy, D

Submission ID 8137 15852 7524 15001 16417 9251 6820 3410 9936 15544 9233 13061 10325 16453 14110 1284 1285 1377 1286 1287 2128 1884 1885 3210 7953 2030 6890 10478 11347 13451 8592 13891 5633 3671 5246 3462 1748 252 7221 14220 15515

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) 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) 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), 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), 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 8(SR141) 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 - 258

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Murphy, Daniel Murphy, Dawn Murphy, Diane Murphy, Elizabeth Murphy, George Murphy, J Murphy, James Murphy, Margaret Murphy, Michael Murphy, Michelle Murphy, Michelle Murphy, Nancy Murphy, T Murphy, Ted Murphy, Virginia Murphy, Virginia G Murray, Carl Murray, Cristy Murray, Cristy Murray, Curtis Murray, Dennis Murray, Doug Murray, Gina Murray, James Murray, Linda Murray, Lynne Murray, Melinda Murray, Noel Murray, Ryan Murray, Shirley Murray, Sondra J. Murray, Verona Murraygreen, Ryo Murrow, Gary Murtagh, Lindsey

Submission ID 2056 13493 15525 16646 347 14434 3240 8033 891 14107 9494 11340 13557 16310 10514 15652 6375 10341 15103 11156 2597 4466 8224 11188 7879 11205 14551 14081 9237 3505 12451 3144 14905 3695 17741

Murtha, Ryan Muscara, Joe Muse, Charlotte Muse, Jill Musel, Andrea Musial, Carolyn Musselman, William Musta, Emily Musta, Emily Mustafa, Jadallah

6875 3999 8172 3479 14947 5162 9129 122 122 17782

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) 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) 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), 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 259

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Mutch, Sr Mary Louise Mutchnick, Patrice Muthig, Paki Muto, Dale Muto, Kris Muzychka, Becky Myer, Scott Myers, Betty Myers, Bret Myers, Howard Myers, Kelly Myers, Robert J Myers, Scott Myers, Victor C. Myerscough, Doug Mykoff, Rob Mykoff, Rob Myles, Valerie Myrick, Brett

Submission ID 4641 15286 15266 13412 3046 11144 17657 7681 8035 17133 6460 15747 15274 11229 4730 411 13447 13139 17683

Myrick, Linda N. (unreadable), D. (unreadable) Naas, Vanessa Nabat, c Nabavi, Ali Nabong, Maritoni Naclerio, Lynda Nadeau, Jeanette Nadeau, Nancy Nadel, Russell Naderhoff, Lawrence Nadle, Janice Naegele, Alice Naffky, Patricia Naftel, joe Naftel, Joseph & Shelley Nagai, Mr. Katumi Nagaji, Masami Nagaoka, Ayumi Nagaoka, Kayoko

11667 17617 2259 7273 12632 5580 11798 14707 6229 12727 10749 7980 3535 4972 593 591 1506 1220 1858 1859

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), 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 54(1170), 35(SR121) 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), 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) 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) 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), 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 - 260

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Nagaoka, Makiko Nagaoka, Ryouji Nagaoka, Ryouji Nagaoka, Ryouji Nagel, Georgia Nagel, Lawrence Nagle, Joan Nagle, Lisa Nagle, Tim Nagrath, Pooja Nagy, James Nagy, Patricia Nahan Jr., Edward J. Nahan, Jr., Edward J. Nahman-Ramos, David Nair, Ram Naive, Jurissah Nakagawa, Seiko Nakai, Takako Nakamura, Kiyomi Nakamura, Madoka Nakamura, Tetsuya Nakamura, Tomoko Nakata, Masafumi Nakata, Wayne Nakatani, Takehiro Nakatani, Tomoko Nakawatase, Ronald Nall, Cecilia Nall, Cynthia Nall, Lisa Nam, Sophia Namaste, Andrea Namiki, Ms. Michiko Namiki, Ms. Michiko

Submission ID 1857 1148 1271 1147 17762 10496 13582 3974 9736 1102 2409 5811 17690 17755 12742 4920 14080 895 1820 1218 1754 1863 6858 1875 4930 1861 1860 6321 7357 13355 13732 3284 8856 1708 1709

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) 52(SR238) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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), 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), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 261

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Namoki, Reba A. Nancy, Hiest D'd Nangle, Patrick Naoaki, Nakamura Naoki, Doi Napier, Sabrina Napier, Sabrina Napoleon, Laura Nardella, Lynn Narracci, Kacey Nash, Barbara Nash, Belinda Nash, Heyward Nash, Jonathan Nash, Juliette Nash, Kevin C. Nash, Michael Nash, Thomas Nassbaum, Aleeza Natale, Tim Natalini, Gerri Nathan, Michael Nathan, Rev. Nano Naughton, Mark Nauman, Mr. Charles Nauman, Talli Naus, Curtis Nauser, Susan Navarra, Nancy Navarre, Faith Navarrete, Francisco and Sofia Navez, Ren Naydenov, Alexis Nazarova, Ksenya Neal, Amy Neal, Michael Nealon, Sandra Neat, Virginia Nedbor, Jonathan Nedeau, E James Needham, Gail E. Needham, Meredith

Submission ID 16971 17151 7527 1197 1750 11583 14527 7232 15122 15172 10188 14844 5418 8202 3611 17384 11316 9349 10097 11498 12853 1981 2048 3921 1490 927 11374 2220 5929 10464 2879 15941 14424 11864 3196 7605 10047 7932 5276 14466 2894 8931

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) 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) 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) 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 262

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Neel, Ann Neer, Elizabeth Neese, Kara Neff, Alice E. Neff, Samuel Negron, Elaine Neidell, Merle Neighbors, George Neile-Mcgrew, Rachael Neile-McGrew, Rachael Neill, Tom Neill, William Neilsen, Nancy R Neiman, Joseph Nelligan, Lillie Kathleen Nelligan, Mary Nelsen, Judith Nelson, Aleeta Nelson, Brad Nelson, Cora Nelson, Don Nelson, Elaine Nelson, Floyd Nelson, Floyd Nelson, George Nelson, Greta Nelson, Herbert Nelson, Jeff Nelson, Karen Nelson, Linda Nelson, Lita Nelson, M. Nelson, Madeline Nelson, Mark Nelson, Marlin Nelson, Milton Nelson, Misty Nelson, Mrs. Nelson, Pamela Nelson, Richard Nelson, Richard Nelson, Stephanie Nelson, Teresa Nelson, Tootie Nelson, Vince Nelson-Briggs, Vicki

Submission ID 9072 13571 3224 12281 4537 4116 4273 12437 9137 16553 6945 10803 15758 11653 16512 13306 4215 4407 6542 8478 12007 8170 760 17235 6348 3345 7219 6362 3658 7582 585 2506 17509 9670 16909 9315 9491 1734 9397 761 17237 3032 10817 12228 746 11988

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) 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), 53(SR256), 88(SR596), 114(SR736) 77(SR484) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 10(847), 2(SR31), 10(SR58), 119(SR769) 126(SR409), 88(SR586), 116(SR727) 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(SR500), 79(SR537) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 263

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Nemann, Joan Nemec, Andrew Nemes, Hodiah Nemeth, Monica Neptune, Teresa Neptune, Teresa Nerbetski, Judith Nerhus, Barry Nerode, Gregory Nerone, Michele Nesbitt, Jaysa Neskey, Karen Nesler, Amy Nessim, Shlomo Nesteruk, Valerie Neu, Gary Neubacher, Judith Neubert, Stephen Neuendorf, Mary Neuenschwande, Kathleen Neuhart, Barbara Neuhauser, Alice Neuman, Judith Neumann, Elizabeth Neumann, Lawrence Neumann, Michael Neumann, Victoria Neupauer, Michael Neustadt, Landon Neuzil, Denise Nevanpera, Katja NeVart, Anoush Neves, Elizabeth Neveux, Dominique Newberg, Stephen Newberry, Nancy Newbury, Liz Newcomb, Cindi Newcombe, L. Newkirk, Linda Newlon, Mark Newlon, Mark Newman, Constance Newman, Deborah Newman, Deirdre Newman, Donna

Submission ID 2869 4226 12536 3507 1682 13868 467 15318 6408 14288 15490 7552 11344 6421 9017 16785 11082 7490 14504 7326 8239 15337 10243 4245 13336 4606 5153 5129 10622 4445 4468 10492 7523 2091 12171 11830 13621 11367 4527 17032 12824 12597 11714 2236 9524 11407

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) 88(SR580) 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) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 264

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Newman, Hudelle Newman, Jeanne Newman, Kathy B Newman, Ms. Psera Newman, Psera F. Newman, Roberta Newman, Sarah Newman, Sarah F. Newmark, Ananda Newmark, Moshe and Hamsa Newsham, Don Newton, Elizabeth Newton, Gabe Newton, Gabe Newton, Gregory Newton, Pamela Newton, Patrick Newton, Peter Newton, Roger Nez, Jonathan Nez, Melissa Nez, Milton Nez, Miss Nicole Ngo, Annie Ngo, Jason Nguyen, Diem-Tran Nguyen, Jimmy Nguyen, Lee Nguyen, Myhanh Nguyen, Sandra Nguyen, Tommy Nguyen, Tony Nguyen, Tuan Nguyer, Don Niblick, Adam Nice, Asia Niceswanger, Bryce Nicholas, Garcia Nicholas, Shirley Nichols, Carol Nichols, Lyle Nichols, Nick Nichols, Wallace Nicholso, Leslie

Submission ID 13369 8988 15535 1453 17080 12886 74 99 12746 9907 9114 16497 477 84 7975 13368 5864 14474 13879 729 13862 17362 1451 17909 17767 17804 6129 17867 2507 13541 17898 17806 9009 17777 2200 3383 6165 17885 7518 4870 16254 2399 925 4295

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), 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 56(SR318), 126(SR409) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 26(SR540), 114(SR730), 114(SR734) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 93(SR644), 114(SR756) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 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), 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), 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), 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 - 265

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Nicholson, Mary Nickles, Patricia Nickols, Matthew Nicol, Scott Nicolai, Mary Nicolaisen, Jaime Nicolls, Kani Nicolls, Kevin Nicosia, Chris Nicosia, Kimberly Niculescu, Anca Niculescu, Anca Niculescu, Anca Niculescu, Anca Niculescu, Anca Niculescu, Anca Niederkofler, David Niedner, Jean Niedowski, Raymond Nieermeier, Paul Nield, Linda S. Nielsen, Ashley Nielsen, Heidi Nielsen, Janet Nielsen, Jerriann Niemand, Marco Nierenberg, Meridith Nieves, Laura Nightingale, Mike Nigl, Judy Nigro, Dana Niko, Plait Niles, Amy Nilsson, Diane Nimmons, Cynthia Nippert, Fred Nirenstein, Dorothy Nishigaki, Mrs. Kurumi Nishioka, Joy Nishioshima, Takako

Submission ID 12368 7370 6950 9402 2637 6619 12695 11510 15668 15124 936 937 938 939 940 941 4476 2803 7828 12665 6617 15650 14325 12915 13050 14667 1360 13836 13851 4964 4204 6179 12543 5424 7534 4981 4532 1477 14729 1018

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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 266

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Nissila-Stone, Idelle Nix, Barbara Nixon, Beth Nixon, Kristi Nixon, Robert Noah, Ian Noah, Sandra Noble, Craig Noble, Mary Noble, Sky Nobles, Melissa Noblett, Dianne Noblett, Gregg Noe, Chava Noel, Deborah Noel, Philip Noel, Virginia Noftz, Jeff Nofzinger, Ron Nogare, John Nogare, Susan Noice, Gordon Nolan, Anmorya Nolan, Annette R Nolan, Bridget Nolan, Fiona Nolan, Michael Nolan, Michael Nolan, Therese Noland, Lalla Nolde, Frances Nolfi, David and Jennifer Noll, Catherine Noll, Judy Noll, Richard Nollen, Ashley Nommik, Judy Nomura, Amy None, None

Submission ID 8792 2072 1531 8604 15560 3295 2359 6947 12858 2167 7089 9213 8339 8249 13798 11545 14868 4885 4799 16302 15420 8922 6177 13601 4878 3036 5796 14263 4927 7270 6891 3730 2179 2763 4737 9984 4067 12024 17562

None, None Nong, Stephen Nonreadable, Nonreadable Noon, Barb Nooyen, Fleur

11845 5131 17044 498 11973

Location of Comments/Responses 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 77(1184) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 102(986), 35(SR121), 97(SR346), 126(SR420), 78(SR519), 88(SR610), 88(SR614), 93(SR654), 114(SR736), 114(SR746), 120(SR777) 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) 20(919), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 267

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Nopp, Patrick Nordhof, Pamela Nordin, Virginia Nordland, Tom & Jeanne Nordstrom, Carla Nordstrom, Eli Noren, Gary Noriko, Hashimoto Norkute, Miss Milda Norman, Jake Norman, Julie Norman, Mrs. Sonya Norman, Ms. Emma Norris, Cynthia Norris, Dorothy Norris, Josh Norris, Kaye Norrod, Rebecca North, Bobbie Northcutt, David Northup, Albert A. Northup, John Norton, Brandee Norton, Jeff Norton, Jenni Norton, Judith Norton, Penelope Norton, PI Norwood, Beth Not Available, Andreanna Not Available, Ben Not Available, D. Not Available, Jack Not Available, katsuya Not Available, Morgan Not Available, Not Avaialble Not Available, Not Avaialble Not available, Not Available Not Available, Not Available Not Available, Not Available

Submission ID 12454 8928 12072 5392 13961 10403 13983 1160 1567 5362 16794 1458 1455 12847 15608 8780 2331 5540 12116 3463 17122 12981 11141 15341 15570 13610 8063 11484 3736 17142 17583 17134 17217 918 17062 695 697 17224 141 17521

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), 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), 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), 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) 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) 97(SR333), 93(SR646) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 78(SR516), 81(SR561), 88(SR586) 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(SR493) 52(SR242), 89(SR628) 81(SR568) 77(SR481) 94(1074), 81(SR569)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 268

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Not Available, Not Available Not Available, Not Available Not Available, Not Available Not Available, Not Available Not Available, Paul Not Available, Priscilla Not Readable, Not Readable Notgrass, Randall Nothdurft, Anja Novacek, Kelsey Novak, Chris Novak, Christopher Novak, Clayton Novak, Nancy Novak-Garrett, Melissa Novick, Ms. Lynn J. Novotny, Michael Novotny, Michael & Sally Nowak, Heather Nowak, Mariette Nowell, Lee Nowland, Kirsten Noyes, Gwendolen Null, Elisabeth Nulph, Ambre Numata, Kazuko Nunes, Sandra Nunez, Carlos Nunez, Kelsey Nunez, Rayleen Nunn, Mary and Scott Nunn, Scott Nurden, Nancy Nurkse, Lucille Nutlouis, Roberto Nuvamsa, Ben Ny, Arthur Nye, Jennifer Nystedt, Patricia Nystrom, Kristofer Nystrom, Kristofer O Bisogno, Scotti

Submission ID 65 17037 920 17033 17110 17228 1161 3802 13062 11462 8778 8495 6486 14398 16712 2127 8512 16528 9537 11779 13388 2841 6662 6852 7911 1889 3406 8186 8689 5041 15041 9876 6256 2912 1579 17852 17857 6900 14083 11600 5815 13294

Location of Comments/Responses 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 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) 114(SR748) 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) 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), 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) 89(SR626) 20(1059) 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 - 269

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter O' Shea, Dennis O, Rick O., Mark Oakes, Bonnie Oakes, Sarah L. Oakley, Chad Oakley, Chad Oakley, Chad Oberg, Pamela Oberman, Karena Obermeyer, Julie Obermeyer, Julie Obermeyer, Vickie obligacion, emma O'Brien, Anna O'Brien, Barbara O'Brien, Bridget O'Brien, Chris O'Brien, Debbie Obrien, Deborah O'Brien, Evelyn O'Brien, Gina O'Brien, Jerry O'Brien, Kylin O'Brien, Michael O'Brien, Michael O'Brien, Robert O'Brien, Robin O'Brien, Sean Obrigewitsch, Sharyn O'Bryan, Richard Ochal, Melissa Ochiai, Tsuyoshi Ochiai, Tsuyoshi Ochiai, Tsuyoshi Ochiai, Tsuyoshi Ochiai, Tsuyoshi Ochiai, Tsuyoshi

Submission ID 5006 14901 6102 3350 16445 1021 1599 1020 11834 6122 7884 15660 14503 4480 13046 5253 14246 3961 12605 8564 9840 3111 13651 4664 4718 8256 1362 13560 17034 9155 12987 11687 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156

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) 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 88(SR580) 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), 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 - 270

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Ocone, Angela O'Connell, Jan OConnell, Karen O'Connell, Kathy O'Connell, Maureen O'Connell, Ryan O'Connell, Ryan O'Connell, Virginia O'Connor, Eirene O'Connor, Erin O'Connor, Jim O'Connor, Lisa O'Dea, Eileen Odelberg, Bruce Odell, Wes Odette, Autumn Odneal, Amber Odney, Cathy O'Donald,, Lita O'Donnell, Kelly O'Donnell, Shawn O'Donohue, Nancy O'Dowd, John Odum, Maeve Oelker, Gregg Oertel, Kelly Oesterhaus, Laura R. Offen, Henry Ogawa, Aki Ogawa, Mayumi Ogden, Don Ogden, Louis Ogden, Melissa Ogella, Edith Oggiono, Nanette Ogle, David Ogner, Robert Ognjanovic, Michelle B. Ogonowski, David Ogonowski, Mark Ogonowski, Mark O'Gorman, Suzanne Ogren, Maya Ogura, Saori

Submission ID 1236 4127 10659 13438 10445 3967 16722 13675 13086 6433 15767 7530 6577 9040 15711 13699 11702 12928 17584 16770 11005 13622 8773 2416 2161 9996 7256 9058 1099 1083 572 9904 12894 16499 7835 4008 13781 11995 11615 9965 16486 13656 3096 1872

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) 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) 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) 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), 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(SR365), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 271

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Oh, Yoon Ah E.

Submission ID 17704

O'Halloran, Mary O'Halloran, William Ohanian, Diane O'Hanlon, Larry O'Hara, Colleen O'Hara, Erin Ohlenkamp, Kris Ohmiya, Natsuki Ojala, William Okamura, Kim OKasick, Susan Okazaki, Kenji Okazaki, M. Okazaki, Pearl O'Keefe, Roberta O'Kelley, Shayna Oker, Teri Oki, Peggy Okita, Katherine Okonkwo, Nanetta Okuda, Keana Okumura, Miss Ayumi Okumura, Toshihiro O'Laughlin, Kay Old Crow, Alissa Oldehoeft, Kimberly Oldfather, Brad Oldfield, Michaela Oldread, Tim Olea, Tammy O'Leary, Cathy O'Leary, David Olenick, Thomas Oleskevich, Diana Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet and Associates St. Louis Province Oleszczuk, Erica Olguin-Henson, Gloria Oliker, Stephen

14140 10973 14318 16153 12786 16489 16605 2915 3935 6536 2699 16964 16970 16966 14061 10946 7862 11519 12186 13934 7852 1696 1817 4117 14949 15605 2771 12548 14931 14480 16636 11418 8073 22

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) 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) 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) 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), 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 120(SR777)

3839 9480 10110

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 - 272

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Olin, Amy Antioch College Olin, Christopher Oliphant, Jean Olivant, Denise Olivant, Denise Olivant, Denise Oliver, Beth Oliver, Della Oliver, Henry Oliver, Martha Olivier, Sally Olivieri, Matthew Ollove, Steve Olmeda, Federico Olmez, Justine Oloner, Sean Olsen, Alice Olsen, Barrie Olsen, Ms. Angie Olsen, Rebecca Olsen, Scott Olson, Andrea Olson, Arthur Olson, Debbie Olson, Edward Olson, Janna Olson, John Olson, Judy Olson, Karen Olson, Kevin Olson, Kurt Olson, Marilyn Olson, Mark Olson, Mary Olson, Nicholas Olson, Pamela Olson, Patti Olson, Peter Olson, Richard Olson, Ruth Olson, Tarin Olson, Yvonne

Submission ID 17284 16693 11029 1096 1097 1098 9436 15947 4327 15843 13112 4779 12789 2098 1972 17642 6211 11969 1543 15598 11180 5207 6988 5236 7316 2192 13666 7340 13554 6302 8645 16868 12697 13980 5102 5105 11195 15264 6985 13316 16092 5713

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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 273

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Olver, Martha Olvera, Catherine Omack, Scott O'Malley, Nicole Oman, Maryellen O'Mara, Dana Ombalski, Katie Ona, Sharon Onderdonk, Daphne O'Neal, Kate O'Neil, Amanda O'Neil, John O'Neil, Justice O'Neil, Wayne O'Neill, Bridget O'Neill, Colleen O'Neill, Maeve O'Neill, Ms. Bobbie Ongchua, Hans Ongoco, Melvin-Chris Onlf, Eilene Ono, Yosihiro Ono, Yosihiro Onodera, Arina Onsgard, Shawn Onstad, Julianna Onstad, Karen Onufrak, Stephen Oohata, Mrs. Akiko Opal, Paula Oppenhuizen, Kathy Oquitadas, Dash Orahoske, Andrew Orcholski, Gerald Ordonez, Brenda Ordonez, Richard O'Reilly, Catherine O'Reilly, Colleen Oringel, Ethan Orlando, Jon Orlando, Jon

Submission ID 11836 10144 10336 7515 16686 8369 15806 2377 8234 7871 15773 10284 2958 575 8156 13881 4780 1466 10813 17879 17866 1061 1038 1827 7051 6872 4346 9073 1686 10759 16295 7267 15234 9774 6892 5662 11482 17613 10548 1642 14897

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) 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), 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) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 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), 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 - 274

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Orlina, Enrique Ormond, Suzanne Ornelas, Gehrig Orona, Rosa Maria Oropeza, Carlos O'Rourke, Kevin Orr, Barbara Orr, Megan Orr, Paul Orr, Steffanie Orr, Susanna Orr, Trent Orsburn, Theresa Orth, Donna Ortiz, Simon J. Ortman, Howard Orwig, Jacquelin Orzechowski, Larry Osanbs, Margo Osborn, Wren Osborne, Alan Osborne, Martin Osborne, Miri Osborne, Susan River Ranch Oser, Wendy Oshea, Kris osher, tom Osias, Ruth Osland, Robert Osten, Mary Osterman, Steven Ostrander, Marvin Ostrom, Gavin Ostrov, Jamie O'Sullivan, Joseph O'Sullivan, Joseph Oswald, Angela Otazo, Nina1 Otero, Joby Otillio, Patricia O'Toole, Shawn Otremba-Blanc, Bernard Ott, Russell Ottenbrite, Shelley

Submission ID 6743 6593 13930 12506 1333 4560 7405 4861 7674 7244 2491 15253 2189 4318 1733 6320 12856 15160 17886 6193 4361 12474 4308 13912 5211 4223 6389 9880 3622 5112 2829 12732 9078 15431 10637 16335 3502 10814 10992 7507 10152 29 8053 15984

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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 42(SR174), 120(SR777) 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 - 275

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Ottenstein, Jay Otto, Kristin Otwell, Diana Ou, Yu-Chia Ouellette, Tracy Ourusoff, Nicholas Overacker, Kelly Overcash, Michelle overeem, gabby Overly, Dee Overstreet, Rosemarie Overy, Samantha Oviatt, Rhonda Owen, Andrea Owen, Olivia Owen, Rob Owens, Larry Oxelson, Eric Oxley, Dardan Oxyer, Jim Oyer, David Ozeck, Mark Ozimek, Carolyn Ozkan, Dogan Ozkul, Ruth Ozment-Skelton, Tammy P (unreadable), Daniel P, D P, R P. (unreadable), Gal Paar, Lydia Pace, Betty Pace, Christina Pace, Jacqueline Pacheco, Christine Pacheco, Thomas Pacifico, Pat Pacifico, Patrick Pacini, Robert Pacitti, Dena Packard, Dee Paczkowski, Karen Paddison, Al Paddock-Adee, Kathryn

Submission ID 17623 9655 4481 17907 16891 5437 1782 13272 7061 9061 6711 12749 4962 4446 3467 872 14903 9563 10265 7259 2469 9726 1936 8161 13650 8965 17633 5421 7005 17276 885 6216 11035 3320 520 15000 4498 3455 8261 7563 3768 4046 3165 14023

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) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 19(SR88) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 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) 45(SR874) 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 - 276

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Padilla, Anne Page, John Page, Lauren Page, Linda Page, Marcine Paglia, Victor Paik, Janice Pailes, Virginia Painter, Ms. Kristin Paisley, Patricia Palcich, Elanne Palczarska, Sylvia Palencia, Kachina Palermo, Patricia Paley, Phillip Pallen, Jeanneadele Palm, Lowell Palmer, Jane Palmer, Jason Palmer, Libby Palmer, Matt Palmer, Michelle Palmer, Michelle Palmer, Mr. Howard T. Palmer, Pohakamalamalama Palmer, R. Brent Palmer, Rodney Palmiter, Dick Palo, Brenda Pan, Pinky Jain Panchal, Sanay Panella, Ruth Panelli, Andrew and Patricia Panetti, Cosimina Pangburn, James Pann, Cheri Pann, Robert Pannullo, Linda Pantukhoff, Jeff Panuczak, Jeanne Panyko, Marguerite Panzer, Elinor Papandrea, John Pape, Leslie

Submission ID 15737 6693 10535 14128 1359 2913 16288 10164 1507 6088 12699 1751 3618 9615 10033 10687 5264 12174 14192 6549 17045 9193 15299 1011 12508 14874 4038 9191 7752 16768 17812 9656 2241 10824 11461 10668 5564 4020 8776 8232 10040 1947 12062 1994

Location of Comments/Responses 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 102(SR1193) 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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), 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 277

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Pape, Michelle Papes, Joan Papez, Dana papke, rob Pappas, John Pappas, Tanya Paquette, Jamie Paradis, Kate Paradise, Diana Paras, Beverly Paras, Breann Parbhoo, Erich Pardee, Cathy Paredes, Robert Parent, Anthony Parham, Douglas Parikh, Parth Paris, Karin Paris, LeAnne Parisey, Christine Parish, Amanda Park, Chris Park, Grace Park, Jacob Park, Jeannie Parke, Nicki Parker III, Gordon Parker, Becky Parker, Brenda Parker, Cindy Parker, Corliss Parker, David Parker, Deborah Parker, Derek Parker, Douglas Parker, Erika Parker, Erika Parker, Janice Parker, Judith Parker, Keith Parker, Lea Parker, M Parker, Margaret Parker, Mary Parker, Michael

Submission ID 10246 15131 14831 7154 10123 13942 12457 11276 12813 13906 13999 10091 2725 6291 5953 14659 17792 10661 11829 1662 15255 9646 17868 7634 16433 12096 15480 11866 15470 7312 6367 16975 8019 12897 10095 7304 14496 9619 8786 16387 15270 1240 2183 11892 16622

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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 278

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Parker, Ms. Sarah Parker, Reece Parker, Richard & Richard Parker, Stan Parker-Perry, Rebecca Parkinen, Mitch Parkins, Parkins Parkinson, Gregory Parks, Brian Parks, Matthew Biology Department Parks, Paul and Tammy Parmenter, Annmarie Parmenter, Mary Parnell, Francis Parrinello, Julie Parris, Brandy Parrish, Cynthia Parrish, Diana Parrish, Joe Parrish, Larry Parrish, Leslie Parrish, Michelle Parrish, Roberta Parrott, Blair Parrott, Ian Parry, Ronald Parry, Ryan Parson, Tom Parsons, Brandon Parsons, Jeremy Parsons, Keith Parsons, Richard Parsons, Timothy Parsons, Tom Partlow, Daniel Partridge, Gary Paruch, Susan Pashko, Alissa Pasichnyk, Richard Pasin, Veronica Paskal, Alison Passarella, Nancy Passarge, Elke Passero, Barbara

Submission ID 1010 15084 7512 2298 13604 6327 7776 13789 3663 7413 10764 4206 8132 8664 2978 11178 5552 9199 2892 16672 10586 12232 15095 15581 5596 15604 17366 11758 2805 12463 4444 13236 3424 11057 3939 12101 13864 6230 13674 13883 9999 8692 6167 1600

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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 - 279

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Passman, Deborah Pastorius, Dawn Paszkiewicz, Chris Pate, George Pate, Jo Patel, Neelam

Submission ID 14201 1596 7810 2047 14136 646

Paterson, Leah Patillo, Cullin Patitz, Tatjana Patitz, Tatjana Patkus, Mary Patoka, Barbara Patoray, Arlene Patricia Elkaim, Patricia Patrick, Larry Patrizzi, Lee Pattalochi, Robert Pattee, Lisa Patterson, Anonymous Patterson, Fay Patterson, George Patterson, Jasper Patterson, Katrin Patterson, Lilia Patterson, Luke Patterson, Russell Patterson, Steven Patterson, Timothy Patterson, William Patterson, Zahra Patti, Charles Patton, David Patton, Kathleen Patton, Therese Patz, Donna Paul, Harris Paul, Jeffrey Paul, King Paul, Mary Paul, Patricia Paulenko, Pamela Pauley, Meagan Paulin, Viveca Pauling, Lynda

8634 745 4769 15706 3093 11913 1954 2073 2461 15062 16233 4781 172 11774 12330 5277 10035 604 1050 7261 10627 5738 16382 12408 4983 11916 8392 12080 14154 12941 2621 7960 3560 4464 13914 16301 4671 13021

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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) 19(SR88) 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) 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) 68(SR130), 88(SR580) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 280

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Paulsen, Dennis Paulsen, Melodie Pavloff, Laura Pawley, Dianne Pawley, R J & Dianne Pawley, R.J. Pawliczek, Jamie Pawlowski, Stephanie Payida, Tara Paylor, Stephen Payne, Cynthia Payne, Grace Payne, Heather Payne, John Payne, Matthew Peacock, Lauri Peacock, Lauri Peacock, Mary Peak, Abby Peak, Matthew Peake, Yogi Pearce Sr, J B Pearce, Alissa Pearce, Dawn Pearce, Margaret Peariso, Sharon Pearl, David

Submission ID 8668 6123 11372 17431 16983 17431 5354 1923 3906 3056 13539 5806 11629 5935 4363 3816 16162 4744 6163 10244 2460 4579 12643 14233 7387 15616 17682

Pearlman, Jeffrey Pearlman, Katie Pearson, Don Pearson, Janet Pearson, Nancy Pearson, Robert Pearson, Robert Pearson, Sandra Pearson, Scott Pearson, Shannon Peartree, Rika Pease, Michael Peaslee, Gail Peasley, Craig PeBenito, Milana Peck, Darrell

10395 10184 15154 13742 10155 7272 10307 4176 12594 13125 15887 2027 11183 9434 1105 8130

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) 42(SR106), 44(SR138), 108(SR222), 114(SR736), 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 41(SR131), 114(SR736), 45(SR874) 42(SR106), 44(SR138), 108(SR222), 114(SR736), 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) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 281

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Peck, Felicia Peck, Gene Peck, Jen Peck, Laura Peckler, Danae Peckler, Lee Pecor, Carol Pecyna, Nicole Pedersen, Jeannine Pederson, Donald Pederson, Hanne Pederson, Judy Pedley, Brett Pedroso, Rachel Pedroza, Carmen Peele, Pauline Peeler, Adam Peer, William Peet, Jessica Peet, Leslie Peet, Shauna Pehoski, Joe & Lynda Peirce, Roger Peirce, Sumner Peiser, Penelope Pejchar, Linda Pelakh, Susan Pelican, James Pelkey, Clare The Spiritual Center Pellecchia, Erin Pellecchia, Mary Pelt, Nicole Peluso, Anthony Pemberton, Elisabeth Pena, Celeste Pena, Michael Pena, Ms. Deborah Pendergast, Betsy Pendergast, Jerry Pendergast, Mary Pendleton, Lelia Penefort, Panie

Submission ID 5924 1536 16641 2939 14231 7571 16120 8529 3385 4913 15913 7855 6568 8469 1812 8230 6366 14499 6137 9172 13653 5275 10089 8534 11446 15669 6209 17197 4934 5016 2690 9343 5639 13855 17335 10821 1494 12155 6588 12654 8525 17542

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 35(SR244), 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), 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) 88(1037) 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 - 282

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Pengilley, Rhysian Penn, Diane Penner, Marsha Penner, Richard Pennington, Laura Pennington, Penni Pennock, Ellery Pennoyer, Christy Penrod, Kristeen Pentecost, Nancy Pentheny, Mark Peoples, Vicki Pepe, James Pepper, Nancy Pepper, William Perada, Allen Perala Gardiner, Christine Pereira, Andy Pereira, Esther Pereira, Jorge Pereira, Trudy Perello, Dominic Perenne, Luise Peretz, Matthew Perez, Edward Perez, Ellen Perez, Flordelisa Perez, Gamaliel Perez, Juan Perez, Juliet Perez, Pepie Perfido, Mara Perkins, Casey Perkins, Julie Perkins, Kevin Perkins, Penny Perkins, Randi Perkins, Robert Perkins, Roberta Perkins, Sheen Perkuhn, Linda Perley, Sue Perlich, Doug Perlick, Mary Perlman, Deborah Perlman, Frances

Submission ID 15954 14018 16247 13011 8027 11191 5406 16843 10716 6446 10191 13626 5355 4357 8721 7008 16412 10985 16275 2253 5376 11287 4450 10935 3859 6043 13981 3343 202 3107 17285 13048 14315 9422 15538 15256 14108 7045 13288 9626 3351 10616 12295 4211 11924 15015

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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 - 283

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Perlman, Janine Perlman, Jason Perona, Eliah Perrault, Carol Perrine, Lisa Perron, Jeanine Perrot, Nicole Perrot, Nicole Perry, _ Perry, Brian Perry, Diane Perry, Gale Perry, Joel Perry, Miranda Perry, Susan Perryman, JoAnn Perschka, Halona Persichetty, Rita Person, Becky Persson, Angelica Peryea, Amelie

Submission ID 455 4149 11986 10298 3234 9762 2150 17636 17341 12912 9126 12911 5985 15043 2936 15578 4767 5134 478 10797 672

Perzik, Jordan Petagna, Maria Petardi, Jeannine Peter, Bobbie Peter, David Peter, Robert Peternel, Nadine Peters, (unreadable)

12745 7841 9567 10371 2206 10087 14109 17742

Peters, Amy Peters, Andrew Peters, Andrew Peters, Elaine Peters, Felicia Peters, Gary and Sheryl Peters, Griff Peters, Jean Peters, Jerry Peters, John Francis Peters, Michael Peters, Tamra Peters, Wayne B. Petersen, Colyn

11835 8066 15708 6091 14379 9513 10077 13410 7806 11021 12114 8733 6644 1856

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR244) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 5(SR38), 54(SR289), 126(SR409), 105(SR703) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 78(SR492) 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) 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) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 284

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Petersen, John Petersen, John Petersen, John Petersen, Lara Petersen, Noelle Petersen, Thomas Petri Peterson, Arlo L. Peterson, Charles Peterson, Chris Peterson, Eva A Peterson, Gregory Peterson, Jane Peterson, Janelle Peterson, John Peterson, Kimberly Peterson, Kimberly Peterson, Marcia Peterson, Marcia Peterson, Mary Peterson, Matt Peterson, Nancy peterson, patricia Peterson, Sandra Peterson, Sandy Peterson, Sheri Peterson, Terry Petersson, Miss Marita Petillo, Katherine Petipas, Julia Petite, Pamela Petoskey, Rox Petrak, Thanice Petralia, Robert Petren, Conor Petrick, Candy Petricone, Ingrid Petrie, Christina Petrillo, Diane J Petrites, Timothy Petrof, Charles Petroni, Danielle Petrovich, Karin Petrulias, Linda Petsco Sr., John Pettepiece, Brian Pettijohn, Lise

Submission ID 9326 11773 16554 15147 8724 1809 17659 11363 9386 12617 14259 3905 6770 16765 6699 16455 4521 16216 6388 14544 13652 7957 15082 5156 5500 8428 1569 10448 14428 14266 15671 13238 3534 2807 5823 16069 6197 15386 10147 2357 6313 10721 6351 4304 11709 2394

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), 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) 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) 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), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 45(SR874)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 285

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Pettijohn, Mark & Delaney Pettis, Lydia Pettit, Mr. Kenny Pettit, Mr. Kenny Pettit, Mr. Kenny Pettit, Mr. Kenny Pettit, Mr. Kenny Pettit, Mr. Kenny Pettit, Mr. Kenny Pettit, Pam Pewthers, Cale Pezzack, Emma Pfab, Irvin Pfannenbecker, Susan Pfeffer, Jo Pfeifer, Jason Pfeiffer, Jennifer Pfeiffer, John D. Pflug, Maria Phaby, Michelle Phakos, Cynthia Phelps, Jayne Phelps, Michael Pheneger, Tracy Philips, Mark Philips, Patrisa Phillips, A.A. and Lynne Phillips, Alan & Elizabeth Phillips, Anne Phillips, Anne Phillips, Chip Phillips, Julia Phillips, Karen Phillips, Kathleen Phillips, Leigh Ann Phillips, Lynne Phillips, Lynne Phillips, Lynne W Phillips, Martyn Phillips, Mary Phillips, Maxx

Submission ID 9098 10914 1434 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 10892 14861 7875 7864 11085 16203 14725 2148 336 5629 1557 7479 14082 3008 9487 8482 16883 17841 12148 6897 3332 7389 12430 9926 12842 16587 5624 16915 16963 13027 2781 5699

Location of Comments/Responses 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), 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 114(SR739) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 286

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Phillips, Megan Phillips, Patricia Phillips, Richard Phillips, Richard Phillips, Scot Phillips, Shannon Phillips, Sheridan Phillips, Skye Phillips, Stephanie Phillips, Sue Phillips, Sydney Phillips, Tiffany Phillips, Tom and Carrie Philpot, Judith Philpot, Judith Phipps, Susan G. Phoenix, Susan Phythian, Mary Piana, Katherine Picchetti, Gloria Picciotti, Melanie Picciotti, Melanie Piccirillo, Danny Picconi, Jack Picconi, Jack Pic-Harrison, Sara Pichey, Denise Pickarski, Karen Pickens, Tom Pickering, Amy Pickering, Andy Pickett, Charlotte Pickett, David Picone, Sharon Pidduck, Kevin Pidluny, Michelle Piecuch, Clara Piehl, Eric Piehler, Adam Piekarski, John Pienciak, Sue Pierce, Angela Pierce, Anna Pierce, Anne Pierce, Crystal Pierce, Cynthia

Submission ID 17375 5143 7895 16492 6560 14303 11630 4616 16283 404 4379 16023 5870 11568 15076 8713 2157 5348 11399 10988 11607 15687 13971 432 432 16330 15140 14068 5588 3110 13384 9822 17394 15851 10594 38 11214 12145 8441 14710 11794 7561 13055 7976 13692 9305

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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 125(1234) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 56(SR920) 15(SR16), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 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 - 287

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Pierce, Deborah Pierce, James Pierce, Lincoln Pierce, Mary Pierce-Dunn, Debra Pierrelous, Cindy Pierson, Frances Pierszalowski, Susan Pietrocarlo, Paul Pifer Bach, Barbara Pigo, Sheri Pihl, Eric Pikala, Christine Pike, Andrea Pike, Jason Pilcher, Bonnie Pilcher, Steve and Ann Pilgrim, Don Pilkington, Vivian Pillsbury, Cheri Pinasco, Nelly Pinasco, Nelly Pinder, Heather Pine, David Pineiro, Jordan Pinkerton, Courtney D.

Submission ID 10682 8622 6929 13122 5353 17502 4250 3149 15741 11443 11303 16710 13413 8653 7635 12473 11109 5654 12802 5415 1967 14538 2731 16941 13285 640

Pinkston, Pamela Pinnell, Janna Pinnella, Lee Pino, Manuel

9014 13978 9470 718

Pintilie, Elena Pintilie, Elena Pinto, Alberto Piona, Lewis Piotrowski, Angela Piotrowski, Michelle Piper, Adam Piper, Cynthia Pippin, Buford Pirch, Donald Pire, Patricia Pisanic, Lisa

6853 15276 5832 11905 10279 6304 16805 4547 6980 4263 8463 2760

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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 16(SR7), 55(SR22), 5(SR39), 45(SR100), 50(SR163), 20(SR246), 53(SR255), 54(SR288), 54(SR289), 57(SR334), 126(SR409), 88(SR586), 95(SR665), 118(SR762), 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) 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 - 288

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Pisapia, Katie Piser, Dan Pistolesi, Linda Pisula, Andrew Pitt, Chris Pitt, Jon Pitt, Terry Pitt, Terry Pittea, Chetna Pittman, David Pitts, Bill Pitts, Kristen Pitzer, Earl Pivnick, Rachel Pixley, Elizabeth Place, Katie Place, Katie Place, Mike and Katie Placzkowski, Mark Placzkowski, Pauline Plage, Dotty Plagmann, James Plait, Gina Plank, Suzanne Plant, Karen Plant, Pennie plant, stacey Plante, Kyle Platner, Andrew Platt, Colin Platt, Emily Platt, Jason Platt, Jeffrey Platt, John Platt, Margaret Pleet, Rona Pleskovitch, Edward Plourde, Steve Plumley, Michael Plummer, Amy Plummer, Janel Plummer, John Plummer, Priscilla Pluskowski, Nina Poad, Veronica

Submission ID 1956 6480 4893 5705 11557 10133 12747 16459 15934 8538 2846 10267 2709 5011 15108 314 314 9710 1009 1294 5288 11741 6292 5258 3431 576 2891 11475 6271 2319 4340 4195 5773 6587 13066 204 4440 9109 3548 5897 3547 4371 1614 7532 15981

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) 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) 45(SR874) 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) 106(SR702) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 289

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Pocius, F. Jay Pocius, Jennifer Podolsky, Charlotte Podrasky, Laura Poessel, Sharon Poferl, Gerrie Pohl, Jon Poitra-Chalmers, Helen Polacca, Karyn Polacca, Kevin Polacca, Lyman Polacsek, Ron Polcino, Miriam Polefka, Shiva Polesky, Alice Polick, Melissa Polimenakos, Angela Polk, Sandra Pollack, Carole Pollack, Darcy Pollack, Jeri Pollack, Sharon Pollak, Gregory Pollard, Christine Polson, Mr. Dave Pomeroy, Anahata Pond, Gregory Pond, Katherine Ponisciak, Joseph Ponsford, Jon Ponsford, Jon Pont Turco, Sandrine Pontbriand, Trevor Ponyah, Brandon Poole, Jack Poole, Lizzy and Herb Poole, Margaret Poosakey, Poosakey Pope, Daniel Pope, David Pope, Glenn Pope, Robert Pope, Robert Pope, Stina

Submission ID 11263 6881 7734 15403 15483 15417 3554 5453 17388 741 742 12057 11177 16893 16050 9101 7484 13057 15545 7807 13415 9128 15321 2025 1510 12722 12542 6482 12128 1092 6957 50 12102 17514 12950 11481 7521 8076 6771 10364 6552 14022 6156 9869

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) 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) 42(SR106), 79(SR536), 114(SR736) 42(SR106), 44(SR138), 76(SR455) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 78(SR521) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 290

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Popik, James Hopewell Poplawski, Terry Poplin, Becky Popolizio, Carlo Poppe, Sue Porebski, Katherine and Art Porfirio, Andrea Porta, Megan Porta, Megan A. Portailler, louize Portale, Liese Porter, Catherine Porter, David Porter, Jane Porter, Kathleen Porter, Natalie Porter, Scott Porter, Sonia Ports, Cheryl Pos, Ryland Posella, Karyn Poser, Toby Posner, David Pospisil, Charles A. Post, Charles Postin, Leslie Poston, Rebekah Potchynok, Lynna Potter, Arlyn Potter, Jean Pottgen, Troy Potts, Michelle Potts, Richard & Gail Poulin, Roger Pounds, William Povlich, Terry Powelko, Ron Powell, Charles V. powell, Eugene Powell, George Powell, Janice Powell, Jasper Powell, Karen Powell, Lorene Powell, Mel Powell, Michael & Susan

Submission ID 9106 14011 2186 9316 8291 14314 3213 14811 5801 1356 6125 5311 11936 4302 12661 7511 13603 14209 9677 9163 12118 6073 5347 2672 3012 11959 8760 5210 5634 6509 309 15170 16053 1930 6284 4098 10998 13525 7950 11733 4305 11404 9378 11486 10525 6422

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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 291

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Powell, Robin Powell, Tracy Power, Diane Power, Stephanie Powers Monty, Kristina Powers, Christopher Powers, Colleen Powers, Joanne Powers, John Powers, Linda Powers, Michael Powers, Mickey Powers, Thomas Powless, Douglas Powley, Sarah Poxon, Judith Poyant, Andrew Poyant, Andrew Prack, Jessica Prater, Stacy Pratt, Cameron Pratt, Jonathan Pratt, Marlene Prazenka, Susanne Prchal, Joseph Prchal, Joseph Prchal, Steve Preciado, J. Preda, Mihai Preliasco, Christine Premananda, Parvati Prendiville, Mary Prentice, Daniel Prentice, Nora Prentice, Sister Letitia Prentiss, Alexandra Presley, Stephanie Press, Roland Preston, Elizabeth Preston, Helen Preston, Kelly Preston, Mar Preston, Mr. Rudy Preston, Rudy Flagstaff Activist Network Preston, Tim & Pat

Submission ID 14226 13717 9331 4928 2107 17504 4126 7569 2896 8345 15825 10491 11953 4071 3118 7100 6464 16232 14669 9744 2610 6909 15505 7324 10830 16501 14464 3609 6070 13564 6740 7961 796 14423 7394 6802 3628 11547 8920 3014 2612 16695 1426 27 11490

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) 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), 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) 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) 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 292

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Pretti Blumenthal, Mr. Mark and Ms. Karen Preucil, Susan Preuss, Jennifer Preuss, Robert Preusser, Joan Prevoteau, Philippe Price, Carole Price, Charles Price, Dana Price, Dean Price, Faith Price, Joan Price, Karen Price, Lynn Price, Michele Price, Nicole Price, Rhiannan Price, Richard Price, Robbie Price, Trevor Priddy, Brenda Priddy, Brian Priebe, Maryruth Prieboy, Michelle Prier, Michelle Primm, Jessica Prince, Darcy Prince, John and Ann Prince, Michael Prine, Deanna Prinzivalli, Mary Pritchard, Elisa Pritchard, Eric Pritchard, John Pritchard, Lisa Pritchard, Sherry Pritchard, William Pritt, Sara Proctor, Lindsey Proeger, Terry Proenza, Lynn Profitt, Joanie Profitt, Joanie Prohaska, Ana

Submission ID 15116 11593 4332 269 9723 2929 12998 3794 14565 6423 9909 665 11194 15975 10636 9613 6557 12998 8420 13018 443 16714 16598 11330 9525 12177 7258 1995 3956 14050 2700 9028 11453 2422 15868 3903 3805 10564 14648 6012 4181 17089 17158 6311

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) 76(SR452) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 56(1208), 45(SR100), 45(SR154), 51(SR157), 51(SR172), 51(SR182), 57(SR334), 56(SR1105) 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), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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 - 293

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Prohowich, Donna Prohowich, Stephen Prola, Jim and Diana Pronovost, Jason Propen, Beverly Proske, Gunther Black Mesa Project Prostko, David & Linda Proteau, Mary Provens, Donna Provensen, Christian Provenzano, James Provost, Patricia Pruneau, PauleAnne Przybysz, Jamie Psinakis, Steve Pucci, Danielle Pucci, Michael Puddicombe, Dawn Puder, Susan Puelle, Gerryl Puerta, Germain Puerta, Maya Puetz, Daniel Puga, Shirley Puggelli, Damian Pulcini, Elizabeth Pulido Leon, Jose Miguel Pulido Leon, Jose Miguel Pulitzer, Roslyn Pults, Jerry and Mary Pummer, Karen Punches, Jill Purcell, Launi Purchase, Deeanne Purdy, Shawn Purley, Carmelita C. Purnell, Elizabeth Purvis, Virginia Pustorino, Jill Puthoff, Mary Putnam, Caleb Putnam, Elizabeth Putnam, Hallison

Submission ID 11588 11581 16208 7495 10198 1632 7035 15063 10197 9616 8579 11812 9601 169 12591 3980 3793 9620 2743 12246 14469 14477 11485 16760 3796 5212 1170 1171 9828 7162 2006 6727 14479 11965 9992 17389 2230 260 6404 2766 3916 2878 2997

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), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 294

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Putnam, J Putnam, Mary F. Putzel, Sonia Puzick, Phil Qayum, Seemin Quail, Christopher Qualls, Mike Quas, Eva Maria Quay, Connie Quayle, Margaret Quaytman, J. A Queen, Laura Quellas, Matthew Quest, Wendi Quick, Paula Quick, Terri Quigley, April Quigley, Leslie Quijano, Max Quijano, Sigfrido Quillen, Jeanne Quinby, Amanda Quincey, Amy Quinet, Linda Quinlan, Alby Quinlan, Susan Quinn, Angela Quinn, Brennan

Submission ID 8405 12949 6810 9217 9497 12412 14432 1250 5892 2734 12304 16290 12675 7709 7554 16072 15157 10425 1906 1914 7568 12019 14813 5313 17651 1647 10736 152

Quinn, Christine Quinn, David Quinn, Debi Quinn, James Quinn, Mary Quinn, Michael Quinn, Stephen Quinsey, Gale Quintana, David Quintana, Jennifer Quintana, Rita Quintero, Josephine Quintero, Kaelen Quinton, Angie

13473 12892 15788 15822 10221 14045 15929 13768 7400 13134 1892 17342 17182 10080

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) 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 109(1005), 54(1173), 41(SR131), 51(SR182), 51(SR183), 22(SR280), 63(SR377), 126(SR412), 126(SR434), 76(SR453), 77(SR479), 77(SR480), 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) 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) 127(SR367) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 51(SR177), 126(SR409) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 295

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Quirk, Michael Quiroz, Carolina Quong, Angela R, Donna R. (unreadable), Claire R. (unreadable), M. (unreadable) R. (unreadable), R. (unreadable) Raab, Kristina Raab, Ted Rabaut, Martha Rabbitt, Caitilin Rabeno, Lou Raber, Dima Rabichow, Barry Racanelli, Tom Racer, Laurie Rachel, Miss Rachel, Naomi Racine, Bill Racine, Denyse Racine, Michael Radd, Roger Radder, Susan Rader, Beverly Rader, Doug Radke, Irene Radke, Kathryn Radle, Bernice Rado, John Radolinski, Lauren Rae, Julianne Rae, Kenneth Raffaele, Marilyn raftery, dorothy Ragalyi, Sarah Ragan, Peter Raggett, Kate Raglione, Joseph Ragsdale, Grace Rahman, Deborah Raimo, Hillary Rain, Barbara Rainbeau, Cory Raineri, Paul

Submission ID 9479 17899 15989 10034 17392 17286 17356 5360 16723 6387 14602 11874 14872 10390 9702 15309 1802 15396 14441 15643 5875 16430 10570 11324 5962 12216 10330 3273 9032 7520 5243 12607 13345 6555 2389 16662 15079 15999 8103 13252 8671 12397 13408 7693

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 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), 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 296

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Raineri, Valerie Rainwater, Kevin Raitt, Bonnie Rakes, Howard Ramasvbramanian, Pavithra Ramey, Mindy Ramirez, George Ramirez, Jacquelyn Ramirez, Jennifer Ramirez, Karen Ramirez, Richard Ramlow, Bob Rammelkamp, Matthew Ramo, Carol Ramos, Joann Ramos, Miguel Ramquist, Janis Ramsey, Anna Ramsey, Deborah Ramsey, Jacquelyn Ramsey, Jenna Ramsey, Lauren Ramsey, Sher Ann Ramsey, Todd Ramstack, James Randeniya, Chatura

Submission ID 13423 4515 1784 6559 17910 13640 11946 4369 15555 1319 6030 3506 4348 6315 13782 15372 9875 17301 8826 11095 14752 13926 1008 8470 3896 17725

Randolph, Dieter Randolph, Sheri Rane, Joel Ranft, Stephanie Rangel, Valerie Rank, Louann Rankin, Sara Rankin-Branansky, Karen Rankins, Melinda Rankins, Melinda Ransler, Abby Ransom, Jill Ransom, Jim Ransom, Sara Rao, Jennifer

11157 3824 16331 7430 542 145 16146 15166 11250 16689 10006 14186 1165 13124 4613

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 51(SR179), 77(SR705), 120(SR777) 45(SR874) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 297

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Rapalyea, Angela Raper, Connie Raper, Robert Rapicavoli, Emmanuelle Rapillo, Susan Rapp, Neville Rapport, Adi Rashby, Sky Rashby, Sky Rasmussen, Virginia Ratcliff, Philip Rath, Autumn Skye Rathbun, Hayah Rathfon, Steven Ratliff, Melanie Ratner, Jill Rattner, Ron Rau, Ron Rausch, Dylan Rauscher, Janet Raven, Alice Ravenscroft, Shay Ravenwood, Denise Rawlings, David Rawlings, Tracey Ray, Amelia Ray, Chad Ray, E. Ray, Lee Ann Ray, Paul Ray, Thomas Raya-Carlton, Pamela Rayberg, Susan Raymer, Sarah Jane Raymond, Catherine Raymond, Debra Raymond, Debra raymond, hal Raymond, Leslie Raymond, MariaElena Raymond, Mark Raymond, Michelle Raymond, Mitchell Raymond, Rebecca Raymond, Susanne Raymond, Tristan

Submission ID 4955 3336 10728 10645 3490 401 3414 14113 15049 12662 4201 10648 11883 7104 10085 9958 9255 12985 17310 9046 11054 10662 15328 9582 15684 3665 7703 16082 10629 10300 13217 14814 2178 5975 9544 7965 16415 4027 10747 14937 4216 16182 8111 1899 5797 2447

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) 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), 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 298

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Razmdjou, Marc Razmov, Valentin RCJR, Angelo Rea, Dennis Read, Ann Read, Janet Read, Ms. Mary Margaret Reade, William reading, jane Reagan, Sarah Real, Valeria N. Reams, Gail J. Reamy, James Reap, Patrick Rear, Reta O Reaser, Chris Reaver, Roxanne Reaves, Gerri Reback, Mark Rechel, Eric A Red, Rebecca Redding, Melinda Redding, Neil Redding, Sherley Redi, Tami Redish, Maryellen Redman, DIA Redman, Dia Redman, Sandi Redmann, Andriette Redmon, Dave & Ann Redmon, Rex Redmond, Mark Redpath, Michael Reece, Walter Reed, Bruce Reed, Bruce Reed, Cynthia Reed, Doris E Reed, Gordon Reed, Jessica Reed, John Reed, Judy Reed, Kristin Reed, Marthe Reed, Nancy

Submission ID 13949 11601 15187 7200 14758 13940 1513 7137 4366 2778 17802 3828 4437 13121 13149 9676 8058 14442 8121 15155 8082 3331 4864 13082 14754 3641 6647 6665 6911 6825 9312 7880 12087 16358 7325 10875 16767 16856 11797 5941 8300 14896 16304 15284 8399 11726

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 299

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Reed, Robert Reed, Robert R Reed, Scott Reed, Terri Reed, Vanessa Reede, Tim Rees, Hannah Rees, Michael Reese, Alex Reese, Garth Reese, Joy Reese, Renee Reese, Sara Reese, Sherwood Reese, Terrie Reeves, Bryan Reeves, George Refsell, Nadine Regan, Marilyn Regester, Cynthia Reggio, Julie Regina DeFalco, Lippert Rego-Ross, Sande Rego-Ross, Sande Rehkamp, William Rehm, Eric Rehn, Debra Rei, Celese Rei, Gennai Reiber, Dan Reichenbach, Amy K. Reichert, Amy Reid, Chris Reid, Donna Reid, Doug Reid, Elizabeth Reid, Janet Reid, John Reid, Joyce Reid, Matthew Reid, Ron Reid, Stephanie Reid, Tim Reidenbach, Gregory Reifinger, Laura Leigh

Submission ID 7058 14517 5952 10722 17405 2844 7493 5545 8296 11918 2827 3893 17354 10515 5725 5794 5310 6124 6626 7987 3514 5788 10901 16212 11609 10572 7157 10437 1145 5223 7306 11206 7621 12865 3242 12838 16588 13462 17167 518 17168 6502 10373 2534 6898

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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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(SR325) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 9(SR277) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 300

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Reilein, Amy Reilly, Jennifer Reilly, Jennifer Reilly, Zac Reimers, David Reimold, Randy Rein, Ilana Reina-Rosenbaum, Rose Reinberg, Don Reinbold, Gary Reine, Kathleen Reinert, Heinz Reinfeld, Jennifer Reinier, Berthha Reinig, Alan Reinke, James Reinoehl, Richard Reinprecht, Christine Reis, Jenni Reis, Rita Reiter, Bruce Reiter, David Reitz, Phillip Reitzel, Breanne Reizburg, Scott Rejon, Fernando Rekdal, Sheila Relac, Mike Relethford, Russell Rella, LoriAnn Rellich, Leland Rem, Nick Remedi, Angela Remington, Justin Remington, Stephanie Remple, Ruth Renaker, Marilyn Renaldi, Richard Renden, Robert Rendulich, Ellen Renfro, Katherine Renken, Norah Renner, Michael Renner, Randy

Submission ID 3325 16933 103 13474 8497 9817 9475 14382 9700 7320 13646 6510 9353 9144 4759 10156 6958 1866 2212 5490 11275 4300 6034 12079 2998 1007 3918 4093 12251 13839 17282 10632 6584 4336 15957 2360 10457 10756 6436 2112 10512 11301 2473 7933

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 16(1045), 5(SR35), 35(SR121), 57(SR334), 126(SR420), 121(SR786), 45(SR874) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 301

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Renner, Robert Renninger, William Rennolds, Susan Rentro, Caleb Repensek, Gail Replogle, Amber Reshetikhin, Assya Reskusich, John Resti, Justin Rettig, June Rettinghouse, Theresa Retzlaff, Lynn Reusch, Samantha Reuther, Carol Reutlinger, Helen Reutlinger, Kristen Reves, John Revis, Cathy Rex, Angela Rex, Constance Rey, Sophie Reyhner, Marie Reyn, Janet Reynolds, Brian Reynolds, Brian Reynolds, Bryon Reynolds, Dale Reynolds, Jeffery Reynolds, Melissa Reynolds, Melissa Reynolds, Nancy Reynolds, Rik Reynolds, Robert Reynolds, Robyn Reynolds, Toni Reynolds, Tracy Reynolds, Wende Reznick, Jake Rheinscheld, Daniel Rhem-Westhoff, Susan Rhetts, B Rhine, M Rhoades, Chuck Rhoads, Kirk Rhoads, Kirk Rhoads, Nancy

Submission ID 12502 2854 12526 17305 14013 17784 13913 13975 5003 15374 14443 8836 12170 12630 3209 10038 9011 3088 13069 15919 5168 719 10132 2975 14891 14732 10835 6287 3328 2146 14609 7230 8932 261 15876 15239 14978 7283 3442 2234 14228 11395 13371 4241 15496 8820

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), 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 78(SR494), 78(SR495) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 302

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Rhoda, Katherine Rhoda, Patricia Rhodes, Dave Rhodes, David Rhodes, Derek Rhodes, Louis Rhodes, Louis Rhodes, Robert Rhodes, Sherry L Rhomberg, Sue Rhone, Janine Rhys, Victoria Ribben, Mathew Ricci, Marcus Ricci, Nancy Rice, Alecia Rice, Catherine Rice, Chris Rice, David Rice, Laura Rice, Nathan Rice, Tim Ricevuto, Chuck Ricevuto, Chuck Rich, Amy Rich, Brodie Rich, Eric Rich, Sharon Richard, Bryn L. Richard, Rosemarie Richards, Jay Richards, Katherine Richards, M.D., R. D. Richards, R. D. Richards, Rhea Richards, Ron Richards, Sarah Richards, Sharon Richards, Vivien Richards, William Richardson, Anne Richardson, Carol Richardson, J Richardson, Katherine Richardson, Kerry Richardson, Lynne

Submission ID 7300 9600 13247 3520 8295 13989 14997 16939 4139 3532 17567 12828 17475 11879 10895 3361 9745 14244 6855 4854 2018 9335 8400 16393 2602 13379 770 234 6586 430 13969 5608 17461 17040 14311 14815 10754 4248 7322 4435 15327 4828 6964 11777 409 13230

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) 54(SR302), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 5(SR661) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 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), 44(SR138) 35(SR121), 44(SR138), 52(SR240) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 88(SR580) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 303

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Richardson, Pete Richardson, Randall Richardson, Roberta Richardson, Roberta Richey, Sylvia Richie, Janice Richman, Bruce Richman, Heather Richman, Noah Richmond, David Richmond, Graham Richmond, Lonna Richmond, Susan Richter, Elizabeth Richter, Kathleen Richter, Peter Rico, Adriana Rico, Carmen Rico, Carment Riddick, Arlene Rideout, Emily Rideout, Paul Rider, Heather Rider, Richard Ridge, David Ridgeway, Janet Ridgeway, Jessica Ridgway, Melba Riede, Heather Riedel, Elyn Riedl, Anthony Riedy, Kristin Riegle, Christopher Riehart, Dale Riehart, Dale Riel, Eric Ries, Shelley Riess, Miori Riffel, Nicole Riffle, Julie Rifkind, Michael Rigg, Amy Riggin, Sean Riggins, Paul

Submission ID 15807 7624 12209 15810 163 9644 12601 4607 16821 15729 9972 12053 3249 12176 11346 9892 1912 11256 14902 15714 11323 13264 6412 13403 8350 10719 6717 11677 16101 8183 16416 16579 16326 13102 15974 979 6680 1239 12772 16558 6723 12392 12258 8591

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) 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) 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) 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 304

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Riggs, Kate

Submission ID 17680

Riggs, Rose Rigrod, Carol Rika, Sekizawa Riker, Brandon Riley, Bill Riley, Callie Riley, Cecil and Barbara Riley, Deborah Riley, Elise Riley, John Riley, Kat Riley, Kelly Riley, Kelly Riley, Kevin Riley, Mark Riley, Paul Rimbos, Peter Rimel, Jennifer Rin, Ruth Rinaldi, Dean Rinaldo, Jean Rinard, Thomas Rinas, Juanita Rindfuss, Allen Rindlaub, David Rindlaub, David Riney, Jeffrey Riney, Jeffrey Ringdahl, Jonathan Ringe, Axel C. Ringer, Chloe Ringler, Diane Ringrose, Patti Rings, Sally Riniker, Jodie Rink, Candie Rink, Johannes Rink, Ron Rinne, Fred Rinner, Timothy Riordan, Kristen Rios, Dagmar M Ripp, Rudolph

6087 4168 1209 7642 11015 11182 2972 14556 5567 15983 4388 11810 16613 15938 7382 9182 519 2165 10549 10339 3687 14181 3989 5368 10643 471 5760 14993 15144 216 10105 7160 7468 14980 13931 17608 1023 8074 16065 10351 15193 12127 9258

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), 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) 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) 14(SR307), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 305

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Ristenpart, Diana Ristich, Ruthie Ristich, Ruthie Risvold, Celinda Ritchey, Jr., Albert Ritko, Jackie Ritrovato, Jesse Ritsch, Irene Ritter, Alissa Ritter, Nur Ritter, Phil Ritter, Robin Ritz, Felicia Rivard, Melissa Rivard, Michael Rivard, Michael Rivas, Daniel Riveland, Kristy Rivenbark, Tyler Rivera, Audrey Rivera, Berenice Rivera, Eileen Rivera-Herrera, Luis Jorge Rivera-Herrera, Luis Jorge Rivers, Bill Rivers, Kim Rivers-Yowell, Dee Rives, Mary Rivette, Nicole Rizzolo, James Rizzuti, Greta M. Roa, Vida Roach, Edward Roach, Richard Roane, Christine Roark, Keith Robb, Jackie Robb, Jackie Robb, Jackie Robb, Jackie Robb, Jackie Robbins, Alan

Submission ID 11335 13123 13342 2549 7906 2739 9350 2158 9827 15464 1620 3950 6416 14929 9522 14809 11508 7374 5436 10769 2324 12240 6575 15932 6476 11412 13274 2134 5225 12120 4486 2314 13450 10372 8007 10922 1837 1833 1834 1835 1836 9322

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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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), 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 - 306

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Robbins, Darryl Robbins, Meghan Robbins, Meladye Robbins, Robert Robbins, Tristen Robechek, Elizabeth Roberson, claudia Roberson, DeStacy Roberson, L. Roberson, Suzanne Robert, Claude Robert, Claude Roberto, Phillip Roberts, Altine Roberts, Arin Roberts, Brock Roberts, Casey Roberts, Eileen Roberts, Jan Roberts, Jean Roberts, Jennifer S. Roberts, Julie Roberts, Kristin Roberts, Les Roberts, Liisa Roberts, Mark Roberts, Melissa Roberts, Melissa Roberts, Michael Roberts, Nick Roberts, Rayne Roberts, Tiffany Roberts, Tyler Roberts, Wendy Robertson, John Mark Robertson, Kathleen Robertson, Leslie Robertson, Merilie Robertson, Michael Robertson, Zoe Robichaud, Judith Robin, Lois Robin, Wilfred Robinette, Phillips Robins, Berklee Robins, Carl

Submission ID 4636 13724 12729 12551 2180 8418 6660 12995 1626 10251 5278 16350 7019 2659 4667 10869 15428 14743 14494 10166 12244 11126 9853 11987 10646 11818 3573 15785 514 12378 10480 3133 5537 3464 9189 12085 13337 9581 4755 7593 9476 14883 11671 13035 10782 12414

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) 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) 56(SR315) 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) 16(SR7), 14(SR307), 76(SR454) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 307

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Robins, Carl Robinson, Brandy Robinson, Daniel Robinson, David Robinson, Debra Robinson, Dvora Robinson, Dwyane Robinson, George Robinson, Glenn Robinson, Janine Robinson, Jeff Robinson, Joel Robinson, Laura Robinson, Lee Robinson, Leslie Robinson, Michael Robinson, Michelle Robinson, Nana Robinson, Paul Robinson, Saliane Robinson, Saliane Robinson, Tammy Robison, Joy Deborah Robison, Roger Robison, Steven Robson, Elaine Willowdale Farm Roca, Patricia Rocek, Martin Rocha, Candace Rocha, Irene Rocha, Joseph Rocha, Julie Rocha, Monica Rocha, Sheila The Indigenous Collective of Theater and Arts Roche, Gerard Roche, Pam Rochek, Anton Rochester, Arthur Rochester, Mary Rochester, Robert Rochon, Mark Rockers, Ms. Jessica Star Rockwell, Beth Rockwell, John

Submission ID 15189 9425 2675 13322 16623 15960 7574 5863 14419 14104 11240 14762 3373 7384 16270 9785 8343 4375 9612 4684 4674 13212 13716 16793 8378 13534 16549 8896 16394 9913 14563 9295 10222 1648

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) 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) 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), 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), 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) 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)

11103 14911 3124 10925 16142 4741 9938 1475 13332 9590

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 308

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Rodgers, Bill Rodgers, Catherine Rodgers, Cathi Rodgers, Gerald Rodgers, Jane Rodgers, Joseph Rodgers, Patricia Rodman, Sue Rodoff, Lennie Rodrigues, Alisha Rodriguez, Allison Rodriguez, Charles Rodriguez, Corina Rodriguez, Gina Rodriguez, Julissa Rodriguez, Lydia Rodriguez, Marissa Rodriguez, Melissa Rodriguez, Michael Rodriguez, Mr. Raymond Rodriguez, Rick Rodriguez, Sarah Rodriguez, Tomas Roe, Kimberleigh Roed, Melanie Roed, shawn Roeger, Ceil Roegge, Sue Roegner, Deborah Roehm, Michael Roemer, Megan Roemer, Megan Roemhildt, Bonne Roescher, Steve Roesler, Peter Roessler, Vanessa Rogero, Elizabeth Rogers, Brian Rogers, David Rogers, Donald Rogers, Jane Rogers, John Rogers, Kelly

Submission ID 11642 7486 9069 7390 16592 2828 8020 15786 16753 4452 2586 10215 8548 985 2542 7606 2647 12800 4298 1442 4287 629 7800 11897 2368 2907 4501 14808 7590 7562 6795 15945 14934 8336 7827 8012 4007 3991 13026 13182 17147 17046 7222

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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 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) 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) 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), 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 - 309

