Public Scoping Summary Report Plains Pipeline, L.P

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Public Scoping Summary Report Plains Pipeline, L.P. Replacement Project Environmental Impact Statement

Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Kern Counties, California

September 2019

Public Scoping Summary Report

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project SANTA BARBARA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, AND KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA

Bakersfield Field Office 3801 Pegasus Drive Bakersfield, CA 93308 Phone: (661) 391-6000

September 2019

PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 2 SCOPING OVERVIEW ...... 1 3 BACKGROUND ...... 2 4 SCOPING PROCESS ...... 3 4.1 Federal Register ...... 3 4.2 Press Release and Public Outreach ...... 3 4.3 Internal Scoping ...... 4 4.4 Tribal Consultation ...... 4 5 COMMENT COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ...... 5 5.1 Comment Collection ...... 5 5.2 Comment Analysis ...... 5 6 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS ...... 6

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1. Tribal Consultation ...... 4 Table 6-1. Scoping Representative Submissions, by Affiliation ...... 6 Table 6-2. Scoping Summary, Unique Substantive Comments taken from Submissions by Topic ...... 7

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A Acronyms ...... A-1 Attachment B References ...... B-1 Attachment C Federal Register Notice of Intent ...... C-1 Attachment D Press Release ...... D-1 Attachment E Public Scoping Stakeholder List ...... E-1 Attachment F Scoping Comment Submissions ...... F-1

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report i September 2019 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

1 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Field Office, California, is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the impacts of a proposal by Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Plains) to replace an existing 123-mile pipeline within an existing right-of-way which includes approximately 11 miles of Federal public lands in Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Kern Counties (Project).

The Project is intended to replace the existing, and currently out of service, Lines 901 and 903 portions of the pipeline system from Las Flores Canyon Pump Station in Santa Barbara County to the Pentland Delivery Point in Kern County. The Project would include the in-place abandonment and/or removal of the existing pipeline system—Lines 901 and 903, respectively—and replacement of the existing system with the installation and operation of approximately 123.4 miles of new pipeline, referred to as Line 901R and Line 903R.

On January 9, 2018, Plains filed a right-of-way amendment application for the replacement and abandonment of approximately 122.9 miles of existing oil pipelines. On Friday, May 3, 2019, the BLM released a Notice of Intent (NOI) to initiate public review of the proposed Project. The Project spans multiple local, State and Federal jurisdictions. On August 7, 2018, the DOI determined that the Project would be addressed under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41).

2 SCOPING OVERVIEW

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, Federal agencies are required to consider the environmental impacts of their proposed actions prior to implementation. Compliance with NEPA is required of all Federal actions, including the approval of specific projects, whether the action is developed by or submitted to the BLM. The NEPA compliance process within the BLM is guided by Federal agency regulations and policies. NEPA mandates that every Federal agency prepare a detailed statement of the effects of “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” (BLM 2008).

The purpose of the Federal action is to respond to Plains’ application to amend their right-of-way to construct (replace), operate, maintain, and decommission a crude oil pipeline and ancillary facilities across Federal lands. The need is established by the BLM’s responsibilities under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA) (30 United States Code [U.S.C.] 185) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 35). The need is further established by the policy set forth in Executive Order 13868: Promoting Energy Infrastructure and Economic Growth. The BLM, in conjunction with Cooperating Agencies, will decide whether to approve, approve with modification(s), or deny issuance of the right-of-way grant.

Public involvement is a vital component of both the FLPMA and NEPA, vesting the public in the decision- making process and allowing for full environmental disclosure (BLM 2001). Guidance for implementing public involvement is codified in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1506.6, thereby ensuring that Federal agencies make a diligent effort to involve the public in preparing NEPA documents. Over the course of the planning and NEPA process, public involvement for this EIS is being conducted in four phases:

1. Public scoping prior to NEPA analysis to identify potential issues and planning criteria to help determine the scope of the EIS;

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 1 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

2. Public outreach via news releases; 3. Collaboration with other Federal, State, and Tribal government agencies; and 4. Public review and comment on the Draft EIS, which will analyze and disclose potential environmental effects related to the Project.

This Scoping Summary Report documents the results of the public scoping phase of the NEPA process. This process has two components: internal scoping and external scoping. Internal scoping is conducted within the agency, and with Cooperating Agencies, to determine preliminary and anticipated issues and concerns. Internal scoping primarily consisted of the BLM and Cooperating Agencies’ internal assessment of new information and discussions of the Project. External scoping is a public process designed to reach beyond the BLM in order to discern the public’s important issues. The public process is designed to determine and frame the scope of pertinent issues and alternatives to be addressed in a NEPA document. External scoping helps ensure that:

. Issues are identified early in the process and are properly analyzed; . Issues of no consequence or concern do not consume time and effort; and . The proposed action and alternatives are balanced, thorough, and able to be implemented.

In accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7, the BLM has prepared this Scoping Summary Report to document the scoping results. In accordance with the BLM’s NEPA guidance, this Scoping Summary Report captures public input in one document and summarizes the comments received during the formal external scoping period (BLM 2008).

3 BACKGROUND

On May 18, 1985, the BLM approved the Celeron/All American Pipeline Project. Pipeline construction occurred from 1988 to 1991, and Line 903 became operational in 1991; Line 901 became operational a few years later in 1994. The Lines 901 and 903 pipeline system was considered an interstate pipeline and was operated under Federal jurisdiction.

On May 19, 2015, Line 901 ruptured approximately 100 yards north of Highway 101, approximately 0.25 miles west of Refugio State Park, and oil traveled through a drainage culvert to the Pacific Ocean. An estimated 140,000 gallons, or 3,333 barrels, of crude oil were released. On May 20, 2015, the Santa Barbara County Director of Planning and Development gave verbal and email authorization to Plains to conduct emergency response operations pursuant to the County’s Coastal Zoning Ordinance. Site cleanup and monitoring activities continued into 2016 and were overseen by the Unified Command led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), County Office of Emergency Management, and Plains. The Unified Command was dissolved in early 2017, once cleanup and monitoring of the spill site was completed. Since the May 19, 2015, rupture and release of crude oil, Plains’ Lines 901 and 903 pipeline system has been shut-in.

The replacement pipelines would predominantly follow the alignment and corridor of the existing Line 901 and Line 903 pipelines with three notable deviations. The Project would also include the installation of supporting access roads, valves, and a new pump station; temporary construction access; and staging and laydown areas. The Project would span multiple local, State, and Federal jurisdictions, as follows:

The Project spans multiple local, State and Federal jurisdictions—113 miles of private and State lands; 4.5 miles of BLM-managed public land (including 2.7 miles within the Carrizo Plain National Monument); 1 mile of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-managed lands in the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge; and

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 2 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

5.5 miles of U.S. Forest Service-managed land in the Los Padres National Forest. Additionally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the responsible agency for all Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) and is serving as the lead agency for compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Santa Barbara County is the lead agency for the environmental analysis on private and State-owned lands. The BLM is the lead agency conducting the environmental analysis on Federal lands.

4 SCOPING PROCESS

The scoping process is the method for determining the scope, focus, and content for the EIS. Scoping helps to identify the methods of assessment, environmental effects, and mitigation measures to be analyzed, and eliminates issues that are not significant or relevant to the decision at hand from detailed study. Scoping also provides an opportunity for active participation from a variety of stakeholders, including proponents and opponents of a proposed action, and encourages the expression of thoughts and/or concerns during the decision-making process.

4.1 Federal Register

An NOI to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2019 (Attachment C).

. Website: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/03/2019-08847/notice-of-intent-to- prepare-an-environmental-impact-statement-for-the-proposed-plains-pipeline-lp, and on govinfo.gov

The NOI identified the purpose of the public scoping process and provided information about the planning process, preliminary planning issues and criteria in the resource area, the scoping process, and contact information. The NOI also initiated a 30-day scoping period, which closed June 3, 2019.

Scoping comments were obtained via the following methods:

. Website: https://go.usa.gov/xE5f2 . Mail: Bakersfield Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Attn: Plains Pipeline Replacement Project Analysis, 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93308

Note: Documents pertinent to this proposal were made available to be examined during regular business hours at: Bureau of Land Management Bakersfield Field Office at 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93308.

A summary of comments received in response to the NOI are included in this Public Scoping Summary Report (Section 6).

4.2 Press Release and Public Outreach

On May 2, 2019, the BLM issued a press release (Attachment D) to the public via the ePlanning website, announcing the beginning of the NEPA planning process and that the 30-day scoping period would begin on May 3, 2019 and end on June 3, 2019. The press release included links to the Project website and Plains Pipeline Replacement Project Map, along with instructions for how to submit comments.

Website:

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 3 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjectSite&projectId=1194 70&dctmId=0b0003e881324fca

Notice of Intent on Federal Register Website: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-08847.pdf

Press Release (May 2, 2019):

https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-seeks-public-comments-plains-pipeline-replacement-project

4.3 Internal Scoping

Internal scoping at the BLM was conducted in April 2019 to identify any new information and regulations that could affect the EIS analysis.

4.4 Tribal Consultation

The BLM has conducted tribal outreach through mailings and follow-up correspondence, and meetings with both federally and non-federally recognized Indian tribes affiliated with the Project area (Table 4-1). This has included government-to-government meetings with two of the federally recognized tribes—the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians and Tejon Indian Tribe. Additionally, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians submitted confidential comments and concerns regarding this Project.

Table 4-1. Tribal Consultation Tribes Federally Recognized Tribes Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians Tule River Tribe Tejon Tribe Santa Rosa Rancheria Non-Federally Recognized/California State-Recognized Tribes Yak tiyu tityu yak tilhini, Northern Chumash Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation Northern Chumash Tribal Council Salinan Tribe of Monterey, San Luis Obispo Counties Salinan Tribe of SLO and Monterey Counties Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians Xolon SalinanTribe Tinoqui-Chalola Council of Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians Wukchumni Trial Council San Fernando Band of Mission Indians

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 4 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

5 COMMENT COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This section describes the comment collection and analysis process. A summary of the numbers and types of comments received is provided in Section 6. As announced in the NOI and press release, the BLM accepted written scoping comments via electronic submission through a dedicated project website, mail, or email during the public scoping between May 3, 2019, and June 3, 2019.

5.1 COMMENT COLLECTION

Comment submissions received during the scoping period were stored, organized, and addressed using a comment management database designed to allow consistent comment coding and response. Each submission was assigned a unique identifying number. Hard copy comment submissions received via mail were scanned by the Bakersfield Field Office and converted to electronic format before being entered into the database. While email was not an official method of comment submission, the BLM received some submissions via email. Email submissions were converted to .pdf format and entered into the database.

5.2 COMMENT ANALYSIS

All comment submissions were reviewed to identify the issues/topics of concern to be addressed in the EIS (i.e., air quality, land use planning, etc.). Comments were identified as either substantive or non-substantive. Non-substantive comments were those that expressed an opinion or position statements but did not identify a potentially significant issue to be addressed in the EIS. All comments within a comment submission were given a unique comment identification number and coded according to the issue of concern or comment category (i.e., air quality, greenhouse gasses, etc.).

Substantive and Non-Substantive Comments

The BLM considered every comment, whether it was provided repeatedly by many people with the same message(s) or by a single commenter raising a technical point or making a personal statement. Analysis of public comments emphasized the content of a comment rather than the number of comments received. On the basis of the CEQ regulations, a substantive comment does one or more of the following: . Questions, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in the NEPA document; . Questions, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of, methodology for, or assumptions used for the environmental analysis; . Presents new information relevant to the analysis; . Presents reasonable alternatives other than those analyzed in the NEPA document; and/or . Causes changes to or revisions of the alternatives (BLM 2008).

In contrast, non-substantive comments simply state a position in favor of, or against, an alternative or proposed management action; agree or disagree with a BLM policy or proposal; provide information not directly related to the issues or impact analyses, or otherwise express a personal preference or opinion unsupported by data (BLM 2008). The BLM has reviewed and considered all non-substantive comments received.

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 5 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

6 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS

During the public scoping period, 3,664 comment submissions were received, of which 3,578 (98 percent) were attributed to a single-form letter and 86 (2 percent) were either unique substantive or unique non- substantive submissions. Each submission was assigned a unique identifying number, and grouped by type of stakeholder (i.e., Federal and State agencies, organization, individual, etc.) as shown in Table 6-1. Attachment E contains a list of all the individual stakeholders who submitted comments during the public scoping period.

Table 6-1. Scoping Representative Submissions, by Affiliation* Number of Organization Type Name/Title Submissions Non-Unique Submissions Form Letter 1 Individuals, Organizations 3578 Unique (Non-Form Letter) Submissions Unique Individuals, Organizations 74 Submissions U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal and State California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Central Region 3 Agencies California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Region Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation Native American Owl Clan Consultants 3 Tribes Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians

Cappello & Noel, LLP Center for Biological Diversity Conservation Lands Foundation Environmental Defense Center Los Padres ForestWatch Total Number of Unique (Non-Form Letter) Submissions 86 Total Number of Submissions 3,664 *Individuals, organizations, and agencies are listed in the Stakeholder List in Attachment E of this report.

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 6 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

Each unique submission was evaluated and broken down into individual substantive or non-substantive comments. From the 86 non-form letter submissions, a total of 148 unique, substantive comments were identified and are summarized by topic in Table 6-2. From the unique, non-form letter submissions, 67 comments were considered non-substantive and generally described the stakeholders support or opposition of the Project. The substantive comments covered several topics including specific resource areas, mitigation, alternatives, cumulative impacts, and the NEPA process. The issues most frequently commented on included biological resources, water resources, alternatives, and cumulative impacts. All unique, substantive comments and unique, non-substantive comments, as well as an example of the form letter received, can be seen in Attachment F of this report.

Table 6-2. Scoping Summary, Unique Substantive Comments taken from Submissions by Topic* Number of Substantive Topic Comments** Aesthetics 1

Agency Coordination 9

Air Quality 4

Alternatives 8

Biological Resources 43

Climate Change 5

Cultural Resources 8

Cumulative Impacts 11

Decommission of Existing Pipeline 1

Environmental Justice 1

General Opposition 2

Geology/Soils 1

Greenhouse Gas 6

Hazards/Hazardous Materials 3

Hydrology/Water Quality 12

Land Use Planning 5

Noise 1

Oil Spills 5

Project Description 12

Purpose and Need 1

Recreation 2

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 7 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

Table 6-2. Scoping Summary, Unique Substantive Comments taken from Submissions by Topic* Number of Substantive Topic Comments**

Restoration/Monitoring 1

Scope 2

Seismic Conditions 3

Traffic/Transportation 1 Total Number of Substantive Comments 148 *Unique substantive comments can be viewed in Attachment F of this report. **Non-substantive comments are not included in this table.

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 8 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

Attachment A

Acronyms

BLM Bureau of Land Management CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CFR Code of Federal Regulations CEQ Council on Environmental Quality DOI U.S. Department of the Interior EIS Environmental Impact Statement FAST-41 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 MLA Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NOI Notice of Intent Plains Plains Pipeline, L.P. U.S.C. United States Code WOTUS Waters of the United States

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 A-1 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

Attachment B

References

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2001. Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 as Amended. U.S. Department of the Interior. October.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. National Environmental Policy Act. Handbook-1790-1. U.S. Department of the Interior. January.

[Note: References cited in the Scoping Summary Report text are included here. References noted in scoping comment text are not listed.]

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 B-1 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

Attachment C

Federal Register Notice of Intent

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 C-1 Federal Register /Vol. 84, No. 86 /Friday, May 3, 2019 /Notices 19107 available at any time. While you can ask message or question. You will receive a process to solicit public comments and us in your comment to withhold your reply during normal business hours. identify issues. personally identifiable information from SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DATES: This notice initiates the public public review, we cannot guarantee that applicant, Crescent Point Energy, had scoping process for the EIS. Comments we will be able to do so. filed a plan of development for their on issues may be submitted in writing Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR Federal, State, private, and tribal trust until June 3, 2019. In order to be 1610.2. leases. Crescent Point proposed to drill included in the analysis, all scoping comments must be submitted in writing Danielle K. Chi, up to 3,925 new oil and gas wells and build 863 miles of roads; 693 miles of and received prior to the close of the 30- ELMCalifornia Deputy State Director, Natural day scoping period. We will provide Resources, Planning and Fire. pipelines co-located with the proposed [FR Doc. 2019-08846 Filed 5-2-19; 8:45 am) roads; 170 miles of cross-country additional opportunities for public pipelines; 400 miles of trunk pipelines; participation as appropriate. BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P 5 salt water disposal wells; 5 produced ADDRESSES: You may submit comments water treatment facilities; 20 central related to this EIS by any of the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR tank batteries; 4 gas processing plants; 8 following methods: oil storage areas; and 4 equipment • Website: https:llgo.usa.gov!xE5f2. Bureau of Land Management storage areas. Since the ELM published • Mail: BakersfieldField Office, a NOI in the Federal Register (81 FR Bureau of Land Management, Attn: [19X LLUTG01000 L91450000.EJOOOO] 20668), the applicant has acquired Plains Pipeline Replacement Project Analysis, 3801 Pegasus Drive, Notice of Termination of the significant additional assets, changed its Bakersfield, CA 93308. Environmental Impact Statement for drilling techniques, and revised its corporate strategy such that the original Documents pertinent to this proposal the Crescent Point Energy Utah may be examined during regular Federal-Tribal Well Development proposed action no longer reflects its plans for the project area. In accordance business hours at the Bakersfield Field Project, Duchesne and Uintah Office. Counties, Utah with the applicant's December 12, 2018, request, the ELM is terminating the EIS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, in accordance with ELM Manual Jeromy Caldwell, Assistant Field Interior. Handbook H-1790-1 Section 9.8. Manager, telephone 661-391-6000; ACTION: Notice of termination. address Bureau of Land Management, Edwin L. Roberson, 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA SUMMARY: In accordance with the State Director. 93308; email ELM CA Web BK@ National Environmental Policy Act, on [FR Doc. 2019-09116 Filed 5-2-19; 8:45 am] him.gov. Contact Mr. Caldwell to have April 8, 2016, the Bureau of Land BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P your name added to our mailing list. Management (ELM) Vernal Field Office Persons who use a telecommunications published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to device for the deaf (TDD) may call the prepare an Environmental Impact DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800- Statement (EIS) for the proposed 877-8339 to contact the above Bureau of Land Management Crescent Point Energy Utah Federal individual during normal business Tribal Well Development Project in [LLCAC06000. L51010000.EROOOO hours. FRS is available 24 hours a day, Duchesne and Uintah Counties, Utah. .LVRWB1886800.18XL1109AF 7 days a week, to leave a message or The Notice announced the beginning of M0#450012099] question. You will receive a reply the scoping process for solicitation of during normal business hours. input on the identification of issues and Notice of Intent To Prepare an evaluation of the effects of the proposed Environmental Impact Statement for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Plains development by Crescent Point Energy. the Proposed Plains Pipeline, L.P. Pipeline, L.P. filed a right-of-way The proposed EIS would have evaluated Replacement Project in Santa Barbara, application on January 9, 2018, for the the effects of the proposed development San Luis Obispo, and Kern Counties, replacement and abandonment of in the Uinta Basin. On December 12, California approximately 127 miles of existing oil 2018, Crescent Point Energy withdrew pipelines. The project spans multiple Bureau of Land Management, its proposed action. The ELM is AGENCY: local, State and Federal jurisdictions. Interior. On August 7, 2018, the U.S. therefore terminating the EIS process. ACTION: Notice of intent. Department of the Interior determined DATES: Termination of the EIS for the the project would be addressed under proposed Crescent Point Energy Utah SUMMARY: In accordance with the the Fixing America's Surface Federal-Tribal Well Development National Environmental Policy Act of Transportation Act (FAST-41). Project in Duchesne and Uintah 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the The purpose of the public scoping Counties, Utah, takes effect Federal Land Policy and Management process is to determine relevant issues immediately. Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of that will influence the scope of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Land Management (ELM) Bakersfield environmental analysis, including Stephanie Howard, Project Manager, Field Office, Bakersfield, California, alternatives, if necessary, and guide the 170 S 500 E, Vernal, UT 84078; intends to prepare an Environmental planning process. The ELM, other telephone: (435) 781-4469; email: Impact Statement (EIS), analyzing the Federal, State, and local agencies and [email protected]. Persons who use a impacts of a proposal by Plains other stakeholders have identified the telecommunications device for the deaf Pipeline, L.P. to replace its roughly 127- following preliminary issues: Air and (TDD) may call the Federal Relay mile pipeline, which includes atmospheric values, water quality and Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to approximately 14 miles of Federal quantity, cultural resources, contact Ms. Howard during normal public lands, in Santa Barbara, San Luis paleontological resources, and special business hours. FRS is available 24 Obispo and Kern counties. This notice status species. The ELM will address hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a announces the beginning of the scoping reasonably foreseeable impacts to 19108 Federal Register /Vol. 84, No. 86 /Friday, May 3, 2019 /Notices resources from approval of this project. Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR information and advice regarding the Mitigation may include avoidance, 1610.2). development of the Monument minimization, rectification, reduction or Danielle K. Chi, Management Plan. Agenda topics will elimination over time, and may be BLMCalifornia Deputy State Director, Natural include welcoming new committee considered at multiple scales, including Resources, Planning and Fire. members, reviewing the charter, the landscape scale. [FR Doc. 2019-08847 Filed 5-2-19; 8:45 am] providing an overview to, and soliciting The BLM will use the NEPA scoping BILLING CODE 4310-40-P information and advice from, the process to help fulfill public BENM-MAC regarding the development involvement requirements under the of the Draft Monument Management National Historic Preservation Act (54 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Plans and Draft Environmental Impact U.S.C. 306108). as provided in 36 CFR Statement for the Shash Jaa and Indian Bureau of Land Management 800.2(d)(3). Information about historic Creek Units of the Bears Ears National and cultural resources within the area [19X L1109AF LLUTYOOOOO Monument. BENM-MAC members will potentially affected by the project will L17110000.DQOOOO LX.SS.J0650000] also select a person to serve as chair. The final agenda will be posted online assist the BLM in identifying and Notice of Public Meeting for the Bears evaluating impacts to such resources. at https:!/www.blm.gov/get-involved/ Ears National Monument Advisory resource-advisory-council/near-me/ The BLM will consult with Indian Committee, Utah utah/mac. tribes on a government-to-government AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, The meeting is open to the public; basis in accordance with existing law, Interior. regulations, and policy. Tribal concerns, however, transportation, lodging, and Notice of public meeting. including impacts on Indian trust assets ACTION: meals are the responsibility of the participating individuals. There will be and potential impacts to cultural SUMMARY: In accordance with the resources, will be given due Federal Land Policy and Management an opportunity for public comment consideration. Federal, State and local Act and the Federal Advisory during the meeting. Depending on the agencies, along with tribes and other Committee Act, the U.S. Department of number of people who wish to speak stakeholders that may be interested in or Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service and the and the time available, the time for affected by the project, are invited to U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau individual comments may be limited. participate in the scoping process and, of Land Management's (BLM) Bears Ears Written comments may also be sent to if eligible, may request or be requested National Monument Advisory the BLM Canyon Country District at the by the BLM to participate in the Committee (BENM-MAC) will meet as address listed in the ADDRESSES section development of the environmental indicated below. of this notice. All comments received analysis as a cooperating agency. DATES: The BENM-MAC will hold a will be provided to the BENM-MAC for public meeting on June 5-6, 2019. The their consideration and posted on The BLM will evaluate issues to be meeting will be held on June 5, 2019 Committee's website. addressed in the analysis, and will place from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and them into one of three categories: Before including your address, phone continue on June 6, 2019 from 8:00 a.m. number, email address, or other 1. Issues to be resolved in the to 12:00 p.m. personal identifying information in your analysis; ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at comment, you should be aware that 2. Issues to be resolved through policy the Hideout Community Center, 648 your entire comment-including your or administrative action; or South Hideout Way, Monticello, Utah personal identifying information-may 84535. Written comments to address the 3. Issues beyond the scope of the EIS. be made publicly available at any time. BENM-MAC may be sent to the BLM While you can ask in your comment that The BLM will provide an explanation Canyon Country District, 82 East the BLM withhold your personal in the Draft EIS as to why an issue was Dogwood, Moab, Utah 84532, or via identifying information from public placed in category two or three. The email with the subject line "BENM review, the BLM cannot guarantee that public is also encouraged to help MAC" to [email protected]. identify any management questions and Written comments must be received by it will be able to do so. concerns that should be addressed in Friday, May 31, 2019 to be considered Detailed meeting minutes for the the analysis. The BLM will work by BENM-MAC members in their first BENM-MAC meetings will be collaboratively with interested parties to meeting. maintained in the BLM Canyon Country identify the management decisions that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa District and will be available for public are best suited to local, regional and Bryant, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM inspection and reproduction during national needs and concerns. Canyon Country District, 82 East regular business hours within thirty (30) Before including your address, phone Dogwood, Moab, Utah 84532; phone days following the meeting. number, email address, or other 435-259-2187; or by email at lmbryant@ Authority: 43 CFR 1784.4-2. personally identifiable information in blm.gov. Persons who use a Anita Bilbao, your comment, you should be aware telecommunications device for the deaf that your entire comment-including (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Associate State Director. your personally identifiable Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to [FR Doc. 2019-09125 Filed 5-2-19; 8:45 am] leave a message or question for the information-may be made publicly BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P above individual. The FRS is available available at any time. While you can ask 24 hours a day, seven days a week. us in your comment to withhold your Replies are provided during normal personally identifiable information from business hours. public review, we cannot guarantee that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15- we will be able to do so. member Committee will provide PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

Attachment D

Press Release

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 D-1 News Release Central California District

For Immediate Release: May 2, 2019 CA-CC-19-16 Contact: Serena Baker, 916-941-3146, [email protected]

BLM seeks public comments on Plains Pipeline replacement project

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. – The Bureau of Land Management Bakersfield Field Office is seeking public comments on the potential environmental impacts of a proposal by Plains Pipeline, L.P. to replace its roughly 127-mile pipeline, which includes approximately 14 miles of federal lands within Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Kern counties. The 30-day public comment period begins May 3. Plains Pipeline, L.P. is requesting the use of existing rights-of-way to replace its pipeline that transports crude oil from production platforms and oilfields off the California Coast to refinery facilities in the San Joaquin Valley. The pipeline replacement project spans multiple local, state and federal jurisdictions—113 miles of private and state lands; six miles of BLM-managed public land, including four miles within the Carrizo Plain National Monument; two miles of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service managed lands in the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge; and six miles of U.S. Forest Service managed land in the Los Padres National Forest. Santa Barbara County is the lead agency for the environmental analysis on private and state owned lands. The BLM is the lead agency conducting the environmental analysis on federal lands. Public input will help the BLM determine the size and scope of analysis needed, additional issues to study and a range of alternative management strategies. To ensure your input is included in the assessment, please submit written comments timely by June 3. Only written comments are accepted and may be submitted at the project website (https://go.usa.gov/xE5f2), via hand- delivery, or by mail to the Bakersfield Field Office, Attn: Plains Pipeline Replacement Project Analysis, 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93308. Before including addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, or other personal identifying information in a comment, be aware that the entire comment—including personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While someone may ask the BLM to withhold personal identifying information from public review, the BLM cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.

The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land located primarily in 12 Western states, including Alaska. The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. The agency’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. Diverse activities authorized on these lands generated $96 billion in sales of goods and services throughout the American economy in fiscal year 2017. These activities supported more than 468,000 jobs

-BLM-

Bakersfield Field Office, 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93308 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

Attachment E

Public Scoping Stakeholder List

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 E-1 LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Indivisible Ventura Indivisible Ventura Ventura CA 82 Unique Non Substantive A Rita Arcata CA 2148 Form Letter 1 A Pat Lisle IL 3328 Form Letter 1 A. Pat Bridgeton MO 485 Form Letter 1 Ab Nando Seattle WA 3183 Form Letter 1 Abate Andrew Albuquerque NM 3222 Form Letter 1 Abaunza George Lodi NJ 1102 Form Letter 1 Abby Kathy Twin Falls ID 3097 Form Letter 1 Abel Jenny 2753 Form Letter 1 Absolonova Karolina 2472 Form Letter 1 Acebo Ryan Oakland CA 3516 Form Letter 1 Ackerman Shirley Louisville KY 3143 Form Letter 1 Ackermann Dorelle Mokena IL 831 Form Letter 1 Acs-Ray Julie Romulus MI 2890 Form Letter 1 Adam Cole Denver CO 1700 Form Letter 1 Adams Karen Bonsall CA 452 Form Letter 1 Adams Evelyn Mckinney TX 811 Form Letter 1 Adams Cecile Muskego WI 1528 Form Letter 1 Adams Winn Bellingham WA 1855 Form Letter 1 Adams Marsha Shelton WA 1870 Form Letter 1 Adcock Michelle Aubrey TX 1222 Form Letter 1 Adkins Sarah Huntington WV 2427 Form Letter 1 Adoue Miss Novella Manchester Center VT 431 Form Letter 1 Adrian Lawrence Durham NC 935 Form Letter 1 Agnew Erika Los Angeles CA 3353 Form Letter 1 Aguilar Mafalda 3537 Form Letter 1 Aguirre Gloria Castaic CA 3006 Form Letter 1 Aharonian Natalie North Hollywood CA 3530 Form Letter 1 Ahlstrand Heidi Owatonna MN 3046 Form Letter 1 Aker Patricia Wilsonville OR 3387 Form Letter 1 Alayza Mujica Bernardo Sioux City IA 2868 Form Letter 1 Albanese Dawn Elk Grove Village IL 1392 Form Letter 1 Albert Anthony Corvallis OR 2244 Form Letter 1 Albertine Gisele Arcata CA 1988 Form Letter 1 Albrecht Yvonne Tucson AZ 1665 Form Letter 1 Alfonso Brad Saint Bernard LA 400 Form Letter 1 Alfonso Mel Saint Bernard LA 1319 Form Letter 1 Alhussiny Lynda Belen NM 708 Form Letter 1 Alibrandi Jill Redding CT 3092 Form Letter 1 Allaman Candace Bradenton FL 2023 Form Letter 1 Allen Tammy San Luis Obispo CA 33 Unique Non Substantive Allen Ann San Rafael CA 1338 Form Letter 1 Allen Gail San Francisco CA 2173 Form Letter 1 Allen Cindy Hood River OR 2180 Form Letter 1 Allen Gary Beverly Hills CA 3207 Form Letter 1 Allende Isabel Las Vegas NV 456 Form Letter 1 Alleniii Doug Roswell GA 3026 Form Letter 1 Allis Lisa Houston TX 608 Form Letter 1 Allison Kelly Berlin MD 1023 Form Letter 1 Allison Connie Geneva NY 3149 Form Letter 1 Allum Rich 414 Form Letter 1 Almeida- Altamirano Gabriela Plainfield NJ 3054 Form Letter 1 Alpern Diane Boulder CO 593 Form Letter 1 Alsafi Catherine Englewood CO 2523 Form Letter 1 Altman Robert San Francisco CA 451 Form Letter 1 Amick Lauren New York NY 1510 Form Letter 1 Amiri Christina Asheville NC 1190 Form Letter 1 Amsden Liz Los Angeles CA 1918 Form Letter 1 Anacker Celeste Santa Barbara CA 2730 Form Letter 1 Andalibi Mariam Andover NJ 415 Form Letter 1 Anders Dagmar 3011 Form Letter 1 Anderson Matthew Seattle WA 1508 Form Letter 1 Anderson William Narberth PA 2270 Form Letter 1 Anderson Christeen Crestview FL 2393 Form Letter 1 Anderson Mike Chicago Heights IL 2870 Form Letter 1 Anderson Gena Glendale AZ 3555 Form Letter 1 Anderson Victoria West Point NY 3645 Form Letter 1 Anderson-Zacks Dionne Portland OR 2563 Form Letter 1 Anderton Phillip 2367 Form Letter 1 Andre Wayne Franklin Lakes NJ 1033 Form Letter 1 Andregg S. Emeryville CA 739 Form Letter 1 Andrews Becky Baton Rouge LA 3113 Form Letter 1 Andriakos Bobbi Louisville KY 3160 Form Letter 1 Angell Jl Rescue CA 2776 Form Letter 1 Angelo Marjorie Bunnell FL 3008 Form Letter 1 Anguiano Betty Spring Lake MI 2492 Form Letter 1 Ann Tina Bolinas CA 1274 Form Letter 1 Apfel Sarah New York NY 1620 Form Letter 1 Apitz Mrs. Kathleen Cambria CA 55 Unique Non Substantive Appelbaum Goldman Penny Pompano Beach FL 3264 Form Letter 1 Aptaker Jane New York NY 731 Form Letter 1 Aragon Maria Alamogordo NM 204 Form Letter 1 Aranda Laura San Antonio TX 171 Form Letter 1 Arbogast Audrey 902 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Arbogast Devyn Dillon CO 3666 Form Letter 1 Arioli Kristin Shawnee KS 1084 Form Letter 1 Armistead Melinda Gloucester MA 3132 Form Letter 1 Armstrong Claire 610 Form Letter 1 Armstrong Johnny Ruston LA 1141 Form Letter 1 Arney Jennifer Milton FL 277 Form Letter 1 Arnheim Lynn Beaufort SC 1428 Form Letter 1 Arnheim Madeleine Beaufort SC 3553 Form Letter 1 Aronoff Elaine Springfield VT 2295 Form Letter 1 Arthur Kay 699 Form Letter 1 Arthur Cheryl Charlottesville VA 3533 Form Letter 1 Artman Cara Saint Louis MO 1633 Form Letter 1 Ascot Karin Austin TX 3283 Form Letter 1 Ash Michelle Lake City MI 3099 Form Letter 1 Ashworth Ms. Linda K Morro Bay CA 66 Unique Non Substantive Askins Susanna Portland OR 3106 Form Letter 1 Atnip Dana Ferndale MI 2364 Form Letter 1 Atwood April Portland OR 1159 Form Letter 1 Aub Kathy Boca Raton FL 1685 Form Letter 1 Aubin Martha Santa Barbara CA 801 Form Letter 1 Auelua Tupefaavae Victorville CA 1989 Form Letter 1 Auer Patricia Ballwin MO 1253 Form Letter 1 Auger Sylvie 2902 Form Letter 1 Auker Michele Mohnton PA 2473 Form Letter 1 Austin Patricia Norwalk CT 2773 Form Letter 1 Avila Roman 3548 Form Letter 1 Aydelott Steve Bend OR 3594 Form Letter 1 Ayres Peter Naperville IL 1744 Form Letter 1 B Regina Garden City NY 273 Form Letter 1 B Meta Dallas TX 2423 Form Letter 1 B Barbara Cambridge MA 3229 Form Letter 1 B. Veronica Placerville CA 106 Form Letter 1 B. Jill San Francisco CA 1294 Form Letter 1 B. Jill San Francisco CA 1554 Form Letter 1 B. Christine Gastonia NC 2140 Form Letter 1 B. Laura New York NY 3397 Form Letter 1 B. Christine Gastonia NC 3609 Form Letter 1 Babb Stephen Henderson NV 2409 Form Letter 1 Babineau Mary Saint Petersburg FL 925 Form Letter 1 Bachman Barbara Farmington MI 3490 Form Letter 1 Backhouse Maxi Vancouver WA 532 Form Letter 1 Bade Kathy Battle Ground WA 367 Form Letter 1 Bader Mr. Bart I Goleta CA 40 Unique Non Substantive Bagdon Callie Hatfield MA 2955 Form Letter 1 Baier Carol Kirksville MO 1631 Form Letter 1 Bailey Dori Port Townsend WA 268 Form Letter 1 Bailey Tina Fort Myers FL 1863 Form Letter 1 Bailey Chrissy Lacey WA 2865 Form Letter 1 Bain Diana Bridport VT 450 Form Letter 1 Baisden Jacob Waukesha WI 1568 Form Letter 1 Baka Ryan Minneapolis MN 2291 Form Letter 1 Baker Bryant Los Padres ForestWatch Santa Barbara CA 9 Unique Comment Baker Megan Springfield MO 1064 Form Letter 1 Baker Susan Kodiak AK 1128 Form Letter 1 Baker Pat Crooks SD 2026 Form Letter 1 Baker-Smith Gerritt And Elizabet East Stroudsburg PA 3205 Form Letter 1 Balaban Susan Wilmette IL 1779 Form Letter 1 Baldwin Sam Beverly Hills CA 2149 Form Letter 1 Baldwin Laura Anchorage AK 2363 Form Letter 1 Balentine Richard Kellyville OK 113 Form Letter 1 Bales Clarice Tucson AZ 1296 Form Letter 1 Balko Terrie West Newton PA 2459 Form Letter 1 Ball Sheilah Saint Augustine FL 1414 Form Letter 1 Ballard Clifford Mattawa WA 1133 Form Letter 1 Balvin Elizabeth Westerville OH 3628 Form Letter 1 Bandt Paula Stilwell KS 3102 Form Letter 1 Banerjee Laxmi Brooklyn NY 1763 Form Letter 1 Bango Nikki Columbus OH 1874 Form Letter 1 Banigan Nicole Hinckley IL 1244 Form Letter 1 Banner Courtney Forest Park IL 1311 Form Letter 1 Baptiste Ameke New Bedford MA 602 Form Letter 1 Barandiaran Javiera Santa Barbara CA 83 Unique Comment Barbezat Mary Elgin IL 2054 Form Letter 1 Barbuto Paul Kent OH 1771 Form Letter 1 Bardashevich Alina 877 Form Letter 1 Barden Jan 174 Form Letter 1 Barger Kirsten Espanola NM 210 Form Letter 1 Bargery Laura Fairless Hills PA 2200 Form Letter 1 Baris Sonja Clinton MA 2813 Form Letter 1 Barker Anne San Rafael CA 151 Form Letter 1 Barker Donald Kitty Hawk NC 1515 Form Letter 1 Barker Scott Tucson AZ 2468 Form Letter 1 Barnes M. D. Rossville GA 679 Form Letter 1 Barnes Michele Tampa FL 808 Form Letter 1 Barnes Christy Independence MO 1772 Form Letter 1 Barnett A. Lancaster PA 1757 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Barranco Pilar 541 Form Letter 1 Barrett Margaret Malvern PA 103 Form Letter 1 Barrett Lisa Three Oaks MI 379 Form Letter 1 Barrett Katie Camarillo CA 2101 Form Letter 1 Barringer Debra Santa Barbara CA 2766 Form Letter 1 Barron Mikail Felton CA 2974 Form Letter 1 Barry Marge Pittsburg CA 3336 Form Letter 1 Barry Raymond Lexington KY 3587 Form Letter 1 Barski Barbara 2312 Form Letter 1 Bartlett Debra Billerica MA 2171 Form Letter 1 Baseman Joan Joppa MD 948 Form Letter 1 Bassett Sue Flagstaff AZ 368 Form Letter 1 Bast N. J. Morro Bay CA 3509 Form Letter 1 Bastian Mark 2384 Form Letter 1 Basye Mae Fuquay Varina NC 2343 Form Letter 1 Bates Lori Oxnard CA 3564 Form Letter 1 Batzer Stephen Dewitt MI 2675 Form Letter 1 Baud Annick Malden On Hudson NY 1865 Form Letter 1 Baudains Barry Frederick 2000 Form Letter 1 Bauer Kelly Chicago IL 1694 Form Letter 1 Bauer Ruth Hendersonville NC 2740 Form Letter 1 Baum Miriam Rancho Cucamonga CA 270 Form Letter 1 Baum Maria Chicago IL 3452 Form Letter 1 Bauman Sarah Bellingham WA 3203 Form Letter 1 Bautista Margaret San Jose CA 2608 Form Letter 1 Baxter Susan New York NY 2959 Form Letter 1 Baybordi Manucher Washington DC 1520 Form Letter 1 Bayer Judith San Diego CA 1454 Form Letter 1 Beals Martha San Marcos CA 3551 Form Letter 1 Bean F Romney WV 1799 Form Letter 1 Beatty Janet Lee San Luis Obispo CA 386 Form Letter 1 Bechmann Elisabeth 2612 Form Letter 1 Beck Sandy Iowa City IA 2186 Form Letter 1 Beck Dana L Tulsa OK 2697 Form Letter 1 Becker Thomas Cars are Basic Buellton CA 11 Unique Comment Becker Barbara Babylon NY 500 Form Letter 1 Becker Elaine Roanoke VA 1336 Form Letter 1 Becker Carol Sherman Oaks CA 2946 Form Letter 1 Beckhaus Ines 846 Form Letter 1 Beckman Linda Blanchester OH 3259 Form Letter 1 Beebe Dennis Edward Solvang CA 19 Unique Comment Beeler Meg Sonoma CA 1649 Form Letter 1 Beer Julie Palo Alto CA 2802 Form Letter 1 Beetle Susan Shortsville NY 2572 Form Letter 1 Begalske Leigh Green Bay WI 2487 Form Letter 1 Behla Tina 473 Form Letter 1 Behler Lynelle O Fallon MO 3296 Form Letter 1 Behlmer Tom Grass Valley CA 251 Form Letter 1 Behrana Meher 2693 Form Letter 1 Behrens Joanna Thayne WY 1416 Form Letter 1 Beitel Timothy Pitman NJ 2921 Form Letter 1 Belanger Lester Brant MI 1412 Form Letter 1 Belcastro J. Floral Park NY 2036 Form Letter 1 Beldin Joan Portland OR 3057 Form Letter 1 Bell Jodi Rancho Cucamonga CA 2466 Form Letter 1 Bell Frances Saint Paul MN 2814 Form Letter 1 Bell Grace 3088 Form Letter 1 Bell Ledlie Charleston SC 3226 Form Letter 1 Bell D Spokane WA 3638 Form Letter 1 Bellamy David Las Vegas NV 287 Form Letter 1 Bellhaven Walt Pasadena CA 2636 Form Letter 1 Bello D Washington DC 1018 Form Letter 1 Belloso-Curiel Jorge Richmond CA 1913 Form Letter 1 Bender Donna Wilmington NC 1783 Form Letter 1 Benedict Derek Lynnwood WA 3085 Form Letter 1 Benes Michelle Cottonwood AZ 2085 Form Letter 1 Benet Mercedes Carlsbad CA 2187 Form Letter 1 Benjamin Corey Hartsville SC 1272 Form Letter 1 Benner Ed Goshen IN 967 Form Letter 1 Bennett Gina Clearwater FL 556 Form Letter 1 Bennett Edward Chicopee MA 1181 Form Letter 1 Benschoter John Phoenix AZ 2905 Form Letter 1 Benson Sonja Fairbanks AK 2223 Form Letter 1 Benson Joyce Glenside PA 2359 Form Letter 1 Benton Annette Pittsburg CA 1896 Form Letter 1 Berario Myra Castaic CA 817 Form Letter 1 Berg Pamela San Antonio TX 3465 Form Letter 1 Bergeron Sheilagh Tilton NH 1370 Form Letter 1 Bergeron Jeanette Trenton NJ 3195 Form Letter 1 Bergstrom Bo Silver City NM 1776 Form Letter 1 Berkeley Pauline Jacksonville FL 3519 Form Letter 1 Berkowitz Henry Sabinsville PA 934 Form Letter 1 Berman Leah Aptos CA 1385 Form Letter 1 Berman Steve Berkeley CA 1477 Form Letter 1 Berman Mark Berea KY 3024 Form Letter 1 Bernas Edward Chesterfield VA 1582 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Bernath Anna Jamestown RI 721 Form Letter 1 Berndt Michael Bloomington IN 2004 Form Letter 1 Bernstein Laura Highland Park IL 1839 Form Letter 1 Berry Kelly San Rafael CA 2434 Form Letter 1 Bertano Silvia 1549 Form Letter 1 Bethel Margaret Cape May NJ 1154 Form Letter 1 Beutel Teresa Congers NY 3456 Form Letter 1 Beverly J. Urbana IL 1449 Form Letter 1 Bey Lisa Stevens Point WI 1980 Form Letter 1 Bezette Russell La Verkin UT 1871 Form Letter 1 Bickel Kenneth Pittsburgh PA 785 Form Letter 1 Bickel Bettina Glendale AZ 1716 Form Letter 1 Bicking Ann Richmond VA 1455 Form Letter 1 Bicknell Mary Seattle WA 176 Form Letter 1 Biggins Nancy Ukiah CA 3220 Form Letter 1 Bilgen Mehmet Hoboken NJ 200 Form Letter 1 Billings Leslie Wallingford CT 645 Form Letter 1 Bills Barbara Placerville CA 3567 Form Letter 1 Bilyeu George Reston VA 1174 Form Letter 1 Bishop Roberta Aurora CO 1458 Form Letter 1 Bissell Mary Somerville NJ 866 Form Letter 1 Blaauw Astrid 2842 Form Letter 1 Black Karina Boulder CO 394 Form Letter 1 Black Angela Long Beach CA 2727 Form Letter 1 Black Morrigan Brazoria TX 3364 Form Letter 1 Black Sam Henrico VA 3575 Form Letter 1 Blackeagle Cory Lexington KY 1340 Form Letter 1 Blackham Uphoria Albuquerque NM 1369 Form Letter 1 Blair Elke Folsom CA 2682 Form Letter 1 Blake Kayla Cleveland OH 2017 Form Letter 1 Blakely Charity Lutz FL 1259 Form Letter 1 Blanton Cricket Melbourne FL 834 Form Letter 1 Blatman Resa Somerville MA 983 Form Letter 1 Bocchino J Staten Island NY 689 Form Letter 1 Bogardus Judi Sloansville NY 2168 Form Letter 1 Boggio Mona Boggio Milford PA 1381 Form Letter 1 Bohlman Nicole Medford NY 1738 Form Letter 1 Bohr Jacob Jill Ward Cove AK 678 Form Letter 1 Boice Ruth Vincentown NJ 590 Form Letter 1 Boka Erika King George VA 2717 Form Letter 1 Bold Richard Vista CA 1690 Form Letter 1 Bolduc Tj Concord NH 3395 Form Letter 1 Bolton Linda Albuquerque NM 1073 Form Letter 1 Bolton Emma Mahwah NJ 2399 Form Letter 1 Boncheva Hristina Phoenix AZ 519 Form Letter 1 Bond Karen Jupiter FL 2479 Form Letter 1 Bond David Alameda CA 3503 Form Letter 1 Bonette Stacey Kingston NJ 1398 Form Letter 1 Bonetti Donna Boulder CO 2910 Form Letter 1 Bonfield Barbara Tacoma WA 777 Form Letter 1 Bonnell Karen Tallahassee FL 1979 Form Letter 1 Bonner Tracey Arlington TX 705 Form Letter 1 Bonometti -Ltc Usa Ret Dr. Robert And Ginny Winchester VA 2536 Form Letter 1 Bonz Picken Lutz FL 544 Form Letter 1 Boone Jim Las Vegas NV 1399 Form Letter 1 Booth John Madison FL 2053 Form Letter 1 Borcherding Paul La Grande OR 1937 Form Letter 1 Bordegaray Dana Cayucos CA 2347 Form Letter 1 Bordelon Tika Seattle WA 2119 Form Letter 1 Borgeson Dean Crosslake MN 301 Form Letter 1 Boris Sylvia Culver City CA 1567 Form Letter 1 Borske Cindy New Hampton IA 1897 Form Letter 1 Bosenius Daniela Polk City IA 962 Form Letter 1 Boshoff Jemma 1754 Form Letter 1 Bossert Elizabeth Evergreen CO 329 Form Letter 1 Bostick Carol Novato CA 1065 Form Letter 1 Bostock June Altadena CA 993 Form Letter 1 Bottorff Virginia Syracuse NY 859 Form Letter 1

Bouchard-Shapiro Kimberly Durham CT 508 Form Letter 1 Boura Theodora Brighton MA 3145 Form Letter 1 Bourlotos George Morris Plains NJ 1462 Form Letter 1 Bourne Richard Fort Myers Beach FL 724 Form Letter 1 Bousquet Bob Bryantville MA 1924 Form Letter 1 Bowen Laraine 1543 Form Letter 1 Bowen Laraine 2878 Form Letter 1 Bowles Michele Erie PA 1329 Form Letter 1 Bowman Jennifer Jacksonville FL 2065 Form Letter 1 Bowman Wendy Lacey WA 3358 Form Letter 1 Boyden Roberta Eugene OR 1366 Form Letter 1 Boyer David Palo Alto CA 1062 Form Letter 1 Boylston Sandra Sanford FL 3566 Form Letter 1 Boyne Jonathan San Francisco CA 898 Form Letter 1 Bracken Fay Naples FL 1698 Form Letter 1 Bradford Margaret Pleasant Hill CA 1075 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Bradley Patricia Kansas City KS 733 Form Letter 1 Bradley Kathy Lugoff SC 3326 Form Letter 1 Bradley James Prairieville LA 3611 Form Letter 1 Brady James Cambridge MD 2897 Form Letter 1 Braemer Stephan 1479 Form Letter 1 Bramlette Jenny Bridgeport AL 355 Form Letter 1 Brand Dennis Santa Barbara CA 828 Form Letter 1 Brandariz Anita Brooklyn NY 3311 Form Letter 1 Brandon Jennifer Lexington NC 111 Form Letter 1 Brandon Victoria Northridge CA 388 Form Letter 1 Brannian Riley Iowa City IA 957 Form Letter 1 Brannigan Kelly Oceanside CA 186 Form Letter 1 Brannon Elizabeth Mesa AZ 999 Form Letter 1 Braoudakis Spyros Braintree MA 2339 Form Letter 1 Braude Michael Menlo Park CA 1725 Form Letter 1 Brazis Chris San Francisco CA 2272 Form Letter 1 Breakfield Sandra Dallas TX 1325 Form Letter 1 Breakstone Enid Manchester CT 3016 Form Letter 1 Brech Patricia Elkton MD 1790 Form Letter 1 Breitengross Charmaine Los Angeles CA 2287 Form Letter 1 Brenen Hannah Tampa FL 2715 Form Letter 1 Brenner Jared New York NY 1967 Form Letter 1 Brenner Natasha New York NY 3592 Form Letter 1 Bressanin Paolo 1079 Form Letter 1 Brewer Peggy Bigfork MT 484 Form Letter 1 Brewer Stanley La France SC 1575 Form Letter 1 Briggs Doris Beech Island SC 2924 Form Letter 1 Briley Samantha Helena AL 820 Form Letter 1 Brittingham Ms. Ella M Santa Barbara CA 61 Unique Non Substantive Britton Joanne San Diego CA 1419 Form Letter 1 Britton Sandra Palm Coast FL 2199 Form Letter 1 Broadwater David Atascadero CA 2775 Form Letter 1 Brocious Pamela New York NY 2944 Form Letter 1 Brock Jon Dallas TX 1087 Form Letter 1 Brodak Diane Holly MI 2221 Form Letter 1 Broecker Ingrid 1769 Form Letter 1 Broecker Agnetha 2014 Form Letter 1 Broecker Burkhard 3405 Form Letter 1 Brooks Ben Somerville MA 123 Form Letter 1 Brooks Geraldine Yonkers NY 524 Form Letter 1 Brooks Mary Frazier Park CA 1706 Form Letter 1 Brooks Regina Pittsburgh PA 2243 Form Letter 1 Brooks Nancy Somerville MA 2504 Form Letter 1 Brooks-Fetty Cynthia Leoti KS 2443 Form Letter 1 Brookshier Janice Seattle WA 2246 Form Letter 1 Broome Gillian 702 Form Letter 1 Brothers David Fairfield CT 1735 Form Letter 1 Broussard Kathleen Seal Beach CA 3406 Form Letter 1 Brower Kim Asheboro NC 1966 Form Letter 1 Brown Doug Otis Orchards WA 288 Form Letter 1 Brown Damon Los Angeles CA 646 Form Letter 1 Brown Joe Las Vegas NV 1076 Form Letter 1 Brown Janice Englewood CO 2185 Form Letter 1 Brown Julie Taylor WI 2335 Form Letter 1 Brown Thomas Chapel Hill NC 2588 Form Letter 1 Brown Lynn Longview TX 2737 Form Letter 1 Brown Arline New York NY 3363 Form Letter 1 Brown James R Los Angeles CA 3565 Form Letter 1 Brown John Camp Hill PA 3608 Form Letter 1 Browne Mary Jacksonville FL 2497 Form Letter 1 Browning Marjorie Benson AZ 2126 Form Letter 1 Brownlee Cathy Paragould AR 2317 Form Letter 1 Broyles Jane Houston TX 2680 Form Letter 1 Bruce Linda Yuba City CA 127 Form Letter 1 Bruce Judy 2052 Form Letter 1 Bruce Neville Anchorage AK 3510 Form Letter 1 Bruckner Teresa 364 Form Letter 1 Bruegge Debra West Chester OH 3457 Form Letter 1 Bruess Laura Boulder CO 1944 Form Letter 1 Brundick Sarah Glen Burnie MD 1404 Form Letter 1 Brunetti David Harrisville RI 1796 Form Letter 1 Brustman Thomas Walnut Creek CA 2919 Form Letter 1 Buchanan Helen Folsom PA 419 Form Letter 1 Buchanan Catherine Mount Vernon WA 2193 Form Letter 1 Buchanan Carolyn Soldotna AK 2810 Form Letter 1 Buchanan Heather Ogden UT 2877 Form Letter 1 Buckley Leo San Francisco CA 1144 Form Letter 1 Buerger Michelle Middleton WI 1821 Form Letter 1 Bullard Debbie Dawsonville GA 196 Form Letter 1 Bunge Delores Merrill WI 1619 Form Letter 1 Bunin Jane Boulder CO 2482 Form Letter 1 Burden Lys Port Townsend WA 1563 Form Letter 1 Burek-Faber Mary Oregon WI 209 Form Letter 1 Burgess K. H. Tucson AZ 122 Form Letter 1 Burgess Kat Santa Monica CA 1670 Form Letter 1 Burke Maureen Palm Beach Gardens FL 706 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Burke Frank Los Angeles CA 3294 Form Letter 1 Burke Jennifer Ocala FL 3586 Form Letter 1 Burnell Delicia 405 Form Letter 1 Burnett Rebecca Benton KY 1371 Form Letter 1 Burns Jl Osawatomie KS 294 Form Letter 1 Burns Charlie Norwalk CT 693 Form Letter 1 Burns Robert Keene NH 1697 Form Letter 1 Burns Lynne Buffalo NY 3521 Form Letter 1 Burns Bruce Santa Cruz CA 3579 Form Letter 1 Burpo Leslie Eugene OR 600 Form Letter 1 Burtis David Calistoga CA 3631 Form Letter 1 Burton Patricia Gaithersburg MD 1012 Form Letter 1 Burton Martha Bradenton FL 2733 Form Letter 1 Buscemi Donna Street MD 1601 Form Letter 1 Busch Ine 2162 Form Letter 1 Butkus Joann Chicago IL 2139 Form Letter 1 Butler Jane Hedgesville WV 2631 Form Letter 1 Butler Tim San Francisco CA 3013 Form Letter 1 Buttery Rickey Cocoa FL 715 Form Letter 1 Butts Dean Rosholt WI 1714 Form Letter 1 Byrne Nick Pleasantville NY 1996 Form Letter 1 Bywater-Hoather Sandra New York NY 2032 Form Letter 1 C Meredith Chicago IL 1005 Form Letter 1 C. Lynne Holly Springs NC 1663 Form Letter 1 C. Joe New York NY 2616 Form Letter 1 Caballero Nicolas 3662 Form Letter 1 Cacioppo Judy Bessemer AL 2024 Form Letter 1 Cacoullos Nike State College PA 191 Form Letter 1 Caiano Rutocas Elizabeth NJ 2603 Form Letter 1 Caldwell Kaci Omaha NE 1420 Form Letter 1 Callahan Jack New Orleans LA 2134 Form Letter 1 Callaway Patricia Rowe NM 224 Form Letter 1 Callaway Michael Upland CA 2993 Form Letter 1 Calvert Chris Santa Fe NM 3526 Form Letter 1 Camhi Gail Novato CA 673 Form Letter 1 Camp Mike 1320 Form Letter 1 Campbell Linda Emmaus PA 470 Form Letter 1 Campbell Alex Jamul CA 1303 Form Letter 1 Campbell Nancy Indianapolis IN 1463 Form Letter 1 Campbell M.E. San Jose CA 1553 Form Letter 1 Campbell Susan The Villages FL 2358 Form Letter 1 Campbell Kimberly Paragould AR 2624 Form Letter 1 Campbell Allan San Jose CA 2749 Form Letter 1 Campbell Donna Orland Park IL 3493 Form Letter 1 Campbell Frances San Francisco CA 3659 Form Letter 1 Canada Ii Riley Marietta GA 3005 Form Letter 1 Canepa Anne 1906 Form Letter 1 Canham Andrew Saint Louis MO 3602 Form Letter 1 Canright Mark Asbury NJ 1480 Form Letter 1 Canright Rebecca Asbury NJ 3369 Form Letter 1 Canty Ken Dudley MA 2248 Form Letter 1 Caolo Rosemary Scranton PA 2405 Form Letter 1 Capasso Bill Bristol VT 3415 Form Letter 1 Capurro Lyn Great Neck NY 3039 Form Letter 1 Caputo Michael Greenville RI 3116 Form Letter 1 Card Jessica Buford GA 2254 Form Letter 1 Cardinal Enid Baldwinsville NY 805 Form Letter 1 Cardini Frederick Tucson AZ 3356 Form Letter 1 Cardoza Jen Oakland CA 1104 Form Letter 1 Carl Nancy Carlton OR 2771 Form Letter 1 Carleo Elena Franklinville NC 1534 Form Letter 1 Carlson Susan Davis CA 1086 Form Letter 1 Carlson Christine Centerton AR 1429 Form Letter 1 Carlson Renee Portland OR 2070 Form Letter 1 Carlyle Kirstie Ward AR 830 Form Letter 1 Carlyle Daisy North Little Rock AR 1493 Form Letter 1 Carlyle Cameron Little Rock AR 2719 Form Letter 1 Carlyle William North Little Rock AR 3096 Form Letter 1 Carlyle Duncan North Little Rock AR 3421 Form Letter 1 Carlyle Pam North Little Rock AR 3459 Form Letter 1 Carmichael Janet Shawnee KS 1803 Form Letter 1 Carpenter Patricia Beverly MA 612 Form Letter 1 Carpenter Steven Trenton MI 1215 Form Letter 1 Carpenter Jeremy Latham NY 2827 Form Letter 1 Carpenter Frances Providence RI 3572 Form Letter 1 Carpenter Jr Phillip Sheboygan WI 3574 Form Letter 1 Carr Reda Earth being Redwood City CA 30 Unique Non Substantive Carr Beth Stafford NY 147 Form Letter 1 Carr Barbara Kingsville MD 149 Form Letter 1 Carr Sandra Edmonds WA 2360 Form Letter 1 Carr D Hanover NH 259 Form Letter 1 Carroll Niall Astoria OR 816 Form Letter 1 Carroll Linda Spokane WA 1618 Form Letter 1 Carter Donna Troy MI 1487 Form Letter 1 Carter Brenda San Diego CA 2206 Form Letter 1 Carter Ashley Frenchburg KY 2782 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Cartwright Carl Whittier CA 2579 Form Letter 1 Carvajal Mauricio 1029 Form Letter 1 Carver Caroline New York NY 2194 Form Letter 1 Casarez Lilia Las Vegas NV 1518 Form Letter 1 Casey Carol Betterton MD 2395 Form Letter 1 Cashell Janice Bethlehem CT 2741 Form Letter 1 Casino Judith Danville CA 2178 Form Letter 1 Casper Chris Stevens Point WI 1900 Form Letter 1 Cassens Susie Fort Pierce FL 1881 Form Letter 1 Castagno Sandy Tucson AZ 2135 Form Letter 1 Castelli-Hill Susan Melville NY 762 Form Letter 1 Castner Emily Worcester MA 736 Form Letter 1 Castro Carlos 2310 Form Letter 1 Catapano Paola 953 Form Letter 1 Cathala Corine 1600 Form Letter 1 Cathey Margaret Gilbert AZ 1952 Form Letter 1 Caudill Lindsey Noblesville IN 1271 Form Letter 1 Cavallaro Lenny Methuen MA 2453 Form Letter 1 Cavallo Janet Clifton Heights PA 2377 Form Letter 1 Center Leslie Ann San Francisco CA 2590 Form Letter 1 Cervera Isabel Salisbury NC 882 Form Letter 1 Cesaro Fabienne 2071 Form Letter 1 Chalmers Kirsty 2681 Form Letter 1 Chambers Patricia Winsted CT 1623 Form Letter 1 Chambers Claire Murrieta CA 2433 Form Letter 1 Chambers Jay Santa Ana CA 3121 Form Letter 1 Chambers Thea Captain Cook HI 3161 Form Letter 1 Chamblin Marcy Woodbridge CT 1049 Form Letter 1 Chapek S. San Francisco CA 3383 Form Letter 1 Chapman Carolynn Lafayette Hill PA 2732 Form Letter 1 Charrier Jl Wayzata MN 1992 Form Letter 1 Chase Felicia Encino CA 2914 Form Letter 1 Chatfield Nicholas Virginia Beach VA 3342 Form Letter 1 Cherry Kittredge Los Angeles CA 182 Form Letter 1 Chervek David Saint Louis MO 2345 Form Letter 1 Cheung May Massapequa NY 876 Form Letter 1 Chi Animae Gainesville FL 2845 Form Letter 1 Childers Judy Madison WI 2046 Form Letter 1 Chimiklis Lynne Atlanta GA 2531 Form Letter 1 Chinigo Brittany Norwich CT 980 Form Letter 1 Chisholm Robbi Wyandotte MI 138 Form Letter 1 Choi Brenda Las Vegas NV 3663 Form Letter 1 Christensen Gary Springerville AZ 984 Form Letter 1 Christensen Margaret Gilbert AZ 1363 Form Letter 1 Christensen Katherine Essington PA 1862 Form Letter 1 Christensen Freya Syracuse NY 2043 Form Letter 1 Christison Yvonne Stevens Point WI 1746 Form Letter 1 Christopher Sandra Burbank CA 496 Form Letter 1 Christopher Landyn San Francisco CA 1486 Form Letter 1 Chung Ben Westwood NJ 955 Form Letter 1 Cimino Maryrose Dallas TX 3589 Form Letter 1 Ciosici Stefan Bradenton FL 1346 Form Letter 1 Cisna Todd Effingham IL 607 Form Letter 1 Claggett Bonnie Richmond VA 2337 Form Letter 1 Clapper Craig Mediapolis IA 752 Form Letter 1 Clark Rebecca Portland OR 911 Form Letter 1 Clark Ejay Westport CT 960 Form Letter 1 Clark Glenn Hanover MA 2700 Form Letter 1 Clark Todd Indianapolis IN 3062 Form Letter 1 Clark Stephanie Brookfield MA 3247 Form Letter 1 Clark Jeffrey Rancho Santa Margarita CA 3404 Form Letter 1 Clark Craig Cliffside Park NJ 2848 Form Letter 1 Clarke Cher Beverly Hills CA 1318 Form Letter 1 Clarke Michael And Jeanine Salida CA 3430 Form Letter 1 Clarkson Ann Portland OR 3050 Form Letter 1 Clary Ms. Suzie Santa Maria CA 72 Unique Non Substantive Clausi Tracey 3515 Form Letter 1 Clayman J.A. Chagrin Falls OH 2888 Form Letter 1 Claypool Margaret Eastover SC 1852 Form Letter 1 Clayton Ronald Cove City NC 1773 Form Letter 1 Claytor Patricia Saint Louis MO 3223 Form Letter 1 Cleary Colleen Indianapolis IN 2692 Form Letter 1 Clement Laura Aurora ME 3390 Form Letter 1 Clendenen Gail Gainesville GA 1269 Form Letter 1 Clifford Frances Saint Charles MO 2356 Form Letter 1 Clifford William Harrisburg PA 2670 Form Letter 1 Cline William Strongsville OH 3423 Form Letter 1 Clisson Marjorie 3184 Form Letter 1 Cloud Michael Palmyra NJ 2501 Form Letter 1 Clymer Lois Belvedere Tiburon CA 2485 Form Letter 1 Coats Patsy Florence AL 886 Form Letter 1 Coats Helen Virginia IL 1395 Form Letter 1 Cobb Robert Knoxville TN 3544 Form Letter 1 Coburn Dan West Branch IA 1638 Form Letter 1 Cocomero Lorraine Chapel Hill NC 1808 Form Letter 1 Cody T. Stephen Tucson AZ 3289 Form Letter 1

Countryman-Mills G. Rockville MD 2720 Form Letter 1 Cournyea Judy Bakersfield CA 1114 Form Letter 1 Courts Ian Evergreen CO 1485 Form Letter 1 Couture Andrã©E 2816 Form Letter 1 Cowin Caryn Eau Claire WI 1749 Form Letter 1 Cowley Jessie Canoga Park CA 1679 Form Letter 1 Cox Bruce Brevard NC 1283 Form Letter 1 Cox Peter Mission Hills CA 2645 Form Letter 1 Coyle Nora Anaheim CA 1456 Form Letter 1 Crabill Phillip J Little Elm TX 3258 Form Letter 1 Craig Isobel 2373 Form Letter 1 Crain Anthony Moreno Valley CA 3596 Form Letter 1 Crandall Analisa Adkins TX 551 Form Letter 1 Crawford Carol Bloomingdale NJ 1305 Form Letter 1 Crawford Holly Orange CA 3029 Form Letter 1 Crawford Morgan Raleigh NC 3559 Form Letter 1 Creighton Mark East Greenbush NY 2114 Form Letter 1 Creswell Richard Denver CO 2941 Form Letter 1 Crisafulli Alexandra Berkeley CA 1578 Form Letter 1 Cronin Cathy 229 Form Letter 1 Cronin James Spokane WA 253 Form Letter 1 Croom Carolyn Austin TX 870 Form Letter 1 Cross Heather Hamtramck MI 3626 Form Letter 1 Cruger Kurt Long Beach CA 2155 Form Letter 1 Crump Deborah Brownsville KY 3082 Form Letter 1 Crupi Kevin Marquette MI 3613 Form Letter 1 Crutchley Mica 939 Form Letter 1

De La Rosa-Young Maria Evanston IL 2840 Form Letter 1 De Maestri Marie Jo Westerly RI 661 Form Letter 1 De Nennie Piet 540 Form Letter 1 De Sarno Victoria Fairfield CT 144 Form Letter 1 Dean Sarah Washington DC 2239 Form Letter 1 Dean Sandra Hatfield PA 3055 Form Letter 1 Debaille Caroline 3329 Form Letter 1 Debing Therese Pacific Grove CA 3569 Form Letter 1 Debs Eugene San Francisco CA 76 Unique Non Substantive Decarla Tina Telford PA 3392 Form Letter 1 Deckel Karen Buzzards Bay MA 2972 Form Letter 1 Deckert Lori Glen Ellyn IL 942 Form Letter 1 Deddy John Miami FL 1605 Form Letter 1 Deems Robert M. Lawrence Township NJ 1226 Form Letter 1 Defrin Elin Amenia NY 2932 Form Letter 1 Dehart Joanne Westminster CO 2016 Form Letter 1 Deierling Rachel Tucson AZ 3244 Form Letter 1 Dejarlais Nancy Capitola CA 3370 Form Letter 1 Del Ricco Natalie Chicago IL 98 Form Letter 1 Delachartre Eve Woodside NY 3496 Form Letter 1 Delattre Angelique 3327 Form Letter 1 Delgado Barbara Miami FL 3146 Form Letter 1 Delia Tony Deerfield Beach FL 2909 Form Letter 1 Dell Laurie Phoenix AZ 1533 Form Letter 1 Delles Susan Rogue River OR 2285 Form Letter 1 Dellinger Susan Denver CO 587 Form Letter 1 Deloma Elizabeth New York NY 1788 Form Letter 1 Deloye Michael Boynton Beach FL 3347 Form Letter 1 Deluca Serena Clarkston MI 1401 Form Letter 1 Deluca Milva Stamford CT 3070 Form Letter 1 Demarco Frankie G New York NY 1916 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Demark Christi Hoboken NJ 2073 Form Letter 1 Dempsey Roberta Dearborn MI 2133 Form Letter 1 Denny Rachael Bradley CA 841 Form Letter 1 Densing Lindsey Houston TX 2929 Form Letter 1 Deshaies Cheryl Naples FL 95 Form Letter 1 Desmond Sheila Shingle Springs CA 1140 Form Letter 1 Desmond Sheila Shingle Springs CA 2553 Form Letter 1 Desport Olivier 1780 Form Letter 1 Deutsch Vivian Calabasas CA 240 Form Letter 1 Devaney Robin Harrisburg PA 3206 Form Letter 1 Devine Connie San Jose CA 2508 Form Letter 1 Devore Nathaniel Nicholasville KY 3505 Form Letter 1 Devoss Carol Saint Charles IL 611 Form Letter 1 Dfd Dfg 1290 Form Letter 1 Dff Df 249 Form Letter 1 Dfs Rdsfd 549 Form Letter 1 Di Biasio Pina 2628 Form Letter 1 Diamond N. Parsippany NJ 142 Form Letter 1 Diamond Nichole Parsippany NJ 2069 Form Letter 1 Dickinson Amanda Yakima WA 1183 Form Letter 1 Dickson Alexis Atlanta GA 2216 Form Letter 1 Dierks Dick Appleton WI 1483 Form Letter 1 Difante Diane Wetumpka AL 2451 Form Letter 1 Dildine Chris Loveland CO 1812 Form Letter 1 Dilley Berry Athens OH 3380 Form Letter 1 Dillon Christi Mooresville NC 402 Form Letter 1 Dincau Barbara Camarillo CA 964 Form Letter 1 Dincau Barbara Camarillo CA 1393 Form Letter 1 Dingell David Mendocino CA 1961 Form Letter 1 Dinhofer Jacalyn New York NY 804 Form Letter 1 Dipaola Marisa Manahawkin NJ 2552 Form Letter 1 Dittmar Trudy Colts Neck NJ 833 Form Letter 1 Dobbelaere Ainga 2015 Form Letter 1 Dobson Patricia Woodland Park CO 1557 Form Letter 1 Dodds Kathrin Mission TX 2324 Form Letter 1 Dodge John Homer AK 2992 Form Letter 1 Doering David San Francisco CA 1131 Form Letter 1 Dogole Ian San Rafael CA 3511 Form Letter 1 Doherty Adrienne Lake Forest IL 2841 Form Letter 1 Dolan Lisa Annandale VA 2826 Form Letter 1 Dombrowski Bonnie Pasadena CA 1136 Form Letter 1 Dominguez Mari Linden CA 907 Form Letter 1 Dominick Gail Montesano WA 2397 Form Letter 1 Domke Ellen Chicago IL 668 Form Letter 1 Donahue Vonnie Eureka MT 2428 Form Letter 1 Donaldson Karen Grass Valley CA 2655 Form Letter 1 D'Onofrio Adam Petersburg VA 2769 Form Letter 1 Donovan Stephan Tucson AZ 1337 Form Letter 1 Dorale Pamela Sioux Falls SD 1864 Form Letter 1 Dorn Valerie Mount Laurel NJ 2154 Form Letter 1 Dornback Marijean Okatie SC 3293 Form Letter 1 Dorsey Ann Northridge CA 742 Form Letter 1 Dorsey Thomas Belmont MA 1407 Form Letter 1 Dosch Mary Elburn IL 3524 Form Letter 1 Doty Connor Mesa AZ 1824 Form Letter 1 Doucet Lisha Wellington CO 2915 Form Letter 1 Doug Lyle Troy MI 1611 Form Letter 1 Dougherty David New Britain CT 2768 Form Letter 1 Douglas Mr. John Enrico Goleta CA 45 Unique Non Substantive Douglas Dianne Phoenix AZ 461 Form Letter 1 Douglass Sharon New York NY 3500 Form Letter 1 Doull Deanna Riverside CA 1066 Form Letter 1 Douthett Devon Denver CO 2653 Form Letter 1 Dovgin Richard Santa Barbara CA 2108 Form Letter 1 Dowling Holly Novato CA 1983 Form Letter 1 Downey Deirdre Fairbanks AK 635 Form Letter 1 Downing Mary Des Moines IA 342 Form Letter 1 Downing Rosamund Pawcatuck CT 2087 Form Letter 1 Dows Wena Culver City CA 472 Form Letter 1 Doyle Kathleen Golden CO 320 Form Letter 1 Drake Priscilla Penn Yan NY 1219 Form Letter 1 Drake Tracy Chicago IL 2979 Form Letter 1 Drea Christine Durham NC 3177 Form Letter 1 Drembus Joel Reston VA 1078 Form Letter 1 Dreyer Sharon Dover DE 2764 Form Letter 1 Driessen Lynn Appleton WI 3033 Form Letter 1 Driscoll Marie Lees Summit MO 1184 Form Letter 1 Driskell Shelley Spring Hill FL 1984 Form Letter 1 Drosnock Danielle Wind Gap PA 2767 Form Letter 1 Drucker Susan Bowdoinham ME 2904 Form Letter 1 Drucker L.M. Columbia SC 3083 Form Letter 1 Drummond Anna Grass Valley CA 2340 Form Letter 1 Drumright Chris Murfreesboro TN 2228 Form Letter 1 Drysdale Mil New York NY 1288 Form Letter 1 Dubourgnon Eric 1138 Form Letter 1

Dubourgnon-Arsac Carole 1823 Form Letter 1 Dubuc Diane 3254 Form Letter 1 Dubuy Nath 3004 Form Letter 1 Dugan Kit Greenville SC 2008 Form Letter 1 Dugan Alexander Northborough MA 2593 Form Letter 1 Dulitz-Altman Jeri Longmont CO 3506 Form Letter 1 Duncan Sylvia Plano TX 3588 Form Letter 1 Dunn Kelly Manhattan Beach CA 2819 Form Letter 1 Dunn Alisa Milford OH 3654 Form Letter 1 Dunphy Lisa Hanover MA 3641 Form Letter 1 Duon Nicolas Santa Ana CA 1720 Form Letter 1 Duon Nicolas Santa Ana CA 2525 Form Letter 1 Durbin Kira Van Nuys CA 873 Form Letter 1 Dutka Cindy M. Philadelphia PA 1509 Form Letter 1 Dutschke Stephen Louisville KY 2439 Form Letter 1 Dyck Cheryl Virginia Beach VA 426 Form Letter 1 Dyer James San Francisco CA 3038 Form Letter 1 Dzija Juliette Auburn ME 1091 Form Letter 1 E E Miami FL 1450 Form Letter 1 E Smith David San Luis Obispo CA 17 Unique Non Substantive Eades Nick 2037 Form Letter 1 Earl Michael Flagstaff AZ 1317 Form Letter 1 Earls Ms. Maureen C Santa Barbara CA 87 Unique Non Substantive Eastes Mary Indianapolis IN 248 Form Letter 1 Easton Mary Cosmopolis WA 871 Form Letter 1 Eberle Martha Dripping Springs TX 2807 Form Letter 1 Ebner Robin Ludington MI 3313 Form Letter 1 Eckelmeyer Karin Portola Valley CA 2284 Form Letter 1 Ecker Christopher Rockville MD 3224 Form Letter 1 Eckles Sabrina Lubbock TX 242 Form Letter 1 Eckroth Cynthia Pittsboro NC 1108 Form Letter 1 Economides Cristina 1169 Form Letter 1 Edelman Alysha Freeport NY 488 Form Letter 1 Eden Jonathan Berkeley CA 312 Form Letter 1 Eder John Provincetown MA 1475 Form Letter 1 Eding Megan Alameda CA 2045 Form Letter 1 Edman John Glendale CA 1413 Form Letter 1 Edmonds Teresa Carmel Valley CA 3272 Form Letter 1 Edmondson David Santa Maria CA 18 Unique Non Substantive Edmondson Jacqueline Johnson City TN 1451 Form Letter 1 Edwards Leslie Palm Harbor FL 101 Form Letter 1 Edwards Monique Tucson AZ 1347 Form Letter 1 Edwards Elizabeth Carol Cloverdale OR 1743 Form Letter 1 Edwards Eric West Chicago IL 2412 Form Letter 1 Eells Margaret Framingham MA 2833 Form Letter 1 Ehlert Kurtis 3561 Form Letter 1 Ehrhardt Carole Pebble Beach CA 2898 Form Letter 1 Ehrlich Isaac Rhododendron OR 463 Form Letter 1 Eichler Nancy Albany CA 2074 Form Letter 1 Eiffert Jennifer Medford OR 1265 Form Letter 1 Eisenberg Paul Bloomington IN 3523 Form Letter 1 Eisenhower Diane Vero Beach FL 2847 Form Letter 1 Eisenstark Andrew Tahoe City CA 3316 Form Letter 1 Eisentrager Evan Easthampton MA 1123 Form Letter 1 Ekholm Diana Simi Valley CA 328 Form Letter 1 ElãAs Gabriel 2637 Form Letter 1 Elder Melissa Marysville PA 2642 Form Letter 1 Eldred Kenny 735 Form Letter 1 Eldred Tina 3266 Form Letter 1 Eliopoulos Jacqueline Boulder CO 384 Form Letter 1 Elkins Carol Aumsville OR 2400 Form Letter 1 Eller Roberta Phoenix AZ 2758 Form Letter 1 Ellicott Alison New Castle DE 1148 Form Letter 1 Elliott Benton Eugene OR 2851 Form Letter 1 Ellis Koll Berkeley CA 2577 Form Letter 1 Ellis Maureen Chicago IL 3446 Form Letter 1 Ellois Austin Baton Rouge LA 1234 Form Letter 1 Ellsworth Danny San Diego CA 3250 Form Letter 1 Elrick Mellisa Naples FL 2809 Form Letter 1 Elsherbini Azza 1350 Form Letter 1 Emerich Mary Kaukauna WI 172 Form Letter 1 Emerich Walter Kaukauna WI 2060 Form Letter 1 Emerle-Sifuentes Jennifer Newark DE 1774 Form Letter 1 Emrys Merlin Santa Fe NM 800 Form Letter 1 Endress Daphne Katy TX 1199 Form Letter 1 Engelfried Nick Bellingham WA 2445 Form Letter 1 Engell Dana Mount Vernon OH 903 Form Letter 1 Engelsiepen Jane Carpinteria CA 2491 Form Letter 1 Engle I. Tularosa NM 992 Form Letter 1 Engle Douglas Budd Lake NJ 2396 Form Letter 1 Ennis Jacob Stoughton WI 2166 Form Letter 1 Ensign Dianne Portland OR 341 Form Letter 1 Ensman Tammy Spencerport NY 1211 Form Letter 1 Eppes Samantha Orlando FL 1209 Form Letter 1 Epstein Nance Hutto TX 437 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Epstien Caru Carnegie PA 2450 Form Letter 1 Erdmann Donette Sheboygan WI 2564 Form Letter 1 Ericson Eric Pacific Palisades CA 688 Form Letter 1 Erlbaum Sheila Philadelphia PA 1314 Form Letter 1 Esche Rebecca Wish Newburyport MA 985 Form Letter 1 Esser Nicholas Simi Valley CA 3578 Form Letter 1 Estrada Yesenia Las Cruces NM 1956 Form Letter 1 Ethridge Diane Conroe TX 2620 Form Letter 1 Eudy Elaine Atlanta GA 1898 Form Letter 1 Evans Hersha Christiansburg VA 162 Form Letter 1 Evans Brianne Chandler AZ 1323 Form Letter 1 Evans Elle North Little Rock AR 1552 Form Letter 1 Evans Sybil San Francisco CA 2598 Form Letter 1 Evans Brenda Sapulpa OK 2829 Form Letter 1 Evans Chad Seattle WA 2885 Form Letter 1 Evans Bronwen Bellingham WA 3270 Form Letter 1 Evans Ramona Long Beach CA 3438 Form Letter 1 Evask Melissa Eureka CA 1548 Form Letter 1 Evask Melissa Eureka CA 1728 Form Letter 1 Eve Tracy Columbia MD 545 Form Letter 1 Evenson Marilyn Norwalk OH 3460 Form Letter 1 Everett John Grass Valley CA 442 Form Letter 1 Evert Herb Cottage Grove WI 1540 Form Letter 1 Evon Debra Minneapolis MN 2765 Form Letter 1 Eyres Melody Sandy UT 3133 Form Letter 1 Eyster Carol Lynne Redlands CA 1058 Form Letter 1 Eza Tonya Harrisburg PA 1907 Form Letter 1 F Rhaels Andover OH 109 Form Letter 1 F Stephanie Lancaster SC 1599 Form Letter 1 F A Washington CT 2079 Form Letter 1 Fachko D. Buena Park CA 655 Form Letter 1 Fadem Linda Phoenix AZ 2103 Form Letter 1 Fahlbusch Nadine Riverside CA 1547 Form Letter 1 Fair Jeanine Prairie Du Sac WI 290 Form Letter 1 Fair Linda 1149 Form Letter 1 Fairchild Starr Moorpark CA 2882 Form Letter 1 Falcone Janet Louisville KY 1502 Form Letter 1 Falconer Jay Long Beach CA 2282 Form Letter 1 Falletti John Chester CA 3478 Form Letter 1 Falsetto Rita Aguilar CO 2912 Form Letter 1 Falzgraf Nelli Bellevue NE 1724 Form Letter 1 Farhat Julia Brooklyn NY 2926 Form Letter 1 Farmer Casandra Sonoma CA 1830 Form Letter 1 Farmer Gail 2009 Form Letter 1 Farrar Susan Sammamish WA 1208 Form Letter 1 Farrell Tiffany La Plata MD 2417 Form Letter 1 Fass Arline Green Valley AZ 2836 Form Letter 1 Fast Phyllis Gillette NJ 296 Form Letter 1 Fast Yvonne 512 Form Letter 1 Fasullo Jane Fasullo East Setauket NY 3550 Form Letter 1 Faucett Carol Decatur GA 1060 Form Letter 1 Faust John Huachuca City AZ 643 Form Letter 1 Fay Paulette 501 Form Letter 1 Federman Steven Toledo OH 3001 Form Letter 1 Fehr Richard Sharpsburg GA 1696 Form Letter 1 Feig Andrea Guilford CT 1388 Form Letter 1 Feighner John Edinboro PA 904 Form Letter 1 Feinstein Joe West Bloomfield MI 1129 Form Letter 1 Feissel John Cotati CA 3035 Form Letter 1 Feldman Marian Gaithersburg MD 3159 Form Letter 1 Fellows Leslie Aylett VA 197 Form Letter 1 Felts Karen D. Noblesville IN 2679 Form Letter 1 Fenner Angelica Amherst MA 3647 Form Letter 1 Fenster Steven Pemberton NJ 2151 Form Letter 1 Feran Michael Littleton CO 190 Form Letter 1 Fergeson Cheryl Ogden UT 2783 Form Letter 1 Ferguson Livia Washington DC 2308 Form Letter 1 Ferguson Scott Bloomington IN 2496 Form Letter 1 Ferland Linda Claremont NH 2735 Form Letter 1 Fernã¡Ndez Luisa 2920 Form Letter 1 Fernã¡Ndez Luisa 3166 Form Letter 1 Fernande Fournier 2928 Form Letter 1 Fernandez Yvette Corona NY 2866 Form Letter 1 Ferner John Tucson AZ 802 Form Letter 1 Ferrara Robert Cheyenne WY 2273 Form Letter 1 Ferrell Arleen Marmarth ND 2996 Form Letter 1 Fey Gila 3189 Form Letter 1 Feyhl Jo Lebanon NH 1936 Form Letter 1 Ficke Anne Bartlett NH 2416 Form Letter 1 Fiedor Jillian Billings MT 1264 Form Letter 1 Field Liz Acton MA 2798 Form Letter 1 Fielder L. Carrollton TX 601 Form Letter 1 Fielder Aixa Los Angeles CA 3528 Form Letter 1 Fieldgrove Gayle Bakersfield CA 2635 Form Letter 1 Fields Dr. Ken Santa Barbara CA 36 Unique Non Substantive Fighera Linda New Rochelle NY 3462 Form Letter 1