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Rogers, Mary Rogers, Mary Rogers, Ms. Puanani Rogers, Rebecca Rogers, Richard Rogers, Susan L and Wm E Rogerts, Eileen Roggenbuck, Valerie Roghelia, Jason Rogovin, Lawrence Rogozin, Marla Rohall, Michael J Rohde, Richard Rohrbaugh, Eleanor Rohrer, Carolyn Rojas, Ms. Jessica Rojas, Ms. Lisa Rojas, Teresa Roka, Ruthann Rokaw, Irene Roland, Lorinda Rolen, Catherine Rolfes, Kay Rolfes, Kevin Roll, Nancy Rolland, Seth Rolnick, Eileen Roman, Barbara Roman, Ben Roman, Gary Roman, Patti Romanelli, Thomas Romanowski, Scott Romans, Jennifer Romanski, Eugene Rome, Joshua Romeo, Clare Romero, Adrian Romero, Richard Romes, Sara Romine, Janet Romm White, Lisa Rommel, Scott

Submission ID 16944 16969 1717 13508 222 14759 14943 11176 3751 7159 11052 13606 4782 2745 5446 1468 1452 16126 15087 7291 11318 5066 16590 16831 2898 6713 4121 15593 6839 5073 5416 1288 13850 4610 6997 4186 2239 14190 3644 12538 10026 9652 10211

Location of Comments/Responses 45(SR100), 54(SR285), 8(SR491) 45(SR100) 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) 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), 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), 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 310

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Ronca-Battista, Melinda Rondeel, Gayle Rondell, Craig Rondon, Anna Ronningen, Alma Roo, Reeta Rooney, Lliam Rooney, Lliam Rooney, Shannon Rooney, Tracey Roosen, Kathleen Root, Charlene Root, Sharon Rorke, Erin Rosa, Nicole Rosdatter, Paul E. Rose Jr, William G Rose, Alma Rose, Candace Rose, Donald Rose, John Rose, Ken Rose, Mary Rose, Mary Sue rose, maryjo Rose, Patricia Rose, Ramona Rose, Rebecca Rose, Robert Rose, Suzie Rose, Will Rose, Zelda Rosell, Michael Rosen, Melba Rosen, Tamara Rosen, William Rosen, William Rosenbaum, David Rosenberg, Beth Rosenberg, David Rosenberg, Rand Rosenberg, Ryan Rosenberger, Paul

Submission ID 590 3357 16317 89 11640 9273 1594 929 3485 3405 5335 15037 8394 12257 7816 17047 5846 3735 7664 14792 4436 5551 8228 17653 301 13221 3344 15073 12874 7712 2087 17603 8711 297 14654 9082 14777 16410 6164 12811 17483 8835 15903

Location of Comments/Responses 108(993), 54(1178), 125(1212), 5(SR38), 102(SR358), 119(SR769), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 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), 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) 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) 46(SR156), 120(SR777) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 311

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Rosenberger, Paul W. Rosenblatt, Garret Rosenblatt, Garrett Rosenblum, Randi Rosendahl, Christian Rising Tide North America Rosendahl, Christian Rosenfeld, Cheryl University of Missouri Rosenfeld, Henry and Susan Rosenfeld, Meg Rosenstein, David Rosenstein, Richard & Carolyn Rosenthal, Bill Rosenthal, Jonathan Rosenwinkel, Earl Rosit, Florence Ross, Bob Ross, Bruce Ross, C Watson Ross, Deanna Ross, James & Gina Ross, Jenna Ross, Jenny E. Ross, Kathleen Ross, Kim Ross, Kristi Ross, Lynette Ross, Mark & Dana Ross, Melinda Ross, Melody Ross, Robert Ross, Stuart Ross, Susan Ross, Susan Ross, Wendy Rossbach, Andy Rossi, Dee Rossi, Laura Rossi, Mary Rossi, Patricia Rossini, Jennifer Rosskopf, Ilma Rosson, Cara Rosson, Linda Rosten, David

Submission ID 17599 790 720 5718 993 994 15159 15271 12557 8164 5670 11137 3407 2420 15979 16451 6329 14890 4551 13405 10209 16732 3832 4209 15237 13072 9490 4697 2633 4984 6453 10913 13663 1525 382 641 10530 3291 14608 14172 8536 12606 16180 10443

Location of Comments/Responses 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 35(SR121), 76(SR458) 35(SR121) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 14(SR307), 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) 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 - 312

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Roszkowski, Kim Rotella, Matt Roth, Barbara Roth, David Roth, Peter Roth, Tracy Rothauser, Sue Rothe, Morgan Rothengast, Debra Rothfeld, Emma

Submission ID 16907 3518 2720 10888 3648 3571 10356 10022 3101 393

Rothing, Christopher Rothman, Barbara Rothman, Barni Rothstein, Julie Rothwell, Dolores Rotter, Elizabeth Round, Donald Rourke, Margaret Rouser, Steve Roush, James Rout, Leslie Rouvier, Helene Wiyot Tribe Rouvier, Julia Rouvier, Julia Rouvier, Julia Rouvier, Mr Rovinsky, Laura Rovner, Marshall Rovner, Michelle Rowan, Stephen Rowe, Carol Rowe, Jeff RowlandZaher, Tamra Rowlinson, Sheila Roy, Dennis Roy, John Paul Royall, Kathy Royce, Louise Royer, Erica Royster, Brandi Rozell, Vickie

2746 9864 1792 7665 12380 11088 373 9962 6094 11539 5460 16925 1591 17531 15442 791 13240 15927 9426 942 92 8560 592 14593 8552 5325 3458 2344 4424 13979 1935

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) 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), 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) 105(SR703), 119(SR769) 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 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 - 313

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Rozenberg, Zhanna Ruane, Catherine Ruane, Catherine Ruano, Liliana Ruark, Mona Rubchinuk, Sandy Ruben, Martha Rubenacker, Kim Rubenstein, Jonathan Rubenstrunk, Rebecca Rubin, Bill Rubin, Michael Rubin, Stephanie Rubino, Karen Rubio, C Ruby, Leslie Rucando, Laurie Ruckdeschel, Jenny Ruckdeschel, Katy Ruckman, David Rudavsky, Dahlia Rudd, Edwin Rudd, Mark Rudecki, Janice Rudholm, Anne Rudick, Dina Rudin, David Rudin, Linda Rudnick, Iris Rudnitzky, Sharon Rudolph, Ana Rudolph, Klaus Rudziecka, Barbara Rue, Charles Ruelas, Mabel Ruelle, Julie Rufener, Phoebe Ruff, J. Ruggiero, Gianna Ruiz, Verónica Rule, Juliann Rumack, Brooke Runnels, Jack Runyan, Brian

Submission ID 17516 16979 16061 5262 9777 15 8709 1636 16530 14271 9412 15334 3775 5909 17084 15704 9824 9830 6733 3785 11478 2565 1241 10676 3003 7091 16663 13935 7385 10084 5463 15866 12567 12624 6247 10698 13067 13089 11429 4823 4923 17178 12532 16269

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 9(SR272) 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 - 314

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Runyan, Joshua & Christiane Rupertus, Jeffrey Rupp, Maggie Ruppert, Danny Rurak, Wanda Rush, Charlene Rush, Hilda Rush, Ms. Patricia Rush, Robert Rusk, Alan Russ, Lynn Russek, Barbara Russell, Anna Russell, Ashley Russell, Barbara Russell, Barbara Russell, Eddie Russell, Elaine Russell, Jeff & Barbara Russell, Jennifer Russell, Joe Russell, Julia Russell, Laura Russell, Laura Russell, Liane Russell, Mary Russell, Miss Lisa Marie Russell, Nathan Russell, Nerissa Russell, Paul Russell, Paul Russell, Phyllis Russell, Roberta Russell, Sharon Russell, Suzanne Russell, Suzanne Russo, Brionna Hopewell Gardens Russo, Linda Russo, Meredith Rutherford, Collette Rutherford, Mark Rutkowski, Dennis

Submission ID 14227 10936 14724 3568 7317 12599 14889 1386 11622 8510 9503 10591 14478 4604 930 931 9780 15465 5856 4220 9821 13568 12467 15734 8094 12563 1456 9161 10610 7071 15719 15201 1272 6173 2462 8530 14070 11743 3555 8854 7749 11530

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) 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), 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), 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 315

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Rutkowski, Kimberly Rutkowski, Robert Rutledge, Christian Rutter, Tom Ryall, Rachel Ryan, April Ryan, Chad Ryan, Colleen Ryan, Darsita Ryan, Diane Ryan, Erica Ryan, Katherine Ryan, Kathy Ryan, Lesley Ryan, Marian Ryan, Ruth Ryan, Sheila Ryan, Therese Ryan, Therese Ryberg, Erik Ryberg, Erik Center for Biological Diversity

Submission ID 5561 15434 10823 4865 6857 5008 13627 4891 15789 12623 15197 4292 8373 3837 16322 14008 13687 10915 16628 669 17135

Ryberg, Erik Center for Biological Diversity Rydant, Margaret Rydant, Margaret Ryder, Andrea Ryder, Patricia Ryder, William Rydjeski, Denis R. Ryerson, William Ryner, Dave Ryner, Suzanne Rzepecki, Karen Rzepka, Charles S. (unreadable), (unreadable) S. (unreadable), B. N. (unreadable) S. (unreadable), S. (unreadable) S. Coaln, Indi S. Flores, Christina

98 2540 14483 10269 6996 206 14600 9196 8014 8040 15558 10997 17068 17639 17383 647 291

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) 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) 56(SR315), 56(SR319), 88(SR598), 109(SR815) 15(848), 62(928), 67(944), 108(1001), 88(1042), 45(1050), 45(1076), 51(1081), 51(1082), 68(SR3), 16(SR7), 51(SR172), 56(SR326), 56(SR327), 56(SR328), 67(SR393), 67(SR396), 67(SR399), 67(SR404), 50(SR634), 101(SR691), 101(SR692), 104(SR701), 112(SR721), 121(SR786), 45(SR874), 56(SR920) 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) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 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), 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) 49(SR161), 56(SR321), 69(SR410) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 316

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter S., Beth S., C. S. Sabagh, Mohammed Sabater, Gilbert Sabbah, Cheb Sabel, Jonathan Sabin, Pete Sabini, Marcus Sabini, Marcus Sabourin, Kathleen Sacca, Janis Saccoccio, Rob Sackreuter, Heidi Sacks, David Sada, Satoko Sadaj, Michele Sadleir-Hart, Lisa Sadler, Ryan Sadogawa, Miss Asami Sadowski, Frank Sadule, Annie Saenger, Elizabeth Safari-Cassidy, Judith Sage, Marilie Sager, Mary Jane Sager, Robert Sagewynd, Terradan Saggan, Laurie Saggan, Laurie Sahagun-Norte, Yolanda Sahagun-Norte, Yolanda M. Sahu, Jeanette Sahulka, Joseph Saia, Chris Saima-Barklow, Viola Saint, Michael Saints, CSG, Sister Gabrielle Sakala, Carol Sakurai, Mikiko Salamon, Linda Salamon, Mark

Submission ID 549 17120 10904 5890 960 11476 14063 978 1607 11496 2572 9474 13516 7194 1747 10554 12744 6533 1486 3100 6805 14555 3971 5992 5244 7631 4588 3323 14612 4608 16111 17404 2406 2569 3227 4832 17031 8861 1026 6223 5659

Location of Comments/Responses 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 54(SR1104) 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), 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), 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) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 317

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Salamone, Anna Salatrik, Ronald Salazar, Barbra Salazar, Beatriz Salazar, Joe Saleh, Rhonda J Salerno, Marie Sales, Daniel Salgnero, Anthony Salih, David Salmini, Nichole Salmon, Richard Sam Salmons, Robin Salnave, Shaun Salsburg, Don Salsburg, Eric Salsburg, Eric Salsburg, Michele Salt, Genevieve Salt, Genevieve Salter, Robin Salton, Nicole Salvo, Mark Salzman, Steven Samet, Melissa Samodai, Nova Sampatacos, Lori Sample, Kate Samuel, Molly Samuels, Harold Samuels, Josh Samuels, Stan Sanborn, Jonathan Sanchez, Ernesto Sanchez, Marc Sanchez, Martha Sanchez, Samuel Sanchez, Valerie Sander, Mary Sanderoff, Lisa Sanders, Gary Sanders, Richard Sanders, Richard Sanderson, Steven Sanderson, Teresa

Submission ID 13877 2284 11839 17861 3044 17766 3290 14116 17280 11197 13837 16313 9684 11479 16818 2201 15990 2202 529 1291 12857 9898 16249 13519 5915 3566 13338 12533 15305 7501 6939 11168 10368 2942 2247 16737 1757 13283 14935 6700 9484 13938 5501 9243 2419

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) 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), 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) 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) 52(SR241), 84(SR576), 97(SR985) 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) 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), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 318

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Sandford, Erika Sandford, Stephanie Sandfrey, Lisa Sandham, Valerie Sandin, Neal Sandlin, Cyndi Sandok, Florence Sandoval, Gustavo Sands, Diane Sands, Jason Sands, Karen Sands, Katherine Leigh Sands, Kris Sanfilippo, Valerie Sanford, Maire Sanghvi, Ameer Sangster, Joan Sanguinetti, Lisa Sanni, Mike Santana, Kathryn Santinello, Patricia Santini, J. Santino, Nicole Santivong, Richard Santonas, Gina Santone, Deborah Santora, Marc Santos Sr., Juan Santos-Carrillo, Rocio Santowski, Celia Santry, Cindy Saperia, David Saphore, Eva Saracina, Potito Sarandrea, Gwen Saravanan, Bhavani Sardari, Sean Sargent, Donald Sargent, Todd Sari, Mary Sario, Terry Sarli, Leonardo Sartain, Jake Sartor, Joanne Sarver, Darlene Sas, Jennifer

Submission ID 4678 3302 13502 2775 9506 12816 14691 13551 1901 8738 2013 2400 14894 7226 4075 7428 9427 12956 2614 13106 12370 3038 3844 11133 8795 2538 14921 360 11554 14850 3476 15776 5043 1016 7393 3085 4825 10852 11094 16556 15637 8984 2705 16351 8415 6019

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 93(SR658) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 54(SR286), 76(SR452) 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) 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 - 319

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Sasaki, George Sasaki, Mr. Ryosuke Sassin, Erin Satake, Issei Satake, Issei Satia, Ambreen Sato, Emilly-Claire Satomi, Amino Satomi, Amino Satsuma, Kiriko Sattinger, David Sauber, Mr Sauchelli, Katherine Sauder, Daniel Sauer, Annmarie Sauer, Jennifer Sauerman, Laura Saunders, Eleanor Saunders, Kevan Saunders, Steven Saurer, Ingrid Sauro, Jill Sauser, Paul Sautter, David Savage, Brian Savage, Denise Savage, Melissa Savasuk, Donna Saveri, Elizabeth Savitch, Steve Savory, Elizabeth Sawada, Kyoko Sawaya, Linda Sawaya, Salim Sawdo, Rosemarie Sawdon, Rosemarie Sawyer, Frederick Sawyer, Rick & Resa Sax, Melanie Saxon, Kevin

Submission ID 12720 1870 7048 1032 1033 2838 1024 945 944 1226 9235 10309 4063 2688 1657 5746 1006 4949 15405 5256 14132 12391 7769 8647 7849 4807 16777 6283 12130 13374 13244 1724 9610 14168 12018 16343 16173 14248 3938 10360

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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(SR451) 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), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 320

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Saxton, Adrienne Saxton, Jan Saxton, Mardee Saxton, Mary Sayeed, Nubaha Sayer, Marjorie Sayers, Marrick Saylor, Lisa Saylor, Lisa Sbraccia, Philip Scaduto, Nikki Scaff, Beverly Scaffidi, Donelle Scala, Dawn Scala, Rachel Scalise, Molly Scalish, Frank Scalzi, Francis Scalzo, Eugene Scanlon, Karen Scanlon, Robert Scardena, Matthew Scardigli, Barbara Scarfe, Gerry Scarlett, Donald Scarpitta-Knapple, Lola Scattergood, Christine Scepaniak, Michael Schaafsma, Hoski Schaal, Liz Schabitzer, Diane Schade, David Schaef, Dennis Schaefer, Karen Schaefer, nathan Schaefer, Wil Schafer, Autumn Schaffer, Angel Schaktman, Mr. H Schall, Elizabeth Schall, James Schaller, Steven Schardt, Meghan Schasse, Aaron Schatz, Bernie Schauer, Jeffrey

Submission ID 8258 10844 5261 6201 14920 12684 2022 9406 15227 353 6170 12668 4244 13037 704 5785 6616 9057 13293 12707 2816 6139 13911 2166 16703 14144 14096 2418 8895 14183 3481 13588 2787 9456 15042 10990 5844 7680 1552 11070 67 13600 2833 970 12075 15944

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) 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) 4(SR432) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 321

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Schaufler, Paul Schedel, Andrea Scheels, Joshua Scheerer, Will Scheffel, Alex Black Mesa Project Scheffert, Rick Scheid, William Scheidet, Tara Lynn Scheller, Sandra Schemm, Jessica Schempf, Susan Schen, John Schenkel, Gary Scher, Arnold Scher, Jonathan Kaufman Scher, Reid Scherbarth, Jennifer Scherek, Barbara Schermer, Linda Smith Schermerhorn, W Sterling Schermerhorn, William Scheuerlein, Gary Scheuermann, Erik Scheunemann, Craig Schiano, Barbara Schiave, Art Schick, Nancy Schiefelbusch, Jeanie Schiersch, Annaliese Schietzelt, Nancy Schiferl, Rob Schiff, Ken Schiff, Nola Schiffman, Lewis Schiffman, Norman Schiffmiller, Gary Schildwachter, Betsy Schillaci, David Schille, Charles Schiller, Ms. Rachel Schimm, Kim Schimpf, Mary Schirman, Sara Schirtzinger, Warren

Submission ID 10573 12214 11467 15317 1632 13780 8985 16901 15426 10362 1314 8437 5836 10556 6455 12498 13268 9459 5819 14918 3494 8120 13761 5286 9003 15880 13795 7615 5947 12529 7673 10413 4055 7439 6317 15800 6792 9261 9274 1697 227 9983 16469 7584

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), 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), 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) 103(SR213) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 322

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Schlapfer, Edwin Schlaud, Barbara Schlaudecker, Gregg Schlegel, Ed Schleimer, Sylvia Schliesmann, Roxie Schlomberg, Kurt Schlossman, Kyle Schmahlfeldt, Joann Schmalzer, Paul Schmeling, Diana Schmeltekopf, Karen Schmid, Erik Schmid, George Schmid, Marni Schmidt, Ann E. Schmidt, Beatrice Schmidt, Curt Schmidt, David Schmidt, Eric Schmidt, Jennifer Schmidt, John Schmidt, Justin Schmidt, Kevin Schmidt, Ron Schmidt, Sandy Schmidt, Sara Schmidt, Sara Schmidt, Schmidt Schmidt, Willa Schmiechen, Kathie Schmiel, William and Karen Schmit, Audrey Schmit, Will Schmitt, Darlene Schmitt, Jack Schmitt, Jim Schmitt, Richard Schmuck, Mary Schnabel, Sonny Schnee, Krista Schneeweiss, Robert Schneible, Mike Schneider, Allyn Schneider, Anna Schneider, Carol Schneider, Denise

Submission ID 2742 13203 8750 15774 16593 13685 6318 3022 9627 15940 7883 5054 5837 14862 11909 17173 7761 16872 11546 5907 8316 5672 15228 5673 8211 4264 13974 16099 6520 6558 16058 3243 10468 10752 272 6146 12419 14285 8694 7233 16684 11562 3427 15176 15292 5122 14591

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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 53(1070), 78(SR530), 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) 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) 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) 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) 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 - 323

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Schneider, Greg Schneider, Greg Schneider, Jeremy Schneider, Keri Schneider, Virginia Schnell, Susan Schneller, Bradley Schneller, Ellen Schochet, Gordon Schoelen, Mikel Schoenbach, Sarah Schoenberger, Lisa Schoenhofen, Amy Schoerfelder, Lindsey

Submission ID 8301 14440 5913 7830 11852 11998 7215 14378 8807 17591 11237 14241 4944 17732

Scholing, Marie-Anne Scholl, Florence Scholl, Fred Scholl, Ricky Scholl,Taubman, Cathy, Richard Schollhamer, Loretta Scholmberg, Jamie Schoneberg, Martin Schoonmaker, Mark Schoonmaker, Warren Schopac, Marie Schorling, Doug Schorre, Dewey V Schraft, Ray Schraft, Raymond Schramm, Beatrix Schramm, Peggy Schreckengast, Thomas Schreiber, Debra Schreiber, Linda Schretlen, Cindy Schrider-Sgro, Joan Schrieber, Henry Schroder, Jill Schroeder, Angela Schroeder, James Schroeder, Melanie Schroeder, Paul Schroepfer, Tracy Schrombeck, Connie

547 16748 6220 6859 10669 4706 13872 5565 10877 11567 12362 7509 9486 16546 8996 5457 2795 3318 4487 14888 2196 12895 15623 12571 8446 15930 1113 10429 4620 4219

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), 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) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 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) 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), 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 - 324

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Schubert, Barbara Schubert, Nanci Schuck, Barbara Schueneman, Robert Schuessler, Betty Schuett, Greg Schuette, Tamara Schuettpelz, Martin Schuetz, Diana Schulman, Dan Schulman, Samantha Schulsinger, Herb Schultz, Alex Schultz, Beth Schultz, Charles Schultz, Kenn Schultz, Kim Schultz, Leslie Schultz, Lindon Schultz, Mary Schultz, Philip Schultz, Robert Schultz, Robert Schultz, Ted Schultze-Allen, Peter Schulz, David Schulz, Lorraine Schulz, Mary Schulze, Richard Schumacher, Amy Schumacher, Amy Schumacher, David Schumacher, Erin Schumacher, John Schumacher, Miles Schuman, Aaron Schumann, Doris Schumann, Kelly Schumann, Stephanie Schupp, Norma Schurdevin, Christelle Schurr, Arthur Schuster, Kevin Schuster, Mike Schutte, Donald Schutte, Patsy Schuttish, Georgia

Submission ID 15206 8362 16461 11350 7696 14489 7373 13613 11527 12387 8790 9915 9008 10388 493 14356 15764 16199 9070 13187 10557 11218 14270 8331 16823 8838 13815 4072 12958 3330 15233 10169 10380 14549 7186 15678 7077 14564 13894 9314 2697 10937 2404 7142 9658 3617 14927

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 43(SR137) 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 - 325

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Schwab, Bonnie Schwab, Curtis Schwab, Teresa Schwab, Vicki Schwager, Kathy Schwanke, Susan Schwartz, Alan C. Schwartz, Alex Schwartz, Amanda Schwartz, Brenda Schwartz, Britton

Submission ID 7952 2555 12614 13243 3549 7118 628 12274 13417 4251 682

Schwartz, Daniel Schwartz, Don Schwartz, Donna Schwartz, Jonathan Schwartz, Kara Schwartz, Liz Schwartz, Nancy Schwartz, Norman Schwartz, Ruth Schwartz, Sam Schwartz, Tamar Schwartz, YeaEun Schwartzbaum, Cyrell Schwarz, Robin Schwarz-Golub, Mrs. Heather Schweigkofler, Wolfgang Schweinberger, Sylvia Schweinsberg, Peter Schweitzer, EA Schwenkbeck, Nicole Schwenkler, Maurice Schwind, Janet Schwirzinski, Katherine Schwoerer, Katie Sciacca, Barbara Sciaccotta, Tony Sciambra, Mary Scibetta, Kimberly Scioscia, Salina Scofield, Bruce

16235 10069 3397 4857 4401 1318 5719 15281 4989 15814 2457 1311 13185 8348 1538 16003 6425 12154 11971 4089 1202 176 16620 15153 16640 7335 10061 5583 9933 10377

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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 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) 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) 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) 76(1114), 41(SR131) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 326

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Scott Jarvis, Scott Jarvis Scott, Aaron Scott, Aaron Scott, Ashlee Scott, Carol Scott, Dominic Scott, Graeme Scott, Jennifer Scott, Joan Scott, Lorraine Scott, Marie C.

Submission ID 10500 17060 17773 5228 7409 10518 8528 7086 14753 6308 17734

Scott, Marilyn Scott, Martin Scott, Millie Scott, Nadine Scott, Nancy Scott, Nicole Scott, Pam Scott, Robert Scouffas, Nicholas Screen, Michael Scribner, George Scribner, Mary Ellen Scripture, Maria Scuder, Amanda Scullion, Kathy Scurci, Vanessa Seabaugh, Ryan Seaberg, Kurt Seaborg, David Seagren, Scott Sealy, Berenice Seaman, Amanda Searain, Brenan Searing, Ann Searing, Jodi Sears, Deone Sears, Diane Seaver, Marie Seaward, Diana Sebastian, Rita Seber, Amber Sechler, Bill

5871 259 15326 9820 13213 3932 9588 6679 10868 2643 12959 5509 2434 5981 8279 287 12781 6806 7881 7182 7476 17637 13385 12054 10072 2576 7725 9574 587 2785 3690 12580

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 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) 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) 51(SR184), 54(SR249) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 57(SR340), 88(SR596) 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), 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), 52(SR240), 61(SR372), 120(SR777), 121(SR796), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 327

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Sechler, Brian Sedacca, Sean Sedgwick, Kyra Sedlachek, Susan J. Sedlmayr, Teddy Sedriks, Baiba Seedig, Leonard & Christine Seefeldt, June M Seekamp, Ed Seel, George Seeley, Jonathan Seelie, Tod Seetoo, Jeanne and Winston Seff, Joshua Sefkow, Elizabeth Segal, Evalyn F. Sego, Barbara Segura, Sara Sehlmeyer, Loretta Sehrs, Rachel Seibert, Julie Seidel, Peter Seiferle, Rebecca Seifert, Karl Seigneur, Cliff Seiler, Harriette M. Seiler, Jeff Seiler, Rachel Seiller, Ludwig Seitz, Jim Seitz, Susan Sekund, Marie Selander, Spencer Selbin, Susan Selby, Jonathan Selcer, Donald Selden, Sherman Selden, Sherman Selesnick, Katinka Selestewa Sr., Elliott Selestewa, Leonard Selestewa, Leonard Native Movement Selezneva, Valentina

Submission ID 4951 16154 10053 12103 16738 7494 11719 8897 11201 4015 13633 9995 11638 13152 15430 4655 14541 1957 8680 17290 4731 7668 16551 6192 9807 17071 12590 4193 1630 13673 7293 14473 15982 3231 6473 3855 341 341 10673 17203 17211 96 8492

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 102(SR55) 5(SR35), 102(SR55), 35(SR121), 54(SR285) 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 328

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Self, Sarah Corinne

Submission ID 677

Selfridge, Richard Selig, Kanti Selig, Tanya Seligman, Tchira Sell, Christine Sellars, I. Sellers, Jennifer Sellers, Jo Anne Sellke, Robert Sells, Sarah Selquist, Donna Seltzer, Robert Selz, Kathleen Semer, Alexandra Semma, Mrs. Machico Semmler, Peggy Semsrott, Birgit Senic, Daniel Senn, Jonathan Senour, Jon Senour, Moon Sentman, Wayne Senyszyn, Paul Sepanski, Joan September, Jacob Sequichie-Kerchee, Debbie Serafini, Jessah Seraso, Laura Serino, Ron Serniak, Greg W. Seroka, Gayle Serotta, Dorothy Serra, Serena Serrano, Asanet Serrano, Francisco Service, Kinsey Sesto, Vilma Setaro, Danika Seth, Barry Settles, Marianna Setup, John Seuri, Enni Sevelius, Arthur

10015 2126 1867 1961 3925 2471 11850 1944 3177 10004 11872 10375 7070 10587 1695 6093 15038 3005 383 15358 2274 15659 5375 2431 14569 14375 2703 2880 9870 17244 13546 5970 9198 2698 10108 3706 13959 1993 11366 12848 16661 3285 11139

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) 121(SR793) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 88(SR584) 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) 35(SR121), 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) 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 - 329

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Severino, Susan Severson, Lori Seward, Mark Sewell, Jerry Sewell, Pat Sexton, Janice Sexton, John Sexton, Mike Sexton, Peggy Seybold, Jack Seydel, Holland Seyfried, William Seymour, Brian Seymour, Stephanie Shadix, Lois Shadoan, Jesse Shadrick, Roxann Shafer, Maria Shafer, Waynette Shaffer, Barry Shaffer, Glynn Shaffer-O'Connell, Melissa Shaffstall, Cheri Shafner, Shawn Shafto, Don Shah, Anita Shah, S Shaheen, Sean Shajirat, Teresa Shajirat, Theresa Shakya, Prajwol Shakya, Prajwol Shalabi, Jill Shalaew, Carol Shallenberger, Vonnie Shaloum, Tami Shambach, Rita Shanabarger, Paul Shanahan, Barbara Shane, Ruth Shane-Wahl, Rebecca Shank, Jeannie Shannon, Cynthia Shannon, Lori Shannon, Robert

Submission ID 14298 14323 7566 13095 14649 13414 3480 15850 8611 6928 1090 13229 4288 11150 14736 8313 6474 9685 10326 13480 2262 4958 8573 485 5330 16242 3830 16390 11278 15181 17505 17477 2468 10552 13425 10281 3717 2782 9444 11415 10658 3626 8581 3788 3825

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) 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 106(SR707) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 330

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Shannon, Victoria

Submission ID 17728

Shannon, Virginia Shapan, M Shapira, Susie Shapiro, Ai Shapiro, Ann Shapiro, Eve & Paul Gordon, M.D. Shapiro, Felice and Mark Shapiro, Hazel Shapiro, Joan Shapiro, Jonathan Shapiro, Leo Shapiro, Richard Shapiro, Susan Shapley, Vicki Shari, Julian Sharkey, Anne Sharkey, Tom Sharlff, Abdullah Sharp, Donna Sharp, Donna Sharp, Holly Sharp, Jeffrey Sharp, Julian Sharp, Merion Sharpe, Deborah Sharpe, Suzy Sharton, Tamara Shattuck, Everett Shattuck, Julie Shaughnessy, Diane Shaver, Eric Shaw, Donald Shaw, Janis Shaw, Joel Shaw, Judith Shaw, Mark Shaw, Mary Shaw, Michele Shaw, Penelope Shaw, Robert

7072 7260 16544 964 9246 6931 5741 2014 2451 1606 16507 16048 16265 1952 17114 13763 13299 17871 11751 15371 6112 4217 17194 203 7328 14674 12863 12935 7843 6849 5154 14992 15447 12042 9526 450 9219 4793 9520 10471

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) 88(SR601) 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) 88(SR580) 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) 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) 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), 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), 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) 57(SR340) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 331

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Shawvan, James Shea, Carol Shea, Will Sheaff, Robin Sheaffer, Eliza L. Sheafor, Alison Shean, Daniel

Submission ID 6041 7234 9385 3791 10847 3377 367

Sheehan, Pamela Sheehan, Rebecca Sheets, Gabriel Sheffield, Erin Shehabi, Patricia Sheldon, Tristan Sheldon-Lander, Sher Sheldon-Scurlock, Peggy Shelley, Ian shellum-allenson, kris Shelton, Charles Shelton, David Shelton, Mary Shelton, Mary Agnes Shelton, Suzanne Shelton, Troy Shemwell, Misty Shemwell, Misty Shenghur, Cajika Shepard, Pamela Shepard, Robin Shepherd, Mark Shepherd, Terry Sheppard, Janine Shere, Lindsey Sheridan, Leslie Sheridan, Rose Sheridan, Suzanne Sherk, Linda Sherman, Frank Sherman, Stephanie Sherman, Wayne Shermock, Margaret Shero, Akiko Sherrard, Kathryn Sherrick, Doris

10322 2490 6736 5539 5786 17263 2028 17039 2842 10002 337 3915 14820 10652 2823 5849 7781 16046 17914 3274 5973 9168 14685 4484 12721 14204 9214 7655 14343 12701 8458 9863 10240 11326 6511 8524

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) 78(1227), 41(SR131), 45(SR154), 53(SR255), 54(SR285), 126(SR409), 68(SR433), 76(SR453), 121(SR489), 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), 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 332

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Sherrill, Sandra Sherwin, Boyce Sherwood, Dan Sherwood, L Shethar, Anna Shevick, Paula Shiah, Vicki

Submission ID 12552 4901 14695 7639 12717 12404 632

Shida, Yumiko Shidlauski, Tamara Shields, Corinne Shields, Evelyn Shields, Tawnya Shientag-Betts, Beverly Shiffer, Christine Shiffer, Greg Shiflett, Steven Shikles, Jaimie Shildrick, Lauren Shimabukuro, Renee Shimada, Fumiyo Shimadzu, Tmae Shimadzu, Tmae Shimadzu, Tmae Shimadzu, Tmae Shimadzu, Tmae Shiner, Allen Shiner, Cathy Shinichi, Ohno Shining Bearheart, Bekki Shinji, Tominaga Shinji, Tominaga Shinobu, Ms. Yamamoto Shiotsugu, Althea Shipani, Susan Shipman, Lani Shipman, Steve M.

3682 11066 681 13902 5101 16000 6715 15966 10324 2034 6629 8064 889 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 9055 9086 1718 14990 1088 1089 1476 3254 3516 12885 17426

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) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 126(SR409) 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), 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), 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), 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 333

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Shirai, Hiro Shiraki, Mrs. Nami Shiraki, Nami Shirey, Elizabeth Shirey, John & Marilyn Shirey, Keith Shirey, Raquel Shirley, Ibolya Shirley, Jr., Joe Shistar, Terry Shitama, Celeste Shively, Daniel Shlien, Athena Shockley, Laina Shoemaker, Terrance Shohan, Doug Shoji, Okada Shoji, Okada Shoji, Okada Shon, Debora Shook, Emma Shook, Matt Shooltz, Emily Shooman, Diane Shoraka, Farnaz Shoraka, Farnaz Short, Jr., Emmett Short, Ms. Short, Rob Shortt, Sylvia Shotland, ben Shotts, Aaron Shoujigawa, Mrs. Noriko Showalter, John Showalter, William Shpiller, Natasha Shreeve, Denise Shriver, Marianne Shrock, Dean Shroyer, Caitlin Shroyer, David

Submission ID 4076 17007 1282 7341 8867 7659 7695 4877 17019 1078 14531 15302 9225 8602 6299 14383 1274 1273 1275 12664 4956 16771 4821 13485 7465 7462 3615 1509 7140 14234 7944 5283 1701 15287 6732 9209 8979 3214 11405 4625 5028

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 120(1018), 121(SR798) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121) 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) 35(SR121), 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), 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 - 334

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Shroyer, Lisa Shubert, Richard Shuecraft, Steven Wayne Shugg, Nancy Shuhei, X Shukla, H Shull, Sarah Shuller, Samantha Shulman, Elizabeth Shulman, Rabbi Eric Shulters, Jacqueline Shuman, Aaron Shuman, Todd Shunate, Derek B. Shuster, Robert Shutt, Mike Siacunco, Roberto Siano, Christiaan Sibley, Hope Sibrian, Sr. Gabriela Sibrian, Sr. Gabriela Siconolfi, Lisa Sicotte, Diane Sidoti, Gerri Sieber, Andre Siebers, William Sieck, Dean and Judith Siefken, Josie Siegal, Sara Siegel, Lyndsay Siegel, Myra Siegele, Linda Siegele-Gironda, Sherri Siegmann, Suzy Siegrist, Toni Siegrist, Toni Siemion, Bob Sienkiewicz, Marzena Sierra, Joe Anthony Sierra, Ramona Sierzputowska, Katarzyna Sies, Richard

Submission ID 12373 11128 17660 7647 1163 14046 3750 8340 14354 1546 12613 1330 14401 5257 9528 14302 17864 16349 14218 1728 1729 10349 8065 5803 1876 16688 2856 9178 10963 10841 2387 15610 4845 11406 6203 14776 7661 16329 11884 5542 12901 11724

Location of Comments/Responses 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), 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), 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 335

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Sievertsen, Karin Sifuentes, Jonathan Sigerson, Andrew Sigler, Teri Sigliano, Christianna Siglin, Larry Signorello, Dinine Sihnhold, Kimberly Siibley, William Sikes, Ben Silan, Sheila Silan, Sheila Silar, Anna Silber-Becknell, Adam Silberberg, Susan Silberfein, Marla Silberman, Yoni Siler, Ellen Silins, Joe Silkwood, Pamela Sill, Chris Sillanpaa, Tyren Sillins, Stacy Sills, Carol Sills, Peter Silva, Becky Silva, Chuck Silva, Greg Silva, Jennifer Silva, Jessica Silva, Jim Silver, Dan Silver, Dan Silver, Ira Silver, Jack Silver, Keith Silver, Margaret Silver, Randy Silver, Ronald H Silverberg, David Silverio, Alexander Silverman, Peter Silverman, Ruth Silverman, Seth Silvers, Arden Marie and Robert Silverstein, Jo Ann

Submission ID 7135 3636 12835 8809 2257 8691 10067 9347 12876 4859 8280 15680 17397 12782 10025 9811 13049 15761 16034 9867 5569 3114 6345 15323 5271 8865 12510 10956 7036 12208 12677 10459 16021 3551 15346 6312 15898 14425 15899 10542 6184 7429 5944 16256 6132 16481

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), 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) 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) 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 336

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Silverstein, Mark Silvestrini, Sasha Silvia, T Silvrer, Maureen Simcoe, Kelly Sime, Mr. Kenneth Simington, Linda Simko, Ramona Simko, Ramona Simmons, Joseph and Alison Simmons, Naomi Simmons, Patricia Simmons, Peter J. Simmons, Roger Simmons, Terry Simon, Elizabeth Simon, Esther Simon, Nancy Simon, Philip Simon, Philip Simonds, Geoff Simone, Louise Simons, Anita Simons, Judith Simons, Margaret Simons, Ryan Simons, William Simovic, Lena Simpson, Grace Simpson, J Simpson, Jason Simpson, John Simpson, L. (unreadable) Simpson, Larissa Simpson, Lindsay Simpson, Margaret Simpson, Ron Simpson, Sally Simpson, Simpson Sims, Dwight Sims, Pamela Sims, Patricia (Sunshine)

Submission ID 15311 2712 9693 9448 3362 1439 10289 982 984 10014 6023 4380 9006 1307 300 8247 2774 4541 11186 14461 8949 12181 14626 4562 3277 13115 423 8714 7209 12021 4681 6063 17131 972 8864 6245 10270 3181 3810 7990 8046 14086

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), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 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) 42(SR106) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 337

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Sims, Stephanie Sinal, H. Jean Sinclair, Pam Sinclair, Richard Sinclare, Kathryn and Robert Sinding, Kate Sindorf, Tamara Sindy, Basima Singer, Ellen Singer, Lauren Singer, Rose Singer, Sue Singh, Mrs. Meagan Singh, Tejinder

Submission ID 11389 8672 4639 151 13407 13276 1788 17796 11211 3849 7528 39 1539 17735

Singles, Doc Sipperley, Shannon Sisk, Thomas Sisk, Tom Sisson, Bonnie Sisson, Bonnie Sisti, Erin Michelle Sitomer, Joan Sittig, Shane Sivak, Miriam Sivak, Shelley Sivesind, Carol Sivi, Bonita Sjolin, Sue Skarda, Joan and John Skarda, John Skeen, Lynda Skerney, James Skero, Ed Skews, Geoff Skiba, Michael Skinder, Carla Skinner, Carol Skinner, Leo Skinner, Nicole Skinner, Stephen Skiver, Jen Sklar, Michael Sklar, Michael S. Elizabeth

8973 3978 109 17371 236 235 6386 11750 983 1924 7793 13549 16692 13623 7302 7240 10967 3867 10128 3216 9047 2756 10189 8892 12044 9815 7890 14267 12791

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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 8(SR141), 45(SR874) 93(979), 35(SR121) 8(SR141) 10(SR57) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 338

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Sklove, Brett Skoken, Cindy Skoland, Brenda Skoog, Chris Skowronski, Maryanna Skrabanek, Kevin Skup, Paul Skwarek, Richard Sky, Alison Skyles, Kerry Slack, Debbie Slack, Kimberly Slack, Rhiwena Sladek, Marianne Sladek, Phyllis Slagle, Steven Slater, Kham Slatkin, Marcia Slattengren, Darryl Slattery, Sean Slaughter, Marianne Slaughter, Marianne Slavens, Jesse Slawson, Bob Sletten, Greg Slevc, Patricia Slezinger, Gymi Slimon, Richard Sliwinski, Mary Sloan, Greg and Patricia Sloan, Valerie Sloan, W. Sloane, Phyllis Slocum, Jean Slominski, Jeanne Sloneker, Sam Slonina, John Slotnick, Lauryn Slow Talker, Kee Slow Talker, Susie Slow Talker, Susie Curtis Slowtalker, Kee C. Slowtalker, Susie Curtis Slowtalker, Susie Curtis Slowtalker, Susie Curtis

Submission ID 14001 15449 13093 17499 8506 5081 7450 7069 3954 13962 14430 6174 14655 12550 12272 1927 11294 4736 10712 16464 9558 14631 4506 4894 14051 7786 1940 12296 11159 3261 5839 1195 5916 10111 10995 6589 10964 6706 17360 17343 17225 16932 16931 134 135

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) 7(842) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 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) 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) 7(SR45), 116(SR727) 35(SR121), 88(SR586), 114(SR746), 114(SR756) 88(SR596), 88(SR611), 114(SR730) 35(SR121), 52(SR160) 35(SR121) 34(SR116), 68(SR130), 127(SR367), 63(SR378) 102(1192), 35(SR121), 53(SR258), 97(SR341), 75(SR448), 75(SR449), 114(SR736), 121(SR782), 45(SR874)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 339

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Slowtalker, Travis Slowtalker, Yvonne Slutzky, Sue Sly, Walter R Smaczniak, Kim

Submission ID 16938 763 10927 6457 170

Smales, Ms. Dallas Smalewich, Kenneth Small, Marya Smalley, Brian Smallwood, Kristin Smallwood, Spencer Smart, Susan Smeal, Mindy A Smeekens, Stephanie Smelser, E. Karsten Smieszek, Janie Smilack, Steve Smile, Susan Smilow, Katie Smith, Adam Smith, Alice Smith, Amaryllis Smith, Ann Smith, Anne Smith, Beverly Smith, Brad Smith, Brian Smith, Brian Smith, Brian Smith, Ca Smith, Carl Smith, Cecelia Smith, Charles C Smith, Chris Smith, Dennis Smith, Derek Smith, Diane Smith, Dmitra Smith, Douglas Smith, Ellen Smith, Emily Smith, Gavin Smith, George Smith, Gillian Smith, Gina

1472 15857 12212 4085 13128 16506 14363 15118 8414 16194 9381 2278 4059 3108 15390 9130 17524 13973 12872 7815 12849 2710 14256 14763 4493 10522 4693 14616 9577 2580 6925 15363 16033 9889 8479 12432 12389 9440 3815 14161

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121) 51(SR177), 88(SR596), 114(SR724) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 340

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Smith, Gordon Smith, Grace Smith, Grace Smith, Harris Smith, Holly Smith, Irene

Submission ID 14546 1941 4675 11861 9515 17450

Smith, James Smith, Janene Smith, Jennifer Smith, Jill Smith, Jordana Smith, Joy Smith, Julian Smith, Karen Smith, Karen Smith, Kathleen Smith, Kyle Smith, La Vonne Smith, Leonard Smith, Linda Smith, Linda Smith, Maria Smith, Martin Smith, Mary Smith, Mary Carroll Smith, MaryKatherine Smith, Melissa Smith, Michael Smith, Michael Smith, Michele Smith, Mike Smith, Miranda Smith, Mitch Smith, Nancy Smith, Natasha Smith, Paige Smith, Pamela Smith, Paula Smith, Peter H. Smith, Rachel Smith, Randall Smith, Robert

9450 1075 6998 15134 16450 957 17786 2991 2990 14571 3409 2937 6385 8862 6594 16217 11813 4427 1261 779 4492 12022 10975 4698 12276 3570 853 16409 15844 6756 13469 11290 9579 17494 14287 2127

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) 122(1033), 52(SR160), 51(SR177), 52(SR242), 126(SR423), 70(SR435), 78(SR520), 88(SR611), 88(SR612), 114(SR746) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 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) 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) 41(SR131), 97(SR333), 126(SR409), 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) 33(SR111) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 45(SR874) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 341

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Smith, Ron Smith, Ron Smith, Roy Smith, Russel Smith, Scott Smith, Shana Smith, Sonja Smith, Steven Smith, Suzanne Smith, Tanya Smith, Taylor Smith, Teri Smith, Tiffani Smith, Tina Smith, Victoria Smith, Wayne Smith, William Smith, Woody Smith, Woody Smithson, Dawn Smithson, Nick Smith-Trammell, Christina T. Smitman, Susan Smitman, Susan Smolinski, Barbara Smolinsky, Gerald Smoot, Sarah Smukler, Noah Smyth, Jeannette Snader, Andrew Snadow, Chris Snajdr, Suzanne Snapp, Seth H Snead, Dana Snead, John Sneddon, Laura Sneed, Brad & Dena Sneed, Lauren Snegoski, Carolyn Snell, Karen Snell, Ronald Snider, Jerry Snider, Susan Sniegowski, Robert Snively, Chris

Submission ID 17492 14698 868 8594 14139 2817 13655 7743 2949 3413 17372 2496 6300 16873 6622 7299 4819 17230 17577 9694 9105 2116 343 343 14309 15406 2839 7191 9771 16167 16248 9112 7638 2592 6178 3043 4426 14134 12429 6171 26 5521 6972 7454 4163

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) 125(1220), 7(SR45), 102(SR358), 79(SR542), 79(SR543), 82(SR562), 83(SR571) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 61(SR372) 8(SR141), 121(SR803), 97(SR985) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 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) 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 342

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Snope, David Snopek, Kay Snow, William Snyder, Catherine Snyder, Cindy Snyder, Janet Snyder, Kalle Snyder, Melanie Snyder, Nancy Snyder, Renee Snyder, Steve Soares, Genevieve Soaries, Michael Soash, Diane Sobanski, Sandy Sobel, Clare Sobel, Denise Sobel, Marian Sobo, Naomi Soce, Ben Soder, Erika Soderholm, Stacy Sodowick, George Soeda, Kiyomi Soenneker, Richard Soffler, Judy W. Soffler, Samuel H. Sogorka, Amber Sogorka, Marcie Sohn, Michele Sohn, Rabbi Ruth H. Soichiro, Honda Sokach, Adriana Sokolow, Ellen Sola, Srikanth Solak, Elizabeth Solano, Jennifer Solberg, Barbara Soledad, Starfire Soler, Verner Solet, Elizabeth Soll, Hugo Sollauer, Sandi Sollenberger, Ira

Submission ID 13357 15104 8748 12534 8453 1052 13310 14599 5851 7195 10124 13897 1260 1932 15874 12328 6793 15849 7893 1781 1019 16223 8031 1203 12264 16052 16054 14885 15086 11138 17673 5504 11802 4662 5106 15847 4746 10850 2822 11665 13827 14497 12576 3863

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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 126(SR409) 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) 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) 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), 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 - 343

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Solomon, Sasha Solomon, Wendy Solowiej, Anna Soltani, Alireza Soltész, Viktória Solyom, Jessica Sombrero, Rev. Evelene Sombrero, Rev. Evelene Somers, Marti Somers, Ms. Robin Sommer, Angie Sommer, Timmi Sommers, Don Somodevilla, Todd Sonder, Bonnie Sonderegger, Kim Sondermann, Mildred Sondrini, Dennis O Soneji, Hitesh Sones, Steve Song, Patricia Sonne, Liana Sonnichsen, Shirley Sonntag, Glenn Sonoquie, Mo Sonoquie, Mo Sonoquie, Monique Soper, Anita Soper, Michelle Soper-O'Rourke, Anna-Marie Sophie, de la Mar Sophis, Janice Sopko Kurrell, Cynthia Soprano, Jennifer Sorano, Jessica Sorbi, Anna Sorensen, Annah Sorensen, Rebecca Sorin, Marni Soroko, Lorna Sorrell, Karen

Submission ID 17183 10957 14089 6914 9092 1540 1382 1383 1337 1393 11339 4628 11548 10070 4734 402 2433 15797 2976 15279 5014 3311 15620 7935 5284 14656 1068 4710 16095 5303 7453 3576 13816 8831 4138 3472 7924 9669 11985 14255 4103

Location of Comments/Responses 51(SR177), 63(SR930) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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), 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), 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 344

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Soso, Jassen Soso, Jassen Soso, Jassen Soso, Jassen Soto, Alicia Soucek, Jeremy Souder, Kendra Soukeras, Dean Soule, Nancy Soulier, Ruth Sours, Mary Sours, Ronald Sousa, Antonia Souter, Megan Southard, Tonya Southern, Thomas H. Southgate, Sarita Southwick, Alan Southwick, Larry Southworth, Krissy Souza, Patricia Sovell, John Soza, Jessica Spaeter, Geri Spager, MaryAnn Spain, Louis Spalding, Carol Spangler, Dennis Spangler, Jason Spangler, Jason Spankowski, Dana Spann, Kat Spann, Kathy Spanos, Aggelige spar, jon Spare, Carolyn Sparks, Cynthia Sparks, Mary Sparrow, Andrew Sparrow, Deb Sparrow, Deb Spatz, Peter Spears, Ernie

Submission ID 1046 1047 1048 1049 8855 5827 10634 9916 6438 15510 2716 8455 12173 17382 13710 16073 803 8863 17541 11097 11342 15585 14547 4919 10075 8846 14948 7473 11065 16775 3236 2524 10526 2788 12364 11672 7444 3035 15552 13325 16063 13907 14105

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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 45(1056) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 57(1109) 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) 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) 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 - 345

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Spears, Nancy Spears, Nancy Speck, Curtis Speck, Paul Speck, Steven Spector, Jennie Spector, Sarah Speece, Barbara Speedy, Danielle Speelman, Patricia Speer, Lisa Speers, Carolyn Spehar, Stephanie Speiser, Robert & Page Spelbring, Sally Spell, Marilee Spence, Cheryl Spencer, Dawn Renee Spencer, Gordon Spencer, Jeanne Spencer, Jennifer Spencer, Lisa spencer, sheila Spencer, Sue Spendelow, Jeffrey Spenger, Constance Spensley, Lynn speranza, david Sperbeck, Elaine Sperlin, Marvin Sperlin, Marvin Sperry, Raphael Spettmann, Veronica Spevak, Edward Spiert, Josh Spilker, Julia Spiller, Amanda M Spindler, Gregg Spindler, Susan Spinelli, Lucia Spitale, John Spitale, Michelle Spitz, Marlene Spitzer, Mandy Spitzer, Mark Spitzer, Michael

Submission ID 12077 14510 2623 8085 9844 10257 2299 3084 9298 3757 1072 1968 8210 8753 9002 14832 12650 12374 5695 2135 6053 7492 12767 2747 2513 369 4835 5049 8476 9720 15658 9751 394 16207 5515 10702 15827 15824 4050 10633 7846 6910 7350 13670 8699 13748

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) 35(SR121), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 346

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Spivack, Susan & James Spivey, Barbara Spivey, Robert Spoerle, Nora Sportmann, Petra Spotted Elk, Mrs. Davina Spotts, Carleton Spotts, Richard Spragett, Cedra and Eric Sprague, John Sprague, Tiffany Sprecher, Cindy Spreitler, James Springer, Theodora Spruit, Jeff Spry, Richard Squier, Sheila Squiers, Alexandra Squire, Gini Sriharan, Yasotha Srygley, Jane St Aubin, Donald St Clair, Steven St Denis, Kathleen St Julien, Deborah St. Djaez, Nikkolas St. Michael, Nan Staats, Alycia Staats, Michele Stacey, Ben Stack, Chris Stack, Ed and Chris Stack, Mary Stackman, Marshall Stacy, Deborah Stade, Kirsten Staelens, Bethany Stafford, Brent Stafford, Gregory Stafford, Nathaniel Stafford, Susan Stafford, Venus Stahl, Charlotte Stahl, Diane Stahl, Edgar Stahl, Maria

Submission ID 11737 14057 7905 6054 10321 1554 10607 16267 14968 8876 15171 15726 2177 13481 6759 7418 5034 5575 10987 5442 3365 9949 14688 15601 11288 13235 4647 12843 6306 4064 9166 9176 15107 5597 9173 16704 4872 3141 9435 4091 4939 4665 11696 2095 7298 7170

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), 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) 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), 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) 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(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) 88(SR580) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 347

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Stahnke, Graham Stainthorp, John Staley, Jennifer Stallberg, Birgit Stallings, Martin Stalnaker, Erin Stalter, Anna Stambaugh, Harriett Stamper, Elizabeth Stanbrough, Judith Standefer, Donna Standefer, Kim Standefer, Michrel Standerfer, Donna and Kim Standingdeer, Sam Stang, Robert Skytop Ranch Stankye, karen Stanley, Michael Stanley, Robert Stannard, Jeffrey Stannik, Nils Stansbury, Katherine Anne Stansfield, Lesley Stanski, Kristine Stantejsky, Susan Stanton, Staci Stapleton, Margaret Stark, Cameron Stark, Mel S Stark, Pamela Stark, Suzanne Stark, Whitney Stark, Whitney Stark, William M Starkey, Amy Starkovich, Mary Starks, Les Starr, Anonymous Starr, Christine Starr, Val H. Western State Constitutionalist Alliance, Inc. Starsong, Heather

Submission ID 13363 10021 9204 15925 12908 1322 1073 8421 11073 13375 795 795 9818 17444 17707 2993 16847 5857 6768 3708 6400 5407 10718 14077 7902 13091 8070 5777 15942 7853 11943 17193 17113 4670 13178 6273 14615 754 4954 16930

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), 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) 116(SR729) 116(SR729) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 116(SR725), 114(SR754) 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) 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 51(1047) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 120(SR777)

2039

35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 348

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Staska, Bruce Staszesky, Monica Stat, Linda Statman, Paul Staub, Glenn Stauber, Annie Staudt, Erin Staufer, Jonathan Stauffacher, Roberta Stauffer, Ellen Stavis, Alex Stavis, Alex Stavnes, Harald Stawiarz, Diane Stayton, Robert Stead, Marc Steadman, Adam Stearns, Joan Stearns, Ted Stebbins, Hayden Stebbins, Laura Stec, Alandi Steck, Kathe Steele, Caroline Steele, Martha Steele, Mary Steele, Mary Steele, Mary I Steele, Richard Steele, Todd Steelman, Dawn Steen, Elizabeth Steen, Pamela Steer, Catherine Stefani, Vicotria Steffa, Carol Stefkovich, Hayley Steger, Connie Steger, Michael Steger, Teri Stegman, Bart Steigerwald, Michael Steigman, Michael Stein, Larry Stein, Marc Steinberg, Idelle

Submission ID 14573 10116 13424 16272 13043 2530 3865 14967 10918 13892 2526 14463 10816 6489 7308 8572 6439 5137 3200 13277 12129 5584 13921 11306 1650 454 454 16285 7412 8791 2307 6519 12031 10417 15812 7127 6934 8011 9797 10713 14439 4973 4399 6749 8998 8050

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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 103(SR128), 52(SR241), 57(SR340) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 349

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Steinberg, Jacqueline Steinberg, Mikael Steinborn, Mary Steinel, Maryann Steiner, John Steinhauer, David Steinhoff, David F. Steinhoff, David F. Steininger, Bob Steinmetz, Bing Steinmetz, Deborah Steinmetz, Deborah L Steinolfson, September Steinpreis, Cadence Steitz, Jim Stellhorn, William Steltenpohl, Elias Stempel, Kerstin Stemple, Bobbie Stenberg, Britta Stenberg, Kurt Stenlund, Marianne Stenseth, Ross Stepchuk, Ronald Stephan, Hal Stephan, Matthew Stephany, Timothy Stephen, Michael Stephens, Amy Stephens, James Stephens, Margaret Stephens, Mary Helen Stephens, Sharon Stephenson, Bruce Stephenson, Johathan Stephenson, Mayme Stephenson, Richard Stepro, Peggy Stergulz, Lisa Sterling, Margaret Stern, Evelyn Stern, Pamela Sternberg, Justin Sterner, Elizabeth Sternman, William

Submission ID 12547 2380 6986 3470 15754 13207 17449 17003 15484 13261 3940 16721 10112 17138 3945 8364 8629 5923 12352 30 30 83 3394 8765 7535 12416 365 4316 6971 10947 14164 14381 2227 4961 14842 3487 6188 14757 9719 6250 7153 10863 16213 10579 12226

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) 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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 - 350

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Sternthal, Melissa Stetler, David Stetser, Ann Steuck, Faye Steup, John Steup, John Stevens, Betsy Stevens, Donna Stevens, Jack Stevens, Karen Stevens, Kathy Stevens, Linda Stevens, May Stevens, Rachel Lee Stevens, Robert Stevens, Simone Stevens, Thomas N Stevenson, Kelly Stevenson, Walker Steward, Gail Stewart, Brian Stewart, Davis Stewart, E. Stewart, Eleanor Stewart, James Stewart, Jana Stewart, Jennifer Stewart, Jorja Stewart, Leslie Stewart, Lindsay Stewart, Lori Stewart, Margy Bird Runner Wildlife Refuge Stewart, Tracy Stewart-Albin, Vaden Stibitz, Susan Stidham, Diane Stiefel, Charlotte Stiles, Cara Stiles, KG Stiles, Sheryl Stillday, Renee Stiller, Noel Stillman, Allison Stillman, Jon Stillman, Katherine

Submission ID 3456 7874 4042 11313 8919 241 15296 11669 11983 7598 3565 8067 1737 17250 16388 14292 15564 5385 4715 9067 10808 11556 13548 3294 5107 8253 10145 13958 5332 15409 14660 16341 9716 13594 12203 13312 4261 12461 10031 8048 2992 14666 4065 15883 2123

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) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 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) 107(SR708) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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(SR580) 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 - 351

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Stillwell, Hilary Stillwell, Vern - Lyda Stilwell, Tom Stimpert, Jacqueline Stinchcomb, Thomas Stine, Melissa & Brad Stinnett, Ray Stinson-Hawn, Kim Stitt, Orlos Stivers, Esq., Jeffrey Stober, Paula Stoccardo, Robert Stock, Mary Stockton, Richard Stoddard, Amy Stoecker, Michael Stoilkov, Dessi Stoilov, Luben Stoj, Filip Stokes, Rebecca Stolarczuk, Margaret Stoleroff, Debra Stolfo, Cristin Stollenwerk, Mia Stollenwerk, Sarah Stollenwerk, Scott Stoller, Stewart Stoltzfus, Judith C. Stone, Dianne Stone, Jan Stone, Janice Stone, Jessica Stone, Julia H. Stone, Kim Stone, Lesley

Submission ID 2726 7213 2361 16508 11685 11343 12743 8638 3226 6562 10559 4177 13647 15871 6206 11493 2036 16750 7467 9371 13848 12358 9502 6888 6878 6889 2920 12091 12678 13459 2727 6130 6424 4154 219

Stone, Nate Stone, Penny Stone, Ransom Stone, Robert B. Stone, Sheila Stone, Tony Stoner, Eric Stookey, Lorena Stopnitzky, Shanee Stoppa, Scarlett Storch, Gary

6340 6721 6697 4504 3924 10016 14570 2717 5293 15112 9325

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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 352

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Storck, Ivan Storer, Sue Story, Kay Story, Margaret Stoscheck, Claudia Stotko, Shirley Stoudemire, Anna Stouder, Matt Stout, Patrick Stout, Robert Stout, Ron Stovall, Ms. ann Stover, Anita Stover, Katharine Stover, Kathryn Stover, W. Andrew Stowe, David Stowe, Jane Stoye, Bill Strackbein, Vanessa Strahan, Holly Strain, Darren Strain, P.E., Joe Strand, John Strande, Katherine Strandt, N Strang, Judy Strange, Hannah Stranger, Peter Strasdas, Christina Strasser, Voni Stratford, Denis Stratford, S.J. Stratmann, Shelley Stratten, Ann Stratton, Gail Stratton, Sam Strauch, D A Straus-Edwards, Lydia Strauss, Deborah Strauss, Howard Strawbridge, Geoffrey Strear, Nancy Strebeck, Robert

Submission ID 10418 3578 12002 12702 17048 15775 13730 10521 4860 8914 5208 1498 7996 7868 13665 9263 15316 11489 2143 3062 10811 2092 5114 15533 5817 6758 10820 1677 13755 2670 14211 14907 12683 15547 4626 7903 11782 15973 10252 10959 14518 13764 13409 16328

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) 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) 89(977) 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) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 353

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Strecker, Chris Strehse, Heather Stribling-Uss, Jonathan Stribling-Uss, Jonathan Strickland, Christine Strickland, Jenny Strickland, Philip Strider, Kara Strissel, Lisa Strnad, Jiri Strnad, Jiri G Strock, Lee C

Submission ID 17055 2864 912 913 14718 2589 13222 13340 2919 5269 16009 17745

Stroehnisch, Cedric Strohmeier, Torrey Strom, Adam Strom, Noah Stromberg, Mark Strong, Ann Strong, Jess Strong, Kathleen Strong, Mr. David Strong, Tim Strotbeck, Murtland Stroud, Benjamin Stroup, Lisa Stroup, Stewart Strovsky, Paula Struble, Stephanie Struhsaker, Thomas Strumsky, David Struve, Elizabeth Struve, Heather Struzyk, Andrej Stuart, Deborah Stuart, Julie Stuart, MIchael Stuart, Nadia Stubbs, Jeremy Stubbs, Luann Stucke, Harriet Stuckey, Evelyn

9954 13599 10466 101 16631 5872 9905 7143 1435 2316 11570 7977 2624 6547 17271 9599 16576 11499 8621 9125 1248 12509 8071 12952 17794 3016 3054 13552 2704

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), 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 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), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 354

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Stuckey, Marci Stucki, Curtis Stucky, Michelle Studer, Julie Studer, Julie Studzinski, Leeanne Stulberg, T. Stull, Rita Stumpf, Nicole Sturgis, Lena Sturke, Phillip Sturtz, Mary Styers, Kopchik, Steven, Kathryn Styrczula, Mary Ann Su, Patrick Suarez, Cassandra Suarez, Marcela Subik, Marc Subramanian, Gayathri Subramanian, Katherine Subramanian, Mahadevan Suchy, Daniel Suda, Mary Sudderth, Phillip Sudol, Laurie Sueoka, Margaret Sugalski, Cassie Sugarman, Susan Sugaya, Takeshi Sugaya, Takeshi Suh, Bahwee Suhara, Mr. Kosuke Suhara, Mr. Kosuke Suhara, Mr. Kosuke Suhara-Davies, Yoko Suhr, Alan Sukumar, N Sukumar, Sunanda Sulek, Elma Sullivan, Amy Sullivan, Barbara Sullivan, Brian

Submission ID 14268 10462 11787 3104 14959 9640 6339 7679 7087 11668 7934 3527 10755 11661 17815 6281 2453 12172 16719 7236 15135 13364 4932 5748 14332 13281 13885 2097 1266 1267 17768 1703 1704 1705 1352 14017 14438 14340 5013 10079 2398 8404

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) 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) 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) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 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) 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) 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 - 355

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Sullivan, Carol Sullivan, Dan Sullivan, Daniel Sullivan, Florence Sullivan, Kate Sullivan, Katte Sullivan, Kristin and Mark Sullivan, Linda Sullivan, Margaret Sullivan, Michael Sullivan, Michael Sullivan, Michael Sullivan, Nancy Sullivan, Patricia Sullivan, Patricia Sullivan, Patrick Sullivan, Rosé Sullivan, Rose T. Sullivan, Sean Sullivan, Virginia Summer, Rebecca Summer, Wendy Summerhays, Anne-Marie Summers, Dave Summers, Peggy Summit, Zach Sumner, Gardner Sumski, Joelle Sumulong, Marilyn Sun, Nida Sunaga, Yoko Sundstrom, Karl Sundstrom, Linea Super, Laura Supperstein, Brent Supple, Rod Surber, Nicole Surdi, Rita Surls, Linda Susini, Alexandra Susook, Priscilla Sutaria, Shreeraj Sutcliffe, Ruth Sutera, Joy

Submission ID 6233 6640 11377 12071 13085 15380 14310 8999 6738 3990 12837 3148 8457 13428 10288 8003 2931 17026 15427 7947 15589 1732 4593 13265 8628 17487 9717 2410 3943 9765 1893 15162 664 12152 13856 9551 64 7821 11799 14476 5865 8215 8781 8824

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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 78(1228), 105(SR703) 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), 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 - 356

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Sutherland, Bob Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club

Submission ID 17091

Sutherland, Hugh Sutherland, Neil Sutherland, Vinnie Sutkus, Abigail Sutter, Lynn Sutton, Carole Sutton, Richard Sutton, Susan Suwa, Ryota Suzuki, Hiroshi Suzuki, Kaoru Suzuki, Kenichi Suzuki, Mika Suzuki, Ryosuke Suzuki, Ryosuke Suzuki, Toyoko Suzuki, Yusuke Suzuno, Mrs. Svendsen, Carolyn Sveyda, James E. and Christine Swaby, Andrielle Swailes, Jon Swaine, Michael Swan, June Swan, Linda Swanberg, Brian Swank, Phyllis Swanson, Byron Swanson, Douglass Swanson, Erin Swanson, Jodi Swanson, John Swanson, Lori Swanson, Lori

13397 2489 4660 2814 7131 2613 16152 8903 911 158 1778 1824 15599 1224 5396 977 14796 1873 6896 12140 12795 13944 8416 11314 8891 12055 12923 5790 16230 16411 8513 6694 9115 15834

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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), 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 357

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Swanson, Marsha Swanson, Scott Swanson, T. Matthew Sward, Jean Swart, Frank Swart, Kathryn Swarts, Dorothy Swartz, Deborah Swartz, Robert Swatek, Melissa Sweel, Greg Sweel, Greg Sweeney, Jay Sweeney, Jeff Sweeney, Jenny Sweeney, Lisa Sweeney, Randy Sweet, Amanda Sweet, Laurel Sweet, Mary Sweet-Thomas, Danielle Swehla, Jorinda Swenson, sarah Swenson-Eldridge, J.E. Swerling, Richard Swetech, Shawna Swiecicki, Atava Garcia Swiecicki, Swiecicki Swierkosz, Joe Swift, Donald Swift, Kevin Swift, Kevin Swiger, Edmund Swimmer, Micaela Swinehart, Anneke Swinford, Bonnie Swinger, Haily Swisher, Marcia Switalski, Diane Swoboda, Megan Swoiskin, Mark Swoon, Dr. Derreca

Submission ID 3019 16305 15458 17652 10291 9449 11948 15262 6205 7347 11428 16365 8685 6050 4713 2955 12136 9868 7361 6633 7772 13596 14000 13251 6718 8990 271 1460 16172 11644 7334 14764 11456 1671 13688 1655 17908 13171 14333 1679 8695 17259

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) 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), 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) 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), 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) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 358

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Swoveland, Maury Swystun, Lydia Sylver, Nenah Sylvia, Carol Sylvie, Reme Sywyk, Tim Szamreta, Joanne Szatkowski, Nicholas Szerakowski, Claudia Szivos, Richard Szostak, Jean-Charles Szykula, Martha Szymanowski, Paul Szymczak, Mark T, E T. Yazzie, Kee

Submission ID 12179 14818 8387 2644 16029 1106 2015 14731 12347 7257 5464 9545 15895 11251 17098 562

TÃrnqvist, Victoria Taaffe, Collette Tabach, Rich Tabasky, Jerry Tabayashi, Hisako Tabbert, Linda Tabila, Kristina Tabone, Renee Tabor, Rebecca Tafanelli, Robert Tafawa, Jumaane

1376 13575 7570 2411 1183 15590 17776 5726 14052 16381 390

Taffe, Susan M. Tagawa, Ann Taggart, Carol Taggart, Carol & Bob Taggart, Kenneth Taggert, Deborah Tague, Julia Tai, Noboru Tai, Noboru

17547 11068 289 11791 13440 3478 12797 1878 1879

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) 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) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 79(972), 20(SR146), 20(SR147), 101(SR170), 51(SR177), 97(SR333), 102(SR357), 60(SR371), 61(SR372), 70(SR435), 79(SR536), 88(SR596), 68(SR620), 93(SR639), 114(SR732), 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 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) 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) 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), 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 - 359

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Tai, Noboru Takacs, Joe H Takagi, Mikiko Takagi, Richard Takahashi, Keiko Takahashi, Yoshie Takaht, Cindy takanaga, hiro Takatsch, Julie Takeda, Helaina Takeda, Keiko Takeda, Mrs. Maki Takekawa, Ikuko Takenori, Mr. Yosikwa Takizawa, Keiko Takizawa, Miss Yaeko Takizawa, Miss Yaeko Talamo, Dave Talani, Danielle Talbert, Wilkie and Patricia Taliaferro, Martha Tallent, Erin Talley, Iris Talltchief Nelle, Lucka Talmo, Tam, Duncan Tambakakis, Christina Tamborello, Frank Tamplin, Tom Tan, Frances Tanaka, Kiyomi Tanaka, Sizuko Tanaka, X Tanaka, X Tanaka, X