Flocco-Mcmaster Kathy Clearwater FL 104 Form Letter 1 Floersch Elizabeth Goodlettsville TN 1901 Form Letter 1 Florell Tina 107 Form Letter 1 Florin Krista Tenafly NJ 2464 Form Letter 1 Florow Brenda La Crescenta CA 2906 Form Letter 1 Flowers Bobbie New York NY 283 Form Letter 1 Flowers Bobbie New York NY 2422 Form Letter 1 Floyd Janelle Connersville IN 755 Form Letter 1 Floyd Cathrine Littleton CO 1558 Form Letter 1 Flynn David 1072 Form Letter 1 Fogg Jill Cape Elizabeth ME 1444 Form Letter 1 Fogt Mike 1910 Form Letter 1 Foley Susan Westfield MA 1214 Form Letter 1 Fomenko Nancy San Jose CA 1067 Form Letter 1 Foot Susie Mckinleyville CA 1050 Form Letter 1 Forbes Alexa Exton PA 2240 Form Letter 1 Foreman Randall Metairie LA 2299 Form Letter 1 Forero James Boca Raton FL 1991 Form Letter 1 Forman Fay New York NY 1334 Form Letter 1 Forman Janet New York NY 1556 Form Letter 1 Forrest William Rochester NY 1405 Form Letter 1 Forsberg Sofie Lã¸Ve 1054 Form Letter 1 Foss Maryann Cherry Hill NJ 1044 Form Letter 1 Foster Lorraine Portland OR 141 Form Letter 1 Foster Marguerite Mechanicsburg PA 2144 Form Letter 1 Foster Nicole Tallmadge OH 2667 Form Letter 1 Foster Stephanie Mesa AZ 3152 Form Letter 1 Foster Delaina Houston TX 3314 Form Letter 1 Fountain Michael Bethesda MD 170 Form Letter 1 Fournier Michelle 1535 Form Letter 1 Fowler Beverly Cottage Grove WI 1009 Form Letter 1 Fowler Jerry Chico CA 1122 Form Letter 1 Fox Kathleen Grover Beach CA 3410 Form Letter 1 Fraleigh Kevin Red Hook NY 868 Form Letter 1 Franceschini Armida Ramona CA 2567 Form Letter 1 Francis Lorri Chicago IL 606 Form Letter 1 Francoise Segain 781 Form Letter 1 Frank Yvette Longmont CO 187 Form Letter 1 Frank Robert Bossier City LA 779 Form Letter 1 Franklin John Raleigh NC 1426 Form Letter 1 Fraser Janel 1173 Form Letter 1 Fraser Malcolm 3089 Form Letter 1 Frazier Madison Charlotte NC 3232 Form Letter 1 Frederick Jean Colorado Springs CO 994 Form Letter 1 Freedland Nancy Big Bear City CA 241 Form Letter 1 Fregin N Palatine IL 625 Form Letter 1 Fregin N Palatine IL 3022 Form Letter 1 French Pamela Carson City NV 2578 Form Letter 1 French Leeann Aurora CO 2587 Form Letter 1 Friedman T Delmar NY 1081 Form Letter 1 Friedmann Mr. Kurt San Luis Obispo CA 47 Unique Non Substantive Friedmann Michael Bronx NY 2147 Form Letter 1 Fritz Ms. Suzanne Atascadero CA 71 Unique Non Substantive Fryburg Laura Albany OR 2113 Form Letter 1 Frye Joyce La Quinta CA 2805 Form Letter 1 Fryers Lana Mayville MI 3420 Form Letter 1 Fuentes Ivan Orlando FL 1389 Form Letter 1 Fukuda Kristina Los Angeles CA 1080 Form Letter 1 Fulcher Pamela Royal Oak MI 3562 Form Letter 1 Fuld Liora 3571 Form Letter 1 Fulgham Kirsten Tucson AZ 2442 Form Letter 1

Gerdes Jason United States Environmental Protection Agency San Francisco CA 10 Unique Comment Gershten Md Mitchell Paonia CO 2963 Form Letter 1 Gervais Vasquez Rachelle Concord CA 3545 Form Letter 1 Geyer Monica Bend OR 3153 Form Letter 1 Ghosh Sudeshna New Orleans LA 2174 Form Letter 1 Giaccardo Gina Philadelphia PA 1745 Form Letter 1 Gibb Kenneth Zephyr Cove NV 412 Form Letter 1 Gibbons Brian Cleveland OH 2152 Form Letter 1 Gibson Jody Des Moines IA 2738 Form Letter 1 Gibson Scott Saint Albans WV 3240 Form Letter 1 Gielgens Karen Kirkland WA 1490 Form Letter 1 Giese Mark M Racine WI 505 Form Letter 1 Giesy Daniel Gloucester VA 2455 Form Letter 1 Gifford Elizabeth Watertown MA 926 Form Letter 1 Gilbert Camill Santa Barbara CA 15 Unique Non Substantive Gilbert Janet Crescent City CA 2923 Form Letter 1 Gilbert Linda Manchester CT 3044 Form Letter 1 Gilbert Camille Gilbert Santa Barbara CA 3426 Form Letter 1 Gili Marga 2407 Form Letter 1 Giliam Ros 2237 Form Letter 1 Gill Raymond Bothell WA 477 Form Letter 1 Gill James Cleveland OH 2583 Form Letter 1 Gille Sheila Duvall WA 3074 Form Letter 1 Gillespie Mr. John M Santa Margarita CA 46 Unique Non Substantive Gillick Bernadette Caldwell NJ 1684 Form Letter 1 Gillson Eileene Sherwood OR 922 Form Letter 1 Gilruth Jean Houston TX 465 Form Letter 1 Ginepro Janet Monroe MI 914 Form Letter 1 Gingras Brian Braintree MA 483 Form Letter 1 Ginsburg Joe Seattle WA 2294 Form Letter 1 Glaston Joe Desert Hot Springs CA 1410 Form Letter 1 Glenn Laura Overland Park KS 2421 Form Letter 1 Glick Art Renick WV 797 Form Letter 1 Glogovsky Rachael Lake Geneva WI 3287 Form Letter 1 Glover Tim Sebastian FL 936 Form Letter 1 Glover Robert Fresno CA 1671 Form Letter 1 Glyde Jacqueline Portland OR 1807 Form Letter 1 Glynn Mary Natick MA 1284 Form Letter 1 Gnagey Marcia Lincoln MA 2329 Form Letter 1 Gnemi Irene Newburg MO 1285 Form Letter 1 Goade Jennifer Sun Valley NV 1541 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Godlis Mr. Lloyd A Buellton CA 48 Unique Non Substantive Godshall Daniel Colorado Springs CO 1178 Form Letter 1 Goetschius Lascinda Fair Lawn NJ 3341 Form Letter 1 Goetz Gary Pacific Grove CA 1130 Form Letter 1 Goetz Lisa Houston TX 3131 Form Letter 1 Goldberg Laura Arlington WA 704 Form Letter 1 Goldfarb Georgia Malibu CA 291 Form Letter 1 Goldflies Barrett Chicago IL 1655 Form Letter 1 Goldman Lisa Thorntown IN 774 Form Letter 1 Goldman Ron Los Altos CA 1001 Form Letter 1 Goldman Deborah Cold Spring Harbor NY 2951 Form Letter 1 Goldman Jill Los Angeles CA 2953 Form Letter 1 Goldschen Stacy Gurnee IL 2607 Form Letter 1 Goldsmith Charles Washington MO 1946 Form Letter 1 Goldstein Freya New York NY 824 Form Letter 1 Goldstein Jody Rochester MN 2293 Form Letter 1 Gomez Maria L. Mountain Home AR 3610 Form Letter 1 Goncalves Anita Ludlow MA 1017 Form Letter 1 Gonce Samuel Perryville MD 566 Form Letter 1 Gonzales Gaetane Albuquerque NM 2165 Form Letter 1 Gonzales Bernie Caruthers CA 2862 Form Letter 1 Gonzalez William G Suffern NY 1002 Form Letter 1 Gonzalez Marisa San Antonio TX 2189 Form Letter 1 Gonzalez Rachel Wappingers Falls NY 2371 Form Letter 1 Gooch Janet Norfolk VA 1354 Form Letter 1 Goodbar Vivian Ft Mitchell KY 1760 Form Letter 1 Gooding Sharon 336 Form Letter 1 Goorahoo Kimberly East Hartford CT 203 Form Letter 1 Gorak Martha Katy TX 2307 Form Letter 1 Gordon Marc Sunnyvale CA 1257 Form Letter 1 Gordon Lonnie Malibu CA 2604 Form Letter 1 Gore Jesse Nashville TN 1055 Form Letter 1 Gorsetman Mark Whitestone NY 2375 Form Letter 1 Goss Eva Center Sandwich NH 1872 Form Letter 1 Gottejman Brian Los Alamitos CA 3002 Form Letter 1 Gottesman Judith El Cerrito CA 2962 Form Letter 1 Gottfried Susan State College PA 3648 Form Letter 1 Gottlieb Jonathan Natick MA 567 Form Letter 1 Goyette Roland Sandy UT 3117 Form Letter 1 Graf Rosemary Cummington MA 267 Form Letter 1 Graf Rosemary Cummington MA 2887 Form Letter 1 Graff Wanda Canby OR 2314 Form Letter 1 Graham Lee Madison Heights MI 1629 Form Letter 1 Graham Tyler Harrisburg PA 1733 Form Letter 1 Granskog Dr. Jane E. Los Osos CA 75 Unique Non Substantive Grassia Frank Pinole CA 996 Form Letter 1 Graver Chuck Vincentown NJ 366 Form Letter 1 Graves Michelle Farmington MO 2725 Form Letter 1 Grawunder Marc 2389 Form Letter 1 Gray Lisa Anaheim CA 163 Form Letter 1 Gray Lorraine Roslindale MA 2410 Form Letter 1 Grech Rhyan Philadelphia PA 2657 Form Letter 1 Green Geraldine Renton WA 130 Form Letter 1 Green Kristin Sault Sainte Marie MI 872 Form Letter 1 Green Rax 1524 Form Letter 1 Green Martha Newman IL 2591 Form Letter 1 Green Jamie Ventura CA 2639 Form Letter 1 Green Alex Brooklyn NY 3017 Form Letter 1 Green Stephen Burlington WA 3402 Form Letter 1 Green Rhonda 3425 Form Letter 1 Greene Bill Oceano CA 2796 Form Letter 1 Greene M.D. Peter Washington DC 1341 Form Letter 1 Greenspan Karen New York NY 1544 Form Letter 1 Greenwood Barbara Walnut Creek CA 502 Form Letter 1 Greer Jamie West Orange NJ 3563 Form Letter 1 Gregg Rachel 1840 Form Letter 1 Gregory Patricia Baltimore MD 517 Form Letter 1 Gregory Anne Palo Alto CA 1034 Form Letter 1 Greinke Pamylle Peconic NY 446 Form Letter 1 Grier Michelle Arlington TX 1832 Form Letter 1 Grieves Kathy Peoria AZ 947 Form Letter 1 Griffin Denise Mobile AL 1198 Form Letter 1 Griffith Julie Saint Charles IL 353 Form Letter 1 Grigg Kent Walnut Creek CA 2729 Form Letter 1 Grimes Cindy Websterville VT 3325 Form Letter 1 Groll William Albuquerque NM 760 Form Letter 1 Groppe Jay Lancaster TX 2432 Form Letter 1 Gross Stefanie 2943 Form Letter 1 Grosse Kati Sacramento CA 1954 Form Letter 1 Grossi Joanne Lakewood NJ 1142 Form Letter 1 Groux Richard Belchertown MA 1566 Form Letter 1 Grove Earl East Canton OH 3468 Form Letter 1 Grycova Marie Cherokee Village AR 528 Form Letter 1 Guarino Spanton Karen Philadelphia PA 2648 Form Letter 1 Gubrud Cara Milaca MN 1542 Form Letter 1 Guckian Michael Spring TX 1868 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Gudzevich Deborah Stoneham MA 2917 Form Letter 1 Guest Michael Carmel IN 1163 Form Letter 1 Guh Hsiaohuei Dallas TX 3408 Form Letter 1 Guillet Mary Winsted CT 300 Form Letter 1 Guillory Chris Port Angeles WA 2592 Form Letter 1 Guinness Mary New Milford CT 2115 Form Letter 1 Guirsche Sylvia 1539 Form Letter 1 Guldeman Mr. Philip E Arroyo Grande CA 50 Unique Non Substantive Gunter Karlene Rochester NY 893 Form Letter 1 Gunther Mary Berlin MD 2250 Form Letter 1 Gurdin J. Barry San Francisco CA 417 Form Letter 1 Guthrie William Bluemont VA 292 Form Letter 1 Guy Josh Grand Ledge MI 307 Form Letter 1 Guzman Lourdes South Ozone Park NY 2122 Form Letter 1 Gwinn Nate Las Vegas NV 1478 Form Letter 1 Gx Perry Tustin CA 2806 Form Letter 1 H Carole Port Townsend WA 789 Form Letter 1 H H Milwaukee WI 3216 Form Letter 1 H. Janet North Bend OR 2950 Form Letter 1 Haag Josef 2007 Form Letter 1 Habuda Linda Youngstown OH 1280 Form Letter 1 Hacker Gloria Las Cruces NM 2896 Form Letter 1 Hackney Stephen Grangeville ID 3271 Form Letter 1 Haddad Reem La Verne CA 711 Form Letter 1 Hadjsalem Jamila Stafford Springs CT 317 Form Letter 1 Hadley Morgan Cleveland OH 2734 Form Letter 1 Haebig Susan Wausau WI 2615 Form Letter 1 Haertel Melissa Bronx NY 2811 Form Letter 1 Hafer Sarah Vancouver WA 3522 Form Letter 1 Haflich Anne Topeka KS 2049 Form Letter 1 Hagen Cleo Oak Park IL 621 Form Letter 1 Haggerty Emily East Lansing MI 3180 Form Letter 1 Haig Glenn Naples FL 2545 Form Letter 1 Halderson Karen Albuquerque NM 3290 Form Letter 1 Hale Michele Essex MD 340 Form Letter 1 Hale Valli Lakewood WA 1908 Form Letter 1 Hales Judy J Corpus Christi TX 2097 Form Letter 1 Hall Vicki Yorba Linda CA 639 Form Letter 1 Hall Holly Temecula CA 1559 Form Letter 1 Hall Sue Castro Valley CA 1817 Form Letter 1 Hall Donovan Altamonte Springs FL 2020 Form Letter 1 Hall Christopher Glendale CA 2111 Form Letter 1 Hall Silvia Boca Raton FL 2274 Form Letter 1 Hall Ellen Pacifica CA 2863 Form Letter 1 Halligan Michele Ukiah CA 2821 Form Letter 1 Halligan Sue Saint Paul MN 3442 Form Letter 1 Hallman Janice Saint Paul MN 2823 Form Letter 1 Halsted Mrs. Lynn Santa Barbara CA 56 Unique Non Substantive Halvorsen Verlaine Minnetonka MN 2535 Form Letter 1 Hambrick Vicki Orlando FL 1761 Form Letter 1 Hamer Suzanne Woodinville WA 2205 Form Letter 1 Hamilton Frederick Rancho Cucamonga CA 571 Form Letter 1 Hamilton Pamela West Sacramento CA 3186 Form Letter 1 Hammerstad Charles San Jose CA 2513 Form Letter 1 Hammock Brittney Tampa FL 857 Form Letter 1 Hammock Charles Tampa FL 1860 Form Letter 1 Hammond Sally Tucson AZ 1197 Form Letter 1 Hammond Monica Slidell LA 2182 Form Letter 1 Hamrick F Ruston LA 1438 Form Letter 1 Hamrock Lora Huron OH 1185 Form Letter 1 Han Richard Ann Arbor MI 2462 Form Letter 1 Hancock Heath Davenport IA 1921 Form Letter 1 Hand Debra Hobe Sound FL 179 Form Letter 1 Handa Sharon San Francisco CA 1526 Form Letter 1 Handsaker Heidi Billings MT 2936 Form Letter 1 Hanna Jeff Nokomis FL 297 Form Letter 1 Hannah Mark Gibsonia PA 399 Form Letter 1 Hannon Reuben Charlotte NC 1842 Form Letter 1 Hansberry Lydia Hanover NH 3199 Form Letter 1 Hansell Warwick Salt Lake City UT 303 Form Letter 1 Hansell Connor Salt Lake City UT 2652 Form Letter 1 Hansen Amy Asbury NJ 356 Form Letter 1 Hansen Julie Freeman SD 516 Form Letter 1 Hanton Mandy Greer SC 1255 Form Letter 1 Harabadji Andrei Brooklyn NY 219 Form Letter 1 Harband Katherine San Rafael CA 3242 Form Letter 1 Harbert Merriann Coos Bay OR 424 Form Letter 1 Harbeson Charlotte Bishop CA 2062 Form Letter 1 Harde Rish Memphis TN 683 Form Letter 1 Harden Ronald Loveland CO 2817 Form Letter 1 Harder Kate Glen Ellyn IL 232 Form Letter 1 Harding Pat 3227 Form Letter 1 Hargraves Mark Sebastopol CA 3129 Form Letter 1 Harker Jana Arcadia CA 2044 Form Letter 1 Harness Laura Sedona AZ 1195 Form Letter 1 Haroutian Peter Worcester MA 2264 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Harper Barbara Castroville CA 1111 Form Letter 1 Harper Leslie Rochester NY 1995 Form Letter 1 Harper Alan Richmond VA 2153 Form Letter 1 Harrell Linda Yemassee SC 313 Form Letter 1 Harrington Tyler Schuyler Falls NY 1775 Form Letter 1 Harrington Karen Berkeley CA 2398 Form Letter 1 Harris Wayne Bradenton FL 258 Form Letter 1 Harris Nikki Skiatook OK 1536 Form Letter 1 Harris Ann 2429 Form Letter 1 Harris D Tulsa OK 2463 Form Letter 1 Harris Freya Atlanta GA 2483 Form Letter 1 Harris Shirlene San Antonio TX 2688 Form Letter 1 Harris Chris Burlington NJ 3118 Form Letter 1 Harris Jr J M Tulsa OK 2441 Form Letter 1 Harrison Tania 334 Form Letter 1 Harrison Jen San Francisco CA 1083 Form Letter 1 Harrison Tina Corning CA 1430 Form Letter 1 Harrison Scott Gig Harbor WA 1440 Form Letter 1 Harrison David Gardena CA 1569 Form Letter 1 Harrison Jeane Des Moines IA 1615 Form Letter 1 Harrity Laura Blue Springs MO 764 Form Letter 1 Hart Donna Fredericksburg VA 438 Form Letter 1 Hart Sally Saratoga CA 988 Form Letter 1 Hart Donna Saint Charles MO 1355 Form Letter 1 Hart Greer 2010 Form Letter 1 Hart Linda Oregon OH 2860 Form Letter 1 Hart Mary M Citrus Heights CA 3357 Form Letter 1 Hartenstine Dennis Birdsboro PA 3101 Form Letter 1 Hartgraves Paula Tucson AZ 1239 Form Letter 1 Hartland Nanci Rincon GA 905 Form Letter 1 Hartle Ms. Mary Jo Santa Barbara CA 70 Unique Non Substantive Hartlieb Matthew Mesa AZ 2401 Form Letter 1 Hartman Elizabeth Grayslake IL 2067 Form Letter 1 Harvey Kurt Sunnyvale CA 619 Form Letter 1 Haseltine Amber Willowbrook IL 227 Form Letter 1 Haskins David San Diego CA 2338 Form Letter 1 Hastings Melissa Newport NC 1213 Form Letter 1 Hauck Amanda Springfield OH 272 Form Letter 1 Hauck Molly Kensington MD 2792 Form Letter 1 Hauer Patty Owatonna MN 143 Form Letter 1 Haunhorst Martin 3147 Form Letter 1 Haut Lisa Bridgeport CT 1024 Form Letter 1 Haverkamp Kathy Geneva NY 1041 Form Letter 1 Havner Brendan Hoboken NJ 2786 Form Letter 1 Hawkes Patricia Altadena CA 595 Form Letter 1 Hawkins Jo Ann Sharrie Reeds Spring MO 1243 Form Letter 1 Hawks Carrie Pensacola FL 1835 Form Letter 1 Hawthorn Pat Hayward WI 771 Form Letter 1 Hayden Nancy Spokane WA 518 Form Letter 1 Hayward Meredith Aurora CO 3148 Form Letter 1 Head Kris Garden Grove CA 2408 Form Letter 1 Heath Susan Albany OR 337 Form Letter 1 Heath Linda A. Grafton OH 2966 Form Letter 1 Heatherly Debra Lake Zurich IL 479 Form Letter 1 Heck Nancy Santa Maria CA 2424 Form Letter 1 Hedge Belinda Lenoir City TN 2170 Form Letter 1 Heffron Josh New York NY 403 Form Letter 1 Hegedu Barbara Parkesburg PA 1589 Form Letter 1 Hegemeyer Michael Tucson AZ 3605 Form Letter 1 Heinly Bridgett San Diego CA 3120 Form Letter 1 Heise Steffen 1555 Form Letter 1 Heisler Angeline Chicago IL 3321 Form Letter 1

Held-Warmkessel Jeanne North Wales PA 421 Form Letter 1 Hellemn Bruce Portland OR 499 Form Letter 1 Hellwig Karen Los Angeles CA 1732 Form Letter 1 Helton H 585 Form Letter 1 Helvie Robert Las Vegas NV 2736 Form Letter 1 Hemenez Jeffrey San Ramon CA 2777 Form Letter 1 Hemenway Mark Charlotte NC 2281 Form Letter 1 Hemingway Britlin Austin TX 2278 Form Letter 1 Hemmila Rodney Saint Paul MN 1945 Form Letter 1 Hemmingsen James Eugene OR 1795 Form Letter 1 Hempel Liv Bay Shore NY 1093 Form Letter 1 Hempel Bettina 3498 Form Letter 1 Henderson Michael Huntington Beach CA 1176 Form Letter 1 Henderson Stephanie Tallahassee FL 2546 Form Letter 1 Hendrickson Alana Hopkins MN 2529 Form Letter 1 Hendrickson Kristi Seattle WA 2699 Form Letter 1 Hendrix Linda Bend OR 854 Form Letter 1 Hendry Dawn Littleton CO 1854 Form Letter 1 Hennen Heide San Mateo CA 2022 Form Letter 1 Henniger Heide-Marie 1039 Form Letter 1 Henrickson Heather Milwaukee WI 730 Form Letter 1 Hensgen Eric Tampa FL 747 Form Letter 1 Hensley Bobbie Greeneville TN 586 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Heracleous Mariamni 2582 Form Letter 1 Herboso Leire San Francisco CA 597 Form Letter 1 Herger Loretta Sun City AZ 3585 Form Letter 1 Hermanson Dave Saint Louis MO 1360 Form Letter 1 Hernandez Ricardo 2436 Form Letter 1 Hernandez Carrie Boulder Creek CA 2458 Form Letter 1 Hernoe Therese 395 Form Letter 1 Herold Ana Pacifica CA 3570 Form Letter 1 Herst Debra 3455 Form Letter 1 Herzog Dorothy Tampa FL 2425 Form Letter 1 Hesh Suzanne Tucson AZ 2374 Form Letter 1 Hess Rachel Luckey OH 3577 Form Letter 1 Hesselink Joanne Neshkoro WI 250 Form Letter 1 Hetem Judith Taos NM 2350 Form Letter 1 Hewitt Anne-Marie 146 Form Letter 1 Hickey Marianne Wilton CT 2669 Form Letter 1 Hicks Janet Highland Mills NY 710 Form Letter 1 Hicks Cynthia Phoenix AZ 1192 Form Letter 1 Hicks Cynthia Phoenix AZ 2157 Form Letter 1 Hieber Richard 778 Form Letter 1 Higgins Lindi Brewster MA 3309 Form Letter 1 Hightree Lucy Fenton MI 3582 Form Letter 1 Higson Howard Sebastopol CA 1498 Form Letter 1 Hildebrandt Dagmar 3532 Form Letter 1 Hill Mr. Harold L Santa Barbara Community Action Network Santa Barbara CA 44 Unique Comment Hill Roz Stratford CT 262 Form Letter 1 Hill Robin Sarasota FL 1767 Form Letter 1 Hill Dan 2467 Form Letter 1 Hillman Linda Camarillo CA 746 Form Letter 1 Hillman Tami Cocoa Beach FL 3115 Form Letter 1 Hills Sally Tucson AZ 2231 Form Letter 1 Hinson Wendy Memphis TN 1797 Form Letter 1 Hinson Katherine Gilbert AZ 2156 Form Letter 1 Hirst Karen 3123 Form Letter 1 Hittel Kenneth New York NY 1701 Form Letter 1 Hittel Susan New York NY 3484 Form Letter 1 Hixson Becky Emporia KS 536 Form Letter 1 Hlat Mike Buffalo NY 2627 Form Letter 1 Hlodnicki Bruce Indianapolis IN 3590 Form Letter 1 Ho Ah San Mateo CA 2622 Form Letter 1 Hobbs Joan Mountain Home ID 1723 Form Letter 1 Hobbs Kelly Athens TX 1876 Form Letter 1 Hocevar Renee Bedford OH 2678 Form Letter 1 Hochendoner Bernard Patterson CA 3170 Form Letter 1 Hocking Zora Santa Rosa CA 2390 Form Letter 1 Hodges Connie Irving TX 1396 Form Letter 1 Hodgson Susan 3315 Form Letter 1 Hodson Deirdre 1373 Form Letter 1 Hoefler Mary Ann Menomonee Falls WI 1145 Form Letter 1 Hoekstra Nicole Minneapolis MN 352 Form Letter 1 Hoff Beverly Pflugerville TX 3445 Form Letter 1 Hoffman Steven Pikesville MD 945 Form Letter 1 Hohenshelt Felicity Jacksonville FL 2908 Form Letter 1 Holden Cathy Sacramento CA 3219 Form Letter 1 Holifield Barbara Mill Valley CA 2440 Form Letter 1 Holland Kate Denver CO 2691 Form Letter 1 Hollander Roger Tarzana CA 1689 Form Letter 1 Hollar Jeffrey Woodstock VA 2078 Form Letter 1 Hollingswoth Judy 487 Form Letter 1 Hollis James League City TX 299 Form Letter 1 Hollowell Josie Houston TX 596 Form Letter 1 Holman Kathleen Akron OH 2132 Form Letter 1 Holmes Robert Santa Barbara CA 31 Unique Non Substantive Holowczak Barbara Elmwood Park IL 3081 Form Letter 1 Holt Bill Austin TX 3231 Form Letter 1 Holzman Catherine Baraboo WI 2718 Form Letter 1 Hombs Michelle Siloam Springs AR 1612 Form Letter 1 Homsey Ellen Hockessin DE 1248 Form Letter 1 Honigsblum Alexander Dubuque IA 2402 Form Letter 1 Hood Mary Plain City OH 561 Form Letter 1 Hood Nick Clemmons NC 3413 Form Letter 1 Hopkins Alexandra La Crescenta CA 464 Form Letter 1 Hopkins Stephen Rye NY 506 Form Letter 1 Horenstein Michele Ventnor City NJ 1680 Form Letter 1 Horton Deanna Tucson AZ 1423 Form Letter 1 Horton Dan Tucson AZ 1726 Form Letter 1 Hoskinson Marjorie Thousand Oaks CA 2447 Form Letter 1 Hosta Denise Round Lake IL 3048 Form Letter 1 Houdashelt Mark Fort Collins CO 3108 Form Letter 1 Houghton N Prescott AZ 1032 Form Letter 1 How Joan 1260 Form Letter 1 Howard Ronald Delton MI 522 Form Letter 1 Howard Linda Traverse City MI 2334 Form Letter 1 Howard Erin Oakland CA 3200 Form Letter 1 Howe Jeff Fort Lauderdale FL 145 Form Letter 1 Hoyopatubbi Patti North Bend WA 3643 Form Letter 1