Submission ID 1880 9380 13884 11949 1846 1259 8693 11523 13636 8539 6148 1694 1862 1481 1799 1706 1707 16371 14219 15066 6779 6080 11147 810 16245 13242 8133 684 2044 13073 1159 888 1133 1134 1135

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) 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), 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) 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) 14(SR307), 120(SR777), 45(SR874) 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), 126(SR409), 120(SR777) 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), 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 - 360

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Tanaka, X Tanaka, X Tanaka, X Tanaka, Yumiko Tanguay, Kelly Tanner, Scott Tanner, Scott Tanokura, Mayumi Tanokura, Mayumi Tanoury, Mary Tansley, Denise Tanzer, Claudia Taormina, Talma Tapp, Jack Taranowski, Heath Taranowski, Heath Ashli Tashjian, Randy Tashjian, Randy Taskh, Misa Tasoff, Jack Tasoff, Jack Tatebe, Makoto Tatten, Phyllis Tatum, Jody Taulman, Janine Tawahongua, Berra Tayler-Houle, Catherine Tayler-Houle, Catherine Taylor, Angela Taylor, Beth Taylor, Bonnie Taylor, Carl Taylor, Carl Coconino County Board of Supervisors Taylor, Carol Taylor, Chloe Taylor, Cody Taylor, Daniel Taylor, David Taylor, Elizabeth Taylor, Georgia

Submission ID 1136 1137 1138 1331 12945 6904 12069 1713 1714 7819 3922 3693 2063 6115 5559 16385 11286 14833 5657 9042 15195 5323 12371 4011 10487 16961 14149 16667 13025 13952 3777 70 107

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), 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) 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), 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) 120(SR777) 114(SR722), 119(SR769), 120(SR777)

9194 2611 10273 14085 3187 8241 17092

35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 361

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Taylor, Imogen Taylor, J. Holley Taylor, J. Holley Taylor, Kathleen Taylor, Katrina Taylor, Kim Taylor, LauraMarie Taylor, Lili Taylor, Linda Taylor, Martha Taylor, Ms. Madeline Taylor, Nancy Taylor, Peggy Taylor, Phil Taylor, Scott Taylor, Steven Taylor, Tyler Taylor, William Taylor-Pepin, Veronica Teague, Jonathan Teague, Lynn Teal, Derrick Teall-Fleming, Dennis R M Teasdale, Bob Teasdale, Bob Tebbe-Kircher, Katharina Tedds, David Tedenljung, Daniel Tedenljung, Inger Tedenljung, Lars Tedenljung, Sara Teeters, Marlan Teichman, Jen Teitelbaum, Francoise Tejera, Michele Tellier, Marsy Tello, Julian Temming, Elaine Tempelman, Steven Tempelman, Steven Temple, Debra Templeton, Sharon Templin, Orletta Tenbrink, Jamin

Submission ID 10707 3126 14701 13323 15298 1216 12041 16209 10126 2969 1587 9614 842 8993 13504 9145 16500 16405 4701 2575 4451 5086 7740 744 747 2474 11859 73 73 73 73 4315 8422 6835 14214 9187 2889 4499 7447 15462 15571 3807 5979 6208

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) 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) 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), 9(SR233), 54(SR249), 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) 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) 93(SR51), 107(SR171), 107(SR352), 88(SR580), 88(SR596), 45(SR874), 56(SR920) 107(SR171), 88(SR596), 114(SR739) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 362

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Tenenbaum, Karen

Submission ID 17681

Tenney, Nance Tenney, Richard Tennison, Marjorie Tenorio, Doreen Teolis, Simon TePaske, Bradley A Teper, Shannon Teper, Shannon Teplin, Lynne Terbot, Lee and Charlotte Terek, Liz Terek, Liz Terpe, Sharon Lynn Terral, Olympia Terre, Cristina Terrell, Gina Terrill, Bonnie Terry, Brad Terwilliger, Trisha Tessandori, Andrew Tessler, Samantha Tetsuya, Hasimoto Tetsuya, Hasimoto Teutsch, Sallie Teutsch, Sallie Tewksbury, Kari Sioux Tews, Kate Thackston, Cynthia Thaliazalor, Lwindjwla Tharp, Lane Tharp, Terri Tharpe, Donna Cay Thatcher, Corinne Thatcher, John Thayer, Helen Thayer, Jeff Thayer, Mostyn Thayer, Robin Thebaud, Lynda Thedford, Jan Thelen, Deborah Ther, David

15728 16518 4912 15035 15293 8162 12122 14955 4738 16699 13909 13908 6222 3024 5834 8767 4765 13874 2329 3269 9533 1167 1168 9354 14761 3604 2051 2283 5478 2561 14094 10305 5098 3574 28 13291 5587 1320 15918 11837 11200 16339

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 51(SR177), 120(SR777) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 363

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Theresa, Van Ravenhorst Therese, Maria Theurich, Kimba Thibault, Ben

Submission ID 5736 11507 1363 17721

Thibault, Sarah Thibodeau, Bryan Thibodeau, Kristen Thiede, Ruth J. Thiel, Emily Thiele, Joanne Thielisch, Sandra Thiesen, Ava Thiesen, Olena Thigpen, Greg & Kristin Thimiakis, Brigitte Thimiakis, Brigitte Thiss, Thomas Thomas, Barb Thomas, Bob Thomas, Carol Thomas, Carolyn Thomas, Carrie Thomas, Chris Thomas, Christina Thomas, Christine Thomas, Collin Thomas, Craig Thomas, David J Thomas, Deborah Thomas, Denise Thomas, Dennis Thomas, Elma Thomas, Erin

924 10623 15017 13542 15115 14278 1341 8136 14798 8134 958 538 2435 4389 10099 310 10970 13104 9535 11079 16258 4935 15068 16458 2737 3933 3936 13234 17731

Thomas, Jacqueline Thomas, James Thomas, James Thomas, James Thomas, Jan Thomas, Janet Thomas, Joseph

11023 8091 13105 13917 10100 15915 15249

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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 364

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Thomas, K Thomas, Kat Thomas, Kathryn Thomas, Katie Thomas, Kevin Thomas, Kevin Thomas, Linda Thomas, Lorie Thomas, Margaret Thomas, Marilyn Thomas, Mary Thomas, Matt Thomas, Ms. Margaret Thomas, Nancy Thomas, Oliver and Virginia Thomas, Portia Thomas, Richard Thomas, Robert Thomas, Scott Thomas, Sharron Thomas, Shelly Thomas, Suzanne Thomas, William Thomas, William Thomasberg, Lynn Thomas-Elbeze, Elijah Thomas-Jensen, Molly

Submission ID 14603 2032 4682 11875 11174 15169 10733 4043 11886 14488 86 10766 1418 8971 8419 9005 9104 9468 15588 13142 15709 1844 6828 13289 14822 1801 17712

Thomas-Wood, Cherie Thompson, Alison Thompson, Bruce SoaringEagle Thompson, Bruce Thompson, Charles Thompson, Daniel Thompson, David Thompson, Doreen Thompson, Elaine Thompson, Floyd Thompson, Hugh Thompson, Hugh Thompson, Hugh

16297 11421 1593 6597 6848 5435 15748 8273 11354 12593 17434 17451 16989

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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 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) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 365

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Thompson, Janet Thompson, Jen Thompson, Jennifer Thompson, Jennifer Thompson, Jesse Thompson, Jessica Thompson, Jessica Thompson, Jessica D. Thompson, Jo Thompson, Jo Marie Thompson, Jodie M. Thompson, John Thompson, Julianne Thompson, Kevin Thompson, Leeya Thompson, Marietta Thompson, Nina Thompson, Pat Thompson, Patricia Thompson, Patricia Thompson, Paula Thompson, Peggy Thompson, Sandra Thompson, Sarah Thompson, Sherry Thompson, Stacy Thompson, Susan Thompson, Thomas Ford's Colony Thompson, Traci Thomsen, Don Thomsen, Douglas Thomsen, Zack Thomson, Arran Thomson, D. Kurt Thomson, Mark Thomton, Jamie Thorne, Julia Thorne, Marion Thornley, Melissa Thornley, Melissa Thornton, Leah Thornton, Molly

Submission ID 15022 14532 13896 11862 725 17433 16987 17452 7206 10585 181 3421 4259 4271 6979 16425 4447 4431 1638 2176 3275 4762 6798 2619 12196 14892 8335 5120 11592 8025 1959 8009 16011 16127 5520 8379 3353 7694 12310 16148 3780 17190

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(SR125) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 366

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Thornton, Molly Thornton, William Thorpe, Amelia

Submission ID 17109 15047 17718

Thorpe, Kristina Thorsen, Peter Thoumi, Gabriel Thoumi, Gabriel Threadgill, Graham Thryft, Ann Thuemler, Ron Thundercloud-Harrod, Louise Thundercloud-Harrod, Louise Thunderhorse, Ruth Thurber, Ms. Tamara Thurman-Tate, Anne Thurston, Richard T Tiarks, Daniel Tiarks, Daniel Tibbetts, Caroline Tibbs, Pamela Tibor, Rácz Tibsherany, Kris Tickman, Michael S. Tidd, Amy Tidwell, Tyrone Tierney, Beverley Tietje, Kim Tietje, Kim Tiffault, Matthew Tiger, Ruth Tighe, Elizabeth Tileston, Susan Tilger, Bernadette Tiling, Christian Till, Tracey Tillett, Kathryn Tillman, Debbie Tillman, Rick Tillman, Rick Tilman, Rick

10896 6180 10953 16715 10398 13509 13725 1644 1645 11266 1412 12628 6903 11537 15184 2026 357 16041 10561 2164 15901 16222 13545 7431 15782 9405 12149 12314 17128 3720 16816 11807 4036 7735 121 121 17554

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 367

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Tilman, Ruth Porter Tilton Jr., Ted Tilzey, Ragen Tim, Buchanan Timlin, Donna Timm, John Timmer, Cindy Timmerman, Gayle Tims, Dhyana Tinch, Jennifer Tindall, Rebbecca Tinkey, Megan Tinney, Frances Tinsley, Allison Tintorri, Suzan Tirman, Laura Tirman, Lorna Tisdel, Layne Tishler, Jason Titterington, Kim Tjader, Clare Teresa Tobachnik, Edgar Tobachnik, Rita Tobey, Gary Tobias, David Tobin, Virginia Tobkin, Mark Tocco, Deborah Todacheene, Andrew Todak, Paul Todd, Bryan Todd, Jim Todd, Victoria Todechini, Tiffany Todisco, Amy Toews, Maggie Tohe, Robert Sierra Club Environmental Justice Program

Submission ID 17554 6225 213 16720 14264 4005 11099 5123 12180 6195 2667 8467 9541 2733 13101 12844 16231 5372 15081 15018 20 7401 7415 5321 15475 14279 10593 6349 9664 9242 2583 13395 3206 17486 6824 3774 17091

Tohe, Robert Sierra Club Environmental Justice Program

96

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), 84(SR583) 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), 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) 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) 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) 8(SR141), 54(SR285), 88(SR580), 88(SR586) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 57(SR340), 78(SR522), 88(SR596) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 368

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Tokuun, Tanaka Tola, Saret Tolgu, Karl Tolle, Joan Tollenaar, Ben Tolleson, George Tolley, Cecilia Tolley, Teddt Tollman, Larry Tollner, Margaret Tolson, Mark Tom, Tyren Tomas, Sheila Tomasello, Patti Tomaskovic, Patricia Tomczyszyn, Michael Tomes, Mark Tomita, Takafumi Tomkins, Elaine Tomko, Vickie Tomlin, Patricia Tomlinson, Dale Tomlinson, Mike Tomoe, Matsunaka Tomoko, Morimoto Tompkins, Belinda Tompkins, Greg Tompkins, Maryvonne Tompkins, Maryvonne Tompkins, Mimi Tompkins, Pat Tompkins, Pat Tomulonis, Jacqueline Tonachel, Richard Toner, David Toner, Michael Toner, William Tony, Amy S.

Submission ID 2893 14147 5511 7999 8250 15044 3679 12344 8742 9638 10873 17478 5661 7671 1907 16027 12471 1467 12626 6635 13739 4987 15400 1821 1162 8562 2077 5910 15398 8272 130 125 3247 7730 7193 4225 4766 17698

Tool, Frank Topia, Stephen Topinka, Vera

1346 13488 8870

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) 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(SR601) 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), 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) 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) 125(1231), 5(SR39), 45(SR100), 50(SR163), 53(SR260), 54(SR286), 54(SR288), 102(SR358), 78(SR505) 76(SR451), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 369

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Toppenberg, John Torbeck, Carlie Torgerson, Ralph Törnqvist, Victoria Toro, Jo Torok, Don Torozi, Ardita Torpey, Susan Storlazzi Torrence, Paul Torres, Celina Torres, Ricardo Torres, Semu Torres, Vitamarie Toschi, Mike Tostenson, Kimberly Toth, Michael Toth, Steven Toush, Lawrence L. Touve, Faye Towers, Terry Towers, TerryAnn Towle, Kimberly Towles, Lee Towns, F Travis Towns, Theadora Townsend, Curtis Townsend, Darlene Phoenix Institute for Human Dev. Townsend, Kevin Townsend, Patti Townsend, Sara Townsend, Teresa Towry, Roxana Tozier De La Poterie, Arielle Tracy, Kaleena Tracy, Kyle Tracy, Kyle Tracy, Stephen Trahey, Mary Trammell, Jamie Trammell, Ryan and Vanessa Tran, Bryan Tran, Jany Tran, John Tran, Tiffany Tran, Vincent Tran, Yvonne

Submission ID 16353 15638 13359 53 8483 5958 4686 3753 15200 13226 12860 6634 3202 12262 6119 10499 16164 17088 6479 7545 14914 4942 16475 6883 3829 10208 2068 8511 9361 2153 5085 10604 13611 14877 11711 16594 7897 8281 6449 2595 17913 6772 17296 17891 17903 17906

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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 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) 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) 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) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 370

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Traub, Susan Travers, Marie Travis, Annabelle Travis, Teri Travis, Weldon C. Traxler, Marsha Treadway, Ms. CC Treasurefield, Tara Treasurefield, Tara Treat, Tom Trebec, JD Tredeau, Emily Treger, Anne Marie Trejo, Bonnie Tremaine, Leonie Tremblay, Joanne Trenda, Erin

Submission ID 16220 15863 15597 3379 3819 3818 1508 355 16548 507 14528 10434 4726 15991 8205 10137 17678

Trenholme, Ph.D., Arthur Trennepohl, Marla Trenton, Ann Trepanier, Sara Trickey, Linda Triebe, Rev. Ed Triest, Jason Trifonopoulos, Trifon Trigg, Tali Trimakas, Andrew Trimarco, Joseph Trimble, Nance Trimble, Perry Trine, Julia Trinh, Christine Trinh, Phi Trinkle, Alison Trinz, Ann Trioli, Joseph Triplett, Chris Triplett, Juyne Triplett, Tia Triplett, Tia Tripp, William Trippel, Stephen & Carol

144 17411 5850 9324 8218 1529 8921 3862 10620 13887 8427 13572 15937 7381 17790 6550 10750 13704 17818 8752 5974 11222 16782 1939 13820

Location of Comments/Responses 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), 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) 45(SR874) 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) 54(SR26), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 51(SR183), 53(SR273), 54(SR305), 126(SR420), 76(SR453), 78(SR532), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 109(SR812) 45(1049), 35(SR121), 41(SR131), 76(SR452), 76(SR454), 120(SR777), 54(SR1103) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 371

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Tritschler, Klaus Trivedi, Subir Trivett, Lori Tromiczak, Caitlin Trone, Cameron Trone, Mr. Cameron Tronier, Jennilyn Trosclair, Gary Trotter, Terry Trotti, Melinda Troup, Scott Troupin, Rosalind Trout, Linda Trout, Sherri Trovecke, Kathy Troxel, Rebecca Truax, Rita Trubow, Geoff True, Kathryn True, Mary Trufan, Hal Truitt, Lee Trujillo, Cici Trujillo, Dianne Trull, Joe Truly, Amy Trumpp, Leon Trunzo, Anna Truong, Dianna

Submission ID 3919 2171 15752 9458 116 1502 6826 13419 13759 14680 8956 15208 7732 7604 10767 13592 4719 12631 10994 12436 3503 11391 2645 15277 4331 10392 3391 6707 670

Truong, Linda Truschel, Ann Louise Trygar, Shelby Tsang, Sauwah Tsang, Tiffany Tse, Barbara Tsioulos, Demitra Tso, Candice Tso, Eddie Dine Hataalii Association

9313 195 8980 10555 12305 13770 1247 17510 16927

Tso, Rachel Tsosie, Irma

211 764

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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 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) 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) 15(SR70), 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), 78(SR514), 93(SR588) 76(961), 16(SR7), 108(SR218), 58(SR356), 126(SR419), 126(SR420), 76(SR459), 76(SR464), 78(SR508), 79(SR544), 88(SR607), 88(SR608), 76(SR713), 108(SR714), 121(SR795), 88(SR828) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 93(SR644), 114(SR736)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 372

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Tsosie, Irma Tsugehara, Yukiko Tsuji, Maria Tsukamoto, Naoko Tsutsumi, Ikue Tsuyama, Hiromi Tsuyama, Hiromi Ttiba, Mayu Ttiba, Mayu Ttiba, Mayu Ttiba, Mayu Tucci, Anthony Tucker, Bambi Tucker, Brett Tucker, Chris Tucker, Donald Tucker, Jack Tucker, K Tucker, Lynn Tucker, Robert Tudisco, Steve Tufter, April Tullius, Michael Tully-Figueroa, Sally Tuma, Mary Tuma, Michael Tung, Jennifer Tuning, Phyllis Tunon, J Tupaj, Syd Tupper, Mariana Tupper, Meredith Turay, Mike Turek, Gabriella Turek, Gabriella Turk, Lawrence "Butch" Turk, Nancy Turkal, Yvonne Turley, Myra Turlo, Joy

Submission ID 1249 1769 10601 11580 3992 1198 1199 1141 1142 1143 1144 2887 3666 16503 11038 6812 3635 13807 10509 188 6630 17420 3664 14791 5182 16115 10506 16260 4994 2902 6873 10064 3491 5410 16211 36 13797 3217 648 9278

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), 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), 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) 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) 20(SR236) 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 56(SR920) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 373

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Turner, Gwendo-Lyn Turner, Jenny Turner, Kathi Turner, Kim Turner, Matthew Turner, Michael Turner, Mr. Jeremy Turner, Mr. Jeremy Turner, Sharon Turner, William Turvey, Colin Tutor, Barbara Tuttle, Jr., Frederick Tuttle, Mary Tuya, Nancy Lynn Tvrdik, Jean Tweedie, Jameson Twillman, Richard Twining, Diane Twitty, Carter Twombly, Janneke Ty, Bobby Tyers, Randall Tyers, Randall Tyler, Barbara Tyler, Camille Tyler, Christina Tyler, John Tyler, Kessa Tyler, Richard Tyler, Steve Tyler, Steve & Jill Tyndall, Riki Tyner, Evelyn Tyra, Adonna Tyree, Angela Tyrone, Rex Uchino, Crystal Uchino, Crystal Black Mesa Indigenous Support Uecker, Robert Uerkvitz, Christie Ugochkwu, Iheony Ukena, Meta Ulrey, Timothy

Submission ID 2301 10831 14306 4102 15796 2086 1722 1723 8188 14408 16908 6595 4836 4881 6332 9461 11427 5247 2121 3252 12655 6492 11599 5425 11788 11255 2560 14737 8389 9865 5543 16049 5089 4230 4433 6307 2850 17176 102 9682 13241 17897 2520 8576

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) 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) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 21(1061), 52(1122), 52(SR238), 126(SR409), 76(SR451), 120(SR777) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 374

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Ulrich, Maggie Ulvang, Myra Umberger, Art Umehara, Anri Umstead, Joseph Underhill, Scott Underwood, Adam Underwood, Dustin Unger, Kris Unger, Marilyn Unger, Michelle Unknown, Unknown Unknown, Unknown Unreadable, Betty Unreadable, Daniel R Unreadable, Janie Unreadable, Kelly Unreadable, Marina Unreadable, Mary Unreadable, Unreadable US Fish and Wildlife Service Unreadable, Unreadable Unreadable, Unreadable Unreadable, Unreadable Unreadable, Unreadable Unreadable, Unreadable Unreadable, Unreadable Unreadable, Unreadable Unreadable, Unreadable Unreadable, Unreadable Unreadable, Unreadable Unreadable, Unreadable

Submission ID 14987 15421 8557 5689 5318 5528 10410 17295 3083 6395 12778 1871 17870 17073 17533 17097 17198 17238 17892 17843 17187 17105 17083 17266 17189 17108 16967 17139 17272 17247 17348

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), 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) 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) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 67(951) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 375

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, Wilfred Unruh, jerry Untalan, Melinda B. Updike, Kelley Upfal, Moira Upton, Ms. Julie Uran, Eva Urban, Paul Urbanski, Claire Urdang, Kellie Urey, Dianne Urquhart, Andrew Urquhart, Kenneth Urschel, Herman Urushima, Hiroshi Uschuk, Pamela Usinger, Gary Usinowiz, Anastasia Uss, Jon Utman, Lara Uttech, Rachel

Submission ID 17279 17252 17195 17162 17387 17308 17163 17127 17102 17436 17440 17386 7096 17800 15332 633 1411 11806 14898 1601 4386 12400 13533 7407 1767 1727 371 7420 17245 17595 4479 7746

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) 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), 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) 69(955), 35(SR121), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 88(SR625) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 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), 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 - 376

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Uttley, Jason Uwan, Udeme V. (unreadable), D. (unreadable) VÃ¥gman, Christer Vachuska, Peter Vadella, Jessica Vaerewyck, Amy Vagher, Carolyn Vail, Martha J. Vail, Richard & Armande Vaitkus, Kris Valcarce, Kristina Valcour, Nicole Valdes, Doraluz Valdes, Kemuel Valdez, Anita Valdez, Jamie Valdivia, Susan Valdmane, Anita Valdmets, Lisa Valencia, Suzanne Valencia, Suzanne Valenson, Gail Valentin, Fernando Valentin, Fernando Valentine, Bishop Valentine, Carol Valentine, Victoria Valenza, doreen Valenzuela, Andrea Valero-Coggins, David Valladares, Rene Valle, Flavia Valleroy, Marie Valles, Angelina Valley, Robert Vallianos, Myra Vallone, Cheryl Vallor, Honor Van Ausdall, Amber Van Bakel-Edminster, Caroline Van Bloemen, Dona Van Bloemen, Dona Van Breda, Arina Van Brocklin, Julie

Submission ID 16200 17795 17317 1304 13569 11838 16864 4676 127 14693 7196 9606 10181 4231 13032 5805 14878 14625 13436 6832 12783 15745 8491 2369 14380 1654 3623 48 6068 5993 9238 15587 13356 162 14384 12409 5700 14950 8113 11225 8665 9186 16377 14994 3684

Location of Comments/Responses 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 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), 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) 51(SR177), 120(SR777), 45(SR874) 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) 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) 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), 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 377

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Van Davis, Barbara Van Davis, Jeffrey Van De Werfhorst, Laurie Van Der Heyden, Michael Van Der Heyden, Mike Van Der Voort / Levy, Martie / Lauren van der Wansem, Mieke

Submission ID 7699 7691 16318 2476 16819 10120 676

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) 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) 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) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 63(SR378) 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) 97(SR333), 97(SR341), 76(SR451), 88(SR611) 102(SR407), 88(SR585), 96(SR683), 114(SR724), 121(SR795) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Van Doeren, Michelle Van Dyne, Judith Van Fleet, Sue A. Van Hook, Chris Van Hook, Jessica Van Horn, Gavin Van Horn, Meredith Van Kirk, Jim Van Londen, Kimble Van Merkesteyn, Tina Van Nostrand, Anne Van Note, Marcia Van Thiel, Mathias Van Til, Evelyn Van Til, Evelyn Van Vlack, Kathleen Van Voast, Jordan Van Voorhis, Russell Van Wert, Kristina Van Zee, Clint P. Van, Gail Van, Rich Vana, Scott Vancil, Janet Vandeman, Mike Vandeman, Mike Vandenburgh, Judith Vander Meer, Jason Vandergriff, Kristina Vanderkamp, Robert Vanderkooi, Lois K. Vanderschaaf, Carol Vandervest, Martin Vandever, Elsie Vandever, Vanessa Vandragt, Brady Vandragt, Jen

2857 9317 13452 8481 16513 16895 16724 5977 15057 14449 9782 5767 12083 13515 16865 3364 11110 12845 3299 7525 11639 13898 10878 6279 554 16523 16858 4192 8292 4368 6719 10055 9686 17220 712 15156 14316

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 378

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter VanEssen, Sheila Vanman, Joyce Vanscoy, Vicki VanVoorhis, David Varble, Tina Varda, Michael Varela, Alejandro Varela, Manny Varelli, Gretchen Varga, John Varga, John Vargo, David Varna, Mayrita Varnal, Fred Varner, Lisa Varney, C. Jean Varon, Gil Vasher, Sandra

Submission ID 3817 6621 13214 14989 12759 17288 9376 17258 4622 13201 14262 2759 17622 3271 12961 7246 5934 17746

Vasilovich, Guy Vaslily, Karen Vasques, Stela Vassallo, John Vastola, Michael Vath, Deborah Vaughan, Jennifer Vaughan, Patrick Vaughan, Roger Vaughn, Andrew Vaughn, Rebekah Vautier, Suzanne Vayda, Karen Vazquez, Yahira Vecchia, Yvonne Vecere, Linda Vedvik, Gary Vega, Ruben Veley, William Velner, John Vendilli, Anthony Vendryes, Patricia Vene, Candi Venezia, Frank Venice, Kathy Vennett, Sean

9985 15832 14272 13689 3871 2994 15935 1998 7383 4818 4454 5644 7747 14830 16007 3869 13013 7898 16404 6989 5046 8519 5936 11063 3435 11765

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), 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 379

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Ventre, John Vera, Diana Verge, ­ Verin, Paco Verkerk, Mark Verlinda, Richard Vershum, Judith Verstraten, Linda Verzola, Lorri Vest, Iva Vest, Lori Vest, Martha Vestal, Mary Anne Veteto, Traci Vetorino, Elisabeth Vetrano, Tony Viator, Tom Viator, Tom Viator, Tom Vice, Daniel Vicente, Beatrice vick, merit Vickers, Carleton Vickers, James Vickery, Morgan Vickstrom, Robert Victor, Seth Victoria, Plumm Vidas, Amalia Vie, Phoenix Viebrock, Susan Vieira-DaPonte, Manuela Viereck, Jennifer laranna H.O.M.E. Vieth, Richard Vieth, Richard Vigil, Arlene Vigilante, Diane Viglia II, Peter Viken, Barbara Viktena, John Viktora, John J.

Submission ID 6072 2441 967 12017 15967 2065 5866 15995 10829 6260 5475 13421 12991 4143 4700 6396 17468 17425 16978 10996 2873 4203 5549 5852 14049 13693 16666 14072 1550 14347 12343 6467 17204 475 475 11796 16293 3600 3207 792 17525

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 57(921), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 126(SR409), 76(SR451), 120(SR777) 41(SR131), 120(SR777), 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) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 380

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Villagran, Ana Villagrana, Eduardo Villalta, Beatrice Villanueva Grumley, Ariana Villareal, Christopher Villasenor, Stephanie Villavicencio, Alan Villella, Margaret Villere, Medea Villicana, Mariela Villines, Jessica Villinger, Beverly Vince, Anne Vince, Anne Vince, Eric Vincent, Jeremy Vincent, Judith Vincent, Larry Vinciquerra, Ken Vineberg, Scott Vinett, William Viney, James Viramontes, Ms. Priscilla Virgen, Aydee Virgil, Gordon Virgili, James Visger, Ken Visser, Deirdre Visser, Mimi Vitale, Elizabeth Vitale, Laura Vitolo, T Vitols, Jana Vitullo, Irene Vivar, Cristobal Vizcarra, Daniel Vizcarra, X Vizzi, Gregory Vlah, Marsha Voegeli, John Vogas, James Vogas, Jim Vogel, Anna

Submission ID 6527 17878 5438 2268 5174 14304 16309 7736 13637 17779 12700 11999 1719 1720 1721 4763 6401 2486 7277 13361 8986 16376 1389 13843 16401 3013 6624 15397 2601 8075 6355 10302 11308 2895 10804 13349 1188 10258 15130 6716 3754 16202 7470

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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) 88(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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), 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) 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 - 381

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Vogel, Curt Vogel, Karen Vogel, Suzanne Vogelsang, Jean Vogler, Ethlyn Vogts, Christopher Voigt, Kathleen Voigt, Loren Volf, Irmgard Volkov, Aleksey Volling, Kathleen Vollmann, Roland Vollmar, Kent Vollmers, David Volz, Daniel Von Guilleaume, Holly von Heimburg, Jed Von Horstman, Eric Von Letkemann, Elissa Von Oppen, Elizabeth Von Schwanitz, Veronica von Seckendorff, Aleksandra Von Tish, Lisa von Zangenberg, William Vondrasek, R Vongaia, Judi VonGiebel, Robert VonOhlen, William VonZastrow, Wilfred Voorhis, Catherine Voors, Leah Vorobey, Nancy Vosburg, Robin Vosburg, Robin Vosburgh, Victoria Vosburgh, Victoria Vosgien, Robert Voshall, Kristi Voss, Kolourz Vossoughi, Siamak Votaw, Janet Voth Jr, Theodore H Vowels, Charlie Vozoff, M Vranka, Ja Vrecenak, Jo

Submission ID 5029 15408 276 14084 9851 14581 2599 3761 1149 1738 16726 10504 16849 7825 4748 15114 10978 15563 9165 5404 3942 4998 5245 3403 9044 8955 13148 2678 2304 8384 9045 4285 3128 370 6267 15177 10910 16835 14165 6394 10916 7698 3986 11775 5814 11868

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) 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) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 382

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Vu, Phuong Vulliemoz, Yvonne Vultaggio, Richard W, C W, E W, M W, Martha W, Yukiko Waak, Patricia Waalkes, Peter Wachs, Richard Wachtel, Fern Wachter, James Wacker, Heidi Wada, Kelly Waddington, John Wade, Norman Waeternams, Hygi Wagener, Ben Wager, Raymond L Wagner, Blu Wagner, Brenda Wagner, Briana Wagner, Chris Wagner, Eric Wagner, Jenny E. Wagner, Jim and Virginia Wagner, Margaret Wagner, Natalie Wagner, Robert Wagner, Robert Wagoner, Emily Wagoner, Roschele Waheman, Philip E. Wahleah, Johns Waine, Linda Wainscott, Rebecca Wainwright, Carly Wait, Ellen Wait, Geoffrey Wakefield, Sharon Waks, Adam Wald, Gilbert Wald, Johanna

Submission ID 4078 4855 2876 17094 2826 9786 17101 962 9140 3637 10019 2076 3241 9320 13731 3315 5848 10697 13446 16476 11756 5197 16783 13262 8042 3542 14938 9639 2376 2988 14673 2736 8112 17067 723 13953 6567 7728 14222 14221 2117 6248 14675 3356

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), 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), 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) 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), 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) 115(1016), 35(SR121), 114(SR722), 114(SR751) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 383

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Wald, Phoebe Wald, Sandra Walden, Ariel Waldman, Susan Waldron, Cynthia Wale, Liisa Walker, Alison Walker, Alison Walker, Andrew Walker, Barbara M A Walker, Blaine O. Walker, Brad Walker, Carrie Walker, Carrie Walker, Craig Walker, Cyril Walker, David Walker, Deborah Walker, Faith Walker, Gary Walker, Gary Walker, Grace Walker, Janice Walker, Jason Walker, Jeanette Walker, Jen Walker, John Walker, Joseph Walker, Jr., Thomas Walker, Kelvin Walker, Kenneth Walker, Kevin Walker, Lauren Walker, Laurine Walker, Leanne Walker, Louise Walker, Lousie Walker, Lynda Walker, Lynn Walker, Lynn Walker, Maureen Walker, Philip Walker, Rosyln Walker, Tatjana Walker, Todd & Tatjana

Submission ID 8220 10541 10734 2071 8561 16299 17350 3888 5022 15024 17446 12245 1563 11763 14338 11745 8318 5766 16877 5160 16617 9969 1659 11680 13383 17213 13696 13729 773 16187 6874 11747 15808 13052 2617 772 17574 7628 8198 6553 7171 9666 7498 16447 9034

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), 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) 114(SR755) 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) 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) 127(SR367), 88(SR580) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 32(868), 126(SR427), 78(SR501) 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) 121(SR781) 52(SR160), 121(SR802) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 384

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Walker, Valerie Wall, D&S Wall, James Wall, Mary Wallace, Christine Wallace, Jennifer Wallace, Jocelyn Wallace, Jonathan Wallace, Kathy Wallace, Lon Wallace, Melissa Wallace, Pamela Wallace, Zara Wallach, Donna Wallack, John Wallauer, Martha and Bob Waller, Susan Walley, Patti Wallington, Kathy Walmer, Had Walmer, Had C. Walrafen, Barbara Walrafen, Barbara Walser, Lorayn Walsh, James Walsh, Llinda Walsh, Peggy Walsh, Sean Walsworth, Peter Walsworth, Timothy Walter, Christine Walter, Donna Walter, Gail Walter, Gail Walter, Robin Walter, Ruth Walter, Shannon Waltermire, Brian Waltermire, K Walters, Barbara Walters, L Walters, Lori Walters, Mike Walters, Sandy Walters, Wendy

Submission ID 9197 606 6434 14210 11870 16564 15252 16778 12688 2651 785 2834 13614 968 14125 12334 13705 5113 2570 16298 1122 3230 14583 1678 9281 4550 12309 4236 6661 4760 6847 13988 5118 15817 9288 7630 16452 9668 9253 4073 5727 6407 7391 16784 9857

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 16(SR77), 45(SR100), 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) 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), 88(SR602) 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), 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), 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) 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 - 385

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Walters, Wendy Walthall, Dani Walther, Jacquie Walther, Regina Waltman, Martha Walton, Diana Walton, Guy Walton, Joy Walton, Mike Walton, Nick Wampole, Barbara Wang, Michelle Wangsgard, Erica Wanket, Alice Wanlass, Mark Wapniarski, Christopher Ward, Bill Ward, Greg Ward, Jacqueline Ward, Jeff Ward, Jess Ward, Joan Ward, L. Ward, Lillie Ward, Monica Ward, Patricia Ward, Robert Ward, Sheila Ward, Terrence Ward, William Warder, Gary Ware, Deb Ware, Debra Lee Warenycia, Dee Warenycia, Dee Warenycia, Paul Warminski, Margaret Warner, Barbara Warner, Bruce Warner, Darryl Warnes, Abbie Warren, Ari Warren, Barbara Warren, Christopher Warren, Gregory Warren, Jan Warren, Katherine

Submission ID 16749 16462 10041 12641 4080 3079 500 5204 6358 7779 14525 12704 15683 14604 6720 17662 13691 10231 12922 15862 2660 12790 4880 3483 8240 2396 12162 15151 10094 5374 2567 12564 17596 7988 14506 16166 3060 8436 13722 7610 4997 14007 9356 4026 5346 7112 13772

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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 35(SR121) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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 - 386

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Warren, Kenneth S. Warren, Mrs. Helen Warren, Roxanne Warren, Sarah Warren, Zachry Warren-Allen, Rachael Wartell, Julie Warth, Albin Warzecha, Camille Waschewsky, Markus Wash, Peter Washeko, Michael Washko, Rita M. Washko, Rita M. Washuk, Lauren Wasserman, B. Wassilak, Douglas and Laura Wasson, Christin Watanabe, Emi Watanabe, Hiromi Watanabe, Hiroshi Watanabe, Stephanie Watenpool, Chris Watenpool, Chris Water, John Waterbury, Jack Waterbury, Kate Waterman, Cathy Waterman, Deborah Waters, Elizabeth Waters, John Waters, Odin Waters, Patricia Wathen, Wayne Watkins, Billie Watkins, Candice Watkins, Gary Watkins, George Watkins, Katie S. Watkins, Maria Watkins, Rebecca Watkins, Sharon

Submission ID 15058 1589 4732 10827 6096 5965 3771 15821 12979 5990 6158 6475 807 312 14537 4056 3882 5030 11740 1888 915 6159 4721 15194 708 6009 5517 15780 12182 3979 77 6335 12831 7466 5621 16454 5409 8772 17256 965 13319 257

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 58(SR354) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 52(SR242) 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(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 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) 15(SR16), 35(SR121)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 387

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Watkins-Wagner, Summer Save a Tree Watrous, Frank Watson, Chris Watson, Christy Watson, Colleen Watson, Fran Watson, Frank Watson, Jeremy Watson, Kim Watson, Mark ARI-Communications, LLC Watson, Mark Watson, Melissa Watson, Mr. David Watson, Sandra Watson, Taylor Watson, tom Watsworth, Ronald Watters, Ann Watters, Christa Wattles, Gary Watts, Anne Watts, Elizabeth Watts, Kathleen Waugh, Dave Waugh, Dave Waugh, Pamela Waugh, Patricia Wauters, Will Wawrzyniak, Edward Waxman, Edward Wead, Leslie Weatherman, John Weathersbee, James Weaver, Alexis Weaver, Amy Weaver, Amy Weaver, Esther Weaver, Gregory Weaver, Nora Weaver, Paul Weaver, Torraine Weaver, Torraine M. Weaver, Verba Webb, Amanda

Submission ID 2382 15121 14341 16145 8037 10694 10972 2172 9862 410 15258 13662 1495 3194 13138 5744 17012 8319 10598 13791 7710 2693 4132 4449 16675 11814 10236 9549 14436 6741 3778 15223 3265 2482 5217 3197 11050 5479 3433 2529 11938 303 9508 9138

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) 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) 127(SR1053) 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), 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) 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 8(SR491), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 388

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Webb, Emily Webb, John Webb, John Webb, Kendrick Webb, Loraine Webb, Mary Webb, Michael Webb, Ramona Webb, Randall Webber, Rita Weber, Ben Weber, James Weber, John M. and Betty Weber, Marc Weber, Ryan Weber, Susan Weber, Ted Webster, Ben Webster, Ellen Webster, Judith Webster, Phyllis Wechsler, Teresa Wedemeyer, Christian The University of Chicago Divinity Schoo Wedge, Gene Wedlund, Rose Wedman, Noreen Wedow, Nancy Wedow, Nancy Weed, Joan Weed, Timothy Weeden, David Weenaatainnini Weeden, Noreen Weedman, Randolph Weeks, Janine Weems, Jason Wegeforth, Jo Wegscheider, Frank Weich, Jennifer Weigel, David Weigner, Steven Weikel, Wendy Weikel, Wendy Weikert, Kathy Weil, Carrie

Submission ID 5198 9641 16016 11026 645 4307 13267 17059 5684 3965 956 12104 7891 3474 7115 8017 9153 2544 11348 9993 14699 11233 3764

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) 45(SR100), 51(SR172), 120(SR777) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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)

9262 11635 2551 6944 15886 6144 13120 349 16655 12003 5159 6548 8466 5630 1950 16488 16614 3929 16673 4582 13986

35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 77(SR591) 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) 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 - 389

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Weil, David Weil, E. Weiland, Erica Weiland, Erica Weimer, Margaret Wein, Gerald B. and Rosemary Weinberg, Alan Weinberg, Amanda Weinberg, Rita Weinbrenner, Jacquelyn Weiner, Jordan Weiner, Maurice Weiner, Nona Weingartner, Annette Weingartner, Jason Weingeist, Carol Weinhold, Robert Weinmann, Janice Weinsheimer, Kurt & Eve Weinstein, Bonnie Weinstein, Debbie Weinstein, Robyn Weinstock, Jonathan Weintraub, Marisa Weis, Betsy Weisfeld, Marsha Weishaar, Jennifer M Weisinger, Terry Weislik, Mike Weiss, Benjamin Weiss, Carla Weiss, Christopher Weiss, Lee Weiss, Lucas Weiss, Norman Weiss, Stuart Weissbuch, Brian Weisser-Lee, Melinda Weissinger, Kiersten Weisz, Russell Weitz, Stephen Welber, Beverly Welborn, Ben Welch, Elisa Welch, George Welch, Reid

Submission ID 10470 10447 528 528 9367 2917 5618 15214 3530 2677 10201 3647 13828 9064 3981 15536 4824 3603 5812 350 5830 16215 5599 13838 1328 13017 1963 11708 3744 13587 13779 14142 7318 10938 11304 10327 15168 11333 10051 16104 9559 3355 7474 6323 11390 4522

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 109(SR753), 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) 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), 110(SR716), 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), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 390

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Welden, Deborah Welker, K. Welker, Michael Welker, Thomas Welle, Victoria Wellehan, Jim Weller, Garald Weller, Sarah Weller, Susan Wellman, Jan Wells, Andrea Wells, Barbara Wells, Bonnie Wells, Christine Wells, David Wells, John Wells, Jordan Wells, Jordan Wells, Karyn Wells, Michael Wells, Michelle Wells, Nancy Wells, Phillip Wells, sue Wells, Thornton Wellsted, Robert Welms, James Welsch, William Welsh, Bob Welsh, Frank Welsh, Joshua Welter, Jenny Wen, Frederick Wendt, Christin Wener, Tina Weng, Michael & Iris Wenner, M.W. Wenner, Raven Wentworth, Joshua Wentzel, Richard Wenzel, David Wenzel, Ms. Kelly Wenzel, Quentin Wenzlaff, Fred Werle, Elizabeth

Submission ID 2251 4968 15777 16527 81 7034 13527 10195 14005 7211 4034 1978 10507 13324 5986 5495 17474 8615 14838 2323 14230 1175 13295 12611 6968 12889 10889 361 9265 14294 13353 9747 3880 15891 1992 16075 16498 14696 13396 16097 15339 1388 10547 11061 2118

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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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), 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) 52(SR241), 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) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 391

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Werman, Martha Werman, Martha Wernaers, Thierry Werner, Andrew

Submission ID 1357 1358 7285 434

Werner, Elaine Werner, Katherine Wernette, Timothy Wernz, Celeste Wernz, Celeste Werp, Michaela Wertenberger, Laura Werth, Sharon A Wertz, Wendy Werzinski, Joseph Wesley, Charlie Wessel, Fran West, Alice West, Autumn West, Barbara West, Donald West, Eric & Carolyn West, Frieda West, Gregory West, Janet West, John West, Lara West, Mary West, Micah West, Samantha Westbrooks, Richard Westby, Berit Westby, Brett Westerhoff, John Western, Shane Westfall, Dea Westfall, Dea Westfall, Terrie Westlake, Joan Weston Mervant, Debra

5178 9749 15295 4618 14953 16803 12608 10005 6442 3552 7839 5733 9355 4490 16384 10074 6342 8532 13486 3953 4933 4420 5637 6522 16517 12793 11181 2151 16119 3183 17119 17196 16307 16609 4851

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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 8(SR141)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 392

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Weston, Maria Weston, Marsha Weston, Nathan Weston, William Wetsell, Courtney Wettlaufer, Deborah Sosian Ranch Wettlaufer, Matthew Weyandt, William Weymouth, Kathryn Whalen, Debra Whalen, Lori Whalen, Shirley Whalley, Roxy Wharton, Barbara Wheaton, Ken Wheeler, Bruce Wheeler, Edna Wheeler, Mark Wheeler, Robert Wheeler, Sarah Wheelock, Donnette Wheir, William Whelan, Patrick Whetsel, Jonna Whetstone, Tony Whipp, Bettye Whipple, Dave Whipple, Laura Whisman, Ammie Whitaker, Carol Whitcoe, Chris Whitcomb, Paul White, AE White, Berandette White, Brian White, Cassandra White, Charmaine White, Chris White, Colleen White, Danielle White, Deborah White, Dee White, DeLisa White, Elizabeth White, Gordon White, Jeffrey

Submission ID 14174 15833 6867 14671 3245 5183 5384 12121 4205 12059 16441 8997 4003 8471 5136 5612 2615 10780 15693 12108 446 15735 6008 15370 10242 6753 13118 4054 17775 3072 1779 2413 12253 4683 11221 3396 15614 15456 2145 10149 4453 3127 37 3881 11319 5697

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) 76(SR452), 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) 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) 14(SR307), 76(SR452) 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 393

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter White, Jennifer White, Joan White, John White, Judy White, Karen White, Kathleen White, Kathleen White, Kenneth White, Lois White, Lynn White, Lynn White, Mani White, Mary White, Mary White, Michael White, Michelle White, Rodney White, Ryan White, Saundra White, Stephen White, Ursula White, William Whitebear, Luhui Whitehair, Melanay Whitehurst, Carol Whitelock, Renee Whitenight, Joan Whitesell, Daniel Whiteside, . Whiteside, Glenn Whiteside, Glenn G Whiteside, Mary Whitfield, Dc Whiting, Charla Whiting, Nancy Whiting, Valarie Whitlatch, Doria Whitley, Parise Whitlock, Kathy Whitman, Adrienne Whitman, Aimee Whitman, Cynthia Whitman, Linda Whitman, Scott Whitman-Bradley, Arthur

Submission ID 4898 3129 6011 3879 7648 1045 10071 16008 9170 3130 4619 6061 2516 15691 16766 12472 9464 13535 5371 4539 13805 8142 1465 643 12852 10774 5364 6448 16762 12303 814 8152 2605 11941 4172 8485 14837 9227 12578 4510 15307 16514 11505 12363 1619

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), 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), 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 70(SR435) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 394

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Whitmore, Karen Whitmore, Megan Whitnah, Claudia M Whitney, Adam Whitney, Dana Whitney, Garret Whitney, Nancy Whitney, Sarah Whitney, Whitney Whitt, Robin Whittier, Marlis Whittington, Janet Whitworth-Reed, Linda Whorley, Deborah Whorton, Adrian Wichman, Michael Wick, David Wickham, Lori Wickham, Reed Wickliffe, Jeff Wicklund, Duane A. Wicks, Traudi Wickward, Nancy Widawsky, Lisa Widmann, Ann Wieczorek, Dave Wiedel, Sean and Victoria Wiedrich, Alyson Wieland, Charles Wieland, Loren Wiemer, Claudia Wiener, Nancy Wiens, Devon H. Wieser, Jan Wieserman, Angela Wiest, Jo Wiest, Jo Wigerman, Mary Wiggs, Steve Wight, Anne-Adele Wightman, C Wiilbanks, Nellie L. Wikle, Victoria Wikle, Victoria Wilbanks, Autumn Wilbur, Lynn

Submission ID 5652 4417 15283 2002 15559 15746 6154 8068 10743 5192 5887 12988 11470 2322 1999 15900 16110 7435 17769 15733 3346 3040 2801 11012 584 5938 9617 16890 12013 13734 4590 5002 16581 12112 4260 2493 14452 12965 5350 5914 3426 16990 13511 15992 16981 8185

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) 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) 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(SR1191), 126(SR1223) 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), 41(SR131) 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) 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), 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 - 395

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Wilbur, Margaret Wilcox, James Wilcox, Jane Wilcox, Jill Wilcoxen, Beth Wild Kim, Konstance S Wild, Christopher Wild, Kathryn Wilde, Dr. Edwin F. Wilde, Edwin F. Wilde, Marcia Wilder, Darlene M. Wilder, Jenny Wilder, Sinead Wildermuth, Brett Wildern, Barbara Wildonger, Mark Wildschutte, Sharonne Wile, Joanne Wiley, Carol Wiley, Gayle Wiley, Linda Wiley, Stephen Wilfore, Michael Wilgarde, Ralph Wilhelm, Debra Wilhelm, Rosemarie Wilkerson, Beth Wilkerson, Sasha Wilke-Shapiro, Rachel Wilkins, Davis Wilkins, Lori Wilkins, Patrick Wilkins, Rose Wilkinson, Melanie Wilks-Christian, Jennifer Willard, Diane Willard, John Willard, Karen Willcox, Faith Williams, Annie Williams, Barbara Williams, Carissa Williams, Catherine Williams, Catherine

Submission ID 10024 13184 12891 3698 7587 17206 2255 14133 17006 17443 6978 1668 14334 12610 5419 8155 9957 11076 6032 15251 7116 1627 15550 13754 2336 10810 8643 5027 3681 11655 12815 2061 6014 3909 11247 6833 3270 12484 2391 431 11574 6235 4129 3878 14738

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 103(SR213) 52(SR240), 88(SR580) 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 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), 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 396

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Williams, Charlie Williams, Craig Williams, Dawn Williams, Debby Williams, Deborah Williams, Deborah Williams, Dyke Williams, Earl and Patricia Williams, Gered Williams, Jason Williams, Joanne Williams, Judith Williams, Judy Williams, Lisa Williams, Mara Williams, Marilyn Williams, Marjorie Williams, Martha Williams, Mary Williams, Mary B. Williams, Matthew Williams, Molly Williams, Nicholas Williams, Octavia Williams, Philip Williams, Rebecca Williams, Rebecca Williams, Rhoda & family Williams, Richard Williams, Robert Williams, Robert Williams, Sarah Williams, Sarah and Scott Williams, Sharon Williams, Shawn Williams, Stacie Williams, Stephen Williams, Summer Williams, Terrie Williams, Terrie Williams, Todd Williamson, Dean Williamson, Kevin and Dara Williamson, Lisa Williamson, Lisa Williamson, Mark

Submission ID 11204 7166 9767 2773 11894 14712 10207 6787 16406 15415 9971 3460 4991 14740 11825 6331 200 15003 14426 13126 10058 4953 16185 175 12725 2305 3059 3662 12063 8992 14260 8395 7986 2403 13387 6504 9673 671 8477 15243 10415 5440 11963 6113 16494 6969

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) 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) 20(SR234), 20(SR235), 126(SR409), 88(SR586), 109(SR812) 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) 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) 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) 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 - 397

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Williamsoner, Willianson, Neil Willis, Alison Willis, Francille Willis, Jennifer Willis, Jennifer Willis, Ms. Starla Willis, Sue Willman, James and Beverly Willmann, M Willmann, R Willmore, Charles Wills, Fred Wills, Megan Willsey, Cynthia Willson, Genevieve Wilmarth, Scott Wilner, Jane Wilson, Amy Wilson, Ann Wilson, Blake Wilson, Blake Wilson, Bonnie Joy Wilson, Brent Wilson, Brian Wilson, Darin Wilson, Debra Wilson, Dianne Wilson, Emily Wilson, Erik Wilson, Erik Wilson, Harry Wilson, Heidi Wilson, Jan Wilson, Jeff Wilson, Jerry Wilson, Jessica Wilson, John Wilson, Joyce Wilson, Karin Wilson, Kendrick Wilson, Kent Wilson, Leonard Wilson, Lynn

Submission ID 17063 12141 17241 13107 14199 7056 1578 6912 5077 6103 6107 12757 14755 9987 13589 11543 13189 13358 2640 6905 10190 15904 16736 16380 6369 9012 3025 4342 7155 94 8351 11243 1243 14191 3309 14024 7241 10906 8607 14123 16066 7645 17551 16107

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), 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) 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) 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) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 120(SR777) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 114(1011), 78(SR523), 88(SR616), 93(SR644) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 398

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Wilson, Natalie Wilson, Patricia Wilson, Patricia Wilson, Patricia Wilson, Preston Wilson, Sam Wilson, Sharon Wilson, Susan Wilson, Todd Wilson, Vict Wilton, Liz Wimmer, Tiffany Winch, Walter Winchell, Theresa Windberg, Thomas Winders, Forest Windrum, Ken Windus, Cree Wine, Kimberly Wineman, M Winemiller, Tom Wingard, Michel Wink, Karen Winkel, David Winkel, Marguerite Winkle, Wynona Van Winkler, Philippa Winkler, Philippa Winn, Christopher Winn, Robert Winnie, J. Winskowski, Pat Winslow, City of

Submission ID 461 495 14059 495 15951 6628 16653 6370 12672 4491 9169 5196 8679 5459 15723 17373 13784 2754 6606 13576 5059 16471 13442 6319 12728 17571 1609 1610 15577 2343 17488 5456 16960

Winslow, Kerry Winslow, Lynda Winston, David Winston, Grant Winston, Greg & Dorothea Winter, Catherine Winter, Katja Winter, Michael

9706 16403 82 5776 12475 12560 535 7623

Location of Comments/Responses 5(SR38), 45(SR100), 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 51(SR201), 120(SR777), 102(SR1193) 41(SR131), 120(SR777), 52(SR914), 54(SR1103) 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) 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) 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) 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) 42(SR106), 39(SR135), 102(SR212), 108(SR221), 53(SR264), 108(SR269), 110(SR720), 114(SR731), 120(SR777) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 114(SR751), 119(SR769), 120(SR777), 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), 126(SR409) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 399

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Winter, Tonja Winterbottom, Carla Winters, Amy Winters, Ed WinterSun, P-A WinterSun, P-A Wintin, Wanda Winton, Steve Wire, M. Wischmeyer, AJ Wise, Margaret L Wise, Marilyn Wishart, William Wishner, Robert Wismer, David Wisnewski, Tara Wist, Robert Wistar, Caleb C Wisti, Mike Witek, Todd Witherington, Jim Withington, Nancy Withrow, Robin Witschard, Heather Witschger, Robert Witt, Margaret Witte, Brian Witte, Marcia Wittstein, Arnold Witzberger, Shea Witzberger, Shea Wixted, Diane Wlliams, Pauline Wloch, Ilonka Wobus, Betsy Wodicka, Beverly Woflson, Toni A Wogen, Anne Wohl, Steven Wohlwend, Keith Woillard, Sarah Woiwode, Lisa Wojno, Leon

Submission ID 4113 14682 12435 12755 8841 16303 5721 15294 6924 15727 3713 14606 1653 16887 3388 7663 12585 811 14598 11392 16036 12500 10313 11582 8406 5140 10613 6643 2945 17186 17103 10214 12241 1409 5679 12565 14835 10387 8146 6920 932 8766 6531

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) 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) 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) 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), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 400

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Wolcott, Valorie Wold, Barbara Wolden, Kathryn Wolek, Adam Wolf Teacher, Robert Wolf, Becky & Bob Wolf, Bernard Wolf, BOB Wolf, Darlene Wolf, Jennifer Wolf, Kathy Wolf, Laura Wolf, Leo Wolf, Maxine Diane Wolf, Mr. John Wolf, Rachel Wolf, Rachel Wolf, Robert Wolf, Robert Wolf, Shaye Wolf, Sylvia Wolf, Victoria Wolfblack, Leeta Wolfe Morris, Karin Wolfe, Chris Wolfe, Christine Wolfe, Dr. Jonathan Wolfe, Edward Wolfe, Gerry Wolfe, Jody Wolfe, John Wolfe, Jonathan Wolfe, Maggie Wolfe, Nathan Wolinsky, Lilith Wolk-Hall, Lauren Wollenhaupt, Lois Wolthusen, Charles Won, Alex Wong, Daria Wong, Eugene Wong, Herbert Wong, Julie Wong, Kelly Wong, Sandra Wong, Sharon

Submission ID 11914 11030 8277 10651 15625 4600 16510 4415 15191 6976 344 10717 17605 17607 1492 4524 15526 5780 15210 16442 17605 3380 13296 3577 15838 10679 1771 14324 16844 2008 5124 674 7803 14589 15097 5021 13180 1210 3063 13076 3630 7658 16239 4848 5694 10864

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) 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), 88(SR583) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 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) 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) 45(SR874) 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) 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), 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 - 401

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Wong, Tim Wong-Gibbons, Donna Woo, Howard Wood, Adele Wood, Antonia Wood, Ash Marie Wood, Barbara Wood, Betsy Wood, Catherine Wood, Crystal Wood, David Wood, Jessica Wood, Kris Wood, Kristi Wood, Leslie Wood, MAry Wood, Melissa Wood, Paul Wood, Rae Wood, Roberta Wood, S Wood, Sam Wood, Wendell Woodall, Andrea Woodard, Shauna Woodard, Travis Woodbury, Matthew Woodcock, Charlene Woodcock, William E. Woodin Jr, Robert Woodland, Unreadable Antioch College Woodman, Janet Woodman, Jean Woodruff, Joanne Woodruff, Kathryn Woods, Amanda Woods, Gina Woods, Judy Woods, Rita Woods, Stephen Woods, Tabitha Woods, Terry Woodson, Woodson Woodward Frost, Diane Woodward, Johnathan

Submission ID 7120 10003 14021 15853 8959 15113 7711 12027 13456 9131 2214 4403 1922 14605 6935 15056 12770 12178 12861 11158 7723 10203 16179 923 2195 17307 8445 464 16006 9871 17329 13233 13484 12462 4680 4191 9185 15635 16250 2638 5426 2353 6866 11279 16659

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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 402

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Woody, Renee Wool, Abigale Wooler, Lesley Woolery, Paul Woolf, Sue Woollen, Dawn Woontner, Alan Wooton, Michele Wootten, Tom Workman, Jeremy Workman, Loretta Worth, Frederick Worth, James Worth, M Worth, Russell Worth, Wendy Wortham, Michael Worthington, Lynne Worthy, Crista Wortiska, George Wortiska, George Wouters, Danny Wozniak, Shawn Wozniak, Shawn Wren, Nora Wright, Amos Wright, Anne Wright, Carl Marshall Wright, Colleen Wright, Darleen Wright, David Wright, Donna Wright, Gary Wright, Geraldine Wright, Jan Wright, Johanna Catharina Wright, Jonathan Wright, Jordan Wright, Kimberly Wright, Kirstin Wright, lisa Wright, Melvin Wright, Peter Wright, Richard Wright, Rosemary Wright, Sharon

Submission ID 7006 11578 5110 11414 15872 1300 10285 4243 16125 9721 12954 11766 4950 15350 3401 14313 3619 10828 16263 17839 17013 12023 13830 16802 6513 9455 14726 17669 7017 5295 13583 12907 15331 4814 14213 17671 1780 7667 10136 2090 7275 4653 9902 3958 15795 15591

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), 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) 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) 45(SR564) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 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) 15(SR16), 35(SR121) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 403

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Wright, Sharon Wright, Susan Wright-Frierson, Virginia Wright-Stover, Pat Wrinn, Kathryn Wrye, K. Wu, Fred Wudib, Martha Wuebbenhorst, Diane Wuhrmann, Karin Wulfsburg, Karen Wullenwaber, Dana Wursten, Elisabeth Wurth, Geri Wurts, Teresa Wurtz, Stephen Wuthier, Kay Wyant, Jean Wyatt, Aimee Wyatt, Bill Wyatt, BJ Wyatt, Craig Wyatt, Glen & Cathy Wyatt, Jacqueline Wyatt, Jacqueline Wyatt, Lisa Wyatt, Sarah Wyberg, Bryan Wyckoff, Christy Wydra, J.R. Wyke, Kimberly Wylie, Michael and Nancy Wynkoop, Laura Wynroth, Barbara Wysocka, Jowita Wyss, Dan X, Jessica Xanas, Tehetena Xavier, James Xebic, Peter Xu, Susan Y. (unreadable), Sarah Yackel, Michelle Yago, Momo

Submission ID 16985 4862 5216 7097 2358 2751 12417 17165 4349 15413 13433 12562 13648 3239 11896 8926 10308 6297 13411 5586 17215 10898 9323 313 2115 4057 11979 10353 16473 4690 13618 14733 2147 7247 9207 5188 1303 17920 10000 7362 2687 17344 6819 1488

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), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 53(SR25) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 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), 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 - 404

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Yago, Momo Yaji, Iri Yoshida Yajima, Kiyohiro Yake, William Yakel, Michelle Yamada, Mariko Yamada, Yuzo Yamaguchi, Haruyasu Yamamoto, Gaku Yamamoto, Kimi Yamanaka, Takashi Yamashita, Minoru Yamasita, Mrs. Yuko Yamazaki, Chieko Yanagi, Mrs. Miho Yanagimoto, Kanenori Yanagimoto, Kanenori Yancey, Shirl Yancoskie, Elizabeth Yandell, Roger Yanez, Dorothy Yang, Kitty Yang, tom Yanke, Erin Yao, David Yarger, Andrea Yarnell, Susan Yarrobino, Erin Yates, Cindy Yates, Joan Yates, Sissy Yazzi, Kay B. Yazzie, Etta Mae Yazzie, Greg Yazzie, John

Submission ID 1487 484 1191 16062 16833 1882 2671 1338 899 17626 1897 1874 1480 1208 1485 1211 1212 13166 11106 14237 11526 3089 17765 1230 5706 3136 12100 6951 13022 10693 3891 17157 17586 1366 532

Location of Comments/Responses 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 126(SR409) 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), 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), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 83(SR571) 81(SR569) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 53(SR258), 67(SR394), 53(SR1073)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 405

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Yazzie, Lashina Yazzie, Orion Yazzie, Rose Yazzie, Rose Yazzie, Thelma Yazzie, Vincent

Submission ID 17522 1334 707 17219 17223 581

Yazzie, Vincent

17472

Yazzie/Czerny, Una and Brad Ycas, Trevor Yeager, Elizabeth Yeager, Will Yeakel, Mary Yee, Daphne Yeko, Bruce Yelensky, Beth Yelle, John Yellowhair, Shelby Yelton, John Yennior, Stephanie Yeuell, Kay M. Yevtushenko, Irene Yi, Michael Yoder, Valerie Yogaratnam, Ingrid Yolk, Karl Yomogida, Naoki Yonemushi, Kyoko Yonezawa, Mr. Seiichi Yonezawa, Mrs. Yumi Yong Soler, Ana Yong Soler, Ana Yonker, Ashley Yono, Valerie Yonts, Chris York, Lisa York, Mark York, Traci

14613 17833 8541 7787 13712 11732 13327 7242 3154 1598 5963 13818 6242 9049 17902 3416 2114 12521 1890 1869 1687 1683 11621 14293 7548 7544 13860 6746 15356 11660

Location of Comments/Responses 42(SR106) 35(SR121), 56(SR313), 110(SR716), 120(SR777), 120(SR777), 31(SR829) 35(SR121), 41(SR131), 54(SR249), 93(SR639) 35(SR121), 52(SR160), 97(SR341), 83(SR573), 88(SR586), 88(SR596), 114(SR730) 42(SR106), 51(SR199), 97(SR345), 70(SR442), 79(SR536), 81(SR557), 88(SR612) 95(983), 22(1062), 53(1071), 52(1117), 5(SR29), 51(SR196), 22(SR282), 22(SR283), 53(SR366), 95(SR673) 64(932), 52(SR160), 51(SR200), 101(SR207), 101(SR208), 53(SR268), 67(SR401), 105(SR496), 53(SR1073) 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) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 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) 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), 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 406

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter York, Y. Yoshi, Tomo Yoshi, Tomo Yoshido, Teko Yoshihara, Naomi Yoshihashi, Masako Yoshimura, Mary Yoshino, Ms. Chizuru Yosihiro, Ono Young, Anne Young, Betty Young, Elmer Young, James Young, Jane Young, Jerry Young, Jo Young, Kathleen Young, Linda Young, Michael Young, Samantha Young, Susan Young, William Young-Buck, Sara Younger, Wes Youpee-Roll, April

Submission ID 10893 1745 1746 1081 1200 1764 14090 1489 1055 12927 15869 9148 10177 9387 9071 5265 14055 12458 10323 3449 6515 7724 4355 3074 17706

Yoyokie, Marvin Village of Kykotsmovi Yoyokie, Marvin Village of Kykotsmovi Yu, Ted Yuan, Tim Yuasa, Kento Yuasa, Kento Yuchi, Takahiko Yudell, Mark Yuen, Adrienne Yukiko, Ina

17153 17692 17781 14297 1213 1214 1735 4978 11239 890

Location of Comments/Responses 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), 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), 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) 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), 29(SR150) 29(SR150), 54(SR285), 79(SR545) 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), 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 407

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Yumia, Yada Yumia, Yada Yun, Allen Yuriko, Alius Yuriko, Koyama Yvinskas, Katherine Z., Jennifer Zachary, Claude Zachary, Valerie Zacks, Sierra Zafar, Leila Zager, Linda Zagorski, Anna Zahor, Arthur Zai, Robert Zaidi, Avani Zambrano, AnaMaria Zamoyski, Geraldine Zamudio, Maria Zanders, Marya Zanin, Gina Zapata, Pedro Zara, Sara Zaremski, Joe Zarkowski, De Ann Zarlow, Willow Zarro, Jennifer Zaslow, Julia Zastrow, Ariel Zatkow, Bruce Zawadzki, Traci Zdon, Andrew Zdpeski, Walter Zeck, Paula Zee, Rick Zeff, David Zelasko, Sandy Zelazny, Bernie Zelcer, Brook Zelikson, Linda Zeller, Rudy Zellers, Raleigh

Submission ID 901 898 10539 1887 1852 12546 17415 10503 10017 3077 6187 12636 8459 13002 10363 5558 12918 13227 9493 4196 6585 7169 10029 12762 15241 7954 14386 6069 14205 14795 13859 15487 4144 3559 2721 6681 3313 12957 12519 1219 7123 5403

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), 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), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 35(SR121), 120(SR777), 45(SR874), 52(SR914) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 408

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Zemel, Mitchel Zenker, Elizabeth Zentura, * Zentz, Zentz Zepeda, Robert Zerby, Alli Zetzer, Joel Zevely, Carina Zhang, Libin

Submission ID 8163 12723 5750 5370 2109 2641 11931 14645 17696

Zhapbarbergenova, Julia Ziebarth, Virginia Ziebro, Robert Ziegler, M Ziegler, Mary

14481 8731 4319 13966 429

Ziegler, Robert Ziemba, Jeffrey Zierikzee, R. Ziff, Mary A. Ziff, Neal & Julia Zilla, Francis Zilth Jr, Lester Zilth, Jr., Lester Zilth, Lela Zimel, David Zimmer, Audrey Zimmerman, Leonard Zimmerman, Paulette Zimmerman, Roger Zingaro, Jolly Zinger, Jason Zink, Alan Zintl, Frank Zion, Cheryl Zirkle, Sheila Zitkus, Jean Zito, Vincent Zivanovic, Judith Zlomke, James Zober, Pamela Zoete, Anita Zohrabi, Azadeh Zoldak, Loretta Zollett, Bernard

9342 4115 12035 2303 13003 16850 16977 16940 771 9254 15039 9859 4397 988 8874 5231 2040 13192 12862 9085 3157 14958 7858 11841 4659 15953 17921 8843 4591

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) 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) 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) 15(SR16), 15(SR16), 35(SR121), 52(SR242), 56(SR313) 35(SR121), 51(SR177), 126(SR409) 35(SR121), 126(SR409) 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) 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 409

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Zornesky, Jerome Zoubeck, Suzanne Zsido, Aletha Zsigmond, Dainel Zubin, Winifred Zucker, Ellen Zugaib, Susan Zukas, Noelle Zukoski, Katie Zulauf, Joel Zusho, Kelli Zvosec, Deborah Zwick, Lori Zwickel, Daniel Zwiener, Susie Zych, Timothy Zychowski, Michele

Submission ID 5772 2935 1238 15971 11359 12574 2900 7572 16300 11419 9038 16116 11793 7557 14097 13595 3987

Location of Comments/Responses 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) 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)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-1 - 410

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 1

Section General General

Page NA

Paragraph of Page NA

Reviewer USEPA

Comment USEPA has rated this Draft EIS as LO – Lack of Objections (Summary of Rating Definitions was enclosed). We have a few recommendations that should be addressed in the Final EIS for clarification and to improve mitigation measures. Finally, the Final EIS should clarify the status of USEPA’s permits and include mitigation measures for impacts on water quality, including waters of the U.S., and riparian vegetation. The Draft EIS does not indicate if detailed study was conducted to determine the impacts of seismic conditions on the C, N, and any other aquifers in the area. The Draft EIS does not contain a detailed assessment and evaluation of structural features to determine the potential effect on flow interactions between the C and N aquifers. Similarly, a critical fault mapping information for the area has not been included in the Draft EIS. Is it possible that an unmapped critical fault section could impact the quantity and quality of water in the C and N aquifers?

Remarks/How Resolved No response needed.

2

General

NA

NA

BIA DC

Detailed seismic studies were not performed. Northeastern Arizona is an area of relatively low seismicity.