Hughes Devereaux Ann 546 Form Letter 1 Hull Lise Bandon OR 895 Form Letter 1 Hull Juanita Ogden UT 2760 Form Letter 1 Hull Gary Ogden UT 3141 Form Letter 1 Hulsey Tamara El Cajon CA 1963 Form Letter 1 Hummel Erica Huntington Beach CA 1914 Form Letter 1 Hunker Sally Pottsboro TX 740 Form Letter 1 Hurlburt Jennifer Portland OR 115 Form Letter 1 Hurst Mark Orinda CA 2825 Form Letter 1 Hurt Luc 1045 Form Letter 1 Hurtt Kimberly Raleigh NC 1892 Form Letter 1 Hurwitz Jeffrey San Francisco CA 1011 Form Letter 1 Hutchins Katherine Phoenix AZ 869 Form Letter 1 Hutchins K Saint Paul MN 3295 Form Letter 1 Hutchinson Terrance California City CA 2034 Form Letter 1 Huth Graciela Los Angeles CA 2058 Form Letter 1 Huzenis Audrey New York NY 1804 Form Letter 1 I. Kate Fort Collins CO 861 Form Letter 1 Ihry Antonia Bellingham WA 620 Form Letter 1 Inabinet Sam Virginia Beach VA 2883 Form Letter 1 Indermuehle Eric Fort Collins CO 1013 Form Letter 1 Infante Llinda Hamden CT 2956 Form Letter 1 Ingleby Harry 256 Form Letter 1 Inglima Adele Flowery Branch GA 3451 Form Letter 1 Iovino Teresa Germantown TN 654 Form Letter 1 Irons Bridget Philadelphia PA 3104 Form Letter 1 Irons Bridget Philadelphia PA 3652 Form Letter 1 Israel Carolyn Santa Cruz CA 713 Form Letter 1 Iuro Margaret Port Townsend WA 938 Form Letter 1 Ja Tia San Jose CA 3282 Form Letter 1 Jache Elizabeth Lemon Grove CA 2493 Form Letter 1 Jackson Sandra Santa Fe NM 1409 Form Letter 1 Jackson Helen Port Deposit MD 3529 Form Letter 1 Jacobs Beth Schenectady NY 2705 Form Letter 1 Jacobus Jolie Madison WI 2418 Form Letter 1 Jakusz Darlene Amherst Junction WI 1867 Form Letter 1 James Paul Moraga CA 776 Form Letter 1 James Maralyn 1384 Form Letter 1 James K Sacramento CA 1504 Form Letter 1 James R Dean Conway AR 3225 Form Letter 1 Jameson Greg Gurnee IL 2656 Form Letter 1 Janke Susan Kingman AZ 2869 Form Letter 1 Jannuzzi Angelo Bronxville NY 324 Form Letter 1 Janzen Gayle Seattle WA 2793 Form Letter 1 Jarboe Jolynn Denver CO 3071 Form Letter 1 Jasper Alan Merrick NY 3360 Form Letter 1 Jeffrey Tp Charlotte NC 325 Form Letter 1 Jeffrey Mary Denver NC 1196 Form Letter 1 Jeffreys Zachary Brighton CO 2159 Form Letter 1 Jegou Julien Irvine CA 2998 Form Letter 1 Jenda Sharon Oregon City OR 795 Form Letter 1 Jenkins Robin Dallas OR 2302 Form Letter 1 Jerome Maryanne Boulder CO 564 Form Letter 1 Jessen Susan Clinton IA 489 Form Letter 1 Jishi Mazen Canton MI 2063 Form Letter 1 Jitreun S Ann Arbor MI 547 Form Letter 1 John T Broberg Mrs. Sharon Broberg Santa Barbara CA 86 Unique Non Substantive Johns Mark Omaha NE 2494 Form Letter 1 Johnsen Kenneth Columbus OH 2619 Form Letter 1 Johnson Tatum Mesa AZ 110 Form Letter 1 Johnson Rhonda Aylett VA 152 Form Letter 1 Johnson Patti Perkasie PA 238 Form Letter 1 Johnson Percy Berea KY 401 Form Letter 1 Johnson Diana Chesapeake VA 430 Form Letter 1 Johnson Jennifer Oxnard CA 570 Form Letter 1 Johnson Karolina Madison WI 592 Form Letter 1 Johnson Richard Bellingham WA 1125 Form Letter 1 Johnson Maria Finksburg MD 1247 Form Letter 1 Johnson Ethan Perry FL 1460 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Johnson Jenifer Marietta GA 1588 Form Letter 1 Johnson Judy Placerville CA 1785 Form Letter 1 Johnson Theresa New York NY 1928 Form Letter 1 Johnson Wade Minneapolis MN 1969 Form Letter 1 Johnson Lorraine D. Seattle WA 2145 Form Letter 1 Johnson Jamie Fresno CA 2181 Form Letter 1 Johnson Joyce Santa Rosa CA 2235 Form Letter 1 Johnson Alice M Sacramento CA 2304 Form Letter 1 Johnson Doreen Seattle WA 2475 Form Letter 1 Johnson Mary Edgewater FL 3151 Form Letter 1 Johnson Robert El Segundo CA 3331 Form Letter 1 Johnston A Evanston IL 135 Form Letter 1 Johnston Virginia Keene NH 1982 Form Letter 1 Jolley Monica Burton WA 2967 Form Letter 1 Jones Clint Ward AR 222 Form Letter 1 Jones Eugene Salt Lake City UT 1025 Form Letter 1 Jones Linda Cornville AZ 1562 Form Letter 1 Jones Rick Ridgway CO 1570 Form Letter 1 Jones Vikki 2012 Form Letter 1 Jones Gary San Marino CA 2222 Form Letter 1 Jones Robert Salem OR 2850 Form Letter 1 Jones Milton Santa Rosa CA 2873 Form Letter 1 Jones Angela Lees Summit MO 3615 Form Letter 1 Jones Kathrine Corning NY 3657 Form Letter 1 Jongsma Kathy Bradenton FL 2028 Form Letter 1 Jordan Corinne 1778 Form Letter 1 Jordan Susan Minneapolis MN 2161 Form Letter 1 Josef Synone New York NY 3557 Form Letter 1 Joseph Vicki Chicago IL 989 Form Letter 1 Joseph Ellie Tampa FL 997 Form Letter 1 Jost Mr. Randall L Arroyo Grande CA 51 Unique Non Substantive Jovic Goran 768 Form Letter 1 Joyce Julie Santa Fe NM 148 Form Letter 1 Joyce Paula Windsor NY 584 Form Letter 1 Joyce Susan 3502 Form Letter 1 Juracka Robert Amherst WI 1826 Form Letter 1 Jurczewski Carol Riverside IL 1100 Form Letter 1 Jurkowski Melissa Fond Du Lac WI 2980 Form Letter 1 K Charlotte Duluth GA 1806 Form Letter 1 K Hitomi Duluth GA 2068 Form Letter 1 K Griffith Ann Orinda CA 2301 Form Letter 1 Kabadas Miriam 1857 Form Letter 1 Kaehn S. Oakland CA 2687 Form Letter 1 Kain Jennifer Fuquay Varina NC 2055 Form Letter 1 Kalabakas Maggie 1519 Form Letter 1 Kamenzind Denise San Diego CA 2703 Form Letter 1 Kammerud Lance Blanchardville WI 333 Form Letter 1 Kanz Isabelle Peconic NY 120 Form Letter 1 Kapustka Franklin Beaverton OR 1252 Form Letter 1 Kaselle Marion North Branch NY 1096 Form Letter 1 Katsarou Litsa Albany NY 2633 Form Letter 1 Katsouros Tracey Waldorf MD 2934 Form Letter 1 Katz Rose Elana Sharon MA 3273 Form Letter 1 Kauffman L.L. Danville KY 1482 Form Letter 1 Kaufman-Martin Mr. Sam Goleta CA 52 Unique Non Substantive Kawecki Kathryn Rancho Cucamonga CA 2072 Form Letter 1 Kay Linda Saint Petersburg FL 1606 Form Letter 1 Kearney Dorothy Philadelphia PA 1295 Form Letter 1 Kearns Megan Washington DC 1019 Form Letter 1 Kedderis Pamela Farmington CT 666 Form Letter 1 Keefe Elizabeth New York NY 653 Form Letter 1 Keeney Katherine Los Osos CA 2618 Form Letter 1 Kegler Lori San Pedro CA 1762 Form Letter 1 Keiser Robert Miami FL 838 Form Letter 1 Keith-Singleton Melinda Wheaton IL 2892 Form Letter 1 Keleher Nancy Ferndale CA 1885 Form Letter 1 Kellermann Thomasin Cumberland RI 1418 Form Letter 1 Kelly Theresa New Baltimore MI 3514 Form Letter 1 Kelly Ann Mount Laurel NJ 3604 Form Letter 1 Kendrick Michael Holyoke MA 2437 Form Letter 1 Kennedy Colleen New York NY 218 Form Letter 1 Kennedy Sara Morganton NC 1713 Form Letter 1 Kenner Kate Brattleboro VT 3536 Form Letter 1 Kenney Michael El Cerrito CA 365 Form Letter 1 Kenney Martha J. Clarence Center NY 1802 Form Letter 1 Kent Diane Phoenix AZ 1787 Form Letter 1 Kerr James Redwood Valley CA 884 Form Letter 1 Kerr Chris Butler PA 3633 Form Letter 1 Kerschke Valorie Sterling Heights MI 513 Form Letter 1 Keske Carrie Fort Pierce FL 665 Form Letter 1 Kessler Jesse New York NY 1884 Form Letter 1 Kester Lenore Benson AZ 1035 Form Letter 1 Khan Kamran 1584 Form Letter 1 Khlyabich Petr Beaverton OR 1473 Form Letter 1 Kiernan Elizabeth Ridgefield CT 3573 Form Letter 1 Kiesling Jon Saint Louis MO 3378 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Kim Jean Ridgewood NJ 1135 Form Letter 1 Kimes Dan Norman OK 348 Form Letter 1 Kindred Rebecca Ridgway CO 1500 Form Letter 1 King Jean Livermore CA 568 Form Letter 1 King Sean Berlin MD 575 Form Letter 1 King Susan Concord CA 675 Form Letter 1 King Chris Ames IA 799 Form Letter 1 King Dawn Rosedale MD 1189 Form Letter 1 King Fawn New York NY 1263 Form Letter 1 King Janis Reno NV 2368 Form Letter 1 King Betty Miami Beach FL 2510 Form Letter 1 King Michael Staunton VA 2560 Form Letter 1 Kingsley Liisa Norfolk VA 845 Form Letter 1 Kiple Shauna Lincoln NE 2557 Form Letter 1 Kirchner John Fort Wayne IN 552 Form Letter 1 Kirkpatrick Peggie Yorba Linda CA 1155 Form Letter 1 Kirschling Karen San Francisco CA 1527 Form Letter 1 Kite Richard New York NY 1166 Form Letter 1 Kiver Eugene Anacortes WA 3580 Form Letter 1 Kladke Robin Roseburg OR 1755 Form Letter 1 Klapperich Hunter Stanley WI 92 Form Letter 1 Klass David New York NY 1139 Form Letter 1 Kleiman Ms. Terry Santa Ynez CA 73 Unique Non Substantive Kleiman Ms. Terry Santa Ynez CA 74 Unique Non Substantive Klein Renee Marina Del Rey CA 1105 Form Letter 1 Klein Linda El Segundo CA 3003 Form Letter 1 Klein Luke 3346 Form Letter 1 Klein Linda 3531 Form Letter 1 Kleinberg Evan East Hampton NY 214 Form Letter 1 Klepek Lisa Glen Ellyn IL 2989 Form Letter 1 Kliche Diana Long Beach CA 588 Form Letter 1 Klimek Ewelina Hopewell Junction NY 1511 Form Letter 1 Klinkel Jason Alexandria VA 407 Form Letter 1 Klock William Fort Worth TX 3584 Form Letter 1 Klosterman Pete New York NY 1595 Form Letter 1 Klugiewicz Mark Montgomery TX 2997 Form Letter 1 Klusky Katherine Rancho Cordova CA 3107 Form Letter 1 Knapp Harry Riverside CA 913 Form Letter 1 Knaz Julia Mountainside NJ 2271 Form Letter 1 Knee Christina Cobleskill NY 119 Form Letter 1 Knight Mark Kennett Square PA 357 Form Letter 1 Knoll Carolyn Orinda CA 2306 Form Letter 1 Knopp Kristeene Emeryville CA 1037 Form Letter 1 Knoppers Sherry Sparta MI 3209 Form Letter 1 Knowles Cybele Tucson AZ 2808 Form Letter 1 Knox Oliver Emmett Syracuse NY 853 Form Letter 1 Koch Ad New Cumberland PA 1644 Form Letter 1 Koch Nancy Milwaukee WI 2256 Form Letter 1 Kochanowsky Marie Tallahassee FL 775 Form Letter 1 Koeck Diana Costa Mesa CA 2106 Form Letter 1 Koehl Lisa Ormond Beach FL 510 Form Letter 1 Koehler Patricia Morrisville NC 305 Form Letter 1 Koenig Karen Fairfax VA 761 Form Letter 1 Koessel Karl Mckinleyville CA 3243 Form Letter 1 Koff Marilyn North Las Vegas NV 1361 Form Letter 1 Kohler Lisa Sacramento CA 583 Form Letter 1 Kohler Amala 3144 Form Letter 1 Koiv Ulle New York NY 533 Form Letter 1 Koivisto Ellen San Francisco CA 2234 Form Letter 1 Kolessar Joan Berwick PA 2742 Form Letter 1 Kollman Linda Minneapolis MN 1550 Form Letter 1 Konczal Eddie Monroe Township NJ 1639 Form Letter 1 Kondreck Janine Denver CO 2490 Form Letter 1 Konstanty Kristin Columbus IN 2672 Form Letter 1 Koogler Sharon Allston MA 3348 Form Letter 1 Kopcho Blake San Francisco CA 1040 Form Letter 1 Koritz Mark Atlanta GA 1677 Form Letter 1 Koritz Raleigh Minneapolis MN 2714 Form Letter 1 Korn Meryle A. Bellingham WA 1699 Form Letter 1 Korreck Theresa Montgomery IL 737 Form Letter 1 Kortheuer Dennis Long Beach CA 1608 Form Letter 1 Koschinski Sven 954 Form Letter 1 Kosec Dawn Youngstown OH 843 Form Letter 1 Kosowicz Aleks Hayward WI 319 Form Letter 1 Kovshun Rita Aurora CO 1466 Form Letter 1 Kowall Betty Penngrove CA 3213 Form Letter 1 Kramer Jeffrey Brooklyn NY 695 Form Letter 1 Kramer Jeffrey Louisville CO 1753 Form Letter 1 Kramer Darlene Belleville IL 3136 Form Letter 1 Kramer-Smith Lara Ann Arbor MI 1784 Form Letter 1 Krasen Bob Columbus OH 525 Form Letter 1 Kraus Marion 2685 Form Letter 1 Kraus Cathy North Hollywood CA 3394 Form Letter 1 Krause Liana San Jose CA 973 Form Letter 1 Krause Doug San Rafael CA 1849 Form Letter 1 Krause Krystal Buffalo NY 1883 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Kravetz Darla Lehighton PA 1481 Form Letter 1 Kravetz Darla Lehighton PA 1791 Form Letter 1 Krebill Kerry Clancy MT 633 Form Letter 1 Kreiser Justin Tampa FL 881 Form Letter 1 Kreiser Kelly Tampa FL 3492 Form Letter 1 Krikorian Lynn Las Vegas NV 1382 Form Letter 1 Krisch Yolanda Lutherville Timonium MD 2099 Form Letter 1 Kristin Karen Cortez CO 2507 Form Letter 1 Kriston Ira Evanston IL 1101 Form Letter 1 Krop Linda Environmental Defense Council Santa Barbara CA 8 Unique Comment Kropczynski Jan North Versailles PA 2706 Form Letter 1 Krucoff Rachel Chicago IL 380 Form Letter 1 Krueger Michelle Merrillville IN 2030 Form Letter 1 Ksczanowicz Donna Rochester NY 698 Form Letter 1 Kuhn Alan Santa Barbara CA 13 Unique Non Substantive Kukkonen Holly Iowa City IA 2855 Form Letter 1 Kulp Jeff Raleigh NC 2136 Form Letter 1 Kunz Cheri Woodinville WA 2744 Form Letter 1 Kurtz Maya Glenwood Springs CO 233 Form Letter 1 Kuspiel Thomas Denver CO 397 Form Letter 1 Kuticka Sheri Concord CA 3234 Form Letter 1 Kutilek Michael San Jose CA 908 Form Letter 1 Kuzma Laura Palm Harbor FL 2158 Form Letter 1 Kyriakopulos Jill Sedona AZ 3322 Form Letter 1 Kyse Barbara San Antonio TX 790 Form Letter 1 L V Oviedo FL 439 Form Letter 1 L D Daytona Beach FL 486 Form Letter 1 L D Albuquerque NM 3371 Form Letter 1 La Magna Leticia Brooklyn NY 1667 Form Letter 1 Laasch Eva Maria 1182 Form Letter 1 Laatsch Susan Palm Coast FL 2006 Form Letter 1 Labey Georgia Lakeside CA 1798 Form Letter 1 Labudie Richard Spring Lake MI 1815 Form Letter 1 Lachance Cynthia Renton WA 1660 Form Letter 1 Lafaver Barbara La Mesa CA 3447 Form Letter 1 Lafleur Donnette Sunset LA 440 Form Letter 1 Lafleur Donnette Sunset LA 2831 Form Letter 1 Lafontaine Lilliana Saint Paul MN 530 Form Letter 1 Lafontaine Paul Moab UT 3105 Form Letter 1 Lahovitch Mary Port Jefferson NY 933 Form Letter 1 Lahue Lynda Tarzana CA 1436 Form Letter 1 Laidler Anna East Stroudsburg PA 208 Form Letter 1 Laidler Anna East Stroudsburg PA 2787 Form Letter 1 Laiti Jared Sacramento CA 2202 Form Letter 1 Center for Biological Diversity & Wishtoyo Lakewood Clare Chumash Foundation Oakland CA 1 Unique Comment Lalond Sharon Tucson AZ 2444 Form Letter 1 Lamorte Bill Worth IL 2779 Form Letter 1 Lampson John Goodyear AZ 1402 Form Letter 1 Landi Dennis Los Angeles CA 359 Form Letter 1 Lang Katarina Phoenix AZ 548 Form Letter 1 Lang Pat Los Altos CA 719 Form Letter 1 Lang Liana Wilkes Barre PA 1851 Form Letter 1 Lang Dominique 2082 Form Letter 1 Lang Gracie Giddings TX 3215 Form Letter 1 Lang Shelley Ocala FL 3512 Form Letter 1 Lange Marlena Middletown NY 1926 Form Letter 1 Langelier Karen Wilmington NC 3491 Form Letter 1 Langley Wayne Grand Prairie TX 3109 Form Letter 1 Lapointe Drena Scottsdale AZ 376 Form Letter 1 Lapointe Kenneth 3343 Form Letter 1 Laporte Michele Schaumburg IL 657 Form Letter 1 Laporte Candace Las Vegas NV 2834 Form Letter 1 Larose Kalia Arcata CA 2336 Form Letter 1 Larrabee Ethel Solvang CA 21 Unique Non Substantive Larsen Nadine Dana Point CA 137 Form Letter 1 Larson Lenora Paola KS 1312 Form Letter 1 Larue T Chicago IL 1150 Form Letter 1 Larue Erik Burlington WA 3449 Form Letter 1 Latham Jenny Brooklyn NY 2355 Form Letter 1 Latranche Gilbert Chicago IL 3581 Form Letter 1 Latta George Draper UT 3427 Form Letter 1 Laudeman Randy Cape May NJ 707 Form Letter 1 Laudeman Christina Cape May NJ 794 Form Letter 1 Lauder David Oak Brook IL 1875 Form Letter 1 Lauer Shana Santa Barbara CA 2362 Form Letter 1 Laufer Jillana Laufer Studio City CA 648 Form Letter 1 Laughon Char Montara CA 2544 Form Letter 1 Lauterbach Peter 2366 Form Letter 1 Lauzon Charlene Lynnwood WA 605 Form Letter 1 Lavaute Judy Ludington MI 1894 Form Letter 1 Law Meya District Heights MD 3396 Form Letter 1 Lawrence Amanda Ypsilanti MI 1955 Form Letter 1 Lawrence Michael Verona PA 2960 Form Letter 1 Layne Allister Conyers GA 2548 Form Letter 1 Lazenby Morgan Cambridge MA 2414 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Le Beau Josette Neptune NJ 2990 Form Letter 1 Lear Kirsten Santa Fe NM 326 Form Letter 1 Leather Rose Phoenix AZ 909 Form Letter 1 Lebas Anne San Rafael CA 3368 Form Letter 1 Leblanc Edward Santa Fe NM 2214 Form Letter 1 Lechner Beda Lake Worth FL 2690 Form Letter 1 Lee Laura New York NY 475 Form Letter 1 Lee Winston Bloomington IL 1927 Form Letter 1 Lee Amy 2321 Form Letter 1 Lee Cynthia Youngstown OH 2394 Form Letter 1 Lee Sherrie Covelo CA 3482 Form Letter 1 Leeder Cynthia San Jose CA 637 Form Letter 1 Leedham Suzy 2617 Form Letter 1 Lee-Faith Nicole Pasadena TX 1470 Form Letter 1 Lees-Taylor Alison West Hollywood CA 3338 Form Letter 1 Legaspi Tanirose San Diego CA 221 Form Letter 1 Legrow Justin 680 Form Letter 1 Lehmann Tanja 2109 Form Letter 1 Leigh Melissa 390 Form Letter 1 Leithwood Jesse 350 Form Letter 1 Lemke Hannah Sarasota FL 2763 Form Letter 1 Lemonik B. R. Mahopac NY 1766 Form Letter 1 Leonarduzzi Lauren Gilroy CA 991 Form Letter 1 Leone Rita Palm Coast FL 3473 Form Letter 1 Lesage Monique Novato CA 261 Form Letter 1 Leskanich Petra Fort Collins CO 1146 Form Letter 1 Leslie J. Allen Christiana PA 1299 Form Letter 1 Lester Lisa Johnstown PA 3424 Form Letter 1 Leung Wendy San Francisco CA 1672 Form Letter 1 Leusink Maxim 860 Form Letter 1 Levalley Lon Arlington WA 642 Form Letter 1 Levesque Amanda Asheville NC 2229 Form Letter 1 Levin Beth Portland OR 807 Form Letter 1 Leviton Peggy Jacksonville OR 1216 Form Letter 1 Levitt Lacey San Diego CA 1899 Form Letter 1 Levkus Ieva Bethel Park PA 758 Form Letter 1 Lewis Susan Ann Arbor MI 864 Form Letter 1 Lewis Lisa Santa Cruz CA 1238 Form Letter 1 Lewis Nora Nipomo CA 2602 Form Letter 1 Lewis Polly Frazier Park CA 3157 Form Letter 1 Leyser Barbara Silver Spring MD 850 Form Letter 1 Lheureux Jole Macomb MI 3412 Form Letter 1 Lianzi Terry Fort Myers FL 2683 Form Letter 1 Lichstein Debra Agoura Hills CA 153 Form Letter 1 Lichtman Lauren Bronx NY 894 Form Letter 1 Lieurance Francelia Salida CO 2876 Form Letter 1 Liggio Eleanor Pompton Plains NJ 1782 Form Letter 1 Lim Robin New York NY 1047 Form Letter 1 Lima Larry Campbell CA 1739 Form Letter 1 Lima Chris Orofino ID 3010 Form Letter 1 Limbach John Madison WI 1161 Form Letter 1 Linden Susan Palm Bay FL 1489 Form Letter 1 Linder Patty San Jose CA 1512 Form Letter 1 Lindgren Jean San Francisco CA 3279 Form Letter 1 Lindsey Rachel Chicago IL 427 Form Letter 1 Lindsey Barbara Pensacola FL 924 Form Letter 1 Lindsey Tom And Candy San Mateo CA 1880 Form Letter 1 Linehan Victoria Glenwood NM 165 Form Letter 1 Link Patricia Sun City Center FL 3037 Form Letter 1 Link-New Virgene Anacortes WA 199 Form Letter 1 Lipe Emily Paris TX 1759 Form Letter 1 Lipsky Carol New York NY 2610 Form Letter 1 Lipton Melanie Sarasota FL 1121 Form Letter 1 Liptow Jennifer Farmington MI 1417 Form Letter 1 Lira Jade Salisbury NC 3508 Form Letter 1 Lischer Jane Valley Park MO 880 Form Letter 1 Lisiewski Kitrina Monroe Township NJ 1752 Form Letter 1 Littell Elizabeth Oakland CA 2789 Form Letter 1 Liu Sharon Moorpark CA 1922 Form Letter 1 Livesey-Fassel Elaine Los Angeles CA 2701 Form Letter 1 Livingston John Redding CA 2521 Form Letter 1 Lobel Colleen San Diego CA 3307 Form Letter 1 Loch Christopher Minneapolis MN 363 Form Letter 1 Lofstrom Margareta 3414 Form Letter 1 Logan Donna Erie PA 1598 Form Letter 1 Lombardi Jessica 2708 Form Letter 1 Lombardi Michael Levittown PA 3292 Form Letter 1 Long Laura Chicago IL 1028 Form Letter 1 Longyear Sharon Yorktown Heights NY 198 Form Letter 1 Loo Chris Gilroy CA 1647 Form Letter 1 Loper Kathy San Diego CA 157 Form Letter 1 Lopez Susan D. Alexandria VA 701 Form Letter 1 Lopez Covi Naples FL 3175 Form Letter 1 Lorain Mary Oakland CA 2854 Form Letter 1 Lorentzen Robin Caldwell ID 354 Form Letter 1 Lorenzetti Elisa Francesca 2096 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Lorimer Joel Albuquerque NM 1118 Form Letter 1 Lotz Elizabeth Santa Rosa CA 2084 Form Letter 1 Love Michelle Burnsville MN 134 Form Letter 1 Loveland Jim Saint Petersburg FL 3208 Form Letter 1 Lowe Kay Denver CO 1042 Form Letter 1 Lowe Amanda Boise ID 1813 Form Letter 1 Lowe Margot Oceanside CA 2332 Form Letter 1 Lowry Lorraine Vacaville CA 951 Form Letter 1 Lowry Kristen Vacaville CA 3658 Form Letter 1 Lozano Donna Harlingen TX 1168 Form Letter 1 Ludolphi Nicolette 1641 Form Letter 1 Lukachy Tami Henderson NV 2743 Form Letter 1 Lukowitz Wendy Allenhurst NJ 3255 Form Letter 1 Luna Peggy Pleasant Hill CA 448 Form Letter 1 Luna Andrea Fallbrook CA 1476 Form Letter 1 Luna Andrea Fallbrook CA 3471 Form Letter 1 Lund Urszula 377 Form Letter 1 Lund Amy Hamburg NY 662 Form Letter 1 Lundquist Sue Ashland OR 3483 Form Letter 1 Luu Jane Lexington MA 2880 Form Letter 1 Lyall Andrew Corpus Christi TX 1950 Form Letter 1 Lyda Mary Cave Junction OR 1425 Form Letter 1 Lyddon Brandon Los Angeles CA 2731 Form Letter 1 Lynch-Oasen Ann Madison WI 1756 Form Letter 1 Lynette Renee Campbell CA 3454 Form Letter 1 Lynn Helen Palm Springs CA 1919 Form Letter 1 Lynn Donna Maywood NJ 1997 Form Letter 1 Lytle Christine Hazlet NJ 676 Form Letter 1 M Sarah San Francisco CA 118 Form Letter 1 M C Brookings SD 175 Form Letter 1 M Bree Lakeville MN 617 Form Letter 1 M Ellen West Chester PA 1106 Form Letter 1 M Jill 1959 Form Letter 1 M Anne Valdosta GA 2549 Form Letter 1 M L Cypress TX 2939 Form Letter 1 M. E. Medina NY 1165 Form Letter 1 M. Henry Trenton NJ 3007 Form Letter 1 Maas Rowena 1452 Form Letter 1 Mac Martin Gordon Buffalo NY 3245 Form Letter 1 Macalpine Barbara Estes Park CO 371 Form Letter 1 Macan Catherine Eureka CA 1974 Form Letter 1 Macconaugha- Snyder Morgan Anchorage AK 1734 Form Letter 1 Macdonald Janette Denver CO 1715 Form Letter 1 Mace Pat Hamilton VA 3324 Form Letter 1 Mack Joanne Essington PA 1328 Form Letter 1 Mackenzie Michelle Menlo Park CA 3235 Form Letter 1 Mackinnon Bonnie Lynn Georgetown TX 1077 Form Letter 1 Macphail Kristyn Littleton CO 3501 Form Letter 1 Macy Michelle Houston TX 1435 Form Letter 1 Macy Cecilia Long Beach CA 2230 Form Letter 1 Madden Sandra Long Beach CA 2935 Form Letter 1 Madigan Sally Meadow Vista CA 591 Form Letter 1 Madsen Jill Colorado Springs CO 3165 Form Letter 1 Maestro Betsy Cornville AZ 2102 Form Letter 1 Magee John Guyton GA 944 Form Letter 1 Maghella Filippo 1525 Form Letter 1 Maher Kathleen Asbury Park NJ 3138 Form Letter 1 Mahony Debra Fairfield CT 2027 Form Letter 1 Maia Ms. Maia Goleta CA 67 Unique Non Substantive Maillet David Van Nuys CA 330 Form Letter 1 Maizel Yefim San Francisco CA 664 Form Letter 1 Malloy Erin Waltham MA 1579 Form Letter 1 Malmuth Sonja Santa Ynez CA 1276 Form Letter 1 Malone Jim 2233 Form Letter 1 Malone Sr. Mr. Daniel Nipomo CA 41 Unique Comment Mamdani Tahera Minneapolis MN 2530 Form Letter 1 Mandel Bonnie North Myrtle Beach SC 1068 Form Letter 1 Mandell Sheila Fort Lauderdale FL 1022 Form Letter 1 Manning-Brown Helen Atascadero CA 23 Unique Non Substantive Manning-Brown Helen Atascadero CA 2123 Form Letter 1 Manske Amber San Antonio TX 1372 Form Letter 1 Margolin Robert West Hills CA 2051 Form Letter 1 Maria Machado Orlando FL 445 Form Letter 1 Marie Christine Concord CA 749 Form Letter 1 Marini Valerie Bronxville NY 3381 Form Letter 1 Marinilli Jennifer Wayland NY 244 Form Letter 1 Marinoff Martin Rockville MD 1571 Form Letter 1 Marion Carolyn Neptune NJ 3198 Form Letter 1 Markham Michael Matthews NC 1792 Form Letter 1 Marks Diane Port Angeles WA 2319 Form Letter 1 Markushewski Edward Huntsville AL 1377 Form Letter 1 Markus-Walczak Kathleen Akron OH 671 Form Letter 1 Marne Marielle Phoenix AZ 3257 Form Letter 1 Marone Susan Rockwall TX 1965 Form Letter 1 Marquette Christine Monticello NY 1828 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Marrocco Gina Jersey City NJ 2649 Form Letter 1 Marsala Joseph Fairfield CA 1915 Form Letter 1 Marsden Claire 2664 Form Letter 1 Marsh Susan Lake Oswego OR 2057 Form Letter 1 Marsh Sherry Oceanside CA 3603 Form Letter 1 Marshall Edward Riverton CT 2698 Form Letter 1 Martenson Julie Austin TX 2606 Form Letter 1 Martin Ken Newtown CT 1010 Form Letter 1 Martin Ashley Fort Lauderdale FL 1903 Form Letter 1 Martin Juan 2532 Form Letter 1 Martin Liza Bellevue WA 3422 Form Letter 1 Martinez Lorraine Indian Mound TN 2629 Form Letter 1 Martinez Priscilla Bothell WA 2658 Form Letter 1 Martini Daniel And Denise Las Vegas NV 3664 Form Letter 1 Martin-Risk Jan Alamo CA 1143 Form Letter 1 Martins Isabel 2957 Form Letter 1 Mason Kathy Sebewaing MI 1514 Form Letter 1 Masotti Katherine Clinton WA 3045 Form Letter 1 Massaro Sherry Canfield OH 3350 Form Letter 1 Masser Joel San Jose CA 687 Form Letter 1 Mastri Francis West Haven CT 494 Form Letter 1 Mastro Cynthia Elizabeth City NC 278 Form Letter 1 Mathenia Regina Eldridge IA 2403 Form Letter 1 Mathes Barbara Rio Rico AZ 2406 Form Letter 1 Mathieson Elizabeth Alameda CA 3485 Form Letter 1 Matlack J Statesville NC 921 Form Letter 1 Matso Margalit Chicago IL 289 Form Letter 1 Mattel Claude 3625 Form Letter 1 Mattingly Georgia Longmont CO 2138 Form Letter 1 Mattison Priscilla Bryn Mawr PA 3110 Form Letter 1 Matulina Karen Saint Augustine FL 2175 Form Letter 1 Mauer Bill Topeka KS 206 Form Letter 1 Mauer Irene Topeka KS 578 Form Letter 1 Maurer Tim Anaheim CA 1721 Form Letter 1 Mawby-Baker Jo 650 Form Letter 1 Mawhorter Jerry Royal Oak MI 2328 Form Letter 1 Maxfield Casee Los Angeles CA 413 Form Letter 1 May Linda Allston MA 254 Form Letter 1 Mayer Elaine Rochester MN 2107 Form Letter 1 Mazariegos David Folsom CA 1888 Form Letter 1 Mazias Melissa Downers Grove IL 2858 Form Letter 1 Mazzola Lisa Tampa FL 193 Form Letter 1 Mcafee Nico Belvedere Tiburon CA 2674 Form Letter 1 Mcaleer Kevin Manhasset NY 791 Form Letter 1 Mcbride Anne Auburn CA 2520 Form Letter 1 Mccalister Janet Winston Salem NC 2710 Form Letter 1 Mccallister Lisa Santa Cruz CA 2566 Form Letter 1 Mccann Ellen Escondido CA 408 Form Letter 1 Mccann Ann Marie Bensalem PA 1609 Form Letter 1 Mccarter Melissa Ravenna OH 1443 Form Letter 1 Mccarthy Debbie Phillips ME 460 Form Letter 1 Mccarthy Susan Winchester VA 569 Form Letter 1 Mccarthy Sandra Commerce City CO 1496 Form Letter 1 Mccleery Joyce Bay Village OH 2461 Form Letter 1 Mcclelland Elizabeth Vinton LA 3389 Form Letter 1 Mcclintock Ms. Gloria Mount Vernon WA 63 Unique Comment Mccollim Jeffrey Painesville OH 3653 Form Letter 1 Mccombs Douglas Cazadero CA 658 Form Letter 1 Mccormick Devin Santa Rosa CA 2387 Form Letter 1 Mccormick Devin Santa Rosa CA 3546 Form Letter 1 Mccorry Eileen Pittsboro NC 1705 Form Letter 1 Mccready June Melrose MA 3031 Form Letter 1 Mccreary Jan Silver City NM 1837 Form Letter 1 Mccurry Gordon Boulder CO 3384 Form Letter 1 Mcdermit Evan Fullerton CA 3267 Form Letter 1 Mcdermott Mark East Rochester NY 1811 Form Letter 1 Mcdermott Ann Litchfield Park AZ 3285 Form Letter 1 Mcdill George San Antonio TX 2859 Form Letter 1 Mcdonald Holly Trenton NJ 1194 Form Letter 1 Mcdonald Alison Hood River OR 1596 Form Letter 1 Mcdonald Pamela Riverside CA 1710 Form Letter 1 Mcdonald Brenda Saint Louis MO 3345 Form Letter 1 Mcdonald Rvt Erin Akron OH 2981 Form Letter 1 Mcdonough Joseph Hemet CA 628 Form Letter 1 Mceachern Catharine Saint Paul MN 3230 Form Letter 1

Mceachrontaylor Lindalee Tucson AZ 166 Form Letter 1 Mcfarlane Elaine Corvallis OR 378 Form Letter 1 Mcgill Bonnie Conneaut Lake PA 1221 Form Letter 1 Mcglone Colleen New Port Richey FL 3318 Form Letter 1 Mcgowan Wendy Eugene OR 1210 Form Letter 1 Mcgraw Donald Ephraim UT 3403 Form Letter 1 Mcgregor Sharon 1266 Form Letter 1 Mchendry Kathleen Belchertown MA 370 Form Letter 1 Mcintyre Gail 2958 Form Letter 1 Mcjunkin Diane Monroe OH 2875 Form Letter 1

Melia-Chiappetta Eileen 2227 Form Letter 1 Melius Dan Grass Valley CA 3078 Form Letter 1 Mellor Mariana Thousand Oaks CA 682 Form Letter 1 Melton Alyssa Arlington TX 125 Form Letter 1 Melwani Simran 3020 Form Letter 1 Mencik Jitka Camp Verde AZ 2643 Form Letter 1 Merica Kay Hope ID 2297 Form Letter 1 Merle Lynn Vineland NJ 2638 Form Letter 1 Merritt Lois R Atascadero CA 26 Unique Non Substantive Merz Alexis Orange CA 2089 Form Letter 1 Messina Jen Ely NV 2349 Form Letter 1 Metsinger Pat Metsinger Louisburg KS 2778 Form Letter 1 Metzger Luke Wichita KS 223 Form Letter 1 Meyer Edgar Cashmere WA 225 Form Letter 1 Meyer Twyla Pomona CA 498 Form Letter 1 Meyer Eric Prior Lake MN 514 Form Letter 1 Meyer Harold Washington Depot CT 865 Form Letter 1 Meyer Colonel North Port FL 1886 Form Letter 1 Meyer Moranda Las Cruces NM 2630 Form Letter 1 Meyer Robert Durham NC 3095 Form Letter 1 Meyer Twyla Pomona CA 3256 Form Letter 1 Michaelis Marylynn Columbia Station OH 492 Form Letter 1 Michaels Cb Mantua NJ 3187 Form Letter 1 Michel Laurise La Mesa CA 1331 Form Letter 1 Michl Marie Rocky Mount NC 1008 Form Letter 1 Mick Rick Tucson AZ 2757 Form Letter 1 Midgett Jennifer Norfolk VA 1561 Form Letter 1 Mientus Marian Liza Mount Pleasant PA 2526 Form Letter 1 Mier Pedro Jackson Heights NY 1268 Form Letter 1 Mikkelsen David Princeton NJ 1356 Form Letter 1 Miklavcic Stephanie Ottawa IL 614 Form Letter 1 Miles Lynne 2252 Form Letter 1 Milione Regina Plymouth Meeting PA 2907 Form Letter 1 Miller Kelly Oceanside CA 97 Form Letter 1 Miller Susan White Haven PA 369 Form Letter 1 Miller Rebecca Hamilton MT 471 Form Letter 1 Miller John Costa Mesa CA 729 Form Letter 1 Miller Doretta Clearwater FL 767 Form Letter 1 Miller Dorothy Chestnut Hill MA 929 Form Letter 1 Miller Deborah Austin TX 1789 Form Letter 1 Miller Jennifer Elkton MD 1833 Form Letter 1 Miller Kerby Columbia MO 1941 Form Letter 1 Miller Sheila Longmeadow MA 2059 Form Letter 1 Miller Pamela Tolar TX 2066 Form Letter 1 Miller Carol Hamilton VA 2195 Form Letter 1 Miller Jeffrey Los Osos CA 2242 Form Letter 1 Miller Victoria Encino CA 2676 Form Letter 1 Miller Dianne San Diego CA 3041 Form Letter 1 Miller Brian Palmdale CA 3312 Form Letter 1 Millet Karen Huntington Beach CA 188 Form Letter 1 Mills Rhondda Lees Summit MO 3076 Form Letter 1 Milne Kay San Antonio TX 1063 Form Letter 1 Milstein Karen Santa Fe NM 102 Form Letter 1 Minckler Emily Tunkhannock PA 1604 Form Letter 1 Minick Audrey Minick Milan MI 323 Form Letter 1 Minor-Swensen Lori Hillsboro OR 436 Form Letter 1 Miskolczy Bonnie Carlisle MA 228 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Misso Kim Buffalo NY 2781 Form Letter 1 Mitchel John Tucson AZ 1201 Form Letter 1 Mitchell Ruby Cupertino CA 429 Form Letter 1 Mitchell Stephen Newark NY 2611 Form Letter 1 Mitchell Crystal Bertram TX 3009 Form Letter 1 Mizak Cheryl Southbury CT 2745 Form Letter 1 Mjos Brita Anchorage AK 634 Form Letter 1 Moderacki Deidre New York NY 3614 Form Letter 1 Moehler Sabine 3542 Form Letter 1 Moissant Helen Central Point OR 728 Form Letter 1 Molinero Cynthia Rocky River OH 3560 Form Letter 1 Molloy Mark Brooklyn NY 1231 Form Letter 1 Monahan Louise Cloverdale CA 2232 Form Letter 1 Monfette Aggie Royal Oak MI 930 Form Letter 1 Monroe James R Concord CA 916 Form Letter 1 Monroe Dana San Diego CA 2517 Form Letter 1 Monson Todd Albuquerque NM 2694 Form Letter 1 Montague-Judd Danielle 361 Form Letter 1 Monteith Dawn El Sobrante CA 2968 Form Letter 1 Montero Debby West Sacramento CA 1471 Form Letter 1 Montes Mike Crystal Lake IL 2570 Form Letter 1 Monti Chris North Ridgeville OH 1459 Form Letter 1 Mooney Phyllis Brighton IL 3476 Form Letter 1 Moore Russell San Diego CA 2002 Form Letter 1 Moore Leah Brooklyn NY 3305 Form Letter 1 Mora Black Tayira 1603 Form Letter 1 Moraiti Vicky Albany NY 2495 Form Letter 1 Moran Judy Panama City FL 1218 Form Letter 1 Moreno Dianne Carmel IN 2857 Form Letter 1 Morero Linda Buckeye AZ 3333 Form Letter 1 Morgan Erika Bakersfield CA 80 Unique Non Substantive Morgan Paula Hollywood FL 132 Form Letter 1 Morgan Betty Mercer Island WA 1342 Form Letter 1 Morgan Dan Rosamond CA 1576 Form Letter 1 Morgan Linda San Pablo CA 2382 Form Letter 1 Morgan Ellen La Grange IL 2386 Form Letter 1 Mori Gina Arroyo Grande CA 3028 Form Letter 1 Morningstar Samuel Milwaukee WI 3488 Form Letter 1 Morr Lynell Waterford MI 812 Form Letter 1 Morris Mrs. T D Nipomo CA 57 Unique Non Substantive Morris Steven Sevierville TN 851 Form Letter 1 Morris Patty Lawrenceville GA 1434 Form Letter 1 Morris Sharon Hayward CA 2325 Form Letter 1 Morriseau Will Hastings MN 837 Form Letter 1 Morrison David Albuquerque NM 2978 Form Letter 1 Morrison Barb Clearwater FL 3618 Form Letter 1 Morrow Maryanne North Little Rock AR 3181 Form Letter 1 Moschopoulos Charity Harrisonburg VA 2986 Form Letter 1 Mosinger Robbie Saint Louis MO 160 Form Letter 1 Moulesong Jon Demotte IN 3386 Form Letter 1 Mowrer Craig Saint Petersburg FL 1309 Form Letter 1 Moy Kristine Grosse Pointe MI 3298 Form Letter 1 Moyer Bob Harleysville PA 2954 Form Letter 1 Moyle Eric Shelby NC 2031 Form Letter 1 Mucci Gregory Stratford CT 798 Form Letter 1 Mueller Karsten Santa Cruz CA 2316 Form Letter 1 Mueller Marilyn Alpharetta GA 3373 Form Letter 1 Mueller Christine Rochelle Park NJ 3655 Form Letter 1 Mujica Bernardo Sioux City IA 982 Form Letter 1 Mulkey Mrs. Sharon Oceano CA 79 Unique Non Substantive Mullins Glenn Buena Park CA 247 Form Letter 1 Mullins Sarah New York NY 709 Form Letter 1 Munn Erica Munn Los Angeles CA 2456 Form Letter 1 Munoz Michelle Marietta GA 1237 Form Letter 1 Munroe Gretel Medford MA 686 Form Letter 1 Murdock Lauren Santa Barbara CA 1119 Form Letter 1 Murphy S 852 Form Letter 1 Murphy Janelle Galveston TX 1474 Form Letter 1 Murphy Lynn Davenport IA 1617 Form Letter 1 Murphy Linda Hyattsville MD 1836 Form Letter 1 Murphy Annie Santa Cruz CA 1879 Form Letter 1 Murphy Marge Nixa MO 3622 Form Letter 1 Murray Danielle Conservation Lands Foundation Durango CO 7 Unique Comment Murray Craig 691 Form Letter 1 Murray Marilee Prescott AZ 2503 Form Letter 1 Murray Cristy Oregon City OR 2632 Form Letter 1 Murray Joyce 2641 Form Letter 1 Muscio Marcelo 434 Form Letter 1 Myers Monica Evansville IN 825 Form Letter 1 Myers Allen Little Rock AR 2470 Form Letter 1 Myers Ann Berkeley CA 2539 Form Letter 1 Myers Janice L Etters PA 3433 Form Letter 1 Myhre Paul Leavenworth WA 3480 Form Letter 1 Myones Zachary Roberts Phoenix AZ 562 Form Letter 1 Myones Zach Sugar Land TX 2469 Form Letter 1 Myronuk Barbara 3600 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type N. Elisabeth Chicago IL 2203 Form Letter 1 Nadel Barbara S. Forest VA 1254 Form Letter 1 Nagy Cristina 718 Form Letter 1 Nagyfy Desiree 3249 Form Letter 1 Nam S. New York NY 815 Form Letter 1 Naples Jean Suffern NY 974 Form Letter 1 Napps Shirley Charlottesville VA 3388 Form Letter 1 Narbutovskih Anna Guerneville CA 2696 Form Letter 1 Narkoff Cynthia Souderton PA 2987 Form Letter 1 Nath Utkarsh Fremont CA 1843 Form Letter 1 Naumann Brittany Raymore MO 2555 Form Letter 1 Navarro Eleanor Tucson AZ 3428 Form Letter 1 Naylor John Makawao HI 1560 Form Letter 1 Neely Nancy Rancho Cucamonga CA 2574 Form Letter 1 Neff Grace Albany OR 2124 Form Letter 1 Neihart Janet Cottage Grove MN 3191 Form Letter 1 Nelson Sally Goldfield IA 849 Form Letter 1 Nelson David Tucson AZ 1124 Form Letter 1 Nelson Brett 1191 Form Letter 1 Nelson Judith Seeley Lake MT 2258 Form Letter 1 Nesbitt Lynda Stanfield AZ 2346 Form Letter 1 Ness Sonia Elk Grove Village IL 497 Form Letter 1 Neste Lisa High Point NC 3518 Form Letter 1 Nestor Mike Toledo OH 1850 Form Letter 1 Neubauer Karen Huntsville AL 3156 Form Letter 1 Neuhalfen Claudia 1099 Form Letter 1 Neumann Nancy Clearwater FL 2003 Form Letter 1 Neushul Julie Carlsbad CA 2050 Form Letter 1 Newman Roberta E. Mill Valley CA 180 Form Letter 1 Newman Ricki Aspen CO 1158 Form Letter 1 Ney Christine Anaheim CA 347 Form Letter 1 Ngo Thinh Arlington TX 89 Form Letter 1 Nichols Debra Palmdale CA 226 Form Letter 1 Nichols Joe Snohomish WA 2353 Form Letter 1 Nicholson Carol Alachua FL 2217 Form Letter 1 Nickolds Jonah Sausalito CA 3597 Form Letter 1 Nicola Nikki Davis CA 1628 Form Letter 1 Niego Sara Jamaica NY 279 Form Letter 1 Nielsen Kirsten 1816 Form Letter 1 Niemeir Nancy Tucson AZ 609 Form Letter 1 Nierstedt Bill Garwood NJ 557 Form Letter 1 Nitzberg Berna Aptos CA 2112 Form Letter 1 Nolting Sharon New York NY 2589 Form Letter 1 Noordyk James San Diego CA 2543 Form Letter 1 Nord Randall Linden VA 879 Form Letter 1 Nordeman Valerie Laytonville CA 2832 Form Letter 1 Nordin Lillian Holmen WI 2542 Form Letter 1 Norris Chrysta Jerseyville IL 1171 Form Letter 1 Norton Dr. Paul Santa Barbara CA 37 Unique Non Substantive Nowak Diane Cottonwood AZ 632 Form Letter 1 Nuesch Ray Washington DC 1626 Form Letter 1 Nunez Adriana Jersey City NJ 2169 Form Letter 1 Nye Dawn Mishawaka IN 1993 Form Letter 1 Nylen Lollo Silver Spring MD 2146 Form Letter 1 Nyne Kate Oakland CA 3376 Form Letter 1 O X New York NY 2448 Form Letter 1 Oberdorf Robert Fort Lauderdale FL 2849 Form Letter 1 Obr Brooks Coralville IA 976 Form Letter 1 Obre Kathleen Venice FL 952 Form Letter 1 Obrien Kathy Redway CA 2481 Form Letter 1 O'Brien Daniel Milton NY 725 Form Letter 1 Oconnell Marck Tampa FL 827 Form Letter 1 Oda John San Francisco CA 178 Form Letter 1 O'Donnell Richard Michael La Quinta CA 1650 Form Letter 1 Oetjen Marguerite Portland OR 1469 Form Letter 1 Ogden Sara Hohenwald TN 3466 Form Letter 1 Ogella Edith Santa Barbara CA 1378 Form Letter 1 Ogg Audrey San Rafael CA 2323 Form Letter 1 Ogonowski Mark Ventura CA 2500 Form Letter 1 Ogrady Mr. Daniel Templeton CA 42 Unique Non Substantive Ohlendorf Carol Bradenton FL 977 Form Letter 1 Okolowicz Sofia Temecula CA 726 Form Letter 1 Oldham Kevin Shirley NY 1704 Form Letter 1 Olds Kimcarolyn Fort Washington MD 2614 Form Letter 1 Oliver Suzanne 1400 Form Letter 1 Oliveria Sheelagh Portland OR 3214 Form Letter 1 Olk Todd Littleton CO 2723 Form Letter 1 Olsen Pamela Joan Southampton NY 2141 Form Letter 1 Olsen Coralie I Seattle WA 2623 Form Letter 1 Olson Linda Duluth MN 765 Form Letter 1 Olson Larry Montpelier VA 1737 Form Letter 1 Olson Amanda San Diego CA 3047 Form Letter 1 Olson Allen Minneapolis MN 3323 Form Letter 1 Olson Francis North Platte NE 3504 Form Letter 1 Omans Jeff Palm Beach Gardens FL 1053 Form Letter 1 Omdahl Bob Los Osos CA 14 Unique Non Substantive

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Oneill Vicki Apache Junction AZ 1057 Form Letter 1 Ong Ming Duluth GA 1890 Form Letter 1 Oppedisano Cathy 1273 Form Letter 1 Orange Judy 1227 Form Letter 1 Orantes Destiny Garden City NY 1970 Form Letter 1 Orchard Karen 3556 Form Letter 1 Orlando Roberta San Francisco CA 579 Form Letter 1 Orourke K Saint Louis MO 1232 Form Letter 1 O'Rourke Melissa Chandler AZ 1831 Form Letter 1 Orr Lou Seattle WA 899 Form Letter 1 Orr Mary Espanola NM 2192 Form Letter 1 Orr Julian Pescadero CA 2277 Form Letter 1 Orr Gregg Seattle WA 3068 Form Letter 1 Orshan Carol Boise ID 398 Form Letter 1 Orszulak Samantha Brooklyn NY 2673 Form Letter 1 Ortiz Gina Claremont CA 2266 Form Letter 1 Ortiz Robert Novato CA 2511 Form Letter 1 Osborn Jerrold Albuquerque NM 246 Form Letter 1 Osborne Hannah Freeport ME 641 Form Letter 1 Osborne Ellen Pleasant Garden NC 2279 Form Letter 1 Osborne Jessie Oceanside CA 3417 Form Letter 1 Ososki Jill Lilburn GA 629 Form Letter 1 O'Sullivan Rita 2856 Form Letter 1 Oswald Fred Prescott AZ 2326 Form Letter 1 Otto Sunderman Deborah Belton SC 3015 Form Letter 1 Ouellette Marcia Lafayette IN 734 Form Letter 1 Ouellette Tracy Bow WA 1688 Form Letter 1 Ouellette Ashley Biddeford ME 3547 Form Letter 1 Overton Steve 1935 Form Letter 1 Ozkan Dogan Corvallis OR 331 Form Letter 1 Ozkan Dogan Corvallis OR 2988 Form Letter 1 Ozkok Gumus Crownsville MD 183 Form Letter 1 P J Arcata CA 1492 Form Letter 1 P E Talmage CA 2048 Form Letter 1 P Donna Manchester NH 3140 Form Letter 1 Packard Peter Tucson AZ 1844 Form Letter 1 Padmanabhan Urmila Fremont CA 3058 Form Letter 1 Pagano Maria Salem MA 3461 Form Letter 1 Page Christopher Cheraw SC 150 Form Letter 1 Pahmeier Trisha Vista CA 2791 Form Letter 1 Paige Gina Glen Allen VA 1873 Form Letter 1 Paiva Dorothea Prairie Village KS 2913 Form Letter 1 Paizante Lucimar Brighton MA 2041 Form Letter 1 Palacio Frances Saint Augustine FL 759 Form Letter 1 Palla Paul Greencastle PA 2716 Form Letter 1 Pallanes Beatriz Santa Ana CA 2820 Form Letter 1 Pan Michael Alexandria VA 897 Form Letter 1 Panayi Christopher New York NY 2249 Form Letter 1 Pappas George Chicago IL 90 Form Letter 1 Pappas Carole Grand Blanc MI 2774 Form Letter 1 Pardi Marco Lawrenceville GA 2595 Form Letter 1 Parker Ellen La Crosse WI 2220 Form Letter 1 Parshall Sharon Fall City WA 1324 Form Letter 1 Parsley Bobbi Jo Atwood IL 3642 Form Letter 1 Pasichnyk Richard Eugene OR 155 Form Letter 1 Pasquinelli Dorothy San Mateo CA 1391 Form Letter 1 Pastorino Gino Dallas TX 1934 Form Letter 1 Patch Rashid Oakland CA 3241 Form Letter 1 Pate Jessica Akron OH 298 Form Letter 1 Pate Nathan Paoli IN 1938 Form Letter 1 Patel Sagar Westborough MA 1408 Form Letter 1 Paterson Chris Taftsville VT 2874 Form Letter 1 Patten Robin Oklahoma City OK 1286 Form Letter 1 Patterson Thomas Palo Alto CA 986 Form Letter 1 Patterson Kevin Walnut Creek CA 1971 Form Letter 1 Patyk S. Aptos CA 2005 Form Letter 1 Pauplis Wayne Rockville MD 1220 Form Letter 1 Pavcovich Michelle Seattle WA 3443 Form Letter 1 Paxson Michele East Meadow NY 1729 Form Letter 1 Payã¡ Jesãºs 231 Form Letter 1 Payne Grace Tamworth NH 454 Form Letter 1 Peak Tina Palo Alto CA 1750 Form Letter 1 Pealo Cynthia Torrance CA 3494 Form Letter 1 Pearson G 2191 Form Letter 1 Pease Diane Littleton NH 2839 Form Letter 1 Pech Jim Madison WI 555 Form Letter 1 Pedler Stephanie Belmont MA 2684 Form Letter 1 Pedone Chris Golden CO 3636 Form Letter 1 Peirce Susan Lyons CO 1411 Form Letter 1 Peiris Ravi Bakersfield CA 3030 Form Letter 1 Peltzer Alan Parkton MD 576 Form Letter 1 Pennell Brent 923 Form Letter 1 Pennington Joanne San Clemente CA 2837 Form Letter 1 Perdios Dan Palm Springs CA 476 Form Letter 1 Perez Holly Chula Vista CA 1825 Form Letter 1 Perez Susana 2327 Form Letter 1

Pisarcik Connolly Laurie Middletown PA 276 Form Letter 1 Pitchford Gary Manvel TX 2110 Form Letter 1 Pitner Emily Washington PA 3598 Form Letter 1 Pivaral Omar Reston VA 1712 Form Letter 1 Pjevic Keti 1931 Form Letter 1 Planchon Nicole Selma OR 1917 Form Letter 1 Plog Malinda Scottsbluff NE 1051 Form Letter 1 Podber Alan Brattleboro VT 1624 Form Letter 1 Podewell Roger Homewood IL 3302 Form Letter 1 Poleno Carol New Castle PA 603 Form Letter 1 Polk Nora Portland OR 1923 Form Letter 1 Polonka Jack Peekskill NY 1904 Form Letter 1 Polson Matthew Los Angeles CA 129 Form Letter 1 Popiel Mary Norwood PA 2871 Form Letter 1 Popoff Kathy San Pedro CA 192 Form Letter 1 Popovic Oksana 959 Form Letter 1 Porteous Kristy San Diego CA 1637 Form Letter 1 Porter Candace Tucson AZ 1406 Form Letter 1 Porter Betsey Minneapolis MN 2551 Form Letter 1 Porter Susan Pasadena CA 2815 Form Letter 1 Posner Jessica Jean Palmdale CA 252 Form Letter 1 Poulson Judi Fairmont MN 3568 Form Letter 1 Powell Dale Riverside CA 2179 Form Letter 1 Powell Debra Fort Worth TX 2770 Form Letter 1

Quiroga Lassepas Carlos Round Rock TX 3351 Form Letter 1 R J 393 Form Letter 1 R Jennifer Whitestone NY 1187 Form Letter 1 R J 2709 Form Letter 1 R. Joe Denver CO 3065 Form Letter 1 Raasch Carolyn Morrisdale PA 2038 Form Letter 1 Rader Jan Kent OH 1523 Form Letter 1 Rae Beverly Hellertown PA 480 Form Letter 1 Raible Annette Petaluma CA 1981 Form Letter 1 Raimondo Terri Pottstown PA 2561 Form Letter 1 Rainho Maria Watertown MA 1741 Form Letter 1 Rakow Tamara Rosemount MN 1315 Form Letter 1 Ralston Jeannette Half Moon Bay CA 2605 Form Letter 1 Ramakrishnan Ananthanarayanan 1390 Form Letter 1 Ramirez Grace Eureka CA 1307 Form Letter 1 Ramoni Elizabeth New Orleans LA 1585 Form Letter 1 Ramos Maggie New Caney TX 1233 Form Letter 1 Ramos Joann Iselin NJ 2984 Form Letter 1 Ramos Miguel Ferndale WA 3201 Form Letter 1 Ramos- Copenhaver Pat Iowa Falls IA 2835 Form Letter 1 Rancatti Jan Readsboro VT 3162 Form Letter 1 Randolph Anne Yellow Springs OH 3344 Form Letter 1 Rane Dawn Chicago IL 3489 Form Letter 1 Ransom Fran Lakewood NJ 2937 Form Letter 1 Raper Connie Durham NC 3534 Form Letter 1 Rappolt Chrissie Lodi NY 1256 Form Letter 1 Rasmussen M Pensacola FL 215 Form Letter 1 Ratzenberger Desiree Washington MI 1586 Form Letter 1 Rauhut Amy Three Oaks MI 2899 Form Letter 1 Rauworth Steve Portland OR 892 Form Letter 1 Raven Jackie New York NY 2376 Form Letter 1 Ray Thomas Novato CA 2081 Form Letter 1 Ray Laura Alexandria VA 2318 Form Letter 1 Rayburn U.S. Veteran Bob Chicago IL 529 Form Letter 1 Raymond Catherine Narberth PA 3218 Form Letter 1 Reece Robert Dallas TX 449 Form Letter 1 Reed Anna Fairfax VA 1069 Form Letter 1 Reed Marney Florence OR 2750 Form Letter 1 Reeder Shelby Twin Peaks CA 3204 Form Letter 1 Reese Michele Tucson AZ 1279 Form Letter 1 Reeson Paulo Pasadena MD 3375 Form Letter 1 Reeves Lenore Mokena IL 453 Form Letter 1 Reeves Diane Torrance CA 1236 Form Letter 1 Reeves Lenore Mokena IL 2713 Form Letter 1 Rego James Fairfield CA 2117 Form Letter 1 Rego Maria Fairfield CA 3507 Form Letter 1 Rehn Debra Portland OR 3190 Form Letter 1 Reid Karen Santa Rosa CA 416 Form Letter 1 Reid Matthew Calistoga CA 1249 Form Letter 1 Reid John Mountain City TN 1546 Form Letter 1 Reinberg Don Greenbrae CA 2164 Form Letter 1 Reinfried Kay Lititz PA 968 Form Letter 1 Reinhart Gabriele 1339 Form Letter 1 Reis Jenni Corinth ME 2594 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Remilien Sandra Miami FL 1616 Form Letter 1 Remis Jeffrey Concord CA 3367 Form Letter 1 Remy Casey Jo Days Creek OR 383 Form Letter 1 Rendall Beth Lake Geneva WI 2255 Form Letter 1 Renfrow Karamy Lorain OH 2646 Form Letter 1 Rengers Edward Woodstock NY 264 Form Letter 1 Rensch Pam Saint Helens OR 3042 Form Letter 1 Renwick Beth Baltimore MD 722 Form Letter 1 Repeta Carolyn Sarasota FL 1344 Form Letter 1 Repp Jan Baldwin Park CA 1522 Form Letter 1 Resch Christine Whitehall PA 1071 Form Letter 1 Reszat Beatrice 3079 Form Letter 1 Retallack Dot Middleburg PA 3469 Form Letter 1 Reti Stephanie 2143 Form Letter 1 Reyes Ashley Pomona CA 2925 Form Letter 1 Reynolds Michele Oak Park MI 116 Form Letter 1 Reynolds Ronda Columbia SC 2695 Form Letter 1 Reynolds James Sunland CA 2901 Form Letter 1 Reynolds Lloyd Fountain Valley CA 3499 Form Letter 1 Rhoades Sandra San Jose CA 2746 Form Letter 1 Rhodes Lawrence Port Charlotte FL 624 Form Letter 1 Rhodes Robert Mercersburg PA 949 Form Letter 1 Rhodes Janet Cathedral City CA 1468 Form Letter 1 Rhood Kris Sharon Hill PA 1289 Form Letter 1 Riccardi Stacey Harrison NY 1668 Form Letter 1 Ricci Lynn Hudson WI 2704 Form Letter 1 Rice Julie Evanston IL 2262 Form Letter 1 Ricers Michelle Mooresville NC 604 Form Letter 1 Rich Cynthia Asheboro NC 435 Form Letter 1 Richard Kam Jacoby Victoria Gill Los Alamos CA 78 Unique Non Substantive Richards Kathy Athol MA 1052 Form Letter 1 Richards Tracy Clackamas OR 1794 Form Letter 1 Richards Irene 2100 Form Letter 1 Richardson Leslie Columbus NC 1736 Form Letter 1 Richardson Leslie Kyle TX 3091 Form Letter 1 Richter Elisabeth Virginia Beach VA 2357 Form Letter 1 Rickard Louise Bristol VT 2344 Form Letter 1 Riddle Carolyn Austin TX 2844 Form Letter 1 Ridella Gerard Castro Valley CA 201 Form Letter 1 Ridgway Kathi Canal Winchester OH 3202 Form Letter 1 Ridolfo Angela 2660 Form Letter 1 Rigby Cheryl Ashland MA 3067 Form Letter 1 Rigrod Carol Encino CA 660 Form Letter 1 Rinas Juanita Eugene OR 3463 Form Letter 1 Rincon D. Fresno CA 1020 Form Letter 1 Rinear Charles Woodbury NJ 466 Form Letter 1 Ringle David Macungie PA 919 Form Letter 1 Rios Elisa Cottonwood AZ 2011 Form Letter 1 Rippetoe Robert Rancho Mirage CA 855 Form Letter 1 Risser Renee Cleveland OH 3252 Form Letter 1 Risso Alisa Ladera Ranch CA 1657 Form Letter 1 Risvold Cindy Naperville IL 100 Form Letter 1 Rivera Javier Brooklyn NY 1703 Form Letter 1 Rivero-Wain Diane 836 Form Letter 1 Rives Douglas Wheeler TX 3122 Form Letter 1 Roa Tania La Mirada CA 3385 Form Letter 1 Roane Christine Springfield MA 3477 Form Letter 1 Robb Aaeron Baltimore MD 338 Form Letter 1 Roberson William Brooklyn NY 257 Form Letter 1 Roberson Julaine Washington GA 409 Form Letter 1 Roberto Rob Santee CA 3475 Form Letter 1 Roberts Jack Lancaster PA 169 Form Letter 1 Roberts Les Fresno CA 420 Form Letter 1 Roberts Martyn 1031 Form Letter 1 Roberts Megan And Douglas 1132 Form Letter 1 Roberts Robert Falls Church VA 1973 Form Letter 1 Roberts Anne Savannah GA 2086 Form Letter 1 Roberts Daniel Saint Louis MO 3086 Form Letter 1 Roberts Amy Albany OR 3154 Form Letter 1 Robertson Myles Tallahassee FL 2259 Form Letter 1 Robertson Scott Sierra Vista AZ 2471 Form Letter 1 Robertson Janice New York NY 2795 Form Letter 1 Robertson Mike Pasadena MD 3335 Form Letter 1 Robinson Mr. Michal R San Luis Obispo CA 49 Unique Non Substantive Robinson Judith Matawan NJ 351 Form Letter 1 Robinson Judith Matawan NJ 468 Form Letter 1 Robinson Marsha Edina MO 1577 Form Letter 1 Robinson Kate San Diego CA 2064 Form Letter 1 Robinson Rhonda Reno NV 2352 Form Letter 1 Robinson D Curlew WA 2942 Form Letter 1 Robinson Janet Boca Raton FL 2970 Form Letter 1 Robison Jill Houston TX 918 Form Letter 1 Robles Debbie The Plains OH 2864 Form Letter 1 Rocha Candace Los Angeles CA 2476 Form Letter 1 Roche Maureen Petrolia CA 553 Form Letter 1

Romero-Kibiloski E.S. Virginia Beach VA 181 Form Letter 1 Rooney Rita Brockton MA 3228 Form Letter 1 Rosa-Re Samantha Hialeah FL 716 Form Letter 1 Rose Elizabeth Zanesville OH 1235 Form Letter 1 Rose Erica Garden City MI 1300 Form Letter 1 Rose Jay Woodbridge VA 1636 Form Letter 1 Rose Thomas West Chester PA 1751 Form Letter 1 Rose Chris Petaluma CA 3075 Form Letter 1 Rose-Fortmueller Laura Ocoee FL 1177 Form Letter 1 Rosen Barbara Brooklyn NY 2184 Form Letter 1 Rosenberger Maria Elverson PA 2172 Form Letter 1 Rosenblum Roanne Saint Paul MN 3027 Form Letter 1 Rosenkotter Barbara Deer Harbor WA 1446 Form Letter 1 Ross Catherine Atlanta GA 269 Form Letter 1 Ross Danielle Ocala FL 966 Form Letter 1 Ross Pat Tucson AZ 2150 Form Letter 1 Rossi Greta Washington NJ 559 Form Letter 1 Rossi Emily Buffalo NY 3401 Form Letter 1 Rossin Linda Lake Hopatcong NJ 285 Form Letter 1

Rossing Angeltveit Andreas 3599 Form Letter 1 Rossini Jennifer North Hollywood CA 3221 Form Letter 1 Rossman Jeremy Northbrook IL 3072 Form Letter 1 Rosso Brit Vail AZ 573 Form Letter 1 Rotcher Michael Mission Viejo CA 3064 Form Letter 1 Roth Jerome Tempe AZ 2379 Form Letter 1 Rothera Malcolm 1513 Form Letter 1 Rothstein Jamie Elburn IL 467 Form Letter 1 Rothstein Richard Bradenton FL 2721 Form Letter 1 Rouse Victoria San Francisco CA 2519 Form Letter 1 Rouse Gregory Cambridge VT 3334 Form Letter 1 Roux Tiffany 375 Form Letter 1 Roy Joe Burlington MA 2596 Form Letter 1 Roy Brigitte 3288 Form Letter 1 Roy Mags New York NY 3472 Form Letter 1 Royer Allen San Jose CA 1240 Form Letter 1 Rpsemfield Lynne Aspen CO 1809 Form Letter 1 Ruberti Giovina 1869 Form Letter 1 Rubietta Victoria Rubi Bradenton FL 2522 Form Letter 1 Rubin Mary-Jo West Palm Beach FL 2784 Form Letter 1 Ruble Shelley Felton CA 1267 Form Letter 1 Ruby Kenneth Salem NH 753 Form Letter 1 Ruckman Heather Wellsburg WV 2452 Form Letter 1 Rudd Sidney Danville VA 2554 Form Letter 1 Rudin Cheryl Sarasota FL 3517 Form Letter 1 Rudolf Nnaji Catherine 1015 Form Letter 1 Rudolph John Bend OR 2289 Form Letter 1 Rues Alicia 928 Form Letter 1 Ruggeri Wendy Naugatuck CT 2711 Form Letter 1 Rule Steven Concord NH 2879 Form Letter 1 Rule Michele Concord NH 3012 Form Letter 1 Rule Juliann Avon MN 3019 Form Letter 1 Runfors Margaret 694 Form Letter 1 Runge Erica Naperville IL 772 Form Letter 1 Runk Karen North Smithfield RI 1818 Form Letter 1 Rupert Greg Duluth MN 3337 Form Letter 1 Rupp Jon Santa Ynez CA 25 Unique Non Substantive Rupp Cathy Pittsburgh PA 3056 Form Letter 1 Rupp Nancy Glen Burnie MD 3139 Form Letter 1 Rushworth Jerily Colorado Springs CO 1403 Form Letter 1 Russell Douglas Endicott NY 2918 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Russo Carl San Francisco CA 1675 Form Letter 1 Ryan Sheila 2446 Form Letter 1 Ryan Therese Palmdale CA 2465 Form Letter 1 Ryan Bart Waltham MA 3130 Form Letter 1 Ryden Wendy Oyster Bay NY 1925 Form Letter 1 Rynes Michael Naperville IL 1748 Form Letter 1 Ryter Gisela Bend OR 2226 Form Letter 1 S Steve Washington DC 389 Form Letter 1 S J 2621 Form Letter 1 S C San Diego CA 3063 Form Letter 1 S Steve Green Valley AZ 3182 Form Letter 1 S. Ron Roseville CA 321 Form Letter 1 S. G. Los Angeles CA 387 Form Letter 1 S. Nelson Ypsilanti MI 1653 Form Letter 1 Sã¡Nchez Mari Carmen 335 Form Letter 1 Sã©Villa Caroline Schenectady NY 867 Form Letter 1 Sabatini Kathy Fair Oaks CA 3576 Form Letter 1 Sabinson Mara Cornish NH 627 Form Letter 1 Sachanska Anita 308 Form Letter 1 Sadler Mark Jeddo MI 667 Form Letter 1 Saglietto Eve Newcastle UT 2411 Form Letter 1 Saint-Clair Catherine Stuart FL 1912 Form Letter 1 Sala Hillory Sioux Falls SD 2780 Form Letter 1 Salazar Lisa Shasta Lake CA 1282 Form Letter 1 Salerno Mary Nampa ID 1447 Form Letter 1 Salerno Suzanne Nampa ID 1827 Form Letter 1 Salgado Dalia Los Angeles CA 1987 Form Letter 1 Salvner Amanda Ann Arbor MI 2125 Form Letter 1 Samaras Alexandra Rockland ME 1594 Form Letter 1 Samer David Brockport NY 3127 Form Letter 1 Sampson Gisele 1702 Form Letter 1 Sampson Max 2625 Form Letter 1 Sampson Katherine 3486 Form Letter 1 Samuels Maurice Pittsburgh PA 2213 Form Letter 1 San Miguel Pamela Santa Cruz CA 2167 Form Letter 1 Sandeen Mimi Chicago IL 3103 Form Letter 1 Sanders Robert Temple GA 3211 Form Letter 1 Sandritter Ann Old Bridge NJ 1095 Form Letter 1 Sanfilippo Val San Diego CA 663 Form Letter 1 Sanford Mei Mei Miriyam West Point VA 1891 Form Letter 1 Santitoro Sophia Simi Valley CA 1990 Form Letter 1 Santoro Michele Davis CA 937 Form Letter 1 Santos Eloy China Grove NC 1930 Form Letter 1 Santos Saskia Columbia SC 2884 Form Letter 1 Santos Elizabeth Brooklyn NY 3142 Form Letter 1 Santto Aldana New York NY 2276 Form Letter 1 Santy Michelle El Granada CA 243 Form Letter 1 Saraceno Deon Eugene OR 1810 Form Letter 1 Sardineer Ann Marie Trafford PA 2893 Form Letter 1 Saridakis Constantine 2971 Form Letter 1 Saslow Rondi Berkeley CA 1217 Form Letter 1 Satterfield Caroline West Union OH 1889 Form Letter 1 Saurs Terri Decatur IL 1920 Form Letter 1 Savas Jerry Valley Stream NY 1962 Form Letter 1 Savino Heather East Haven CT 1505 Form Letter 1 Sawcer Jane 1942 Form Letter 1 Sayles Andy Kalamazoo MI 2196 Form Letter 1 Sayre Peter Annandale VA 2391 Form Letter 1 Scalzitti Jana Chicago IL 958 Form Letter 1 Scanlon Karen Fayetteville NY 2609 Form Letter 1 Scavezze Barbara Olympia WA 1090 Form Letter 1 Scena Marian Somerville MA 428 Form Letter 1 Schaab Judith Morro Bay CA 1327 Form Letter 1 Schade Corey Allenhurst NJ 558 Form Letter 1 Schaefer Sarah Oak Park IL 2961 Form Letter 1 Schaffer Carol San Pablo CA 1367 Form Letter 1 Schandelmeier Jeanette Sagle ID 1387 Form Letter 1 Scheer David Bellingham WA 2128 Form Letter 1 Schefter Ken Olathe KS 3620 Form Letter 1 Schenk Tricia Milwaukee WI 3621 Form Letter 1 Scherbak Elizabeth Venice FL 3616 Form Letter 1 Scherman Kathleen Crystal Lake IL 3554 Form Letter 1 Schilg Ursula 1224 Form Letter 1 Schiller Marcel 158 Form Letter 1 Schipman Nikki Charlotte NC 1786 Form Letter 1 Schippers Sylvia 3303 Form Letter 1 Schlais Karen New Berlin WI 2634 Form Letter 1 Schlegel Jane Street MD 2190 Form Letter 1 Schlippert Glenn Etters PA 1120 Form Letter 1 Schloessinger Fred Great Neck NY 3114 Form Letter 1 Schloss E.S. New York NY 2127 Form Letter 1 Schlosser Julia Madison WI 1016 Form Letter 1 Schlotte Jack San Diego CA 2931 Form Letter 1 Schmeh Derek Broomfield CO 1332 Form Letter 1 Schmidt Linda Albuquerque NM 1275 Form Letter 1 Schmidt Daniel Marana AZ 2982 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Schmidt Justin Tucson AZ 3197 Form Letter 1 Schmittauer John Millfield OH 1343 Form Letter 1 Schmitz Gladys Mankato MN 1027 Form Letter 1 Schmitz Heidi Sausalito CA 3543 Form Letter 1 Schneider Jo Ann Berkeley CA 1640 Form Letter 1 Schneider Maria 1834 Form Letter 1 Schneider Danielle Pickens SC 2311 Form Letter 1 Schneider George San Diego CA 3268 Form Letter 1 Schnitzler Brittany Seffner FL 2872 Form Letter 1 Schofield Anna Los Angeles CA 2754 Form Letter 1 Schonfeld Felice Hollywood FL 1137 Form Letter 1 Schraeder Heather Culver City CA 773 Form Letter 1 Schriner Macie Lansing MI 1200 Form Letter 1 Schuchard Susan Nolensville TN 1999 Form Letter 1 Schultz Cindy Seaford NY 638 Form Letter 1 Schultz Peter F. Downers Grove IL 1085 Form Letter 1 Schultz Ellen Red Bank NJ 3053 Form Letter 1 Schultz Walter Galesburg IL 3467 Form Letter 1 Schumacher Amy Dayton OH 887 Form Letter 1 Schurr Arthur Brooklyn NY 1632 Form Letter 1 Schwartz Marge Santa Barbara CA 29 Unique Non Substantive Schwartz Ms. Marge Santa Barbara CA 68 Unique Non Substantive Schwartz Ms. Ruth Ventura CA 88 Unique Non Substantive Schwartz Marge Santa Barbara CA 1170 Form Letter 1 Schwartz Linda Sarasota FL 1572 Form Letter 1 Schwarz Kurt Ellicott City MD 1335 Form Letter 1 Schwarz Robin Rockport MA 2241 Form Letter 1 Schwefel Jeff Allston MA 339 Form Letter 1 Schwerthelm Franziska 1202 Form Letter 1 Schwind Laura Rochester MI 1939 Form Letter 1 Scileppi C L Tucson AZ 455 Form Letter 1 Scognamiglio Antonio 2662 Form Letter 1 Scollins Mary South Burlington VT 1529 Form Letter 1 Scott Jennifer Fort Myers Beach FL 159 Form Letter 1 Scott Andrew Guerneville CA 1061 Form Letter 1 Scott Rachel Whitewater WI 1717 Form Letter 1 Scott Cheryl 3278 Form Letter 1 Scott Richard Lutz FL 3332 Form Letter 1 Scribner Denee Nine Mile Falls WA 1380 Form Letter 1 Scripp Margaret Varysburg NY 3090 Form Letter 1 Scriptunas Judy Chambersburg PA 1682 Form Letter 1 Seager Michael Mentor OH 3275 Form Letter 1 Seater Kimberly Seattle WA 2527 Form Letter 1 Sebanc Susan Topanga CA 1669 Form Letter 1 Sebastian Joseph Sacramento CA 213 Form Letter 1 Sebastian Roberta Homestead FL 411 Form Letter 1 Sebban Angelique 1442 Form Letter 1 Sedon Douglas Jefferson MD 1116 Form Letter 1 Seehra Parveen 3617 Form Letter 1 Segretti Fiona Port Orchard WA 1538 Form Letter 1 Seipel Mr. David R Lompoc CA 43 Unique Non Substantive Sellers Jennifer Concord CA 2541 Form Letter 1 Sellers Margaret North Grosvenordale CT 3119 Form Letter 1 Sellon Louise New Providence NJ 669 Form Letter 1 Selquist Donna Port Saint Lucie FL 803 Form Letter 1 Seltzer Rob Malibu CA 956 Form Letter 1 Seltzer Devon Greensboro NC 3297 Form Letter 1 Selverston Sylvia San Diego CA 1977 Form Letter 1 Sennett Jim Lewistown MT 1333 Form Letter 1 Sennett Frank Lewistown MT 2947 Form Letter 1 Senour Jon San Diego CA 2218 Form Letter 1 Sepeta Marie Granger IN 318 Form Letter 1 Serylo Shannen Livonia MI 1157 Form Letter 1 Severino Susan Severino Frostproof FL 3407 Form Letter 1 Sewald Michelle Denver CO 1098 Form Letter 1 Sewelson Marcia Studio City CA 2677 Form Letter 1 Shaak Susan Reading PA 738 Form Letter 1 Shabbott Mary Punta Gorda FL 1998 Form Letter 1 Shallman Elsy Loxahatchee FL 2724 Form Letter 1 Shan. Korinna Beverly Hills CA 2300 Form Letter 1 Shank Genevieve Bellevue WA 3196 Form Letter 1 Shanker Gopal Napa CA 2759 Form Letter 1 Shanley Karen Lafayette CO 1943 Form Letter 1 Sharp James Brighton MA 2088 Form Letter 1 Sharp Peggy Marina CA 3164 Form Letter 1 Shaw Stephen Paige TX 372 Form Letter 1 Shef Francene Stillwater OK 2269 Form Letter 1 Sherman Shelley Goleta CA 32 Unique Non Substantive Sherman Douglass Owosso MI 381 Form Letter 1 Shero Dale Fernandina Beach FL 1764 Form Letter 1 Sherrard Kathy Sevierville TN 1204 Form Letter 1 Sherwood Kate Long Beach NY 3635 Form Letter 1 Shevis Aron Brooklyn NY 1293 Form Letter 1 Shiels Theresa Half Moon Bay CA 2438 Form Letter 1 Shiffer Taylor Romney Cottage Grove OR 136 Form Letter 1 Shiffrin Joyce Brooklyn NY 1212 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Shimshon Yael 3431 Form Letter 1 Shippee Bob Henrico VA 2420 Form Letter 1 Shirley Shirley 712 Form Letter 1 Shomer Forest Port Townsend WA 1151 Form Letter 1 Shook Barry Anderson IN 1845 Form Letter 1 Shroder Steven Lakeside MI 1975 Form Letter 1 Sieb Angeline Merrillville IN 195 Form Letter 1 Siegel Stan And Pamela Yukon PA 1503 Form Letter 1 Silverman Laura West Nyack NY 1708 Form Letter 1 Silvestro Carolyn Sharon Springs NY 787 Form Letter 1 Silvey Katherine Martinez CA 2486 Form Letter 1 Simone Dana Hillsdale NJ 2197 Form Letter 1 Simonich Claire Half Moon Bay CA 3111 Form Letter 1 Simpson Eric Cardiff By The Sea CA 972 Form Letter 1 Simpson Audrey Lancaster OH 3651 Form Letter 1 Sims Becky Julian NC 205 Form Letter 1 Sims Anna Burlington NC 1270 Form Letter 1 Sims Homer Horsham PA 3665 Form Letter 1 Sinclair Deborah Los Angeles CA 1326 Form Letter 1 Sines Charlotte Yosemite National Park CA 2799 Form Letter 1 Singleton Martha Miami FL 550 Form Letter 1 Siniard Susan New Market AL 2797 Form Letter 1 Sinram Danika Beaverton OR 2651 Form Letter 1 Sizemore D Muscle Shoals AL 1960 Form Letter 1 Sjoerdsma Bartha 1593 Form Letter 1 Skaar Beryle Black River Falls WI 2080 Form Letter 1 Skal Steven Columbus OH 1457 Form Letter 1 Skalic Dita 3339 Form Letter 1 Skirvin Laurence Villa Rica GA 1768 Form Letter 1 Skolnick Kate Brooklyn NY 3639 Form Letter 1 Skoog-Smith Shelly Goleta CA 1662 Form Letter 1 Skrivanek Smita Lyons CO 3032 Form Letter 1 Slack Kelley Bellingham WA 647 Form Letter 1 Slauson Kevin Alameda CA 674 Form Letter 1 Slawson Margaret Traverse City MI 652 Form Letter 1 Smale Maryann Steuben ME 3437 Form Letter 1 Smarr Todd Denver CO 1658 Form Letter 1 Smedberg Virginia Palo Alto CA 1281 Form Letter 1 Smedley Stephanie Preston MD 425 Form Letter 1 Smith Ms. Liana R. Morro Bay CA 65 Unique Non Substantive Smith Joan Greenbrae CA 156 Form Letter 1 Smith Judith Oakland CA 459 Form Letter 1 Smith J.T. Sellersville PA 748 Form Letter 1 Smith Margaret Binghamton NY 971 Form Letter 1 Smith Edward Fort Worth TX 1179 Form Letter 1 Smith Priscilla Brookline MA 1193 Form Letter 1 Smith Donna Havertown PA 1362 Form Letter 1 Smith Deanna Scottsdale AZ 1368 Form Letter 1 Smith Kim Gandeeville WV 1858 Form Letter 1 Smith Tony 1947 Form Letter 1 Smith Janell New Douglas IL 1957 Form Letter 1 Smith Debbi Gold Hill NC 2075 Form Letter 1 Smith Benita Berkeley CA 2313 Form Letter 1 Smith Laverne Granby CT 2480 Form Letter 1 Smith Eric San Jose CA 2518 Form Letter 1 Smith Stacey Henderson KY 2666 Form Letter 1 Smith Lyrysa Denver CO 2976 Form Letter 1 Smithwick Eleanor Atlanta GA 1882 Form Letter 1 Smithwick Doreen Carrollton TX 3210 Form Letter 1 Smoller Merry Sue Miami FL 1030 Form Letter 1 Snavely William Lawrence KS 3238 Form Letter 1 Snowden Marijean Alamogordo NM 2478 Form Letter 1 Snyder Linda Menomonee Falls WI 1153 Form Letter 1 Snyder Andrea Hickory NC 2131 Form Letter 1 Snyder Nancy Cottonwood AZ 3236 Form Letter 1 Snyder Marilyn Las Vegas NV 3260 Form Letter 1 Soares Susana Bethlehem IN 1386 Form Letter 1 Soares Maria 2755 Form Letter 1 Soddy Diane Leo IN 3513 Form Letter 1 Soderberg Lori Saint Paul MN 1722 Form Letter 1 Sokolowski L C Cedar Rapids IA 2426 Form Letter 1 Soleta Melissa Sioux Falls SD 1038 Form Letter 1 Solomon Richard Oakland CA 1351 Form Letter 1 Solomon Chihoko Oakland CA 1678 Form Letter 1 Solvang Mark Englewood Cliffs NJ 1427 Form Letter 1 Sotomayor Nora Dedham MA 3606 Form Letter 1 Souva Carol Sanford MI 1654 Form Letter 1 Souza Mike Terre Haute IN 2838 Form Letter 1 Spaeth Ilka South Saint Paul MN 3558 Form Letter 1 Spar Susan Santa Rosa CA 3018 Form Letter 1 Sparks Diane Mansfield TX 1676 Form Letter 1 Sparlin Shauna Wichita KS 3429 Form Letter 1 Spear Christy Isle MN 3126 Form Letter 1 Species Scott Seattle WA 1186 Form Letter 1 Speer Cheryl Camas WA 2659 Form Letter 1 Spelman Susan Canaan NY 212 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Spencer Deborah Billerica MA 2361 Form Letter 1 Spencer Martha Brevard NC 2991 Form Letter 1 Spindler Allyce Commack NY 3629 Form Letter 1 Spinharney Veronica Oceanside CA 1719 Form Letter 1 Spires Tara Broomfield CO 2889 Form Letter 1 Spiropoulou Zoe 2392 Form Letter 1 Spoon Leslie Los Osos CA 963 Form Letter 1 Spotts Richard Saint George UT 978 Form Letter 1 Spratt David Elizabethtown KY 1439 Form Letter 1 Sprecher Cindy Hereford AZ 217 Form Letter 1 Springer Sarah Fort Bragg CA 3366 Form Letter 1 Springer Franz Albert 3400 Form Letter 1 Springer Cynthia Cleveland OH 3479 Form Letter 1 Spurgin Hussey Emma Burdett NY 167 Form Letter 1 Squire Julie Kansas City MO 495 Form Letter 1 Squires Joan Buckeye AZ 1627 Form Letter 1 Sreiber Andrea Schenectady NY 2846 Form Letter 1 St. Charles Patricia Amarillo TX 941 Form Letter 1 St. John Clay Colorado Springs CO 554 Form Letter 1 Stabler Jessica Herriman UT 822 Form Letter 1 Stables Leah Saint Augustine FL 2488 Form Letter 1 Stacy Christopher Concord NC 2333 Form Letter 1 Stacy Drake Paul Howard And Corvallis OR 2341 Form Letter 1 Stafford Christine La Crescenta CA 565 Form Letter 1 Stafford Sarah Portland OR 2599 Form Letter 1 Stanislowsky Maryann Jonesborough TN 1250 Form Letter 1 Stansell Catherine Frazier Park CA 1160 Form Letter 1 Stark Rachel Wallis TX 114 Form Letter 1 Starkweather Catherine Durham NC 574 Form Letter 1 Starr Laurel Golden CO 3253 Form Letter 1 Steadmon Jason Boulder City NV 3660 Form Letter 1 Steele Mary Laguna Niguel CA 2663 Form Letter 1 Steffy Heidi Erie PA 875 Form Letter 1 Stein Claudia San Diego CA 2477 Form Letter 1 Steinberg Jack Tampa FL 950 Form Letter 1 Steinbrecher Silvia 1230 Form Letter 1 Steiner Mr. Seth Los Alamos CA 53 Unique Non Substantive Steiner A.L. Los Angeles CA 1814 Form Letter 1 Steinhart Judith Palo Alto CA 1695 Form Letter 1 Steininger Lorenz Stafford VA 1007 Form Letter 1 Stein-Kodzik Mia Milwaukee WI 3237 Form Letter 1 Stejskal Nancy Seattle WA 509 Form Letter 1 Stephan Dorothea San Leandro CA 1229 Form Letter 1 Stephens Garrett Soquel CA 22 Unique Non Substantive Stephens Chandra Sebastopol CA 1829 Form Letter 1 Stephens Kat Santa Rosa CA 3649 Form Letter 1 Stepnicka Sara Phoenix AZ 1501 Form Letter 1 Steponaitis John San Francisco CA 700 Form Letter 1 Stergiou Panagiotis Boynton Beach FL 1397 Form Letter 1 Stern Richard New York NY 1758 Form Letter 1 Stern Sharon Seminole FL 3361 Form Letter 1 Steudle Robin Laguna Woods CA 844 Form Letter 1 Steurer Biggi 131 Form Letter 1 Stevens Mrs. Cindy Ann Paso Robles CA 54 Unique Non Substantive Stevens C Bountiful UT 858 Form Letter 1 Stevens Zoe Willis MI 1036 Form Letter 1 Stevenson Janice Asheville NC 322 Form Letter 1 Stewart Sarah Watertown MA 235 Form Letter 1 Stewart Jacqueline Schenectady NY 2207 Form Letter 1 Stewart Jackie Tuscaloosa AL 2489 Form Letter 1 Stewart Nancy Benson AZ 2647 Form Letter 1 Stewart Glenn R. La Verne CA 3060 Form Letter 1 Stewart-Oaten Dr. Allan Santa Barbara CA 34 Unique Non Substantive Stieber Frank Seattle WA 1242 Form Letter 1 Stiff Gina Kissimmee FL 1674 Form Letter 1 Stiles Sarah Santa Rosa CA 1348 Form Letter 1 Stiller Jean-Paul New York NY 3435 Form Letter 1 Stillwater Bonnie Los Angeles CA 3172 Form Letter 1 Stillwell Lyda Kalamazoo MI 763 Form Letter 1 Stimac Astrid Houston TX 1902 Form Letter 1 Stirling Hayley-Rose 2021 Form Letter 1 Stirpe D Portland OR 2891 Form Letter 1 Stock Sandra Tucson AZ 3192 Form Letter 1 Stockdill Ms. Elizabeth Santa Barbara CA 58 Unique Non Substantive Stoeferle Claudia 1652 Form Letter 1 Stoller Amy New York NY 1205 Form Letter 1 Stone Mary Oriental NC 418 Form Letter 1 Stone Mandy Hanahan SC 1297 Form Letter 1 Stone Lisa Houston TX 3354 Form Letter 1 Stordahl Eric Marquette MI 2739 Form Letter 1 Storrs Andrea Divide CO 3176 Form Letter 1 Stoudmann Fabienne New York NY 3080 Form Letter 1 Stover Susyn Sebastopol CA 2388 Form Letter 1 Strain Darren Brookhaven PA 1437 Form Letter 1 Stratton Judi Jacksonville OR 1089 Form Letter 1 Strebel Eric De Pere WI 507 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Streich Robert Glenwood Springs CO 2965 Form Letter 1 Strickwerda Chris Chelan WA 3583 Form Letter 1 Strong William Chicago IL 1357 Form Letter 1 Strong Grace Ironwood MI 1564 Form Letter 1 Strong Nancy Winter Springs FL 2853 Form Letter 1 Stucker Melinda Norwich VT 543 Form Letter 1 Stuhaan Sandy Tucson AZ 823 Form Letter 1 Stutheit Don Edmonds WA 572 Form Letter 1 Suarez Moraima Brooklyn NY 360 Form Letter 1 Suarez Melissa Cleveland OH 2556 Form Letter 1 Suarez David Brooklyn NY 2938 Form Letter 1 Suarez Lopez Ximena Gardena CA 520 Form Letter 1 Sudano Carmela Midvale UT 1278 Form Letter 1 Sullivan Gail New York NY 1021 Form Letter 1 Sullivan Mary Huntington Beach CA 2247 Form Letter 1 Sullivan Sharon Plainfield IL 2315 Form Letter 1 Summers Angela San Francisco CA 423 Form Letter 1 Summers Lisa Sykesville MD 2828 Form Letter 1 Sumrall Amber Soquel CA 3135 Form Letter 1 Sunar Rina Dover PA 1379 Form Letter 1 Surber Jacqui Manassas VA 2772 Form Letter 1 Sutliff Leslie Ashley MI 3174 Form Letter 1 Sutton Russ Prescott Valley AZ 1306 Form Letter 1 Svenson Jennifer Hoodsport WA 2644 Form Letter 1 Sverdlove Ronald Princeton NJ 2654 Form Letter 1 Swain Judith 1645 Form Letter 1 Swan Curtis Long Beach CA 126 Form Letter 1 Swank Carrie Reading PA 2537 Form Letter 1 Swanson Kathie Mineral Point WI 168 Form Letter 1 Swanson Kate Wasilla AK 362 Form Letter 1 Swanson Debra Elk River MN 920 Form Letter 1 Swanson Robin Honolulu HI 2576 Form Letter 1 Sweeney Leslie Bellingham WA 2251 Form Letter 1 Sweet Kirsten Leavenworth WA 2999 Form Letter 1 Sweet Loralyn Ypsilanti MI 3014 Form Letter 1 Swift Robert Edison NJ 1092 Form Letter 1 Swirczynski Jim And Sophie Eugene OR 900 Form Letter 1 Swistak Karen Newmarket NH 2922 Form Letter 1 Symonds Christopher 1251 Form Letter 1 Symonds Jasmine 1848 Form Letter 1 Szablewski Conrad Kennett Square PA 1781 Form Letter 1 Szaszorowska Magdalena 154 Form Letter 1 Szaszorowska Anna Delhi IA 723 Form Letter 1 Szumal Ray Skokie IL 462 Form Letter 1 Szumal Ra Skokie IL 3094 Form Letter 1 T John Asbury Park NJ 3193 Form Letter 1 Tachna Heather Colorado Springs CO 3040 Form Letter 1 Tacker Barbara Camarillo CA 3540 Form Letter 1 Taff Melvin Springfield IL 3601 Form Letter 1 Taggart Carol Menlo Park CA 2568 Form Letter 1 Takush Kathie E Reading PA 3173 Form Letter 1 Talhami Michelle Milwaukee WI 1819 Form Letter 1 Talkowski Roman Sarasota FL 2830 Form Letter 1 Tanner Donna Concord MA 3125 Form Letter 1 Tao Carol Salinas CA 2785 Form Letter 1 Taravella Linda Portland OR 862 Form Letter 1 Tarbox William Magnolia TX 2600 Form Letter 1 Taroli Garry Dallas PA 422 Form Letter 1 Tarpley Matthew Mcdonough GA 3340 Form Letter 1 Tate Laurel E. 3112 Form Letter 1 Taylor Stefan Tampa FL 281 Form Letter 1 Taylor J. Holley Penn Valley CA 293 Form Letter 1 Taylor Jennifer Orlando FL 374 Form Letter 1 Taylor Michelle Boise ID 1853 Form Letter 1 Taylor Ross Fort Lauderdale FL 2290 Form Letter 1 Taylor Tony 3087 Form Letter 1 Taylor Sylvia Ithaca NY 3398 Form Letter 1 Taylor Barbara Cumming GA 3661 Form Letter 1 Tazzia Charles Grosse Pointe MI 2505 Form Letter 1 Teevan John Chula Vista CA 230 Form Letter 1 Templin Tracy Isle MN 1573 Form Letter 1 Tereschak Cassandra Scranton PA 3284 Form Letter 1 Terrell Betty Seattle WA 889 Form Letter 1 Terwilliger Lesley Ventura CA 1686 Form Letter 1 Tessman Jacqueline Benton Harbor MI 743 Form Letter 1 Teuscher Alfred Rehoboth Beach DE 927 Form Letter 1 Thatcher Tobey Green Valley AZ 220 Form Letter 1 Thayer Russ Bozeman MT 1646 Form Letter 1 Thiele Jackie Lompoc CA 24 Unique Non Substantive Thio Rita Walnut CA 2035 Form Letter 1 Thomas Donna Yucca Valley CA 282 Form Letter 1 Thomas Suzanne San Diego CA 2253 Form Letter 1 Thomas Shakayla Compton CA 2320 Form Letter 1 Thomas Karen Seattle WA 2413 Form Letter 1 Thomas Mary Richmond CA 2502 Form Letter 1 Thomas Patricia Moose Lake MN 2916 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Thomason Kim Lansing MI 793 Form Letter 1 Thomasson Tabitha Dahlonega GA 1467 Form Letter 1 Thompson Lawrence Livermore CA 754 Form Letter 1 Thompson Thomas Salmon ID 839 Form Letter 1 Thompson Linda Houston TX 1316 Form Letter 1 Thompson Matthew Riverside IL 1800 Form Letter 1 Thompson Dana Los Gatos CA 2569 Form Letter 1 Thompson Erica Austin TX 2726 Form Letter 1 Thompson Carol South Park PA 2930 Form Letter 1 Thompson Matthew Santa Cruz CA 3034 Form Letter 1 Thompson James Portland OR 3352 Form Letter 1 Thompson Marilyn Grand Junction CO 3656 Form Letter 1 Thomson Robert Puyallup WA 121 Form Letter 1 Thonet Kathi Pittstown NJ 2018 Form Letter 1 Thornton Dp Chicago IL 1909 Form Letter 1 Thornton Jennifer 2707 Form Letter 1 Thorp Frank K. Palos Park IL 810 Form Letter 1 Throop Anne Caledonia MI 1043 Form Letter 1 Thryft Ann Boulder Creek CA 1070 Form Letter 1 Thurairatnam Susan North Olmsted OH 1117 Form Letter 1 Tiarks Daniel Los Angeles CA 140 Form Letter 1 Tidd Richard East Greenbush NY 382 Form Letter 1 Tijerina Peter Chicago IL 2454 Form Letter 1 Tillman Barbara North Bergen NJ 3399 Form Letter 1 Tingleaf Deborah Galva IL 2812 Form Letter 1 Todd A. Eugene OR 2056 Form Letter 1 Todd Maryellen Hicksville NY 2095 Form Letter 1 Todd Janis Princeton Junction NJ 3393 Form Letter 1 Tolerico Joseph Newton NJ 239 Form Letter 1 Toliver Tricia Brooklyn NY 1245 Form Letter 1 Tollner Margaret Lakewood CA 432 Form Letter 1 Tomlian Janice Lansing MI 189 Form Letter 1 Tompkins Paula Saint Cloud MN 1349 Form Letter 1 Tonet Monique 3212 Form Letter 1 Toorkey Meher Willoughby OH 2137 Form Letter 1 Tornatore Marianne Napa CA 912 Form Letter 1 Tourunen Anniina 3619 Form Letter 1 Toven Wayne Ravenna OH 2562 Form Letter 1 Towne Dawna Meridian ID 965 Form Letter 1 Towning Georgina New York NY 309 Form Letter 1 Townsend Carlos Fountain Valley CA 3650 Form Letter 1 Trainham Jesseca Oswego NY 840 Form Letter 1 Trajanovska Michelle Clayton NC 404 Form Letter 1 Tran Kim Santa Ana CA 2354 Form Letter 1 Tran Sheila Saint Paul MN 2474 Form Letter 1 Traniello Francine Middleboro MA 990 Form Letter 1 Trauger Adam Long Beach CA 1383 Form Letter 1 Trauth Beti Webb Eureka CA 358 Form Letter 1 Traylor Richard Littleton CO 2351 Form Letter 1 Trice Tina Sandston VA 3644 Form Letter 1 Trice Jr. Billy Oakland CA 970 Form Letter 1 Triggs Lori Ocala FL 534 Form Letter 1 Tripp Martin Santa Clarita CA 1167 Form Letter 1 Tripp Thomas Fort Collins CO 3134 Form Letter 1 Trivedi Bj Gainesville FL 286 Form Letter 1 Trottier Jaye Bedford NH 177 Form Letter 1 Troup Brenda Bolton MA 1958 Form Letter 1 Trudeau Stephanie West Palm Beach FL 1877 Form Letter 1 Trufan Hal Matthews NC 523 Form Letter 1 Trufan Hal Matthews NC 1472 Form Letter 1 Trufant Kristin Medway MA 3262 Form Letter 1 Trujillo Lucille Loveland CO 1711 Form Letter 1 Trutin Florie 1359 Form Letter 1 Tsg Barry College Park MD 2076 Form Letter 1 Tshibangu Mandy Devon PA 3304 Form Letter 1 Tsien Wendy Eugene OR 878 Form Letter 1 Tsiriba Denia 1374 Form Letter 1 Tsvetanova Kristina Seattle WA 1107 Form Letter 1 Tucker Sally Batesville VA 2824 Form Letter 1 Tumolo Christopher Putnam CT 184 Form Letter 1 Tunnell Ms. Cynthia L Palo Alto CA 59 Unique Non Substantive Turbush Heather Wading River NY 703 Form Letter 1 Turley Leann Clearfield PA 856 Form Letter 1 Turner Jim Merritt Island FL 96 Form Letter 1 Turner Mark 2098 Form Letter 1 Turrubiate K New York NY 788 Form Letter 1 Tuscher Ralph Cement City MI 2712 Form Letter 1 Tweedale Anthony C. Eastpointe MI 1464 Form Letter 1 Tyler Margaret Guilfoy Saint Louis MO 3330 Form Letter 1 Tysall Lee 932 Form Letter 1 Tyson Kathleen Riverside CA 1394 Form Letter 1 Uchno Lj Keego Harbor MI 2977 Form Letter 1 Uiterwyk Daniel Vero Beach FL 433 Form Letter 1 Umphries Andrew Tucson AZ 504 Form Letter 1 Unger Pamela Columbus OH 3277 Form Letter 1 Ungureanu Mihai 1156 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Uppgaard Heidi Minneapolis MN 3593 Form Letter 1 Urbain Mireille 2449 Form Letter 1 Usami Chris Jamaica NY 2430 Form Letter 1 Uwins Jennifer Carlsbad CA 940 Form Letter 1 Uyenishi Steve Seattle WA 1497 Form Letter 1 Vaccaro Lori Bronx NY 2985 Form Letter 1 Vadnais Kathleen Chicopee MA 1110 Form Letter 1 Vail Martha Centereach NY 1352 Form Letter 1 Vairo Sylvia Santa Cruz CA 1532 Form Letter 1 Valadez Catherine San Marcos CA 3382 Form Letter 1 Valencia Rio Midlothian VA 2788 Form Letter 1 Valente Donna New Britain CT 2927 Form Letter 1 Valentine Karen Soquel CA 1206 Form Letter 1 Valentine Jennifer Massapequa Park NY 1421 Form Letter 1 Valero Maudie Miami FL 2661 Form Letter 1 Vales Audrey 3280 Form Letter 1 Van Alyne Emily West Richland WA 1014 Form Letter 1 Van Den Meersschaut Annie 756 Form Letter 1 Van Erp Willem 766 Form Letter 1 Van Every Kathleen Atascadero CA 2105 Form Letter 1 Van Horn Wilma 1056 Form Letter 1 Van Horn Devin Southlake TX 3171 Form Letter 1 Van Leekwijck Natalie Hazard NE 1433 Form Letter 1 Van Walsen Barbara Moorestown NJ 234 Form Letter 1 Vance Julie California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fresno CA 4 Unique Comment Vandamme Martin 2369 Form Letter 1 Vanecek Rhonda Henderson NV 1424 Form Letter 1 Vanham Laurence 295 Form Letter 1 Vanwinkle Jean Marie Bedford VA 3439 Form Letter 1 Varanitsa Oleg Redmond WA 133 Form Letter 1 Varcoe Donna D Bellefonte PA 2565 Form Letter 1 Varga John Huntington Beach CA 1495 Form Letter 1 Vasquez Pamela Salem OR 2431 Form Letter 1 Vasquez Ileana Beverly Hills CA 3077 Form Letter 1 Vaughn Kimberly New York NY 1866 Form Letter 1 Vaughn Christie Tucson AZ 2538 Form Letter 1 Vavrek Ayesha New Orleans LA 3525 Form Letter 1 Vazquez Marcelo 744 Form Letter 1 Vazquez Patricia 2211 Form Letter 1 Vazquez Tina Weaverville NC 3300 Form Letter 1 Vee Ordell Madelia MN 796 Form Letter 1 Velandra Paul Grass Lake MI 1115 Form Letter 1 Venegas Andres El Paso TX 2094 Form Letter 1 Veralli Robert West Milford NJ 582 Form Letter 1 Verbeuren Dirk Valley Village CA 3167 Form Letter 1 Verbeylen Goedele 901 Form Letter 1 Verkamp Doris Charleston IL 1097 Form Letter 1 Verna Diane Alta WY 987 Form Letter 1 Vernon Margaret Fonda NY 594 Form Letter 1 Vest Martha Saint Paul MN 1046 Form Letter 1 Vetma Sue 1727 Form Letter 1 Vician Doris Albuquerque NM 2973 Form Letter 1 Vida Timea 696 Form Letter 1 Viergutz Julie Cleveland OH 2702 Form Letter 1 Vigars Barbra Edmonds WA 732 Form Letter 1 Vigil Simona Irving TX 2747 Form Letter 1 Villani Sebastian Chula Vista CA 1322 Form Letter 1 Vitale Sonia 717 Form Letter 1 Vizcaino Ernesto Bonita CA 1261 Form Letter 1 Vlasiadis Andreas 1301 Form Letter 1 Vollbrecht Melanie Moorpark CA 751 Form Letter 1 Volz Candace Austin TX 685 Form Letter 1 Von Zangenberg William Spring Hill FL 2381 Form Letter 1 Vulcano Jacque Boise ID 622 Form Letter 1 Vv B North Adams MA 1574 Form Letter 1 Vyhnal Kristin Willington CT 161 Form Letter 1 W Anita Sarasota FL 94 Form Letter 1 W C Saint Charles MO 1634 Form Letter 1 W. Anne State College PA 236 Form Letter 1 Wadsworth Andrew Reading PA 1006 Form Letter 1 Wager Joan Berkeley CA 3000 Form Letter 1 Wagner Donna Henrico VA 1127 Form Letter 1 Wagner Elissa Aptos CA 1461 Form Letter 1 Wakefield Marie Newport OR 1262 Form Letter 1 Wald Aloysius Columbus OH 1583 Form Letter 1 Waldron Carla C. Brooklyn NY 3440 Form Letter 1 Walker David New York NY 266 Form Letter 1 Walker Scott Fort Worth TX 613 Form Letter 1 Walker David Avondale AZ 915 Form Letter 1 Walker Jeannie Monterey CA 1207 Form Letter 1 Walker Sandra Bloomsburg PA 1656 Form Letter 1 Walker Joan Bishop CA 2524 Form Letter 1 Walker Iii Robert S Nevada City CA 1986 Form Letter 1 Wall Debbie 1258 Form Letter 1 Wallace Pam Greeneville TN 1742 Form Letter 1