3

General

NA

NA

BIA DC

4

General

NA

NA

BIA DC

5

General

NA

NA

BIA DC

The Colorado Plateau, where the study area is located, is an area of relatively little structural deformation. Strata cover wide area with a general dip of 2 to 4 degrees. No major faults have been identified in the area of either the C- or N-aquifer well fields. The N and C aquifers are separated by +1,000 feet of the semi-indurated clays and silts of the Moenkopi and Chinle Formations. It is unlikely that unmapped faults would provide a pathway for the movement of poor quality water into the well fields. The Draft EIS indicates that a reduction in the stream flow Based on the groundwater modeling completed for the of the Chevelon Creek and the Clear Creek may occur as a Black Mesa Project, pumping of C-aquifer water under Alternative A would result in negligible impacts. However, result of current usage in the operation of the Black Mesa cumulative adverse effects will result from continued and Mine. Both of the referenced creeks are tributaries of the Little Colorado River. In addition, the Papadopoulos model increasing regional groundwater pumping from the C aquifer by multiple users, which is expected to cause (prepared by a consultant) concludes that at the current declines in groundwater elevations. It is correct that the EIS water usage the Chevelon Creek will dry up completely does not propose measures to protect Chevelon and Clear within the next 60 years if the current pumping rate is maintained. This statement of creek drying up in 60 years is Creeks from the effects of pumping by multiple users. questionable. It may happen sooner than 60 years. The Draft However, if Alternative A were selected as the proposed EIS does not recommend any steps to be taken to protect the action, a suite of conservation measures would be implemented to offset potential adverse effects of stream Chevelon Creek, the Clear Creek or other creeks from baseflow depletion, caused by the proposed action, on Little drying up. Colorado spinedace and its designated habitat, and roundtail chub. The purpose of the conservation measures is to aid in the survival, conservation, and recovery of the two fish species. Construction of a water-return pipeline is addressed in The Draft EIS does not consider whether the old slurry pipeline Section 2.4.3 (Draft EIS page 2-42). is structurally sound enough to be used as a conduit for pumping the used water back from the Mojave Generating

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 1

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

6

General

NA

NA

BIA DC

7

General

NA

NA

BIA DC

8

General

NA

NA

BIA DC

Comment Station, to recharge the aquifer or other uses in the mining area. The Draft EIS states that the proposed use of the C aquifer for the Black Mesa Complex and slurry pipeline will be 6,000/year. The proposed C aquifer water-supply system will include groundwater from a well field of 12 wells located on the Navajo Indian Reservation near Leupp, Arizona, which is approximately 108 miles from the Black Mesa Complex. The revised LOM plan should contain a condition that any water withdrawn from groundwater well field be used solely for the Black Mesa mining operation and not diverted, or used for other purposes. If the proposed use of well field located on the Navajo Indian Reservation near Leupp, Arizona is modified at a future date to allow for other purposes or if additional webs are drilled for purposes other than supplying water to the Black Mesa Complex and slurry pipeline, then the revised LOM plan must be amended to include the new uses of the water, the number of wells proposed for drilling, and the impact of additional water withdrawal on the C and N aquifers. The revised LOM plan also must require that any revenues generated by resale or reuse of the slurry water or water from the well fields be shared with the Hopi and Navajo tribes. The revised LOM plan should include a condition that, prior to operation of the Black Mesa Mine, the permittee must monitor the springs, and the C and N aquifer groundwater levels to document the water conditions (quality and quantity) prior to, during, and after the mining operation starts.

Remarks/How Resolved

As stated in Table 2-6, BIA is the authority for the leasing or permitting of the C-aquifer water supply.

As stated in Table 2-6, BIA is the authority for the leasing or permitting of the C-aquifer water supply and related facilities.

The permit issued by OSM to mine at the Black Mesa Complex requires an extensive hydrologic monitoring plan. As part of the plan, the permittee has been monitoring N-aquifer water levels and water quality at eight wells within the permit area for over a period of 25 years. Also, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been monitoring N-aquifer water levels at six of its own wells (BM-1 through -6) and water levels and water quality at a number of N-aquifer wells on and around Black Mesa (the latest of which is Truini and Macy 2007). The USGS also monitors the flow rates and quality at a number of N-aquifer springs (Truini and Macy 2006, 2007). The LOM plan does not include a plan to monitor the C-aquifer, because it is not considered part of the mining and reclamation operation at the Black Mesa Complex. Prior to construction and during and after operation of the C aquifer water-supply system, BIA and the Navajo Nation could require monitoring of the C aquifer.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 2

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment

9

General

NA

NA

BIA WRO

10

General

NA

NA

BIA WRO

11 12

General General

NA NA

NA NA

BIA WRO BIA WRO

13 14

General General

NA NA

NA NA

BIA WRO NNEPA WQP

Spelling, typographical, and grammatical errors were noted throughout EIS. Please conduct a good technical edit for the next iteration of the EIS. The commenter is referring to a subalternative of When discussing the C-aquifer water supply system throughout the EIS, the Hopi Hart Ranch is not mentioned – Alternative A that would result in developing 21 wells to produce 11,600 af/yr of water from the C aquifer (up to why? 6,000 af/yr for project-related purposes, up to 2,000 af/yr for the Hopi Tribe, and up to 3,600 af/yr for the Navajo Nation). To produce the 2,000 af/yr for the Hopi Tribe, four wells would be developed on the Hart Ranch, owned in fee by the Hopi Tribe. This scenario is explained in Section 2.2.1.2.1.2.1 (Draft EIS page 2-14), Section 3.9.3.1 (Draft EIS page 3-89), and is shown on several maps. In other parts of the document, the 21 wells are referred to collectively as “the well field” rather than distinguishing between those on the Navajo Reservation and those on the Hart Ranch. Use “et al” in citations as appropriate; there is several The EIS has been edited. examples of this throughout the EIS. When referring to two proper nouns, such as two creeks, do The standard established for this EIS is to capitalize not capitalize “creeks”. For example, “Chevelon and Clear “creeks,” “reservations,” and “cities” in these instances. creeks…”. The same thing applies to cities and reservations. Throughout the EIS, please change “immediate-foreground The EIS has been edited. to background” to “immediate foreground-to-background.” Any Black Mesa Project activities conducted within Waters Comment noted. of the Navajo Nation require federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Certifications and CWA Section 404 Permits. CWA Section 401 Certifications are obtained from the NNEPA Water Quality/NPDES Program. CWA Section 404 Permits are obtained from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Any Black Mesa Project activities that discharge to Waters of the Navajo Nation require federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Certifications and CWA Section 402 Permits. CWA Section 402 Permits (commonly referred to as NPDES Permits) are obtained from United States

Remarks/How Resolved This monitoring program will continue as part of Peabody’s existing permit, Peabody monitors the N aquifer and certain springs off the leases. Annually, OSM reviews both programs and issues a report to determine if material damage has occurred. The EIS has been edited.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 3

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

15

General

NA

NA

NNEPA WQP

Comment Environmental Protection Agency as of the date of this memorandum. Modifications to existing NPDES Permits that result from Black Mesa Project activities are to be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency for review as of the date of this memorandum. Section 202.A.15 of the NNEPA’s November 9, 1999 Surface Water Quality Standards requires that sufficient instream flows be maintained to support designated uses and meet narrative and numeric water quality standards. This applies to all surface water flows that may be affected by ground water pumping of the “C” and “N” aquifers. These waters include, but are not limited to, Coal Mine Wash, Dinnebito Wash, Canyon Diablo, Cow Springs, Begashibito Wash, Moenkopi Wash, and Pasture Canyon. Overall, the new air pollution control technology will be installed until the proposed planned projects are in place, correct?

Remarks/How Resolved

Comment noted.

16

General

NA

NA

NNEPA OER

The air pollution control technologies for the Mohave Generating Station would be installed is implementation of the Black Mesa Project Alternative A were assured. That accomplished, the installation at the Mohave Generating Station and the construction of the Black Mesa Project Alternative A components would coincide to completion (and schedules) of both projects efficiently. The text has been revised.

17

Executive Summary Executive ES-1 Summary Executive Summary Executive Summary ES-1

Last

NNEPA WQP

18

Last

NNDWR

19

ES-2

1st

NNDWR

20

Executive Summary

ES -2

3rd

NNDWR

The following correction should be made: …an additional 5,600 acre-feet per year (af/yr) of water from for tribal domestic, municipal, … A statement should be inserted noting that after the year 2026 the Navajo tribe is planning to use up to 9,600 acrefeet per year for municipal purposes through 2060. Although it is true that construction of the municipal water projects associated with the C-aquifer trunk line is not currently proposed, the Navajo Nation does have current proposals for these municipal water projects. The inter-ties between the C-aquifer trunk line and the existing Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA) systems at Leupp and Tolani Lake are straightforward and inexpensive. In the third paragraph, only Federal approvals are cited. No tribal approvals are listed. The paragraph should be modified to make that clear that this list is only for Federal approvals.

Statement inserted as suggested.

No response needed.

The majority of the decisions that would result from this EIS are Federal. Tribal approvals associated with BIA actions were addressed in item (3) (Draft EIS) “BIA approval for various rights-of-way and leaser of the well field, and BIA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 4

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment

21

Executive Summary

ES-2

3rd

BIA Hopi Agency

How are BIA’s actions associated with the approval if the uses of tribal waters on tribal lands? Unclear please clarify…permit?

22

Executive Summary Executive Summary

ES-2

1st (2nd sentence)

SRP

23

ES-5, ES-7

SRP

24

Executive Summary

ES-5

SRP

Background – Suggest that the words “to Peabody” be added after “is located on lands leased” and before “from the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation...” Table added and descriptions of Alternatives B and C were Alternative Decisions, Alternative B – Alternative A is supplemented. adequately described; however we recommend that Alternative B description be expanded. It would be helpful to specifically describe which revisions would be approved or not approved under Alternative B (and C, see comments below). Possibly portraying this information in a table showing which significant actions, permits, areas mined, water used from each aquifer, etc., would be part of the project under each alternative would be helpful and most clear to the reader. (In the stand-alone executive summary on the OSM website (the “website ES”), these are pages ES­ 6 and ES-8.) Alternative A and Subalternatives (website ES-6) – The EIS Figure was added and text was clarified. mentions that there are multiple water withdrawal scenarios and pipeline capacity alternatives considered. We recommend that the agency’s preferred alternative is clearly noted, as is done in Figure 2-1 and later on in the document.

Remarks/How Resolved actions associated with tribal approval of the use of tribal waters on tribal lands….” However, the document has been revised to reflect Alternative B as the proposed action and preferred alternative in the Final EIS. Under Alternative B, the rights-of-way are not needed. Water resources on tribal lands may be made the subject of a tribal lease agreement under 25 CFR Part 162, Section 162.103 (5) where the lease of the water right is incorporated into the lease of the land itself. Other leasing authority and the Secretary’s approval authority thereunder, such as the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, would govern in cases where the water right is not addressed as part of a Part 162 land lease. The text has been revised.

(Note that in discussing the two pipeline routes, the ES does The agencies’ preferred route is identified in the Draft EIS, Executive Summary, page ES-7, third full paragraph, end of specifically label the eastern route as the preferred second line: “The agencies’ preferred alternative, the eastern alternative (ES-7) (website ES-9)) . route, would be….” This still would be the case if Alternative A were selected. However, Alternative B is the proposed action and preferred alternative in the Final EIS. Under Alternative B, the pipeline would not be constructed.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 5

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 25

Section Executive Summary

Page ES-6

Paragraph of Page 1st (3rd sentence)

Reviewer SRP

26 27

Executive Summary Executive Summary

ES-7 ES-7

1st (1st line) 3rd (last line)

Peabody SRP

28

Executive Summary Executive Summary Executive Summary

ES-9

1st (7th line) 2nd (3rd line)

SRP

29

ES-9

Peabody

30

ES-9 to ES­ 10

SRP

31

Executive Summary

ES-10

4th and 5th

BIA Hopi Agency

Comment Alternative A (website ES-7) – Should be revised as follows: “In addition, up to 6,000 af/yr of water used for project-related purposes would be used by the Navajo Nation … (until after 2026) ….” Navajo use of the full 6,000 af/yr does not occur until near the end of the project life. Suggest changing to state “Assuming that an alternative water supply is developed, it is the applicants’ intent …” Alternative A (website ES-7) – The word “only” should be inserted after “cross.” The distinctive feature of this alignment is that it does not cross the Hopi Reservation, it is located entirely on the Navajo Reservation. Environmental Consequences – Needs to add the phrase “those occurring during” before the phrase “the period when…” The sentence beginning “Mining and reclamation of a given coal …” is out of place. Recommend moving it into the paragraph above. Description of Impact levels (Major, Moderate, Minor, Negligible, None) – Note that the word “appreciable” or “appreciably” is not one of the terms used, but this term is used to describe impacts at subsequent points in the document. This term could lead to ambiguity regarding the level of impact to the resource and when used in the text should be followed by or clarified with a defined term. (See ES-16 – Special Status Species, Cumulative and Indirect Effects). Find a better way of describing how land will be restored to premining conditions.

Remarks/How Resolved The text has been revised.

The text has been revised. The text has been revised.

The text has been revised.

The text has been revised.

The text has been revised.

32

Executive Summary

ES-10 Last

SRP

Black Mesa Complex – Refers to impacts resulting from development and use of temporary and permanent impoundments. These are not described in the Executive Summary as an element of the project. If the Executive Summary contains references to impacts from these impoundments, even if not measurable, the Executive Summary should also mention them upfront, when describing the action.

Comment is unclear. The 4th and 5th paragraphs adequately summarize reclamation practices. The land is reclaimed for grazing rather than to premining conditions. Water drainages, to the extent practicable, would be restored to conditions that existed prior to mining. Text about the impoundments has been added.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 6

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 33 34

Section Executive Summary Executive Summary

Page ES-10 ES-11

Paragraph of Page 5th 1st

Reviewer SRP NNDWR

35

Executive Summary

ES-11

2nd full (1st line) 3rd (2nd sentence)

SRP

36

ES-11

NNEPA WQP

Comment Black Mesa Complex – It should be clarified that the particulate emissions are about 145 tons “per year.” This paragraph is a bit confusing. In this paragraph the Draft EIS states that there could be some effect on groundwater quality, some springs could go dry, and some of those springs could return. But, in the same paragraph it states that some springs would not return. The paragraph would be more precise if the Draft EIS would state that some springs may not return instead of would not return. If the water level were to return to the levels prior to the C-aquifer project, then one would expect that the impacted springs would return to preproject conditions. Black Mesa Complex – There appears to be something missing between the word “coal,” and the words “earth materials”. Should this say “Refuse from washing the coal, composed of earth materials…” Please provide details about the sampling and testing plan, and the expected refuse quality that are described in this sentence.

Remarks/How Resolved The text has been revised. This section refers to the mine area and is not related to the C-aquifer levels.

The text has been revised.

Peabody would develop and submit for regulatory approval a refuse sampling and disposal plan that would be incorporated into the mine permit. The plan would be implemented when the coal-washing facility begins operation (Appendix A, Draft EIS page A-1-10). No further details about the sampling and testing plan are available because the plan has not yet been developed. Peabody expects the refuse quality to be similar to that of the waste material collected from coal core samples used in the original leachate test study described in the Draft EIS page A-1-10. The 2nd and 3rd sentence text has been revised to read “Peabody would use a sampling and testing plan to analyze the chemical constituents of the refuse verifying the results are consistent with the original leachate test study. If they are significantly different and indicate a potential for greater adverse impact, special disposal procedures would be implemented so the refuse cannot mix with existing soil or water.” There are no special disposal procedures. As explained in Appendix A (Draft EIS page A-1-10), if coal-washing facility refuse ample data and model results do not deviate from the study data and model results, the refuse would be disposed of in pits (N-06 and J-23) as outlined in Chapters 6 and 18 (Attachment 18) of the permit application package

37

ES-11

3rd (3rd sentence)

NNEPA WQP

Please provide details about the special disposal procedures that will be implemented to make sure the refuse material from the coal washing cannot mix with existing soil and water.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 7

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment

38

Executive Summary

ES-12

2nd (4th sentence)

SRP

39

Executive Summary

ES-13

2nd (1st sentence)

SRP

40

Executive Summary

ES-13

4th

NNDWR

Reconstruction and Operation of the Coal-Slurry Pipeline – “Individual species” should be replaced with “individuals,” and “species population” should be replaced with “population” to avoid the implication that the entire species would be affected. Construction and Operation of C-Aquifer Water Supply System – Is something left out of this sentence? There is a semicolon after a series of several phrases with commas, then the words “and construction of the water supply pipeline….” Should there be something after “and” and before “construction”? The Draft EIS notes that pump stations will be at least 0.25 miles from any permanent residences.

Remarks/How Resolved and in conformance with the requirements pertaining to disposal of acid and toxic-forming materials of 30 CFR 816.41. Hydrologic-balance: Protection, and disposal of acid- and toxic materials, exposed coal seams, and combustible materials at 30 CFR 816.102 Backfilling and grading: General requirements. If the analytical results from coal-wash refuse samples exceed concentrations from the initial core samples, new model simulations would be conducted using the new data assessed in the modeling study. If the data and model results deviate significantly from the study and indicate the potential for greater impacts, Peabody would implement special-refuse-disposal procedures such as placing the refuse in pit areas over preconstructed liners consisting of compacted clay spoil, or mixing the refuse with greater volumes of specially handled spoil having chemical characteristics suitable for diluting or neuralizing the refuse. Material placement would be conducted in conformance with the requirements at 30 CFR 816.41 Hydrologic-balance: Protection, and disposal of acid- and toxic materials, exposed coal seams, and combustible materials at 30 CFR 816.102 Backfilling and grading: General requirements. The text has been revised.

The text has been revised to read “There would be a temporary interruption of grazing and traffic; and presence of noise and dust from construction of the well field, waterstorage tank, road network, water-supply pipeline, pump stations, and power lines.”

The locations of the groundwater wells are not known at this time. (Draft EIS, Section 2.2.1.2.1.2.1, page 2-14); therefore, the minimum distance cannot yet be determined. The location of the water-storage tank would be at Indian You should include water wells and tanks! Route 6930 and Canyon Diablo approximately 0.33 mile from the nearest residence. Residences would be avoided The minimum distance between wells, tanks or pump during development of the well field and access to stations should be defined from permanent residences. Permanent residences should be defined as home site leases, residences may be disrupted during the short duration of

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 8

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer grazing areas, etc.

Comment

41 42

Executive Summary Executive Summary

ES-13 ES-13

6th (5th line) Last

Peabody NNDWR

43

Executive Summary

ES-14

1st

USGS

44

Executive Summary

ES-14

1st

FWS AESO

45

Executive Summary

ES-14

SRP

46

Executive Summary

ES-14

1st

SRP

Change to read “… would not be located near residences or public facilities.” This paragraph should make it clear that the potentially impacted shallow livestock wells are C-aquifer wells that only partially penetrate the C aquifer. They are not, for instance, shallow alluvial wells. And, an option for mitigation is to deepen these wells. Any reduction in the yield of these “shallow” wells due to the lowering of the groundwater table can be readily mitigated. Construction and Operation of the C-Aquifer Water-Supply System – The projected 1.5 percent reduction in base flow of the Little Colorado River should include the reach from Holbrook to Winslow. The text should indicate that Holbrook to the mouth of Chevelon Creek is no longer perennial owing to significant other non-project C aquifer withdrawals supporting industrial, municipal, and agricultural uses. The short reach of the Little Colorado River from the mouth of Chevelon Creek to the mouth of Clear Creek, however, appears to still be perennial. Evidence to support this was developed as a result of the USGS base flow evaluations of Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek, and the Little Colorado River in June-July 2005 and 2006 that indicate the upper part of the Little Colorado River between Chevelon and Clear Creeks to be a gaining reach. The figure of 1.5 percent for the projected reduction in base flow should be 2.5 percent based on information presented on page 4-83, 3rd paragraph. Also, we recommend representing this figure as a range to account for uncertainties in the model and variability in the environment (e.g., 2.5 to 6 percent). The model predicted an upper bound depletion of 6 percent for lower Clear Creek. Construction and Operation of C-Aquifer Water Supply System – The first sentence of the paragraph should be reworded. To be more precise, the reduction of base flow ranges from about 1.1 to 1.5 percent. Construction and Operation of C-Aquifer Water Supply System – The reference to Little Colorado spinedace impacts in the reach from Woodruff downstream to

Remarks/How Resolved construction. The term “residence” in this EIS refers to a dwelling and associated out-structures. The text has been revised. The text has been revised.

The text has been revised to indicate flow reduction in the Little Colorado River is between Holbrook and Winslow.

The text is correct. The numbers and percentages on Draft EIS page 4-83 were incorrect and have been revised.

The correct range is from 1.3 to 1.5 percent. The text has been revised.

The text has been revised.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 9

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

47

Executive Summary

ES-14

1st

SRP

48

Executive Summary

ES-14

6th (last sentence)

SRP

49

Executive Summary

ES-14

Last

SRP

50

Executive Summary Executive Summary

ES-15

1st 1st

USGS

51

ES-15 ES-16

USGS

Comment Holbrook should be deleted as there are a lack of detection records for the species in this reach. The impacts analysis and determination should be consistent with Chapter 4 of the Executive Summary (page 4-83) that describes the potential impacts of groundwater pumping as negligible in this reach because the spinedace is not thought to occur there, and this reach was not specifically studied. Construction and Operation of C-Aquifer Water Supply System – Notes that the referenced impacts are “very small and likely may not even be measurable.” We agree with this conclusion, and recommend that the characterization of impacts in the ES and description of effects in Chapter 4 (page 4-84) should be consistent with each other, and with the final biological assessment prepared by the action agencies. Alternative B – Says that “No mining in 5,467 acres would preserve coal resources for future use.” This is the first time (in the impacts section) that the Executive Summary specifically notes under Alternative B, these acres would not be mined. A statement to this effect should be added to the description of Alternative B at the front of the Executive Summary. Alternative C – Additional explanation is needed to clarify the differences between each of the three alternatives and their subalternatives. As noted above a table of major actions with timeframes for each alternative would be helpful. Cumulative and Indirect Effects, Water Resources (Hydrology) – Irrigation should be added to the list of nonproject regional pumping sources. Cumulative and Indirect Effects, Water Resources (Hydrology) – These two paragraphs present the same water-level decline information in different ways. This appears to be inconsistent and is both redundant and confusing for the reader. For example, one describes "declines of 5 feet or more" while the other describes reducing ground water levels "from 5 to 10 feet." The second description, "from 5 to 10 feet" is more accurate, and presenting this information with consistency would help the reader.

Remarks/How Resolved

Comment noted. It has been acknowledged that the impacts are small and the inconsistencies have been addressed.

Peabody has revised these estimates. The area estimated to be disturbed under Alternative A is 12,409 acres and, under Alternatives B and C, the area to be disturbed would be 6,942 acres. The difference is 5,467 acres. The text has been revised to clarify this.

The text has been revised.

The text has been revised.

The text has been revised to read “5 to 10 feet” based on SSPA Groundwater Flow Model Report, Figure B-11.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 10

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 52

Section Executive Summary

Page ES-15

Paragraph of Page 2nd (1st line)

Reviewer Peabody

53

ES-15

2nd (3rd sentence)

54

ES-15

2nd (3rd sentence)

As used in this context, the term "region" refers to the geographic area within the 50-kilometer radius of the project, or the impact analysis area addressed by Peabody's dispersion modeling (McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. 2006) NNEPA AQCP It is stated that “temporary 3.6 percent increase in total The phrase “total region PM emissions” includes the other regional PM emissions would not be anticipated to cause an sources listed in the Draft EIS Table 3-14. The text has been exceedance of the national Ambient Air Quality Standards revised to clarify this. (NAAQS), especially since the Black Mesa mining operations would not occur during that period.” However, with other activities in the Four Corners region (from major sources located within and near the Air Quality Study Area as indicated in Table 3-14; page 3-55) consideration should be given to incorporate “cumulative effects” in this section. (This is done in a later section, but some reference to this if not some preliminary coverage is advisable to make the statements more meaningful.) This brief discussion is appropriate for the Executive NNEPA AQCP The same comment would apply for the coverage on Summary. The evaluation methodology and results are gaseous air pollutants and visibility. Blanket statements discussed in greater detail in the Draft EIS and Final EIS in leave too many questions in the mind of the reader. Chapter 4 (Section 4.6). In the past, the many concerns voiced by local residents and With regard to the ambient air quality monitoring stations investigations undertaken by USEPA, NNEPA and OSM, within the lease area, they were sited and operated in had resulted in the relocation of air monitors to receive a accordance with strict USEPA criteria. Previous monitoring better picture of air quality in the area. So the question remains: is the data and information presented as well as the station relocations were conducted to provide better discussions in the Draft EIS representative of the actual air resolution of air quality conditions in localized areas (e.g., microscale conditions). Such monitoring program changes quality impacts taking into consideration all applicable should not be construed as indicative of prior station siting variables? problems. OSM sees no reason to question the historical air quality monitoring data provided by Peabody. Peabody has operated a network of PM10 ambient air-quality monitors at the Black Mesa Complex for more than a decade. The purposes of that monitoring program is to facilitate assessment of the effectiveness of existing fugitive-dust-control measures at the Black Mesa Complex and to identify the need for additional control measures to ensure continued satisfaction of the National Ambient Air

Comment “The most notable cumulative …”, recommend defining how the term “cumulative” is used, and also describe what “regional” means.

Remarks/How Resolved The text has been revised.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 11

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment

Remarks/How Resolved Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM10. In consultation with OSM, NNEPA, and USEPA, the network configuration has been modified on several occasions either to add additional monitors and/or to relocate existing monitors. Revisions to the monitoring network design represent continuing attempts to accurately characterize ambient PM10 impacts caused by some of the larger mining sources of fugitive PM10 emissions while distinguishing those impacts from ambient PM10 concentrations resulting from on or off-site nonmining activities and/or uncontrollable meteorological events. Currently, the Black Mesa Complex monitoring network includes twelve PM10 samplers, three meteorological monitoring stations and numerous precipitation gauges. In keeping with conditions of its OSM-approved permit, Peabody operates its PM10 monitoring network in accordance with applicable EPA requirements, including a quality assurance program. Quarterly monitoring reports are submitted to OSM and NNEPA. (From “Air Quality Technical support Document for the Black Mesa Project DEIS,” McVehil-Monnett Associates 2006, page 9.) Refer to EIS Section 3.6.4 paragraphs 2 and 3 (Draft EIS page 3-51). The text of the Draft EIS provides citations for the data and information. The Executive Summary is intended to be a brief summary of the text.

55

2nd (3rd sentence)

56

Executive Summary

ES-15

3rd (last sentence)

57

Executive Summary

ES-15

5th

NNEPA AQCP There is no mention of any limitations in the data gathering process or procedure utilized by the authors of the Draft EIS. One overwhelming question raised is: where did all this information come from? (There seems to be not enough citations of references and foot notes.) It is more puzzling when it comes to descriptive information provided. SRP Cumulative and Indirect Effects - (website ES-19) appears to end in mid-sentence; there is no period at the end and what comes after the semicolon is not a complete thought. We suggest: “thus, there would be negligible to no impact regionally.” NNDWR Given the numerous published references to the “widespread” declines in groundwater elevations, the EIS should clarify this sentence to state “relatively minor, widespread” declines in groundwater elevations.

The paragraph notes that the impacts are due to both regional and project pumping, with most (90 plus percent) of the impact due to regional pumping.

The text has been revised.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 12

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 58

Section Executive Summary

Page ES-15

Paragraph of Page 6th

Reviewer NNDWR

59

Executive Summary Executive Summary

ES-16

4th

Peabody

60

ES-16

7th

NNDWR

Comment The EIS should note that even after decades of project and nonproject pumping, there is no current evidence of measurable long term declines in the discharges of any of these springs. The reduction by 0.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) should be described in the context of the present flow rate, and perhaps the effect on timing of the cumulative impact. The EIS should provide more background information on the “large scale piñon and juniper removal projects.” Were these projects on the mining lease areas? Were the projects in other parts of the Lower Colorado River basin? Is here any documented data on the impacts of these projects? We recommend rewording or deleting this sentence: “The incremental increase of project related drawdowns when added to project drawdowns from regional pumping are unlikely to contribute appreciably to cumulative effects...” since the purpose of a cumulative effects analysis is to consider all actions collectively. Using the same logic as in this sentence the assertion could be made that any one of those regional pumping actions do not contribute appreciably to cumulative effects. Cumulative effects result from individually minor but collectively significant actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative and Indirect Effects, Special status species (website ES-20) there is a sentence that notes additional reductions of “0.1 to 1.0 feet along lower Chevelon and lower Clear Creeks, respectively.” It would be clearer to state the impact of groundwater pumping on each stream by saying, “0.1 feet along lower Chevelon Creek and 1.0 feet along lower Clear Creek….” This same sentence begins with a statement that cumulative impacts from groundwater pumping would reduce groundwater levels from 5 to 10 feet along lower Chevelon and Lower Clear Creeks. Again, for clarity, it would be helpful to designate the reduction (in feet) for each stream individually. It is unclear how the river alluvium relates to the C aquifer. Is the alluvium immediately above the C aquifer? Are there formations between the alluvium and the C aquifer? To which area is the author referring?

Remarks/How Resolved This is noted in Section 4.4.1.5.1 (Draft EIS page 4-32).

The text has been revised.

61

Executive Summary

ES-16

2nd full

FWS AESO

Piñon/juniper removal projects took place east and northeast of the permit area for range improvements. No removal for range improvement has occurred in the permit area. Data and other information on impacts of the removal should be available from Navajo Nation or BIA (the work took place on the Navajo Reservation). The text has been revised.

62

Executive Summary

ES-16

1st

SRP

The text has been revised.

63

Executive Summary

ES-16

3rd (1st sentence)

NNEPA WQP

The author is referring to lower Clear and Chevelon Creeks and their confluence with the Little Colorado River where the stream channel intersects the C-aquifer groundwater table. These are the only areas within the study area where ground-water pumping will affect streamflow and/or

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 13

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment

64

Executive Summary

ES-16

2nd full

SRP

65 66 Executive Summary

ES-16

3rd (1st sentence) ES-17 1st (bullets) (and page 2-49)

NNEPA WQP USEPA

67

Executive Summary

Website ES-29

SRP

Cumulative and Indirect Effects, Special status species (website ES-20) – there is a conclusion in that groundwater pumping from the Black Mesa project is “unlikely to appreciably contribute to cumulative effects on riparian vegetation in these areas.” In the second paragraph under this heading, there is also a sentence that reads: “However, project-related groundwater pumping is not expected to contribute to appreciable long-term cumulative impacts on lower Chevelon Creek….” Note our earlier comment regarding the use of the terms appreciable and appreciably, which are not listed or defined in the earlier discussion regarding levels of impact. Are the cumulative impacts from regional pumping? It is not clear in this sentence. The Draft EIS states that the preferred alternative specifically includes approvals of modifications to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDS) permit and the Title V air quality permit. The fact that these permits will be needed to implement the project is disclosed elsewhere in the Draft EIS (page 1-6). However, these permits have not yet been submitted to or reviewed by USEPA; therefore, any USEPA determinations concerning these permits have yet to be made. For this reason, we recommended in a June 2, 2006, letter to OSM that approval of these two permits not be specifically included as part of the preferred alternative in the EIS. Recommendation: We reiterate our recommendation that these two permits not be specifically included as part of the preferred alternative in the EIS. (no corresponding page in hard bound version of Draft EIS) Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species – the table states that the impacts of the C-aquifer water supply pipeline on spinedace and roundtail chub are minor shortterm and major long-term. This conclusion is at odds with the text of the Executive Summary, which states that these effects are “very small and may not even be measurable…” (ES-14; Website ES-18). SRP disagrees with the

Remarks/How Resolved riparian vegetation. Outside of these areas the C aquifer is either confined by low permeability rocks (Moenkopi and Chinle Formations) or the groundwater table is below the stream channel. The text has been revised.

Yes. Cumulative impacts are those that result from all regional pumping in addition to project pumping. The text has been revised.

The text has been revised in Table 2-9. This is not contrary to the earlier text which reads, “Although these reductions in base flow that could result from the proposed project would be very small and likely may not even be measurable, they may affect the availability of suitable stream habitat and reduce the ability of fish populations to survive the dry seasons.”

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 14

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment conclusions reached in the table, and notes that they appear to be inconsistent with the discussion of impacts in the Executive Summary (see ES-14). Also, this section of the final EIS should be revised so that it is consistent with the Biological Assessment. Preface – items (3) and (4) should be rewritten to make clear that operation of the slurry pipeline and operation of the water supply pipeline are part of the proposed action. Include “other natural and environmental resources.” after human in the first sentence. Impacts are evaluated to the natural and environment not only human. Chapter 4 summary is not included.

Remarks/How Resolved

68

Preface Preface

P-1

2nd (after bullets) 3rd 6th, 7th

SRP

The text has been revised.

69

Preface

P-1

NNEPA OER

70

Preface

P-2

NNEPA OER

The text has been revised to read “…probable impacts on the environment including natural, human, and cultural resources, that would result….” The summary of Chapter 4 is in the sixth paragraph following the first sentence summarizing Chapter 3. The text has been revised to read “N41.” “PH” has been revised to read “pH.”

71 72

List of Acronyms List of xx Acronyms List of xxi Acronyms Chapter 1 – Introduction 1.1 1-1 1st

Peabody Peabody

N42 for Navajo Route 41?? Change PH to pH. Although pH is related to acidity, it is a different measurement. More correctly, pH is –log[H+]. Acidity is a tritation with a base to an end point. Purpose and Need for Action – describes item (1) as continuing the supply of coal from Kayenta to the Navajo Generating Station. We recommend that additional explanation is provided to describe the effect of the action (or lack of effect) on Kayenta operations. The coal supply from Kayenta to the Navajo Generating Station will continue regardless of the outcome of the proposed action. The effect of the proposed project on Kayenta might better be described as augmenting the coal reserves and changing the mine plan. We recommend that the section also clearly state that the coal supply from Kayenta to the Navajo Generating Station will continue regardless of which alternative is accepted. Purpose and Need for Action – A clearer explanation should be given regarding the relationship between the purpose and need for the action and the tribal pumping component of the preferred agency alternative. The sentence that begins on the bottom of page 1-1 and carries over to page 1-2 states that “the tribes’ potential future withdrawals of C-aquifer water from the proposed well-field…are interrelated with

73

SRP

Text has been added to help clarify.

74

1.1

1-1 to 1-2

SRP

Under Alternative A, the proponent’s proposal was to supply 6,000 af/yr for the Black Mesa Project (coal slurry and mine-related uses). The increase of production and transport of 5,600 af/yr is an alternative to the action proposed by the proponent in the Draft EIS. However, Alternative B is the proposed action and preferred alternative in the Final EIS. Under Alternative B, The

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 15

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

75

1.0

1-2

3rd (last sentence) Map 1-2

NNEPA OER

76

1.2

1-4

BIA Hopi Agency

77

1.2

1-5

1st (1st sentence)

NNEPA OER

Comment Remarks/How Resolved the size of the currently proposed water supply pipeline and C aquifer water-supply system would not be constructed.. well-field and the total amount of C-aquifer water ultimately withdrawn from the well-field.” This statement suggests that, in addition to being part of the preferred agency alternative, the tribal pumping is an interrelated activity that is being considered as part of the “action”. If this is the case, then the statement of purpose and need should be modified to include a clearer explanation for upsizing the pipeline and including the additional wells. We would also suggest that the above quoted sentence at the bottom of page 1-1 be modified as follows: “The tribes’ potential future withdrawals of C-aquifer water from the proposed wellfield, which are interrelated with the size of the currently proposed water supply pipeline and well-field and the total amount of C-aquifer water ultimately withdrawn from the well-field, are considered as part of the action and are therefore analyzed in the EIS.” Spell out USEPA and USFWS is not listed. USEPA is spelled out in the second paragraph above. FWS is not a cooperating agency and therefore is not listed in this paragraph. Map should indicate the area that is joint use and the area The Hopi and Navajo leases are delineated and identified as owned 100 percent by the Navajo. Navajo (N) for the area where the Navajo only has a lease with Peabody and Hopi (H) and Navajo (N) for the area where both Hopi and Navajo have leases with Peabody. This paragraph is not specific to the Black Mesa Project; Need to be more specific on pipelines—slurry, water; rather, the information contained in the paragraph is a thought of oil, gas, water disposal for other projects; although it is explained in other sections of the EIS need to summary of the rights Peabody is provided in the coalmining leases and provided as background. be more specific in this section. Need to be more specific on tanks and there need or use. Define the terminology to “make excavations”. The terminology “. . . do all other things . . .” needs clarification and define all other things related to the activities addressed in the lease permit agreement. Need to be more specific on transmission lines – thought is of the Navajo Transmission project and later found in reading the other section, the transmission line referred to the 24.9kV 3-phase line.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 16

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 78

Section 1.2

Page 1-6

Paragraph of Page 2nd

Reviewer NNEPA OER

79

1.2

1-7

BLM ASO

80

1.2

1-7

BIA Hopi Agency 1st BIA Hopi Agency

81

1.3

1-8

Comment Missing Table 2-3, didn’t find it in Section 2.3. Table 2-3 does not tie with the discussion in this Section 1.2 concerning the authority and actions needed to be accomplished with this EIS. The BLM is listed as having an action in connection with the C aquifer water-supply system. This is incorrect and, therefore, the BLM should be removed from the last bullet on this page. BIA and tribal approval of the use of C-aquifer groundwater. Should this action only be found under the Caquifer pipeline alternative? It is mentioned that the C aquifer covers an area 27,000 square miles. It would be good to add the number of total acre feet found in this aquifer.

Remarks/How Resolved The table number has been corrected to be Table 2-6.

The text has been revised as suggested.

Yes. Chapter 1 provides a description of the applicants’ proposed action; therefore, it is implied that C-aquifer water would be used only if Alternative A were selected. The total estimated acre feet is 413 million, which is noted in the Draft EIS on page 3-23.

82

Chapter 2 – Alternatives 2.0 2-1 2nd

SRP

83 84

2.1 2.1.1.2

2-6 2-2

Map 2-3 1st

BLM ASO NNEPA OER

85 86

2.1.1.2 2.1.1.2

2-2 2-2

3rd 3rd

NNEPA OER SRP

Alternative – notes that the purpose of the EIS is to analyze The text has been revised to clarify. the effects of OSM’s action on the life of mine revision, as well as the effects of other Federal actions “that are related to the delivery of coal from the Black Mesa Complex to the Navajo and Black Mesa Project.” This description of the purpose of the document and the actions it covers does not fully explain the relationship of these actions to the tribal pumping component of the agency preferred alternative. Clarification of this relationship should be provided. As noted in our comments on Chapter 1, we suggest the addition of a statement that tribal pumping is interrelated with the size of the currently proposed size of the water supply pipeline and would therefore be considered as part of the proposed action. The legend for this map should be corrected from “Navajo- This map has been revised as suggested. Hopi Partition Land” to “Navajo-Hopi Partition Line.” Explain administrative delay. A delay in OSM’s administrative decision on the Black Mesa mining operation permanent program permit (refer to Footnote 1 in Section 1.1, Draft EIS page 1-1). LOM revision will increase coal production from 4.8 Correct. The text has been revised to clarify this. million tons per year to 6.35 million tons per year, correct? The text has been revised to clarify. Black Mesa Mining Operation – notes that the LOM revision would increase Black Mesa average annual coal production to about 6.35 [million] tons per year. The Executive Summary is not as specific regarding the fact that increases in coal production are part of the Black Mesa

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 17

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

87 88

2.1.1.2 2.1.1.2

2-2 2-7

4th 4th

NNEPA OER BIA Hopi Agency

Comment operations, and are not part of any change at Kayenta. (See ES-3.) It would be helpful to make this clarification in the Executive Summary, to better understand how the proposed action does and does not affect Kayenta operations (see earlier comments on this point regarding the Executive Summary). LOM revision is proposing to use both N and C aquifers, correct? There is no discussion or analysis of the leaving existing pipeline or was this covered in another EIS. Thinking about environmental liabilities for the future.

Remarks/How Resolved

Correct. When operation of the coal-slurry pipeline was suspended, the pipeline was purged and currently is filled with fresh water. If the pipeline is abandoned permanently, it would be capped and left in place (Draft EIS, Appendix A-2, page A-2-16). BMPI has not yet prepared plans addressing environmental liabilities related to abandonment of the pipeline. If Alternative A were not approved, BMPI would address this issue as part of the decommissioning plans for the pipeline. In accordance with its regulations, OSM finds a permit application to be administratively complete when the applicant has addressed the requirements for legal, financial, compliance, and related information; permitting relating to environmental resources; and reclamation and operation plans. This finding does not mean the applicant has adequately complied with all of these requirements. Between the time of administrative completeness and any permit approval, OSM will have conducted a technical review and notified an applicant of any deficiencies, and the applicant will have resolved them through revision of the application. The application has been determined to be complete and is in the technical review phase. The 928 af/yr of water (referred to on Draft EIS page 2-1, last paragraph), currently withdrawn from the N aquifer, is used for mine-related purposes for the Kayenta mining operation. 3,700 af/yr of C-aquifer water was proposed for use for the coal slurry under Alternative A. The text has been revised. Correct.

89

2.1.1.4

2-7

2nd

NNEPA OER

BMPI submitted a revised permit application, please define administratively completed. Has the 928 af/yr increased to 3,700 af/yr at Black Mesa Mine? Or is it proposed?

90 91

2.1.2 2.1.2

2-7 2-7

3rd 3rd

NNEPA OER NNEPA OER

Include in this paragraph when the existing slurry pipeline was constructed. The “existing pipeline is buried in a trench.” Basically buried, correct?

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 18

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 92

Section 2.1.3

Page 2-8

Paragraph of Page 4th and 5th

Reviewer BIA

Comment Should clarify that wells could potentially be placed on Hopi land only w/the 11,600 af/yr option.

93

2.1.3

2-8

Table 2-3

BIA Hopi Agency

94

2.1.3

2-8

5th

SRP

95

2.1.3

2-8

4th and 5th

BIA Hopi Agency

96

2.2

97

2.2.1.1.2

2-11, 2-23, 2-26 2-13

Maps 2-4. 2­ 7, 2-8 1st

BLM ASO

BLM ASO

98

2.2.1.2

2-13

2nd

BIA Hopi Agency

Table and section should reflect that the N aquifer and the C aquifer will be used in conjunction with each other. As currently written one can assume that only the C aquifer will be used. C Aquifer Water-Supply System – Refers to the components of the C-aquifer supply system “as proposed for the Black Mesa Project…” It is not clear who is “proposing” in this context; what is described only includes the 12 wells, so one must assume that it is what was initially applied for, but not what the agencies are proposing now. There is some lack of clarity in this paragraph regarding references to what was “proposed” by the applicants and what the agency preferred alternative now is. Distinctions between these two terms (and how each term relates to the “action” being considered) should be better explained. Should it say a capacity up to 11,600 af/yr. This section is a description of the applicants’ proposal under Alternative A, which is a capacity of up to 6,000 af/yr. The additional 5,600 af/yr—2,000 af/yr for Hopi and 3,600 af/yr for Navajo—(for total of up to 11,600 af/yr) is an alternative, which is described in Section 2.2.1.2 of the Draft EIS. These maps have been replaced in this Final EIS with a new The legend for these maps should be corrected from Figure 2-1. “Navajo-Hopi Partition Land” to “Navajo-Hopi Partition Line.” Text has been added to read “The Kingman reroute would It is suggested that a table similar to Table 2-2 be included to show the amount of mileage, under the proposed reroute cross approximately 9 miles of land administered by the BLM, 3 miles of Arizona State Trust Land, and 16.5 miles of the pipeline, around the City of Kingman. of privately owned land. It was not the intent of the applicants to continue use of From my understanding if Alternative A is selected only 500 af/yr will be used and the remaining will be supplied by N-aquifer water for mine-related purposes except 500 af/yr of uses for annual pump maintenance, local domestic uses, the C-aquifer pipeline? local Navajo uses and supplemental dust suppression water, should surface impoundments fail to satisfy the entire demand for that purpose. The Draft EIS states that, as a “worst case,” an average of 2,000 af/yr of N-aquifer water would still be used under Alternative A, even with

Remarks/How Resolved This section is a description of the applicants’ C aquifer water-supply system that does not include the additional 5,600 af/yr of water for the tribal communities (Alternative A). The additional 5,600 af/yr is addressed as a subalternative of Alternative A (Section 2.2.1.2.1.2.1). The title of the table has been revised from Proposed Project Use of C-Aquifer Water” to “Estimated Water Consumption.” The text adequately explains the use of Caquifer and N-aquifer water (Section 2.2.1.2). The text has been revised to read “…as proposed by the co­ owners of the Mohave Generating Station for the Black Mesa Project…” Also, and the second and third paragraphs on page 2-1 have been revised to clarify this.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 19

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment

Remarks/How Resolved development of the C aquifer water-supply system. (Section 2.2.1.2.2.1, Draft EIS page 2-18.) The Draft EIS further states that the N aquifer could continue to be used for public consumption, maintenance of the N-aquifer wells, emergencies, and the Kayenta mining operation. Such continued use of the N-aquifer water at these “worst case” levels is unlikely. In all likelihood, under Alternative A the C aquifer would supplant almost all N-aquifer uses throughout the life of the Black Mesa Project. As the Draft EIS indicates, the C aquifer is a substantial and reliable source of water. Aquifer systems having the size and geologic/hydrologic characteristics of the C aquifer have a demonstrated history of reliability. The C aquifer is fully capable of providing water for the Black Mesa Project and tribal use, at a capacity of 11,600 af/yr, well into the foreseeable future and would do so through cessation of the Black Mesa Project in 2026. In addition, the tribes have agreed with Peabody that the C aquifer also would supply the water needs of the Kayenta mine, thus eliminating that mine’s further reliance on the N-aquifer, except to the extent C-aquifer water is unavailable. The C aquifer water-supply system would be equally reliable—it would not involve new or novel technology or conditions. Similar water supply systems are currently in use and function reliably, and the C-aquifer wells would be capable of supplying water at some level at all times and at least one spare well would be installed initially. Although it is theoretically possible that an emergency could disrupt the C aquifer water-supply system, such disruptions are unlikely to occur. If such disruptions did occur, they would probably be in the nature of localized pipeline failures that would be infrequent, easily addressed, and of short duration. Thus, continued use of N-aquifer water under Alternative A with development of the C aquifer water-supply 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 20

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

99

2.2.1.2.1

2-13

4th

BIA

100

2.2.1.2.1.1.2

2-14

1st (1st sentence) 3rd 1st full

SRP

101

2.2.1.2.1.1.2

2-14

SRP

102

2.2.1.2.1.2.1

2-14

USGS

103

2.2.1.2.1.2.1

2-14

Table 2-4

NNDWR

104 105

2.2.1.2.1.2.1 2.2.1.2.1.2.2

2-16 2-18

Map 2-6 2nd

Peabody BIA Hopi Agency

106

2.2.1.2.2

2-18

BIA

Remarks/How Resolved 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 would 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 and Navajo Nation. The ownership of the C aquifer water-supply system had not To enforce or ensure all monitoring and mitigation requirements are adhered to, it would seem to make sense to yet been determined at the time of this Final EIS. resolve the ownership questions regarding the C aquifer water-supply system prior to issuance of Final EIS and Record of Decision. Revised to read “Under this alternative, after 2026 when the C-Aquifer Withdrawal of 11,600 af/yr—should be revised as follows: “Under this alternative, the up to 6,000 af/yr of 6,000 af/yr is no longer needed for project-related purposes, the Navajo Nation would use up to 6,000 af/yr of the water used for project-related purposes…” C-aquifer water in addition to the 3,400 af/yr.” The text has been revised. The second sentence, “…..a minimum of…” should be deleted to be consistent with previous references to the number of wells used to produce 6,000 af/yr. The text has been revised. Well Field – The well yield range for test wells should be 400 to 745 gallons per minute, not 400 to 700 as in the text (745 would round to 750). The reference cited should be Hoffmann and others, 2005 (not USGS, 2005). In this table, the Draft EIS should include an additional The table has been revised to show C-aquifer water use after column for projected water use in the year 2060 showing that 2026 when C-aquifer water no longer needed for project the Black Mesa Complex will no longer be using C-aquifer related purposes. water, and the Navajo Nation is projected to be using 9,600 acre-feet for municipal purposes. Map should be in “portrait” orientation, not landscape This map has been revised. Need to make changes if this is still the preferred plan. I do The Hopi Tribe expressed the interest in changing the preferred route of the water-supply pipeline under believe that Hopi expressed that they prefer to use BIA Alternative A from the route through Kykotsmovi to the Route 2. route at the eastern edge of Kykotsmovi. This change is reflected in the Final EIS. Under Alternative A, while not preferred and not proposed, It is unclear how the N-aquifer usage (either as continued use of N-aquifer water is a viable alternative. For supplemental or sole supply) fits into the alternative analysis. While it is BIA WRO’s belief that N-aquifer water the last 35 years it has been the source of water of the project. Impacts on wells, streams, and springs of pumping should only be minimally used and definitely not as a sole source, it is not clear in the EIS if it’s a viable alternative or 6,000 af/yr from the N-aquifer well field is addressed on pages 4-35 through 4-37 of the Draft EIS. It was concluded not. Further clarification and discussion is needed. Why

Comment

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 21

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment isn’t it included in Table 2-5?

107

2.2.1.2.2.1

2-18 5th

BIA

108

2.2.1.2.2.1

2-18

BIA WRO

109

2.2.1.2.2.1

2-18

5th

SRP

110 111

2.2.1.2.2.1 2.2.1.2.2.2

2-18 2-21

6th 3rd, 4th, 5th

BIA Hopi Agency BIA

There should be an agreed upon upper limit on how much could be pumped from the N aquifer, since the use of the N aquifer is a primary basis for the EIS. If the reliability of the C aquifer is difficult to quantify, how The reliability of the C aquifer for supplying coal shipments can you then say that reliability would be high? from Black Mesa to Mohave Generating Station is expected to be high because aquifer tests indicate the capacity of the aquifer is more than capable of supplying the required water, and because water-distribution-system failure rates are typically low. In addition, the existing water-storage capacity (e.g., 6 million gallon water tank) at Black Mesa would be increased to provide back-up water in case of unexpected C-aquifer pipeline outages. The C aquifer would supply water for coal-slurry shipments using a similar system of wells, storage tanks, and pipes as exists for Peabody’s N-aquifer well field, the reliability of which is extremely good. Supplemental Use of the N-Aquifer Water – the statement: Text was added to clarify that the reliability of the C aquifer “The reliability of the C aquifer is difficult to quantify, but for supplying coal shipments from Black Mesa to the Mohave Generating Station is expected to be high because reliability would be very high.” The latter part of the statement needs a citation or further explanation to support aquifer tests indicate the capacity of the aquifer is more that capable of supplying the required water and because water­ the conclusion. distribution-system failure rates are typically low. In addition, the existing water-storage capacity (e.g., 6-million­ gallon water tank) at Black Mesa would be increased to provide back-up water in case of unexpected C-aquifer pipeline outages. The C aquifer would supply water for coal-slurry shipments using a similar system of wells, storage tanks, and pipes as exists for Peabody’s N-aquifer well field, which is known to be reliable. Need to explain why the worst case scenario 2,000 af/yr. This is explained in the first paragraph of page 2-21 of the Draft EIS. As part of the terms of the lease, Peabody is given the right Use of N aquifer as sole supply should not be an option under Alternative A. It does not resolve the concern leading to use groundwater. Under Alternative A, it was the intent of the applicants to use C-aquifer water and restrict use of to the administrative delay of OSM’s permanent Indian

Remarks/How Resolved that the hydrologic impacts would be negligible to minor. However, Alternative B is the proposed action and preferred alternative in the Final EIS. Under Alternative B, an average of 1,236 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used into 2026. From 2026 through 2028, 505 af/yr of N-aquifer water would be used for reclamation and domestic purposes and 444 af/yr would be used from 2029 through 2038. That is subject to negotiations between the tribe and Peabody. Use of N-aquifer water is provided in the lease.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 22

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment Lands Program permitting decision. If this is included as part of the alternative, then another alternative (of mitigation measure) should be to reduce coal production (water usage).

112

2.2.1.3

2-22

Table 2-5

NNDWR

According to the Draft EIS, the total project cost for the 6,000-af/yr option is $179 million, and the total project cost for the 11,600-af/yr option is $197 million. It would be worth noting that the trunk line delivers almost twice the volume of water, yet it only costs 8 percent more. The total project costs reported vary greatly from the 2003 Reclamation appraisal level C-aquifer waterline cost estimates. The EIS should include a better explanation for these differences.

Remarks/How Resolved N-aquifer water to maintain the wells and for domestic purposes. OSM acknowledges in the EIS that, if under Alternative A, the N aquifer were used as the sole water supply, the previously expressed concerns of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation regarding the use of N-aquifer water for transporting coal, which led to the administrative delay of OSM’s permanent Indian Lands Program permitting decision for the Black Mesa mining operation, would not be resolved. Under Alternative B, use of the N-aquifer water would continue averaging 1,236 af/yr. Reducing coal production would not be a feasible alternative as the power plant requires a certain amount of fuel to operate efficiently. The text has been revised.

The estimates in the EIS are the best and most recent estimates available.

When reviewing the Appendices that evaluate this cost data, It is unclear what is meant by “unit costs.” including unit costs may be helpful in making this issue more understandable. (A-3, B-1) The Table is split between two (2) pages and needs to be on The text and table have been revised. just one (1) page to keep the continuity. 1,236 af/yr or 1,240 The text has been revised to read 1,236 af/yr. Alternative C – Further explanation and clarification should be provided with respect to the features of Alternatives B and C and their respective effects on the environment (including the consideration of cumulative effects under each alternative). “area” should be “are.” Previous references to the N-aquifer pumping were for 1,236 af/yr. This reference is for 1,240 af/yr, apparently because of rounding. Suggest using 1,236. The Draft EIS states that the other alternatives were The text has been revised to clarify.

113 114

2.2.2 2.2.3

2-24 2-24

1st full

BIA Hopi Agency SRP

115 116

2.2.3 2.2.3

2-24 2-24

5th (5th line) 6th

Peabody Peabody

The location of the comment appears to be incorrect. The text has been revised to read 1,236 af/yr.

117

2.4.2.1

2-25

5th

NNDWR

The word “technically” has been deleted.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 23

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

118

2.4.2.1

2-25

5th

BIA

119

2.4.2.1

2-25

5th

BIA

120

2.4.2.1

2-27

4th

NNDWR

Comment Remarks/How Resolved “technically infeasible within the time available.” This statement is incorrect. From a technical stand point of design and engineering, these options were feasible. In 2002 Reclamation completed a draft appraisal level study that reached this conclusion. The EIS should note that the delays in the time frame were a matter of policy and political considerations, not economic or technical. Need to include (Sommers 2005) in reference section. The reference for Sommers 2005 has been added. It is Colorado River Water Supply options. Summary of investigations by the United States, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Peabody, and SRP. What was the process to review and eliminate the Colorado The text has been revised to read “The process involved detailed studies between 1990 and 2003 of numerous River option? Who made the final determination, OSM, pipeline alignments, a range of water quantities, the law of SRP, URS, BOR? the Colorado River, and related issues. Representatives of the Federal Government, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, SCE, Peabody, and SRP participated in the process. The representatives eventually concluded that all of the Colorado River alternatives were infeasible, at least, in the time available for the Black Mesa Project (Sommers 2005).” The sentence has been deleted. The costs were higher than The EIS states that the estimated costs of the main stem the alternatives diverting from Lake Powell, but that was not alternatives were “extremely high.” Based on analysis a primary reason for elimination of the Jackass Canyon conducted by Reclamation, the phrase “extremely high” is alternatives. very inaccurate. According to Reclamation’s report Peabody Coal Black Mesa Water Supply Appraisal Study dated October 2002, the field cost was $79 million, and the non-construction costs would have been 24.5 percent of that amount, or $19 million. The total project cost would have been $98 million which is approximately $80 million less than the estimated costs for the preferred alternatives reported. It should include a satisfactory explanation for these differences. Furthermore, compared to the rail road option which would cost more than $1.6 billion and the truck option which would cost more than $1 billion, the main stem alternatives were not “extremely high.” Those alternatives were estimated to be five to eight times more costly. For the permits the EIS does not spell out the process that the applicants have to follow.

121

2.3

2-28

Table 2-6

BIA Hopi Agency

The potential actions or approvals are numerous and various processes may be required; therefore, the processes are not

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 24

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 122 2.3

Section

Page 2-28

Paragraph of Page Table 2-6 (4th row) Table 2-6 Table 2-6

Reviewer SRP

Comment The cell under “Permit, License, …” should be completed with “Compliance with the ESA.” The ESA should also be cited as a relevant law in the last cell. C-Aquifer: Change “Phoenix Area Office” to “Western Regional Office.” It is the BIA’s understanding that, when the Hopi Tribal Council approves the Black Mesa Project through a tribal resolution, it will cover all internal processes relating to realty transactions. Note: the BIA is going to look at only the final approval document submitted by the Hopi Tribe. The Hopi Tribe Planning Office does not approve well leases, drill permit, and use of water. What is Ordinance #14, 23? Please check all ordinances to make sure they are correct.

Remarks/How Resolved described in the EIS. The table has been revised.

123 124

2.3 2.3

2-29 2-31

BIA WRO BIA Hopi Agency

The table has been revised. Comment noted.

125

2.3

2-33

Table 2-6

BIA Hopi Agency BIA Hopi Agency

126

2.3

2-33

Table 2-6

A subcommittee of the Hopi Tribal Council, the Land Task team, would have the authorizing approval and oversight for the C-aquifer approval under Alternative A. The ordinances are correct. Ordinance #14 specifically addresses business procedures for technical work or scientific data gathering of the Hopi Reservation. This is distinct from Ordinance 17, which states a business license is needed for all work conducted or engaged on the Hopi Reservation with the Hopi Tribe. Ordinance # 23 addresses the control of new construction on the 1882 reservation outside District 6. Under Alternative A, the approval process would be brought before the Hopi Tribe’s Tribal Council for authorization and approval for all rights-of-way. 25 CFR 169.5 – Construction disturbance in areas of cultural resources 25 CFR 169.3 – Encroachment of all existing rights-of-way The Hopi Tribe would follow CWA and CAA under USEPA rules and regulations. Hopi Resolution H-55-2000 has been added to Table 2-6. The text has been revised. The table has been revised. ADEQ does not have jurisdiction over groundwater pumping because of the specific congressional authorization. At present (the time

127

2.3

2-33

Table 2-6

BIA Hopi Agency

Under the Navajo Section it includes all CFR that do apply. What about the CFRs that apply to Hopi. Please include after each section in Hopi.

128 129 130

2.3 2.3 2.3

2-33 2-35 2-35

Table 2-6 Table 2-6 (10th row) Table 2-6

BIA Hopi Agency SRP SRP

Please include Hopi Resolution H-55-2000, This pertains to protocols for realty. (C-Aquifer groundwater) – row is duplicated on page 2-26 (row 9) and should be deleted. References to “C-Aquifer” and “NPDES Permit” – it is not clear that ADEQ has jurisdiction over the Hart Ranch lands owned in fee by the Hopi Tribe (lands have specific

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 25

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

131

2.3

2-38

Table 2-6

BIA Hopi Agency BIA WRO NNDWR

132 133

2.4 2.4.2.4

2-46 2-41

Table 2-8 4th

Comment congressional authorization). If ADEQ does have jurisdiction, the last two cells should be completed regarding actions and authority. It is not clearly stated which NPDES permit is being referred to here; regardless, as a result of the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Flowers, ADEQ does not have authority to issue these. Footnote 3: For my understanding the rights-of-way approval should be elevated to the Secretary of Interior rather than Navajo Regional Director. The annualized costs per ton of coal in the table does not seem to match the numbers quoted in the above paragraph. The NTUA grey water from Tuba City and Kayenta NTUA lagoons also were considered. The EIS should include the reasons for eliminating these lagoons from further consideration. 8 million to 1 billion dollars? That a very large range can it be narrowed down or did the EIS not consider taking a look at this? Should the price range start at $800 million? No Coal Washing Facility — last line of the second paragraph, a range of “$8 million to $1 billion” is stated. “8 million” be “$800 million”. Comparison of Alternatives — notes that the levels of impacts summarized in Table 2-8 and Chapter 4 reflect the incorporation of measures that render the impacts less intense or severe. It then refers to BMPs, conservation measures and “other mitigating measures” (this last category apparently described in App. A), and says that these measures “are part of the project description.” As noted in our comments for Chapter 4, we suggest that conservation measures and BMPs are described in Chapter 2. What are the “revisions to the operation and reclamation plan?” How do they differ? Please clarify. Recommendation: We reiterate our recommendation that these two permits not be specifically included as part of the preferred alternative in the EIS. Peabody’s annual seepage monitoring reports indicate multiple exceedances of water quality standards from seeps associated with sedimentation impoundments. The Draft EIS appears to dismiss the potentially significant impacts of

Remarks/How Resolved that this Final EIS was prepared), the Hopi Hart Ranch lands are undergoing a fee-to-trust acquisition and once the acquisition has been completed, USEPA will have jurisdiction over all NPDES permits on the Hopi Reservation. BIA Superintendents have been delegated the authority to approve right-of-way actions, including the right-of-way action on the Hopi Reservation under Alternative A. The table has been revised. Text has been added at the end of the last paragraph of Section 2.4.2.4 to read “Gray water from Tuba City and Kayenta also was examined briefly; however, the available quantities were small and the total water available was insufficient to meet the water needs.” The text has been changed to read “$800 million.”

134

2.4.5

2-48

2nd 2nd 2nd

BIA Hopi Agency BIA WRO SRP

135 136

2.4.5 2.4.5

2-48 2-48

The text has been changed to read “$800 million.” The text has been changed to read “$800 million.”

137

2.5

2-49

SRP

The text about mitigation and conservation measures remains in Chapter 4, as it is clearer and more understandable in the context of Chapter 4.

138 139

2.6 2.6

2-49 2-49

1st bullet Bullets

BIA USEPA

The statement refers to revisions to the sequencing and schedule of when resource areas would be mined. The text has been revised.

140

2.5

2-52

Table 2-9 (bullet 5)

USEPA

The EIS addresses impoundment and seep water quality (Draft EIS pages 4-16 through 4-18) and mentions additional measures Peabody would be required to employ to insure compliance with water-quality standards and CWA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 26

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment this contamination by stating that the seeps will be diluted by stormwater runoff. As we stated in response to preliminary drafts of the EIS, these seeps may run all year and, for much of the year, are not diluted by stormwater. During dry months, these undiluted seeps may be attractive to wildlife and livestock. Recommendation: The Final EIS should clarify that seeps downgradient from sedimentation impoundments may run all year and, during dry months, are not diluted by stormwater and may be attractive to wildlife and livestock. The clean Water Act is designed to protect beneficial uses. Fencing will not exclude all wildlife from contaminated seeps or protect beneficial uses. Other measures exist to protect water quality standards and beneficial uses, such as treating the water, eliminating the settling pond, sealing the pond so seeps stop, capturing the water and infiltrating it outside the waters of the U.S., or intercepting the seep water and pumping it back into the pond until the pond is removed. Other measures may also exist. The Final EIS should indicate the measures that will be taken to protect water quality and designated beneficial uses of waters of the U.S. from seeps associated with existing and future sedimentation ponds. Why isn’t there an Aquifer Thickness Reduction section of the N aquifer? N aquifer water quality: Table indicates “moderate” impact during mining for the 6000 af/y scenario. Text elsewhere (page 4-37) categorizes impact as minor. Summary of Impacts by Alternative — “Minor short term” impact, should be replaced with “no impact short term.” There are no impacts to stream flows for more than 10 years after pumping begins and “short term” is defined as occurring within 5 years. Note that for impacts on threatened and endangered species it finds major long term impacts. In keeping with the statements referred to in the prior comment, it would appear that this is after taking into account the conservation measures and mitigation, and, apparently, before considering cumulative effects (discussed at the end of chapter 4). SRP disagrees with the conclusions

Remarks/How Resolved requirements as a part of the soon to be renewed NPDES permit. The permit is currently up for renewal, and page 4­ 17 of the Draft EIS mentions that 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. The modified Seepage Management Plan will address the USEPA’s recommendations that were presented to OSM as comments on the Draft EIS in a letter dated February 6, 2007. OSM also is working with Peabody and USEPA to finalize the Plan modifications. Text has been added to the EIS to address USEPA’s recommendation.

141

2.5

2-53

Table 2-9

BIA

142

2.5

2-53

Table 2-9

Peabody

The N aquifer is confined; e.g., 100 percent saturated over the area of impact. There is no reduction in saturated thickness. The table has been revised.

143

2-56

Table 2-9

SRP

The text was revised. This is not contrary to the earlier text in the Executive Summary which reads, “Although these reductions in base flow that could result from the proposed project would be very small and likely may not even be measurable, they may affect the availability of suitable stream habitat and reduce the ability of fish populations to survive the dry seasons.”

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 27

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

144

2-58

Table 2-9

SRP

145

2-59

Table 2-9

SRP

Comment Remarks/How Resolved reached in the table, and notes that they appear to be inconsistent with the discussion of impacts in the ES (see ES-14). Also, the impact assessment and determinations in the Final EIS should be consistent with the Biological Assessment. The text has been revised. Summary of Impacts by Alternative, Cultural Resources, Impacts on traditional cultural resources, Black Mesa Complex — the impacts to cultural resources should be reviewed to confirm that most impacts are similar among alternatives. Also, the final EIS should be revised to be consistent with the final cultural report. The text has been revised. Summary of Impacts by Alternative, Social and Economic conditions, Impacts on employment and income, and Impacts on revenue to governmental entities, Black Mesa Complex — clarification is needed under Alternatives A and B when referring to “major adverse long term [impacts] (upon cessation of mining).” These impacts would occur with or without the alternative, the only difference is timing. What is the difference between being inside the wash but The boundaries of the wash include areas that are not outside the active channel? Does this really mean outside the flooded during seasonal flow, but would be flooded during a 100-year or 500-year flood event. The active channel is a 100-year or 150-year flood plain? smaller area within the wash that normally floods during seasonal flows. What is the purpose of having Figure 3-1? Figure 3-1 is a Figure 3-1 shows the vertical relationship between the Stratigraphic Column of the Black Mesa Area. Is this the same geologic units described in the text. These units do not exist as the Black Mesa Basin or the Black Mesa Complex everywhere in the project area. Horizontal extent of the key described in the text? Has the Bidahochi formation in Figure geologic and hydrogeologic units are shown on other maps 3-1 been completely removed from coal mining as suggested? (3-1, 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6) and Figure 3-2. Does this formation still exist in the unmined areas of Black Mesa? How can this be distinguished in Figure 3-1? Where exactly is the Black Mesa Complex in Figure 3-1? It would be useful to include detailed stratigraphic columns that correspond more closely to the text in these sections. Please provide a plan view to reference where this Stratigraphic column applies to the Black Mesa in the area stratigraphic column came from. of the mine. A plan view is unnecessary. The text has been revised. Well Field - The unit should be referred to as Kaibab Formation, not Kaibab Limestone. The Kaibab Limestone was reclassified as a formation based on the work of Sorauf and Billingsley (1991). This should be changed throughout the report.

146

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 3.1.2.2 3-4 5th

NNEPA-WQP

147

3.2 & 3.2.1

3-5 to 3-8

NNEPA-WQP

148 149

3.2 3.2.3.1.1

3-6 3-11

Figure 3-1 1st (2nd sentence)

NNEPA-WQP USGS

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 28

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 150 151

Section 3.3.1 3.3.1

Page 3-14 3-14

Paragraph of Page 3rd

Reviewer BIA WRO Peabody

152

3.3.3.1.2

3-15

2nd

BIA WRO

Comment Should “0.3 ppm” be 0.03 ppm? Add statement stating “Seventeen years of sampling shows about 10 percent of near surface spoil is considered unsuitable after mining, overburden mixing, and final grading. These areas are mitigated prior to replacing topsoil.” Have other agencies and the tribes agreed with Peabody’s assessment for “kitchen gardens”?

Remarks/How Resolved “0.3 ppm” is correct. The text has been inserted.

153

3.4

3-16

4th

USGS

154 155

3.4 3.4

3-16 3-17

5th

USGS BIA

156

3.4

3-17

1st (5th and 6th bullets)

USGS

157

3.4

3-17

Last

USGS

Water Resources (Hydrology) – Little Colorado River should be added as a stream potentially impacted by Caquifer project pumping, especially in the reach from the mouth of Chevelon Creek to the mouth of Clear Creek. Water Resources (Hydrology) – References should be provided for the spring discharge values. There are some R-aquifer-producing wells near Valle and Tusayan. This area is being targeted as a viable water source. Water Resources (Hydrology) – The units should be referred to as the upper part of the Supai Group (not Formation) and Redwall-Muav aquifer (not Muav-Redwall aquifer). The Supai Group contains several formations as described by McKee (1982) and as modified by Blakey (1990). Because the aquifers are being discussed in descending order, it should be the Redwall-Muav aquifer (not Muav-Redwall aquifer). Examples can be found in Hart and others (2002) and Bills and others (2006). Water Resources (Hydrology) – The discussion of transmissivity is qualitative. The statement "transmissivity of the N aquifer is low" should be referenced to quantify the term "low" - 1 foot squared per day, 200 feet squared per day, etc.

The discussion about kitchen gardens comes from baseline vegetation and land use studies conducted at Peabody’s Black Mesa leasehold. This is part of the AZ-0001D permit and was subject to a previous EIS and, therefore, was reviewed by various agencies and the tribes as part of the permit review and approval process. It is assumed that since the information has been reviewed and is part of the public record, the agencies and tribes have agreed with Peabody’s assessment. These kitchen gardens generally are the dry field corn plots that can be seen on Hopi and Navajo tribal lands. These plots are primarily Indian corn but may include squash, watermelon, cantaloupe and/or beans. The text has been revised.

The reference has been added. Comment noted.

The text has been revised.

The discussion in this paragraph is intended to be qualitative not quantitative.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 29

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 158

Section 3.4

Page 3-19

Paragraph of Page Map 3-4

Reviewer Peabody

159

3.4

3-19

Map 3-4

USGS

160

3.4

3-20

Map 3-5

USGS

161

3.4

3-21

Figure 3-2

USGS

Comment Map 3-4 and other maps with N-aquifer outline – the N aquifer is more extensive to the north and northeast than shown. It extends into Utah in the vicinity of Lake Powell, and is present north of Kayenta and east of Chinle Wash. This layer should be revised, and all affected maps corrected. Location of Surface Drainages on Black Mesa and Key N-Aquifer Features – Pasture Canyon Wash flows into Moenkopi wash to the east of Tuba City, not to the Colorado River to the west of Tusayan as shown on the map. The location of USGS streamflow-gaging station number 09400568 is plotted incorrectly (not on the river). Location of Surface Drainages South of Black Mesa and Key C-Aquifer Features – There are two stream reaches on this map that appear to be "left over" from Map 3-4. One is south of Hotevilla and the other is in the northeast corner of the C aquifer confined area. They are stand alone stream segments that perhaps should not be shown in light of the title of the map. Several very minor stream reaches tributary to the Colorado River on both the north and south side of the liver are shown that have no bearing or relation to C aquifer features. The Havasu/Cataract stream, the most significant one on the Coconino Plateau, is not shown. It is one of two principal regional drains for the Redwall-Muav aquifer west of the C aquifer boundary, the Blue Springs area being the other. The stream shown to the east of Williams appears to cross a drainage divide (shown on Map 3-3). The following locations should be labeled on this map: Leroux Wash, Silver Creek, and Woodruff (mentioned several times. in the text but not shown on any other map). The streamflow-gaging stations on the main stem of the Little Colorado River that provide data relevant to C aquifer discharge should be added: Little Colorado River near Joseph City, station number 09397300; Little Colorado River near Winslow, station number 09399000; Little Colorado River near Cameron, station number 09402000; and Little Colorado River above the mouth near Desert View, station number 09402300. Regional Hydrology – The Kaibab Formation (Kaibab Limestone) and the Supai Group (Supai Formation) are misnamed in the legend, as described in our earlier

Remarks/How Resolved Map 3-4 and others showing the N-aquifer outline have been revised.

Map 3-4 has been revised.

Map 3-5 has been revised.

The figure has been revised.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 30

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

162

3.4

3-22

Map 3-6

NNDWR

Comment Remarks/How Resolved comment related to page 3-17. The cross section does not show the R aquifer as it does for the D, N, and C aquifers. A reference for the figure should also be provided. The EIS should label Blue Ridge Reservoir on Map 3-6. This Blue Ridge Reservoir and other key hydrologic features in figure cuts off much of the N-aquifer and C-aquifer that the C-aquifer area are shown on Map 3-5. should be part of the study area. Move the center of the map to the EAST. The Slurry line is Map 3-6 is intended to show the extent of regional aquifers that underlie the entire project area, including the coal-slurry meaningless on this map. pipeline. The estimated storage in the C-aquifer is 413 million acre- Current and future pumping is described in Draft EIS feet, and the annual use is about 90,000 acre-feet. The EIS Section 4.2.4.3 rather than in this section. should note that this volume of annual use is less than 0.02 percent of the total water in storage. There are hydrologic reports, analyses, and models that are BIA-WRO recognizes that the CHIA is an OSM internal relevant to, referred to, and relied upon for hydrologic decision document, but since it may contain many of the conclusions in both the EIS and the CHIA. The hydrologic same impact analyses that may/could be used in the EIS analyses in the EIS and the CHIA will be consistent. process; it should be discussed and incorporated into the However, the two documents are produced for two very EIS, as applicable. The BIA-WRO would like to reiterate different purposes and one cannot be incorporated into the the Tribes’ request to review the CHIA before it becomes other. The CHIA is an internal document used for decision final and made a part of the OSM and NEPA process. on the permit application and will be completed just prior to any decisions. It is not a part of the NEPA process. It will be made available to interested parties following OSM’s decision. The stream monitoring sites identified in Table 3-1 should Adding the stream-monitoring sites on Map 3-7 is unnecessary. be shown on a map (Map 3-7). Recommend changing “PH” to “pH” and “C1” to “Cl”. “PH” has been revised to “pH.” The text correctly shows upper case “C” and lower case “l” (not the number “1”). Also, a location map is needed. Table 3-1 shows the mean concentration of major inorganic parameters at stream monitoring sites over the period of record. It is presented to generally characterize the surface water quality on the coal lease area. Data from specific monitoring sites are not utilized in the impact section and a location map is not required. Impacts on water quality are associated with impoundments and their related seepage. Impoundments are shown on Map 3-7. A location map is always helpful. However, the relatively large number of sampling sites and the fact that Table 3-1 is intended to show the range of surface-water quality, it is

163

3.4

3-23

2nd

NNDWR

164

3.4.1

3-23

BIA

165 166 3.4.1.1

3-24 3-24

Table 3-1 Table 3-1

BIA Peabody

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 31

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment

167

3.4.1.1

3-25

BIA

The frequency and type of surface water monitoring requirement should be provided. Also, an estimate of how much surface water is contained or diverted by the impoundments should be provided.

168 169 170 171 172

3.4.1.1 3.4.1.1 3.4.1.1 3.4.1.1 3.4.1.1

3-26 3-26 3-26 3-26 3-27

1st 3rd Table 3-2 2nd Last paragraph, 1st sentence 3rd & Table 3-3 Table 3-3

BIA WRO BIA WRO Peabody Peabody Peabody

Provide citation for water standards. Provide citation for water standards. Recommend changing “C1” to “Cl.” Change the NPDES Permit No. from AZ0022179 to NN0022179. Delete J16-A-S1 and J19-D-S1 from the list of seeps in parentheses. Insert N14-D-S1 and N14-P-S1 to match Table 3-3.. After the 2nd sentence, add the following sentence “Two of the ponds, J21-A1 and N14-D, are not NPDES ponds.” The EIS should cite the source of the livestock water quality standards. Mention whether or not ADEQ or Navajo Nation standards are being used. Delete the Total Recoverable Aluminum value for BM-A1­ S1, since no AlTR value was obtained at this site in 2005. Delete Nitrate values for BM-A1-S1, as these values are below the livestock standard of 100 mg/l, and contradict the Table title. Change the pH value range shown for N14-P-S1 to only 5.57 S.U., as this was the field determined value for the one sample collected in 2005. Change the AlTR value shown for N14-P-S1 to 6.80 mg/l. Recommend changing the 2nd sentence to “This group is a source …”

Remarks/How Resolved probably not necessary for an assessment of lease-wide impacts. The impoundments on stream flow are discussed in the Draft EIS on pages 4-18 and 4-19. This has not changed in the Final EIS. Chapter 16, Hydrologic Monitoring Program in the Black Mesa and Kayenta Mine Permit Application Package for Permit No. AZ0001D provides details on Peabody’s current surface-monitoring requirements including monitoring types and frequencies. Table 26a in Chapter 18, Probable Hydrologic Consequences in the LOM plan application provides a summary of surface water that has been diverted into the impoundments on Black Mesa over time. Records provided in the table indicate that the amount of surface water diverted into Black Mesa impoundments is variable from year to year, ranging from 256 acre-feet in 1981 through mid-1982 to a high of 1,205 acre-feet in 2004. Citation has been inserted. Citation has been inserted. The text correctly shows upper case “C” and lower case “l” (not the number “1”). The text has been revised. The text has been revised.

173

3.4.1.1

3-28

NNDWR

The reference has been cited: Navajo Nation 1999.

174

3.4.1.1

3-28

Peabody

The table has been revised.

175

3.4.1.2

3-29

5th

Peabody

The text has been revised.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 32

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 176

Section 3.4.1.2

Page 3-30

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer BIA

177

3.4.2.1

3-30

3rd sent. After bullets 2nd ¶. 2nd Sent.

NNEPA WQP

178

3.4.2.1

3-30

NNEPA WQP

179

3.4.2.1

3-30

3rd

NNEPA WQP

180

3.4.2.1

3-31

Table 3-4

NNEPA-WQP

Remarks/How Resolved Groundwater discharges into pits have little effect on mining operations. When they occur, Peabody routes the water to low portions of the pits and uses pumps to divert the water to downstream NPDES sediment ponds. Pit water that has occurred as a result of groundwater discharges has not resulted in any delay in mining or coal extraction on Black Mesa. Historically, groundwater discharges into pits have been limited to only portions of the N-6 and J-16 pits, and currently occur at very low rates in a limited area of the southern portion of the J-19 pit. The amounts of groundwater discharges have been low (several gallons per minute) based on past visual observations by mining personnel. No direct measurements of groundwater discharge into pits have been collected due to the diffuse nature of these discharges, so no actual numbers that represent groundwater discharges into pits can be provided. The ADEQ does not define unique water within the How does Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) define unique waters that are within the boundaries boundaries of the Navajo Reservation; ADEQ has not jurisdiction on the Navajo Reservation. The Navajo Nation of the Navajo Nation, such as Moenkopi Wash? EPA does this. This paragraph refers to water courses cited in the first It is true that median annual peak surface-water flows recorded at USGS stream gauging stations vary widely. For sentence (Moenkopi Wash, Little Colorado River, Big Chino Wash, Sacramento Wash). The location that is instance, flow data from USGS gauging stations in New referred to is the location of the stream gaging station within York are probably much different flow data from USGS the drainage being monitored. gauging stations in Wisconsin. To which USGS streamgauging stations is the author referring? It is also stated that much of the watershed is upstream of the location. What location is that? Are the beneficial uses that are referred to really designated Designated uses are provided in the “NOTES” to Table 3-4, including those for the Colorado River. Navajo Nation uses? Does the Colorado River have designated uses? It designated uses for key streams are listed in the text. does in Table 3-4. Please provide tables for both Arizona designated uses and Navajo Nation designated uses. Designated uses are identified in A.A.R. 18-11, Appendix B. The title of this table is not clear. What state is the “StateDesignated uses are established by ADEQ in order to set Designated Use”? Is this just one “Use” or more? What is numeric water-quality standards to maintain and protect the the “AZ Rule” exactly? How does the AZ Rule “declare” use. the State-Designated Use? In the paragraph before this table, it was stated that the Colorado River had no beneficial uses. Are beneficial uses the same as designated uses? Does Colorado River has designated uses. The text has been revised. the Colorado River now have a beneficial or designated uses? Please provide an explanation of how the information The table has been revised to eliminate “Basis of use.” in the “Basis of Use” column is used to determine the

Comment To what degree does this pit water affect mining operations? Why not use actual numbers and put things more in perspective.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 33

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

181

3.4.2.1

3-31

Last two ¶. Below Table 3-4

NNEPA-WQP

Comment “Basis of Use”. In the NOTES what does the term “Use abbreviations” mean? Is the author referring to “Designated Use abbreviations? The eastern and western routes for the Coal-Slurry Pipeline discussed in these paragraphs were not found in Maps 3-1, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, or 3-6. Please provide information and maps showing the eastern and western routes for the Coal-Slurry Pipeline. There is no discussion of the designated uses for the following water bodies mentioned in these two paragraphs: Dinnebito Wash, Oraibi Wash, and Yucca Flat Wash. If designated uses exist for these water bodies, please include them in Navajo Nation and Arizona designated use tables. The Basin and Range Province doesn’t really start till further west towards Kingman, not Cameron. Why is there no discussion of the designated uses for the surface water bodies that the Project Water Supply pipeline will cross, as there was in Section 3.4.2.1?

Remarks/How Resolved “Use” refers to “designated use” abbreviations in the table; e.g., FC=fish consumption. The text has been moved to Draft EIS Section 3.4.3.1.3.2 C Aquifer Water Pipeline Routes.

A table has been added.

182 183

3.4.2.2 3.4.3

3-31 3-32 to 3-41

BIA NNEPA WQP

The text has been revised. A table has been added.

184

3.4.3.1

3-32

1st

NNEPA WQP

Why is there no groundwater section as there was in Section The text has been revised to add a heading (3.4.3.1.2 Groundwater). 3.4.2? The text has been revised. Please provide the location in the document where the information presented in this sentence was “discussed previously”. Please explain why “There are, however, portions of some The text has been revised. drainages that are perennial” is now presented here but was not presented in Section 3.4.2.1. Oraibi Wash, for instance has perennial portions. The text has been revised (3.4.3.1.2 Groundwater). Is this section missing a subsection for Groundwater? It starts out with surface water discussion, but ends with the C-Aquifer well field. The text has been revised. Surface Water – The parenthetic statement should read "(water level is below the bottom of the C aquifer)" [not Coconino Sandstone]. This is an important distinction because the C aquifer is a multiple aquifer system consisting of hydraulically connected water-bearing zones in the Coconino Sandstone and the underlying Supai Group. As mentioned earlier, the Supai Group is composed of

185

3.4.3.1.1

3-33

BIA

186

3.4.3.1.1

3-33

Last

USGS

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 34

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment several formations. More recent investigators (Blakey 1990) have simplified these formations into just three, the Upper Formation, the Middle Formation, and the Lower Formation. It is the Lower Supai Formation that contains the low-permeability units that form a confining layer between the C aquifer above, and the Redwall-Muav aquifer below. There is no description of the geologic units that comprise the C aquifer, although all other aquifers are provided with a description of the geologic units that contain them (examples can be found in Section 3.4.3.2 and page 3-17). The description for the C aquifer should go somewhere on page 3-33. Surface Water – The original source for Table 3-5 is Hoffmann and others (2005). However, possibly because of different units, the transmissivity data given here does not match the transmissivity data from Hoffmann and others (2005). The table has a row of data called effective hydraulic conductivity. The source for this information is not Hoffmann and others (2005). It should be clarified on the table how these data were determined, either by reference or explanation of the method. Section, Surface Water – The source for this table as well is Hoffman and others (2005). One of the formations for well OW-3C should be Upper Supai Formation (not Supai); an appropriate abbreviation might be US or U-S for Upper Supai Formation. Information about 05T-320 should be verified. The data for 05T-320 is identical to the data results for the Sunshine Well on the Hopi Hart Ranch (well 613868 on Map 3-8), which was step-tested by the Bureau of Reclamation and the USGS, and sampled by the USGS. The USGS did not collect water samples from any well with the identification number 05T-320 on the Navajo Reservation. In the next to the last sentence, “…up to …” should be deleted to be consistent with previous references to the number of wells used to produce 6,000 af/yr. C-Aquifer Test Wells and Other Nearby Wells – Well 05T­ 533 is mislocated on the map. 05T-533 is the windmill at site 1.

Remarks/How Resolved

The C-aquifer units are provided in Section 3.4 (Draft EIS page 3-17) and Figure 3-1.

187

3.4.3.1.1

3-34

Table 3-5

USGS

The source is Bureau of Reclamation 2005 C-Aquifer Technical Advisory Group meeting. Phoenix Area Office. Handouts July 14 (See Chapter 7, References) The text has been revised to delete “effective hydraulic conductivity” and the reference has been changed to “Hoffmann et al.”

188

3.4.3.1.1

3-34

Table 3-6

USGS

The text has been revised.

189

3.4.3.1.2.1

3-35

SRP

The text has been revised.

190

3.4

3-36

Map 3-8

USGS

The map has been revised.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 35

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 191 192

Section 3.4.3.1.2 3.4.3.2

Page 3-36 3-37

Paragraph of Page Map 3-8 1st 4th (4th & 5th sentences)

Reviewer NNDWR Peabody

193

3.4.3.2

3-38

USGS

194 195

3.5.1 3.5.2

3-41 3-43

Table 3-8 Table 3-9

BIA WRO BIA WRO

196

3.5.2

3-43

Table 3-9 8th 3rd

Peabody

Comment The EIS should identify the Tribal wells in SITE 1, like seen in Site 2 and Site 3. Recommend removing the statement “and the storage coefficient is estimated to average 0.10”, and indicate instead separate values for confined and unconfined areas. N and D Aquifer Water-Supply System – The text is technically correct but seems contradictory (largest drawdown but depth increased). A more direct statement might be "BM-6 had the largest measured regional drawdown since 1965 with a water table decline of 155 feet by 2004." If snowfall is not included in “precipitation”, should it just be called “rainfall? Why is “rain/precipitation” combined in this table. But not in Table 3-8? The wind speed is in m/sec; Table 3-8 has the wind speed in mph – these are hard to compare. Also check Table 3-10. Recommend changing the caption to indicate the time period described.

Remarks/How Resolved The map has been revised. The text has been revised.

The text has been revised.

The text has been revised. The text has been revised.

197 198 199

3.5.3 3.6

3-45 3-47 3-57

BIA WRO BIA WRO BIA Hopi Agency

200

3.7.1.4

3-61

Peabody

201

3.7.3.2

3-69

FWS AESO

The text above the table has been revised to provide this information. This is consistent with the table on the following page. Provide citation for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate The citation has been inserted in the text. Change quote. What section on mitigation? The text has been revised to read “Section 4.19 addresses mitigation measures…” Under Alternative A, the C aquifer water-supply pipeline A closer analysis needs to be made on the Navajo sedge. The Hopi Tribe has documented Navajo sedge in Moenkopi routes were surveyed by Hopi tribal biologists in October 2006 and no threatened or endangered species were Wash (Blue Canyon). Might be affected the Western C aquifer pipeline and slurry line. Also need to be reflected on observed along the pipeline. The results of the survey have Appendix F. Has there been any survey work to determine been added to EIS Appendix F. if Siler pincushion cactus is (pediocactus sileri) present along the slurry pipeline? Has anyone done survey work in No species-specific surveys were completed along the coalslurry pipeline. If Alternative A were selected and if deemed the area or are they relying on existing data? necessary, species-specific surveys would be conducted prior to construction. Suitable habitat for the Siler pincushion cactus is not known to be present along the coalslurry pipeline route. Cultural plants are also present in reclaimed areas as a result Text was added stating: “Cultural plants are also present in reclaimed areas as a result of an intensive reestablishment of an intensive re-establishment program and from natural program and natural recolonization.” reinvasion. There is a relatively new, unconfirmed record of Navajo Text has been added. sedge on the Hopi Reservation , southwest of the Black

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 36

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

202

3.8.1.1

3-69

7th

FWS AESO

203

3.8.1.1

3-69

Peabody

204

3.8.1.2

3-69 – 1st 3-70

Peabody

205

3.8.1.2

3-70

1st

Peabody

206

3.8.1.2

3-70

2nd

Peabody

Comment Mesa Complex. This occurrence may be farther from the N aquifer pumping center than the Tsegi occurrences, which apparently haven't been affected by pumping of the N Aquifer. However, drawdown patterns may propagate differently to the southwest; and this record is an indication there may be suitable habitat closer to the pumping center. Locational information about this species is regarded confidential by the Hopi Tribe but may be available for the purpose of impact analysis. Please contact the Director of the Hopi Tribe's Range Department to discuss access to this information. This statement that mixed conifer woodland does not occur in the Black Mesa Complex is incorrect. Mixed conifer woodland occurs within the permit boundary 0.5 mile from the limit of disturbance of the N-10 mining area. Two other areas of mixed conifer woodland occur well within 1 mile of the N-10 limit of disturbance. Reclamation, occurring as grassland and shrub grassland on over 13,000 acres at the Black Mesa Complex, is a significant habitat type and should be noted as such. It provides a significant foraging habitat not nearly as available in the native sagebrush and piñon-juniper habitats. Mule deer may be present throughout the year but they are not common or abundant. The elk population has steadily increased at the Black Mesa Complex since the early 1980s and it is not uncommon to see groups of 5 to 10 elk on reclamation in the southwestern corner of the complex, all along the eastern portion, and into the northern areas of the Complex throughout the year. All reclaimed areas show significant use by elk attesting to its importance to their habitat needs. This is based on personal observations by Peabody environmental staff stationed at the Black Mesa Complex. Note that elk were a species of concern by the Navajo Nation in the early 1980s, but now are considered common on Black Mesa. Suggest adding the following sentence. “Similar small mammal populations including Mexican voles (Microtus mexicanus) occur on reclaimed lands at the Black Mesa Complex.” A new paragraph describing bat studies should be included as follows:

Remarks/How Resolved

Text has been added indicating that mixed conifer woodland is present in very limited areas within the permit area.

Text was added—adding reclaimed areas as a habitat type.

Text has been added to read, “Mule deer may be present throughout the year but they are not common or abundant. The elk population has steadily increased at the Black Mesa Complex since the early 1980s and it is not uncommon to see groups of 5 to 10 elk on reclaimed areas in the complex, this is based upon personal observations of Peabody environmental staff stationed at the Black Mesa Complex.”

Text has been added to read, “Similar small mammal populations including the Navajo Mountain Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus navaho) occur on reclaimed lands at the Black Mesa Complex.” Text has been added.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 37

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

207

3.8.1.2

3-70

2nd

Peabody

208

3.8.1.2

3-70

3rd

Peabody

209

3.8.1.4

3-71

FWS AESO

Comment Bat studies were conducted in reclaimed area and pinyon-juniper habitat on Black Mesa in summer 1999. Nine bat species were identified through mist netting and the use of an Anabat II detection unit used to gather acoustic records of bats. The documented species included the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), silver haired bat (Lasionyctris noctivagans), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidas), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), western pipistrelles (Pipistrellus hesperus) and an unknown myotis species. While only the first six listed species were found in the pinyon-juniper, all nine species were found in reclaimed areas. The silver haired bat is listed as a sensitive species on the Navajo Nation. Source: SWCA 2000. Small Mammal and Bat Survey on the Black Mesa and Kayenta Mines, Black Mesa, Arizona. SWCA, Inc., Environmental Consultants. 127 pages. Extensive bird surveys on Black Mesa have recorded a total of 235 species with six additional species identified through archaeological records. LaRue (1994) summarized comprehensive bird censusing studies conducted in the northern Black Mesa region from the late 1970’s to 1993. A number of these species were first records for the region and represent a diverse variety of species from the greater road runner (Geococcyx californianus) to osprey (Pandion haliaetus). Source: LaRue, C.T. 1994. Birds of Northern Black Mesa, Navajo County Arizona. Great Basin Naturalist 54: 1-63. Comprehensive raptor studies have been conducted on and adjacent to the Black Mesa Complex for red-tailed hawk, peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), and Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida). The results have been reported to OSM. The nearest protected activity center (PAC) is located 0.5 mile from the N-10 limit of disturbance, which should be the project reference point for determining effects (as opposed to the active, or current, mine area). The statement that there are no records of Mexican spotted owl nesting within the permit area is inaccurate. Although there is no nest or roost site record within the permit boundary, the

Remarks/How Resolved

Text has been added.

Text has been added.

Since no Mexican spotted owls nest within the permit boundary, it is correct to state that there is no nesting regardless of the presence of the PAC. As you approach the N-10 area from the PAC closest to the permit area, habitat quality for Mexican spotted owl decreases as the habitat is piñon-juniper and within the permit area there are no stringers of Douglas fir to indicate mixed conifer woodland

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 38

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

210 211

3.8.1.4 3.8.1.4

3-71 3-71

2nd 5th 6th

Peabody Peabody

212

3.8.1.4

3-71

SRP

213

3-8

3-73

Map 3-14

USGS

214

3.8.2.1.2

3-74

1st (10th line)

SRP

Comment aforementioned PAC overlaps the permit area. PACs are delineated based on the best habitat around a nest site and this habitat is integral to the nest site. For the purpose of future planning (e.g., effect determination and avoidance/ minimization measures) the nest site should be considered to potentially occur anywhere within the PAC. The presence of mixed conifer woodland within the permit area, particularly in association with a PAC, is evidence that owls forage within the permit area. Mixed conifer woodland in not necessarily distinctly different from, and may even be considered a subset of piñon/juniper woodland; a stringer of only a few Douglas fir trees in a matrix of piñon/juniper may be considered mixed conifer woodland. This is an important consideration when evaluating potential owl habitat. Additional sightings occurred in 1982, 1984, 1988, and 1993 (LaRue 1994). Peabody conducts censusing and reporting of prairie dog towns on and adjacent to the Black Mesa Complex annually. Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered… – First line should read: “At least three subspecies of southwestern willow flycatcher may be present in the area during migration (including the endangered southwestern subspecies). Arizona Game and Fish Department Game Management Units – The Chevelon Creek State Wildlife Area managed by Arizona Game and Fish, adjacent to the east side of lower Chevelon Creek, should be added to the map. This wetland, one of the last left on the middle reach of the Little Colorado River, is managed as critical habitat, not only for the Little Colorado River Spinedace, but for migrating waterfowl and wildlife as well. Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Animal Species — should read: Southwestern Willow flycatchers could are likely to occur occasionally during migration in riparian habitat in Moenkopi Wash and at the crossing of the Little Colorado River, but the subspecies of migrating willow flycatcher has not been documented.

Remarks/How Resolved that would provide suitable nesting habitat (V. Pfannenstiel, Peabody, personal communication, April 26, 2007).

Text has been added. Text has been added.

The text has been revised.

The Chevelon Creek State Wildlife Area has been added to Map 3-14.

The text was revise.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 39

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 215

Section 3.8.2.1.2

Page 3-74

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer FWS AESO

216

3.8.3.1.1

3-75

7th

USGS

217

3-76

FWS AESO

218

3-77

FWS AESO

219

3-77

4th bullet

FWS AESO

220

3.8.3.1.1

3-77

SRP

Comment Willow flycatchers occur along the Little Colorado River. We know of at least one record of a migrant near Cameron, not far from the coal-slurry pipeline crossing. It is probable that bald eagles migrate along the Little Colorado River. This information is also relevant for the C aquifer watersupply pipeline crossing of the LCR (3.8.3.1.22.1, page 3-79). Water Withdrawal – It would be appropriate to comment on the following in this section. The Little Colorado River is both a gaining and losing reach between the mouth of Chevelon Creek and the Mouth of Clear Creek. The gains in flow appear to be the result of upwelling of C aquifer water to the river where outcrops of fractured Moenkopi Formation are located at land surface in the channel. The losses are the result of evapotranspiration (ET) by phreatophytes and reinfiltration of some of the water to the stream-channel alluvium, based on USGS base flow evaluation of Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek, and the Little Colorado River, June and July, 2005 and 2006 (Donald Bills, hydrologist, USGS, written communication 2006). We recommend including more information and discussion about the status of the spinedace and its baseline in the action area. For example, habitat destruction, including the degradation of water quality and depletion of water quantity and the spread of non-native aquatic species have been ongoing for many years. This has resulted in a decline in population numbers and a status that can be best characterized as precarious. Please contact Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office (AESO) if you need additional information. The statement that breeding has not been documented is not useful information unless protocol surveys of suitable nesting habitat has been conducted. Is suitable nesting habitat present in the described areas? These drainages are also within the historic range of the Chiricahua leopard frog, and may be important for recovery of the species. Water Withdrawal — 2nd paragraph first line should read: “Willow flycatcher is likely to could occur in riparian habitat along lower Clear Creek, lower Chevelon Creek, and the Little Colorado River during migration, but the

Remarks/How Resolved The text stating there were no records of willow flycatchers was deleted and text about migration was added in both locations suggested.

Text has been added.

Text has been added.

Text has been added explaining where surveys have been conducted in the area. Suitable nesting habitat was modeled and is described in Section 4.8.1.3.1.1. Text has been added explaining where surveys have been conducted in the area. Suitable nesting habitat was modeled and is described in Section 4.8.1.3.1.1. The text has been revised.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 40

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

221

3.8.3.1.1

3-78

Map 3-15

NNDWR

Comment subspecies of migrating birds is not known, and breeding southwestern willow flycatchers were not documented in recent surveys at the Chevelon Creek Wildlife Area Map 3-15 should show the watershed boundaries. Map 3-15 should show wells. There should be a highlighted area where the Chevelon and Clear Creek boundaries are located. The legend shows many springs-our curiosity is do these also include the wells? If so, change the legend to springs and wells. Clear and Chevelon Creek Watershed Features – The map shows more springs in the Winslow to Leupp area than staff in our Arizona Water Science Center are aware of. It is possible that some of these sites represent perched waterbearing zones well above the regional C aquifer. (Because the map is located in a section of the report describing Caquifer, this possibility should be checked) Locations of the springs should be verified, as it appears that some of these spring sites could be mislocated — for example, it seems questionable that there really is a spring in the bottom of Meteor Crater. There are no springs shown in the lower reaches of Clear Creek and Chevelon Creek, yet many are known to exist. There are a number of springs shown on the rims of Clear and Chevelon that technically should not exist because the water table is several hundred feet below land surface in that area. The USGS streamflow-gaging stations on the Little Colorado River near Joseph City (09397300) and near Winslow (09399000) should be added to this map. C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: Eastern Route — 2nd line should read: “Migrating bald eagle and southwestern willow flycatcher (unknown subspecies) may occasionally occur along Oraibi and Dinnebito Washes. Why is the golden eagle the most important species? No mention of prairie dog colonies along Eastern and Western route?

Remarks/How Resolved

The map has been revised to show watershed boundaries. There are hundreds of wells in the C aquifer. Wells of interest to the current project are shown on other maps (e.g., 3-8, 4-1, 4-2) and Figure 3-3.

The map has been corrected. Many of these springs are not in the C aquifer. The map has been revised.

222

3.8

3-78

Map 3-15

USGS

223

3.8.3.1.2.2.1

3-79

4th

SRP

Text has been added.

224 225

3.8.3.1.2.2.1

3-79 3-79

Last BIA Hopi Agency

BIA WRO

The importance is due to cultural significance to the Hopi people. The Hopi Tribe Wildlife and Ecosystems Management Program was contacted about prairie dog towns along the C aquifer water-supply pipeline Eastern and Western alternatives. There are two prairie dog town towns known

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 41

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment

226 227 228

3.8.3.1.2.2.2 3.9 3.9

3-80 3-81 Gener al

2nd (3rd line) Map 3-16

SRP NNDWR Peabody

229

3.9.2.1

3-86

1st 1st

BIA WRO

C Aquifer Water Supply Pipeline: Western Route — same comment as 3-79. The Black Mesa Complex insert should be mottled to indicate the confined area of the N-aquifer. Change all words related to “relocate” to “resite” when referring to Peabody working with residents to move them off of the coal field areas such as on page 3-86. The term relocation is generally perceived in the context of the contentious Navajo/Hopi relocation issue and is not the same when a person is resited because of future coal mining. Peabody has a valid lease with the tribes and is authorized to work with residences in resiting their homes through a cooperative, respectful, and structured process. Please make it clear that the Big Boquillas Ranch is held in fee.

Remarks/How Resolved along the Eastern route of the C aquifer water-supply pipeline. One town is 12 to 14 acres and the other town in 10 acres; both less than the 200-acre minimum for a viable town to support black-footed ferrets. No prairie dog towns were reported by the Hopi Tribe or Navajo Nation along the Western route of the C aquifer water-supply pipeline. Text has been added. The map has been revised. The text has been revised-

230

3.9.3.1

3-89

BIA WRO

231

3-823-94 3.10.4.1 3-101 3-103 3-105

Maps 3-17a­ Maps 3-17d 2nd and 3rd Table 3-21

BIA WRO

232 233 234

BIA WRO BIA WRO BIA Hopi Agency

The text was revised to read “The ranch, which is owned in fee by the Navajo Nation, is located near Seligman in Chino Valley beyond the Navajo Reservation boundary.” Please make it clear that the Hart Ranch is held in fee. The text was revised to explain that most of the well field area is within the Navajo Reservation, except for approximately 2,750 acres that extend south of the BNSF Railroad into the Hart Ranch, which is owned in fee by the Hopi Tribe (Map 3-17b). Please integrate these into the report more clearly and try to The locations of the maps in the EIS have been revised. keep them closer to where they are first discussed in the text. Numbers of sites do not add up correctly The text has been corrected. Total does not equal the numbers used in paragraph above The text has been corrected. table. All Hopi water rights, including the derivative rights of With the establishment of additional impoundments that will affect the flow of water in Moenkopi Wash has anyone allottees, are being addressed by the Hopi Tribe in the context of the Little Colorado River General Stream consulted with the allotment holders in Moenkopi and Adjudication, now pending before the Arizona State courts. Navajo about their water rights. Allottee water rights are simply a sub-set of the tribe’s overall water right. Navajo allottees have not yet been contacted. BIA would represent the allottees in water right discussions.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 42

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 235

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer BIA Hopi Agency

Comment The [BIA Hopi] Agency has been hearing concerns from some of the farmers along BIA Route 22, how will they be affected by this pipeline? It is the BIA’s understanding that, when the Hopi Tribal Council approves the Black Mesa Project through a Tribal Resolution, it will cover all internal processes relating to realty transactions. Note: the BIA is going to be looking at only the final approval document submitted by the Hopi Tribe. Details in the “NOTE” are not clear.

Remarks/How Resolved No response needed.

236

3-107

Table 3-24

BIA WRO

237

3.11.1

3-107

Table 3-25

NNDWR

238 239

3.11.2.1 3.11.2.3

3-110 3-111

Table 3-28 4th

NNDWR BIA WRO

The sources used for these tables should be checked. They may not reflect undercounts, and the total may not reflect non-Navajo populations. (See HDR, 2005) Table 3-28 should include a summation row. Last half of paragraph is confusing. Please restructure and restate.

The note has been revised explain that it includes population on Hopi Reservation and off-reservation land in Arizona; includes population on Navajo Reservation and offreservation land in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. The total does not reflect undercounts.

240 241 3.11.2.8

3-114 3-119

Figure 3-5 1st 1st

BIA WRO BIA WRO

Why isn’t Moenkopi in the figure? What about Hopi fire and rescue services?

242

3.11.3

3-120

BIA WRO

Why does BMPI pay taxes/fees for the preparation plant to Nevada?

The table has been revised. The text has been revised to read “Figures were not available for the distribution of employees between the two mines. However, prior to the suspension of the Black Mesa mining operation, if mining employment was roughly proportionate to the coal produced, then approximately 621 employees and 135 contract employees worked at the mining operations with 64 percent working at the Kayenta mining operation (or 374 mine employees and 86 contract workers (SWCA Environmental Consultant 2005).” Moenkopi was not included in the table because the sources used did not have figures for that area. Text has been added to explain that the Hopi Fire Department and the Hopi Tribal Rangers also serve the residents of the Hopi Reservation. The wording of the statement in the Draft EIS that this comment refers to is misleading. BMPI pays property taxes in Nevada because of the small segment of the coal-slurry pipeline that enters into Nevada, not because of the preparation plant. This statement will be clarified in the Final EIS. BMPI pays various taxes and fees, levied upon the coalslurry preparation plant and coal-slurry pipeline, to a

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 43

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment

243 244 245 246 3.12

3-120 3-120 3-121 3-123

Table 3-37 Table 3-38

BIA WRO BIA WRO BIA Hopi Agency NNDWR

Does this table include the pipeline? The superscripted “a” in the title does not correspond to anything. Same for Table 3-39. What about First Mesa Elementary School? The EIS notes that it is likely that those living below the poverty level and those unemployed are undercounted. Is there any quantified estimate of this undercount, or is there any citation for this conclusion?

Remarks/How Resolved number of governmental entities in the States of Arizona and Nevada and to the Navajo Nation. Yes The table has been revised. First Mesa Elementary School in Polacca has been added.

5th

247

3.12

3-124

Table 3-40

NNDWR

248 249

3.13

3-128 3-129

Table 3-43

BIA WRO BIA Hopi Agency

250 251

3.13.1 3.13.3.3

3-129 3-131

1st 1st

BIA WRO BIA WRO

252

1.13.2.3

3-131

BIA Hopi Agency

The “Preliminary Estimated Coverage of Census 2000, Based on the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Survey” by U.S. Census Bureau indicates that there is an estimated net undercount of American Indians or Alaska Natives, both on and off reservation. The net undercount ranges from 2.77 percent to 6.71 percent for on reservation, and 1.08 percent to 5.47 percent off reservation. (http://www.census.gov/Press­ Release/www/2001/cn03attach.pdf) The sources used for these tables should be checked. They The total does not reflect undercounts. There is a discrepancy between numbers that are reported and actual may not reflect undercounts, and the total may not reflect population totals. non-Navajo populations. (See HDR 2005) “Hopi Area, Moenkopi” is listed twice. The text has been revised. Indian trust assets include any legal interests in those assets Definition of Indian Trust Assets in incorrect since Indian Trust Assets do include things that Tribes has no interest in owned by a tribe or individual Indian and held in trust or such as allotments and Individual Indian Money Accounts. restricted status by the United States. The text has been revised to read “Indian trust assets are defined as legal interest in assets that are held in trust or restricted status by the United States government for federally recognized American Indian tribes or individual Indian.” Indian Trust Assets also may be held for individual Indians. Refer to the response to the comment above. Last sentence appears in paragraph twice. One sentence refers to the Peabody lease with the Navajo Nation and the other sentence refers to the Peabody lease with Hopi. Again, has anyone talked to the allottees about their water All Hopi water rights, including the derivative rights of rights? allottees, are being addressed by the Hopi Tribe in the context of the Little Colorado River General Stream Adjudication, now pending before the Arizona State courts. Allottee water rights are simply a sub-set of the Tribe’s overall water right. Navajo allottees have not yet been contacted. BIA would represent the allottees in water right discussions.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 44

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 253

Section 3.13.2.3

Page 3-131

Paragraph of Page 5th

Reviewer NNDWR

254

3.13.2.4

3-131

NNEPA OER

255 256 257 258

3.14.2.1 3.14.3.1.1 3.14.3.1.2

3-136 3-137 3-137 3-138

Last 5th 9th

BIA WRO BIA WRO BIA WRO BIA WRO

Comment The EIS states that surface water and groundwater beneath the reservation are trust assets. This sentence should be reworded. Surface water is not “beneath” the reservation. And the extent of the reserve groundwater right is not just beneath the reservation boundary. Non-tribal uses off of the reservation may impair uses of groundwater on the reservation that are protected as federally reserved water rights. Need to be more specific. The discussion is too short. The proposed sites for the entire project – are Navajo community collect medicinal plants, hunting areas, fishing spots and other land uses? Provide citation for Federal Transit Authority’s screening criteria Provide citation for Federal Transit Authority’s screening criteria Should “55” be 45? What about vibrations from railroads?

Remarks/How Resolved The text has been revised to read “…surface water and groundwater associated with the ….”

259

3-141

Map 3-18

BIA WRO

260

3.15

3-140

3rd

BIA WRO

261

3.15

3-141

Map 3-18

NNDWR

262 263 264 265

3.15.1 3.15.3.2.1

3-142 3-145 3-148 3-148

1st 4th 1st (last line) 4th

BIA WRO BIA WRO BIA WRO BIA WRO

3.16.2.1

Information about medicinal plants, hunting and fishing, and other land uses can be found in Sections 3.7 Vegetation, 3.8 Fish and Wildlife, 3.9 Land Use, and 3.10 Cultural Resources. The citation is Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 1995 (Hanson et al. 1995) and has been inserted in the text. The citation “Hanson et al. 1995” has been inserted in the text. The text has been revised. The Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad, referred to on page 3-138, is powered by electricity generated at the Navajo Generating Station. As stated on Draft EIS page 3­ 136 “…only residences within 200 feet of the right-of-way of a railroad carrying diesel locomotives may be potentially impacted by vibration.” Where were Class A-C scenic quality criteria discussed? Description of the scenic quality classes for the Black Mesa Project are provided in Appendix I and have been added to the introductory text of Section 3.15. Provide citation for Forest Service Landscape…manual The text has been revised to read “…were derived from the BLM Visual Resource Management Inventory and Contrast Rating system (BLM 1986) and Forest Service Scenery Management System (SMS) (Forest Service 1995)….: For clarity, the EIS should define the classes A, B, and C in Description of the scenic quality classes have been added to the introductory text of Section 3.15. this section, and not just in the appendix. A paragraph should be inserted before the map to define the different classes. “existing” what? The text has been revised to read “…existing mining areas and facilities and disturbed areas….” Provide citation for the Navajo Transportation Plan The citation has been added. Please define/discuss VRM classes. Description of the scenic quality classes have been added to the introductory text of Section 3.15. Were primary and secondary roads defined? Yes, primary and secondary roads are defined in Section 3.16 (Draft EIS page 3-146, 2nd paragraph).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 45

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 266

Section 3.16.2.1

Page 3-148

Paragraph of Page 6th

Reviewer Comment Kaibab National Wrong information in paragraph. Please replace with Forest information below:

Remarks/How Resolved The text has been revised as suggested.

267

3.16.2.1

3-149

1st

BIA WRO

268

3.17.2.1

3-154

Table 3-49

NNDWR

269

3.18.1.2

3-158

6th (2nd line)

Peabody

270

3.18.2

3-158

NNEPA OER

“In the central region, the existing pipeline route continues west from the Navajo Reservation and crosses US Highway 180 as the highway leaves the Kaibab National Forest. The Kaibab National Forest portion of US Highway 180 is considered scenic. After crossing US Highway 180, the route parallels an unimproved access road through the Forest for approximately 5 miles before leaving the Forest”. Was “main arterial” defined? The text has been revised to read “As it enters Bullhead City from the east, the pipeline route crosses Highway 95 (a primary road) and Bullhead Parkway (a four lane road).” In Table 3-49 the EIS should also include Navajo Fish and Navajo Nation fish and wildlife permits (including fishing and small game permits) are combined into one permit and Wildlife permits issued for this area. are issued for the entire Navajo Reservation, not for specific areas; therefore, there are no data to make a table comparable to Table 3-49. Delete outdated sentences 2 and 3 for Solid Waste. Replace The text has been revised as suggested. with the following sentence. A closure plan was prepared, approved, and implemented; the landfill was revegetated in 1999. Residences are sited a safe distance from active mining Air quality – How are Navajo community members living and within close ranges protected from the mining activities areas. Pursuant to 30 CFR 816.95, Peabody has developed and implemented a plan to control fugitive dust effectively that release and increase particulate matters into the air? from mining activities. These activities are in many cases, the best practices or even best available control technology. Nevertheless, Peabody’s dust-control measures may not be effective in controlling fugitive emissions from nonmining sources. For example, travel and speed of travel by residents on mine and nonmine roads, burning of coal and wood in private residences, agricultural activities, and windblown dust from on and off site, all contribute particulate matter to the atmosphere in the vicinity of the residences. The fugitive-dust control plan, presented in Chapter 12 of the permit application uses the following activities, practices, and equipment to control particulates: • Exposed surface areas are protected and stabilized to control erosion and attendant fugitive dust by timely revegetation, stabilization of topsoil stockpiles, and revegetation management;

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 46

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment

271

3.18.2

3-158

NNEPA OER

Solid waste – What are the expected solid waste materials that could possibly accumulate or be generated at the proposed sites for the entire project? How will the cleaning solvents, materials used to clean equipment, etc. be contained and what quantities are expected to be stored at the proposed sites for the entire project?

272

3.18.2

3-158

NNEPA OER

Remarks/How Resolved • Rills and gullies that form in regraded and topsoiled areas are filled, regarded, or otherwise stabilized; • Exposed surface areas are minimized to the extent practicable; • Before or during loading, shot coal is watered as necessary; • The drop height from earth excavating equipment is minimized to the extent feasible; • Haulage and ancillary mine roads are watered at frequencies dependent upon the amount and timing of use, condition of the roads, and the amount of dust observed when in use; • Frequently used haul roads and light-duty roads are chemically treated at least twice per year with a dust suppressant (35 percent magnesium chloride or equivalent at a chemical-to-water ratio of approximately 5:1); • Magnesium chloride is stored year-round on site for use in spot treatment of roads, when necessary; • Some light-duty roads and parking lots are paved; • Water injection or rotoclones are employed on all overburden drills; • Haul-truck speeds are mechanically limited to 30 miles per hour, and all other vehicles are limited to 45 miles per hour, or as posted; • Sprays of water or water and a surfactant are installed and used at coal-handling and conveying equipment; • Spoil and coal fires are suppressed and extinguished as soon as reasonably and safely possible; • All conveyors are covered; and • Chutes, drapes, or other means are used to enclose conveyor transfer points, screens, and crushers. Peabody’s solid waste landfill streams consist primarily of paper, wood, packing wire, properly drained and crushed oil filters, air filters, small pieces of steel, and spent or properly punctured and drained aerosol cans. Solvents and other hazardous materials are used, stored, and disposed according to LQG rules and regulations enforced by NNEPA. Materials are generated, stored, and removed as stated on Draft EIS pages 3-158 and 3-159. This has not changed in the Final EIS.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 47

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 273

Section 3.18.12

Page 3-159

Paragraph of Page 4th (1st line)

Reviewer Peabody

Comment The following materials are always recycled – scrap metal, tires, and computer equipment. When allowed by analysis, used oil, parts washer fluid, spent solvent, grease and antifreeze also are recycled. We recommend that you differentiate between different types of mitigation, for example measures to avoid or minimize the magnitude of an impact versus measures that compensate or off-set an impact. We agree measures that result in avoidance or minimization, once incorporated into the project, should be factored into determining the initial environmental consequence. However, for the purpose of analyzing impacts in the EIS measures that compensate or off-set impacts should not be "applied" until the initial environmental consequences are described. After the impacts that result from the project are explained, then the post-mitigation net impact, if appropriate, can be described. Environmental Consequences — bullets defining impact terms refer to several levels of impact, including major, moderate, minor, negligible, and none. The term “appreciable” or “appreciably” is not defined or referred to here, although it is used in Chapter 4 (4-84) to describe certain impacts of pumping on listed species. This causes some confusion. If appreciable is used in the final EIS, it should be clear how it is to be construed in light of the discussion of levels of impact on page 4-2 and in the Executive Summary. Note also that, where possible, environmental consequences/impacts must be objectively quantifiable, or an explanation should be provided as to why they are not objectively quantifiable. See our later comments on the need to objectively quantify impacts on species or provide a rationale for inability to objectively quantify these impacts. We recommend that the percentage reduction of baseflow within the perennial reaches of Chevelon Creek and Clear creek be used as quantification of impacts: 12 miles (8 of which is designated critical habitat for spinedace) in Chevelon Creek, and 10 miles of stream habitat in Clear Creek; similarly the number of stream miles benefited from the proposed conservation measures (38-48 miles, of which

Remarks/How Resolved The text has been revised as suggested.

274

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences 4-1 2nd FWS AESO

Text has been added to read, “The EIS team then considered and incorporated (1) mitigation to avoid or minimize the magnitude of an impact or (2) conservation measures to compensate or offset an impact, where appropriate, before arriving at the impacts described here.”

275

4.0

4-2

SRP

The words “appreciable” and “appreciably” have been removed from the text.

Text has been added in Chapter 4 to read, “The proposed action would affect approximately 12 miles of habitat within lower Chevelon Creek, 8 miles of which is designated critical habitat for the Little Colorado spinedace as well as 10 miles of lower Clear Creek. Proposed conservation measures would benefit and improve habitat within 38 to 48 miles of streams, including 31 miles of designated critical habitat for the Little Colorado spinedace.” Rationale for using stream miles as a surrogate for direct effects also was incorporated.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 48

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

276

4.0

4-3

Table 4-2 2nd (6th line) 2nd

Peabody

277 278

4.1.1.1 4.1.1.2

4-6 4-7

Peabody NNEPA OER

Comment 31 is critical habitat), should be incorporated where appropriate. The rationale for why impacts to habitat (stream miles impacted) was used as surrogate for direct impacts to spinedace and roundtail chub should also be incorporated. The heading for the 3rd column should be modified. It is unclear what this column is, but the area disturbed through 2005 should be the same for all alternatives. Change sentence to read “Restoration to the approximate original contour …” Water quality – How is the quality of water sampled to determine if it meets USEPA, NNEPA water quality standards?

Remarks/How Resolved

The column has been updated to include 2007, instead of 2005, year-end disturbance acreages. The numbers in the Alternative A, B, and C rows have revised to be the same. The text has been revised. This comment appears to refer to the water component of the coal-slurry mix, and the possible event of a pipeline rupture and release of the water to the environment. The coal slurry consisted of fresh water and finely ground coal, an inert, nontoxic substance. There are no chemical additives, petroleum, or petrochemicals contained in the slurry. The water used in the slurry preparation historically has come from groundwater wells at the Black Mesa mining operation (N aquifer water). Under Alternative A, water from the C aquifer would be used to prepare the coal slurry. There is no need to sample and test the water as it is unaltered ground water.

279

4-9 5th (2nd line)

BIA Hopi Agency Peabody

280

4.3.1.1.1

4-11

281 282

4.4 4.4.1.1.1

4-15 4-16

2nd 1st (1st sent)

NNEPA OER NNEPA WQP

Monitoring for a pipeline failure was a continuous 24 hour a Pipeline failure – What is the timing of detection? Every minute, hour, similar to the oil/natural gas pipelines timing? day activity completed via a SCADA system and is further described in Appendix A-2 of the Draft EIS, on pages A-2­ 14 and A-2-15. The leases provide Peabody the right to mine other minerals Peabody lease does allow for the mining of all minerals as might be encountered during coal mining activities. The including uranium. coal-bearing formation does not include uranium ores. The second sentence within the soil suitability section must The text has been revised. be clarified. A suggested rewrite would be: By salvaging topsoil and suitable subsoil from areas to be disturbed prior to mining, Peabody estimates about 1.9 feet of soil material is available to uniformly cover all reclaimed areas (LOM Plan 2003). Section 401 referenced should include NNEPA's Comment unclear. recommendation. Degradation of Surface-Water Quality: What storm events Peabody designs sediment-pond capacities to include at a will cause the designed storage capacity to result in surface minimum the equivalent runoff from the 10-year, 24-hour storm event, and 3 years of sediment storage. The water discharges? What is the design storm-flow event?

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 49

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment What storm event does “the storm event” refer to?

283 284

4.4.1.1.1 4.4.1.1.1

4-16 4-18

6th

Peabody BIA

285

4.4.1.1.2.1

4-20

5th (5th sentence) 1st

OSM

286

4-21

USEPA

Change the NPDES Permit No. to NN0022179. Diminution of Flow – See comment No. 12 [3.4.1.1, p 3­ 24]. This is a concern of the Hopi Tribe and every care should be considered to ensure adequate and useable data can be collected and accurate analysis performed with the existing stream monitoring protocol and network. Revise text to read, “As acid rain comes into contact with the alkaline overburden, the pH rises and metals that are present tend to precipitate.” Peabody’s annual seepage monitoring reports indicate multiple exceedances of water quality standards from seeps associated with sedimentation impoundments. The Draft EIS appears to dismiss the potentially significant impacts of this contamination by stating that the seeps will be diluted by stormwater runoff. As we stated in response to preliminary drafts of the EIS, these seeps may run all year and, for much of the year, are not diluted by stormwater. During dry months, these undiluted seeps may be attractive to wildlife and livestock. Recommendation: The Final EIS should clarify that seeps downgradient from sedimentation impoundments may run all year and, during dry months, are not diluted by stormwater and may be attractive to wildlife and livestock. The clean Water Act is designed to protect beneficial uses. Fencing will not exclude all wildlife from contaminated seeps or protect beneficial uses. Other measures exist to protect water quality standards and beneficial uses, such as treating the water, eliminating the settling pond, sealing the pond so seeps stop, capturing the water and infiltrating it

Remarks/How Resolved precipitation associated with the 10-year, 24-hour storm event is presented in Attachment D to Chapter 6, Facilities, in the Black Mesa and Kayenta Mine Permit Application Package for Permit No. AZ0001D. The value is derived from data contained in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Atlas No. 2. Storm events that produce more runoff into a pond than the equivalent runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm event may result in a surface-water discharge. Other factors such as multiple storm events within short time periods (days) also may cause surface-water discharges. The text has been revised. Comment noted.

The text has been revised.

The Draft EIS addresses impoundment and seep water quality on pages 4-16 through 4-18, 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 page 4­ 17 of the Draft EIS 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. The modified Seepage Management Plan will address the USEPA’s recommendations that were presented to OSM as comments on the Draft EIS in a letter dated February 6, 2007. OSM also is working with Peabody and USEPA to finalize the Plan modifications. Text has been added to the EIS to address USEPA’s recommendation.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 50

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

287

4.4.1.1.2.1

4-21

BIA

Comment outside the waters of the U.S., or intercepting the seep water and pumping it back into the pond until the pond is removed. Other measures may also exist. The Final EIS should indicate the measures that will be taken to protect water quality and designated beneficial uses of waters of the U.S. from seeps associated with existing and future sedimentation ponds. Further explanation and documentation of what comprises “coal waste” should be provided. Describe the modeling study results; in what quantity will it be disposed of and in what manner, etc.

Remarks/How Resolved

288 289

4.4.1.2 4.4.1.3

4-23 4-24

2nd

Peabody SRP

290

4.4.1.3

4-24

BIA

291

4.4.1.3

4-24

3rd bulleted item

Peabody

292

4.4.1.4.1

4-26

BIA

Change “… through proper geothechnical “ to “through proper geotechnical” Project Water Supply, USGS Superposition Model — 3rd sentence from the end of this bullet, add that the model was not calibrated. The primary effects due to lowering the water level outlined in this section appear to be generally appropriate. However, reduction in saturated thickness criteria may not be as appropriate for confined aquifers as it is for unconfined aquifers. “S.S. Papadopulos …” – Change sentence “The model was calibrated to measure flow … “ to “The model was calibrated to measured flow …” Potential mitigation measures should be identified for existing water users whose wells are adversely impacted due to excessive drawdown from the C-aquifer well field. Who makes this determination?

Coal waste referred to on Draft EIS page 4-21 is comprised of noncoal sedimentary rocks such as sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, and shales that lie above, below, and in-between the coal seams. Small amounts of these materials may be mixed with the coal during loading in the pit prior to haulage to the preparation facilities or may exist as thin innerburdens that cannot be removed from the coal seam when it is mined (contamination). The final study report is presented in Attachment 3 to Chapter 18, Probable Hydrologic Consequences in Peabody’s LOM plan application. The study results are described on Draft EIS page 4-21. The amount of the coal-washing plant refuse planned for disposal in the pits is described on Draft EIS page 2-2. The manner of coal-washing plant refuse disposal is discussed on Draft EIS page 4-22. The misspelling has been corrected. Last sentence states that the model was not calibrated to stream flow. By definition, it is not appropriate, or used, for assessing impact on confined aquifers.

The text has been revised.

Under Alternative A, the proponent proposed to monitor Caquifer groundwater levels in and adjacent to the C-aquifer well field and, if local wells were affected, the proponent would supply water to the local well users to compensate for the impact.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 51

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 293

Section 4.4.1.4.1

Page 4-26

Paragraph of Page 3rd

Reviewer NNDWR

294

4.4.1.4.1

4-27 to 4­ 28

Map 4-1 and Map 4-2

NNDWR

295

4.4

4-28

Map 4-2

USGS

296

4.4.1.4.1

4-29 and 4­ 30

Last

USGS

Comment The sentence “This level of draw down would have a negligible impact on the aquifer.” should be included in the Executive Summary. This statement is a very important conclusion. In Maps 4-1 and 4-2, the labels on the orange icons are confusing. The C-aquifer saturated thickness is more than 700 feet and the draw down is about 58 feet. This draw down is less than 10 percent of the saturated thickness. The phrase “well with decline greater than 20% of saturated thickness” is misleading. This measure is only for the portion of the specific well that penetrates a portion of the saturated thickness. Drawdown vs Saturated Thickness, C Aquifer 11,600 of/yr – There are five additional wells that should have the symbol indicating a decline greater than 20 percent of the saturated thickness. These wells are the wells with saturated thicknesses of 60, 65, 38, 47, and 50, respectively. The first two of these wells are inside the 20 foot drawdown contour; the remaining three are between the 10 and 20 foot drawdown contours. Well Field – There should be some mention in the "Migration of poor quality ground water" part of the text about declining water quality with depth in the C aquifer. This is a concern for many large well operators along and just south of the Little Colorado River from Holbrook to Winslow. It has been documented in several cases in these areas that relatively good quality water occurs near the top of the C aquifer but that the water quality decreases with depth owing to the dissolution of gypsum and salts located in water-bearing portions of the aquifer in the Upper and Middle Supai Formations. When the USGS and Bureau of Reclamation conducted aquifer tests at the Leupp test sites from January to May, 2005, the aquifer test at site 3 (February/March 2005) was beginning to show signs of water-quality decline toward the end of the test. The generator failed at that point, which prevented determination of whether the decline in water quality was due to lateral migration of water from poor quality areas to the east, or upwelling of poor-quality water from below. Municipalities in the area (City of Winslow, for example) have experienced similar problems with their well fields.

Remarks/How Resolved The text has been revised.

The legend has been changed.

Map 4-2 and associated text (page 4-26) have been revised.

The potential for water quality decline is recognized in the text. Whether the source of the poorer quality water is through horizontal or vertical migration, the effect would be the same.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 52

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 297

Section 4.4.1.4

Page 4-29

Paragraph of Page 3rd

Reviewer SRP

298

4.4.1.4

4-29

SRP

299 300 4.4.1.4.1

4-29 4-29

Tables 4-6 and 4-7 Tables 4-6 and 4-7

BIA Peabody

301

4.4.1.4.1

4-29

Tables 4-6 and 4-7

USGS

Comment C Aquifer Water-Supply System — A concluding sentence is needed that states that there are no impacts from the project on Blue Springs. C Aquifer Water-Supply System, Diminution of Stream and Spring Flow — This heading, text, and table within this subsection should be deleted. They are nearly identical to the early portion of the section just preceding it, beginning on the prior page (4-26). The previous table, Table 4-6, has the correct data in it. It’s not clear in reading the text, what the difference between Tables 4-6 and 4-7 are. Confusing. According to the text, both refer to effects at the end of the planning period (2060) but the tables have different numbers. One of them is probably correct. Also, the paragraph with the heading “Diminution of Stream and Spring Flow” on this page is nearly identical to a paragraph with the same heading on page 4-26. Section, Well Field – Table 4-6 is titled "Projected base flow diminution in upper East Clear Creek, lower Clear Creek, and lower Chevelon," while Table 4-7 is titled "Projected streamflow diminution in upper East Clear Creek, lower Clear Creek, and lower Chevelon in 2060." Although the numbers differ in the two tables, it is not clear what is the difference is between these tables, as the paragraphs that precede each of these tables are virtually identical stating "Stream baseflow diminution in lower Clear Creek and lower Chevelon Creek was estimated using the USGS and SSPA groundwater models (Leake et al. 2005; SSPA 2005). At the end of the planning period (2060), the maximum diminution would occur at the confluence of the creeks with the Little Colorado River (Table 4-6)." The tables list depletion at three sites for two pumping scenarios: 6,000 af/yr and 11,600 af/yr. Sources of information are provided for Table 4-6, but not for Table 4-7. Leake et al. 2005 is used as a source for the site "upper East Clear Creek" and SSPA 2005 for sites "lower Clear Creek" and "Lower Chevelon Creek". There are several additional concerns about these tables:

Remarks/How Resolved The text has been revised

The text has been revised.

The duplicate text and table have been deleted. The duplicate text and table have been deleted.

The duplicate text and table have been deleted.

•

The additional 500 af/yr was to mitigate tribal impacts caused by project pumping. The text has been revised to The actual number used for scenario 1 was 6,500 acre­ ft/yr — not 6,000 acre-ft/yr. This value includes project explain that the 6,000 af/yr alternative would include

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 53

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment and Tribal water demands. This should be corrected here and elsewhere in the report.

Remarks/How Resolved 500 af/yr for this mitigation.

• •

The values in table 4-6 attributed to Leake et al. 2005 for upper East Clear Creek (less than 0.001 cfs) is not discussed or referenced in the report. The values of depletion reported in Table 4-6 for lower Clear and Chevelon Creeks are attributed to SSPA 2005. It would be informative to include values determined by Leake et al. 2005 and have a discussion on the similarities and differences between the results.

Use of USGS superposition model (Leake) for upper East Clear Creek is discussed in Appendix H. Use of Leake and SSPA models discussed in Appendix H.

302

4.4.1.4.1

4-30

1st

Peabody

303

4.4.1.5

4-30

BIA

304

4.4.1.5.1

4-31

Tables 4-8 thru 4-11

Peabody

305

4.4.1.5.1

4-32

2nd

Peabody

It is unclear as to the source of information for Table 4-7. Discusses the likelihood of causing poorer quality water to enter the project well field using particle tracking, but does not consider the effects on any wells located to the north of the well field. Suggest using the reduced pumping period (2005 to 2010) associated with the Black Mesa mine closure to collect “recovery” data in the Peabody wells. And to use this data to update/calibrate the GeoTrans model as appropriate. These tables use the heading “All but Project”. It would be more accurate to use “All but Peabody”, as pumping through 2005 included Peabody pumping but not project pumping. In these simulations, the project is assumed to begin in 2006, but many years of pumping had already occurred. The effects of the project were calculated by looking at the effects of the project, so that the columns under the Drawdown label in Tables 4-8 and 4-10 is correctly labeled “Project,” and the headings under “Change due to Pumping” in Tables 4-9 and 4-11 are correctly labeled “Project.” However, the columns to the left should use another word. While the discussion is correct that water levels will not be lowered below the top of the N aquifer in the vicinity of the wellfield, and that the saturated thickness will not be decreased in the vicinity of the wellfield, a very small reduction in saturated thickness is expected to occur in the unconfined area, and near the confined/unconfined boundary. The impact on the saturated thickness should be estimated to be none to negligible.

•

See above response. The area of capture does not extend north of the proposed well-field boundary (SSPA Figure 24). Wells north of the well field should not be impacted significantly. Comment noted.

“All but Project” has been changed to “All but Peabody.”

The text has been revised.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 54

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 306

Section 4.4.1.5.1

Page 4-34

Paragraph of Page 3rd

307 308

4.4.1.5.1 4.6.5

4-35 4-58 and 4­ 59

2nd

309 310 311 312

4.6.6 4.6.6 4.6.6 4.7.1.1

4-60 4-60 4-60 4-64

4th (7th line) Table 4-29 Table 4-29 6th

313

4.7.1.2.1

4-68

1st full

Comment A parenthetical explanation is provided that the modeling simulation was performed using a pumping rate of 2,500 af/yr, yielding a conservative estimate of the effects of pumping. This same explanation should probably be provided in earlier sections. Peabody Please see the comment provided above for page 4-32. NNEPA AQCP As for the concerns being raised about health effects (especially asthma attacks), what is described in the Draft EIS (pages 4-58 and 59) seems to indicate that everything but the emissions from mining seems to have an impact on triggering asthma. This is misleading and inaccurate. Emissions from mining activity should have some role in triggering asthma attacks in local residents. There seems to be no data presented from the local health service providers or school health offices to support the claims in the Draft EIS or to discredit the complaints from the community for episodes of asthma. Was there any effort made to procure such data and information? Better description, footnotes and/or references to validate the description of what triggers an asthma attack is recommended. Peabody The lower value (0.10) for dry deposition of Nitrogen in Bryce Canyon National Park should be 0.21. Peabody HNo3 in the title of should read HNO3. Peabody The superscript 1 in the headers of columns 4, 6, and 8 should be eliminated. SRP Black Mesa Complex – the statement: “Planting of willows and cottonwoods at some ponds could replace and improve the lost habitat. Short-term impacts would be minor and long-term impacts would be negligible.” The use of the word “could” is confusing – does the mitigation/restoration plans involve planting by the agencies/operators. If trees will not be planted we suggest removing the statement, if they are going to be planted we suggest replacing “could” with “will” or “would.” Also, seems in this instance that tamarisk would recolonize the disturbed site rapidly and planting would not be needed to offset tamarisk loss in short or long-term. SRP Coal-Slurry Pipeline – refers to the need for a Section 7 consultation and mitigation measures in the event the endangered Welsh’s milkweed is found on the slurry pipeline route. However, the species is included in the

Reviewer Peabody

Remarks/How Resolved This difference between modeled and proposed pumping rates applies only to this scenario.

The text has been revised. As explained in the Draft EIS, Section 4.6.5, each asthmaprone person has his or her own unique set of triggers. Considering the various potential triggers, it is difficult to establish, scientifically, a direct link between air pollutant concentrations and elevated incidence of asthma in local populations. It appears that no studies by local or regional human health officials are available to determine the effects of dust from mining and reclamation activities on triggering asthma. Peabody practices measures to mitigate fugitive dust (Section 4.19.2.2.1) to maintain levels below the NAAQS standards.

The text has been revised. The text has been revised. The text has been revised. Cottonwood and willow planting is occurring and will continue at impoundment ponds. Text in EIS has been revised to read, “would” rather than “could.”

Text has been revised.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 55

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

314

4.7.1.2.1

4-68

2nd

Comment biological assessment, and a finding will be made on the species in the biological opinion. We suggest that the EIS clarify that pre-construction surveys will be performed, and in the event the species is found, conservation and mitigation measures will be instituted; thus the impacts would be negligible or minor (so that the EIS is consistent with the proposed action and conclusions of the biological assessment). Kaibab National Delete the sentence that states “In addition, new plants are Forest likely to become re-established in the disturbed area.”

Reviewer

Remarks/How Resolved

315

4.7.1.3.2

4-73

1st (2nd to last line)

SRP

316

4-73

FWS AESO

317

4.7.2.1

4-73

5th

NNDWR

Aquifer Water Supply System – suggest revising to read: “……, this habitat is important for migrating birds and could be is used by the endangered migrating southwestern willow flycatcher (refer to Section 4.8, Fish and Wildlife). We recommend you evaluate the potential effects of N aquifer groundwater pumping on the new occurrence of Navajo sedge and any other areas of potential habitat for Navajo sedge. The evaluation should be based on the maximum possible pumping under a given scenario. Please coordinate your evaluation with the Director of the Hopi Tribe's Range Department. The EIS notes that using 1,236 acre-feet per year results in a 1.34 percent decline in Begashibito Wash. However, using 6,000 acre-feet per year only results in a 1.66 percent decline. This result is theoretically possible, but it is counterintuitive. The EIS should checked for these results and provide an explanation for this unusual finding. Fish and Wildlife – Where possible, impacts of various components of the action and alternatives on fish and wildlife should be objectively quantified. To the extent that this is not possible, a thorough explanation should be given of the reasons why not. While this comment is universally applicable to the entire section, see additional detailed discussion of this comment in the context of the C Aquifer Project Water Supply section below.

A discussion with the biologist, who surveyed the alignment, indicated that Tusayan rabbitbrush is re­ establishing within the right-of-way; therefore, it is reasonable to state that it would likely re-establish in the disturbed area created by the installation of the pipeline. The text has been revised.

Text regarding the potential effects on Navajo sedge has been added.

Percentages are correct, the reason they do not seem intuitive is that the 6,000 and 1,236 af/yr usage refers to future usage, while the declines are from 1955 and include all the pumpage that has already occurred.

318

4.8

4-74

SRP

Effects were quantified where information is available.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 56

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 319 320

Section 4.8.1.1 4.8.1.1

Page 4-75 4-76

Paragraph of Page 5th 3rd (6th line)

Reviewer Peabody SRP

321

4.8.1.1

4-76

5th (2nd line)

SRP

322

4-77

1st bullet

323

4.8.1.1

4-77 to 4-87

SRP

Comment Native vegetation has been severely overgrazed with a consequent degradation in the quality of native habitat. Black Mesa Complex – states that “….reduced through the reductions in the number of trees, but could be mitigated by installation of raptor hunting and resting perches throughout…..” In the following paragraph, where the effects determination was made there is no mention of installation of perches. Because installation of perches is part of the action/project, “could” should be replaced with “will.” In the effects determination the benefits of the perches should be described and incorporated. Black Mesa Complex – should be revised to read: “This type of habitat is used by numerous migrating bird species in spring and fall (Yong and Finch 2002, Carpenter 1998).” [Might also be worth noting that these studies were conducted on large river systems in New Mexico (Yong and Finch, and other rivers in the southwest (Carpenter, TNC) not specifically the habitat in the study area]. The nearest "nesting activity area" (i.e., PAC) and mixed conifer woodland occur 0.5 mile from the N-10 limit of disturbance. Please see the comment above about the distinction between mixed conifer and P..1 woodland. Black Mesa Complex, General comment – suggest reviewing and revising this section when the BA is finalized so that both documents are consistent. We noted below areas of particular importance:

Remarks/How Resolved Text has been added. The text has been revised.