Webster Roberson Suzanne E Downingtown PA 490 Form Letter 1 Weigel Alice Watsonville CA 128 Form Letter 1 Weigle Karen Fredonia WI 1109 Form Letter 1 Weikart Christopher West Newton MA 2001 Form Letter 1 Weikel Wendy Weikel Berkeley CA 3124 Form Letter 1 Weiler Debbi Salem OR 2092 Form Letter 1 Weininger Gail Alameda CA 3188 Form Letter 1 Weirich Robin Irvine CA 910 Form Letter 1 Weiske Lynne Los Angeles CA 3286 Form Letter 1 Wekselman Bill Pittsburgh PA 3248 Form Letter 1 Welborn Michael And Valerie Tucson AZ 2419 Form Letter 1 Weldon Wendy Delray Beach FL 2801 Form Letter 1 Wellington Mary Tucson AZ 2091 Form Letter 1 Wells Lasha Saint Petersburg FL 2183 Form Letter 1 Welsford Susan Muskegon MI 3025 Form Letter 1 Wendel Tom Sacramento CA 2585 Form Letter 1 Wenzer Minivere Takoma Park MD 3538 Form Letter 1 West Mary Saint Augustine FL 202 Form Letter 1 West G. Dallas TX 346 Form Letter 1 West Eric Port Orange FL 780 Form Letter 1 West Carrie Muncie IN 1597 Form Letter 1 West Lori Coronado CA 2650 Form Letter 1 West Alice Grand Marais MN 2794 Form Letter 1 Westin Susan Dorset VT 2296 Form Letter 1 Westler Lin Peoria IL 1228 Form Letter 1 Westoby Jacqueline Schenectady NY 1625 Form Letter 1 Wetzel Glen Surprise AZ 2668 Form Letter 1 Wever Wilma Astoria NY 3061 Form Letter 1 Weynand Sarah San Antonio TX 1103 Form Letter 1 Whaley Richard Eureka CA 2948 Form Letter 1 Wheeler Dorothy Tucson AZ 1277 Form Letter 1 Wheeler Mark Portland OR 1590 Form Letter 1 Wheeler Tara Oakton VA 2881 Form Letter 1 Whetstine Linda Poway CA 2575 Form Letter 1 Whip Bob Fort Lauderdale FL 1985 Form Letter 1 Whitaker Howard J Rancho Cordova CA 677 Form Letter 1 Whitcomb D.E. Tucson AZ 1978 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type White Ms. Lael K Atascadero CA 64 Unique Non Substantive White Heather Rancho Palos Verdes CA 848 Form Letter 1 White Lois Grants Pass OR 1026 Form Letter 1 White Lois Grants Pass OR 1648 Form Letter 1 White Joseph Cool CA 1994 Form Letter 1 White Karen 3627 Form Letter 1 Whitehair Bert Lake City PA 2983 Form Letter 1 Whitehall Lee 2286 Form Letter 1 Whiteside Catherine Katy TX 1364 Form Letter 1 Whitlock Richard Lewiston ME 2404 Form Letter 1 Whitted Hannah Aptos CA 2188 Form Letter 1 Wick Kim Buxton OR 3549 Form Letter 1 Wiegele Lilo 3073 Form Letter 1 Wiener Wendy Apache Junction AZ 1602 Form Letter 1 Wiker Kevin Phoenixville PA 2748 Form Letter 1 Wild Aeron 979 Form Letter 1 Wild Jen 3093 Form Letter 1 Wiles John Durham NC 2042 Form Letter 1 Wiley Kimberly Rochester NY 265 Form Letter 1 Wilke Gail Sunland CA 3464 Form Letter 1 Wilkinson Diana Flagstaff AZ 563 Form Letter 1 Will Leona Hialeah FL 108 Form Letter 1 Williams Linda Cape May Court House NJ 105 Form Letter 1 Williams Christina Los Angeles CA 274 Form Letter 1 Williams Linda Fort Lauderdale FL 714 Form Letter 1 Williams Mike Mill Valley CA 813 Form Letter 1 Williams Diane Lacey WA 1246 Form Letter 1 Williams Reed Denver CO 1330 Form Letter 1 Williams Judy Caliente CA 1770 Form Letter 1 Williams Karen Oklahoma City OK 1905 Form Letter 1 Williams Terrie Vidor TX 2209 Form Letter 1 Williams Melissa Louisville KY 2224 Form Letter 1 Williams Glen Weed CA 2558 Form Letter 1 Williams Jesse Cincinnati OH 3169 Form Letter 1 Williams Roger Indianapolis IN 3301 Form Letter 1 Williams Catherine Tucson AZ 3418 Form Letter 1 Williamson Pat Mount Arlington NJ 1432 Form Letter 1 Williamson Maria Crosby TX 1666 Form Letter 1 Willicombe Dr. Joan Santa Barbara CA 35 Unique Non Substantive Willis Denise Oakland CA 1822 Form Letter 1 Willis Nancy Iola KS 3158 Form Letter 1 Willis Jennifer Ventura CA 3527 Form Letter 1 Willoughby Emily Seattle WA 651 Form Letter 1 Willroth Alana Saint Paul MN 2533 Form Letter 1 Wilson Erinn California Department of Fish & Wildlife San Diego CA 3 Unique Comment Wilson Susan Bethel CT 770 Form Letter 1 Wilson Karen Chicago IL 1175 Form Letter 1 Wilson Sandra Friday Harbor WA 1516 Form Letter 1 Wilson Debra Ashland OR 2283 Form Letter 1 Wilson Winn Willimantic CT 2547 Form Letter 1 Wilson M 2886 Form Letter 1 Wilson Judith Wheatland WY 2911 Form Letter 1 Wilson Lorraine Hilton Head Island SC 3362 Form Letter 1 Wilson Lauren Saint Augustine FL 3607 Form Letter 1 Wilton Liz 2013 Form Letter 1 Windham Dallas Irving TX 3349 Form Letter 1 Windisch Betsy Gallup NM 888 Form Letter 1 Wing Marjorie Lansing MI 961 Form Letter 1 Wing Martha Oakland CA 3217 Form Letter 1 Wingerd Ms. Mala San Diego CA 85 Unique Non Substantive Wingle Dennis Shoemakersville PA 2949 Form Letter 1 Winholtz Betty Morro Bay CA 3552 Form Letter 1 Winnick Joie Sherman Oaks CA 1465 Form Letter 1 Winnicki Kristine Chester VT 1291 Form Letter 1 Winston Leslie Redondo Beach CA 2093 Form Letter 1 Winterman Ann Oakland CA 750 Form Letter 1 Wirth Dean 511 Form Letter 1 Wisch Anita Valencia CA 885 Form Letter 1 Wisch Anita Valencia CA 3623 Form Letter 1 Wisdom Kimberley Olive Branch MS 580 Form Letter 1 Wise Tony North Augusta SC 1610 Form Letter 1 Wise Steve Atlanta GA 2762 Form Letter 1 Wise Sally West Bend WI 3453 Form Letter 1 Wiseman Ann Mansfield IL 2177 Form Letter 1 Witt Lucas Battle Ground WA 1878 Form Letter 1 Witte Roslynn Scottsdale AZ 3291 Form Letter 1 Witthuhn Bethany North Royalton OH 2372 Form Letter 1 Witzeman Janet Phoenix AZ 2613 Form Letter 1 Wolcott James New Albany IN 2969 Form Letter 1 Wolf Torah Spokane WA 314 Form Letter 1 Wolf Robert Pompano Beach FL 697 Form Letter 1 Wolf Karen Baltimore MD 2212 Form Letter 1 Wolfberg Amy Los Angeles CA 3036 Form Letter 1 Wolfe Sharon Oakland CA 1310 Form Letter 1 Wolfe Charles Sylmar CA 2225 Form Letter 1 Wolfe Terry Morgantown WV 3246 Form Letter 1

*Submission ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. LastName FirstName Organization City State Submission ID* Submission Type Wolniewicz Ronald Toledo OH 1147 Form Letter 1 Wolter Manuela Des Moines IA 890 Form Letter 1 Wong Kelly Merion Station PA 385 Form Letter 1 Wong Jen-Mai Jersey City NJ 1887 Form Letter 1 Wong Adeline 3043 Form Letter 1 Wood Peter Cornwall NY 304 Form Letter 1 Wood Karen Valdosta GA 1933 Form Letter 1 Woodard Jud Sutter Creek CA 615 Form Letter 1 Woodruff Danah San Diego CA 1642 Form Letter 1 Woods Rocquelle Huntsville AL 1488 Form Letter 1 Woods James Penn Valley CA 2722 Form Letter 1 Woods Billy Chaffee MO 2964 Form Letter 1 Woodward Ellis Baltimore MD 2238 Form Letter 1 Wooller Anthony 2265 Form Letter 1 Wootten Joyce Germantown MD 2435 Form Letter 1 Wootton Sharon Hereford AZ 316 Form Letter 1 Worden Susan Rio Vista CA 515 Form Letter 1 Worley David Reno NV 727 Form Letter 1 Worth Braxton Tempe AZ 2061 Form Letter 1 Woudstra Gerrit 310 Form Letter 1 Wrich Dana Hugo MN 2305 Form Letter 1 Wright Katherine West Linn OR 1082 Form Letter 1 Wright Sheila Yreka CA 1225 Form Letter 1 Wu Blake Lafayette CA 3069 Form Letter 1 Wuethrich Linda Young Harris GA 3155 Form Letter 1 Wushensky Sharon Kennett Square PA 3539 Form Letter 1 Wyberg Bryan Minneapolis MN 1592 Form Letter 1 Wyett Ryann Boise ID 1731 Form Letter 1 Wyman Jean Portland OR 3261 Form Letter 1 Wynn Scott New York NY 3434 Form Letter 1 Wynne Judson Flagstaff AZ 644 Form Letter 1 Wynne Diane Rock Hill SC 1929 Form Letter 1 Wyse Margo Hanover NM 821 Form Letter 1 Wysser - Martin Colleen Norman Park GA 2210 Form Letter 1 Wytovicz Heidi Seattle WA 636 Form Letter 1 Yanke Brian Madison WI 2215 Form Letter 1 Yarbrough Jim Ashland OR 741 Form Letter 1 Yarnell Susan Chapel Hill NC 185 Form Letter 1 Yater Jane Austin TX 2040 Form Letter 1 Yates Joan Westbrook ME 2090 Form Letter 1 Yates Cindy Castle Hayne NC 3640 Form Letter 1 Yazbek Daniel Brighton MA 2201 Form Letter 1 Yelton Ron Beech Grove IN 2894 Form Letter 1 Yoho Brad Ashburn VA 863 Form Letter 1 Yoon Aj Fort Washington PA 537 Form Letter 1 York Lesley 3411 Form Letter 1 Youd Mark Ormond Beach FL 581 Form Letter 1 Young Richard Tucson AZ 842 Form Letter 1 Young Savannah Rancho Cucamonga CA 1180 Form Letter 1 Young Rebecca Smithville TX 1968 Form Letter 1 Z Leah New York NY 832 Form Letter 1 Zack Mary Columbus OH 1651 Form Letter 1 Zagorski Daria 392 Form Letter 1 Zagorski Daria 626 Form Letter 1 Zahadek Clara 2121 Form Letter 1 Zampieri Janet Tucson AZ 630 Form Letter 1 Zamudio A. Saint John IN 681 Form Letter 1 Zanardelli David Eighty Four PA 1162 Form Letter 1 Zarnegin Michelle Beverly Hills CA 3630 Form Letter 1 Zech Gisela Boise ID 640 Form Letter 1 Zeitler Katherine Columbus OH 3419 Form Letter 1 Zeller Rudy Benicia CA 3263 Form Letter 1 Zelmanovich Silvana 1820 Form Letter 1 Zerr Laura Auburn WA 2804 Form Letter 1 Ziegler Russell Downers Grove IL 745 Form Letter 1 Ziegler Russ Downers Grove IL 1059 Form Letter 1 Ziegler Russ Downers Grove IL 1681 Form Letter 1 Zierikzee R. San Francisco CA 1661 Form Letter 1 Zimmerman Paulette Saint Louis MO 1793 Form Letter 1 Zinno Jeanine Port Richey FL 2559 Form Letter 1 Zitis James Holiday FL 1530 Form Letter 1 Zolnoski Elektra East Hardwick VT 1622 Form Letter 1 Zucker Marguery Lee Eugene OR 2260 Form Letter 1 Zuleta Laura 1587 Form Letter 1 Zuniga Maylelt Saint Paul MN 1088 Form Letter 1 Zyzanski Greg Cleveland OH 3251 Form Letter 1 Owl Clan Consultants Owl Clan Consultants 2 Unique Comment NGO'S Petition Coalition of Organizations 6 Petition

Attachment F

Scoping Comment Submissions

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 F-1 PUBLIC SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

UNIQUE COMMENTS

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 Submission First Name Last Name Organization Type Comment ID Issue Individual Comment ID II. BLM"s DEIS Must Include all Permits and Other Approvals Required for the Project NEPA requires BLM to include all federal permits, licenses, and entitlements that must be obtaine d by the Project.11 According to the Federal Infrastructure Projects Permitting Dashboard, the Department of the Agency Army and Department of the Interior (including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management) will have to issue permit s or 0001-6 Coordination other approvals for this Project to move forward. Those permits and approvals will include at a minimum a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit, a National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 review, a Right -of-Way Authorization, a National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Impact Statement, and an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultation.12

Further, we expect that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce would be involved in the ESA Consultation to ensure that the pipeline will not jeopardize threatened or endangered species or adversely modify critical habitat within NMFS " Agency jurisdiction . Other reviewing agencies should include the U.S. Forest Service (due to the pipeline"s routing across the Los Padres National Forest and 0001-7 Coordination possible need for a Special Use Permit) and the U.S. Department of Transportation"s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (due to its oversight of the 2015 spill and ongoing remedial and corrective actions pursuant to the 2015 Corrective Action Order and its amendments, the full factual underpinnings, proceedings, and compliance status for which should be a part of the Administrative Record for this Project).13

BLM also has the duty under NEPA to obtain the comments and views of state and local agencies authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards. 14 Finally, we urge BLM to ensure that it has properly provided notice of this proposed Project to all tribal governments traditionally and Agency 0001-8 culturally affiliated with any part of the pipeline"rsquo; potential zone of impact (including areas potentially affected by oil spills or other accidents Coordination that could occur). Given the large coastal area impacted by the 2015 Plains spill, this should include all tribes who are traditionally and culturally affiliated with California"s central and south coast.

The DEI"rsquo;s evaluation of air quality impacts must utilize the proper emissions baseline and analyze all air quality impacts of the project, both direct, indirect, and cumulative. This requires that the DEIS analyze not only the impacts of existing pipeline removal and replacement, but also the 0001-11 Air Quality upstream impacts to air quality that will result from oil production enabled by the project, and the downstream impacts associated with refinement Center for Biological and combustion of the oil. Only then can BLM fully evaluate the Project"s environmental and public health impacts. Unique 1 Clare Lakewood Diversity & Wishtoyo Comment Chumash Foundation The health impacts of the pollutants that will be emitted as a result of this project, including but not limited to nitrogen oxides (NOx), particle pollution (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO) , and volatile organic compounds (VOCs ) are well known and serious . 18 We urge BLM 0001-12 Air Quality to conduct a Health Risk Assessment for the air quality and public health impacts components of its analysis. Without ascertaining the health impacts that may result from the Project, the DEIS will be insufficient and not protective of public health.

BLM Should R e -circulate the NOI and I nclude Possible Alternatives as Required by NEPA Along with providing almost no descriptive information about the Project, BLM"s Notice of Intent fails to include possible alternatives as required by regulation.49 This negatively impacts the public"s ability to provide input to the scoping proces s on this fundamental element of NEPA and should be corrected through a revised notice of intent. One this deficiency is corrected, BLM"s DEIS must consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that will avoid or minimize its adverse effects on the environment . 50 These alternatives must include a No Action alternative. The No Action alternative should reflect current conditions and thus be an alternative under which crude oil is not transported across California, avoiding the environmental harms of the production, 0001-29 Alternatives transportation, and consumption of the oil. The No Action alternative should not assume Plains can comply with its federal Corrective Action Order and restart the old pipeline s. Nor should it assume other forms of transport, such as trucking, will be available. The DEIS should also explore one or more alternatives that hasten the decommissioning of the offshore oil platforms and promote renewable energy. Relatedly, in its assessment of mitigation measures for each of the Project"s many significant impacts, including oil spill risk and climate change impacts, BLM must use all practicable means to restore and enhance the quality of the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effect"rdquo; on the environment . 51

The DEIS must fully analyze the impacts of the Project on biological resources, including state - and federally -listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and environmentally sensitive habitat . The Project involves the installation, operation, and maintenance of approximately 123.4 Biological miles of replacement pipelines, as well as the installation of supporting access roads, valves, and pump stations across the California Coastal Zone, 0001-17 Resources California State Parks, Carrizo Plains Ecological Reserve, Carrizo Plain National Monument, Bitter Creek Wildlife Refuge, and Los Padres National Forest. The Project may also include the removal of existing pipeline across this same area, generating significant additional disturbance and pollution.

California is already experiencing the harmful impacts of climate change, including rising annual average temperatures; more frequent extreme events, including heat waves and heavy precipitation; and declining snowpack and spring runoff, among others.20 The state, with its 1,100 miles of coastline and $44 billion coastal economy, is uniquely threatened by sea -level rise and the coastal flooding, inundation and erosion it brings.21 Global average surface temperatures have risen by 1.8F (1.0C) since 1901, most of which occurred during the past three decades.22 Climate change 0001-15 Climate Change is also increasing stress on species and ecosystems causing changes in distribution, phenology, physiology, vital rates, genetics, ecosystem structure and processes in addition to increasing species extinction risk.23 U.S. and global oceans are being particularly hard -hit by climate change. The world"s oceans have absorbed more than 90 percent of the excess heat caused by greenhouse gas warming, resulting in low or no -oxygen zones in the coastal and open oceans and already a more than 30 percent increase in the acidity of ocean surface waters, leading to widespread harms to marine species.24

Climate change poses a significant threat to human health and well -being. The health impacts of climate change include harms from rising heat stress, the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, increases in air pollution, the spread of vector -borne diseases, rising food insecurity, changing exposure to toxic chemicals, displacement, and stress on mental health and well -being . 25 Although everyone is vulnerable to health impacts from climate change, children, the elderly, low -income communities, some communities of color, immigrant groups, and persons Center for Biological with disabilities and pre -existing medical conditions are particularly vulnerable to climate change -related health harms.26 To reverse course and Unique 1 Clare Lakewood Diversity & Wishtoyo 0001-16 Climate Change keep global warming below 1.5 degrees and avert the most catastrophic impacts of climate change, we must take swift action to keep fossil fuels in Comment Chumash Foundation the ground. For a 50 percent chance of limiting temperature rise to 1.5C, 85 percent of known fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground.27 Effectively, fossil fuel emissions must be phased out globally within the next few decades to keep global temperature rise below 1.5C.28 Recent studies have confirmed that every barrel of California oil left in the ground will result in a net decrease of about half a barrel of oil consumption globally.29 We simply cannot solve the climate crisis while continuing to drill for oil. The DEIS must therefore analyze how the Project (including up - stream and downstream emissions ) will contribute to climate change and not conflict with California"s climate goals . 30

BLM notes that it will use the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill public involvement requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act and that BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government -to -government basis in accordance with existing law, regulations, and policy. The DEIS Cultural should ensure that it analyzes the impacts of the Project to submerged and land -based cultural, historic, and paleontological resources across the 0001-20 Resources zone of impact that any oil spills and accidents could affect. Among other cultural resources impacts, the proposed pipeline may threaten sacred lands and wildlife that sustain Chumash culture, religious practices, and lifeways. BLM must analyze and disclose these impacts in its DEIS and ensure the DEIS implements measures to avoid these impacts.

IV. BLM"s DEIS Must Fully Evaluate the Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Environmental Impacts and Consequences Associated with this Project The NOI requests input on the scope of the DEIS and identifies the following preliminary issues for consideration: air and atmospheric values, water quality and quantity, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and special status species. The BLM states it will address reasonably foreseeable impact"rdquo; to resources from approval of this project and that mitigation may include avoidance, minimization, rectification, reduction or elimination over time, and may be considered at multiple scales, including the landscape scale. This list includes and omit s several issue areas of Cumulative 0001-10 particular concern to the Center, which are addressed in turn below . Furthermore, BLM must consider how the direct, indirect, and cumulative Impacts environmental and public health impacts of this Project might specially affect low - income communities, communities of color, and other sensitive and vulnerable communities that in many case s already bear a disproportionate pollution burden. When evaluating and addressing these issues, we also urge BLM to be guided by the fact that NEPA is our national charter for protection of the environment and was intended to be action -forcing 16 and ensure that federal agencies use all practicable mean "rdquo; for the objective of ensuring that the U.S. fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as a trustee of the environment for succeeding generations . 17

Along with the impacts associated with the narrowly defined Project scope of transporting crude oil onshore, this Project enables aging oil platforms Cumulative to restart their operations and makes possible the downstream consumption of crude oil. Combined with other past, present, and reasonably 0001-28 Impacts foreseeable actions, including other oil and gas development projects in the region, this creates significant cumulative public health and environmental impacts that BLM must fully evaluate in this DEIS .

BLM should reject Plains Pipeline, L.P ."s application for a right -of-way to build a new pipeline and restart offshore oil production from aging platforms. Plains should not be given another opportunity to despoil California"s coastal and inland resources. Oil drilling does not belong off California"s coast, and oil pipelining does not belong on federal lands, including the Carrizo Plains Ecological Reserve, Carrizo Plain National Monument, Bitter Creek Wildlife Refuge, or Los Padres National Forest. Instead, California and the U.S. must be focused on transitioning to a clean General and sustainable energy economy. This crude oil infrastructure Project would only entrench our dependence on fossil fuels, impede our transition 0001-30 Opposition away from dirty energy, conflict with local and state climate change policies, and accelerate the climate crisis.If BLM nonetheless proceeds to consider this proposal, it must ensure the DEIS includes a properly defined baseline, a reasonable range of alternatives, and a full evaluation and mitigation of the numerous significant impacts of the Project, including the risk of oil spills, the upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions of the Project, and its impacts to cultural, air, water, and biological resources . In the end, t h e only way BLM can prevent another Plains oil spill is to reject this Project. Center for Biological Unique 1 Clare Lakewood Diversity & Wishtoyo B. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The NOI does not include the climate change or greenhouse gas emissions impacts of this Project in its preliminary list Comment Chumash Foundation 0001-13 Greenhouse Gas of issues. If its use of the term atmospheric value"rdquo; is some kind of proxy for climate change impacts, BLM"s use of this term is a deliberate obfuscation of the greenhouse gas and climate change impacts of this Project. Proceeding in this vein would violate many tenets of NEPA.19 The DEIS must consider the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from all phases of the Project. The entire purpose of the Project is to enable oil companies to bring their offshore platforms back online and get their product to market . This means not only must BLM analyze GHG emissions from the construction, operation, and maintenance of the pipeline s and associated pump stations, but it also must analyze and mitigate emissions 0001-14 Greenhouse Gas associated with drilling, refining, and ultimate combustion of the crude oil as well these are all reasonably foreseeable and significant consequences of the Project. The DEIS must fully analyze the environmental and public health impacts of these emissions along with all other direct, indirect, and cumulative emissions of the Project. The DEIS must fully evaluate the Project"s potentially significan t impacts on water quality in coastal areas, to inland surface waters, and Hydrology/Wate groundwater, particularly in the event of pipeline failure or other accidents. As noted above, the pipeline will intersect 77 seasonal creeks, drainages, 0001-24 r Quality and rivers. The Project will also travers e mapped flood plains and six groundwater basins, with areas of shallow groundwater and groundwater identified as having potential for residential or agricultural use . 45

The DEI"rsquo;s analysis of water quality impacts of the pipeline should include a full evaluation and disclosure of the chemical composition and other characteristics of the crude oil to be transported in this pipeline to inform BLM"s evaluation of potential water quality and related impacts to public health, drinking water, agriculture, and biological resources. We also urge BLM to define the zone of potential water quality impact s of this Hydrology/Wate 0001-25 Project in a precautionary manner in light of the severity of the oil spill risks and past incidents. Furthermore, as recommended for the Project as a r Quality whole, BLM must examine the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Project on water quality. This includes the crude oil extraction offshore; the construction, operation and maintenance of the pipeline; and the further transportation, refining, and consumption of the crude oil .

Transporting oil by pipeline is undeniably dangerous. Indeed, an independent analysis of federal records found that from 1986 to 2014, 621 oil and gas pipeline leaks, spills, explosions and other significant incidents in California caused at least $769 million in damages, 200 injuries and almost 50 deaths.42 Nationwide from 1986 to 2013, there were nearly 8,000 significant incidents with U.S. pipelines, involving death, injury, and economic and environmental damage more than 300 per year.43 Federal data also indicate that there are more incidents in the first two years of pipeline"s life than in the next seven years combined, mostly due to faulty design or construction.44 Spills are an ugly and inevitable part of the oil industry , and Plains and its parent company Plains All American Pipeline LP are no exception. In 2015, Plains " severely corroded pipeline ruptured near Refugio 0001-23 Oil Spills State Beach, causing the worst oil spill in California in decades, releasing more than 124,000 gallons of oil into the environment. A jury found Plains guilty of a felony for failing to properly maintain its pipeline in connection with the spill, and several misdemeanors, including failing to timely call emergency responders. This was not an isolated incident for Plains and its parent company. According to federal data, Plains All American Pipeline has had 239 incidents (mostly oil spills) nationwide from 2006 2017, including 20 in California. The company has been responsible for nearly $180 million in property damage from spilling more than 822,000 gallons of hazardous liquids from its pipelines. The risks and impacts associated with crude oil production and pipelining and information about Plain"rsquo; record is relevant and must be considered in BLM"s DEIS for this Project. Furthermore, the evaluation of any spill response plans and their mitigating impact should be compared to the baseline of No Action .

BLM Must Accurately Describe the Project and Extent of the Action The DEIS must include an accurate description of the Project, including Project underlying purpose and need in order to produce an adequate environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) . 3 The 0001-1 Description Notice of Intent briefly explains that Plains filed a right -of-way application on January 9, 2018 for the replacement and abandonment of approximately 127 miles of existing oil pipelines . In addition, this Project enables aging oil platforms to restart their operations, creating significant public health and environmental impacts and risks that should be considered as direct impacts in this EIS . ExxonMobil"s offshore platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel were installed in 1976 Project and 1989, and ExxonMobil began producing from these platforms in 1981 and 1993. 5 At the time the platforms were installed, ExxonMobil 0001-2 Description anticipated drilling from these platforms for 25 -35 years, 6 meaning that the platforms and their associated infrastructure, including pipelines, are already beyond or approaching their expected lifespans. According to scientists, aging poses risks of corrosion, erosion , and fatigue stress to subsea Center for Biological pipelines. 7 Unique 1 Clare Lakewood Diversity & Wishtoyo Comment Chumash Foundation This Project may also facilitate other expanded and new crude oil extraction projects off the coast of California. The threats from continued and potentially expanded oil and gas operations offshore include increased risk of oil spills and vessel strikes, increased water, air, and noise pollution, Project 0001-3 and other disturbance that can harm marine life, public health, cultural resources, and coastal communities, as discussed supra. These threats Description include the toxic chemicals used in acid well stimulation, a process ExxonMobil anticipates using to re -start production at the offshore platforms this Project will service .

Just as the production impacts must be incorporated into the DEIS, the scope of this Project"s impacts may not be artificially limited to the length of Lines 901R and 903R . Once reaching the pipeline " s two major end points, the product will connect with other pipeline systems and on to the Santa Project Maria Refinery or to Bakersfield, Los Angeles, or San Francisco. 9 What must be in the DEIS is a detailed description of the full scope of this Project, 0001-4 Description including but not limited to the offshore source(s) and onshore destination(s) of the crude oil (including all known connecting pipelines, refineries, and other facilities); the chemical properties of the crude oil it will transport; how much crude oil it proposes to convey ; existing and projected demand for this crude oil; and what existing and future leases the pipeline may service, for what end uses, and for how long.

Project Hand in hand with a proper project description , the DEIS must not segment a larger project and its analysis into smaller pieces. If there are 0001-5 Description foreseeable future elements of the Project or its impacts, they must be fully disclosed and analyzed in this DEIS . 10

III. BLM"s DEIS Must Properly Define the Project"s Environmental Baseline While the NOI does not specify what the environmental baseline will be for the DEIS, we urge BLM to ensure that it does not repeat the mistake made by the County of Santa Barbara, which has asserted in its notice of preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for this Project under the California Environmental Quality Act that despite the fact that Line Project 901 and 903 have been shut down since the 2015 spill, [s]ince Plains retains the ability to restart the pipeline system without additional discretionary 0001-9 Description permits and to provide a realistic representation of facility operations, baseline conditions for the resources area analyses will be an average of the last 3 full years of pipeline operations prior to the May 19, 2015 spill event (2012 -2014) . 15 The pipelines have been out of service since 2015. Defining the baseline using out of date conditions will artificially an impermissibly depress the significance of the Project"s environmental impacts. The proper baseline consists of current conditions , not over four years ago when Line s 901 and 903 were operational .

The geology and seismic activity underlying the Project"s pathway create an unacceptable risk of oil spills and other accidents and call into question whether these risks can be adequately avoided or mitigated. The Project will cross ten potentially active faults, twelve splays of the San Andreas Fault, expansive soils, erodible soils, steep slopes and soils with liquefaction potential.37 Lines 901R and 903R traverse a tectonically complex Seismic 0001-21 and seismically active region of southern California , 38 and multiple geologic hazards are present at various locations along the pipeline.39 This Conditions creates a dangerous environment for a crude oil pipeline, one where [p]otential landslide hazards are present throughout large portions of the pipeline alignment , 40 and some areas are underlain by formations noted to be susceptible to slumps and landslides. 41 The DEIS must take this into account when evaluating and mitigating the potential risks and impacts from oil spills and other accidents. Center for Biological Unique 1 Clare Lakewood Diversity & Wishtoyo Comment Chumash Foundation The above -noted geologic and seismic risks create an imperative for BLM to fully evaluate and avoid these risks to the maximum extent feasible, Seismic 0001-22 particularly in light of Plain "rsquo; history of incident s and violations. BLM"s evaluation should take into account the economic and ecological Conditions impacts and costs of a worst -case spill event from the new pipeline and its associated infrastructure.

Aside from the noise, light pollution, disruption of access and movement, surface disturbance, traffic, and air and water quality impacts of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project, oil spills and other accidents are real risks posed by this Project. Oil spills cause devastating environmental harms. The y can kill and harm a wide vary of marine life, from zooplankton to whales. They also harm public health and coastal 0001-19 communities. BLM must analyze the full range of the lethal and sublethal, immediate and long -term impacts of the Project"s potential oil spills and accidents on marine species . The Project Applicant"s 2015 oil spill near Refugio State Beach highlights the risks and negative impacts of transporting oil by pipeline all too well, impacts from which we are still recovering. It is imperative that the DEIS use the best available science on the impacts of crude oil spills to evaluate the full scope and scale of the Project"s potential impacts to biological resources.

Owl Clan Consultants is a Chumash owned cultural resource company. Our primary concern is preserving cultural resources when possible and limiting impacts when preserving in place is not possible. Owl Clan Consultants is assisting some of the non-federally recognized Chumash groups in a Agency 0002-1 review of the cultural resource data and methodology. Our position is the Chumash community should have representation by people with Coordination knowledge of pipeline construction. We are also extremely familiar with the cultural resources within and adjacent to the existing and proposed right of way. We have reviewed a summary of the Phase 1 cultural resource survey and feel it is inadequate. For the purpose of this public document we will only Cultural address a few issues containing nonconfidential data. An internet search of publicly available information for the Gaviota coast references and 0002-3 Resources locates prehistoric trails and historic stage lines crossing the right of ways. At least one trail is a significant cultural resource associated with the early history of California. None of these are included in the Phase 1.

In the past there were many adobes along the Gaviota coast, some built by Chumash. An historic site recorded adjacent to the right of way is visible Cultural 0002-4 in early air photos. An adobe is visible within the site boundary. The photo also shows a corral and possible stable or barn in or extremely close to Resources Owl Clan Unique the right of way. The boundaries for this site should be redrawn based on the air photos. 2 Owl Clan Consultants Consultants Comment Cultural A reroute at MP 11.5 is proposed to avoid cultural resources but reroutes into a Tribal Cultural Resource (CEQA Sec. 15065a) with no dig restrictions. 0002-5 Resources Mistakes like this are very significant and we would hope an extended Phase 1 with STP sampling has not been performed.

Another issue which should be addressed is the use of shovel test pits (STPs) to determine site boundaries. It is a simple test for presence or absence of cultural material such as shell, bone, lithic material, and fire affected rock. Many of the archaeological sites along the coast are villages. Several of Cultural these villages were noted during the Spanish exploration of the California. It has been our experience large portions of village sites have extremely 0002-6 Resources low densities of these materials. As an example if screening material from an STP one would not expect to find any of if a dance floor, house floor, or sweat lodge was sampled. There are archaeological investigations adjacent to this project area which demonstrate the inadequacies of STPs in determining site boundaries. A unique situation may occur with this project. Two pipelines (abandoned and proposed) with overlapping construction right of ways may possibly Cultural 0002-7 have conflicting EIRs. We are concerned determining site boundaries using STPs a second time can generate different results possibly shrinking Resources boundaries.

LSA: As a Responsible Agency under CEQA, CDFW has authority over activities in streams and /or lakes that will divert or obstruct the natural flow; or change the bed, channel, or bank (including vegetation associated with the stream or lake ) of a river or stream; or use material from a streambed. For any such activities, the project applicant (or entity ) must provide written notification to CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, CDFW determines whether a LSA Agreement (Agreement ) with the applicant is Agency 0003-5 required prior to conducting the proposed activities. CDFW"s issuance of an Agreement for a project that is subject to CEQA will require related Coordination environmental compliance actions by CDFW as a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible Agency, CDFW may consider the CEQA document prepared by the local jurisdiction (Lead Agency ) for the Project. To minimize additional requirements by CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. and /or under CEQA, the DEIS should fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the LSA.1

a) The Project area supports aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitats; therefore, a preliminary jurisdictional delineation of the streams and their associated riparian habitats should be included in the DEIS. The delineation should be conducted pursuant to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS ) wetland definition adopted by the CDFW.2 Some wetland and riparian habitats subject to CDFW"s authority may extend beyond the Agency jurisdictional limits of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer"rsquo; section 404 permit and Regional Water Quality Control Board section 401 0003-6 Coordination Certification. b) In areas of the Project site which may support ephemeral streams, herbaceous vegetation, woody vegetation, and woodlands also serve to protect the integrity of ephemeral channels and help maintain natural sedimentation processes; therefore, CDFW recommends effective setbacks that are sufficiently -sized be established to maintain vegetated buffer areas adjoining ephemeral drainages. c) Project-related California Department of Unique changes in drainage patterns, runoff, and sedimentation should be included and evaluated in the DEIS. 3 Erinn Wilson Fish & Wildlife Comment

Project Alternatives: The DEIS should provide full disclosure of a reasonable range alternatives that can accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed Action /Project (including those considered but not carried forward for further analysis ). Further, CDFW recommends the DEIS identify the environmentally preferred alternative (40 C.F.R. 1502.14 [e ] ) if it is intended to meet CEQA requirements for future actions. CDFW recommends the development of a reduced coast live oak impact Project Alternative to evaluate adjusting the pipeline alignment, if feasible, to reduce impacts to oaks (40 C.F.R. 1502.14 and 40 C.F.R. 1508.25 [ b ] [ 3 ] ). Such an alternative should also evaluate use of various technologies and methods to reduce 0003-3 Alternatives construction -related impacts. In addition, the DEIS should include project alternatives that would reduce the potential for spill, ruptures, leakage and other foreseeable events commonly associated with transporting via pipelines. An alternative that avoids traversing through CDFW ecological reserves and other conserved lands should also be included in the DEIS at the same level of detail as the proposed action. Alternatives analyzed in the DEIS to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources from issuance of federal permits should not be limited by existing right -of -way, but rather include adjustment and changes to right -of -way if needed to avoid /minimize impacts.

Project Description and Alternatives: To enable CDFW to adequately review and comment on the proposed Project from the standpoint of the protection of plants, fish, and wildlife, we recommend the following information be included in the DEIS: a) A complete discussion of the purpose and need for, and description of, the proposed Project, including all staging areas and access routes to the construction and staging areas; and, b) A 0003-4 Alternatives range of feasible alternatives to Project component location and design features to ensure that alternatives to the proposed Project are fully considered and evaluated (40 C.F.R. 1502.14; CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 ). The alternatives should avoid or otherwise minimize direct and indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources and wildlife movement areas.

Biological Assessment List of Sensitive Species: CDFW concurs with the list of sensitive species that have a potential to occur within the Project footprint noted in the Biological Assessment prepared by Sage Institute and based on review of California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB ) as well as pedestrian surveys. The species identified include the following listed, threatened and endangered species: California red -legged frog (Rana draytonii); southern steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss ); southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus )] least Bell"s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus )] Nelson"s antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilius nelson ); giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens )] Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides )] and, San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis multica ). Additionally, upland habitat for the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense ) and potential habitat for the Kern primrose sphinx moth (Euproserpinus Euterpe ) and blunt -nosed leopard lizard Biological (Gambelia sila ) could be affected. In addition to the above list, CDFW recommends including the following species in the biological 0003-1 Resources assessment: northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra ) and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), both California species of special concern (SSC ); El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni), a SSC and federal listed endangered species; Lompoc yerba santa (Eriodictyon capitatum ), federal listed and NPPA -listed rare plant; La graciosa thistle (Cirsium scariosum var. loncholepis ), state threatened and federal endangered; as well as Gaviota tar plant ( Deinandra increscens ssp. Villosa ) and California condor (Gymnogyps califbrnianus ), both state and federal listed endangered species. Impacts to SSC, including northern California legless lizard and coast homed lizard should be considered a significant direct and cumulative adverse effect under CEQA without implementing appropriate avoid and /or mitigation measures (40 C.F.R. 1508.7; CEQA Guidelines 15064, 15065, 15125 [ c ] and 15380 ). CDFW recommends that the DEIS include a full evaluation of potential direct and indirect impacts to these species from construction and operation of the Project.