The text has been revised.

The nearest PAC is 0.7 mile from the N10 limit of disturbance.

• • • •

Page 4-77 Mexican spotted owl bullet – needs to be revised for consistency with the BA. Page 4-77 Bald eagle bullet – needs a clear effects determination (minor, negligible) at end of the statement. Page 4-77 Migrating willow flycatcher – also needs a clear effects determination statement at the end of the statement. Page 4-77, last bullet, reference to northern goshawk— the text notes that northern goshawks are unlikely to be present in the Black Mesa Complex because habitat is unsuitable. However, up above in the section on raptors, the text states that in the 1990 EIS Peabody concluded that mining activities would affect one

Text on Mexican spotted owl has been added.

Text on bald eagle has been added.

Text on willow flycatcher has been added.

Text on goshawk has been added to read, “Northern goshawks are unlikely to be affected due to the lack of suitable habitat within the permit area and as historical monitoring shows that they are rarely present in the permit area.”

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 57

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment northern goshawk (indirectly affected by noise and disturbance). These two statements need to be reconciled with each other. Is the thought that, since 1990, habitat has become unsuitable and remains so?

Remarks/How Resolved

•

Page 4-78, Raptor Bullet – suggest revising 4th line to Text on raptors has been added. read “…..prior to mining any area and if nests are found they will consult with the FWS, OSM, BIA, and Navajo Nation to avoid or minimize impacts. With this mitigation…..” Text on southwestern willow flycatcher habitat modeling and ground truthing. Text has been revised according to personal communication with J. Pebworth May 8, 2007. This citation has been added to the list of references. This comment appears to refer to the water component of the coal-slurry mix, and the possible event of a pipeline rupture and release of the water to the environment. The coal slurry consisted of fresh water and finely ground coal, an inert, nontoxic substance. There are no chemical additives, petroleum, or petrochemicals contained in the slurry. The water used in the slurry preparation historically has come from groundwater wells at the Black Mesa mining operation (N aquifer water). Under Alterntive A, water from the C aquifer would be used to prepare the coal slurry. There is no need to sample and test the water as it is unaltered ground water. Monitoring for a pipeline failure is a continuous 24 hour a day activity completed via a SCADA system and is further described in Appendix A-2 of the Draft EIS, on pages A-2­ 14 and A-2-15. Text has been added.

324

4.8.1.2.1

4-79

5th (4th line)

SRP

Page 4-84, southwestern willow flycatcher effects and determination; update with new survey result information from AGFD, and helicopter over flight assessment of habitat quality. Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route – Pebworth (2006) is not listed in the literature cited section. Regarding slurry line booster-pump stations, could fluids in either above-ground earthen water-storage reservoirs or slurry settling and retention ponds contain contaminants hazardous to waterfowl or other wildlife?

•

325

4-794-80

FWS AESO

326

4.8.1.2.2

4-82

2nd

SRP

327

4.24

Bureau of Reclamation

Coal-Slurry Pipeline: Existing Route with Realignments – should read: “…of impact on tamarisk (potential southwestern willow flycatcher migration/stopover habitat) in Moenkopi Wash … ” In our review of the Black Mesa Project EIS, a potential environmental effect was discovered that seems not to be recognized. Although changes in the hydrology of tributary streams to the Little Colorado River from the alternatives are expected to be minor, it is possible that those changes

Based on results of groundwater models developed for the C aquifer, the effects of pumping from the well field have shown no impacts on Blue Springs or flows into the Little Colorado River. Therefore, the proposed project-related C-aquifer pumping is not likely to affect flows in the lower

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 58

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

328

4.8.1.3.1.1

4-82

SRP

329

4.8.4.3.1.1

4-82

FWS AESO

330

4.8.1.3.1.1

4-83

SRP

Comment could affect the dispersal behavior of nonnative fish in the tributaries and exacerbate their movement to the Little Colorado and downstream into Grand Canyon during high flows. The FWS has conducted surveys of the Little Colorado and determined that non-native fish are entering the Colorado River from that tributary, so the effect that could occur would be to exacerbate an already recognized problem. We bring up the potential for the effect because additional movement of non-native fish down the Little Colorado and into the Grand Canyon could impact the endangered humpback chub or razorback sucker. The Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program, which is managed by the Upper Colorado Region, is working to remove jeopardy from the humpback chub and razorback sucker, thus our concern. Thanks for your consideration. Water Withdrawal – There is only one sentence referencing the impacts of project only pumping on fish and wildlife. There needs to be a full discussion of the impacts of this subalternative on these resources. We recommend using both the SSPA and USGS models in the analysis of impacts as is done in Section 4.4 Water Resources, or explain why the USGS model is not used to discuss impacts in this section. Water Withdrawal – Overall, we recommend that the Final EIS is reviewed for consistency with the final biological assessment. The 1st paragraph of this section should add a discussion of the lack of spinedace detection records for the reach between Woodruff downstream to Holbrook. Also, the final line of the paragraph: “Roundtail chub has been petitioned for listing as threatened or endangered species” should be deleted – species listing was found “Not Warranted” by the FWS. Water Withdrawal – (description of SSPA model results) the amounts and percentages of flow reduction caused by project pumping are not correct. Base flow reduction is 0.06 cfs (about 1.5 percent) in lower Clear Creek and 0.04 cfs (about 1.3 percent) in lower Chevelon Creek. Water Withdrawal – The C-aquifer discharge to the Little Colorado River and effects of withdrawal of this discharge

Remarks/How Resolved reaches of the Little Colorado; thus, it is unlikely that there would be effects from the project on non-native fish moving down into the Colorado River. Text about this potential effect has been added to the cumulative impacts section as total pumping may force non­ native fish into the Colorado River.

Text has been added to this section to address the potential impacts on species.

Text has been added to explain.

The text has been revised to be consistent with the biological assessment.

1st

Text has been revised to clarify the lack of spinedace detection and to address the roundtail chub.

331

4.8.1.3.1.1

4-83

3rd

SRP

Text has been revised.

332

4.8.1.3.1.1

4-83

2nd full

USGS

Text has been added to read, “While base flow depletion of the Little Colorado River in the Chevelon to Clear Creek

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 59

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

333

4-83

FWS AESO

Comment appear to not be completely addressed in this section. The second full paragraph on the page only says that base-flow depletions have not been simulated. This was an unknown prior to the USGS work to evaluate base flows of lower Clear Creek and lower Chevelon Creek. It is important because base flow in the Little Colorado River connects these two drainages and provides a critical pathway for endangered and other species to expand into other suitable environments. Base flow depletions were only simulated for Clear Creek and Chevelon Creek because it was not understood or believed that the Little Colorado River had a base flow component in this reach. Perhaps the authors of the Draft EIS could state that while base-flow depletion of the Little Colorado River in the Chevelon to Clear Creek segment was not considered in the numerical models, it is now understood that there are data to indicate that there is a base-flow component in this reach of the Little Colorado river that could be impacted by withdrawals and that future studies or evaluations will account for this phenomenon. Ground-water discharge from the C aquifer to the Little Colorado River from Woodruff is already heavily impacted by other that project pumping to support industrial, municipal, and irrigation uses. The perennial reach of the Little Colorado River from the mouth of the Puerco River to Joseph City has been intermittent to ephemeral for years. A number of C aquifer flowing wells in the Holbrook to Joseph City area no longer flow at land surface. Two wetlands, Obed Meadows and The McDonald Spring area have been completely dried up. In light of these continuing impacts from other than project pumping, it seems unlikely that the project pumping would have a detectable impact in these areas. However, there are still springs and perennial areas on or adjacent to the Little Colorado River closer to the project pumping area that will be impacted. These are the reach of the Little Colorado River from the Mouth of Chevelon Creek to the Mouth of Clear Creek and Hugo Meadows. The reasons the Little Colorado spinedace is considered present in lower Clear Creek should be explained in more detail. Please contact AESO if you need additional information.

Remarks/How Resolved segment was not considered in the numerical models, it is now understood that there are data to indicate that there is a baseflow component in this reach of the river that could be impacted by withdrawals and future studies or evaluations will take this into account. Groundwater discharge from the C aquifer to the Little Colorado River from Woodruff is already heavily impacted by non-project-related pumping to support industrial, municipal, and irrigation uses. The perennial reach of the Little Colorado River from the mouth of the Puerco River to Joseph City has been intermittent to ephemeral for years. A number of C-aquifer flowing wells in the Holbrook to Joseph City area no longer flow at land surface. Two wetlands, Obed Meadows and McDonald Springs have completely dried up. In light of these continuing impacts from non project-related pumping, it seems unlikely that the project pumping would have a detectable impact in these areas. However, there are still springs and perennial areas on or adjacent to the Little Colorado River that may be impacted, these include the reach from the confluence with Chevelon Creek to the confluence with Clear Creek, as well as Hugo Meadows.”

Text on the Lower Colorado spinedace related to the lower Clear Creek has been added.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 60

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 334

Section

Page 4-83

Paragraph of Page 2nd

Reviewer FWS AESO

335 336 4.8.1.3.1.1

4-83 4-83­ 4-84

FWS AESO SRP

337

4.8.1.3.1.2.1

4-84

2nd (2nd line)

SRP

338

4.8.1.3.2.1.1

4-85

SRP

Comment We recommend that the information from the second paragraph on this page, about the seasonal variation in stream flow, be reiterated and expanded upon in this paragraph, which presents the evaluation of effects on the spinedace. Effects of even seemingly minor or minimal base flow depletions may be critical when stream flow is at its lowest. During periods of base flow only "the deepest pools" may be all that is available for spinedace to use. Water Withdrawal – (discussion of impacts on fish species ) the text contains a discussion of the impacts of groundwater pumping on stream flows in Clear and Chevelon Creeks, resulting in effects on endangered and special status fish species. This discussion appears to conclude that there are adverse effects, that there are conservation measures developed to offset them, but that "effects are still likely to be major due to changes in stream habitat." (This sentence is in the paragraph discussing effects on the roundtail and other special status species. The paragraph above, discussing effects on spinedace, characterizes those effects as “major.”) SRP disagrees with this characterization of the impacts of the project on these species, which we believe are more accurately characterized as negligible to minor. Well Field – states that: “Impacts can be minimized or avoided by siting facilities away from nests and by seasonal restrictions on major activities near the nests when the nests are in use. Presence of burrowing owl should be determined through preconstruction surveys, and activities should be avoided during the nesting season where present.” These BMPs and conservation measures will be implemented thus, replace “can” or “should” with “will”. C Aquifer Water Supply Pipeline – the bullet section identifying and describing species impacts also should contain an evaluation and determination for southwestern willow flycatcher. N Aquifer Water-Supply System – should read: “…vegetation, this habitat is important for migrating birds and is could be used by migrating endangered southwestern willow flycatcher.

Remarks/How Resolved Text has been added about effects on spinedace.

This text has been added. Text states that during times of normal to above normal precipitation that there would be negligible to minor effects. The major effects are anticipated during years of below average precipitation. The text was modified to indicate that the major effects are likely to only occur to spinedace during years of below average precipitation. Effects on the other fish species are now characterized as minor to negligible.

The conditional tense has been used throughout Chapter 4. “Can” and “should” have been revised to “would.”

339

4.8.1.3.2

4-87

2nd (5th line)

SRP

Text has been added to read, “There would be minor impacts on potential southwestern willow flycatcher migration/stopover habitats where tamarisk is found at the crossing of the Little Colorado River, Begashibito Wash, and possibly in other drainages.” The text has been revised.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 61

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 340

Section 4.8.2.1

Page 4-87

Paragraph of Page 2nd

Reviewer NNDWR

341 342

4.9.1.3.2.2 4.10.1.1

4-91 4-93

2nd full 2nd full

SRP SRP

343

4.10.1.3.1

4-100

2nd full

SRP

344 345

4.11 4.11

4-105 4-105 4-112

7th

BIA SRP

Comment The EIS notes that using 1,236 acre-feet per year results in a 1.39 percent decline in Begashibito Wash. This paragraph appears to have different values for mine reclamation and domestic use than the values suggested on page 4-73. The EIS should be checked for these results and provide an explanation for this unusual finding. C Aquifer Water-Supply Pipeline: western route – last line should read “of negligible beneficial effect.” Black Mesa Complex – the last sentence notes that because of extensive prior mitigation and relatively few sites that would be affected, the impact of mining operations on archeological and historical resources is rated as minor. It is not clear what the relationship is between prior mitigation and the analysis of future impacts of mining activities on these resources. The measures to address new discoveries appear to be ongoing. Suggest that the sentence be clarified to state that effects are rated as minor because there are few sites and because mitigation measures will continue to be implemented as new discoveries, if any, are made. Well Field – notes that hydrological modeling of the impacts of proposed pumping, even at the highest rate being considered, indicated that the reduction in base flow would be negligible; therefore no adverse effects on Hopi cultural environment are anticipated. The section then refers to Section 4.3; we believe this reference should be changed to Section 4.4. Note also the need to reconcile the language in Section 4.4 to be consistent with the “negligible” conclusion reached here. Water royalties are shown in Table 3-34, not 3-31. Social and Economic Conditions – General. This section should have consistency in the level of detail of the evaluation and in the presentation of the financial impacts. Beneficial impacts are presented in total dollar amounts when addressing some components of the project and in dollars per hour per worker, ranges of annual salaries per worker, or by use of just the multiplier to the community when addressing other components. It is recommended that the total project contributions be presented or estimated when the proponent’s projections are not available. The economics of the project to the Navajo Nation, Hopi, and various revenue collecting agencies are among the main

Remarks/How Resolved The text has been revised.

The text has been revised. The text has been revised.

The reference has been revised to Section 4.4.1.4 and replaced “not be measurable” with “negligible.”

The table number has been corrected. The data chosen for presentation is intended to communicate different impacts to various stakeholder groups. For example, tribal and other governmental authorities may be more affected by project-related revenues and/or royalties, individual workers may be more affected by household income and wage effects, and economic development authorities may be interested in multiplier-effects of projectrelated expenditures. There is no intent to prepare a unified and comprehensive financial analysis of the project.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 62

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment beneficial impacts and need to be more clearly evaluated throughout the section. This section should address that additional royalties and revenues would also result from the additional tons being mined at Black Mesa mine and not just the extra water use by the coal slurry pipeline. Black Mesa Complex – In general, that math needs to be completed and the factors used explained more thoroughly. "For every dollar paid for coal.... and for every dollar of income earned..." provide the total amount resulting from $.40 and why this constant was employed in the calculations. There is a typographical error in sentence 9 – "the2005". For the paragraph on direct economic revenue effects, the EIS should list the other revenue resources to further clarify, ”other than water royalties” and, further, state what the 10.5 percent means in a dollar amount; An estimated range of the water royalties should be provided if exact information is not yet available.

Remarks/How Resolved

Agree with comment. The text has been revised.

346

4.11.1.1

4-107

SRP

The purpose of these examples is to illustrate that additional local economic activity results from project-related spending (coal purchases and direct wages paid to coal workers). The amount of project-related spending is given in the following paragraph entitled: “Direct economic revenue effects:” The additional local economic activity is normally stated as a multiplier, recognizing that the effects are manifest in many different areas that cannot be easily or reliably separated. The other revenues reported in the paragraph are coal revenues paid to the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation. Based on the other information in the paragraph, the additional 10.5 percent in dollars would mean an additional $1.5 million in coal revenues to the Hopi Tribe and an additional $3.6 million to the Navajo Nation. Regarding water royalties, Section 3.11, Table 3-34, indicates that payments to the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation have recently been $2.3 million each for the N aquifer. If the water use from the N aquifer were to increase by 36 percent as estimated (6,000 af/yr divided by 4,400 af/yr), and water royalty rates remained the same, payments to the parties are estimated at $3.1 million. A royalty rate was never announced for use of the C aquifer. The text has been revised. The text has been revised.

347

4.11.1.1

4-107

1st

SRP

348

4.11.1.1

4-108

SRP

Black Mesa Complex – the word “operation” is misspelled in the first line and the word “in” needs to be inserted after the word “result” in the third line. Black Mesa Complex – How much are the fees associated with the Title V permit? If an estimate or range cannot be provided at this time, offer an explanation. An estimate or a range for property tax amounts should be

Title V fees for the Black Mesa Complex averaged $82,000 annually over the past seven years.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 63

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment provided in the second paragraph to give a complete picture of the revenues to the State. If an estimate cannot be derived and provided, then an explanation should be given concerning the reason it is not provided. Economic impacts on grazing are short term but it needs to be stated if they are major or minor. The economic impact should be quantified. The fifth paragraph should explain the relocation process in more detail and how the payments are calculated if the relocated family opts to take a cash payment or move off of tribal lands. In the sixth paragraph, the range of increase in forage could be more clearly explained with a correlation to the increase in sheep or cattle.

Remarks/How Resolved

3rd

Agree with comment. The economic impacts on grazing are short term and minor. The text has been revised.

5th

Families opting for cash payment are reimbursed on a tribalapproved appraisal and assessment.

6th

349

4.11

4-108

SRP

350

4.11.1.2

4-109

SRP

Coal Washing Facility, Coal Slurry Pipeline and Haul Road – These facilities are considered a project action and only wages or only numbers of workers or employees are provided as part of the economic analysis. The economic impact needs to be evaluated and quantified including multipliers, taxes, and other revenues as provided in previous sections. The nature of the impacts, whether they are short-term, long-term, major or minor, need to be addressed. Coal-Slurry Pipeline – Total amounts paid to employees, indirect economic benefits and approximated taxes and revenues to other parties should be provided, since the pipeline is one of the four major actions. The nature of the impacts (long-term, major, or minor) should be addressed. There are punctuation typographical errors in first sentence and last sentence.

The range of increases in forage equate directly to the range in increases in the number of cows or sheep that can be grazed. That is, if usable forage on reclaimed areas is 4 to 6.5 times greater on reclaimed areas in the spring, then 4 to 6.5 times more sheep or cows can graze the reclaimed areas in the spring. Agree in part with the comment. There are several project elements discussed in this and the following paragraphs. Construction of the coal-washing facility and the coal-haul road would be primarily result in temporary employment with significant impacts, but an insignificant amount of permanent employment.

Agree in part with the comment. With the coal-slurry pipeline, there would be the impacts of its reconstruction, followed by the impacts of resumption of its operations. The text has been revised.

The text has been revised.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 64

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 351

Section 4.11.1.3.1.1

Page 4-109

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer SRP

Comment Water Withdrawal – This section needs to more thoroughly explain that the subalternative of 11,600 af/yr is the agency preferred alternative and that the distribution of water is not being funded by the proponents. Navajo Nation should be capitalized. Water Withdrawals – Both the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe look to the C aquifer first and foremost as a potential source of domestic water supply to improve the quality of life on more remote parts of the reservations (i.e., decreased dependency on hauling water) in addition to industrial and other economic development uses. In addition, the text in the Draft EIS would seem to conflict with those made earlier (page 4-100) that the Hopi consider all water sources to have traditional cultural significance not compatible with industrial and development uses.

Remarks/How Resolved The text has been revised.

352

4.11.1.3.1.14

4-109

Last

USGS

The text has been revised. The traditional cultural significance of surface water is not necessarily incompatible with industrialized development uses of pumped groundwater. Regarding the second point, page 4-100 of the Draft EIS indicates that, “. . . Clear Creek and Chevelon Creek were identified as two specific traditional Hopi cultural resources” and that “. . . no adverse effects are anticipated.” The text goes on to say that, “One traditional Hopi cultural resource and an aspect of traditional Navajo lifeways could be affected. Because of the potential to mitigate the effects, the impacts are rated as minor.” This text actually indicates that the particular potentially affected Hopi water sources with a traditional cultural significance are compatible with industrial and development uses. Impacts of the industrial use are projected to be “minor” and mitigation is possible. Comment noted.

353

4.11.1.3.1

4-110

4th, 5th, and 6th

NNDWR

The EIS notes that the beneficial effect depends on the development of the spur pipeline. However, the inter-ties to the Tolani Lake and Leupp NTUA systems to the trunk line are simple and inexpensive. The benefits of these inter-ties do not depend on the spur pipelines. The spur lines are needed to achieve much, but by no means all, of the benefit.

Remove “household” from the discussion and keep with the The word “households” remains in the text. use of 160 gallons/person/day within these paragraphs. The word “nation” after Navajo should be capitalized. Infrastructure – “Substantial revenue” should be estimated or a range provided for the economic analysis. Ranges and estimates of other economic variables could be provided with an estimate of the total economic impact. The section addresses the water and distribution systems for residents, but it could more clearly state that this action is not part of the project. The text has been revised. Refer to EIS Appendices A-3 and A-3 for further information on the total number of construction laborers and Section 4.11.1.1 for wage information. Refer to EIS Section 4.11.1.1 for more information on revenue, total economic impacts, and multiplier effects. The text has been revised to state that the action is not part of the Black Mesa Project.

354

4.11.1.3.1.2

4-111

SRP

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 65

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 355 356 357

Section 4.11.1.3.1 4.11.2.1 4.11.2.1

Page 4-111 4-112 4-114

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer SRP SRP SRP

Comment N Aquifer Water-Supply System – The EIS needs to clearly state that it is not the preferred alternative for water use. Black Mesa Complex — If tribes receive revenues, a bullet should be added to include them. Black Mesa Complex — The word 'majority' to a percentage to further quantify the section concerning employees and students in the Kayenta district. If air quality is "generally” in compliance, the EIS should address the circumstances under which air quality is not in compliance, if any, and provide an explanation of what the term “generally” means.

Remarks/How Resolved The text has been revised to read “Though not preferred or proposed, if the N aquifer….” Text has been added. The Environmental Justice section has been revised.

The occurrence of noncompliance is addressed in the EIS at Section 3.6.4.1 (Draft EIS page 3-52) as well as in the Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Black Mesa Project (McVehil-Monnett Associates 2006). High wind events, smoke from regional fires, and air inversions are the primary causes of the noncompliance episodes. The text has been revised.

Typographical error: add 'for' in "stands for local residents..." Is it many Native Americans or mostly Native Americans employed for the coal haul road and coal wash plant?

The text has been revised.

358

4.12.1.3

4-114

7th

SRP

The text has been revised. Typographical error: "which" should be removed or replaced by “and”. Project Water Supply – For water withdrawal, if the 11,600 The text has been revised. af/yr is agency’s preferred alternative it should be explained clearly. Also, it is our understanding that the 6,000 af/yr "would" become available for tribal use and is more clearly reflected than using the word "could." The water also is available for Hopi use, not just Navajo tribal use. The third paragraph needs to clearly state that the proponents are not providing electrical distribution to residents. Text has been added to clarify.

3rd

359

4.12.2.1

4-115

SRP

On page 4-115 concerning the N aquifer, the EIS needs to clearly state that use of N aquifer water is not a preferred alternative. Black Mesa Complex – Grammar and typographical errors: The text has been revised. change to "production also would not be realized." Take out one comma after "And."

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 66

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 360

Section 4.12.3.1

Page 4-115 – 4-116

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer SRP

Comment Black Mesa Complex – An explanation for the reason reclamation would occur sooner should be provided. On page 4-116, the phrase “substantial resources” needs to be further defined in terms of economics and social programs.

Remarks/How Resolved The text has been revised to explain.

1st

361

4.13.1

4-117

SRP

Alternative A…Project – There should be an estimate or range of how much right-of-way will be used on each reservation.

Partially agree with comment. While it is the case that revenues to both tribes would cease earlier under this alternative, it is speculative that this would eliminate certain types of programs. The text has been revised. Partially agree with comment. While it is the case that revenues to both tribes would cease earlier under this alternative, it is speculative that this would eliminate certain types of programs. The text has been revised. The text has been revised to read “…under the 11,600 af/yr subalternatives, the agencies’ preferred alternative, the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation have an option to pay the incremental costs….” The text has been revised.

On page 4-117, again, explain clearly that 11,600 af/yr is the agency’s preferred subalternative and that the proponents are not paying for distribution and electricity and water to residents. Typographical errors on page 4-118: Punctuation in the fourth sentence, add comma after Black Mesa Complex; fifth paragraph, add semicolon after "(by 2006)". Black Mesa Complex – In the first paragraph, last sentence, the increase needs to be quantified in levels of noise and explained in terms that are common to the public. In the third paragraph, state the number of times per day or week blasting will occur and how many people will hear it and the level of noise explained in common terms in addition to decibels. Infrastructure — If there is a "negligible impact" from the increase in noise, why is it a long-term impact? Is it really a minor impact, or no impact?

362

4.14.1.1

4-120

1st

SRP

The blasting warning signals are quantified and explained in terms that are common to the public in the proceeding sentence (sentence 3) of paragraph 1 for warning signals, blasting, and truck activity. The text has been revised. The “negligible impact” is the noise generated by the submerged well pumps (C-aquifer well field) that would be barely audible to nearby residents. The barely audible noise would exist throughout the life of the water-supply system; therefore, long term. The text has been revised. The text has been revised (a more detailed description of the pipeline construction is provided in Appendices A-2 and A-3).

363

4.14.1.3.1.1.

4-121

SRP

364

4.15

4-124

2nd

SRP

On page 4-121, for the C Aquifer Water Supply Pipeline, explain "corona noise". Visual Resources, second paragraph — Is the impact short term? Is the pipeline buried. If so, please state. In the third paragraph, we have the same comment; please state if the impacts are short term and if the line is buried in that location.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 67

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

365

4.18, 4.19

4-132 – 4-155

SRP

Comment 4-124, typo--add a comma in the seventh sentence to read: "and roads, and there are.." Conservation Measures and Mitigation Measures — we suggest more explanation to clarify the distinction between “conservation measures,” described in this section (4.18), and mitigation measures, described in the next section (4.19). The glossary at the back of the EIS defines the term “mitigation” broadly in a manner that could be construed to include the conservation measures as well. Since conservation measures and mitigation are discussed in two different sections, it would be helpful for the text to discuss this distinction or better define these two terms. Additionally, as the conservation measures and mitigation are relied upon in the discussion of environmental consequences of the action and alternatives, the description of conservation measures and mitigation should be fully integrated with the description of the proposed action and alternatives set forth in Chapter 2.

Remarks/How Resolved The location of the statement is unclear. The term “conservation measures” is adequately explained. Text has been added to provide more explanation of the term “mitigation.”

The text about mitigation and conservation measures remains in Chapter 4, as it is clearer and more understandable in the context of Chapter 4.

366

4.18

4-135 – 4-138

367 368

4.19 4.19.1

4-138 4-139

Mitigation Measures 7th

This section should be revised so that it describes how impacts were quantified: Specifically, stream habitat (i.e., the number of perennial stream miles impacted in lower Chevelon Creek and lower Clear Creek) should be used as a surrogate for direct impacts on species, and similarly the number of stream miles benefited, which are intended to offset the impacts, should be stated. Also, this section in the final EIS should be reviewed for consistency with the Biological Assessment. SRP Annual Endowment for the Conservation of Native Fish Species – references to endowment concepts and endowment funds should be changed to the term ‘conservation fund’ to describe the nature of the funding mechanism and to be consistent throughout the Draft EIS and associated documents. Kaibab National You need to focus on native seed and make sure to require Forest the use of “certified weed-free seed” for revegetation. Kaibab National General Comments: Rocks and excess dirt will be managed Forest in one or more of the following ways: • smaller rocks will be placed in the trench above the bedding material

Text has been revised to include quantification of cumulative impacts.

Text has been added as suggested.

Text has been added to explain the requirement to use certified weed-free seed for revegetation. This information has been incorporated into the text of the EIS.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 68

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

369

Comment Remarks/How Resolved used for side-hill cut restoration used for water-diversion berm construction on slopes used for construction of vehicular control barriers dispersed into 50-foot-wide temporary work space corridor after construction • hauling of rock to off-site disposal areas approved by the Forest Service, or to other approved locations • rocks dispersed on the surface would be distributed in a way that seeks a natural appearance (e.g., no straight lines or windrows). If Alternative A were selected, surveys for Tusayan Kaibab National Who is doing surveys for Tusayan Rabbitbrush, and what rabbitbrush would be conducted by a Forest Servicewill be mitigation if plants are impacted? Forest approved botanist. Mitigation could include seed collection and reseeding of disturbed areas. However, little mitigation is likely to be required as this species is adapted to moderate levels of disturbance and would likely recolonize the rightof-way after construction is complete, as it has done along the existing right-of-way. • • • • Weed BMP’s and treatments should be consistent with the Forest Noxious Weed EIS. There should be a reference to that effect. The reference is: USDA – Forest Service. 2005. Coconino, Kaibab and Prescott National Forests Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious and Invasive Weeds. Mitigation – needs to mention burials on Hopi lands. It just addresses remains on Navajo Lands. Best management practices and treatments would be consistent with the Forest Noxious Weed EIS. Text and reference have been added.

Reviewer

370

4.19

4-140

3rd

SRP

371

4.19

4-147

SRP

The paragraph addresses all burials, and recognizes various applicable regulations, including Navajo Nation policy. The Hopi Tribe has no comparable policy. Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Water-Supply Line – Agencies do Under Alternative A, other agencies, permits, and laws that regulate aspects of the construction of wells and pipelines. If would apply to regulating the construction of the coal-slurry there is not one agency that regulates the complete project, pipeline and the water pipeline are listed in Table 2-6 of the Draft EIS on pages 2-29 through 2-38. For construction of the EIS should state how aspects of the project are the coal-slurry pipeline BMPI would hire professional regulated. Hopi and Navajos are consulted according to Environmental Inspectors to monitor construction activities which tribal laws or policies? Please state them. Environmental inspectors from which agencies oversee field for compliance with the various permits that BMPI would obtain prior to building the pipeline. In addition, some activities? These should be listed. regulatory agencies require that separate environmental monitors be retained to inspect the construction activities on behalf of a particular regulatory agency. BMPI has not yet contacted other regulatory agencies to begin the permit acquisition process and therefore does not know which

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 69

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

372

4.19.3

4-147

BIA

373

4.19.3

4-149

SRP

Remarks/How Resolved agencies may require environmental monitors, in addition to environmental inspectors. Representatives of the NNDWR participated in the C The respective tribes need to be consulted in the design of the water-supply system and not just the surface disturbance aquifer Technical Advisory Group and other planning meetings for the C aquifer water-supply system. activities. Both tribes have water codes that govern how wells are to be designed, constructed and maintained, etc. Who are the “Environmental inspectors”? Text has been added to read, “Alternatively, nest surveys Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Water Supply System, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher subsection – the text notes can be conducted ahead of construction activities to identify active nests and if no nests are present, clearing may occur that clearing of tamarisk would be completed between during the breeding season. If future surveys indicate that November and March, outside of the flycatcher breeding season, with respect to areas encompassed by the coal slurry this habitat is occupied by breeding southwestern willow flycatcher then a re-initiation of consultation with FWS line and water supply system. While the document has would be required under Section 7 of the ESA.” already concluded that no flycatchers currently nest in the area, in the event these trees became occupied and were used for nesting at some point in the future, clearing trees in the nonbreeding season arguably would not avoid a “take” under Section 9 of the ESA, but rather, could constitute habitat modification and require Section 7 reinitiation. Therefore, we suggest that the purpose of this measure be restated to avoid impacts to migrating birds. Also, if construction must take place during the breeding season nest searches (as proposed to meet Migratory Bird Treaty Act), or flycatcher specific surveys would be used to confirm presence or absence to avoid impacts and determine if reinitiation is necessary. Clarify that construction may take place at any time as long as surveys confirm the absence of nesting birds. Text on mitigation has been added. Waters of the U.S.: Under the proposed project, the coalslurry and water pipelines would cross numerous washes and streams, and may parallel streams for significant distances. The proposed project includes many effective and appropriate mitigation measures to minimize impacts on waters of the U.S. and riparian areas during pipeline construction, such as narrowing the construction right-of­ way in dense riparian vegetation. Construction staging also should be carefully managed to prevent impacts on waters of the U.S. and riparian vegetation.

Comment

374

4.19

4-149

USEPA

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 70

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

375

4.19.3.5

4-154

USGS

Comment Recommendation: We recommend that the Final EIS include a requirement that staging areas be set back with a sufficient buffer from waters of the U.S. and riparian vegetation to avoid all staging impacts on these resources. Cleanup and Restoration – The Draft EIS recognizes that "revegetation (of disturbed areas)... would enhance and hasten natural revegetation." It indicates that this restoration could be achieved by "creating a suitable soil seedbed,” and then identifies the chief techniques including topsoil and seed bank salvage. What is not mentioned in this revegetation mitigation, although acknowledged for contributing to soil stability (page 4-63), are "microphytic crusts" or biotic soil crusts. The USGS has a substantial research program on biological soil crusts occurring in the Four Corners area (Belnap et al. 2000). Information from that research might help achieve native soil and vegetation stability on the Black Mesa. Information on the biological soil crusts research program can be accessed from Southwest Biological Science Center, http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/, Canyonlands Research Station. The Draft EIS also states that areas of disturbed "tamarisk riparian shrub ... would be planted with native riparian vegetation.” Prior to invasive non-native tamarisk, native riparian willow and cottonwood community assemblages were the primary habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher (Einpidonax trcaillii extinius) and the yellowbilled cuckoo (Coccyzus aniericaraus), respectively. As the Draft EIS indicates (page F-12, Appendix F), the southwestern willow flycatcher is now considered very rare and endangered. Nonetheless, aggressive efforts are being made to restore the bird's habitat to recover the species (USDA Forest Service DEIS, Canadian River Tamarisk Control, Cibola National Forest, Harding and Mora Counties, New Mexico, 2007). The USGS offers research results that might help restore adequate plant canopy stratification and protection (Allison at al. 2000, Shaforth et al. 2005, Skagen et al. 2005, Wiggens 2005) for recovery of these imperiled bird species on the Black Mesa.

Remarks/How Resolved

Peabody will avail itself of the findings on the research indicated in the comment and apply them if possible. It also should be noted that microphytic crusts commonly have established on reclaimed areas throughout the Black Mesa leasehold. These form within seven or so years following final seeding. In older reclaimed areas (approximately 20 years since final seeding) these biotic soil crusts can be quite common, if not yet extensive. The soil stability afforded by these crusts is quite evident. The post-mining land use for reclaimed lands at Black Mesa includes livestock grazing and this is a very common and sometimes intensive land use on Black Mesa. Except for areas under dense grass or shrub cover, livestock activity will impact the final extent of these commonly occurring biotic crusts.

Peabody has planted Fremont cottonwood and coyote willow around water bodies where persistent water is available. In the area of the Black Mesa leasehold, the majority of drainages are ephemeral. A few of the larger drainages have intermittent reaches. For the most part, there are not sufficient wet areas to support cottonwoods or willows, but these same areas are mesic enough to support tamarisk. Compounding this is unmanaged and extensive livestock grazing in the region, which severely limits potential for cottonwood or willow recruitment when adequate habitat conditions are present. This is most likely why these species no longer occur along the major drainages on northern Black Mesa. Peabody is a cooperating member of the Moenkopi Cooperative Weed Management Area with a primary goal of tamarisk control and eradication. There is a program being developed to begin tamarisk control efforts along Moenkopi Wash within and adjacent to the Black Mesa leasehold. The southwestern willow flycatcher and yellow-billed cuckoo have not been documented to breed on the Black Mesa leasehold. Habitat for the yellow-billed

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 71

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

376

4.20

4-155

SRP

377

4.20.1

4-155

BIA

378

4.20.2

4-157

SRP

379

4.20.2

4-157

3rd from bottom

SRP

Remarks/How Resolved cuckoo is not present and extremely limited to migrant habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher. Since these species are not present on the leasehold nor has breeding been documented, then recovery is not an issue. Monitoring – The text notes that Peabody conducts various An introductory statement has been added to Section 4.20.1 types of monitoring now and then describes some examples. to read “A description of Peabody’s monitoring programs follows. These monitoring programs would continue It is not clear, although perhaps it is an unstated regardless of the alternative selected.” presumption, how these monitoring activities would continue (or abate) under each of the alternatives being considered. This section is not broken down by alternative, An introductory statement has been added to read “If Alternative A (agencies’ preferred alternative) is selected, as are the others, so it is more difficult to follow. Also, by using only examples, it is not clear that a thorough analysis following construction, the pipeline rights-of-way….” of monitoring activities has been conducted. We would suggest that this section be reorganized to more thoroughly explain the role of monitoring under each of the alternatives. Comment noted. Hydrologic monitoring data collected by Peabody at the Black Mesa Complex should be integrated with the regional Black Mesa USGS and cooperating agencies’ monitoring program data. The text has been revised. Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Water-Supply System – This section should include a discussion of how implementation and effectiveness of the fish conservation measures and impacts of project pumping to fish will be monitored. Groundwater well monitoring will be used to assess model assumptions and determine if expected impacts on stream habitat (thus fish) are greater than predicted. Implementation of conservation projects and their benefits to the species and their habitats will be assessed as a component of the conservation fund. In the Final EIS, this section should be revised to be consistent with the monitoring of wildlife, fish, or habitat listed in the final biological assessment. The text has been revised to read “…agreed upon with the Please state which land-managing agencies and applicable laws and policies. If not, a certain standard should be set in applicable land-managing agency….” The pipeline cross several jurisdictions and the land-managing agency could be the EIS. BIA, BLM, Forest Service, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, or Arizona State Land Department. A reclamation plan is developed and agreed upon with the applicable agency in accordance with each agencies policies, guidelines, and requirements. A reclamation plan usually is prepared as part of a plan of development prior to construction. Therefore, it

Comment

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 72

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment

Remarks/How Resolved is premature to set certain standards at this time beyond the best management practices and mitigation measures to which the applicants have committed. The text has been revised to read “The applicants and, after 2026, the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation….” After 2026 is when C-aquifer water is no longer needed for project-related uses. Comment noted.

380

4.20.2

4-158

SRP

381

4-158

Table 4-47

BIA

382

4-158

Table 4-47

BIA

383

4.20.2

4-158

Table 4-47

USGS

384

4.21.2

4-159

SRP

Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Water Supply Pipeline – Revise the first full sentence to read: “The applicants and, after 2031, the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe are committed to a comprehensive program of monitoring pumping amounts,…..” To help resolve some of the above issues, suggest formation of a technical review committee that oversees and implements monitoring program(s). This is a complex project that involves two major aquifer systems, several companies, two Indian Tribes and several Federal agencies; therefore, coordination and cooperation is imperative in order to accurately detect any potential adverse impacts to the region’s resources. At least two years of baseline data should be collected prior to project startup to help develop baseline hydrologic conditions. In addition, post-project monitoring should be a minimum of five years and dependent upon collected data. This is what the technical committee could help decide. Coal-Slurry Pipeline and Water-Supply System – It should be mentioned in the text that USGS, in cooperation with the BIA, has already begun monitoring water levels and springs to develop baseline conditions before project pumping starts. Last paragraph needs to state which short-term and longterm impacts are minor or major.

Comment noted. If Alternative A were selected, the suggestion would be considered.

The text has been revised to include this statement.

385

4.22

4-160

386

4.24

4-165 thru 4-167

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments – We suggest a discussion of why groundwater impacts are not irreversible; i.e., the aquifers will recharge over time. NNEPA AQCP As for the cumulative effects (pages 4-165 and 4-166) it is indicated that during the 2006 to 2009 time period (current impacts), the Mohave Generating Station is currently not in operation, and as such the total background point source PM10 emissions value has been reduced by the baseline historical amount of 1,977 tons/year attributable to this point source. But when the facility resumes operation in 2010 there will be an expected (lower) emission of 1,741

SRP

Short-term and long-term impacts on cultural resources are described in Section 4.10 and paleontological resources are described in Section 4.2. The text has been revised to add this information.

As described in the footnotes under Table 4-51, the total regional emissions under Alternative A for the 2010 to 2026 time period reflect the increased production level of the Black Mesa mining operations referred to by the commenter. The “reduction” in PM10 emissions from the Mohave Generating Station (post 2010 versus pre-2006) is included in the post 2010 total regional emissions, but they are partially offset by the increased emissions resulting from

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 73

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

387

4.24

4-165 – 4-167

388

4.24

4-165 – 4-167

Comment tons/year. This clearly indicates that there will be reductions in PM10 emissions. Table 4-50 on page 4-166 indicates Background Point Source Annual PM10 Emissions and Table 4-51 on page 4-167 shows Increases over Regional Point Source Emissions. How these figures were derived is not clearly explained in the text – and it will be advantageous to the reader to do so. With increased mining activity, movement of coal, more trucking, etc. it is hard to believe that the emissions will be lower than when these activities were not occurring in the past. Please clarify and as needed justify the statements. NNEPA AQCP There have been some questions raised also as to details on the emission points utilized in the calculations. It has been pointed out in the past that several potential emission points have not been included in the Annual Emissions calculations for this facility (as well as others). Justifications to these issues and questions are needed. NNEPA AQCP It looks like most of the data and information utilized in the Draft EIS is derived from information provided by Peabody. Is there any other source(s) available for these data? Are they verified by OSM or any other agency?

Reviewer

Remarks/How Resolved increased mining activity during that timeframe. The 251 TPY increase in PM10 emissions under Alternative A during the 2006 to 2009 time period is attributed to the proposed project construction activity only. The 690 TPY increase in PM10 emissions under Alternative A during the 2010 to 2026 time period is attributed to the expanded Black Mesa mining operations only (e.g., does not include Mohave Generating Station emissions).

The identification of the permitted background sources is identified in Table 3-14 and 4-50 of the Draft EIS. Issues pertaining to the completeness of historical emission inventories for the Black Mesa Complex are not part of the scope of this EIS.

389

4.24

4-165 – 4-167

390

4.24

4-165 – 4-174

Information pertaining to Peabody operations, including emission estimates, meteorological and ambient air quality monitoring data were obtained from Peabody, as they are the originating source for this information; “other sources” would, at best, only have copies of this Peabody-generated data. As evidenced by Chapter 7 References of the EIS, a wide variety of information sources, including Federal, State, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction within and near the study area, were used for this EIS. NNEPA AQCP With the past history of air quality violations at the Mohave The anticipated 236 TPY reduction in PM10 emissions from Generating Station, the coverage on air quality issues is not the Mohave Generating Station is discussed in Section adequately addressed. There should have been some 4.2.4.1. Further details regarding final agreements with proposed plans (included in the Draft EIS) for the improving regulatory agencies pertaining to the implementation of air quality if and when the power plant is to reopen. control technology and maximum allowable emissions of regulated air pollutants would be borne out during permitting activities pursuant to the Federal CAA and Nevada regulations. Such information is not known at this time and is not a part of this EIS. Section 4.2 of the EIS adequately addresses cumulative SRP Cumulative Effects, in general – The cumulative effects effects in accordance with Council on Environmental analysis must be amplified to more comprehensively address: (1) past and present projects; (2) the effects of the Quality guidance on the consideration of past actions in cumulative effects analysis (dated June 24, 2005) in which proposed project when added to the impacts of other past, is stated “…agencies should use scoping to focus on the present and future projects; (3) cumulatively impacts for extent to which information is “relevant to reasonably each alternative and subalternative; and (4) objectively foreseeable significant adverse impacts”, is “essential to a

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 74

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment quantifiable impacts or an explanation of why that is infeasible. The cumulative effects section properly undertakes the evaluation of the cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future projects, not part of the proposed action, on the environment. However, this section should also consistently discuss the cumulative effects of past and present projects. As presently written, this section does not include a discussion of the cumulative impacts of past and present pumping projects on the environment, specifically hydrologic resources (pages 4-171 to 4-173) and fish and wildlife (page 4-174). A listing of past pumping projects does not provide an analysis of the impacts of those projects on the environment. The cumulative effects section should add this discussion to the referenced text, and, more generally, systematically address cumulative impacts of past and present projects throughout this section. This section also should consistently address the effects of the proposed action and each alternative and subalternative, when added to the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, on the environment. See comments on pages 4-172 to 4-174 below regarding the need to discuss the impacts of the C aquifer water-supply system component of the project on fish and wildlife, when added to the impacts of other past, present and reasonable future projects on these resources. Further, the section needs to consistently and methodically evaluate cumulative impacts with respect to each of the alternatives and subalternatives. As presently written, the section evaluates the cumulative impacts in relation to each alternative for some components of the project (and with respect to certain resources—air quality, for example), but not for others. The sections relating to the project water supply, for example, contain no alternative by alternative comparison of cumulative impacts. The cumulative effects section needs to be revised to systematically provide this comparison for each component of the project and with respect to each resource.

Remarks/How Resolved reasoned choice among alternatives,” and “can be obtained without exorbitant cost.”

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 75

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

391

4.24.2

4-171

BIA

392

4.24.3.1

4-171

Table 4-52

NNDWR

30 CFR Sec. 780.21 (g) (1) Cumulative hydrologic impact assessment requires the regulatory authority to “. . . provide an assessment of the probable cumulative hydrologic impacts (CHIA) of the proposed operation and all anticipated mining upon surface-and ground-water systems in the cumulative impact area. . . for . . . permit approval. . . [and to determine] . . . whether the proposed operation has been designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area.” The 1989 CHIA conclude that the Black Mesa Complex was designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance for both surface water and ground water systems. The CHIA is being updated because of the proposed LOM revision application with the following significant changes: (1) a significant reduction in the quantity of N-aquifer water use; (2) analysis of 20 additional years of hydrologic data; (3) several additional hydrologic studies; and (4) outdated information and criteria in the 1989 CHIA. Comment noted. The source of estimated future regional Instead of only including a footnote citing the 2005 pumping is cited as the Bureau of Reclamation’s Technical Papadopoulos report, the EIS would be more effective if it Advisory Group formed specifically for this study. Also, the included more background information on the major uses that went into the projected non-project C-aquifer pumpage. focus of the EIS is project pumping, not individual pumpage by others. For instance, the total projected municipal water use includes more than 5,000 acre-feet of Flagstaff pumping at Bar-T-Bar. This volume of non-project pumping was considered by the lead federal agency to be reasonable and foreseeable. The Draft EIS should explicitly note the projected pumping for Winslow and the major industrial users. C-Aquifer Water-Supply System – Because this section

Comment Finally, the cumulative effects analysis needs to analyze impacts of the action, alternatives, and subalternatives in objectively quantifiable terms, or provide an explanation for why this cannot be done. In this respect, the draft analysis intermittently uses objective data in analyzing impacts, but does not do so consistently. The discussion of cumulative impacts to fish and wildlife, for example, should either attempt to objectively quantify these impacts, or, if it is not feasible to conduct this analysis, provide a reasonable explanation of why this is the case (see page 4-174). This section only describes possible surface water impacts and not groundwater. Again, a better description of the purpose and use of the CHIA and how/why it’s being updated is necessary.

Remarks/How Resolved

393

4.24.3.1

4-171

USGS

The focus of the EIS is on the impact of project pumping.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 76

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

394

4.24.3.1

4-172 – 4-173

SRP

395

4.24.3.1

4-173 – 4-174

SRP

396 397

4.24.3.2 4.24.3.2

4-175 4-175 4th

BIA NNDWR

Comment addresses cumulative effects of both project and other than project pumping, it would be appropriate to more clearly characterize impacts of groundwater withdrawals already occurring from nonproject pumping. Some of these impacts include changes to the hydrology of perennial reaches of the Little Colorado River, no flow from several springs and formerly flowing wells, drying of two wetlands, and declines of several tens of feet in the water level of the C aquifer in industrial, municipal, and irrigation pumping areas. C Aquifer Water-Supply System – The 2060 flows, amount of decline, and percentage of decline are not correct. In 2060, lower Clear Creek flow is predicted to be about 2.7 cfs, a decline of about 1.5 cfs or 35 to 40 percent. In 2060, lower Chevelon Creek flow is predicted to be about 0.1 cfs, a decline of about 95 percent. C Aquifer Water-Supply System (cumulative effects of water supply system) – The effects of the project pumping on water supplies are compared with the cumulative effects on those supplies on page 4-173. However, on page 4-174, when effects on listed and special status fish are discussed, only the cumulative effects are discussed; there needs to be a discussion or comparison of the incremental impacts of the action, when added to the cumulative effects. Note specifically that there is no conclusion in this section similar to that in the Executive Summary as to whether the effects of the proposed project pumping contribute to cumulative effects on species, appreciably or otherwise. Rather, this section refers to the “negligible” effects on stream flows from the project then discusses the greater effects on stream flows and species due to nonproject cumulative impacts. This discussion needs to be present in the final EIS, as contemplated in the quotation at the beginning of the section (page 4-165). The second and third paragraphs below Table 4-54 are a little confusing and should be rewritten. The EIS would be more effective if it included more of the specific assumptions that went into the 2006 GeoTrans model runs that were used to estimate these projected declines.

Remarks/How Resolved Cumulative impacts in the area influenced by project pumping are addressed, such as base flow in Chevelon and Clear Creeks. Many of the effects mentioned are outside the area of project pumping influence.

The text has been revised to reflect the final SSPA report (new Figures 4-2 and 4-3).

Text has been added to address the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to the cumulative effects.

Comment in not clear about how the paragraphs are confusing and how they should be rewritten. Comment noted. The focus of the EIS is project pumping, not individual pumpage by others.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 77

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 398

Paragraph Section Page of Page Reviewer Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination SRP 5.2.2.1 5-2 1st (3rd line)

Comment

Remarks/How Resolved

399

5.5

5-9

NSMP

The text has been revised. Biological Resources – The sentence that begins “The consultation process determines whether the proposed action…” followed by a list of items. This sentence needs to be revised to read: “The consultation process determines whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat; the process begins with OSM’s written request and submittal of a completed biological assessment, and concludes with the issuance of a biological opinion from the FWS, which may include an incidental take statement, or a letter of concurrence from the FWS (if the FWS agrees that project will have no effect or will not adversely affect a threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat).” The text has been revised. Include in the distribution: Navajo Nation Division of Natural Resources; Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency; Navajo Nation Division of Economic Development; Legislative Branch of the Navajo Nation & all Council Delegates. The text has been revised. Rita Whitehorse-Larsen is no longer with Navajo Fish and Wildlife – she transferred over to NNEPA; change title from wildlife biologist to Senior Environmental Specialist; NEPA, Navajo Nation laws and regulations compliance The information for Dr. Misra has been inserted. Insert: Dr. Rachel G. Misra, Air Compliance Officer, NNEPA Education: Ph.D. in Medical Education M.S. in Zoology M.Sc. in Fishery Biology B.Sc. in Zoology What clean up process was used for the leaks that were approximately 565 cubic yards? The clean-up methods used to remediate past coal-slurry leaks have included mechanical removal of the coal and hauling it off-site for burial or for land spreading, or leaving the coal in-place. Clean-up techniques are developed for each individual spill on a site-specific basis, in consultation with the landowner and/or land managing regulatory

400

Chapter 6 – Preparers and Contributors 6.0 6-3 NNEPA OER

401

6.0

6-3

NNEPA OER

402

Appendices Appendix A-2 A-2­ 15

1st

BIA NRO

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 78

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment

403

Appendix A-3 A-3-1

SRP

404

Appendix A-3 A-3-1

BIA

405

Appendix A-3 A-3-1

4th

NNEPA OER

406

Appendix A-3 A-3-2

2nd

BIA NRO

407

Appendix A-3 A-3-2

NNEPA OER

408 409

Appendix A-3 A-3-3 Appendix A-3 A-3-7

BIA NRO NNEPA OER

410

Appendix A-3 A-3­ 18 Appendix A-3 A-3­ 21

NNEPA OER

411

BIA NRO

Introduction – In the first sentence of the third paragraph, “…initial…” should be deleted to be consistent with previous references to the number of wells used to produced 6,000 af/yr. This appendix only describes the eastern route of the water Conceptual design work at the level of detail reflected in pipeline and does not mention the alternative western route. Appendix A-3 is costly and was completed for the C aquifer water-supply pipeline route proposed by the applicant at the Why? time (for the Draft EIS). If the western alternative were to be selected, the applicant would commit the funds for developing the same or a more detailed level of engineering design for the Western route. Two alternatives – 6,000 af/yr and 11,600 af/yr; paragraph The text has been revised. needs to be more detailed – when at first reading, the discussion appeared to be miscalculated and later in the section, it clearly discussed the two alternatives. The text has been revised to read “ For the 11,600 af/yr “A second main collector line could be constructed on the alternative, an additional five wells would be connected to Hopi portion of the well field for the 11,600 af/yr alternative.” Consider writing “An addition 5 wells will be the main collector line on the Navajo portion of the well connected to the main collector line and addition 4 wells on field and the additional four wells would be connected to a second main collector line.” the Hopi portion will be commented to a second main connector for the 11,600 af/yr scenario. Need to be more specific on the transmission line – this The sentence in paragraph 2 has been revised to read again is explained later in other sections. “Piping from the individual wells would discharge to the collector lines.” On the map need to show the second main collector. The collector from the Hopi Hart Ranch is shown on Figure A-9, page A-3-5. Yes, if Alternative A were selected, the proponent(s) would The new access roads – are there any turnouts, culverts, cattle guards expected to lessen impact to everyday Navajo incorporate design features, such as turnouts, culverts, and cattleguards where needed. The specific location and design community members routines? of individual wells and their associated facilities would be determined following detailed well-field engineering, which would include judicious siting to avoid sensitive environmental areas. Will NNEPA receive reports of the water quality samples? If Alternative A were selected, NNEPA would receive reports of the water quality samples. Details of sampling Will this sampling be contracted? Who will conduct the have not be established. sampling? Comment noted. If the pipe is to cross paved roads, then SCE will need to follow BIA road standards. Normally the waterline will need to be encased in a larger pipe.

Remarks/How Resolved agency, and are further described in Appendix A-2 of the Draft EIS on pages A-2-15 and A-2-16. The text has been revised.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 79

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 412

Section Page Appendix A-3 A-3­ 21

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer NNDWR

Comment For this EIS, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) had six preparers and contributors. Furthermore, Reclamation may eventually operate the Caquifer water line. However, Reclamation has not provided any comments noting the differences between their 2003 appraisal level cost estimates for the main water supply pipeline and the values cited in this Draft EIS.

Remarks/How Resolved Comment noted.

The cost estimates in the EIS were prepared by the proponent (SCE at the time) and consulting engineer based on a conceptual design of the C aquifer water-supply system; whereas, appraisal-level costs were roughly estimated without the benefit of a conceptual design.

413

Appendix C

C-1

SRP

414

Appendix G

G-1 and G­ 2

Tables G-1 and G-2

Peabody

Comment noted. Furthermore, Reclamation did not note differences in the design and construction standards used for this project and those used on other main water supply pipelines in the region. The text has been revised. Description of Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 — The sentence in this paragraph that reads “Mitigation measures are developed through the consultation process and are put forth as suggested conservation measures included in a formal FWS biological opinion, which addresses whether the proposed action would jeopardize the continued existence of any officially listed endangered or threatened species.” This sentence needs to be clarified and revised in two respects. First, it appears to equate mitigation with conservation measures — the ESA Section 7 Handbook does not use these terms synonymously; further, the Draft EIS itself describes conservation measures and mitigation measures in two separate sections of Chapter 4. We believe that in this context, the term “conservation measures” is the appropriate one, and we therefore suggest that the sentence be modified to state: “Conservation measures are developed through the consultation process and included in a formal FWS biological opinion,….” Second, the description of the Section 7(a)(2) standard at the end of this sentence is inaccurate. The consultation actually addresses whether the proposed action “is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat designated for any threatened or endangered species.” The tables have been revised. These Tables reflect stocking rates and permitted numbers that are very outdated and that do not reflect the much reduced carrying capacity of the overgrazed and over

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 80

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment stocked native ranges on Tribal lands. This would lead the reader to feel that impacts may be greater than the actual on the ground situation. This comment is based on 20 years of observation and involvement of grazing and native lands by Peabody’s Certified Professional in Rangeland Management. Note: The monitoring report for small mammals and bats at the Black Mesa Complex and the birds of Black Mesa referenced above will be forwarded as hard copies and a PDF document on disk to OSM and URS. The Draft EIS refers to Blue Springs on upper East Clear Creek. The maps on 3-5 and 3-15 only identify one feature as Blue Springs, and that feature is not in the Clear Creek Watershed, but instead Blue Springs is on the Little Colorado River. The DEIS should clarify this nomenclature. The Draft EIS should define the saturated thickness and ground water discharge. Releases of water from storage — 1st paragraph, reference to water released from storage should be deleted because there are no such releases on Clear or Chevelon Creeks. Muav is misspelled (Mauv). This probably occurs elsewhere in the text and a global search is probably warranted to correct. In addition, the R aquifer is identified as discharging from the Mauv [sic] and Redwall Limestones. The Redwall Limestone overlies the Muav Limestone so the order should be reversed (i.e., Redwall and Muav Limestones). Note also that as part of the formation names limestone is capitalized. In Figure H-1 the Draft EIS should include an icon in the legend for the Supai formation. The top of the Supai formation is part of the C aquifer and is larger than described. The text refers to the C aquifer being 400 feet thick; this figure shows the aquifer being 700 feet thick. Migration of Poor Quality Groundwater – As was stated in the comment related to pages 4-29 to 4-30, some mention of declining water quality with depth in the C aquifer seems appropriate in this section. The City of Winslow's experience with their well field can be cited as an example.

Remarks/How Resolved

415

Appendix H

H-1

2nd

NNDWR

Blue Ridge Reservoir is on upper East Clear Creek. Blue Springs is on the Little Colorado River near its confluence with the Colorado River.

416 417

Appendix H Appendix H

H-5 H-6

2nd

NNDWR SRP

Aquifer thickness and groundwater discharge are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. The text has been revised.

418

Appendix H

H-6

3rd (2nd sentence)

USGS

The spelling has been corrected.

419

Appendix H

H-7

Figure H-1

NNDWR

Figure H-1 has been revised. The text provides the saturated thickness as about 700 feet (Draft EIS page 4-26).

420

Appendix H

H-9

USGS

The potential for water quality decline is recognized in the text. Whether the source of the poorer-quality water is through horizontal or vertical migration the effect would be the same

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 81

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No. 421

Section Appendix H

Page H-11

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer BIA

Comment What is the groundwater (and surface water) impact area for the new CHIA? Also, is the definition of impact the same between the CHIA and the current EIS impact analysis, if not, how will they be integrated and resolved if conflicts arise on impact definition pr extent?

422

Appendix H

H-12

BIA

How did OSM “independently” review the GeoTrans model? And who will be responsible to update and run all the models associated with the project?

423

Appendix H

H-12

BIA

424

Appendix H

H-13

1st

SRP

425

Appendix H

H-14

SRP

If the 1989 CHIA groundwater impact analysis was based on the USGS model, will the revised CHIA continue to be based on the USGS model or the GeoTrans model which OSM used for the EIS impact analysis? It seems to be inconsistent to have two different models for analyzing supposedly similar impacts (not to mention the C-Aquifer multi-models situation). The text has been revised. C Aquifer – Under this heading, it should be noted that all three ground water flow models were developed to evaluate water supply availability and pumping impacts, not only threatened and endangered species issues. Also, their focus was much broader than evaluating stream flow depletion to Clear and Chevelon creeks; regional water levels and Blue Springs were also very important. Model predictions – Additional explanation should be added The table has been revised to show the “mine scenario” to the text that introduces Tables H-5 and H-6. Although the (6,000 af/yr). “Mine” Scenario is footnoted in the tables as involving 6,000 af/yr, the casual reader may not see that. The main body of the EIS refers to this scenario as the “6,000 af/yr subalternative.” Consistent terminology or additional explanation would be helpful in Appendix H. Also, the 6,500 af/yr scenario is not discussed at all but appears in the

Remarks/How Resolved The Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) for N aquifer in the updated CHIA follows the boundary of the groundwater flow model for N aquifer (GeoTrans 1999). A CHIA’s whole purpose is to determine whether impacts are small enough outside of the permit area to allow OSM to approve the mining permit. A CHIA’s threshold level of impact is “material damage to the hydrologic balance.” Material damage to the hydrologic balance is a serious level of impact and is a different from the NEPA EIS conclusions on impacts described in the EIS (negligible, minor, moderate, and major). The analyses supporting the NEPA EIS conclusions and the CHIA finding will be consistent. OSM reviewed the input data used in to construct, calibrate, and validate the model. OSM also evaluated whether the results of the model, on balance, adequately represented the measured data, and found that to be the case. OSM does not “run” the models associated with the project but instead relies on periodic updates to the model(s) as the conditions warrant. The analysis of the quantity of N and D aquifers in the updated CHIA will be based on the GeoTrans model.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 82

Appendix M

Table M-2

Comments from Cooperating and Other Participating Agencies and Responses to These Comments

Comment No.

Section

Page

Paragraph of Page

Reviewer

Comment tables. It should be deleted, or explanation should be added that this third scenario was not pursued further. The values in tables H-5 and H-6 should be double-checked for accuracy. For example, it appears that the USGS values are for the end of a 100-year period rather than at the end of the planning period, which is 2060. Also, it appears that the SSPA values for Lower Chevelon Creek reflect the maximum impact at any one point during the planning period rather than at the end of the planning period as described in the accompanying text. Discussion of SSPA model – The top paragraph clearly and succinctly describes why the SSPA model results were used as the principal source of data for the EIS, and why that is appropriate. We recommend also including this information on page 4-24 where the model is first introduced. Is upper Clear Creek a critical habitat or area of concern due to biological factors, and if so, why are the USGS simulated results not presented in the EIS?

Remarks/How Resolved

The USGS model numbers have been corrected to 2060.

SSPA numbers are correct (SSPA Figures B-25, B-26, and B-27). The statement about most representative models is on Draft EIS page 4-25 and the reader is referred to Appendix H.

426

Appendix H

H-15

SRP

427

Appendix H

H-15

BIA

Upper East Clear Creek was considered in the analysis of impacts on surface flows. The USGS model showed no impact on flows in upper East Clear Creek; therefore, there would be no impact on the sensitive biological resources in that area (EIS Section 4.4.1.4.1).