6) Biological Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts: To provide a thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts, the following should be addressed in the DEIS: a) A discussion of potential adverse impacts from lighting, noise, human activity, exotic species, and drainage. The latter subject should address Project - related changes on drainage patterns and downstream of the project site; the volume, velocity, and frequency of existing and post -Project surface flows; polluted runoff; soil erosion and /or sedimentation in streams and water bodies; and, post -Project fate of runoff from the project site. The California Department of Unique discussion should also address the proximity of the extraction activities to the water table, whether dewatering would be necessary and the 3 Erinn Wilson Fish & Wildlife Comment potential resulting impacts on the habitat (if any ) supported by the groundwater. Mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such Project impacts Biological 0003-10 should be included; b) A discussion regarding indirect Project impacts on biological resources, including resources in nearby public lands, open space, Resources adjacent natural habitats, riparian ecosystems, and any designated and /or proposed or existing reserve lands ( e.g., preserve lands associated with a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP, Fish and G .Code 2800 et. seq.). Impacts on, and maintenance of, wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitats in adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated in the DEIS; c) An analysis of impacts from land use designations and zoning located nearby or adjacent to natural areas that may inadvertently contribute to wildlife -human interactions. A discussion of possible conflicts and mitigation measures to reduce these conflicts should be included in the DEIS; and, d) A cumulative effects analysis, as described under CEQA Guidelines section 15130. General and specific plans, as well as past, present, and anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on similar plant communities and wildlife habitats.

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation for Sensitive Plants: The DEIS should include measures to fully avoid and otherwise protect sensitive plant communities from Project -related direct and indirect impacts. CDFW considers these communities to be imperiled habitats having both local and Biological 0003-11 regional significance. Plant communities, alliances, and associations with a statewide ranking of S - 1, S - 2, S - 3 and S - 4 should be considered Resources sensitive and declining at the local and regional level. These ranks can be obtained by querying the CNDDB and are included in The Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2008 ).

Compensatory Mitigation: The DEIS should include mitigation measures for adverse Project -related impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats. Mitigation measures should emphasize avoidance and reduction of Project impacts. For unavoidable impacts, on -site habitat restoration or enhancement should be discussed in detail. If on -site mitigation is not feasible or would not be biologically viable and therefore not Biological adequately mitigate the loss of biological functions and values, off-site mitigation through habitat creation and /or acquisition and preservation in 0003-12 Resources perpetuity should be addressed. Areas proposed as mitigation lands should be protected in perpetuity with a conservation easement, financial assurance and dedicated to a qualified entity for long -term management and monitoring. Under Government Code section 65967, the lead agency must exercise due diligence in reviewing the qualifications of a governmental entity, special district, or nonprofit organization to effectively manage and steward land, water, or natural resources on mitigation lands it approves.

Nesting Birds: CDFW recommends that measures be taken to avoid Project impacts to nesting birds. Migratory nongame native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA ) of 1918 (Title 50, 10.13, Code of Federal Regulations ). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory nongame birds (as listed under the Federal MBTA ). Proposed Project activities including (but not limited to ) staging and disturbances to native and nonnative vegetation, structures, and substrates should occur outside of the avian breeding season which generally runs from February 1 Biological 0003-14 through September 1 (as early as January 1 for some raptors ) to avoid take of birds or their eggs. If avoidance of the avian breeding season is not Resources feasible, CDFW recommends surveys by a qualified biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys to detect protected native birds occurring in suitable nesting habitat that is to be disturbed and (as access to adjacent areas allows ) any other such habitat within 300 -feet of the disturbance area (within 500 -feet for raptors ). Project personnel, including all contractors working on site, should be instructed on the sensitivity of the area. Reductions in the nest buffer distance may be appropriate depending on the avian species involved, ambient levels of human activity, screening vegetation, or possibly other factors. California Department of Unique 3 Erinn Wilson Fish & Wildlife Comment Translocation /Salvage of Plants and Animal Species: Translocation and transplantation is the process of moving an individual from the Project site and permanently moving it to a new location. CDFW generally does not support the use of, translocation or transplantation as the primary Biological 0003-15 mitigation strategy for unavoidable impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species. Studies have shown that these efforts are Resources experimental and the outcome unreliable. CDFW ha"nbsp;found that permanent preservation and management of habitat capable of supporting these species is often a more effective long -term strategy for conserving sensitive plants and animals and their habitats.

)Movinq out of Harm"s Wav: The proposed Project is anticipated to result in clearing of natural habitats that support many species of indigenous wildlife. To avoid direct mortality, we recommend that a qualified biological monitor approved by CDFW be on -site prior to and during ground and Biological habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm"s way special status species or other wildlife of low mobility that would be injured or killed by 0003-16 Resources grubbing or Project -related construction activities. It should be noted that the temporary relocation of on -site wildlife does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of offsetting project impacts associated with habitat loss. If the project requires species to be removed, disturbed, or otherwise handled, we recommend that the DEIS clearly identify that the designated entity shall obtain all appropriate state and federal permits.

Mildlife Movement and Connectivity: The project area supports significant biological resources and is located adjacent to a regional wildlife movement corridor. The project area contains habitat connections and supports movement across the broader landscape, sustaining both transitory Biological 0003-17 and permanent wildlife populations. On -site features that contribute to habitat connectivity should be evaluated and maintained. Aspects of the Resources Project that could create physical barriers to wildlife movement, including direct or indirect project -related activities, should be identified and addressed in the DEIS. Indirect impacts from lighting, noise, dust, and increased human activity may displace wildlife in the general Project area.

)Reveqetation /Restoration Plan: Plans for restoration and re -vegetation should be prepared by persons with expertise in southern California ecosystems and native plant restoration techniques. Plans should identify the assumptions used to develop the proposed restoration strategy. Each plan should include, at a minimum: ( a ) the location of restoration sites and assessment of appropriate reference sites; ( b ) the plant species to be used, sources of local propagules, container sizes, and seeding rates; ( c ) a schematic depicting the mitigation area; ( d ) a local seed and cuttings and planting schedule; ( e ) a description of the irrigation methodology; ( f ) measures to control exotic vegetation on site; ( g ) specific success criteria; ( h ) a detailed monitoring program;(i) contingency measures should the success criteria not be met; and (j ) identification of the party responsible for meeting the success criteria and providing for conservation of the mitigation site in perpetuity . Monitoring of restoration areas Biological 0003-18 should extend across a sufficient time frame to ensure that the new habitat is established, self -sustaining, and capable of surviving drought. a) Resources CDFW recommends that local on-site propagules from the Project area and nearby vicinity be collected and used for restoration purposes. On -site seed collection should be initiated in the near future to accumulate sufficient propagule material for subsequent use in future years. On -site vegetation mapping at the alliance and /or association level should be used to develop appropriate restoration goals and local plant palettes. Reference areas should be identified to help guide restoration efforts. Specific restoration plans should be developed for various Project components as appropriate. b) Restoration objectives should include providing special habitat elements where feasible to benefit key wildlife species. These physical and biological features can include (for example ) retention of woody material, logs, snags, rocks and brush piles (see Mayer and Laudenslayer, 19881 ).

The DEIS should also incorporate a discussion of State of California fully protected species (Fish Game Code, 3511, 4700, 5050 and 5515 ), some of California Department of Unique which are also federally listed. For example, unarmored threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni ), golden eagle (Aquila 3 Erinn Wilson Biological Fish & Wildlife Comment 0003-2 chrysaetos ), white -tailed kite (Elanus leucurus ) and American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum ) occur in Santa Barbara County. Fully Resources Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock

CESA: CDFW considers adverse impacts to a species protected by CESA to be significant without mitigation under CEQA. As to CESA, take of any endangered, threatened, candidate species, or State -listed rare plant species that results from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by state law (Fish and Game Code, 2080, 2085; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 786.9 ). Consequently, if the Project, Project construction, or any Project -related activity during the life of the Project will result in take of a species designated as endangered or threatened, or a candidate for listing under CESA, CDFW recommends that the Project proponent seek appropriate take authorization under CESA prior to implementing the Project. Appropriate authorization from CDFW may include an Incidental Take Permit (ITP ) or a consistency determination in certain circumstances, among other options [Fish and Game Code 2080.1, 2081, subds. ( b ) and ( c ) ]. Early consultation is encouraged (40 C.F.R. 1506.2; CEQA Guidelines 15222 and 15226 ) as Biological 0003-8 significant modification to a Project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Permit. Revisions to the Fish and Game Resources Code, effective January 1998, may require that CDFW issue a separate CEQA document for the issuance of an ITP unless the Project CEQA document addresses all Project impacts to CESA -listed species and specifies a mitigation monitoring and reporting program that will meet the requirements of an ITP. For these reasons, biological mitigation monitoring and reporting proposals should be of sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements for a CESA ITP. For dually listed species where a consistency determination (CD ) is requested (Fish Game Code 2080.1 ), impacts to state listed species must meet the fully mitigated standard and cannot include fully protected species or listed plants (see https:/ /www.wildlife.ca.gov /Conservation /CESA /Consistency - Determinations #499951523 -whv -are -some -federal -statementspermits -inconsistent - with -cesa ).

Biological Baseline Assessment: To provide a complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, sensitive, regionally and locally unique species, and sensitive habitats, the DEIS should include the following information: a) Information on the regional setting that is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts, with special emphasis on resources that are rare or unique to the region (CEQA Guidelines 15125 [ c ] ); b ) A thorough, recent, floristic -based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, following CDFW"s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (see http://www.dfq.ca.qov/habcon/plant/); c) Floristic, alliance- and/or association-based mapping and vegetation impact assessments conducted at the Project site and within the neighboring vicinity. The Manual of California Vegetation, second edition, should also be used to inform this mapping and assessment (Sawyer et al. 20083 ). Adjoining habitat areas should be included in this assessment where site activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts offsite. Habitat mapping at the alliance level will help establish baseline vegetation conditions; d) A complete, recent, assessment of the biological resources associated with each habitat type on site and within adjacent areas that could also be Biological 0003-9 affected by the project. CDFW"s CNDDB in Sacramento should be contacted to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive Resources species and habitat. CDFW recommends that CNDDB Field Survey Forms be completed and submitted to CNDDB to document survey results. Online forms can be obtained and submitted at http://www.dfq.ca.qov /bioqeodata /cnddb /submittinq data to cnddb.asp; e) A complete, recent, assessment of rare, threatened, and endangered, and other sensitive species on site and within the area of potential effect, including California SSC and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code 3511, 4700, 5050 and 5515 ). Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition of endangered, rare or threatened species (see CEQA Guidelines 15380 ). Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also be addressed. Focused species -specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species -specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the USFWS; and f ) A recent, wildlife and rare plant survey. CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one -year period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if build out could occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases.

California Department of Unique 3 Erinn Wilson Fish & Wildlife Comment

3) Wetlands Resources: CDFW, as described in Fish Game Code section 703 ( a ), is guided by the Fish and Game Commission"s policies. The Wetlands Resources policy (http:/ /www.fqc.ca.qov /policv / ) of the Fish and Game Commission ...seek [ s ] to provide for the protection, preservation, restoration, enhancement and expansion of wetland habitat in California. Further, it is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission to strongly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands. It opposes, consistent with its legal authority, any development or conversion that would result in a reduction of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. To that end, the Commission opposes wetland development proposals unless, at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be no net loss of either wetland habitat values or acreage. The Commission strongly prefers mitigation which would achieve expansion of wetland acreage and enhancement of wetland habitat values . a) The Wetlands Resources policy provides a framework for maintaining wetland resources and establishes mitigation guidance. CDFW encourages avoidance of wetland resources as a primary mitigation measure and discourages the development or type conversion of wetlands to uplands. CDFW encourages activities that would avoid the reduction of wetland acreage, function, or habitat values. Once avoidance and minimization measures have been exhausted, Hydrology/Wate the Project must include mitigation measures to assure a no net loss of either wetland habitat values, or acreage, for unavoidable impacts to 0003-7 r Quality wetland resources. Conversions include, but are not limited to, conversion to subsurface drains, placement of fill or building of structures within the wetland, and channelization or removal of materials from the streambed. All wetlands and watercourses, whether ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial, should be retained and provided with substantial setbacks, which preserve the riparian and aquatic values and functions for the benefit to on -site and off-site wildlife populations. CDFW recommends mitigation measures to compensate for unavoidable impacts be included in the DEIS and these measures should compensate for the loss of function and value. b) The Fish and Game Commission"s Water policy guides CDFW to [ensure ] the quantity and quality of the waters of this state should be apportioned and maintained respectively so as to produce and sustain maximum numbers of fish and wildlife; to provide maximum protection and enhancement offish and wildlife and their habitat; encourage and support programs to maintain or restore a high quality of the waters of this state; prevent the degradation thereof caused by pollution and contamination; and, endeavor to keep as much water as possible open and accessible to the public for the use and enjoyment offish and wildlife. CDFW recommends avoidance of water practices and structures that use excessive amounts of water, and minimization of impacts that negatively affect water quality, to the extent feasible (Fish and G. Code 5650 ).

Editorial Comments and/or SuggestionsFederally Listed Species: CDFW recommends consulting with the USFWS on potential impacts to federally listed species including, but not limited to, California jewelflower, San Joaquin woollythreads, GKR, BNLL, and SJKF. Take under the Federal Agency 0004-17 Endangered Species Act (FESA) is more broadly defined than CESA; take under FESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that Coordination could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS to comply with FESA is advised well in advance of any ground disturbing activities.

COMMENT 8: San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF)Issue: SJKF have been documented to occur within the vicinity of the Project area (CDFW 2019). Presence/absence in any one year is not necessarily a reliable indicator of SJKF potential to occur on a site. SJKF may be attracted to project areas due to the type and level of ground-disturbing activities and the loose, friable soils resulting from intensive ground disturbance. As a result, there is potential for SJKF to colonize the Project area or to occupy adjacent grassland and fallowedagricultural land.Specific impact: Without appropriate California Department of Unique 4 Julie Vance avoidance and minimization measures for SJKF, potential significant impacts associated with the Project include den collapse, inadvertent Fish and Wildlife Comment entrapment, reduced reproductive success, reduction in health and vigor of young, and direct mortality of individuals.Evidence impact would be significant: San Joaquin kit foxes are endemic to California and were historically distributed throughout the San Joaquin Valley, adjacent foothills, and valleys in the coastal mountains of central California (CDFG 1995). Habitat loss resulting from agricultural, urban, and industrial development is the primary threat to SJKF (Cypher et al. 2013). Therefore, ground-disturbing activities within the Project have the potential to impact local SJKF Biological populations.Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)To evaluate potential impacts to SJKF associated with Project development, 0004-10 Resources CDFW recommends conducting the following evaluation of project areas prior to Project approval and including the following mitigation measures as conditions of approval for the Project.Recommended Mitigation Measure 1: SJKF Habitat AssessmentCDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment in advance of Project approval, to determine if the project area or its immediate vicinity contains suitable habitat for SJKF.Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: SJKF SurveysCDFW recommends assessing presence/absence of SJKF by conducting surveys following the USFWS Standardized recommendations for protection of the San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance (2011). Specifically, CDFW advises conducting these surveys in all areas of potentially suitable habitat prior to Project approval and again no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to beginning of ground disturbing activities. In addition, CDFW advises that these surveys extend out to 200-feet from the Project area boundaries.Recommended Mitigation Measure 3: SJKF Take AuthorizationSJKF detedion warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take, or if avoidance is not feasible, to acquire an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) prior to ground-disturbing activities, pursuant to Fish and Game Code 2081(b).

COMMENT 9: Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (BNLL)Issue: BNLL have been documented to occur within the vicinity of the Project area (CDFW 2019). Suitable BNLL habitat includes areas of grassland, upland scrub, and intermittent washes that contain requisite habitat elements, such as small mammal burrows. BNLL also use open space patches between suitable habitats, including disturbed sites and unpaved access roadways. Therefore, ground disturbance within the Project has the potential to impact local BNLL populations, a Fully Protected Species.Specific impact: Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for BNLL, potentially significant impacts associated with ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the Project include burrow collapse, nest abandonment, reduced nest success, reduced health and vigor of eggs and/or young, in addition to direct mortality in violation of Fish and Game Code.Evidence impact is potentially significant: The BNLL, endemic to California, historically occurred throughout the San Joaquin Valley and adjacent foothills of central California. The species now inhabits only scattered locations within the Valley, less than 15% of their former range (USFWS 2010). Threats to the BNLL include habitat destruction, fragmentation, and degradation; pesticides; alterations of vegetation communities including spread of invasive plants that restrict movement of the BNLL (USFWS 2010). Habitat loss resulting from agricultural, urban, and industrial development is the primary threat to BNLL (ESRP 2019a). Therefore, ground Biological 0004-11 disturbance within the Project has the potential to impact local BNLL populations.Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)To Resources evaluate potential impacts to BNLL associated with Project development, CDFW recommends conducting the following evaluation of project areas and implementing the following mitigation measures as conditions of approval for the Project.Recommended Mitigation Measure 4: BNLL SurveysPrior to initiating any vegetation- or ground-disturbance activities, CDFW recommends conducting surveys in accordance with the Approved Survey Methodology for the Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard (CDFG 2004). This recommended survey protocol, designed to optimize BNLL detectability, reasonably assures CDFW that ground-disturbance will not result in take of this fully protected species.CDFW advises completion of BNLL surveys no more than one year prior to initiation of ground disturbance. Please note that protocol-level surveys must be conducted on multiple dates during late spring, summer, and fall and that within these time periods there are specific protocol-level date, temperature, and time parameters which must be adhered to. As a result, protocol-level surveys for BNLL are not synonymous with 30-day preconstruction surveys often recommended for other wildlife species. In addition, the BNLL protocol specifies different survey effort requirements based on whether the disturbance results from maintenance activities or if the disturbance results in habitat removal (CDFG 2004).Recommended Mitigation Measure 5: BNLL Take AvoidanceBNLL detection during protocol level surveys warrants consultation with CDFW todiscuss how to implement ground-disturbing activities and avoid take. California Department of Unique 4 Julie Vance Fish and Wildlife Comment

COMMENT 10: Giant kangaroo rat (GKR)Issue: Review of aerial imagery reveals that suitable habitat for GKR may be present both within and in the vicinity of the Project area. GKR inhabit sandy-loam soils located in open grassland habitat containing widely scattered desert shrubs. Habitat both within and bordering the Project area, supports grassland habitat. Therefore, there is potential for GKR to occur in and/or colonize the Project site.Specific impact: Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for GKR, significant impacts resulting from ground-and vegetation- disturbing activities associated with construction of the Project include burrow collapse, inadvertent entrapment, reduced reproductive success, reduction in health and vigor of young, and direct mortality of individuals.Evidence impact is potentially significant: Habitat loss resulting from agricultural, urban, and industrial development is the primary threat to GKR. Very little suitable habitat for GKR remains along the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley (USFWS 1998). As a result, if the Project area is occupied by GKR, Project activities have the potential to significantly impact local populations of the species.Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)To evaluate potential impacts to GKR associated with Project development, CDFW recommends conducting the following evaluation of project areas and implementing the following mitigation measures Biological 0004-12 as conditions of approval for the Project.Recommended Mitigation Measure 6: GKR Habitat AssessmentCDFW recommends that a qualified biologist Resources conduct a habitat assessment in advance of Project approval, to determine if the project area or its immediate vicinity contains suitable habitat for GKR.Mitigation Measure 7: GKR Trapping SurveysIf suitable habitat for GKR is identified on the Project site CDFW recommends that a trapping plan for determining presence of GKR be submitted to and approved by CDFW prior to subsequent trapping efforts. CDFW recommends these surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist who holds a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW for GKR. CDFW further recommends that these surveys be conducted between April 1 and October 31, when kangaroo rats are most active and well in advance of ground-disturbing activities in order to determine if impacts to GKR could occur.Mitigation Measure 8: GKR AvoidanceIf suitable habitat is present and trapping is not feasible, CDFW advises maintenance of a 50-foot minimum no-disturbance buffer around all small mammal burrows of suitable size for GKR.Mitigation Measure 9: GKR Take AuthorizationIf GKR are found within the Project area during preconstruction surveys or construction activities, consultation with CDFW is advised to discuss how to implement the Project and avoid take; or if avoidance is not feasible, to acquire an Incidental Take Permit prior to any ground-disturbing activities, pursuant Fish and Game Code 2081(b).

COMMENT 11: San Joaquin Antelope Squirrel (SJAS)Issue: SJAS have been documented to occur within the vicinity of the Project area (CDFW 2019). Suitable SJAS habitat includes areas of grassland, upland scrub, and alkali sink habitats that contain requisite habitat elements, such as small mammal burrows. Therefore, ground disturbance within the Project has the potential to impact local SJAS populations.Specific impact: Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for SJAS, significant impacts resulting from ground-and vegetation-disturbing activities associated with construction of the Project include burrow collapse, inadvertent entrapment, reduced reproductive success, reduction in health and vigor of young, and direct mortality of individuals.Evidence impact is potentially significant: Habitat loss resulting from agricultural, urban, and industrial development is the primary threat to SJAS. Very little suitable habitat for this species remains along the western floor of the San Joaquin Valley (ESRP 2019b). As a result, ground-disturbing activities within the Project area have the potential to impact local populations of California Department of Unique Biological Julie Vance 0004-13 SJAS.Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)To evaluate potential impacts to SJAS associated with Project development, CDFW Fish and Wildlife Comment Resources recommends conducting the following evaluation of project areas and implementing the following mitigation measures as conditions of approval for the Project.Recommended Mitigation Measure 10: SJAS SurveysIn areas of suitable habitat, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct focused daytime visual surveys for SJAS using line transects with 10- to 30-meter spacing. CDFW further advises that these surveys be conducted between April 1 and September 20, during appropriate conditions. Conditions considered appropriate for SJAS include daytime temperatures between 68-86 F (CDFG 1990).Recommended Mitigation Measure 11: SJAS AvoidanceIf suitable habitat is present and surveys or trapping are not feasible, CDFW advises maintenance of a 50-foot minimum no-disturbance buffer around all small mammal burrows of suitable size for SJAS.Recommended Mitigation Measure 12: SJAS Take AuthorizationSJAS detection warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take, or if avoidance is not feasible, to acquire an ITP prior to ground-disturbing activities, pursuant to Fish and Game Code 2081(b).

COMMENT 12: Burrowing Owl (BUOW)Issue: Review of aerial imagery reveals that suitable habitat for BUOW is present both within and in the vicinity of the Project area. BUOW inhabit open grassland containing small mammal burrows, a requisite habitat feature used by BUOW for nesting and cover. Habitat both within and bordering the Project area, supports grassland habitat. Therefore, there is potential for BUOW to colonize the 4 Project site. Bureau of Land ManagementJune 3, 2019Page 14Specific impact: Potentially significant direct impacts associated with Project construction include burrow collapse, inadvertent entrapment, nest abandonment, reduced reproductive success, reduction in health and vigor of eggs and/or young, and direct mortality of individuals.Evidence impact is potentially significant: BUOW rely on burrow habitat year-round for their survival and reproduction. Habitat loss and degradation are considered the greatest threats to BUOW in California"s Central Valley (Gervais et al. 2008). Therefore, subsequent ground-disturbing activities associated with the Project have the potential to significantly impact local BUOW populations. In addition, and as described in CDFW"s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012), excluding and/or evicting BUOW from their burrows is considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA.Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)To evaluate potential impacts to BUOW, CDFW recommends conducting the following evaluation of the Project area and including the following mitigation measures as condition of approval for the Project.Recommended Mitigation Measure 13: BUOW SurveysCDFW recommends assessing presence/absence of BUOW by having a qualified biologist conduct surveys following the California Burrowing Owl Consortium"s Burrowing Owl California Department of Unique Biological Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (CBOC 1993) and CDFW"s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012). Specifically, CBOC and Julie Vance 0004-14 Fish and Wildlife Comment Resources CDFW"s Staff Report suggest three or more surveillance surveys conducted during daylight with each visit occurring at least three weeks apart during the peak breeding season (April 15 to July 15), when BUOW are most detectable. In addition, CDFW advises that surveys include a 500-foot buffer around the Project area.Recommended Mitigation Measure 14: BUOW AvoidanceShould a BUOW be detected, CDFW recommends no- disturbance buffers, as outlined in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012), be implemented prior to and during any ground- disturbing activities. Specifically, CDFW"s Staff Report recommends that impacts to occupied burrows be avoided in accordance with the following table unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that either: 1) the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.SEE TABLE IN ORIGINAL LETTERRecommended Mitigation Measure 15: BUOW Passive Relocation and MitigationIf BUOW are found within these recommended buffers and avoidance is not possible, it is important to note that according to the Staff Report (CDFG 2012), exclusion is not a take avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and is considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA. However, if necessary, CDFW recommends that burrow exclusion be conducted by qualified biologists and only during the non-breeding season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty through non-invasive methods, such as surveillance. CDFW recommends replacement of occupied burrows with artificial burrows at a ratio of 1 burrow collapsed to 3 artificial burrows constructed (3:1) as mitigation for the potentially significant impact of evicting BUOW. Because BUOW may attempt to colonize or re-colonize an area that will be impacted, CDFW recommends ongoing surveillance at a rate that

COMMENT 13: Other Special-Status Animals SpeciesIssue: LeConte"s thrasher, prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), short-nosed kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus), Tulare grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus tularensis), San Joaquin coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum ruddocki), California legless lizard (AnnieIla spp.), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), and American badger (Taxidea taxus) can inhabit grassland and upland scrub habitats (Shuford and Gardali 2008, Thomson et al. 2016). All of the species mentioned above have been documented to occur in the vicinity of the Project area, which supports requisite habitat elements for these species (CDFW 2019).Specific impact: Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for these species, potentially significant impacts associated with ground disturbance include nest/den/burrow abandonment, which may result in reduced health or vigor of eggs and/or young, and direct mortality.Evidence impact is potentially significant: Habitat loss threatens all of the species mentioned above (Shuford and Gardali 2008, Thomson et al. 2016). As a result, Biological ground-and vegetation-disturbing activities associated with development of the Project have the potential to significantly impact local populations of 0004-15 Resources these species.Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)To evaluate potential impacts to special-status species associated with subsequentdevelopment, CDFW recommends conducting the following evaluation of project areas and implementing the following mitigation measures.Recommended Mitigation Measure 16: Habitat Assessment CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment in advance of project implementation, to determine if project areas or their immediate vicinity contain suitable habitat for the species mentioned above.Recommended Mitigation Measure 17: SurveysIf suitable habitat is present, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for applicable species and their requisite habitat features to evaluate potential impacts resulting from ground- and vegetation- disturbance.Recommended Mitigation Measure 18: AvoidanceAvoidance whenever possible is encouraged via delineation and observance a 50-foot no-disturbance buffer around dens of mammals like the American badger as well as burrows which can provide refuge for small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, and 100 feet around nests of special-status bird species.

COMMENT 14: Special-Status PlantsIssue: A number special-status plants considered rare or endangered are known to occur in the vicinity of the Project area including, but not limited to, the State and federally Endangered California jewelflower and the federally endangered San Joaquin California Department of Unique woollythreads and Kern mallow.Specific impact: Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for special-status plants, potential 4 Julie Vance Fish and Wildlife Comment significant impacts associated with the Project include inability to reproduce and direct mortality.Evidence impact would be significant: California jewelflower, San Joaquin woollythreads, and Kern mallow are threatened by grazing and agricultural, urban, and energy development. Many historical occurrences of these species are presumed extirpated (CNPS 2019). Though new populations have recently been discovered, impacts to existing populations have the potential to significantly impact populations of these species. Many of the other special-status species known to occur in the Project area are also threatened by the activities mentioned above.Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)To evaluate potential impacts to special-status plants associated with Projectdevelopment, CDFW recommends conducting the following evaluation of project areas and implementing the following mitigation measures.Recommended Mitigation Measure 19: Special-Status Plant SurveysCDFW recommends Biological 0004-16 that individual project sites be surveyed for special-status plants by a qualified botanist following the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts Resources to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). This protocol, which is intended to maximize detectability, includes the identification of reference populations to facilitate the likelihood of field investigations occurring during the appropriate floristic period. In the absence of protocol-level surveys being performed, additional surveys may be necessary.Recommended Mitigation Measure 20: Special-Status Plant AvoidanceCDFW recommends special-status plant species be avoided whenever possible by delineation and observing a no- disturbance buffer of at least 50 feet from the outer edge of the plant population(s) or specific habitat type(s) required by special-status plant species. If buffers cannot be maintained, then consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine appropriate minimization and mitigation measures for impacts to special-status plant species.Recommended Mitigation Measure 21: Special-Status Plant Take Authorization If a State-listed plant species is identified during botanical surveys, consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine if the Project can avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization may be warranted. Take authorization would occur through issuance of an ITP by CDFW, pursuant to Fish and Game Code 2081(b).

ENVIRONMENTAL DATAIt is important that information developed in environmental impact statements be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural Biological communities detected during Project surveys to the CNDDB. The CNNDB field survey form can be found at the following link: 0004-18 Resources http://www.dfq.ca.qov/bioqeodata/cnddb/pdfs/CNDDB FieldSurveyForm.pdf. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: CNDDBwildlife.ca.gov. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: http://www.dfq.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/plants and animals.asp.

Based on aerial imagery, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) species occurrence records, and the habitat present adjacent to and immediately on the site, the Project site has potential to support special-status species, including CESA-listed species (CDFW 2019). Therefore, the Project has the potential to significantly impact these species. Specifically, CDFW is concerned about the potential of the Project to significantly impact the State fully protected and State and federally endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila); the State and federally endangered California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus); the State threatened and federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica); the State threatened San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelson) and Swainson"s hawk (Buteo swainsoni); the federally endangered San Joaquin woollythreads (Monolopia congdonii ) and Kern mallow (Eremalche kernensis); and the State Species of Special Concern burrowing owl Biological (Athene cunicularia), Le Conte"s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei) and western spadefoot (Spec hammondii). Please note that the CNDDB is 0004-2 Resources populated by and records all voluntary submissions of species detections. As a result, species may be present in locations not depicted in the CNDDB but where there is potentially suitable habitat and features capable of supporting species. Therefore, a lack of an occurrence record in the CNDDB is not tantamount to a negative species finding. In order to adequately assess any potential Project-related impacts to biological resources, surveys need to be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist/botanist during the appropriate survey period(s) and using the appropriate protocol survey methodology in order to determine whether or not any special status species are present at or near the Project area.CDFW recommends that focused, protocol-level surveys for these species be conducted to evaluate potential direct and indirect impacts on these species from construction California Department of Unique and operation of the Project. CDFW further recommends that the results of these surveys be considered during the preparation of the Project"s 4 Julie Vance Fish and Wildlife Comment Conditions of Approval.

COMMENT 3: California Endangered Species Act (CESA)CDFW considers adverse impacts to a species protected by CESA to be significant without mitigation under NEPA/CEQA. As to CESA, take of any endangered, threatened, candidate species, or State-listed rare plant species that results from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by state law (Fish and Game Code, 2080, 2085; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 786.9). Consequently, if the Project, Project construction, or any Project-related activity during the life of the Project will result in take of a species designated as endangered or threatened, or a candidate for listing under CESA, CDFW recommends that the Project proponent seek appropriate take authorization under CESA Biological prior to implementing the Project. Appropriate authorization from CDFW may include an ITP or a consistency determination in certain 0004-5 Resources circumstances, among other options [Fish and Game Code 2080.1, 2081, subds. (b) and (c)]. Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to a Project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Permit. Revisions to the Fish and Game Code, effective January 1998, may require that CDFW issue a separate CEQA document for the issuance of an ITP unless the Project environmental document addresses all Project impacts to CESA-listed species and specifies a mitigation monitoring and reporting program that will meet the requirements of an ITP. For these reasons, biological mitigation monitoring and reporting proposals should be of sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements for a CESA ITP.

COMMENT 4: Baseline Biological AssessmentTo provide a complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, sensitive, regionally and locally unique species, and sensitive habitats, the EIS should include the following information:a) Information on the regional setting that is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts, with special emphasis on resources that are rare or unique to the region (CEQA Guidelines 15125[c]);b) A thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, following CDFW"s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (see http://www.dfc.ca.gov/habcon/plant/);c) Floristic, alliance- and/or association-based mapping and vegetation impact assessments conducted at the Project site and within the neighboring vicinity. The Manual of California Vegetation, second edition, should also be used to inform this mapping and assessment (Sawyer et al. 2008). Adjoining habitat areas should be included in this assessment where site activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts offsite. Habitat mapping at the alliance level will help establish baseline vegetation conditions;d) A complete, recent, assessment of the biological resources associated with each habitat type Biological on site and within adjacent areas that could also be affected by the project. CDFW"s CNDDB program in Sacramento should be contacted to obtain 0004-6 Resources current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat. CDFW recommends that CNDDB Field Survey Forms be completed and submitted to CNDDB to document survey results. Online forms can be obtained and submitted athttp://vvww.dfq.ca.qov/bioqeodata/cnddb/submitting data to cnddb.asp;e) A complete, recent, assessment of rare, threatened, and endangered, and other sensitive species on site and within the area of potential effect, including California SSC and California Fully Protected Species California Department of Unique (Fish and Game Code 3511, 4700, 5050 and 5515). Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition of endangered, 4 Julie Vance Fish and Wildlife Comment rare or threatened species (see CEQA Guidelines 15380). Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also be addressed. Focused species- specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the USFWS; and,f) A recent, wildlife and rare plant survey. CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if build out could occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases.

COMMENT 5: Compensatory MitigationThe EIS should include mitigation measures for adverse Project-related impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats. Mitigation measures should emphasize avoidance and reduction of Project impacts. For unavoidable impacts, on-site habitat restoration or enhancement should be discussed in detail. If on-site mitigation is not feasible or would not be biologically viable and, therefore, would not adequately mitigate the loss of biological functions and values, off-site mitigation through habitatcreation and/or acquisition and Biological 0004-7 preservation in perpetuity should be addressed. Areas proposed as mitigation lands should be protected in perpetuity with a conservation Resources easement, financial assurance (i.e., non-wasting endowment) and dedicated to a qualified entity for long-term management and monitoring if used to fulfill California regulatory requirements. Under Government Code section 65967, the lead agency must exercise due diligence in reviewing the qualifications of a governmental entity, special district, or nonprofit organization to effectively manage and steward land, water, or natural resources on mitigation lands it approves.

COMMENT 6: Nesting BirdsCDFW recommends that measures be taken to avoid Project impacts to nesting birds. Migratory nongame native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (Title 50, 10.13, Code of Federal Regulations). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory nongame birds (as listed under the Federal MBTA). Proposed Project activities including (but not limited to) staging and disturbances to native and nonnative vegetation, structures, and substrates should occur outside of the avian breeding season which generally runs from February 1 through September 1 (as early as January 1 for some raptors) to avoid take of birds or their eggs. If avoidance of the avian breeding season is not feasible, CDFW recommends that a qualified wildlife biologist conduct pre-activity surveys for active nests no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. CDFW also recommends that surveys cover a sufficient area around the work site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially Biological affected by the Project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e. nest destruction), noise, vibration, odors, and movement of workers or equipment could 0004-8 Resources also affect nests. Prior to initiation of construction activities, CDFW recommends a qualified biologist conduct a survey to establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once construction begins, CDFW recommends a qualified biologist continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the Project. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW recommends halting the work causing that change and consulting with CDFW for additional avoidance and minimization measures.If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified wildlife biologist is not feasible, CDFW recommends a minimum 250-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the construction area would be concealed from a nest site by topography. CDFW recommends that a qualified wildlife biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.

COMMENT 7: Translocation/Salvage of Plants and Animal SpeciesTranslocation and transplantation is the process of moving an individual from the California Department of Unique Project site and permanently moving it to a new location. CDFW generally does not support the use of, translocation or transplantation as the 4 Julie Vance Biological Fish and Wildlife Comment 0004-9 primary mitigation strategy for unavoidable impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species. Studies have shown that these Resources efforts are experimental and the outcome unreliable. CDFW has found that permanent preservation and management of habitat capable of supporting these species is often a more effective long-term strategy for conserving sensitive plants and animals and their habitats.

COMMENT 2: Lake and Strearnbed AlterationCDFW has authority over activities in streams and/or lakes that will divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake. For any such activities, the project applicant (or entity) must provide written notification to CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, CDFW determines if the activities may substantially adversely affect an existing fish and wildlife resource. If CDFW determines that the activity may have that effect CDFW will issue a draft Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (Agreement) to the entity. CDFW"s issuance of an Agreement for a project that is subject to NEPA/CEQA will require related environmental compliance actions by CDFW as a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible Agency, CDFW may consider the environmental document prepared by the Lead Agency for the Project. To minimize additional requirements by CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. the EIS should fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or Hydrology/Wate 0004-4 riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the r Quality Agreement.a) The Project area supports aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitats; therefore, a delineation of the streams and their associated riparian habitats should be included in the EIS. The delineation should be conducted pursuant to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wetland definition adopted by the CDFW (Cowardin et al. 1970). Activities, in some wetland and riparian habitats, subject to CDFW"s authority may extend beyond the jurisdictional limits of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer' section 404 permit and Regional Water Quality Control Board section 401 Certification.b) In areas of the Project site which may support ephemeral streams, herbaceous vegetation, woody vegetation, and woodlands also serve to protect the integrity of ephemeral channels and help maintain natural chemical and physical stream or lake processes; therefore, CDFW recommends effective setbacks be established to maintain appropriately-sized vegetated buffer areas adjoining ephemeral drainages.c) Project-related changes in drainage patterns, runoff, and sedimentation should be included and evaluated in the EIS.

COMMENT 1: Project Description and AlternativesTo enable CDFW to adequately review and comment on the proposed Project from the standpoint of the protection of plants, fish, and wildlife, we recommend the following information be included in the EIS:a) A complete California Department of Unique Project discussion of the purpose and need for, and description of, the proposed Project, including all staging areas and access routes to the construction 4 Julie Vance 0004-3 Fish and Wildlife Comment Description and staging areas; and,b) A range of feasible alternatives to Project component location and design features to ensure that alternatives to the proposed Project are fully considered and evaluated (40 C.F.R. sec. 1502.14). The alternatives should avoid or otherwise minimize direct and indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources and wildlife movement areas.

0007-1 Alternatives CLF strongly recommends BLM put forth an alternative that re-routes the pipeline, thus avoiding the Carrizo Plain National Monument.

1) Carrizo Plain National Monument On January 17, 2001 the 246,812-acre Carrizo Plain National Monument was established by Presidential Proclamation. Referred to as California"s Serengeti, the Monument protects large undeveloped grasslands home to pronghorn, tule elk, coyotes, giant kangaroo rat, endangered San Joaquin kit fox, greater and lesser sandhill cranes and the California condor. Unfortunately, the National Monument faces growing pressure from industry and development. In 2010, BLM finalized a Resource Management Plan for Carrizo Plain, finding: The CPNM adjoins some of the most intensively managed agricultural lands and petroleum deposits in the U.S. and is less than 100 air miles from Los Biological 0007-2 Angeles. However, the area remains relatively isolated and undeveloped, and retains an intact landscape character. Prominent features include the Resources white alkali flats of Soda Lake, vast open grasslands, and a broad plain rimmed by mountains. The plain is home to diverse communities of wildlife and plant species including several listed as threatened or endangered. The area is culturally important to Native Americans. It is traversed by the San Andreas Fault, which has carved valleys and created and moved mountains. 1 Development pressure has only increased since 2010, and Conservation Lands Unique 7 Danielle Murray threatens the intact and undeveloped nature of the Carrizo Plain. As a National Monument, there is a highlighted level of protection that must be Foundation Comment takin into account for all projects.

2) The Omnibus Public Lands Act In addition to its status as a Monument, the Carrizo Plain is legislatively protected as part of the National Conservation Lands. 2 The 2009 Omnibus Bill (Omnibus) established the National Conservation Lands as a permanent system of protected lands, ...to conserve, protect and restore nationally significant landscapes that have outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values for the benefit of Biological current and future generations.4 To ensure that the permanently protected National Conservation Lands are managed in order to conserve, protect 0007-3 Resources and restore nationally significant landscapes, all units within the system have several basic conservation standards, including prescriptive language that requires the area to be managed for the conservation, protection and enhancement of resources over other uses. These standards ensure that lands within the system are managed consistently for conservation and safeguarded for future generations. The Omnibus makes clear that units of the system must be managed to a higher conservation standard.

3) Department of the Interior and BLM Policy Conservation primacy and standards for the system have also been outlined in Department of the Interior guidance and BLM policies. In 2010, Secretarial Order 3308 established a unified conservation vision for managing the National Conservation Lands ‘as required by the Omnibus Act of 2009" to conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes. Further stating that the BLM shall ensure that the components of the [system] are managed to protect the values for which they were designated, including, where appropriate, prohibiting uses that are in conflict with those values. 3 In 2011, BLM released the 15-Year Strategic Plan, setting specific goals for how to manage the National Conservation Lands focused on conservation, protection and restoration. The Strategic Plan further expanded that there is an overarching and explicit commitment to conservation and resource protection as the primary objective and that the BLM shall not authorize discretionary uses that cannot be managed in a manner compatible with the designation proclamation or legislation. 4 In 2012, BLM released two relevant Policy Manuals: 6100-National Landscape Conservation System Management; and 6220-National Monuments, Conservation areas, and Conservation Lands Unique Land Use 7 Danielle Murray 0007-4 Similar Designations. In accordance with the policy outlined in the Omnibus Legislation and Secretarial Order 3308, these two manuals provided Foundation Comment Planning guidance to BLM employees on the drafting of management plans and land use plan decisions as related to the National Conservation Lands. Specifically, Manual 6220 sets clear direction for BLM when processing a right-of-way application. 5 Including: To the greatest extent possible, subject to applicable law, the BLM should through land use planning and project-level processes and decisions, avoid designating or authorizing use of transportation or utility corridors within Monuments and NCAs. To that end, and consistent with applicable law, when developing or revising land use plans for Monuments and NCAs, the BLM will consider:a. designating the Monument or NCA as an exclusion or avoidance area; b. not designating any new transportation or utility corridors within the Monument or NCA if the BLM determines that the corridor would be incompatible with the designating authority or the purposes for which the Monument or NCA was designated; c. relocating any existing designated transportation and utility corridors outside the Monument or NCA.Taking into consideration the above, CLF strongly recommends BLM put forth an alternative that avoids the Carrizo Plain National Monument.