NOTES: AGFD = Arizona Fish and Game Department BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs BIA DC = BIA Washington DC Office BIA NRO = BIA Navajo Regional Office BIA WRO = BIA Western Regional Office BLM ASO = Bureau of Land Management Arizona State Office FWS AESO = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office NNDWR = Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources NNEPA = Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency NNEPA AQP = NNEPA Air Quality Program NNEPA OER = NNEPA Office of Environmental Reviewer NNEPA WQP = NNEPA Water Quality Program Peabody = Peabody Western Coal Company SRP = Salt River Project USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USGS = U.S. Geological Survey

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-2 - 83

Appendix M

Report of the 2008 Comments on the Draft EIS and Responses to the Comments
Category 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 1(126) Comment: This is a different project which should have its own set of alternatives, not alternatives which are no longer viable, such as Alternative A. This subverts the NEPA process which requires viable alternatives. Response: The Draft and Final EIS analyze the same three alternatives. 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 reasonable, albeit unlikely, alternative. Because implementing Alternative A appears unlikely, Peabody wishes to proceed in revising its permit to incorporate the initial program surface facilities and coal resource areas of its adjacent Black Mesa mining operations; that is, Alternative B. 1(127) Comment: Why is Peabody able to go ahead on this project? Response: The comment is vague. The action proposed by Peabody is to revise the LOM operation and reclamation plans for its permitted Kayenta mining operation and, as part of this revision, to incorporate into these plans the initial program surface facilities (shared by both mining operations) and coal-resource areas of its adjacent Black Mesa mining operation, which is within the areas leased by Peabody from the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation. 1(128) Comment: Why in these times when we know that coal and other processes emit such harmful chemicals in the air that destroy not only the planet but people’s lives, would you want to continue in such a practice? Response: The comment is beyond the scope of this EIS. Under Alternative B, the preferred alternative, Peabody is permitted to supply coal to the Navajo Generating Station through 2026. Approval of Alternative B would incorporate surface facilities and coal-resource areas of Peabody’s adjacent Black Mesa mining operation into the permanent program permit. No increase in mining is proposed. 1(154) Comment: In OSM’s May 23, 2008, Federal Register notice, OSM has not demonstrated to me that the action of supplying coal to Mohave Generating Station is still a need or purpose as stated in the Draft EIS and in previous public meetings. Response: Supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station is an action of Alternative A, which is no longer the proposed project and preferred alternative. The proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS is Alternative B, which does not include supplying coal to the Mohave Generating Station. Alternative A 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 reasonable, albeit unlikely, alternative. Because implementing Alternative A appears unlikely, Peabody wishes to proceed in revising its permit to incorporate the initial program surface facilities and coal resource areas of its Black Mesa mining operation into the permanent program permit of the Kayenta mining operation; that is, Alternative B. 1(157) Comment: The purpose for Alternative B is unclear in the Black Mesa Project EIS. Peabody Western Coal Company has not demonstrated a need for incorporating the Black Mesa Mine surface facilities and coal deposits into the Kayenta Mine permit area. Peabody’s sole customer for Kayenta’s coal is the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona. There is ample quantity of coal at the Kayenta Mine for the Navajo Generating Station, which has operated since 1974 and was approved for a permanent Indian Lands Program permit since 1990. To date, Kayenta coal operations have managed without incorporating Black Mesa Mine sedimentation ponds or road right-of-ways as proposed under the LOM permit application. Since there is no clearly stated need for additional coal from the Black Mesa Mine to be burned at the Navajo Generating Station or elsewhere, either vital information is lacking for a public comment EIS process, or the proposal to join the Black Mesa Mine with the Kayenta Mine under a LOM permit by Peabody is premature. Either way, OSM should weigh the lack of demonstrable need for more coal for the

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-179

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Page plant against the impact to the ecology and nearby Navajo residents to disapprove Alternative B and deny the life-of-mine permit. Response: The action proposed by Peabody is to revise the LOM operation and reclamation plans for its permitted Kayenta mining operation and, as a part of this revision to incorporate into these plans the initial program surface facilities and coal resource areas of its adjacent Black Mesa mining operations. Many of the surface facilities have been shared by both mining operations and, if the initial program facilities of the Black Mesa operation are not incorporated into the permanent program permit area, additional facilities would have to be permitted and constructed in the permanent program permit area of the Kayenta mining operation, resulting in unnecessary surface disturbance. Incorporating the coal resource areas of the Black Mesa mining operation into the permit program permit area would give Peabody more flexibility in meeting the coal supply requirements of the Navajo Generating Station. Future mining of coal resource areas of the Black Mesa mining operation to supply this power plant could result in certain coal-resource areas of the Kayenta mining operation not being mined as currently planned. 1(265) Comment: Further it is my understanding that under the current permit for the Kayenta mining operation that an uninterrupted supply of coal is available until the year 2026 for NGS. So there is no need for Agency action to maintain the supply of coal to NGS. Thus the entire EIS process does not need to be continued to evaluate Alternative A or B, or any part of the new proposed actions. Response: It is correct that continued operation of the Kayenta mining operation would provide an uninterrupted supply of coal to the Navajo Generating Station. However, OSM has determined that Alternative B, approval of the permit revision application to incorporate the initial program portion of the Peabody leases, must be addressed in an EIS. 1(266) Comment: The Black Mesa Project consists of several proposed actions, the purpose of and need for which would (1) continue supplying coal from the Kayenta mining operation to the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona, and (2) continue supplying coal from the Black Mesa mining operation to the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada. (2) is no longer a purpose or need since Peabody Western Coal Company, the sole supplier of coal to MGS, notified OSM that it believes the chances are remote of the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada will ever reopening, and (1) is not needed because there is no required Agency action since under its current permanent Indian Lands Program permit for the Kayenta mining operation, Peabody already has approved operation and reclamation plans that allow it to produce all of the coal needed by the Navajo Generating Station into 2026. Therefore the OSM should find in the Final EIS and ROD that Alternative C is the Agency’s preferred alternative. Response: Alternative C is the disapproval (no action) alternative. If Peabody submits an application that complies with the laws under BLM’s and OSM’s jurisdiction, they would be obligated to approve the application. Accordingly, they have not identified Alternative C as the preferred alternative, and they have identified Alternative B, the proposed project, as the preferred alternative. Category 4: Project Components – Black Mesa mining operation (existing, mining suspended) 4(158) Comment: Why, after all these years, is the now-inactive mine now proposed to become a properly and legally permitted mining operation under SMCRA? Response: In 1990, the Department of the Interior administratively delayed its decision on Peabody’s permit application for the Black Mesa mining operation. In 2004, Peabody submitted an LOM permit revision application in which it proposed to incorporate the Black Mesa mining operation into the permanent program permit. Under SMCRA, the Department has a responsibility to make a decision on the application. 4(159) Comment: Why doesn’t Peabody have a development plan in place for the Black Mesa Mine? Without such a plan, OSM should consider the alternative of permanent mine closure and require post-mining reclamation of the entire leasehold. Response: Currently, Peabody does not have plans to mine coal in the Black Mesa mining operation area for the Navajo Generating Station. However, its plans could change. For this reason, it proposes to incorporate the coal resource areas of the Black Mesa mining operation into the permanent program permit area. Reclamation of land mined at the Black Mesa Mine is ongoing. OSM analyzes the alternative for closure of the Black Mesa Mine in the disapproval alternative, Alternative C.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-180

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 7: Project Components – Coal-slurry pipeline (existing) 7(61) Comment: The use of N aquifer and/or C aquifer water at any given time for the purposes of transporting, processing, or cleaning coal is ecologically and culturally abrasive. Response: Under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS, the coal-washing facility would not be constructed, the coal-slurry preparation plant would not operate, and the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed and operated. Under Alternative B, groundwater would not be used to transport coal. 7(67) Comment: The alternative plans you are suggesting aren’t okay with most people who live in and around the area 
 you plan on putting your pipeline. 
 Response: Under Alternative B, the preferred alternative in this Final EIS, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be
 reconstructed and operated. Under Alternative B, groundwater would not be used to transport coal. 
 7(190) Comment: I feel it is sacrilegious to even be considering coal mining and pumping 2 BILLION GALLONS of water from the N aquifer to slurry the coal 273 miles to the Mohave Station located in Laughlin, Nevada. Response: Under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed and operated. Under Alternative B, groundwater would not be used to transport coal. 7(191) Comment: Please, to even consider allowing Peabody to pump 2 billion gallons of water a year from the N aquifer beneath the Hopi Reservation in order to slurry coal 273 miles to the Mohave Generating Station in Nevada is a ridiculous waste of resources. Response: Under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed and operated. Under Alternative B, groundwater would not be used to transport coal. 7(192) Comment: The slurry transport of coal from the Peabody mine is a serious matter which deserves the most learned input possible and need not be subjected to a rush to judgment. Response: Under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed and operated. Under Alternative B, groundwater would not be used to transport coal. 7(193) Comment: The alternatives you proposed are not what we would decide. Stop wasting your time purposing these alternatives. The people here know what they want and it is not to give up C aquifer for your coal slurry or anything else that you have in mind. Response: Under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS, the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed and operated. Under Alternative B, groundwater would not be used to transport coal. Category 8: Project Components – Project water supply 8(256) Comment: Peabody’s liability for past natural resource damages to the Navajo and Hopi Tribes should be resolved prior to any new mining activities. Both tribes passed resolutions ending the use of the Navajo aquifer for all coal mining operations because of these adverse impacts. 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 Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation are cooperators in the preparation of this EIS.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-181

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

8(257) Comment: Besides tribal communities, adverse hydrologic impacts to other communities within the Little Colorado River system from mining, groundwater use, and surface water impoundments have not been adequately studied. Diminishing surface flows have an adverse effect on riparian habitat, water quality, tribal irrigation practices and the traditional foods and herbal medicines central to native cultural practices. Response: Effects on groundwater and surface water are addressed in detail in the EIS (refer to Sections 3.4 and 4.4). 8(258) Comment: Issues regarding aquifer-depletion are significantly under-addressed.
 Response: Groundwater and the potential effects on groundwater (C aquifer and N aquifer) are described in detail 
 EIS Sections 3.4 and 4.4, and cumulative effects are described in Section 4.24.3. 
 8(SR1) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not address the pumping of the Navajo aquifer for the last 30 years. These amounts exceed the aquifer’s ability to replace water annually, and have adversely impacted the natural springs and seeps all over Black Mesa. Springs and seeps no longer can produce the water needed for Navajo families to survive daily. Instead families must abandon local water resources and use community wells 20 to 30 miles over unimproved roads. The mining operation’s irresponsible use of groundwater has jeopardized the people’s survival into the future. Peabody has not included in its application the impact on the people of Black Mesa and how long they can expect to survive with continued use and contamination of the only source of drinking water the people have. What measures do they have in place to insure the people that an alternate source of water in quality and quantity will be delivered if there is irreversible damage to the N aquifer? Summary Response: Section 4.24.3.2 of the Draft EIS included an analysis of N-aquifer pumping under Alternative A that took into consideration pumping that occurred over the last 30 years. This section has been revised to include analyses of N-aquifer pumping scenarios under Alternatives B and C. Sections 4.4.1.5.1 and 4.4.2.2.2. of the EIS address the impacts of the proposed pumping of the N aquifer, both on other direct uses of pumped N-aquifer water and to streams that receive spring discharges from the N aquifer. The EIS relies on a modeling tool to predict future project impacts that incorporates (by necessity) historical water withdrawals. So, in effect, past pumping is considered in the future impact predictions. The impact on both direct groundwater uses of the N aquifer and to streams receiving N-aquifer spring flow is characterized in this section of the EIS as “negligible.” The permit application’s conclusion that there will be no damage to the N aquifer and that it will continue to provide its highquality water to projected water users for the foreseeable future does not differ from the conclusions reached in the EIS. 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)). Category 14: Project Components – Project water supply – Navajo aquifer water-supply system (existing) 14(3) Comment: Please reconsider the...use of the Navajo conifer to drain off coal mine run off waste. Response: Comment not understood. Category 15: Alternatives 15(68) Comment: The Black Mesa Project Draft EIS does not include a true no-action alternative. In Alternative C, the Black Mesa Complex is still created even though the coal reserves will not be permitted. (see pages 4-10 and page 2-24). Response: In the case of Alternative C, no-action means the OSM would disapprove the incorporation of the initial program area (where the Black Mesa mining operation occurred) into the permanent program permit area. If by “a true no-action alternative” the commenter means no more mining at the Black Mesa Complex, that decision cannot be made because the Kayenta mining operation is permitted for producing coal through 2026. Refer to EIS Section 2.2.3 for a discussion on what Alternative C entails.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-182

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

15(201) Comment: My suggestion is as follows: put an immediate moratorium on it, then take your children to see the recently released movie entitled WALL E. Upon arriving home (after viewing the movie) have a heart to heart OPEN discussion with those future leaders of this nation asking for THEIR input. Response: Comment noted. Category 30: Alternatives – Alternative B 30(62) Comment: If OSM anticipates a new customer for Black Mesa mine’s coal, this needs to be stated outright during the EIS drafting so that future impacts can be considered and commented on as a result of the joining of the two mines as one under the proposed LOM permit revision. Response: In response to this comment, Section 1.2 of the EIS has been modified. Peabody has not indicated that new customers are being considered at this time for the coal from the Black Mesa mining operation. Although, under Alternative B, the unmined coal-resource areas would be incorporated into the permanent program permit area, mining of those resources would not be authorized until Peabody proposed that these resources be mined, submitted a new permit revision application to OSM, and BLM and OSM approved this mining. Without knowing a new customer’s purpose and need for purchasing and using the coal, the amount and quality needed per year, and a plan for mining and transporting the coal, impacts associated with the potential transaction cannot be projected. If and when there is such a proposal, associated actions (e.g., mining plan revision, construction of a means of transporting the coal to its destination) will need to be assessed under NEPA. 30(63) Comment: Clarification of the many impacts of a life-of-mine Permit is essential before reaching a conclusion with so many consequences for so many people over so many years. To ignore full investigation of those impacts serves only to open the OSM decision to legal challenge and additional years of delay, thus negating any possible benefit to the people of the United States. Response: The consequences of the LOM permit are fully analyzed and disclosed in the EIS. 30(160) Comment: We are promised that no groundwater will be used since coal-slurry operation, which consumes over 4,000 acre-feet of pristine water will be discontinued. But in a deceptive move OSM stated they will continue to keep the coal-slurry option open, under their preferred alternative. Response: The preferred alternative in this Final EIS, Alternative B, does not include restarting the coal-slurry preparation plant, reconstructing the coal-slurry pipeline, and constructing the C aquifer water-supply system. It should be noted that all three alternative would use groundwater: Alternative A would require up to 6,000 af/yr (primarily C-aquifer water supplemented with N-aquifer water), and Alternatives B and C would require on average 1,236 af/yr of N-aquifer water. 30(161) Comment: We are promised that no groundwater will be used since coal-slurry operation, which consumes over 4,000 acre-feet of pristine water will be discontinued. But in a deceptive move OSM stated they will continue to keep the coal-slurry option open, under their preferred alternative. Response: The preferred alternative in this Final EIS, Alternative B, does not include restarting the coal-slurry preparation plant, reconstructing the coal-slurry pipeline, and constructing the C aquifer water-supply system. By way of clarification, all three alternatives would use groundwater. Alternative A would require up to 6,000 af/yr (primarily C-aquifer water supplemented with N-aquifer water) and Alternative B and C would require on average 1,235 af/yr of N-aquifer water. Category 31: Alternatives – Alternative C 31(5) Comment: I wish to give you one last piece of analysis that seeks to advise the OSM to take no further action, Alternative C, on the grounds that 1) expanding and/or extending strip mining practices on Black Mesa is environmentally and culturally devastating. Response: Comment noted.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-183

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 33: Alternatives – New alternative proposed through public comments 33(101) Comment: OSM failed to analyze: No-Relocation Alternative. This alternative would allow mining only in areas that would not require relocation of Navajo people. This alternative is entirely feasible and would meet any purpose and need of the proposed project. The hardship of removal from ancestral lands has been repeatedly commented upon during the environmental review process - the record is replete with testimony and written comments. OSM should consider a no-relocation alternative that only permits mining in areas that do not require families to be forcefully evicted from their lands. 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. In response to this comment, a no- relocation alternative is addressed in the Final EIS in Section 2.4. 33(102) Comment: OSM failed to analyze: No-Sacred-Spring-and-Site Alternative. The proposed mining areas are sprinkled with sacred springs and sites. The affront to tribal communities of destroying sacred springs and sites has been repeatedly commented upon during the environmental review process - the record is replete with testimony and written comments. OSM should consider a no-sacred-spring-and-site alternative that only permits mining in areas that do not destroy or deface sacred springs and sites. Response: The 20-year Black Mesa Archaeological Project, conducted from 1967 through 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 on any sacred springs and seeps are being addressed pursuant to that permit condition, development of another alternative is unwarranted. In response to this comment, a No-Sacred-Springs-and-Sites Alternative is addressed in the Final EIS in Section 2.4. 33(103) Comment: OSM failed to analyze: Lower-Emissions Coal Power Generation. All previous climate change comments that assumed that coal from this project would be burned in the Mohave Generating Station, as per Alternative A, apply equally to the burning of coal in the Navajo Generating Station. Since our original comments, however, both the government and the coal industry have spent a great deal of time and money convincing the public that “clean coal” is possible via carbon capture and storage methods in the near future or other emissions reduction methods right now. For example, on its “Coal Can Do That” website, Peabody Coal proudly proclaims, “Dozens of clean coal plants around the nation are planned or in development, representing the largest buildout in three decades.” The EIS is inadequate for a lack of analysis of an alternative requiring that Black Mesa coal be burned in a “clean coal plant,” which the Navajo Generating Station clearly is not. The DEIS contains no provisions whatsoever designed to eliminate or minimize carbon dioxide emissions. Any potential provisions designed to eliminate or minimize carbon dioxide emissions for this project warrant re-scoping of the project. Response: There are no decisions to be made regarding the Navajo Generating Station; therefore, an EIS alternative to address lower-emissions coal power generation is outside the scope of this project. In response to this comment, a lower-emissions-coal-power-generation alternative is addressed in the Final EIS in Section 2.4. 33(106) Comment: OSM failed to analyze: Reduced-Mining Alternative. This alternative 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. 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). Under Alternative B, production of 8.5 million tons cannot be

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-184

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

reduced as this is the amount that is needed for the Navajo Generating Station to operate efficiently. In response to this comment, a reduced-mining alternative is addressed in the Final EIS in Section 2.4. 33(107) Comment: OSM failed to analyze: Hybrid-Water Alternative. This alternative 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. In addition, OSM fails to consider alternatives that adopt reclamation technologies to reduce the total amount of water needed, regardless of the source. Response: In response to this comment, a hybrid-water alternative is addressed in the Final EIS in Section 2.4. A hybrid water system would be costly and would considerably effect the environment because of the development of two or more water supplies. Category 44: Alternatives Considered – Alternative coal-delivery methods – Rail transportation 44(7) Comment: If the coal is to be used at all, rail transport is the only acceptable method. Response: Coal from the Kayenta mining operation is transported to the Navajo Generating Station by rail. At present, there are no plans for transporting coal to any location other than the Navajo Generating Station. Category 45: Alternatives Considered – Alternative coal-delivery methods – Alternative energy sources and energy efficiency 45(105) Comment: Not only is the project environmentally harmful but it is also more costly than renewable forms of electricity readily available in your area. Concentrated solar, for example, has shown much lower start-up costs per megawatt (MW) and even lower operating costs as there is no fuel to purchase, eliminating pollutants while ensuring a ready supply of energy. And we all know fuel costs will only continue to rise, making projects such as Black Mesa heavier burdens on the regional economy. Response: Comment noted; however, development of renewable resources does not meet the purpose and need for this EIS and is beyond the scope of this EIS. 45(162) Comment: The current Draft EIS does not include recent viable alternatives to coal and water extraction and burning coal for electric generation. As an alternative, a Just Transition to renewable energy development on the mine site and reclaimed areas could provide power generation for an indefinite period as opposed to the limits imposed by the life of the mine or the life of the aquifer which could both be depleted within 18 years or less. A Just Transition would also prevent the long-term cumulative impacts on the health of workers and local residents, massive CO2 releases to the atmosphere, which will add to the problem of global warming, the displacement of indigenous residents and the desecration and destruction of the Sacred Landscape and religious shrines necessary to the religious practice of the Navajo and Hopi tribes. Response: Addressing an alternative for Just Transition to renewable energy development is beyond the scope of this EIS. The Navajo Generating Station is permitted for operation, the coal leases and 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. EIS Section 4.6.6 addresses the health effects on workers and residents. EIS Sections 3.5.3, 4.5.2, 4.23.3, and 4.24.1.1 address CO2 emissions and global warming. EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.12.1.1 address resettlement of the 17 residences within the mine lease area. Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, and Hualapai Tribe study teams evaluated traditional cultural resources that could be affected by the project. Black Mesa (known as Nayavuwaltsa to the Hopi and DzlÃjiin to the Navajo) is identified as a significant traditional cultural resource in the draft EIS (p. 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 (p. 4-93). Springs and streams are identified as having traditional cultural significance as well (pp. 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 (pp. 4-26 to 4-29, 4-32 to 4-37).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-185

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

45(163) Comment: The Draft EIS does not compare the economics of global warming and other effects of the pollution of additional coal mining versus a Just Transition to wind and or solar energy development on the mine site and reclaimed areas to prevent long-term cumulative impacts by additional coal mining and use. Response: Addressing Just Transition to renewable energy development and the comparison suggested in the comment is beyond the scope of this EIS. The Navajo Generating Station is permitted for operation, the coal leases and 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. 45(164) Comment: The Draft EIS does not compare the economics of additional coal mining versus a Just Transition to renewable energy development on the mine site and reclaimed areas to prevent long-term cumulative impacts by additional coal mining Response: No additional coal mining is proposed under the preferred alternative, Alternative B. Peabody will continue to produce 8.5 million tons of coal to supply the Navajo Generating Station through 2026. The Navajo Generating Station is permitted for operation, the coal leases and 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. A Just Transition to renewable energy development is beyond the scope of this EIS. 45(165) Comment: Transition to a Green Economy 
 Response: Addressing transition to a green economy is beyond the scope of this EIS. 
 45(166) Comment: The current Draft EIS does not include recent viable alternatives to coal and water extraction and burning coal for electric generation. As an alternative, a Just Transition to renewable energy development on the mine site and reclaimed areas could provide power generation for an indefinite period as opposed to the limits imposed by the life of the mine or the life of the aquifer which could both be depleted within 18 years or less. A Just Transition would also prevent the long-term cumulative impacts on the health of workers and local residents, massive CO2 releases to the atmosphere, which will add to the problem of global warming, the displacement of indigenous residents and the desecration and destruction of the Sacred Landscape and religious shrines necessary to the religious practices of the Navajo and Hopi tribes. Response: Addressing an alternative for Just Transition to renewable energy development is beyond the scope of this EIS. The Navajo Generating Station is permitted for operation, the coal leases and 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. EIS Section 4.6.6 addresses the health effects on workers and residents. EIS Sections 3.5.3, 4.5.2, 4.23.3, and 4.24.1.1 address CO2 emissions and global warming. EIS Sections 4.9.1.1 and 4.12.1.1 address resettlement of the 17 residences within the mine lease area. Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, and Hualapai Tribe study teams evaluated traditional cultural resources that could be affected by the project. Black Mesa (known as Nayavuwaltsa to the Hopi and DzlÃjiin to the Navajo) is identified as a significant traditional cultural resource in the draft EIS (p. 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 (p. 4-93). Springs and streams are identified as having traditional cultural significance as well (pp. 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 (pp. 4-26 to 4-29, 4-32 to 4-37). 45(167) Comment: The Draft EIS does not compare the economics of additional coal mining versus a Just Transition to renewable energy development on the mine site and reclaimed areas to prevent long-term cumulative impacts by additional coal mining, Response: The comparison suggested in the comment does not meet the purpose and need for this EIS and is beyond the scope of this EIS. No additional coal will be mined beyond the 8.5 million tons of coal that has been and will continue to be mined annually from the Kayenta mining operation. The Navajo Generating Station is permitted for operation, the coal leases and 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-186

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

45(168) Comment: The Draft EIS does not compare the economics of additional coal mining versus a Just Transition to renewable energy development on the mine site and reclaimed areas to prevent long-term cumulative impacts by additional coal mining. Response: No additional coal mining is proposed under the proposed project and preferred alternative, Alternative B. Peabody will continue to produce 8.5 million tons of coal annually to supply the Navajo Generating Station through 2026. A Just Transition to renewable energy development is beyond the scope of this EIS. The Navajo Generating Station is permitted for operation, the coal leases and 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. 45(169) Comment: The Draft EIS fails to compare the economics and logistics of additional coal mining with a transition to renewable energy development on the mine site and reclaimed areas. In doing so, the Draft EIS fails to offer the public the many viable options for both economically and environmentally preferable energy development that would prevent long-term cumulative impacts by additional coal mining. Response: No additional coal mining is proposed under the preferred alternative, Alternative B. Peabody will continue to produce 8.5 million tons of coal annually to supply the Navajo Generating Station through 2026. The Navajo Generating Station is permitted for operation, the coal leases and 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. A Just Transition to renewable energy development is beyond the scope of this EIS. 45(170) Comment: ...old Draft EIS does not address...the economics of a Just Transition to renewable energy Response: A Just Transition to renewable energy development does not meet the purpose and need of the proposed project and is beyond the scope of this EIS. The Navajo Generating Station is permitted for operation, the coal leases and 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. 45(171) Comment: The way of the future is through wind, solar, and other non-polluting, non-destructive, sustainable forms of energy. Response: Comment noted. 45(172) Comment: Our country needs to rely more on energy resources that are renewable, instead of supporting practices that rape the earth of non-renewable resources, which is destroying our planet! Response: Comment noted. 45(173) Comment: I want renewable energy sources explored, implemented, and used. Response: Comment noted; however, development of renewable resources does not meet the purpose and need for the proposed project and is beyond the scope of this EIS. 45(174) Comment: We feel it would be very helpful, if the highly advanced technology and capacity that developed countries possess, instead could be invested into developing responsible sustainable alternative energy production, such as for instance wind, sun and water power, as well as energy saving. Response: Comment noted. 45(175) Comment: The Black Mesa Project EIS does not include solutions that could transition economic dependence on mining and burning fossil fuels to wind and solar generation for energy needs. Response: Addressing an alternative for renewable energy development does not meet the purpose and need for the proposed project and is beyond the scope of this EIS. The Navajo Generating Station is permitted for operation, the coal leases and 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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-187

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

45(176) Comment: Please adopt the No Action proposed in Alternative C, while considering conservation and solar energy conversion, or other non-fossil fuel renewable energy development proposals to supply electricity generation for populations in the southwestern region. Response: Under Alternative C, the initial program area of the Black Mesa mining operation would not be incorporated into the permanent program permit; however, the approximately 8.5 million tons of coal per year that has been mined from the Kayenta mining operation would continue to be mined through 2026. The Navajo Generating Station is permitted for operation, the coal leases and 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. If Peabody submits an application that complies with the laws under BLM’s and OSM’s jurisdiction, they would be obligated to approve the application. Addressing renewable energy development is beyond the scope of this EIS. 45(177) Comment: This is the 21st century. It's time Arizona got with the program. Maybe you should take a serious look at what is going on in Spain and follow suit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6616651.stm We have endless sun here, it's free...use it. Response: Comment noted. 45(178) Comment: The incredible waste of scant water by this project is even more ridiculous when less water would be used in converting the coal into methane [natural gas], fertilizer, and elemental mercury. Response: Comment noted. The amount of water that would be used under preferred Alternative B in this Final EIS averages 1,236 af/yr, which is less than the amount proposed under Alternative A in the Draft EIS (which was on average 6,000af/yr). 45(179) Comment: The way of the future is through wind, solar, and other non-polluting, non-destructive, sustainable forms of energy. Response: Comment noted. 45(180) Comment: While I understand that the U.S. has an "energy crisis," we also have a climate crisis, brought on largely by abusive use of fossil fuels such as coal. Our energy problems would best be addressed by a combination of conservation and investment in clean-energy alternatives, such as solar, wind, and hydrogen fuel technologies, not by bolstering antiquated methods that contribute ever more carbon dioxide into the air. Response: Comment noted. 45(181) Comment: Furthermore, the Draft EIS doesn't include any true alternatives, such as renewable energy and sustainable development on the mine sites. Response: Comment noted; however, development of renewable resources does not meet the purpose and need for the proposed project and is beyond the scope of this EIS. 45(182) Comment: In addition, our nation demands renewable energy investments that will make coal, and its attendant destruction of the environment by extraction and the pollution from burning obsolete. Response: Comment noted; however, development of renewable resources does not meet the purpose and need for the proposed project and is beyond the scope of this EIS. 45(183) Comment: Why is Peabody not harnessing the sun and wind in the deserts?
 Response: Development of renewable resources does not meet the purpose and need for the proposed project and is 
 beyond the scope of this EIS. 
 45(184) Comment: There are many sustainable energy alternatives to coal extraction. Response: Comment noted; however, development of renewable resources does not meet the purpose and need for the proposed project and is beyond the scope of this EIS.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-188

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

45(SR10) Summary Comment: The abundance of isolation in the area makes the use of solar power rather than using the coal itself the logical option. While initially expensive to implement, the solar gasification of coal provides an almost infinitely transportable, cleaner energy source, organic fertilizer and mercury that can be scientifically used as well as being safely sequestered from the environment. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 47: Landforms and topography 47(202) Comment: The Black Mesa range takes a critical role in the incidence of low level temperature inversions—the highest in the entire country—according to meteorologist Leonard Myrup in 1971 testimony to Congress. The rupture of karst strata interaction with the natural heating and cooling inversion cycles has not been taken into account by the previous drying out of the deep underground aquifers under the Black Mesa Peabody mining sites. Response: The D and N aquifers beneath the Black Mesa Complex are confined and are expected to remain so during the life of the mine. This means that the water level will remain above the top of the aquifers and no dewatering or “drying out” will occur. Both the D and N aquifers are composed primarily of sandstone and are not subject to karst development (solution associated with limestone, dolomite or gypsum). No rupture of karst strata associated with the withdrawal of water for the project is anticipated. The disturbed ground surfaces and vegetation in the mining area would be expected to have an immeasurably small, if any, impact on the microclimate (including low-altitude temperature inversions). Category 50: Surface water 50(11) Comment: Maybe there can be an alternative of using surface water than from the aquifer? You must not tap the 
 aquifer and deprive these people of life-giving, life-supporting water, period. 
 Response: Use of other sources of water is addressed in the EIS, Chapter 2, Section 2.4.2. The other sources
 addressed include Colorado River water-supply options, groundwater basins near the coal-slurry pipeline, 
 groundwater sources near the Black Mesa Complex, and gray water alternatives. 
 Category 51: Groundwater 51(12) Comment: Peabody’s use of clean underground water from the N aquifer is another ecologically destructive practice. Abuse of that water for the purpose of slurrying coal endangers the lives of the Hopi and Navajo, as well as plant and animal life, in that area. Response: Preferred Alternative B in this Final EIS does not include restarting the coal slurry preparation plant for the transportation of coal to the Mohave Generating Station; therefore, no groundwater would be used to slurry coal under the proposed project. 51(185) Comment: WHAT AN OUTRAGE ALLOWING THIS COAL MINE COMPANY TO POLLUTE AND DESTROY THE UNDERWATER WATER AQUIFER. Response: See EIS Section 4.4. The proposed project would not pollute and destroy aquifers. 51(186) Comment: The Draft EIS does not adequately address the impacts on...water quality (such as depletion of the aquifer) of the proposed expansion, Response: The EIS fully addresses the effects on water quality and quantity (refer to EIS Chapter 4, Section 4.4). 51(187) Comment: Of particular concern are the following: Impacts on regional water supply and quality. Response: Impacts on regional water supply and quality are addressed in EIS Section 4.4). 51(259) Comment: If Alternative A is still being considered, then OSM needs to update the Draft EIS with more recent data, including pending water studies and coal sequestration assessments. The data OSM included in the Black Mesa Project EIS for the N aquifer and C aquifer needs updating, including recharge rates under climate change worsecase scenarios (such as, if the southwestern drought worsens).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-189

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Response: Alternative A is no longer the preferred alternative. Alternative B is the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS. The commenter has not identified which pending water studies the preparers of the EIS should consider. Coal-fired power plants are not part of the proposed project. Sequestration of power plant emissions is outside the scope of this EIS. 51(SR1) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not address the pumping of the Navajo aquifer for the last 30 years. These amounts exceed the aquifer’s ability to replace water annually, and have adversely impacted the natural springs and seeps all over Black Mesa. Springs and seeps no longer can produce the water needed for Navajo families to survive daily. Instead families must abandon local water resources and use community wells 20 to 30 miles over unimproved roads. The mining operation’s irresponsible use of groundwater has jeopardized the people’s survival into the future. Peabody has not included in its application the impact on the people of Black Mesa and how long they can expect to survive with continued use and contamination of the only source of drinking water the people have. What measures do they have in place to insure the people that an alternate source of water in quality and quantity will be delivered if there is irreversible damage to the N aquifer? Summary Response: Section 4.4.2.2.2. of the EIS addresses the impacts of the proposed pumping of the N aquifer, both on other direct uses of pumped N-aquifer water and to streams that receive spring discharges from the N aquifer. The EIS relies on a modeling tool to predict future project impacts that incorporates (by necessity) historical water withdrawals. So, in effect, past pumping is considered in the future impact predictions. The impact on both direct groundwater uses of the N aquifer and to streams receiving N-aquifer spring flow is characterized in this section of the EIS as “negligible.” The permit application’s conclusion that there will be no damage to the N aquifer and that it will continue to provide its high-quality water to projected water users for the foreseeable future does not differ from the conclusions reached in the EIS. 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)). 51(SR13) Summary Comment: OSM hydrologic model is antiquated and unable to account for recharge, transmissivity, and storage coefficient. USGS also noted biases in model performance, which have not been addressed. A new model that accounts for these shortcomings should have been used to discuss Alternative B. The public’s due process right to meaningful review and comment on the Draft EIS has been unduly compromised. Summary Response: OSM does not have a hydrologic model. The previous model referenced by the commenter was replaced with a state-of-the art three-dimensional finite difference model, which was used to perform the analysis. The applicant has provided model results that account for all of the pertinent groundwater variables. The model was used to evaluate the proposed project analyzed in Alternative B, and the summary of results is found in EIS Section 4.4.2.2.2. The modeling effort provided by the applicant has been calibrated and validated with a large amount of actual measured data from the Black Mesa and vicinity, and the model projections match actual measured data well. 51(SR17) Summary Comment: Continued mining will further damage already depleted seeps and springs on the Black Mesa. Local residents rely upon these water sources. Summary Response: Local seeps and springs are fed by shallow aquifers. Modeling of the pumping of the N and D aquifers reveals no effect on seeps and springs as they are under a different hydrologic environment. Refer to EIS Section 4.4.2 for information on the impact of Alternative B on seeps and springs. The seeps and springs that emanate from the rock units that are being and will be mined by the applicant are generally of a quality that would not meet livestock suitability limits. The flow rates of any known seeps or springs within the permit and adjacent area are very low, and only a few at most would have enough flow to be used for a legitimate purpose. Also, the localized type of groundwater resources that produce these particular seeps and springs mean that potential impacts would not extend much beyond the area being mined. Finally, there are no documented users of any particular seeps or springs that emanate from the rock units being mined within or immediately adjacent to the permit area.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-190

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 52: Groundwater – Water withdrawal (effects of withdrawal, drawdown of surrounding wells, springs) 52(16) Comment: Well draw downs and adverse impacts on spring and wash flows downstream of the Black Mesa will now impact the Leupp Well Field. Peabody’s coal mining operations will further expand and transform the region’s natural hydrology. The Navajo aquifer provides the only viable long-term domestic water supply for the Navajo and Hopi Tribes. Well draw downs in the Navajo aquifer from previous coal-mining operations at the Black Mesa Mine have led to dry wells, wide-spread surface subsidence and contamination of the Navajo aquifer. Traditional cultural practices and sacred waters have been violated. * Response: The Leupp well field taps the C aquifer. The EIS analyzes the impacts of water withdrawal from the C aquifer under Alternative A. Alternative A is no longer the proposed project and preferred alternative. No land surface subsidence or contamination of the N aquifer has occurred as the result of Peabody withdrawing water from the N aquifer. 52(SR60) Summary Comment: The proposed groundwater withdrawals by Peabody exceed the annual rate of recharge of the N-Aquifer, thus removing vital artesian well pressure, which drive the Hopi springs. Many of these springs are sacred sites and necessary for spiritual and religious purposes. When water stops moving in an artesiaN aquifer system the water stops moving underground and the springs will no longer provide water. Summary Response: The proposed permit application indicates that the potentiometric surface in the southern and western periphery of the confined portion of the N aquifer will be reduced by approximately only 1 foot during the next 20 years or so, and that the reduction derives from pumping by both the applicant and other local municipalities. Whatever the source, this reduction should not appreciably decrease flows in springs in the vicinity. Category 54: Groundwater – Navajo aquifer 54(18) Comment: The Draft EIS says nothing of the effects of mining on the Navajo aquifer. Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.4.2 for information on the impacts of mining on the N aquifer. 54(65) Comment: ...tribal uses of the N aquifer and their incremental demand and competition for N aquifer resources over the life of the mining operation have changed in the intervening years since the original Draft EIS was released. These data must not only be included in the water-impacts analysis, but should be updated as well. Response: Tribal uses of the N aquifer have not appreciably changed since the issuance of the Draft EIS in November 2006. 54(188) Comment: ...the Draft EIS fails to address the issue of recovery. USGS data shows that the wells are not recovering as quickly as models have predicted, lending additional proof that the models relied upon by OSM are fatally flawed and inaccurately depict potential impacts. Although the stress on the N aquifer may be reduced under Alternative B, relying on the outdated models to assess water impacts and stress on the N-aquifer (drawdown below the top of the N aquifer, reduced baseflow and spring flow, leakage of poor-quality water from the D aquifer, etc.) is inappropriate. The lack of recovery underscores the potential inadequacy that plagues N aquifer recharge; i.e., whether recharge can be considered 13,000 acre-feet/year (Brown and Eychaner 1983) or, more appropriately, 3,100 acre-feet/year (Lopes and Hoffman 1996). And the impacts of climate change further underscore the need for more pertinent information and appropriate assumptions in the water-impacts analysis. Response: EIS Section 4.4 refers to and discusses the future impacts on water-level recovery based on groundwater models, which are not outdated. The USGS potentiometric data follow the approximate pattern and magnitude of recovery predicted by the models. The model assumptions are reasonable and reflect actual conditions. 54(260) Comment: In addition to previously submitted comments, the discussion of water impacts is now inadequate for additional reasons. First, OSM fails to incorporate the 2.5 years of publicly available USGS data. This data indicates that the N aquifer is not recovering as the models predicted. To the extent OSM is relying on outdated and inaccurate models to predict water impacts, those models must be updated with the latest information available. Further, OSM must analyze the data’s relevance to assumptions that have been repeatedly challenged by NRDC’s

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-191

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

drawdown reports and hydrologists at Levine Fricke, Inc. (LFR). These include, but are not limited to, recharge
 rates, safe/sustainable yields, total withdrawals, and future municipal demands. 
 Response: OSM tracks the latest USGS data. The data further support previous groundwater model predictions and 
 assumptions. 
 54(SR1) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not address the pumping of the Navajo aquifer for the last 30 years. These amounts exceed the aquifer’s ability to replace water annually, and have adversely impacted the natural springs and seeps all over Black Mesa. Springs and seeps no longer can produce the water needed for Navajo families to survive daily. Instead families must abandon local water resources and use community wells 20 to 30 miles over unimproved roads. The mining operation’s irresponsible use of groundwater has jeopardized the people’s survival into the future. Peabody has not included in its application the impact on the people of Black Mesa and how long they can expect to survive with continued use and contamination of the only source of drinking water the people have. What measures do they have in place to insure the people that an alternate source of water in quality and quantity will be delivered if there is irreversible damage to the N aquifer? Summary Response: Section 4.4.2.2.2. of the EIS addresses the impacts of the proposed pumping of the N aquifer, both on other direct uses of pumped N-aquifer water and to streams that receive spring discharges from the N aquifer. The EIS relies on a modeling tool to predict future project impacts that incorporates (by necessity) historical water withdrawals. So, in effect, past pumping is considered in the future impact predictions. The impact on both direct groundwater uses of the N aquifer and to streams receiving N-aquifer spring flow is characterized in this section of the EIS as “negligible.” The permit application’s conclusion that there will be no damage to the N aquifer and that it will continue to provide its high-quality water to projected water users for the foreseeable future does not differ from the conclusions reached in the EIS. 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)). 54(SR17) Summary Comment: Continued mining will further damage already depleted seeps and springs on the Black Mesa. Local residents rely upon these water sources. Summary Response: Local seeps and springs are fed by shallow aquifers. Modeling of the pumping of the N and D aquifers reveals no effect on seeps and springs as they are under a different hydrologic environment. Refer to EIS Section 4.4.2 for information on the impact of Alternative B on seeps and springs. The seeps and springs that emanate from the rock units that are being and will be mined by the applicant are generally of a quality that would not meet livestock suitability limits. The flow rates of any known seeps or springs within the permit and adjacent area are very low, and only a few at most would have enough flow to be used for a legitimate purpose. Also, the localized type of groundwater resources that produce these particular seeps and springs mean that potential impacts would not extend much beyond the area being mined. Finally, there are no documented users of any particular seeps or springs that emanate from the rock units being mined within or immediately adjacent to the permit area. Category 55: Groundwater – Don’t use groundwater for coal slurry 55(189) Comment: Using groundwater in a desert to move a polluting resource to market is simply unconscionable. Response: Under Alternative B, the preferred alternative in this Final EIS, the coal-slurry preparation plant would not be restarted and the coal-slurry pipeline would not be reconstructed and operated. Under Alternative B, groundwater would not be used to transport coal. Category 56: Climate 56(194) Comment: [I support] Stopping...catastrophic climate change Response: Comment noted. 56(212) Comment: Finally, the Peabody permitting process has taken place before climate change was a scientifically accepted fact. This region must be carefully reviewed in light of the new but growing national commitment to shifting to non-carbon-based models of energy production and environmental restoration.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-192

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Response: The Final EIS (Sections 3.6, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) 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. 56(213) Comment: “The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States,” Has Been Issued Since the Previous Deadline Response: The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change. 56(214) Comment: It is clear that cumulative impacts due to climate change are foreseeable and must be analyzed. Perhaps foremost among these impacts for the project area are threats to water quality and quantity. For the reasons stated above, we request that OSM consider these impacts in reaching its decision on the proposed Black Mesa Project. Response: The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change. 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(215) Comment: Thus, as a trustee, OSM must protect trust resources for present and future generations, and may not permit irrevocable harm to public lands or the atmosphere by private interests. In this context, the public trust duty obligates OSM to exercise reasonable care of trust property-the atmosphere and the public lands themselves-by quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from the Black Mesa Project, taking affirmative measures to reduce those emissions to protect trust property, and ensuring that the public lands are able to mitigate and adapt to the intensifying effects of global warming. Response: Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) and Navajo Generating Station (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(216) Comment: The threats just described are further amplified by the effects of climate change on water in the Southwest. As described in previous sections, climate change may already be responsible for drought in the Southwest. In any event, most climate models predict increasing Southwest drought. This condition is reasonably foreseeable and to argue otherwise in 2008 is to argue against widespread scientific consensus. In addition, the Black Mesa Project is incrementally increasing climate impacts. Response: Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS (Sections 3.6, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) 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 (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) and Navajo Generating Station (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(217) Comment: We also recommend that the Final EIS include a qualitative discussion of climate change impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. For example, in January 2007, the California Public Utilities Commission issued interim standards for coal-fired power stations that included a ban on California utility acquisitions of electricity from out-of-state power producers unless specific standards are met. 2 Since the issuance of the April 2, 2007 Supreme Court opinion in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, 549 U.S. (2007), EPA has begun to develop regulations to

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-193

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

address greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and fuels under the direction of the President’s May 14, 2007 Executive Order and relevant Clean Air Act authorities. The Agency continues to evaluate the potential effects of the Court’s decision with respect to addressing emissions of greenhouse gases under other provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, neither this comment letter nor the EIS for an individual project reflects, and should not be construed as reflecting, the type of judgment that might form the basis for a positive or negative finding under any provision of the Clean Air Act. We also note here the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 508 F3d 508 (9th Cir. 2007). Response: The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a qualitative discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change. However, the landscape of regulatory and legal developments in the U.S. is rapidly changing. At this juncture, the Final EIS cannot speculate on the possible outcome(s) of proposed rulemaking. 56(218) Comment: You also know that we, as a nation, are working to reduce our contributions to global climate change. The single most dangerous thing we can do now is increase our use of coal for energy. The operation of a single, medium-sized coal plant can contribute more greenhouse pollution to the atmosphere than millions of vehicles on the road. It is the height of stupidity or greed for any company to engage in operations that increase the use of coal. Response: The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change. Under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS, mining would not expand. Under the current SMCRA permit, Peabody is authorized to continue to mine approximately 85 million tons of coal per year annually from the Kayenta mining operation into 2026. 56(219) Comment: SIGNIFICANT NEW CIRCUMSTANCES AND INFORMATION RELEVANT TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS HAVE BEARING ON THE PROPOSED ACTION AND REQUIRE A SUPPLEMENTAL EIS...OSM has failed to conduct an adequate analysis of the reasonably expected consequences of the contribution of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming from the coal mining resulting from the Black Mesa project. Response: Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave Generating Stations (which currently is not in operation) and Navajo Generating Station (despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed 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(220) Comment: In fact, the drying out of the region, whether by previous stripmining of coal or mining of groundwater, has had regional and continental climate impacts that have not been taken into account. Response: It is assumed that the commenter is implying that surface mining and depletion of groundwater has the potential to reduce vegetation, which theoretically would impact plant transpiration. In the vicinity of the proposed project, subsurface aquifers have only a minor impact on vegetative cover. 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(221) Comment: There have been significant developments in the scientific, regulatory’, and judicial landscape regarding greenhouse gas emissions since the original publication of the Draft EIS. Given these recent developments, EPA believes the potential greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed project and alternatives should be discussed in the Final EIS. We recommend the Final EIS quantify the greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed project. This would include, for example, greenhouse gas emissions from the mining, transport, and burning of coal from the Black Mesa Mine Complex, as well as cumulative emissions within the project study area. Response: Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave Generating Stations (which currently is not in operation) and Navajo Generating Station

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-194

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

(despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed 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(222) Comment: It doesn’t address carbon dioxide in conformity with new federal legislation - of include the cumulative impacts on global climate. Response: The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave Generating Stations (which currently is not in operation) and Navajo Generating Station (despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed or alternative actions). At present no legislation or regulation at the federal level establishes greenhouse gasses as air pollutants. 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(223) Comment: In particular, the Black Mesa Project EIS denies any impact on catastrophic climate change Response: The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave Generating Stations (which currently is not in operation) and Navajo Generating Station (despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed 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(224) Comment: CARE disagrees with the Draft EIS because the Draft EIS does not consider greenhouse gas emissions as regulated pollutants. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are components of the emissions expected from the Black Mesa Project and yet they are not included as regulated emissions. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) website recognizes the climate change impacts of these emissions and yet these impacts were not included as pollutants. The United States Supreme Court issued a decision over a year ago noting that the USEPA has regulatory authority to control these emissions and yet they are not even mentioned in the Draft EIS. Response: The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave Generating Stations (which currently is not in operation) and Navajo Generating Station (despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed project or alternative actions). At present no legislation or regulation at the federal level establishes greenhouse gasses as air pollutants. 56(225) Comment: The EIS Must Consider Climate Change Impacts of the Proposed Project, Including Impacts from Both Coal Production and Use...The volume of coal that would be mined and burned under the proposed project is of such a magnitude that climate change impacts must be assessed...Since previous comments were submitted, climate scientists have increased their level of collective certainty of anthropogenic climate change and its causes. That science has been published by international groups like the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and by the U.S. government. Response: The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave Generating Stations (which currently is not in operation) and Navajo Generating Station (despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed 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(226) Comment: IPCC Reports Have Been Issued Since the Previous Comment Deadline...OSM should consider the entirety of the Fourth Assessment Report and make it part of the administrative record for the Draft EIS. Due to the severe impacts of the project’s carbon dioxide emissions on the health, welfare, economy, and environment of the southwestern United States, the nation, and the planet as a whole as described in the IPCC report, OSM should

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-195

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

conclude that the Black Mesa project has severe unmitigated adverse environmental impacts and reject the proposed alternative. Response: The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave Generating Stations (which currently is not in operation) and Navajo Generating Station (despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed 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(227) Comment: Given the tremendous significance and far-reaching implications of the analysis and conclusions in the attached Scientific Assessment Report, and the direct relevance of this information in this instance, it would be arbitrary and capricious for the government to ignore its own Scientific Assessment Report in its resolution of the current proceeding. Significantly, the information presented in the Scientific Assessment Report specifically addresses the nature, extent, and causation of impacts caused by man-made greenhouse emissions (especially CO2). OSM may not make a decision in the Draft EIS that fails to evaluate the significance of each of the concerns raised in the Scientific Assessment Report and to explore all available opportunities to ameliorate any contribution of the proposed project to adverse health, welfare, or environmental affects. Accordingly, this Scientific Assessment Report is appropriately included in the administrative record for OSM’s ongoing deliberations on this decision, and probative of important factual and policy considerations that are central to OSM’s decision. Response: The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave Generating Stations (which currently is not in operation) and Navajo Generating Station (despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed 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(228) Comment: The Draft EIS fails to adequately address global warming. OSM has no lawful basis for declining to analyze the direct and cumulative impacts of CO2 or other greenhouse gases, including how Peabody plans to offset the carbon released by the coal burned through 2026. Response: The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave Generating Stations (which currently is not in operation) and Navajo Generating Station (despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed or alternative actions). At present no Federal regulations exist that would require offsetting of carbon emissions. 56(229) Comment: I believe that given the emerging global awareness about climate change, that the current Draft EIS is insufficient, it must be redone and address seriously the effects of coal mining/extraction on climate change and include sustainable energy in it’s alternatives. Response: The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave Generating Stations (which currently is not in operation) and Navajo Generating Station despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed project or alternative actions). “Sustainable energy” projects are outside the scope of this EIS. 56(230) Comment: The surface moisture levels are far too low to risk further land erosion possibilities and still possible sink
 holes. This climate instability is a critical environmental factor that has not been taken into serious account in the 
 EIS as it now stands. 
 Response: It is assumed that the commenter is implying that global climate change may decrease surface moisture 
 levels. In the vicinity of the proposed project, subsurface aquifers have only a minor impact on surface soil moisture 
 levels. Furthermore, as stated in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and recent Department of the Interior guidance, 
 current climate change 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 is not possible. 
 56(232) Comment: It doesn’t address the new legislation about carbon dioxide’s polluting effects and climate change.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-196

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Response: It is assumed that the commenter is referring to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA. At this time, there are no Federal laws or regulations that categorize CO2 as an air pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, nor are there any laws or regulations that directly limit greenhouse gas emissions. Since the issuance of Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, the USEPA has begun developing regulations addressing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and fuels. USEPA continues to evaluate the potential effects of the Court’s decision with respect to addressing emissions of greenhouse gases under other provisions of the Clean Air Act. Nothing in this EIS or response to comments document should be construed as reflecting any positive or negative conclusion regarding any legal provision of the Clean Air Act. The Final EIS (Sections 3.6, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a 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 and from mining and transportation of coal under each alternative. Category 57: Air quality 57(195) Comment: The Draft EIS does not adequately address the impacts on air (such as increased particulates in the region’s air)...of the proposed expansion. Response: Under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS, mining would not expand. Under the current SMCRA permit, Peabody is authorized to continue to mine approximately 8.5 million tons per year of coal from the Kayenta mining operation into 2026. Peabody would not mine the 6.35 million tons of coal per year from the Black Mesa mining operation. Under Alternative B, the area of Black Mesa mining area would be incorporated into the permanent program permit area (thereby expanding the permanent permit area) within Peabody’s leased areas. Particulate impacts on air quality are adequately addressed in EIS Section 4.6. 57(204) Comment: The contributions of CO2 emissions to worsening atmospheric conditions is cynically ignored - to the benefit of a single multinational corporation at terrible public expense. Response: The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas emissions from the Mohave Generating Stations (which currently is not in operation) and Navajo Generating Station (despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed project or alternative actions). 57(SR20) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not address the current U.S. 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 to mine. Summary Response: It is assumed that the commenter is referring to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA. At this time, there are no Federal laws or regulations that categorize CO2 as an air pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, nor are there any laws or regulations that directly limit greenhouse gas emissions. Since the issuance of Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, the USEPA has begun developing regulations addressing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and fuels. USEPA continues to evaluate the potential effects of the Court’s decision with respect to addressing emissions of greenhouse gases under other provisions of the Clean Air Act. Nothing in this EIS or response to comments document should be construed as reflecting any positive or negative conclusion regarding any legal provision of the Clean Air Act. The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a 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 and from mining and transportation of coal under each alternative. 57(SR268) Summary Comment: Current U.S. Federal laws make CO2 a pollutant. There are no provisions for the uncalculated CO2 emissions that will contribute to global warming until 2026, if Peabody continues to mine. Summary Response: It is assumed that the commenter is referring to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA. At this time, there are no Federal laws or regulations that categorize CO2 as an air pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, nor are there any laws or regulations that directly limit greenhouse gas emissions. Since the issuance of Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA, the USEPA has begun developing regulations addressing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and fuels. USEPA continues to evaluate the potential effects of the Court’s decision with respect to addressing emissions of greenhouse gases under other provisions of the Clean Air Act. Nothing in this EIS or response to comments document should be construed as reflecting any positive or

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-197

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

negative conclusion regarding any legal provision of the Clean Air Act. The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a 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 and from mining and transportation of coal under each alternative. 57(SR269) Summary Comment: Current U.S. Federal laws make CO2 a pollutant. There are no provisions for the uncalculated CO2 emissions that will contribute to global warming until 2026, if Peabody continues to mine. Summary Response: The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a 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 (despite the fact that neither plant is part of the proposed project or alternative actions). Category 67: Special status species – Fish and wildlife (threatened and endangered, state-listed, agency sensitive, tribal sensitive) 67(133) Comment: The polar bear has been listed as an endangered species since the previous comment deadline...The duty to consult arises from impacts on a number of species, including all listed species that occur in the action area, including (but not limited to) Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk. OSM must consider the direct and indirect impacts of its actions, including ground-disturbing activities, impacts on water availability, and greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, since our last comment letter, the Secretary of Interior has listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, explicitly acknowledging global warming as the cause of the listing Response: Greenhouse gas emissions from preferred Alternative B would be relatively small. The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a 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 the Navajo Generating Station (although neither plant is part of the proposed 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. Impacts from climate change are beyond the scope of this EIS to quantitatively analyze, and any such analysis of impacts on the polar bear and other species would be speculative. Under the Endangered Species Act, OSM is informally consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the effects of the proposed project, Alternative B. 67(233) Comment: The cumulative impacts of global warming, reduced water quality, and degraded water quality to sensitive, threatened, and endangered species as a result of Black Mesa, as well as the Desert Rock Project, must be analyzed Response: Greenhouse gas emissions from preferred Alternative B would be relatively small. The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a 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 the Navajo Generating Station (although neither plant is part of the proposed 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. Impacts from climate change are beyond the scope of this EIS to quantitatively analyze, and any such analysis of impacts on sensitive, threatened, and endangered species would be speculative. Under the Endangered Species Act, OSM is informally consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the effects of the proposed project, Alternative B. 67(234) Comment: The cumulative effects of decreasing river flow due to climate-impacted drought, plus Navajo Generating Station mercury and selenium deposition, plus the Desert Rock Project and other power plant deposition, must be analyzed for impacts to threatened and endangered fish. We believe such analysis will show unacceptable impacts to critical fish habitat. Response: Greenhouse gas emissions from preferred Alternative B would be relatively small, resulting in mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) has been revised to include a discussion of the scientific community consensus on climate change, and to quantify greenhouse gas

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-198

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

emissions from the Mohave Generating Station (which currently is not in operation) and the Navajo Generating Station (although neither plant is part of the proposed 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. Black Mesa coal has relatively low mercury content when compared with coal from the Powder River Basin or other locations. These coal supplies likely would 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 Black Mesa coal. Recent studies to evaluate effects of mercury from a proposed coal-fired power plant on fish in the San Juan River in northwestern New Mexico indicate that the predicted effects are well below established regulatory thresholds. 67(235) Comment: The cumulative effects of decreasing river flow due to climate-impacted drought, plus Navajo Generating Station mercury and selenium deposition, plus the Desert Rock Project and other power plant deposition, must be analyzed for impacts to threatened and endangered fish. We believe such analysis will show unacceptable impacts to critical fish habitat. Response: Black Mesa coal has relatively low mercury content when compared with coal from the Powder River Basin or other locations. These coal supplies likely would 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 Black Mesa coal. Recent studies to evaluate effects of mercury from a proposed coal-fired power plant on fish in the San Juan River in northwestern New Mexico indicate that the predicted effects are well below established regulatory thresholds. 67(SR22) Summary Comment: Both cumulative and direct impacts on special status species from coal mining and power plant operation must be analyzed. Summary Response: Direct and cumulative effects of the three project alternatives on special status species are addressed in Sections 4.8 and 4.24 of the EIS. Category 76: Cultural resources 76(134) Comment: In addition, the Section 106 study for the Black Mesa Project Draft EIS as require by the National Historic Preservation Act must now be reviewed and reopened because of the change in preferred alternative and change in the Area of Potential Effect. Response: With the change of the proposed project from Alternative A to Alternative B, the extent of the potential effects on cultural resources has been reduced. Cultural resources surveys have already been conducted and section 106 consultation has already occurred for proposed activities at the Black Mesa Complex (Alternative B). Procedures are already in place for any future consultation. 76(196) Comment: read Hotevilla by Thomas Mails and Dan Evehema. Failure to comply with the wishes of the traditional elders of the Hopi is cause in itself to trigger WWIII. Response: Comment noted. 76(197) Comment: The Hopi rely upon their sacred springs for both spiritual and physical survival (which they, unlike us, see as one, not separate). How dare this government, with its claim of being built upon religious freedom, even consider imperiling the religious rights of these ancient Hopi? The Hopi’s use of water has always been frugal and respectful, for they see water as holy. Response: Comment noted. 76(198) Comment: The proposed Black Mesa Project will negatively affect the spiritual and cultural life on Black Mesa, including the Navajo and Hopi communities. Modified Alternative B inadequately interprets the destruction of Dineh and Hopi lands that encompasses pristine topography with numerous cultural and religious sites. Response: EIS Sections 4.10.1.1, 4.10.1.4, 4.10.2 adequately address the impacts on cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-199

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

76(199) Comment: Thus, the modified Alternative B as it concludes in the Draft EIS inadequately interprets the destructive processes of aquifer and coal extraction of Dineh and Hopi lands that encompasses mostly pristine topography that contain numerous cultural and religious sites. Response: EIS Sections 4.10.1.1, 4.10.1.4, 4.10.2 adequately address the impacts on cultural resources and traditional cultural properties. 76(SR24) Summary Comment: Due to Black Mesa’s importance as a sacred (religious), cultural, and historic landscape, early 
 efforts are underway to designate the area Traditional Cultural Property under Section 106 of the National Historic 
 Preservation Act, and under the RFRA agreement.
 Summary Response: Comment noted. 
 76(SR25) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not consider how OSM will comply with RFRA (Religious Freedom and Restoration Act) and prevent substantial burden on the tribes’ ability to practice their religion. Summary Response: In the RFRA, the court must first determine whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief; if these two elements are established, then the government must prove that it is acting in furtherance of a compelling state interest, and that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion. The Hopi and Navajo certainly have recognized religions. Alternative B would be the least restrictive to these religions and have the least impact on cultural resources and sacred sites than A. Mitigation measures have included the revegetation of areas with plants traditionally used in ceremonies and for medicinal and other purposes. The mine lease area (applicable to any alternative) has been the subject of detailed and thorough archaeological surveys for sites of religious significance. In this, OSM has complied with the intent of the RFRA. 76(SR26) Summary Comment: The proposed Black Mesa Project will negatively affect the spiritual and cultural life on Black Mesa, including the Navajo and Hopi communities. Modified Alternative B inadequately interprets the destruction of Dineh and Hopi lands that encompasses pristine topography with numerous cultural and religious sites. Summary Response: EIS Sections 4.10.1.1, 4.10.1.4, 4.10.2 adequately address the impacts on cultural resources and religious sites. Category 80: Social and economic conditions – Demographics and population 80(200) Comment: It is greatly disturbing that, instead of facilitating energy conservation projects, the Federal Government continues to promote needless energy consumption that only serves to further weaken the long-term security of human beings both inside of and outside of the borders of the USA, for pollution respects no borders and human suffering is comprehended by all peoples. Response: Comment noted. Category 88: Environmental justice 88(66) Comment: What about specific and adequate analysis of the disproportionate negative impacts on minority and disadvantaged populations? Response: Refer to EIS Chapter 4, Section 4.12, Environmental Justice, for a discussion on the impacts of the three alternatives. 88(108) Comment: OSM failed to address environmental justice concerns...As a further rebuke, OSM again uses holidays and timing to limit the public’s ability to sufficiently review and comment. For example, the “re-opening” of the Black Mesa comment period was noticed on May 23, 2008, the Friday before Memorial Day weekend. The comment period runs during the multi-day Lakota Sun Dance Ceremony on the Navajo reservation, which began July 3, 2008, four days before comments are due, and for which preparation begins in advance. The comments are due on July 7, 2008, the Monday after the Fourth of July weekend. OSM’s actions do violence to environmental justice mandates to provide a sufficient and meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-200

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Response: Environmental justice is addressed EIS Sections 3.12 and 4.12. OSM did not time the reopened comment period to coincide with holidays and ceremonies. The timing of the public comment period was discussed with and agreed upon by the Navajo Nation government prior to being established. 88(261) Comment: This relocation is outrageous!!!! You have taken their lands, killed them off in the millions and forced these people to live in the inhabitable parts of the U.S. and now their only way of life you take from them to produce more earth killing machines. Response: Comment noted. 88(262) Comment: The traditional people, especially the elders, who live in the Black Mesa area and beyond, have been emotionally and spiritually traumatized from witnessing the devastation of the land including in the Black Mesa area. Response: Comment noted. 88(SR27) Summary Comment: Commenters express outrage that Indian people on Black Mesa continue to experience cultural trauma as well as significant environmental impact at the hands of Anglo companies who take freely from the earth for their own profit and give nothing to the Indian people in return. The Indian culture and traditions are being destroyed leading some to claim racism and even genocide. Mining at Black Mesa should be discontinued and the land reclaimed. Summary Response: Comment noted. Category 89: Indian trust assets 89(236) Comment: We confine our comments to the public trust doctrine in general, and to two specific sub issues, (1) the application of the doctrine to groundwater in U.S. law, and (2) the viability of the public trust doctrine under international law, which should bind U.S. agencies in their dealings with peoples who have a measure of sovereignty over their natural resources. Response: The two tribes whose trust assets are addressed in the EIS, the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation, have lease agreements with Peabody for the use of the resources (e.g., water and coal) and have participated actively in the preparation of the EIS as cooperating agencies. Category 96: Health and safety – Hazards and contaminants – Blasting 96(231) Comment: They increase the detonation of coal on a daily basis, affecting air quality and health of miners, local residents, and their livestock. Response: The number and frequency of blasts, which are used to fragment overburden and partings between coal seams, vary according to the site conditions of the areas being mined. The number of detonations under Alternative B would decrease from the number of detonations under Alternative A since Alternative B doesn’t contemplate the detonation needed to mine the 6.35 million tons of coal per year from the Black Mesa mining operation proposed under Alternative A. Refer to EIS Section 4.6.6 for a discussion of dust and health-related issues. Under Alternative B, the proposed project and preferred alternative in this Final EIS would not expand. Peabody will continue to mine approximately 8.5 million tons of coal per year annually from the Kayenta mining operation. Category 97: Health and safety – Hazards and contaminants – Air quality 97(135) Comment: Downwind communities (Kayenta, Red Lake, Tuba City, and Moenkopi) as well as Dineh households living near the mines vicinity suffer the negative effects from coal extraction emissions. Exhaust from Peabody operating vehicles at Kayenta and BMM have also added to dangerous CO2 levels. Extending and/or expanding mining operations as proposed in the Black Mesa Project would further increase the risk to public health from air degradation. Response: Refer to EIS Sections 3.6 and 4.6 (particularly Sections 3.6.4, 4.6.6, and 4.19.2.2.1) regarding air quality and health issues concerning dust.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-201

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

97(237) Comment: Public health impacts of decades of mining to produce coal-generated electricity is unknown - and the expedited EIS process serves only to keep that health information from being considered. Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.6.6 regarding dust and health-related issues. 97(238) Comment: Of particular concern are the following: Health impacts of additional airborne particulates and CO2 on the residents of the immediate region and in the wider contexts of air quality in the Southwest U.S., climate change, and global warming. Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.6.6 regarding dust and health-related issues and EIS Section 4.5.2 regarding climate change and global warming. 97(239) Comment: We know firsthand the devastating effects of the mining on the land and on the people, including the increased cancer rates and respiratory problems including asthma. Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.6.6 regarding dust and health-related issues. 97(240) Comment: The mining is only causing more air pollution at our present location of home. Response: Refer to EIS Sections 3.6 and 4.6 (particularly Sections 3.6.4, 4.6.6, and 4.19.2.2.1) regarding air quality. 97(244) Comment: The Draft EIS says nothing of the... the effects of mining on the health and lungs of local peoples. Response: The text has been revised to include local residents. Refer to EIS Section 4.6.6 regarding dust and healthrelated issues. 97(245) Comment: The Draft EIS also does not address mitigation of health impacts on local residents caused by particulate emissions, including asthma, black lung, and silicacosis. Response: The text has been revised to include local residents. Refer to EIS Section 4.6.6 regarding dust and healthrelated issues. 97(SR28) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS mentions lung problems and only proposes mitigation for mine workers, not residents. Draft EIS must look at mitigation measures for local residents to avoid health problems associated with black lung, silicacosis and other lung ailments like asthma. Summary Response: The text has been revised to include local residents. Refer to EIS Section 4.6.6 regarding dust and health-related issues. 97(SR29) Summary Comment: Humans are totally incapable of returning the land to the “original state” after mining. Summary Response: Land reclamation after surface mining activities is not intended to return the land to its original state, but rather to a state of geomorphic equilibrium where there is a reestablishment of natural water processes and ecological stability. Category 102: Mitigation, best management practices 102(70) Comment: Finally, action to fight global warming is likely to include carbon taxes, which would severely impact the ability of the mine operator to pay for mitigation and cleanup. Response: Cleanup and mitigation following cessation of mining is not voluntary. Peabody must follow strict Federal regulations for postmining reclamation activities. Analysis of the effect of any potential carbon taxes would be speculative. 102(SR29) Summary Comment: Humans are totally incapable of returning the land to the “original state” after mining. Summary Response: Land reclamation after surface mining activities is not intended to return the land to its original state, but rather to a state of geomorphic equilibrium where there is a re-establishment of natural water processes and ecological stability.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-202

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Category 106: Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources 106(71) Comment: The irreversible damage to the environment is far too great to justify this plan. My concerns are depletion of scarce water resources, destruction of native plants, animals and homelands of indigenous people, and the release of unacceptable amounts of carbon dioxide into the air. Response: Comment noted. Category 108: Cumulative effects 108(72) Comment: These plans are a planetary as well as a cultural abuse. They substantially accelerate global climate disruption and cause an ecological meltdown. They destroy thousands of acres of pristine canyon lands, causing animal and plant ecology and cultural sites to vanish. Response: Comment noted. 108(250) Comment: The cumulative impact of other power generating facilities in the Four Corners region must also be considered in conjunction with Peabody’s past coal mining operations at Black Mesa Mine. Response: Refer to EIS Section 4.24 for a discussion of cumulative effects (particularly Section 4.24.1, Air Quality). Category 109: Consultation and coordination 109(30) Comment: We are also vitally concerned with the status of critical negotiations between Peabody Coal Company (as both a diversified mine and power plant operator) and the dependent (or co-dependent) Navajo and Hopi tribes regarding certain “coal-related opportunities” for currently unmined reserves in the still-existing Black Mesa Mine lease area that could eventuate into a revised and reviled form of Alternative A. Response: Comment noted. 109(31) Comment: In addition, we are concerned with the state of delicate but pivotal negotiations between Peabody, Navajo and Hopi tribes, and other legal and political entities like Flagstaff concerning the settlement of unadjudicated surface and subsurface water rights claims to the Little Colorado River Basin which includes the N and C aquifers. Response: Comment noted. 109(32) Comment: Do the tribal folks have any say in this? Response: The governments of the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and Navajo Nation are cooperating agencies in the preparation of this EIS. NEPA requirements to ensure public participation were met through public distribution and review of the Draft EIS to the interested public and affected agencies. A number of public meetings were held to reach out to the public in the affected areas and bilingual translators were available to further reach targeted populations. 109(136) Comment: Any upgrade, reconstruction or new construction of facilities that cross state highways requires a permit through Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) (Kingman, Flagstaff or Holbrook District). Response: Comment noted. 109(138) Comment: Why does OSM feel it has adequately addressed Indian Trust Assets issues? RFRA? Besides contact with the tribal council, how have full and adequate consultation requirements been met? Response: OSM has engaged in consultation with the governments of the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, and Navajo Nation. The two tribes whose trust assets are addressed in the EIS, the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation, have lease agreements with Peabody for the use of the resources (e.g., water and coal) and have participated actively in the preparation of the EIS as cooperating agencies. 109(139) Comment: Alternative B will combine Kayenta and Black Mesa mines into one mine under one permit. The coal from the mine will be transported from Black Mesa to the Navajo Generating Station at Page, Arizona. The coal

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-203

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

conveyor from Black Mesa to the coal loading site crosses US 160 at MP 373.6. A permit will be required through the ADOT Holbrook District if this conveyor is going to be upgraded or reconstructed in the future. Response: Comment noted. 109(251) Comment: Proper authority from the Hopi Tribe regarding the pumping of N aquifer water has not been obtained. Ordinance 55 (see page 2-33) is the Potential Agency Authority that governs “well leases, drilling permits, and use of water”. This Ordinance requires Hopi Tribal Council approval before the proper permit is issued. (see attachment and Administrative Record 55). No Tribal Council approval has been given. Response: The authorization to develop and use water for mining operations and coal slurrying is given in the original mining lease with the Hopi Tribe (Lease No.14-20-0450-5743). By Resolution dated May 16th, 1966 (H­ 12-66), the Hopi Tribal Council authorized the Chairman to enter into that mining lease on behalf of the Tribe. This authorization was affirmed in the November 20, 1987, lease amendments executed on behalf of the Hopi Tribe by the Chairman’ as authorized by Hopi Tribal Council Resolution H-114-97. 109(SR33) Summary Comment: There has been a total lack of outreach to the local populations of Black Mesa by the Federal or Navajo governments to adequately discuss Alternative B. This prevents these people from being an informed part of the public participation process. Perhaps a new comment process should be made available. Summary Response: OSM published a notice in the Federal Register on May 23, 2008, affording interested parties 45 days from May 23, 2008 to July 7, 2008 to review the Draft EIS and comment on the change in preferred alternative from Alternative A to Alternative B. As a cooperating agency, the government of the Navajo Nation was aware of this notice prior to its publishing. Notices of the change in preferred alternatives were announced to a wide audience via newspaper, radio, website, and newsletter. The Draft EIS was originally released, with all existing alternatives including Alternative B, for review in November 2006. The Alternative B announced in the May 23, 2008, notice differed from the Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIS only in that it did not include a previouslyproposed 127-acre haul road (a lesser impact). Category 114: Public participation 114(34) Comment: I am a landowner in Mohave County, Arizona, where the “Black Mesa Pipeline” (slurry line) runs. Your office has failed to hold even one meeting on the subject of the pipeline, yet the proposal to upgrade has significant impact on my property. You are required by Federal codes to present to the public and landowners ALL issues that affect the value and usage of their property. I am herewith demanding that your office fulfill it’s mandated obligations and hold public hearings dealing with your EIS on the Black Mesa Pipeline. It is strongly suggested that a minimum of two hearings would be appropriate, for Kingman and/or Bullhead City, Golden Valley. Response: The EIS analyzes the rebuilding the coal-slurry pipeline under Alternative A. During the initial comment period on the Draft EIS, two public meetings were held in Mojave County—one in Kingman and one in Peach Springs. The proposed project and preferred alternative is now Alternative B, which does not include reconstruction of the coal-slurry pipeline. Kingman, Bullhead City, or Golden Valley would not be affected if Alternative B is implemented. 114(109) Comment: The Hopi ways are not hurried and you are noticed to respect the ways of the nations you are communicating with and the conditions they currently live in. Response: Comment noted. 114(112) Comment: Here, and upon submission of an administratively complete application, SMCRA’s public participation requirements mandate: (1) public notice; (2) public availability of any completed application; and, (3) notification to local governments/other agencies. If, since May 23, 2008, Peabody’s application has been determined by the agency to be administratively complete, we respectfully request that the agency immediately comply with SMCRA’s public participation requirements. 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

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-204

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

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. 114(113) Comment: The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process requires that any new adjustment or change to a project a new environmental impact statement should be prepared and the new EIS would require scoping meetings for communities that are impacted. The scoping meetings and public comments is also justified by the Executive Order 12898 of 1994 that any development of policies, programs, procedures and activities would be required to ensure that the specific impacted communities are meaningfully involved in environmental decisionmaking. The process you have adopted surrounding this particular recommendation of Alternative B is contrary to the stated purpose of Executive Order 12898 and NEPA. Again, we state that the impacted communities surrounding Black Mesa Project entails indigenous peoples who do not read or write the English language to submit a comment to the Black Mesa Project EIS. This is also a violation of the Civil Rights against the community members who are not allowed to voice their concerns verbally. Response: The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) regulations require that an agency shall prepare a supplement to a Draft EIS if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). The pertinent changes that were made in the Final EIS after issuance of the Draft EIS are the selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative rather than Alternative A and the change in Alternatives B to remove a proposed road that would have disturbed 127 acres of additional land (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). Because the Final EIS continues to analyze the environmental effects of Alternatives A and B, Alternative B has been insubstantially changed, and the changes were publicly disclosed and comments were solicited on them during a 45-day comment period, there is no need under CEQ’s regulation to prepare a supplemental Draft EIS. The interested public and affected/cooperating agencies, including the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe, have been afforded the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIS, which has full disclosure of all environmental impacts of each of the alternatives. Public participation was sought through public scoping, public meetings, public comment through electronic mail, postal mail, and fax, bilingual translation of an overview of the Draft EIS. 114(114) Comment: Based on my interaction with my relatives and friends, I am aware that that our Hopi people, including our currently inoperable Hopi government, were and are unclear as to the details and comparison of the impacts from Alternatives A and B presented in the Draft EIS. That uncertainty has been compounded by the actions proposed for comment in the May 23 OSM notice. In part, the Draft EIS has not been well understood by the Hopi people because of its length and details, and inadequate explanation by OSM in the public process. Any action needs to be presented village by village, not withstanding the Hopi Tribal Council, due in part to the ancient history of the Hopi system of governance. Response: OSM provided opportunities for bilingual communications with non-English-speaking people during the first round of public comments on the Draft EIS. OSM also translated an overview of the Draft EIS to enable a broader range of affected individuals to understand the project more thoroughly. The same three alternatives have been analyzed in the Draft EIS and Final EIS (A, B, and C). The only changes that were announced in the May 23, 2008, Federal Register notice were the selection of the of Alternative B as the preferred alternative (instead of Alternative A) and the change in Alternative B to remove a proposed road that would have disturbed 127 acres (a lesser impact). These changes were made known to affected individuals via local radio and newspaper announcements, OSM’s website, and newsletters that were provided to representatives of both the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation to distribute to local individuals and communities. 114(SR33) Summary Comment: There has been a total lack of outreach to the local populations of Black Mesa by the Federal or Navajo governments to adequately discuss Alternative B. This prevents these people from being an informed part of the public participation process. Perhaps a new comment process should be made available. Summary Response: OSM published a notice in the Federal Register on May 23, 2008, affording interested parties 45 days from May 23, 2008 to July 7, 2008 to review the Draft EIS and comment on the change in preferred alternative from Alternative A to Alternative B. As cooperating agencies, the government of the Navajo Nation was aware of this notice prior to its publishing. Notices of the change in preferred alternatives were announced to a wide audience via newspaper, radio, website, and newsletter. The Draft EIS was originally released, with all existing alternatives including Alternative B, for review in November 2006. The Alternative B announced in the May 23,

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-205

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

2008, notice differed from the Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIS only in that it did not include a previouslyproposed 127-acre haul road (a lesser impact). 114(SR35) Summary Comment: Numerous tribal members 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. Summary Response: OSM made every effort to widely announce the reopening of the comment period on the Draft EIS (issued in November 2006). OSM published a Federal Register notice on May 23, 2008, mailed newsletters to more than 900 people on the project mailing list, sent bundles of newsletters to the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation for distribution to tribal official and members, placed paid newspaper advertisements, submitted media releases to local and regional newspapers, paid for announcements on the local radios in native languages, and posted the announcement on OSM’s website. Also, as cooperating agencies, the governments of the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation were aware that the comment period had reopened. Since the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIS in February 2007, the preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS changed from Alternative A to Alternative B. The Alternative B announced in the May 23, 2008, notice differed from the Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIS only in that it did not include a previously-proposed 127-acre haul road (a lesser impact). 114(SR115) Summary Comment: Opportunities should have been provided for bilingual communications in the review of the alternatives. Summary Response: OSM provided opportunities for bilingual communications with non-English-speaking people during the scoping period early in the project and the first round of public comments on the Draft EIS (in 2006 and 2007). OSM also translated an overview of the Draft EIS into Hopi and Navajo languages to enable a broader range of affected individuals to understand the project more thoroughly. Since then, the only changes made to the alternatives is selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative (rather than A) and removal of a proposed 127­ acre road under Alternative B (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). 114(SR118) Summary Comment: The timing of the comment period conflicts with Hopi ceremonial activities. Summary Response: By Federal Register notice on November 22, 2006, the 60-day comment period on the Draft EIS 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 reopened the comment period on the Draft EIS for 45 days from May 23 through July 7, 2008. OSM is not aware of any Hopi ceremonies occurring during this time period. OSM conferred with the cooperating agencies, including Hopi tribal representatives, in scheduling the public comment periods. Category 118: Public participation – Public meetings – Hearings 118(252) Comment: OSM Violates Mandatory Procedural Requirements...OSM did not host any public hearings in which the interested individuals, including those who are not able to read and write, may comment on the latest release of the Draft EIS. Response: The Draft EIS was released for public review in November 2006. During the public review period, 12 public meetings were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. During these meetings, translators were present to receive oral comments in native languages. During a reopened comment period that that ended in July 2008, written comments were solicited. In the intervening time period between the original comment period and the opening of the reopened comment period, the only changes that were made to the alternatives were the selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative (instead of A) and the removal of a proposed 127-acre road under Alternative B (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). Therefore, additional public meetings to solicit comments on the November 2006 Draft EIS were not warranted. Category 119: Distribution and review of the Draft EIS 119(37) Comment: I am writing to insist upon an explanation as to why on Earth usrcorp is writing to me under a claim to be writing “on behalf” of the regulatory agency that oversees your industry. At best, this strikes me as extraordinary.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-206

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Specifically, I want to know with what authorization you claim to write on behalf of a government agency, and with whose authorization, specifically, you make such a claim. Your prompt response may save you trouble. It may not. Response: The commenter responded to an electronic mail message sent to him by URS Corporation on OSM’s behalf notifying him of the reopened comment period on the Draft EIS. The commenter misinterpreted the message. 119(38) Comment: I strongly urge sanity be restored, and a full assessment of environmental impact be done soon, and with full disclosure to all members of the Hopi Nation. Response: Full disclosure of the project is provided in the EIS. On numerous occasions and by various means, the public was notified of its opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS. There is no way to ensure that all members of the Hopi Tribe are made aware of the impacts of the proposed project. 119(39) Comment: Many of the public comments submitted last year for the Black Mesa Project Draft EIS were intended for Alternative A, which is an inactive issue now Response: Comment noted. It was for this reason that OSM reopened the comment period on the Draft EIS from May 23 to July 7, 2008. 119(116) Comment: You are wrong to strong arm this “comment period” etcetera through. Your “Hurry Up” tactics are unacceptable and shameful. Response: The Draft EIS was published and issued for public review in November 2006. During the public review period, 12 public meetings were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. Since the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIS in February 2007, the preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS changed from Alternative A to Alternative B. In 2008, OSM reopened the comment period for 45 days to provide the opportunity for the public to review the Draft EIS considering the change in the preferred alternative. The Alternative B announced in the 2008 notice differed from the Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIS only in that it did not include a previously-proposed 127-acre haul road (a lesser impact). 119(117) Comment: People need a long chance to read through the enormous documents and really see what’s planned in alternative B. Especially elders who are living in remote areas and do not have easy access to the documents. Response: OSM provided two comment periods entailing almost four months for review of the alternatives presented in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS was published and issued for public review in November 2006. During the public review period, 12 public meetings were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. Since the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIS in February 2007, the preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS changed from Alternative A to Alternative B. In 2008, OSM reopened the comment period for 45 days to provide the opportunity for the public to review the Draft EIS considering the change in preferred alternative. The Alternative B announced in the 2008 notice differed from the Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIS only in that it did not include a previously-proposed 127-acre haul road (a lesser impact). 119(253) Comment: OSM Violates Mandatory Procedural Requirements...Numerous tribal members and interested stakeholders that had previously submitted scoping and other comments received no notification of the re-release of the Draft EIS. This issue was raised in the June 13, 2008, Request for Suspension Letter, and confirmed in questionnaire responses gathered by the Black Mesa Water Coalition and Black Mesa Trust. As outlined in that letter, and reaffirmed at community meetings hosted by Black Mesa Trust, Black Mesa Water Coalition, Sierra Club, and NRDC on July 1, 2008 in Kykotsmovi and July 2, 2008 at Forest Lake Chapter House, individuals who had previously submitted comments to OSM on the project stated that they never received OSM’s newsletter entitled, “Black Mesa Project EIS Update,” dated May 2008. Response: OSM made every effort to widely announce the reopening of the comment period on the Draft EIS (issued in November 2006). OSM published a Federal Register notice on May 23, 2008, mailed newsletters to more than 900 people on the project mailing list, sent bundles of newsletters to the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation for distribution to tribal official and members, placed paid newspaper advertisements, submitted media releases to local and regional newspapers, paid for announcements on the local radios in native languages, and posted the announcement on OSM’s website. Also, as cooperating agencies, the governments of the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe were aware that the comment period had reopened.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-207

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

119(254) Comment: The public should be provided full opportunity to review the Draft EIS with full disclosure of the proposed project, as outlined in the permit revision. In fact, the public may be entitled to another scoping comment period and draft environmental impact statement. Response: The Draft EIS was released for public review in November 2006. During the public review period (November 22, 2006, through February 6, 2007), 12 public meetings were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. Since the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIS in February 2007, the preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS changed from Alternative A to Alternative B. In 2008, OSM reopened the comment period for 45 days to provide the opportunity for the public to review the Draft EIS considering the change in preferred alternative. The Alternative B announced in the 2008 notice differed from the Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIS only in that it did not include a previously-proposed 127-acre haul road (a lesser impact). For these reasons, additional scoping and another Draft EIS were not necessary. 119(255) Comment: The Draft EIS addresses a wide range of complex issues on such matters as hydrological impacts of water withdrawals and mining operations. The public must be provided full opportunity to review the Draft EIS, with full disclosure of the proposed project, as outlined in the permit revision. The public needs to be entitled to another scoping comment period and Draft EIS. Response: Full disclosure of the project was provided in the Draft EIS, published and issued for public review in November 2006. During the public review period (November 22, 2006, through February 6, 2007), 12 public meetings were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. Since the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIS in February 2007, the preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS changed from Alternative A to Alternative B. In 2008, OSM reopened the comment period for 45 days to provide the opportunity for the public to review the Draft EIS considering the change in preferred alternative. The Alternative B announced in the 2008 notice differed from the Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIS only in that it did not include a previously-proposed 127-acre haul road (a lesser impact). For these reasons, additional scoping and another Draft EIS were not necessary. 119(SR35) Summary Comment: Numerous tribal members 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. Summary Response: OSM made every effort to widely announce the reopening of the comment period on the Draft EIS (issued in November 2006). OSM published a Federal Register notice on May 23, 2008, mailed newsletters to more than 900 people on the project mailing list, sent bundles of newsletters to the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation for distribution to tribal official and members, placed paid newspaper advertisements, submitted media releases to local and regional newspapers, paid for announcements on the local radios in native languages, and posted the announcement on OSM’s website. 119(SR36) Summary Comment: The public should be provided full opportunity to review the Draft EIS with full disclosure of the proposed project, as outlined in the permit revision. In fact, the public may be entitled to another scoping comment period and draft environmental impact statement. Summary Response: Full disclosure of the project is provided in the EIS, published and issued for public review in November 2006. During the public review period (November 22, 2006, through February 6, 2007), 12 public meeting were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. Since the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIS in February 2007, the preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS changed from Alternative A to Alternative B. In 2008, OSM reopened the comment period for 45 days to provide the opportunity for the public to review the Draft EIS considering the change in preferred alternative. The Alternative B announced in the 2008 notice differed from the Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIS only in that it did not include a previously-proposed 127-acre haul road (a lesser impact). For these reasons, additional scoping and another Draft EIS were not necessary. Category 120: Distribution and review of the Draft EIS – Extend the public comment period 120(119) Comment: OSM’s “Response to NRDC’s and Others’ Request” regarding the request to suspend or extend the reopened comment period was inadequate and not justified in relation to the fact that there is a new project with a new preferred alternative. New alternatives need to be proposed that directly relate to the new project. I cannot comment on any of the alternatives until a new Draft EIS for the proposed project is circulated.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-208

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Response: Comment noted. The commenter refers to OSM’s June 24, 2008, response to the NRDC’s and others’ request for an extension of the comment period. 120(SR41) Summary Comment: Commenters request that OSM grant an immediate suspension or, in the alternative, an indefinite extension of time in which to comment on the “reopened” Black Mesa Project Draft EIS and which was re-released for comment on May 23, 2008. This is due to the complexity of the EIS, the scope of the proposed project, the cultural significance, and the need for time to reconsider earlier comments on Alternative A. Many interested public do not speak or write in English and require much more time for review. Summary Response: The Draft EIS was released for public review in November 2006 (through February 6, 2007). During the public review period, 12 public meetings were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. Presentations were made in Hopi and Navajo during those meetings. Since the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIS in February 2007, the preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS changed from Alternative A to Alternative B. OSM reopened the comment in May 2008 to allow the public the opportunity to review the Draft EIS considering the change in the preferred alternative from Alternative A to Alternative B. The Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIS differed from the Alternative B noticed in 2008 only in that it did not include a previously-proposed 127-acre haul road (a lesser impact). At the close of the reopened comment period, OSM had accepted comments on the draft EIS for a total of 120 days (about 4 months). For these reasons, OSM decided not to suspend or extend the public comment period for further review of the Draft EIS. 120(SR43) Summary Comment: Commenters show support of the request by Hopi Tribal chairman Ben Nunumsva for a 90-day extension of the comment period for the EIS regarding the Peabody Western Mining Company proposed project on Black Mesa, Arizona. Summary Response: Comment noted. By letters dated July 8 and 28, 2008, the Hopi Chairman requested a 90-day extension of the comment period. In both instances, OSM declined to extend the comment period. In response to the first letter, OSM noted that the Hopi tribal government as a cooperating agency still had an opportunity for input in the EIS before it was finalized. In response to the second letter, OSM noted the limited impact to Hopi land and resources proposed in the mine permit revision application, the number of opportunities the Hopi Tribe and tribal members had to submit comments on the Draft EIS (a total of 120 days to comment), and the Hopi Tribe’s opportunity as a cooperating agency to have input into the Final EIS as it was being prepared. 120(SR44) Summary Comment: Commenters request a general extension of the public comment period, because of the need for further communication with affected native-speaking locals and because many locals do not have a translated Draft EIS to review. Summary Response: The Draft EIS was released for public review in November 2006 (through February 6, 2007). During the public review period, 12 public meetings were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. Presentations were made in Hopi and Navajo during those meetings. Since the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIS in February 2007, the preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS changed from Alternative A to Alternative B. OSM reopened the comment in May 2008 to allow the public the opportunity to review the Draft EIS considering the change in the preferred alternative from Alternative A to Alternative B. The Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIS differed from the Alternative B announced in the 2008 reopened comment period only in that it did not include a previously-proposed 127-acre haul road (a lesser impact). For these reasons, OSM decided not to suspend or extend the public comment period for further review of the Draft EIS. 120(SR45) Summary Comment: The public should be provided full opportunity to review the Draft EIS with full disclosure of the proposed project, as outlined in the permit revision. Summary Response: The Draft EIS was released for public review in November 2006 (through February 6, 2007). During the public review period, 12 public meetings were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. Since the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIS in February 2007, the preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS changed from Alternative A to Alternative B. OSM reopened the comment in May 2008 to allow the public the opportunity to review the Draft EIS considering the change in the preferred alternative from Alternative A to Alternative B. The Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIS differed from the Alternative B announced in the 2008 reopened comment period only in that it did not include a previously-proposed 127-acre haul road (a lesser impact).The amended permit revision application submitted on July 2, 2008, conforms to the Alternative B

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-209

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

announced in the 2008 reopened comment period. For these reasons, OSM decided not to suspend or extend the comment period for further review of the Draft EIS. 120(SR75) Summary Comment: It 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 project, and preferred alternative. Summary Response: The Draft EIS was released for public review in November 2006 (through February 6, 2007). During the public review period, 12 public meetings were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. Since the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIS in February 2007, the preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS changed from Alternative A to Alternative B. OSM reopened the comment in May 2008 to allow the public the opportunity to review the Draft EIS considering the change in the preferred alternative from Alternative A to Alternative B. The amended permit revision application submitted on July 2, 2008, conforms to the Alternative B announced in the 2008 reopened comment period. For these reasons, OSM decided not to suspend or extend the comment period for further review of the Draft EIS. 120(SR118) Summary Comment: The timing of the comment period conflicts with Hopi ceremonial activities. Summary Response: By Federal Register notice on November 22, 2006, the 60-day comment period on the Draft EIS 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 reopened the comment period on the Draft EIS for 45 days from May 23 through July 7, 2008. OSM is not aware of any Hopi ceremonies occurring during this time period. OSM conferred with the cooperating agencies, including Hopi tribal representatives, in scheduling the public comment periods. Category 121: Concerns with EIS Process 121(79) Comment: Your refusal to deal with subtleties indicates that you wish the process to result in an already-desired outcome. Response: It is not clear from the comment what “subtleties” are being referred to. The NEPA-mandated analysis of environmental impacts caused by the potential implementation of any of the three alternatives is a nonbiased and carefully overseen process reviewed by the USEPA and other cooperating agencies. 121(80) Comment: The speeded-up process would indicate that you wish to achieve a go-ahead green-light decision within the lifespan of a particular political administration sympathetic to coal-development despite scientific data that challenge internal OSM assumptions and desires Response: The NEPA-mandated environmental analysis process is not predetermined by any political entity. 121(81) Comment: I know you do not receive the kind of government support you need to do these environmental studies. Hopefully that will change in the future! These studies must be totally impartial and not funded by the very companies involved in the outcome of your decisions. 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 OSM, the lead agency, in collaboration with the cooperating agencies. An impartial analysis of impacts has been conducted per 40 CFR 1500-1508. 121(82) Comment: While OSM claims it “will continue to analyze these project components in the Final EIS under alternative A”, in the May 23, 2008 notice in the Federal Register announcing that the comment period on the Draft EIS it states “OSM will be designating alternative B as the proposed project and preferred alternative” while failing to properly consider Alternative C the no action alternative. Response: Refer to EIS Section 2.2.3 for a discussion on what Alternative C entails. Alternative C is the disapproval (no action) alternative. If Peabody submits an application that complies with the laws under BLM’s and OSM’s jurisdiction, they would be obligated to approve the application. Accordingly, they have not identified Alternative C as the preferred alternative, and they have identified Alternative B, the proposed project, as the preferred alternative.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-210

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

121(83) Comment: There are enough substantive, unanswered questions and enough requests for additional time to comment to warrant an extension. I do not see how you can legally go forward with this EIS without updating information and allowing further comments on Alternative B. Response: The Draft EIS was released for public review in November 2006 (through February 6, 2007). During the public review period, 12 public meetings were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. Since the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIS in February 2007, the preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS changed from Alternative A to Alternative B. OSM reopened the comment in May 2008 to allow the public the opportunity to review the Draft EIS considering the change in the preferred alternative from Alternative A to Alternative B. The Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIS differed from the Alternative B announced in the 2008 reopened comment period only in that it did not include a previously-proposed 127-acre haul road (a lesser impact).For these reasons, OSM decided not to suspend or extend the public comment period for further review of the Draft EIS. 121(86) Comment: Further, because the revisions constitute a significant revision and would significantly change the proposed project, OSM is required to initiate a new permit and environmental review process. Not only is OSM’s failure to initiate an entirely new process a violation of the law, but doing so before permit revisions are even received precludes the public from meaningfully commenting on the permit and environmental review. 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. The CEQ’s regulations require that an agency shall prepare a supplement to a Draft EIS if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). The pertinent changes that were made in the Final EIS after issuance of the Draft EIS are the selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative rather than Alternative A and the change in Alternatives B to remove a proposed road that would have disturbed 127 acres of additional land (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). Because the Final EIS continues to analyze the environmental effects of Alternatives A and B, Alternative B has been insubstantially changed, and the changes were publicly disclosed and comments were solicited on them during a 45­ day comment period, there is no need under CEQ’s regulation to prepare a supplemental Draft EIS. The interested public and affected/cooperating agencies, including the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe, have been afforded the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIS, which has full disclosure of all environmental impacts of each of the alternatives. Public participation was sought through public scoping, public meetings, public comment through electronic mail, postal mail, and fax, bilingual translation of an overview of the Draft EIS as well as a summary of the Draft EIS in the Hopi and Navajo languages. 121(87) Comment: OSM Fails to Evaluate a Reasonable Range of Alternatives...OSM has failed to facilitate a reasoned choice by providing only two feasible alternatives (proceed or not proceed with the proposed project). OSM has not provided a reasonable range of alternatives for informed decision-making that is required by NEPA. Response: The Draft and Final EIS analyze the same three alternatives. 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 reasonable, albeit unlikely, alternative. Because implementing Alternative A appears unlikely, Peabody wishes to proceed in revising its permit to incorporate the initial program surface facilities and coal resource areas of its adjacent Black Mesa mining operations; that is, Alternative B. 121(88) Comment: The Draft EIS is deficient, fails to meet relevant statutory and regulatory standards. The proposed project is properly analyzed under its own environmental impacts statement. Therefore, OSM should initiate scoping meetings for the new proposed project, abandoning the current Draft EIS. At a minimum, and with no conclusion as to adequacy under the law, the Draft EIS must be re-drafted and re-circulated for public comment.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-211

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Response: The CEQ’s regulations require that an agency shall prepare a supplement to a Draft EIS if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). The pertinent changes that were made in the Final EIS after issuance of the Draft EIS are the selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative rather than Alternative A and the change in Alternatives B to remove a proposed road that would have disturbed 127 acres of additional land (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). Because the Final EIS continues to analyze the environmental effects of Alternatives A and B, Alternative B has been insubstantially changed, and the changes were publicly disclosed and comments were solicited on them during a 45-day comment period, there is no need under CEQ’s regulation to prepare a supplemental Draft EIS. The interested public and affected/cooperating agencies, including the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe, have been afforded the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIS, which has full disclosure of all environmental impacts of each of the alternatives. Public participation was sought through public scoping, public meetings, public comment through electronic mail, postal mail, and fax, bilingual translation of an overview of the Draft EIS as well as a summary of the Draft EIS in the Hopi and Navajo languages. 121(89) Comment: Long-Term Environmental Impacts of Alternative B - The new Federal Register notice changes OSM’ s proposed preferred alternative from Alternative A to Alternative B. Alternative A involved a specific product delivery/customer use scenario, but Alternative B does not. EPA is concerned that the shift to a more open ended customer use alternative makes it difficult to assess potential environmental impacts from mine operations. The Final EIS should discuss both the limitations of analyzing future coal delivery/customer use scenarios today, and how future coal delivery/customer use scenarios will be analyzed once they are proposed. For example, the Final EIS should discuss whether future actions under the proposed permit would be subject to NEPA and under whose authority or jurisdiction. Response: In response to this comment, Section 1.2 of the EIS has been modified. At this time, Peabody has not indicated that new customers are being considered for the coal from the Black Mesa mining operation. Although, under Alternative B, the unmined coal-resource areas would be incorporated into the permanent program permit area, mining of these resources would not be authorized until Peabody proposed that these resources be mined, submitted to OSM a permit application for the mining, and BLM and OSM approved of this mining. Without knowing a new customer’s purpose and need for purchasing and using the coal, the amount and quality of the coal needed per year, and a plan for mining and transporting the coal, impacts associated with the potential transaction cannot be projected. If and when there is such a proposal, associated actions (e.g., mining plan revision, transportation of the coal to its destination) would need to be assessed under NEPA. 121(90) Comment: Local people are outraged at how the project essentially got switched to Alternative B without restarting the whole process. I agree that this is an illegitimate way to handle the change in project. Response: Since the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIS in February 2007, the preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS changed from Alternative A to Alternative B. There have been no substantive changes made to the EIS as a whole, nor were there substantive changes made to the alternatives. The pertinent changes that were made in the Final EIS are the selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative rather than Alternative A, and the change in Alternatives B to remove a proposed road that would have disturbed 127 acres of additional land (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). Because the Final EIS continues to analyze the environmental effects of Alternatives A and B, Alternative B has been insubstantially changed, and the changes were publicly disclosed and comments were solicited on them during a 45-day comment period, there is no need under CEQ’s regulation to restart the NEPA process. 121(92) Comment: THE CHANGE IN PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REQUIRES A SUPPLEMENTAL EIS...”Under NEPA, agencies must not only perform EISs prior to taking federal action, but agencies must perform supplemental EISs whenever: (i) The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.” Courts have also ruled that “an agency need not supplement an EIS every time new information comes to light after the EIS is finalized.”490 U.S. 109 S.Ct. 1851. The key word here is “finalized.” Since the proposed mining is still in the Draft EIS stage of NEPA, OSM has an obligation to submit a supplemental Draft EIS. The change in preferred alternatives is a substantial change in the proposed action, further

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-212

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

calling for a supplemental Draft EIS. Finally, the “incomplete information,” provided on Alternative B constitutes a need for a supplemental Draft EIS. See40 C.F.R. A_ 1502.9(c). Response: The CEQ’s regulations require that an agency shall prepare a supplement to a Draft EIS if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). The pertinent changes that were made in the Final EIS after issuance of the Draft EIS are the selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative rather than Alternative A and the change in Alternatives B to remove a proposed road that would have disturbed 127 acres of additional land (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). Because the Final EIS continues to analyze the environmental effects of Alternatives A and B, Alternative B has been insubstantially changed, and the changes were publicly disclosed and comments were solicited on them during a 45-day comment period, there is no need under CEQ’s regulation to prepare a supplemental Draft EIS. 121(93) Comment: Considering the changing attitude of the public, state governments and now even our federal government OSM should follow suit by fully analyzing the impacts this project will have on greenhouse gasses and thus global warming. This would require a supplemental EIS. Response: The CEQ’s regulations require that an agency shall prepare a supplement to a Draft EIS if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). The pertinent changes that were made in the Final EIS after issuance of the Draft EIS are the selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative rather than Alternative A and the change in Alternatives B to remove a proposed road that would have disturbed 127 acres of additional land (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). Because the Final EIS continues to analyze the environmental effects of Alternatives A and B, Alternative B has been insubstantially changed, and the changes were publicly disclosed and comments were solicited on them during a 45-day comment period, there is no need under CEQ’s regulation to prepare a supplemental Draft EIS. Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) 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 (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. 121(94) Comment: Further, the admittance that CO2 emissions under alternative B would “likely increase the net effect of which may be higher or lower,” expresses uncertainties of environmental consequences, and amounts of CO2 emissions, under the now preferred alternative. This in itself constitutes a need for a supplemental EIS. Response: The CEQ’s regulations require that an agency shall prepare a supplement to a Draft EIS if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). The pertinent changes that were made in the Final EIS after issuance of the Draft EIS are the selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative rather than Alternative A and the change in Alternative B to remove a proposed road that would have disturbed 127 acres of additional land (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). Because the Final EIS continues to analyze the environmental effects of Alternatives A and B, Alternative B has been insubstantially changed, and the changes were publicly disclosed and comments were solicited on them during a 45-day comment period, there is no need under CEQ’s regulation to prepare a supplemental Draft EIS. Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action would be relatively small, resulting from mining vehicle and equipment tailpipe emissions. The Final EIS (Sections 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.24) 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 (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.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-213

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

121(95) Comment: The owners and heirs of the owners have to be contacted prior to issuance of an approval of the Impact Statement. Response: The commenter’s reference to “owners and heirs” is unclear. The land in the mine lease area, occupied by members of the Navajo Nation, is reservation land subject to management and direction of the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation is a cooperating agency in this project. 121(96) Comment: The situation is compounded by the present Draft EIS containing outdated information, thus accentuating the community response. It is also well-known to all participating that the historic depletion of N aquifer by industrial operations is at the heart of this tipping point A- and the historic data and factors have been underrepresented. Response: The comment is not specific about the information the commenter believes is outdated. Accurate and up­ to-date data were used in preparing the EIS; historic data and factors have not been underrepresented. 121(97) Comment: The changes plan are so dramatic and sweeping that it is falacious to call them revisions as opposed treating the proposal as a new plan triggering all of the evaluation properly given to new proposals. More than public comment is needed, evaluation of impacts of ground water mining is essential and without it no rational assessment can be made the potential for the proposal to have substantial and devastating environmental impacts upon available surface water which is at a premium on the Hopi Reservation. Response: The pertinent changes that were made in the Final EIS after issuance of the Draft EIS are the selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative rather than Alternative A, and the change in Alternative B to remove a proposed road that would have disturbed 127 acres of additional land (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). Because the Final EIS continues to analyze the environmental effects of Alternatives A, B, and C, Alternative B has been insubstantially changed, and the changes were publicly disclosed and comments were solicited on them during a 45-day comment period, there is no need under CEQ’s regulation to prepare a new evaluation. The effects on water resources are adequately addressed in EIS Section 4.4. 121(98) Comment: ...the whole process needs to be started from the beginning, with a new Draft EIS. Response: The CEQ’s regulations require that an agency shall prepare a supplement to a Draft EIS if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). The pertinent changes that were made in the Final EIS after issuance of the Draft EIS are the selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative rather than Alternative A and the change in Alternative B to remove a proposed road that would have disturbed 127 acres of additional land (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). Because Alternative B has been insubstantially changed, and the changes were publicly disclosed and comments were solicited on the Draft EIS during the reopened 45-day comment period, there is no need under CEQ’s regulation to prepare a supplemental Draft EIS. 121(99) Comment: Please, please, please - restart the EIS process - including true alternatives, social impacts, and the whole story on impacts to the local people Response: The CEQ’s regulations require that an agency shall prepare a supplement to a Draft EIS if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). The pertinent changes that were made in the Final EIS after issuance of the Draft EIS are the selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative rather than Alternative A and the change in Alternatives B to remove a proposed road that would have disturbed 127 acres of additional land (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). Because Alternative B has been insubstantially changed, and the changes were publicly disclosed and comments were solicited on them during the reopened 45-day comment period, there is no need under CEQ’s regulation to prepare a supplemental Draft EIS. The interested public and affected/cooperating agencies, including the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe, have been afforded the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIS, which has full disclosure of all environmental impacts of each of the alternatives. Public participation was sought through public scoping, public meetings, public comment through electronic mail, postal mail, and fax, bilingual translation of an overview of the Draft EIS in the Hopi and Navajo languages.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-214

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

121(100) Comment: I echo concerns that switching desired alternative in the middle of the process without starting the process is unfair and illegitimate. It seems necessary to recreate the list of alternatives excluding those that are no longer possible, and including analysis of true alternatives such as renewable energy and sustainable development. Response: The CEQ’s regulations require that an agency shall prepare a supplement to a Draft EIS if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). The pertinent changes that were made in the Final EIS after issuance of the Draft EIS are the selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative rather than Alternative A and the change in Alternatives B to remove a proposed road that would have disturbed 127 acres of additional land (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). Because the Final EIS continues to analyze the environmental effects of Alternatives A and B, Alternative B has been insubstantially changed, and the changes were publicly disclosed and comments were solicited on them during a 45-day comment period, there is no need under CEQ’s regulation to prepare a supplemental Draft EIS. 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. Renewable energy and sustainable development do not meet the purpose and need for this EIS and are beyond the scope of this EIS. 121(129) Comment: In compliance of the NEPA process I look forward to (1) seeing a copy of this letter in the Final EIS, (2) 
 seeing a copy of the response letter that I receive from you in response to this request, and (3) seeing the 
 development of a compliant Draft EIS for this project.
 Response: See the introduction to Appendix M for an explanation of how and which comments are responded to in
 this EIS. You will not be receiving a letter responding to your comments. The Black Mesa Project EIS is in
 compliance with the NEPA and CEQ regulations implementing NEPA for responding to comments. 
 121(SR1) Summary Comment: The Draft EIS does not address the pumping of the Navajo aquifer for the last 30 years. These amounts exceed the aquifer’s ability to replace water annually, and have adversely impacted the natural springs and seeps all over Black Mesa. Springs and seeps no longer can produce the water needed for Navajo families to survive daily. Instead families must abandon local water resources and use community wells 20 to 30 miles over unimproved roads. The mining operation’s irresponsible use of groundwater has jeopardized the people’s survival into the future. Peabody has not included in its application the impact on the people of Black Mesa and how long they can expect to survive with continued use and contamination of the only source of drinking water the people have. What measures do they have in place to insure the people that an alternate source of water in quality and quantity will be delivered if there is irreversible damage to the N aquifer? Summary Response: Section 4.24.3.2 of the Draft EIS included an analysis of N-aquifer pumping under Alternative A that took into consideration pumping that occurred over the last 30 years. This section has been revised to include analyses of N-aquifer pumping scenarios under Alternatives B and C. Sections 4.4.1.5.1 4.4.2.2.2. of the EIS address the impacts of the proposed pumping of the N aquifer, both on other direct uses of pumped N-aquifer water and to streams that receive spring discharges from the N aquifer. The EIS relies on a modeling tool to predict future project impacts that incorporates (by necessity) historical water withdrawals. So, in effect, past pumping is considered in the future impact predictions. The impact on both direct groundwater uses of the N aquifer and to streams receiving N-aquifer spring flow is characterized in this section of the EIS as “negligible.” The permit application’s conclusion that there will be no damage to the N aquifer and that it will continue to provide its high-quality water to projected water users for the foreseeable future does not differ from the conclusions reached in the EIS. 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)). 121(SR46) Summary Comment: Peabody’s admission that the possibility of reopening of the Mohave Generating Station is “remote” affects the range and type of alternatives, mitigation measures and environmental analyses in the Draft EIS. In fact, the public may be entitled to another scoping comment period and Draft EIS, which will become

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-215

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

apparent following submission of Peabody’s amendments to the permit revision. In short, it 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 project, and preferred alternative. 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 reasonable, albeit unlikely, alternative. 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. 121(SR47) Summary Comment: The Black Mesa Draft EIS is outdated and has irrelevant information. If they want to pursue Alternative B, they need to restart a new EIS process from the beginning and either re-draft the Draft EIS or prepare a new one focusing on Alternative B. Summary Response: The CEQ’s regulations require that an agency shall prepare a supplement to a Draft EIS if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). The pertinent changes that were made in the Final EIS after issuance of the Draft EIS are the selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative rather than Alternative A and the change in Alternative B to remove a proposed road that would have disturbed 127 acres of additional land (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). Because the Final EIS continues to analyze the environmental effects of Alternatives A and B, Alternative B has been insubstantially changed, and the changes were publicly disclosed and comments were solicited on them during a 45-day comment period, there is no need under CEQ’s regulation to prepare a supplemental Draft EIS. 121(SR77) Summary Comment: Because the Draft EIS addresses a wide range of complex issues on such matters as hydrological impacts of water withdrawals and mining operations, the public should be provided full opportunity to view the Draft EIS with full disclosure of the proposed project, as outlined in the permit revision. Summary Response: The interested public and affected/cooperating agencies, including the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation, have been afforded the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIS, which has full disclosure of all environmental impacts of each of the alternatives. Refer to Section 4.4.2 for a discussion of Alternative B and hydrology. Public participation was sought through public scoping, public meetings, public comment through electronic mail, postal mail and fax, bilingual translation of the executive summary of the Draft EIS as well as a summary of the Draft EIS in the Navajo language. Alternative B as described in the Draft EIS will change only in the context of a road that will not be constructed thereby lessening potential environmental impacts to 127 acres of land. 121(SR85) Summary Comment: The amended permit application is not administratively complete so the EIS process can not go forward. The Draft EIS must be supplemented to reflect all of the new changes made by selecting Alternative B. Summary 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. The CEQ’s regulations require that an agency shall prepare a supplement to a Draft EIS if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). The pertinent changes that were made in the Final EIS after issuance of the Draft EIS are the selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative rather than Alternative A and the change in Alternatives B to remove a

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-216

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

proposed road that would have disturbed 127 acres of additional land (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). Because the Final EIS continues to analyze the environmental effects of Alternatives A and B, Alternative B has been insubstantially changed, and the changes were publicly disclosed and comments were solicited on them during a 45-day comment period, there is no need under CEQ’s regulation to prepare a supplemental Draft EIS. 121(SR91) Summary Comment: The comment period should be suspended until OSM is in receipt of an administratively complete amended revision and any changes should be addressed in an entirely new Draft EIS and a new scoping and comment period should be granted. The suspension of the project for one year should make the original process void. Many people have not officially been made aware of the new preferred Alternative B. Summary 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. The CEQ’s regulations require that an agency shall prepare a supplement to a Draft EIS if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). The pertinent changes that were made in the Final EIS after issuance of the Draft EIS are the selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative rather than Alternative A and the change in Alternatives B to remove a proposed road that would have disturbed 127 acres of additional land (a lesser impact than analyzed in the Draft EIS). Because the Final EIS continues to analyze the environmental effects of Alternatives A and B, Alternative B has been insubstantially changed, and the changes were publicly disclosed and comments were solicited on them during a 45-day comment period, there is no need under CEQ’s regulation to prepare a supplemental Draft EIS. Category 125: Miscellaneous 125(49) Comment: Please reconsider the use of coal’s release of CO2 as well as the use of the Navajo conifer to drain off coal mine run off waste. Response: Comment not understood. 125(51) Comment: The OSM, of course, must limit its actions specifically to questions of surface mining, so it is only by discouraging the ongoing despoilation of the immediate environment of Black Mesa (and in so doing protecting the lives and traditional livelihood of the area’s residents) that your agency can play a responsible and laudable role in curtailing the historic tragedy of the destruction of the human, animal, plant, and mineral ecosystems over which your office has been given stewardship. Response: Comment noted. 125(54) Comment: In particular, I respectfully request that the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement at a minimum, indefinitely suspend any proposed comment period until such time as Peabody has properly amended its permit revision application for the Black Mesa Mine Complex to remove proposed plans and activities that supported supplying coal to Mojave Generating Station. 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). The amended permit revision application conforms to the Alternative B proposal announced in the May 23, 2008, Federal Register notice reopening the comment period on the Draft EIS. 125(55) Comment: The owners and heirs of the owners [of the surface and mineral property] have to be contacted prior to issuance of an approval of the Impact Statement. Response: The commenter’s reference to “owners and heirs” is unclear. The land in the mine lease area, occupied by members of the Navajo Nation, is reservation land subject to management and direction of the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation is a cooperating agency in this project.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-217

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

125(56) Comment: The environmental consultants are paid for by Peabody Western Coal Company. They will give you the “good science” to support any alternative Peabody Western Coal Company wants. Alternative C, the people’s choice, is basically off the table. No one is paying an environmental consultant for coming up with all the good science that supports alternative C. The mining company drives the process. The people be damned. The Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement can find the good science to support Alternative C if they care to look. Response: The environmental studies and preparation of the EIS were conducted under a third-party contractual arrangement; that is, the work by the consulting firm is funded by the project proponent, but all work on the EIS is directed by OSM, the lead agency, in collaboration with the cooperating agencies. An impartial analysis of impacts has been conducted per 40 CFR 15001508. 125(57) Comment: Long-Term Environmental Impacts of Alternative B - We also wish to reiterate our recommendations from our February 6, 2007 comment letter on the Draft EIS that the Final EIS clarify the status of EPA’s permits and include mitigation measures for impacts to water quality. Response: Comment noted. The recommendations in the USEPA’s February 6, 2007, letter have been addressed. 125(58) Comment: On April 10, 2008 Congress passed H. R. 5770 “to provide for a study by the National Academy of Sciences of potential impacts of climate change on water resources and water quality” (110th Congress, 2nd Session). That same day California Public Utility Commission announced that Southern California Edison was awarded a Dept. of Energy grant to launch “the nation’s first feasibility study combining several advanced coal technologies at full commercial scale”, including “clean hydrogen” and carbon sequestration. Since SCE is still the owner of Mojave Generating Station, which still has a contract with PWCC for coal from Black Mesa Mine, data from this feasibility study is vital for considering EIS impacts of Black Mesa Project’s Alternative A, especially if Mojave is the site of the assessment. Response: Alternative A, the primary purpose of which was to supply coal from the Black Mesa Complex to the Mohave Generating Station, is no longer the proposed project and preferred alternative. Under Alternative B, coal would not be supplied to the Mohave Generating Station. 125(59) Comment: I understand that Peabody Coal has not even completed its permit revision application. This should be done before a dated, confusing Draft EIS is sent out for comments for a very short period of time. Response: OSM found Peabody’s permit application for the Black Mesa Complex to be administratively complete in 2004. 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). The amended permit revision application conforms to the Alternative B proposal announced in the May 23, 2008, Federal Register notice reopening the comment period on the Draft EIS. 125(141) Comment: In arid regions worldwide, one of the primary impacts of coal mining is the problem of water depletion. On the public lands and Indian lands of the western United States, in particular, the dry climate has long heightened the economic and cultural value of water. Native American tribes who live on these lands view water as a sacred resource that helps to define their cultural identity. This identity, and indeed the economic and cultural survival of the tribes, is threatened by the increasing demands on the scarce waters of Indian lands. There is perhaps no clearer illustration of the problem than the situation on the dry, coal-rich lands of Black Mesa, Arizona. Response: Comment noted. 125(142) Comment: Lastly, and assuming arguendo the agency does not intend to comply with the SMRCA’s public participation requirements, the undersigned hereby request an informal conference on the proposed “conditional approval of Peabody’s life of mine permit revision” pursuant to 30 C.F.R. A_773.6.7...The informal conference should be held in Kayenta, Arizona. Notice of the informal should be published in the Navajo Times and other newspapers of local and regional circulation as well as KTNN radio (660 AM) radio two weeks prior to the informal conference. Notice should also be given to local governments. All notices should be provided in the Navajo/Hopi languages where possible.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-218

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

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. OSM held numerous conferences coincident with the scoping meetings for the EIS. 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, no additional notices, and no additional conferences were needed because OSM had already done these things for those proposed operations not associated with this power plant. 125(143) Comment: Of particular concern are the following: Impacts... on and in the wider context of water supply and electricity generation for the Southwest U.S. and other states. Response: Because the comment is vague, it cannot be responded to. 125(144) Comment: Peabody should amend its permit revision application for the Black Mesa Mine Complex by removing
 proposed plans and activities that supported supplying coal to Mojave Generating Station. 
 Response: Peabody did so in the amended permit revision application that it submitted to OSM on July 2, 2008. 
 125(145) Comment: I am writing to ask you to suspend the Black Mesa EIS process in order to give the Navajo and Hopi peoples ample opportunity to learn the full extent of this proposal (and require Peabody to reveal all of its plans). The potential social and environmental consequences of this proposal are massive and the people should have adequate voice in the future of their lands. Response: The Draft EIS was released for public review in November 2006 (through February 6, 2007). During the public review period, 12 public meetings were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. Presentations were made in Hopi and Navajo during those meetings. Since the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIS in February 2007, the preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS changed from Alternative A to Alternative B. OSM reopened the comment in May 2008 to allow the public the opportunity to review the Draft EIS considering the change in the preferred alternative from Alternative A to Alternative B. The Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIS differed from the Alternative B announced in the 2008 reopened comment period only in that it did not include a previously-proposed 127-acre haul road (a lesser impact). For these reasons, OSM has decided not to suspend the public comment period for further review of the Draft EIS. 125(146) Comment: I also feel there is a secondary public media debacle that may occur. If the coal mining operations at Black Mesa were to gain sufficient attention, they may be likened to the ruthless and ethically questionable image as is portrayed of the current Iraq War. Creating a media opportunity to report on “a war on US soil” would be highly destructive to the capacity to work at the site. Response: Comment noted. 125(147) Comment: I have done extensive research on the geology, aquifers, and culture of the Black Mesa region. I can say with certainty that Peabody has drastically impacted the region in negative ways and the Black Mesa Project will cause severe costs in the form of externalities. Response: The comment could not be responded to, because it is vague and does not refer to specific concerns. 125(148) Comment: We feel that Peabody paying OSM to rush the EIS to conclusion borders on conflict of interest. We also
 feel Peabody and OSM should be condemned for their irresponsible behavior in this matter. 
 Response: Under a third-party EIS contract, Peabody is paying for the preparation of the EIS. OSM, as the 
 regulatory agency enforcing SMCRA, receives no compensation from Peabody. 
 125(149) Comment: The proposed Black Mesa Project would mean the continued environmental and cultural devastation of local communities. Response: Comment noted. 125(150) Comment: The Peabody supporters have only one argument, an economic one, the fact is the economies of scale contradicts that argument. Peabody’s operation is strictly to benefit the Wall Street investors. As of the writing of Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008 M-219 Appendix M – Comments and Responses

this comment Peabody shares (BTU) are trading at the inflated value of $78.98 on Wall Street. While on the Navajo and Hopi reservations, the indigenous peoples continue to live below the poverty line, as Peabody continues to import its employees from off-reservation border towns, via mass transit and by airplane. So, the Peabody payroll never actually “touches” the ground on the Navajo and Hopi reservation. The $80 million that Peabody supposably pays the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe is nothing more than a political bribe called “royalties.” Response: Comment noted. Refer to EIS Sections 3.12 and 4.12 for a discussion of the economic effects. Peabody hires approximately 90 percent of its employees from the Navajo Nation. 125(151) Comment: Peabody has never, “in good faith,” secured a permit for the Black Mesa Mine. The fact that OSM is continuing its permitting process for a coal mine that has been closed for more two-and-a-half years is foolish. Peabody has operated the Black Mesa Mine without a permit for more than a quarter of a century. Once again I question the integrity of the process and the “trust responsibilities” of the Department of the Interior and the Federal government as a whole. Response: From 1982 through 2005, the Black Mesa mining operation mined coal under OSM’s initial regulatory program. In 1990, the Department of the Interior administratively delayed its decision on Peabody’s permanent program permit application for the Black Mesa mining operation. In 2004, Peabody submitted an application for a LOM revisions (and in July 2008, Peabody amended the 2004 application), which would incorporate the leased area in the initial program area into the permanent program permit area—the subject of this EIS. 125(152) Comment: Coal fires at Peabody’s Kayenta mine operations continue unabated. I have called OSM in regards to the open pit coal fires on numerous occasions. The only response I have received from OSM is a verbal “The coal fires is beyond control and it will extinguish itself after the mine operations are completed.” The fact is, at the rate and scope of the Peabody operations, the coal fires at the strip mines and coal storage piles would not be extinguished until the year 2026 at the earliest. Response: BLM and OSM inspect for coal fires and require their extinguishing as they are discovered. Both agencies investigate complaints as they are received. 125(153) Comment: Because water at any point in the hydrologic cycle is tied to the cultural practices and resources of the Hopi people, other nonmonetary damages related to the water table and surface flows must also be considered, especially when Federal agencies such as OSM and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are involved. These agencies have a trust responsibility to tribes and the multiple interests they serve. As fiduciaries, they must act in the utmost good faith to protect the natural resources in their care for their trustees and future generations. Response: The BIA performs a limited role in assisting tribes to litigate or seek to settle their water rights claims. OSM has no authority over water rights involving Indian trust assets. 125(267) Comment: Our common resolve is that Peabody must properly amend its permit revision application for the Black
 Mesa Mine Complex to remove proposed plans and activities that support supplying coal to Mojave Generating 
 Station. 
 Response: Peabody did so in the amended permit revision application that it submitted to OSM on July 2, 2008. 
 125(SR42) Summary Comment: 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. Summary Response: The Draft EIS was released for public review in November 2006 (through February 6, 2007). During the public review period, 12 public open houses were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. Presentations were made in Hopi and Navajo during those meetings. Since the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIS in February 2007, the preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS changed from Alternative A to Alternative B. OSM reopened the comment in May 2008 to allow the public the opportunity to review the Draft EIS considering the change in the preferred alternative from Alternative A to Alternative B. The Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIS differed from the Alternative B announced in the 2008 reopened comment period only in that it did not include a previously-proposed 127-acre haul road (a lesser impact).

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-220

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

125(SR50) Summary Comment: We are writing to request that OSM grant an immediate suspension of the re-opened Black Mesa Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement as well as any proposed actions to continue mining at Black Mesa. Summary Response: The Draft EIS was released for public review in November 2006 (through February 6, 2007). During the public review period, 12 public meetings were held to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. Presentations were made in Hopi and Navajo during those meetings. Since the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIS in February 2007, the preferred alternative identified in the Draft EIS changed from Alternative A to Alternative B. OSM reopened the comment in May 2008 to allow the public the opportunity to review the Draft EIS considering the change in the preferred alternative from Alternative A to Alternative B. The Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIS differed from the Alternative B announced in the 2008 reopened comment period only in that it did not include a previously-proposed 127-acre haul road (a lesser impact). For these reasons, OSM has decided not to suspend or extend the public comment period for further review of the Draft EIS. 125(SR52) Summary Comment: Many of the public comments submitted last year for the Black Mesa Project Draft EIS were intended for Alternative A, which is an inactive issue now. Summary Response: It was for this reason that OSM re-opened the public comment period from May 23, 2008, to July 7, 2008, to allow interested members of the public and affected agencies to provide comments on Alternative B. Category 126: Land use – Residences – Relocation 126(263) Comment: They uproot and relocate families from their ancestral homelands due to coal mining expansion. In all these ways, Peabody Coal Company’s plans devastate the planet, the Black Mesa, and the indigenous people. Response: Comment noted. 126(SR48) Summary Comment: Draft EIS is vague and does not give the reader a clear understanding of the social, cultural, and economic impacts of the potential relocation of 17 families. Summary Response: As noted in 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 does not have authority over the coal-mining leases and, therefore, has no decision authority over resettling residences. Category 127: Ecology 127(140) Comment: Any interference with the ecological state of black mesa will have consequences on all parts of the earth even here in europe. Response: Comment noted.

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-221

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Table M-3
 Index of Commenters (2008) 

Commenter Ahring, Tracey Akin, Richard and Neva Alvarez Sesma, Grace Andersson, Percy Arndt, Thomas Atwood, Amy Center for Biological Diversity Submission ID 1208 1744 1673 37 1792 1632 Location of Comments/Responses 120(SR41) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 76(SR24) 120(SR41) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85)

Bahr, Sandy Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter

1632

Bartlett, Brad Energy Minerals Law Center Bartlett, Brad A. Energy Minerals Law Center

16 1632

Begay, Glena Begay, Leota C-Aquifer for Diné

16 1632

Begay, Leota c-Aquifer for Diné Begaye, Enei Black Mesa Water Coalition

16 16

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-3 - 1

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Begaye, Enei Black Mesa Water Coalition

Submission ID 1632

Benally, et. al., Norman Benally, Jeneda Benally, Leonard Benally, Lousie Benally, Marlene Berry, Carol Bessler, Andy Sierra Club Bessler, Andy Sierra Club

1567 1495 16 16 16 1595 16 1632

Location of Comments/Responses 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 125(150), 125(151), 125(152) 120(SR41) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 88(66), 121(83), 109(138), 120(SR44) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 45(172), 88(SR27) 120(SR43) 121(97) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 7(193) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 7(67) 7(193) 125(57), 121(89), 56(217), 56(221)

Bibro, Krysia Biller Jr., Harry W. Bistline, Bruce Gordon Law Offices, CHTD Black, Bruce C-Aquifer for Diné

938 1548 1566 1632

Black, Bruce C-Aquifer for Diné Black, Charisha Black, Lucretia Black, Lucretia C-Aquifer for Diné

16 1793 16 1632

Black, Lucritia Black, Virlena Blazej, Nova United States Environmental Protection Agency

1794 1793 1156

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-3 - 2

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Block, Dixie Black Mesa Indigenous Support

Submission ID 1632

Block, Dixie Black Mesa Indigenous Support Boyd, Michael E. CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE) Boyd, Michael E. CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE) Branch, Ellen C-Aquifer for Diné

16 1644

Location of Comments/Responses 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 30(161), 56(224), 1(266)

1480

121(82), 30(160)

1632

Branch, Ellen C-Aquifer for Diné Branch, Guadalupe C-Aquifer for Diné

16 1632

54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 120(SR43) 14(3), 125(49) 120(SR43) 120(SR41) 30(161), 56(224), 1(266)

Branch, Guadalupe C-Aquifer for Diné Brandenburg, Margarete Brisbane, Lucinda Brosnahan, Mary Brown, Caroline Friends of Native Cultures Brown, Lynne CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE) Bruno, Bob BTlanger, Luce Bubbins, Harry J. http://www.friendsofbrookpark.org Buddeke III, Ivo W. Cornerstone Surveying Calabro, Richard A. Carbonneau, Karen Cardoza, Paula

16 1398 1146 1411 1331 1644

1379 1513 1353 1580 1421 1607 1410

120(SR43) 120(SR43) 45(182) 120(SR118) 125(56) 120(SR43) 120(SR43)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-3 - 3

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Carlson, Lynn Carr, Deana Ceballos, Bodil Chee, Jeanette C-Aquifer for Diné

Submission ID 1407 1534 1471 1632

Chee, Jeanette C-Aquifer for Diné Clark, Richard J. Clark, Roger Grand Canyon Trust

16 1441 1632

Location of Comments/Responses 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 45(174), 76(SR25), 76(SR26), 88(SR27) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 121(129) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 45(167), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR29), 109(SR33), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 125(SR52), 57(SR268) 125(54), 125(143), 51(187), 97(238), 88(SR27), 120(SR41) 120(SR43) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 120(SR43) 45(167), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR29), 109(SR33), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 125(SR52), 57(SR268) 120(SR41) 76(SR24) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 125(144), 120(SR41), 121(SR77) 120(SR43) 120(SR41), 125(SR42), 120(SR45), 121(SR91) 30(63), 121(79), 121(80), 57(204), 97(237), 8(258), 76(SR25) 120(SR41) 120(SR41) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85)

Clarke, Mark Compton, Dan Conn, Tina C-Aquifer for Diné Cooley, Marian

1587 1452 16 1310

Cortelyou, Catherine Crane, Cherry L. Critteden, Desbah Culin, Lenore D, N

1237 1434 16 1585 1385

D'Andrea, Karen Daughetee, Tommy Davis, Sheila Dedrick, Connie Delanoy, Kay Delva, Johan Dichter, Bronek Diskan, Lance Donna, Bella Dumont, Marion Eisenfeld, Mike

1609 34 1564 1565 1247 1623 611 1350 1361 593 16

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-3 - 4

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Eisenfeld, Mike San Juan Citizens Alliance

Submission ID 1632

Emerson, Alan Engle, Kerstin Eric, Unknown Eslt, Vilma Faria, Summer Featherston, Joe D. Fermin, Christina Ferre, Patricia Ferrell, Caroline Ferrell, Tom Figueroa, Rachelle Morning Star Foundation Fischer, Melissa Joy Fishell, Patrick Fisher, Jessa Fiske, Colin Flörchinger, Martina Folchert, Debbie Northern Arizona Pump Ford, R. Henry Fox, Laura Frank, Greene Frazier, Anna Diné CARE

1486 1471 1581 1516 1600 1524 22 1569 1333 1333 1535 1515 1532 1820 627 15 1589 1706 1412 1458 1632

Location of Comments/Responses 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 120(SR43) 45(174), 76(SR25), 76(SR26), 88(SR27) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 1(128), 97(SR28), 121(SR47), 57(SR268) 120(SR43) 88(261) 120(SR43) 120(SR41) 120(SR41) 120(SR43) 45(177) 120(SR43) 121(98), 45(170), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 114(SR33), 120(SR41), 121(SR47) 45(168), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 114(SR33), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 57(SR268) 127(140) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 109(30), 109(31), 121(SR1), 114(SR35), 120(SR44) 114(113), 4(158), 4(159)

Frazier, Anna Diné CARE Frazier, Anna Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment Frazier, Anna M. Diné Citizens Against Ruining our Environment Fujiyoshi, Ronald Furr, Betty Gabardi, Penny Galla, Thomas M.

16 77

1712

1543 1732 1554 1571

120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-3 - 5

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Gathing, Nancy

Submission ID 1119

Gathing, Nancy

1119

Gay, Sr., Robert V. Gellert, Sally Gersic, Lorraine E. Geselbracht, Jeanne United States Environmental Protection Agency Geyer, Marilou Glover, Rita NaturoDoc, LLC Gnant, Sean Goes, Eva Goldtooth, Tom Indigenous Environmental Network

1501 1294 1602 1156

Location of Comments/Responses 45(167), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR29), 109(SR33), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 125(SR52), 57(SR268) 45(167), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR29), 109(SR33), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 125(SR52), 57(SR268) 120(SR43) 51(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 114(SR33), 120(SR44), 126(SR48), 57(SR269) 52(SR60) 125(57), 121(89), 56(217), 56(221)

590 1499 1703 1471 1632

114(34) 120(SR43) 15(68), 109(251), 120(SR44) 45(174), 76(SR25), 76(SR26), 88(SR27) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 125(51) 45(174), 76(SR25), 76(SR26), 88(SR27) 76(SR24) 120(SR41), 125(SR42) 108(72), 96(231), 126(263) 120(SR43) 125(145) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 125(59), 120(119), 1(126), 120(SR41), 121(SR47) 120(SR44) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 120(SR41) 102(70), 97(245), 8(SR1) 120(SR43)

Grabiel, Tim Natural Resources Defense Council Greene, Frank Greene, Frank Greene, Kala Gregory, Renate Griep-Ruiz, Leo Gustafsson, Carina Gustavsson, Ann Haid, Susan Hall, Merry Hamilton, Amayra Hardt, Jerry Harris, Joey Harris, Joey Harris, Sharon Lee Haskins, Francis Heerkens, John ( Skip Garritt ) Helmer, Bill Henderson, Colette Herder, Dan To'Nizhoni Ani Herring, Tom Hesterberg, Tim Hochman, Daniel E.

16 1496 1497 1458 1539 1624 1471 42 1568 1734 1491 1253 1504 1510 1424 1478 1584 1662 1265 16 1821 1233 1423

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-3 - 6

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Hollingsworth, Julie Hollis, Linus Holt, Margaret A. Hopkins, Dee Horserherder, Alice Nez Hromada, Justin W Clear Creek Trading, LLC Huisinga, Kristin Hulligan, Rose Hunt, James W.

Submission ID 1526 45 1528 1574 16 1403 1823 607 1175

Location of Comments/Responses 120(SR43) 45(178), 45(SR10) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 120(SR43) 8(SR1), 114(SR33), 114(SR35), 120(SR41) 125(SR50) 45(167), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR29), 109(SR33), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 125(SR52), 57(SR268) 120(SR43) 45(183), 7(191), 76(197), 52(SR60) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 114(113), 4(158), 4(159) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85)

Jacobs, Martha Jenks, Kathleen Johns, David

1531 1460 1632

Johns, Gloria

1632

Johns, Wahleah Johns, Wahleah Black Mesa Water Coalition

16 1632

Johnson, Calvin C-Aquifer for Diné

1632

Johnson, Calvin C-Aquifer for Diné Johnson, Calvin C-Aquifer for Diné Johnson, Calvin C-Aquifer for Diné

16 1712 16

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-3 - 7

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Johnston, Bud Johnston, Bud Jones, Zachary Jordan, Victor Karlsson, Akko Karlsson-Good, Elizabeth Kincross, Ainslie B Kinlicheenie, Carol Ann Kinlicheenie, Carol Ann Kinlicheenie, Ned J. Kinlicheenie, Ned J. Koch, George Kordes, Kendra Natural Channel Design, Inc. Landa, Alana Landa, Alana Lane, Maryll Larla, Suzanne Larrabee, Gary Larsson, Håkan Lee Sr., Anthony

Submission ID 618 612 1751 1519 1471 1471 597 586 73 586 73 1669 1591 1828 1568 1507 1213 1469 38 1632

Location of Comments/Responses 121(SR47) 109(32), 1(127) 121(96), 125(146), 114(SR33), 120(SR41) 50(11) 45(174), 76(SR25), 76(SR26), 88(SR27) 45(174), 76(SR25), 76(SR26), 88(SR27) 51(186), 57(195), 121(SR47) 45(171), 102(SR29) 45(179), 97(239), 88(262), 102(SR29) 45(171), 102(SR29) 45(179), 97(239), 88(262), 102(SR29) 120(SR41) 120(SR43) 125(267), 120(SR41) 120(SR41), 125(SR42) 120(SR43) 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 126(SR48), 125(SR50) 120(SR43) 76(SR24) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 45(167), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR29), 109(SR33), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 125(SR52), 57(SR268) 120(SR43) 45(169), 119(255), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 109(SR33), 119(SR35), 120(SR41), 125(SR42), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 125(SR52), 120(SR75), 57(SR268) 45(167), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR29), 109(SR33), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 125(SR52), 57(SR268) 121(SR1)

Lee, Bill Lee, Bill Lee, Bill Licher, Rose Marie Lotzer, Trisha Lyn, Cher Macnab, Mary Maiya, Meghan Maniscalco, Peter

1520 1522 1523 1715 1642 1384 1473 1542 1702

Marz, J. Mayer, Jennifer

1503 1342

Mayer, Jennifer

1833

McAleer, Mitchell

20

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-3 - 8

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter McCabe, Bennie C-Aquifer for Diné

Submission ID 1632

McCabe, Bennie C-Aquifer for Diné McCabe, Jennie C-Aquifer for Diné McCambly, Jeanine McCormick, Carlynn McGregor, Thomas Mciltrot, John McKinnon, Taylor Center for Biological Diversity Mendell, Russell

16 16 1578 1834 610 1248 16 1527

Location of Comments/Responses 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 120(SR43) 45(165), 88(SR27) 114(SR35), 120(SR41) 119(SR35), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR46) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 45(167), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR29), 109(SR33), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 125(SR52), 57(SR268) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 76(134), 45(162), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR44), 126(SR48), 121(SR91), 57(SR268) 45(166), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 126(SR48) 120(SR43) 125(149), 45(163), 57(SR20) 76(SR24) 119(39), 45(164), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 114(SR33), 120(SR44), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 114(SR115), 57(SR268) 125(141), 89(236) 76(199), 119(SR35), 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 125(SR42) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 119(38) 76(SR26), 119(SR35), 119(SR36), 125(SR42) 121(81), 120(SR43)

Miller, Anton Miller, Walter Two Feet Beyond, Inc. Miranda, Sheri Miyoshi, Mark

1470 1408 1726 1601

Miyoshi, Mark Moore, Jane Moulton, Paul Charbonnet Mueller, Ursula R Mulford, Shawn

1590 1641 1541 40 614

Nelson, Patricia c/o Resource Renewal Institute Nicholas, Danielle O'Daniel, Bobbie Ray O'Daniel, Bobbie Wanye O'Daniel, Dwayne O'Daniel, Lita O'Daniel, Roxanne O'Daniel, Wanye Rodney Odendaal, Camilla Olds, Kevin O'Neill, Greg Park, Helen Parsons-Korn, Kayo Friends of the Well

1650 594 16 16 16 16 16 16 1558 1555 1500 1431 1399

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-3 - 9

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Pate, Gail Pate, Milton Patterson, Cynthia Pino, Trevor Polequaptewa, M.S., Nikishna American Indian Resource Program, University of California, Irvine Price, Joan Purvis, Lynne Purvis, Lynne Qoyawayma, Alfred Rankin, David Michael McConnell Ranney, Wayne Rayner, Marlene Sierra Club Sedona-Verde Valley Group Rhoads, Kirk

Submission ID 1482 1482 1406 1793 624

Location of Comments/Responses 7(192) 7(192) 76(198), 8(SR1), 120(SR41), 121(SR47), 125(SR50), 57(SR268) 7(193) 125(147)

1329 1560 1844 1721 1273 1440 1404 1618

47(202), 56(212), 56(220), 56(230) 121(90), 119(117), 45(181), 56(222), 88(SR27), 121(SR47) 121(99), 121(100), 56(232), 8(SR1), 126(SR48) 114(114), 1(154), 1(265) 88(SR27) 120(SR43) 125(148), 52(SR60) 45(167), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR29), 109(SR33), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 125(SR52), 57(SR268) 120(SR43) 106(71) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 125(58), 30(62), 1(157), 45(176), 51(259) 119(254), 119(SR35), 120(SR41), 120(SR75) 120(SR43) 76(SR26) 45(167), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR29), 109(SR33), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 125(SR52), 57(SR268) 120(SR43) 44(7), 55(189)

Rhoden, Jack Richard, Pamela Rico, Gloria Rip, unknown Rivers, Beth Indigenous Support Coalition of Oregon Roberts, Jenny Rodda, Jeanette Romero, Freddie Rosen, Corey

1484 1816 1657 1517 1722 59 1414 1688 1815

Rosenfield, Anita Rothrock, Bob Verde Valley Land Preservation Institute Royle, Cheryl Ruff, Kymberlee Saldamando, Alberto International Indian Treaty Council Sauer, Annmarie Savard, Jeannine Saxon, Levana Schlyter, Carl European Parliament Schmidt, Concetta Schrand, Peter J. Schrum, Jack Settimo, J. Adrianne Sharp, Merion Shattuck, Lise

1468 1631

1489 1420 1708 39 1598 808 1471 1459 1406 1743 608 1568 1446

120(SR43) 120(SR43) 76(SR25) 76(SR24) 120(SR43) 88(SR27), 125(SR50), 114(SR115) 45(174), 76(SR25), 76(SR26), 88(SR27) 120(SR43) 76(198), 8(SR1), 120(SR41), 121(SR47), 125(SR50), 57(SR268) 120(SR43) 121(92), 121(93), 121(94), 56(219) 120(SR41), 125(SR42) 7(190), 114(SR118)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-3 - 10

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Sherry, Goldberg Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Shielding, Cournoyer E.

Submission ID 16

Location of Comments/Responses 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85)

1377

Shiemke, Kim Shorty, Elsie A. Shute, Fred Silverman, Gayle Simon, Philip

1419 1153 1583 1521 1225

Simonson, Edith Simonson, Rene Sky Singer, Lousie Slowtalker, Kee C-Aquifer for Diné

16 16 16 1632

Slowtalker, Kee C-Aquifer for Diné Slowtalker, Susie C-Aquifer for Diné

16 1632

45(167), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR29), 109(SR33), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 125(SR52), 57(SR268) 54(SR1), 51(SR17) 120(SR44) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 45(167), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR29), 109(SR33), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 125(SR52), 57(SR268) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 45(174), 76(SR25), 76(SR26), 88(SR27) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 76(SR25), 121(SR47)

Slowtalker, Susie C-Aquifer for Diné Spinelli, Altiero Sprinz, Yolanda Spurrier, Everly Statzel, Sophie Department of Anthropology, Graduate Center, City University of New York Stegall, Elaine Stein, Ann Stenberg, Kurt Skara Board of Nature Preservation Stockwell, Jake Stockwell, Jake Black Mesa Indigenous Support Stockwell, Ryan

16 1471 1474 1544 609

1723 1586 41 1514 16 1570

120(SR43) 120(SR43) 76(SR24) 31(5), 7(61), 97(135), 45(175), 56(223), 54(SR17), 76(SR25), 121(SR47) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 45(105), 120(SR41)

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-3 - 11

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Store, Lottie C-Aquifer for Diné

Submission ID 1632

Store, Lottie C-Aquifer for Diné Sudborough, Ivan Hal Summers, Linda Sedona Spirit Journeys Tewa, Debby Black Mesa Trust Thimiakis, Brigitte Tim, Grabiel Environmental Justice Project

16 1257 1492 16 58 1632

Location of Comments/Responses 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 120(SR41), 125(SR42), 120(SR75) 120(SR43) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 76(SR24) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 114(109), 119(116) 51(12), 45(180), 120(SR41) 45(167), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR29), 109(SR33), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 125(SR52), 57(SR268) 120(SR43) 120(SR41) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 45(184), 56(229) 120(SR43) 45(167), 8(SR1), 76(SR25), 97(SR29), 109(SR33), 121(SR47), 126(SR48), 125(SR52), 57(SR268) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 120(SR43)

Tirase, Aiyana B. Todd, Jude Tompkins, Pat

1606 1323 1853

Trebilcock, Anne Tserotas, Ourania N. Tso, Francis

1576 1365 1632

Tso, Francis Uchino, Crystal unknown, Laura Unknown, Unknown

16 1663 1728 1741

Unknown, Unknown Unknown, Unknown Urban, Ruth

1481 1540 1506

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-3 - 12

Appendix M – Comments and Responses

Commenter Vaaler, Jim Sierra Club - Grande Canyon Chapter

Submission ID 1632

Valer, Carmen Blanco Vinson, Kat VrMeer, Janice Warburton, Michael Watchempino, Laura Haaku Water Office Weis, Carl Whitesinger, Pauline Wijkman, Anders European Parliament Willcox, Faith M. Williams, Dale Winstead, Elizabeth F. Winter, Reinea Wood, Rebecca Woodlock, Brenda Yarbrough, Jim Yazzie, Kee Yazzie, Vince Yazzie, Vincent H. Yealland, Mike Zilth, Lela M. C-Aquifer for Diné

1471 1463 1556 1650 1413 1465 16 1471 1643 1518 1612 1509 1704 1502 1405 1710 1425 1422 1559 1632

Location of Comments/Responses 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 45(174), 76(SR25), 76(SR26), 88(SR27) 120(SR43) 120(SR43) 125(141), 89(236) 52(16), 125(153), 108(250), 8(256), 8(257), 51(SR13) 120(SR43) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 45(174), 76(SR25), 76(SR26), 88(SR27) 120(SR41) 120(SR43) 52(SR60) 120(SR43) 54(18), 45(173), 97(244), 120(SR44), 121(SR47), 126(SR48) 120(SR43) 120(SR41) 109(136), 109(139) 125(55) 121(95) 120(SR43) 54(65), 121(86), 121(87), 121(88), 33(101), 33(102), 33(103), 33(106), 33(107), 88(108), 114(112), 67(133), 125(142), 54(188), 56(213), 56(214), 56(215), 56(216), 56(225), 56(226), 56(227), 56(228), 67(233), 67(234), 67(235), 118(252), 119(253), 54(260), 67(SR22), 76(SR25), 97(SR28), 120(SR41), 120(SR45), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85) 119(SR36), 120(SR41), 121(SR46), 121(SR85)

Zilth, Lela M. C-Aquifer for Diné Zilth, Lester C-Aquifer for Diné

16 16

Black Mesa Project EIS November 2008

M-3 - 13

Appendix M – Comments and Responses