The EIS must Analyze a Reasonable Range of Alternatives. The NOI must include a description of potential alternatives. 40 C.F.R. 1508.22(a). The NOI in this case does not identify or describe any alternatives, in violation of NEPA. The alternatives analysis is the heart of the environmental impact statement. 40 C.F.R. 1502.14. In this section, the EIS must inform decisionmakers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or 0008-18 Alternatives minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. 40 C.F.R. 1502.1. Because the underlying purpose of the proposed Project is to resume oil production from the SYU and transport the oil to refineries, the EIS must analyze alternatives that would provide energy without the risks and devastating impacts that will be caused by renewed offshore oil development. Such alternatives must include renewable sources of energy, energy conservation, and energy efficiency.

4. Biological Surveys Must be Undertaken During Times of Normal or Above-Average Rainfall. The affected region has experienced the worst drought on record beginning in 2012. While 2019 has been a wet year, the Project area"s biological resources are still depleted by the drought such that some species, habitats, and vegetation alliances and associations may be temporarily absent from the Project area. This is particularly true for water- Biological and wetlanddependent species such as CTS, California red-legged frog, vernal pool fairy shrimp, western spadefoot, and southern California 0008-10 Environmental Defense Unique Resources steelhead. Biological surveys including protocol-level surveys for special-status species, wetland delineations, and vegetation mapping must account 8 Linda Krop Council Comment for the effects of drought; accordingly, surveys must be conducted only during times of normal or above average rainfall. Surveys should be undertaken after at least two years of normal to above average rainfall in order to provide time for species and habitats to recover from the drought and recolonize areas along the Project corridor.

5. Oak Tree Surveys Must Identify All Protected Oak Trees. The EIS must account for all protected mature oak trees as defined by Santa Barbara Biological County. Mature oak trees include live oak trees that are over six inches or greater diameter at breast height, blue oak trees four inches or greater 0008-11 Resources diameter at breast height, or live and blue oaks six feet or greater in height. 4 Protected valley oak trees are those valley oak trees that are two inches or greater diameter at breast height, or six feet or taller in height. 5

B. The Environmental Setting Should be Based on Complete Biological Surveys and Habitat Delineations. The EI"rsquo;s environmental setting must Biological fully disclose biological resources, including special-status plant and animal species and sensitive habitats located on or within five hundred feet of 0008-6 Resources the proposed pipeline right-of-way. This includes all State and Federally listed species as well as Fully Protected Species, Species of Special Concern, locally rare species, and species listed as rare or declining by Audubon Society or California Native Plant Society (Lists 1 4).

1. The EIS must be based on Protocol-level Surveys for Rare Species. The EIS must be informed by protocol-level surveys for all special-status plant and animal species potentially occurring on or near the pipeline route. For special-status species that lack protocol-level survey methodologies Biological developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW"rdquo;) and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), EIS preparers should 0008-7 Resources confer with CDFW, USFWS, and local wildlife biologists regarding recommended survey methods. In addition to protocol-level baseline surveys for California tiger salamander (CT"rdquo;), surveys for CTS in upland habitats within 1.2 miles of known and potential CTS breeding pond"nbsp;should include the use of scopes to examine burrows for CTS so that the EIS can disclose precise locations of CTS.

3. Biological Surveys Must be Timed Properly to Ensure Identification of Special-Status Species. Some species do not occur in the Project area year- round but are seasonally present and could be directly or indirectly impacted by Project construction and/or operation. For example, the burrowing Biological 0008-9 owl no longer breeds in portions of Santa Barbara County but overwinters in such areas. Therefore, protocol-level burrowing owl surveys must be Resources done during winter in these areas. Certain special-status plant species can only be identified during blooms, and only flower at certain times of the year. Therefore, protocol-level special-status plant surveys must be undertaken during the time when these species are identifiable.

The following comments regarding the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EI"rdquo;) for the Plains Pipeline Replacement Project (Project) are submitted by the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) on behalf of Get Oil Out! (GOO!). GOO! was formed in the Cumulative wake of the 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill and continues to work to protect Santa Barbara County from further oil and gas development and 0008-1 Impacts exploitation. EDC is a public interest environmental law firm that protects and enhances the local environment through education, advocacy, and legal action. GOO! and EDC seek to ensure that the EIS fully discloses the full range of potential impacts of the proposed pipeline as well as the proposed restart of the Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) platforms offshore Santa Barbara County.

Environmental Defense Unique The EIS Must Disclose all of the Potentially Significant Impacts of the Project. The EIS must discuss the environmental impacts of the proposed 8 Linda Krop Council Comment Project as well as the alternatives, any adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided, the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources should the Project go forward. 42 U.S.C. 4332; 40 C.F.R. 1502.16. This information must be made available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. 40 C.F.R. 1500.1(b), emphasis added. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA. Id. The purpose of the environmental review process is to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. 40 C.F.R. 1500.1(c). In order to comply with this mandate, the EIS must address direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. 40 C.F.R. 1502.16, 1508.25(c). Direct Cumulative 0008-12 effects are caused by the proposed action and occur at the same time and place. 40 C.F.R. 1508.8(a). Indirect effects are caused by the action but Impacts occur later in time or are farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 40 C.F.R. 1508.8(b). Effects include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Id. Cumulative impacts are those impacts that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 40 C.F.R. 1508.7. In this case, the Project involves not only construction of replacement pipelines but also resumed oil production from the SYU and processing at LFC. As such, the EIS must analyze the full array of impacts that will result from construction and operation of the pipeline as well as the impacts that will result from resumed oil production.

The EIS must also consider the indirect life cycle impacts of the proposed Project, including the eventual consumption of the oil that will be transported to refineries. Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm"n, 867 F.3d 1357 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (EIS must consider downstream impacts from Cumulative natural gas pipelines that will bring natural gas to power plants); W. Org. of Res. Councils v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 2018 WL 1475470 (D. Mont. 0008-13 Impacts March 26, 2018) (BLM required to address downstream combustion impacts associated with coal as well as oil and gas); Wilderness Workshop v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 342 F. Supp. 3d 1145 (D. Colo. 2018) (EIS failed to consider downstream combustion impacts from oil and gas development).

The EIS must also evaluate the cumulative impacts of the Project, in light of other offshore and onshore oil and gas operations and proposals in the County. These projects include, but are not limited, to: Amrich; Santa Maria Energy Diatomite Production Plan; PRE Resources LLC; Sentinel Peak New Wells Project; PCEC Orcutt Hills and Step-out Project; PetroRock Tunnel Well Replacement Project and North Garey Oil and Gas Production Plan Cumulative Amendment; ERG Cat Canyon Project; Aera Cat Canyon Project; Breitburn Projects; HDT Inc.; B.E. Conway; EB Natural Resources; Freeport McMoran; 0008-14 Impacts Golden Gate Oil; HVI Cat Canyon (formerly Greka); KORE Energy; Off Broadway Minerals Pyramid Oil; RMR; Sierra Resources; So. Cal. Gas; Temblor; Towne Exploration; Vaquero Energy; and Vintage Petroleum. In addition, other projects may add to cumulative impacts to CTS, oak trees, and other species and habitats, including but not limited to: Santa Maria Las Flores Landfill Project; Western Sky Amphitheatre Violation/Project; Betteravia Ranch Curletti Farming Project; Campbell Home Ranch Project; County"s Hoop Structures Ordinance; and the County Cannabis Ordinance.

The EIS must also consider the cumulative impacts related to climate change. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat"l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1215 (9th Cir. 2008) (impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on climate is precisely the kind of cumulative impacts that NEPA requires Cumulative 0008-15 agencies to analyze); Mid States Coal. for Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2003) (EIS was required to consider GHG emissions Impacts from project upgrading existing and new rail lines serving coal mines); WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 368 F. Supp. 3d 41 (D.D.C. 2019) (BLM violated NEPA by not adequately considering climate change when authorizing oil and gas leasing on federal land).

The EIS must analyze the impacts of an oil spill. The 2015 Plains pipeline spill is an obvious example of how devastating a spill can be from a pipeline in this location. That spill travelled a quarter of a mile by land, through a culvert, onto the beach, and into the ocean. Ultimately the spill spread at least 150 miles, killing hundreds of marine mammals, seals and sea lions, birds, fish, and other wildlife.13 The spill closed miles of public beaches, Cumulative 0008-17 including State and local beach parks, and shut down 138 square miles of fishing grounds. The effects of the spill will never be fully known, because Impacts most of the oil was lost at sea and not recovered. Many property owners, workers, and businesses filed claims and class action lawsuits in an attempt to recover compensation to address their economic injuries. Several people became ill as well. The EIS must disclose the environmental as well as socioeconomic impacts caused by oil spills. Environmental Defense Unique 8 Linda Krop Conclusion As discussed above, the EIS must analyze the impacts of the proposed pipeline, as well as the production of the oil that will be Council Comment Cumulative transported through the pipeline. The EIS must analyze all of the potential impacts of the Project including the direct, indirect, and cumulative 0008-19 Impacts impacts and must include potential impacts to climate change. The EIS must include alternatives that would avoid or minimize the adverse impacts caused by the proposed Project.

The University of California, San Diego"s Scripps Institution of Oceanography measured unprecedented levels of CO2 emissions of 415.70 ppm on May 15, 2019. 6 In December 2018, the Federal Government released the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which affirmed that the earth"s climate is changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities. 7 The report further noted that [c]limate-related risks will continue to grow without additional action and that [d]ecisions made today determine risk exposure for current and future generations and will either broaden or limit options to reduce the negative consequences of climate change. 8 According to a recent 0008-16 Greenhouse Gas United Nations report, one million plant and animal species face extinction due to climate change; this report specifically cites the burning of fossil fuels as a key issue accelerating this reduction of biodiversity. 9 Limiting fossil fuel production is key to addressing climate change.10 In October 2018, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report pointing out that global emissions must be reduced by half by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5ºC.11 In addition, net CO2 emissions will on average need to be reduced to zero by 2050.12 These reductions are necessary to avoid disastrous impacts to human health and the environment. The EIS must consider the GHG emissions and climate change impacts that would result from the proposed pipeline as well as the restart of the SYU platforms and LFC processing facility.

2. The EIS Must Disclose All Wetlands Based on Formal Wetland Delineations Conducted During Appropriate Times. The EI"rsquo;s biological baseline must be based on formal wetland delineations conducted during periods of normal or above-average rainfall. Wetland delineations must be Hydrology/Wate 0008-8 conducted in all areas supporting hydrophytic vegetation, in all areas of ponding, and in all areas exhibiting other evidence of potential wetlands. To r Quality ensure consistency with the related Environmental Impact Report under preparation by the County of Santa Barbara for the exact same Project, the EIS should map wetlands based on Santa Barbara County, California Coastal Commission, and CDFW one-parameter wetland definitions.

The EIS must Contain a Complete Project Description. The EIS must describe and analyze the entire Project to avoid segmentation or piecemealing, and to ensure a complete and adequate disclosure of potential impacts for the public and decisionmakers. In this case, it is critical that the EIS assess the impacts that will result from the restart of the platforms that will utilize the new pipelines. 2 As the NOI notes, the EIS must address reasonably foreseeable impacts to resources from approval of this project. (84 Fed. Reg. 19108) The purpose of Plain"rsquo; Project is to Project 0008-4 restore transportation of oil produced from platforms that have been shut down since the 2015 Plains pipeline rupture. That rupture caused Environmental Defense Unique Description 8 Linda Krop the shutdown of seven offshore platforms, four of which are beginning the decommissioning process. The other three platforms are owned by Council Comment ExxonMobil, which seeks to resume production from the SYU and processing at the LFC facility. Such resumption is only possible if ExxonMobil achieves a method to transport its crude oil. Plain"rsquo; application for Lines 901 and 903 is intended to provide that mode of transportation. Resumed production is not just a reasonably foreseeable impact of the proposed Project, it is the sole purpose of the Project.

The Description of the Affected Environment Must Reflect Existing Physical Conditions at the Project Site and Contain Up-to-Date Biological Survey Information. A. The Environmental Setting Should be Based on Actual Existing Conditions. The EIS must evaluate the Project"s impacts based on the affected environment. The affected environment is the area that will be affected by the proposed Project. 40 C.F.R. 1502.15. In this case, the Project 0008-5 affected environment includes the area affected by the pipeline route as well as the restart of the platforms and processing facility. In order to Description assess the impacts of the project on this area, the EIS must describe the existing baseline conditions of the area. This description must be based on the current physical conditions, i.e., the non-operational status of the existing Plains pipelines and the related facilities (e.g., offshore platforms, processing facilities, and other related infrastructure).

The EIS must Identify the Purpose and Need of the Project. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires that an EIS Purpose and specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action. 40 C.F.R. 0008-3 Need 1502.13. As noted above, the underlying purpose for the proposed action is to replace the ruptured Plains Lines 901 and 903 so that oil producers can resume production and transport their oil to refineries. The EIS should accurately reflect this purpose and need for the Project.

7. State Environmental Review As stated above, the Project will also be subject to development of an Environmental Impact Report as required by Agency CEQA due to its potential impacts to various state lands. Development of the EIS should be integrated with development of an EIR as 0009-7 Coordination encouraged by the Council on Environmental Quality in 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500 -1508. Additionally, both NEPA and CEQA encourage a joint federal and state review where a project requires both federal and state approvals.

2. Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species The EIS should evaluate the impacts to species protected under the federal Endangered Species Unique 9 Bryant Baker Los Padres Forest Watch Act. These threatened and endangered species include but are not limited to the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus ), San Joaquin antelope Comment squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelson), giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens ), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica ), San Joaquin woolly Biological threads (Monolopia congdonii ), kern mallow (Eremalche parryi ssp. kernensis ), blunt -nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), southern California 0009-2 Resources steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and California red -legged frog (Rana draytonii). The EIS should also evaluate impacts to species listed as sensitive by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, species listed as Special Species of Concern and Fully Protected Species by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and species listed as rare or declining by the California Native Plant Society. Additionally, the EIS should evaluate impact"nbsp;to species considered as special status by the Bureau of Land Management, such as tule elk (Cervus canadensis nannodes).

6. Invasive Species Project activities will likely result in the spread of invasive plant species. The EIS should detail required mitigation measures aimed at reducing the spread of invasive plant species. These measures should include the requiring that equipment and boots be washed before entering Biological 0009-6 and exiting any Project work area. The EIS should also require long -term post -implementation monitoring of all Project sites to ensure that invasive Resources species do not establish there in the years following Project activities, as well as throughout the period in which vegetation clearance is maintained Unique 9 Bryant Baker Los Padres Forest Watch along the length of the pipeline . Comment 5. Impacts to Water Resources The replacement pipeline will cross Clear Creek and the Cuyama River among many other streams. The EIS should Hydrology/Wate 0009-5 evaluate the impacts from all phases of the Project including construction, operation, in the case of an accident, and pipeline removal to these r Quality streams and other water resources. Land Use 3. Consistency with Federal Land Management Plans: The Project should be consistent with the Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan, 0009-3 Planning Carrizo Plain National Monument Resource Management Plan, and Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

1. Impacts to Recreation The Project has potential to cause significant impacts to the Los Padres National Forest, Carrizo Plain National Monument, and Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refug e. The EIS should evaluate impacts to recreation and public access from heavy equipment, construction 0009-1 Recreation traffic, maintenance of vegetation clearance along the length of the pipeline, and possible closure of roads or trails during work. The list of locales that could potentially be impacted by Project activities include but is not limited to Willow Springs Trail and Sierra Madre Road. Air QualityProvide a detailed discussion of ambient air conditions, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), criteria pollutant nonattainment zones in the project area, and potential air quality impacts of proposed project activities, including indirect and cumulative impacts. Such an evaluation is helpful in demonstrating compliance with state and federal air quality regulations and disclosing the potential impacts from temporary or cumulative degradation of air quality.The EPA recommends an evaluation of the following measures to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants:· Quantify EmissionsEmissions - Estimate emissions of criteria pollutants from the proposed project activities and discuss the timeframe for release of these emissions over the lifespan of the project. Describe and estimate emissions from potential construction activities, as well as proposed mitigation measures to minimize these emissions.· Specifi, Emissions Source"nbsp;Specify the emission sources by pollutant from mobile sources, stationary sources, and ground disturbance. Use this source-specific information to identify appropriate mitigation measures and areas in need of the greatest attention.· Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan The EPA recommends including commitments to aggressive air quality mitigation measures during construction and operational activities. In addition to measures necessary to meet all applicable local, state, and federal requirements, the EPA recommends that the following measures be included:Fugitive Dust Source Control"middot; Stabilize open storage United States Unique piles and disturbed areas by covering and/or applying water or chemical/organic dust palliative where appropriate. This applies to both inactive and 10 Jason Gerdes Environmental Protection 0010-6 Air Quality Comment active sites, during workdays, weekends, holidays, and windy conditions.· Install Agency wind fencing and phase grading operations where appropriate and operate water trucks for stabilization of surfaces under windy conditions.· When hauling material and operating non-earthmoving equipment, prevent spillage and limit speeds to 15 miles per hour. Limit speed of earth-moving equipment to 10 miles per hour.Mobile and Stationary Source Control"middot; Minimize use, trips, and unnecessary idling of heavy equipment.· Maintain and tune engines per manufacturer"s specifications to perform at EPA certification levels, where applicable, and to perform at verified standards applicable to retrofit technologies.· Limit unnecessary idling and ensure that construction equipment is properly maintained, tuned, and modified consistent with established specifications.· Prohibit any tampering with engines and require continuing adherence tomanufacturer"s recommendations.Administrative Control"middot; Specify how impacts to sensitive receptors, such as children, the elderly, and the ill would be avoided. For example, locate construction equipment and staging zones away from sensitive receptors and fresh air intakes to buildings and air conditioners.· Prepare an inventory of all equipment prior to construction and

Alternatives AnalysisThe EPA recommends that the DEIS consider a range of reasonable alternatives that fulfill the proposed action"s purpose and need and that these alternatives be evaluated in detail, including alternatives outside the legal jurisdiction of the BLM (40 CFR 1502.14(c)). A reasonable range of alternatives could include analyzing various pipeline route configurations to avoid impacts to sensitive resources, or various non- pipeline alternatives, including analyzing different modes of conveyance, such as transporting oil by marine vessel or truck. Quantify the potential 0010-2 Alternatives direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of each alternative to the greatest extent possible and present the benefits and adverse impacts in comparative form to assist the decision-maker and public in understanding how the alternatives differ (40 CFR 1502.14). For alternatives identified by stakeholders during the scoping process, but not fully evaluated in detail within the DEIS, the EPA recommends that BLM include a robust justification for not analyzing suggested alternatives.

Invasive SpeciesExecutive Order 13112 Invasive Species (February 3, 1999) mandates that federal agencies take actions to prevent the introduction of invasive species, provide for their control, and minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. Executive Order 13112 also calls for the restoration of native plants and tree species. In the DEIS, include an invasive plant management plan to Biological 0010-10 monitor and control detrimental vegetation and transport of invasive species during construction and describe how the plan will conform with any Resources invasive species management plans included in the land management plans for federal lands in the project area, including Carrizo Plain National Monument, Bitter Creek Wildlife Refuge, and Los Padres National Forest. If the proposed project would entail new landscaping, describe how the project would meet requirements of Executive Order 13112.

Consultation with Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (November 6, 2000) was issued to establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications, and to strengthen the United States government-to-government relationships with Indian Tribes. In the DEIS, describe the United States Cultural Unique 0010-12 process and outcome of government-to-government consultation between the BLM and each of the tribal governments within the project area, 10 Jason Gerdes Environmental Protection Resources Comment issues that were raised (if any), and how those issues were addressed in the selection of the proposed alternative. As a general resource, the EPA Agency recommends the document Tribal Consultation: Best Practices in Historic Preservation, published by the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers."

National Historic Preservation Act and Executive Order 13007 Consultation for tribal cultural resources is required under Section 103 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Historic properties under the NHPA are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the National Register. Section 106 of the NHPA requires a federal agency, upon determining that activities under its control could affect historic properties, to consult with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office/Tribal Historic Preservation Office ($HPO/THPO). Under NEPA, any impacts to tribal, cultural, or other treaty resources must be discussed. Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies consider the effects of their actions on cultural resources, following regulation in 36 CFR $00. Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Site"rdquo; (May 24, 1996) requires federal land managing agencies to accommodate access to, and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian Cultural religious practitioners, and to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity, accessibility, or use of sacred sites. It is important to note that a sacred 0010-13 Resources site may not meet the National Register criteria for a historic property and that, conversely, a historic property may not meet the criteria for a sacred site. It is also important to note that sacred sites may not be identified solely in consulting with tribes located within geographic proximity of the project. Tribes located outside of the project area may also have religiously significant ties to lands within the project area and should, therefore, be included in the consultation process. The EPA recommends that the DEIS address the existence of Indian sacred sites in the project area. Explain how the proposed action would address Executive Order 13007, distinguish it from Section 106 of the NHPA, and discuss how the Service would ensure that the proposed action would avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity, accessibility, or use ofsacred sites. Provide a summary of all coordination with Tribes and with the SHPO/THPO, including identification of NRHP eligible sites and development of a Cultural Resource Management Plan.

Additionally; the EPA recommends including the following in the cumulative impacts analysis:· Describe the current condition of the resource as a measure of past impacts (e.g., the percentage of species habitat lost to date).· Identify trends in the condition of the resource as a measure of present impacts (e.g., whether the condition of the resource is improving, declining, or in stasis).· Identify all on-going, planned, and Cumulative reasonably foreseeable projects in the study area that may contribute to cumulative impacts.· Describe 0010-11 Impacts the future condition of the resource based on an analysis of impacts from reasonably foreseeable projects or actions added to existing conditions and current trends.· Assess the contribution of the proposed alternatives to the long-term health of the resource and provide a specific measure for the projected impact from the proposed alternatives.· Disclose the parties that would be responsible for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating those adverse impacts.· Identify opportunities to avoid and minimize impacts, including working with other entities.

Environmental JusticeExecutive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations andLow-Income Populations (February 11, 1994) and the Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Justice and Executive Order 12898, released on August 4, 2011, direct federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations, allowing those populations a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. CEQ guidance2 clarifies the terms Environmental United States 0010-14 low-income and minority population, which includes Native Americans, and describes the factors to consider when evaluating disproportionately Unique Justice 10 Jason Gerdes Environmental Protection high and adverse human health effects.The EPA recommends that the DEIS include an evaluation of environmental justice populations within the Comment Agency geographic scope of the project area. If such populations exist, describe how the proposed action would address the potential for disproportionate adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations, and the approaches used to foster public participation and coordination with these populations.

Hazardous MaterialsThe EPA recommends that the DEIS address potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of hazardous materials management and storage from proposed project activities. For hydrocarbon products, the requirements should be consistent with those of the Hazards/Hazard Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and other applicable federal, state and local requirements. If 0010-9 ous Materials any pesticides or biocides will be used during construction, operation, and maintenance of future pipeline activities, we recommend the DEI"nbsp;address any potential toxic hazards related to the use of such substances and describe what actions will be taken to assure that impacts by toxic substances released to the environment will be minimized.

Water ResourcesTo assess the potential impacts of the proposed action alternatives to aquatic resources, the EPA recommends that the DEIS describe aquatic habitats in the affected environment by resource type using the data sources and classification approaches that provide the greatest resolution possible. Include functional condition and integrity in the baseline information for aquatic resources and quantify the areal (i.e., Hydrology/Wate 0010-3 acreage) extent of impacts to aquatic resources for both direct and secondary effects. Include the acreage for streams as well as for wetlands, r Quality ponds, and other waters in the acreage values for the direct and secondary impact footprints and quantify the loss of channel length of streams by linear feet and/or miles. In addition to the areal or linear extent, impacts to aquatic resources should also be quantified by the expected change in the function these resources perform, or change in the condition of the resource.

Surface Water and Groundwater Quality and QuantityWater quality is one of the EPA"s principal concerns for oil development activities, due to the potential for impacts to both surface water and groundwater. The EPA recommends that the DEIS characterize baseline surface water and groundwater quality, quantity, and interactions; evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of all aspects of the proposed project on these hydrologic components; and describe mitigation for adverse impacts. Additionally, the DEIS should include a comprehensive description of the regulatory context of the project, including any permits and/or modifications to those permits that the proposed project may require, such as a stormwater permit for construction activities issued by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.Include the following in the water resources analysis for the DEIS:· Characterization of existing groundwater, surface water, springs, and wetland resources within the project area, including:o Maps of groundwater, surface water, springs, and wetland resources in the area to be Hydrology/Wate developed or affected;o Baseline data on the extent and quality of groundwater, surface water, springs, and wetlands;o Information 0010-4 r Quality on the quantity and location of all aquifers, including underground sources of drinking water, recharge zones, and source water protection areas;o Identification of any Clean Water Act (CWA) 303(d) listed waterbodies and any existing restoration efforts for these waters; and,o Identification and description of all wetlands and surface waters, including ephemeral and intermittent streams, that could be affected by future oil activity; where applicable, acreages, channel lengths, habitat types, values and functions of these waters should be identified.· Assessment of which waters may be impacted, the sources and nature of potential impacts (both quality and quantity), and specific pollutants likely to impact those waters; this assessment should include comparison to applicable environmental standards (e.g., water quality and drinking water quality standards).· Consideration of downstream impacts.· Evaluation of surface water and groundwater use, including maps and source identification of agricultural, domestic, and public water supply wells or intakes.

United States Unique 10 Jason Gerdes Environmental Protection Clean Water Act Section 404 The BLM and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) have indicated, through cooperating agency meetings convened Comment Agency for the proposed Plains Pipeline, that Plains Pipeline, L.P. intends to satisfy CWA Section 404 permit requirements through a Nationwide Permit 12, the nationwide permit that governs linear utility projects. The potential need for a nationwide permit sterns, in part, from proposed stream crossings. To mitigate the potential impacts from these crossings, Plains Pipeline, L.P. has indicated to the BLM and the Corps that it has selected Hydrology/Wate various locations where jack and boring, horizontal directional drilling, or use of existing casing, where practicable, would be used to install the 0010-5 r Quality pipeline with minimal disturbance to major paved roads or highways, flowing creeks and rivers, riparian corridors, and other environmentally sensitive resources. The EPA recommends that the BLM include a description in the DEIS of the steps taken to date by Plains Pipeline, L.P. to consult with the Corps to determine potential CWA Section 404 permit requirement"bull;for the proposed pipeline replacement. We recommend including an inventory of the proposed stream crossings and the anticipated impacts to sensitive water resources from such crossings, including waters of the United States.

Coordination with Land Use Planning ActivitiesThe EPA recommends that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) discuss how the Plains Pipeline, L.P. Replacement Project (Plains Pipeline) relates to, and will be integrated with, federal, state, tribal, and local land use plans in the project area. The EPA recommends that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) address all types of land use plans in the area, including formally adopted documents for land use planning, conservation, zoning, and related regulatory requirements, as well as plans not yet developed that have been proposed by the appropriate government body in a written form.Ell We understand that on April 12th the County of Santa Barbara released for Land Use 0010-1 public review and comment the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the ExxonMobil Interim Trucking for SYU Phased Restart Planning Project. The Project would initiate the interim trucking of limited crude oil production as a temporary solution until a pipeline alternative becomes available to transport crude oil to a refinery destination. As the proposed Plains Pipeline could represent the pipeline alternative sought by the ExxonMobil Production Company for its Santa Ynez Unit, we suggest that the BLM include a discussion in the DEIS describing the connection of the ExxonMobil interim trucking proposal to the proposed Plains Pipeline, and if any analysis or recommendations from the ExxonMobil SEIR informed the development of the DEIS, including the range of alternatives analyzed.

I have been proposing that the existing pipeline be repaired and returned to service. This will maintain the existing 300,000 BPD capacity of the Unique 11 Thomas Becker Cars are Basic 0011-1 Alternatives pipeline, so the pipeline can be used to transport future new oil production from future leases in the OCS or oil produced from federal lands in Comment Alaska. I and proposing this as an alternative project to be considered in the BLM EIS/EIR for the Plains Pipeline replacement project.

Aesthetics/Visual ResourcesThe Project Overview anticipates aesthetic/visual resources will be less than significant. However, the owners of many of the properties affected by the pipeline project derive significant use, enjoyment and economic value from the unique views of the ocean and/or pristine natural habitats offered by their properties.The Grey Fox LLC and Bean Blossom LLC properties suffered significant impacts to their highly desirable views of the Pacific Ocean and surrounding pristine natural habitat, as a result of the lengthy staging and post-rupture repair and remediation undertaken by Applicant Plains Pipeline L.P. These impacts, similar in nature to those which will occur as a result of the pipeline 0012-10 Aesthetics replacement project, included the presence and activity of heavy construction equipment and supporting light equipment; the presence of dozens of workers involved in the repair/remediation process and their associated transportation, and the presence of open trenches and substantial piles of excavated dirt and construction materials. They and many other client and class member properties will be similarly affected by the proposed construction projection.On behalf of our clients and class members, and the public, we therefore request that the specific aesthetics and visual resources impacts on the properties affected by the pipeline replacement are incorporated into the scope of the BLM analysis. Unique 12 Lawrence J Conlan Cappello & Noel LLP Comment Air QualityThe Project Overview notes that dust mitigation measures are required for all discretionary construction activities, regardless of the significance of the fugitive dust impacts based on the policies in the 1979 Air Quality Attainment Plan. The Project Overview also notes that in the event the approximately 117 property owners request removal of the pipeline (as they are entitled to do), the activities associated with removal could result in NOx and fugitive dust emissions that exceed 25 pounds per day.Many of our client and class member properties currently utilize their properties in a manner which is particularly sensitive to air quality concerns. For example, properties used for vineyards (JTMT LLC; Zaca Preserve 0012-4 Air Quality LLC; Lavender Oak Ranch LLC), cattle ranching or raising other animals (Orella Ranch; Live Oak Bazzi L.P.; Mathis Gaviota Ranch L.P; The Jones Organization) or other commercial agricultural operations (Satterthwaite) may suffer significant adverse effects as a result of excessive fugitive dust emissions. Owners who reside at, rent their properties, or utilize their properties for personal or commercial recreation (McNutts, Buellton Sportsmen"s Association) will suffer a diminished ability to enjoy or benefit economically from those properties as a result of adverse air quality impacts.On behalf of our clients and class members, and the public, we therefore request that the specific air quality impacts on the properties affected by the pipeline replacement are incorporated into the scope of the BLM analysis.

Biological ResourcesThe Project Overview states that construction activities will include grading and vegetation removal, excavation, trenchless excavation, pipeline installation, and associated activities. It is anticipated that construction activities such as land clearing, grading, and other activities will adversely affect wildlife in adjacent habitats. Additionally, the pipeline replacement project will include removal or trimming of habitats such as, but not limited to: coast live oak woodland, annual grassland, California coastal scrub, and riparian and wetland habitats.Many of our client Biological and class member properties operate as havens for local and endangered wildlife and preservation of habitats, contributing to the pristine nature 0012-5 Resources and enhancing the value and enjoyment derived from those properties. Some properties which will be affected by the pipeline replacement project are currently under conservation easements, for example the HR 127 Partnership property in the Hollister Ranch area. These properties will be significantly affected by disruption to wildlife and habitats caused by the pipeline replacement project.On behalf of our clients and class members, and the public, we therefore request that the specific biological resources impacts on the properties affected by the pipeline replacement are incorporated into the scope of the BLM analysis.

Hazardous Materials/Risk of UpsetThe Project Overview anticipates that the Risk of Upset analysis will disclose the potential for serious accidents; exposure to the public, safety and environmental risks of spill events, and the mitigation measures that could reduce those risks. The Project Overview notes that the Risk of Upset studies will be provided by Applicant Plains Pipeline, L.P., including a Pipeline Quantitative Risk Analysis, an Emergency Flow Restriction Device Study and a Surge Study prepared for the proposed Project.Our clients, Grey Fox LLC and Bean Blossom LLC, experienced first-hand the enormous detrimental effects caused by Plain' criminal negligence and failure to take appropriate measures to prevent oil Hazards/Hazard spills from their pipeline the impact on the value of their properties and potential long-term contamination concerns continues to this day.As 0012-6 ous Materials discussed above, properties owned by our clients and class members include pristine, unique and valuable properties used for a variety of purposes Unique 12 Lawrence J Conlan Cappello & Noel LLP including: residential use and development; conservation; tourism; vineyards; cattle ranching; agriculture, and a variety of personal and commercial Comment recreational activities. These properties will suffer substantial detrimental impacts in the event there is another pipeline failure and/or release of oil into the natural environment.Given Plain' proven failings with respect to the operation, inspection and maintenance of Lines 901 and 903 to date, on behalf of our clients and class members, and the public, we recommend the BLM consider obtaining an independent Risk of Upset analysis to supplement the analysis prepared by Plains.

Surface/Groundwater ResourcesThe Project Overview states that Applicant Plains Pipeline L.P. has prepared a Groundwater Protection Report which provides a desktop analysis of shallow groundwater and/or sensitive aquifers that are within the proximity of the proposed project. The Project Overview states that the proposed grading and excavation activities may result in erosion and sedimentation along the pipeline alignment and adjacent disturbed areas, particularly if precipitation occurs, and that that portions of the proposed pipeline will be constructed within mapped flood plans and below numerous streams, creeks, and rivers. The Project Overview further acknowledges that use of heavy equipment and machinery Hydrology/Wate could potentially result in accidental releases of hazardous substances that could cause contamination to surface water and/or groundwater 0012-8 r Quality resources.Many of our clients and class member' properties rely on groundwater pumps to supply their properties with potable and non-potable water for consumption, irrigation, and other uses, which would be adversely suffer significant adverse effects as a result in the event of any diversion or contamination of surface or groundwater resources. Those properties containing pristine streams, creeks and rivers, or possess extraction rights to the underlying aquifer derive significant value from the presence of those natural resources on or below their properties.On behalf of our clients and class members, and the public, we therefore request that the specific impacts on the surface and/or groundwater resources of the properties affected by the pipeline replacement are incorporated into the scope of the BLM analysis.

Our clients and class members currently utilize their properties for a range of activities, including but not limited to: residential use and development; conservation; tourism; vineyards; cattle ranching; agriculture, and a variety of personal and commercial recreational activities. For example, the Orella Ranch property situated on the Gaviota Coast is currently used by class plaintiff Mark W. Tautrim and his family as a working cattle ranch, in addition to which the Tautrims periodically host sustainable land-use workshops highlighting the benefit of ecological farming and ranching techniques. Similarly, other clients utilize their properties to raise cattle (class plaintiff Live Oak Bazzi L.P.; Mathis Gaviota Ranch L.P.,), pigs Land Use and goats (The Jones Organization), or grow commercial crops such as apple orchards (Satterthwaite) or vineyards (class plaintiff JTMT LLC; Zaca 0012-2 Planning Preserve LLC; Lavender Oak Ranch LLC). Other clients and class members currently operate under agricultural or conservation easements to preserve their propertie' natural habitats (e.g. HR 127 Partnership).Plain' proposed pipeline replacement route will disrupt the operations of the Buellton Sportsmen"s Association, which utilizes its property as a commercial shooting range. Finally, there are property owners such as class plaintiffs Mike and Denise McNutt, who utilize the property as their primary family residence and who will be significantly impacted by the pipeline replacement project, and clients and class members such the Libbey Trust, which owns property along Blazing Saddles Drive in the Cuyama Valley and have expressed significant concerns regarding the impact of the pipeline project on access to their properties.

The Project Overview describes the proposed project as taking place over a 12 to 18 month timeline. In order to achieve this timeline, Plains proposes to employ three concurrent construction spreads, each of which would comprise approximately 150 to 200 employees utilizing Land Use 0012-3 construction equipment and vehicles including, but not limited to, light-duty passenger trucks, passenger vans, heavy duty trucks, welding trucks, Planning fuel trucks, water trucks, stringing trucks, graders, dozers, trackhoes, trenching machines, bending machines, forklift, Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) machine, jack and Boring Machine, mud pumps, cranes, air compressors and generators.

NoiseThe Project Overview anticipates that the pipeline replacement project may result in adverse noise impacts arising from construction activities (including trenching activities, pipeline installation and associated vehicle noise) truck traffic travelling along offsite travel routes, and impacts arising from permanent stationary noise sources, such as pump stations.Many of our clients and class members properties, including, but not limited, to those described above that are used for residential use, cattle ranching and personal and commercial recreational activities are particularly sensitive 0012-7 Noise to noise impacts arising both from the proposed construction activities and any permanent stationary noise sources - adverse noise impacts will Unique 12 Lawrence J Conlan Cappello & Noel LLP diminish the enjoyment and/or economic benefit derived by the owners from their properties.On behalf of our clients and class members, and the Comment public, we therefore request that the specific noise impacts on the properties affected by the pipeline replacement are incorporated into the scope of the BLM analysis. Remediation / MonitoringSeveral of our clients and class members have expressed dissatisfaction with Plain' remediation efforts relating to activities arising out of their routine inspection and maintenance efforts. Further, during initial response to the oil spill and subsequent Restoration/Mo repair/remediation efforts, the scope of work to be performed and associated impacts was greatly in excess of that initially anticipated.On behalf of 0012-11 nitoring our clients and class members, and the public, we therefore request that the scope of the analysis include robust reporting and response requirements, to ensure that concerns of nearby property owners during and subsequent to the pipeline replacement are adequately presented and addressed. We write to offer our input to help the Bureau of Land Management determine the size and scope of analysis needed, additional issues to study, and a range of alternative management strategies concerning the replacement project. We do not object to or oppose the construction of a replacement 0012-1 Scope pipeline provided that Plains fully compensates property owners for the necessary easements. and properly addresses the environmental concerns of all owners and the public affected by the pipeline and the project.

Traffic/TransportationThe Project Overview anticipates that construction of the proposed pipeline replacement project will introduce new traffic volumes associated with construction and operational activities, and will impact traffic flow as a result of temporary lane or roadway closures related to the installation of the oil and gas pipelines.Specifically, the Project Overview anticipates three separate crews of approximately 150 to 200 employees and associated construction equipment and vehicles will be employed to support pipeline installation, abandonment, and/or removal activities. Overall, Applicant Plains Pipeline L.P."s Traffic Impact Analysis estimates approximately 192 to 206 daily trips per construction Traffic/Transport 0012-9 spread.Many of our clients and class members enjoy access to their properties via private roads which traverse their own, or adjacent, properties, or ation via public shared access roads with limited space and ongoing maintenance and visibility issues, such as those properties adjoining Blazing Saddles Drive. During the pipeline replacement project, these properties will likely suffer significant impacts as a result of the anticipated construction traffic, affecting their use, enjoyment and value of their properties during the construction period.On behalf of our clients and class members, and the public, we therefore request that the specific traffic impacts on the properties affected by the pipeline replacement are incorporated into the scope of the BLM analysis.

If the pipeline is simply a maintenance activity that allows the company to more dafely and efficiently continue doing its existing scope of business, Unique Project 28 Lynn Cullen 0028-1 this is fine. If the pipeline is an upgrade and is being done in expectation of expanding drilling or moving to a more damaging type of extraction Comment Description (fracking) I am opposed to this project proceeding and I hope that is taken into consideration during the review.

I am opposed to fracking on the Central Coast. What bothers me most is that there is lots of secrecy about what materials are put into the ground. When asked about what chemicals that add to the steam concentrate, the facts seem to be unclear. Fracking has the possibility to contaminate our Unique Hydrology/Wate 41 Mr. Daniel Malone Sr. 0041-1 water supply. On the Central Coast, we have many communities that depend entirely on well water for their domestic supplies. I live in such a Comment r Quality community. All of our sources for our community water district is well water. So, I sort of don"t trust the frackers to really worry about our water. I am open to feedback on what is actually put into the ground during fracking. Dan Malone Sr

The EIR needs go way beyond the route of the pipeline. We are facing disasterous global warming. The mitigation measures must include a Santa Barbara Community Unique 44 Mr. Harold L Hill 0044-1 Greenhouse Gas successful way to achieve carbon sequestration or off setting reductions in generation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere equivalent to more than Action Network Comment the petroleum to be carried by the proposed pipeline. Harold Hill, PE Santa Barbara, CA Unique If the pipeline is approved, who is going to constantly monitor it for safety issues and no leaks? What safeguards is the pipeline company be required 63 Ms. Gloria Mcclintock 0063-1 Oil Spills Comment to put into place? Unique Project Will old pipeline be removed from the ground when the new pipeline is laid? Or left to add to the underground detritus? For instance, the new 81 Mr. Richard Gamble 0081-1 Comment Description course moves west of Buellton, but what will happen to the old pipe still under Buellton? Unique Biological Finally, the EIR needs to address the impacts to marine wildlife, including migratory whales, while establishing a baseline that reflects the current 83 Javiera Barandiaran 0083-1 Comment Resources state of ocean health. The EIR should not pretend those platforms are already operating, because they are not. They have been shut down for four years since the Refugio oil spill in 2015 for which Plains was found criminally liable. Exxon and Plains should know, and it should be spelled out in the EIR, that opposition to offshore oil is at record highs in California. 100 cities up and down the pacific coast, including all of the coastal cities in our county, have passed 0084-12 Alternatives resolutions opposing offshore oil and calling for it be phased out. The Gov, the legislature, State Lands, the coastal commission, polls of voters, both democrats and coastal republicans, all oppose offshore oil. A no project alternative should include the possibility of decommissioning Exxon"s platforms. After all, a total of seven offshore platforms will likely be permanently decommissioned soon, including the other platforms closest to Exxon"s. How will any change in vegetation impact wildlife, esp TE species? Will there be a change in local hydrology with changes in vegetation? Will Biological the disturbance alter soils in terms of nutrient storage and will this result in needing more fertilizers? What will be done to prevent the 0084-12 Resources establishment of non-natives or invasives and their replacement of native species? How long does revegetation take before the area is restored to predisturbance status? How will a new pipeline help us comply with California executive order B-55-18 to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 in light of the risks of 0084-12 Climate Change catastrophic climate change? How will climate change affect the pipeline, such as increasing heat stress, fires, soil expansion/contraction, more erosion from stronger storms in Sierra Club Los Padres Unique 0084-12 Climate Change 84 Ms. Katie M Davis the three rivers and many creeks this pipelinewould cross? Chapter Comment One the biggest impacts of construction is to terrestrial vegetation. Of most concern is loss of habitat, loss of species diversity, and replacement of native species with invasives or non-natives. Changes in vegetation can also have micro-climate effects or larger scale impacts if there is significant 0084-12 Climate Change change in vegetation. Have the following been considered: Will the disturbance affect local climate? Will it contribute to climate change? Will it affect the ecosystems ability to respond to climate change or make it more susceptible to climate change?

Pipeline construction has the potential to impact soils and the geology of the area must be carefully considered to prevent pipeline failure. What is the geology of the area in which the pipeline will be laid? Construction can lead to a loss in native soils and/or a decrease in the productivity of the 0084-12 Geology/Soils soils. What are the expected impacts to soils? How will construction impact soil productivity, especially through compaction? How will groundwater tables be affected if soils are compacted and/or the geology altered that could affect permeability and recharge?

0084-12 Greenhouse Gas What are the total greenhouse gas emissions from burning all the oil transmitted via the pipeline over the lifespan of the pipeline?

What are greenhouse gas emissions from construction and operation of the pipeline? (e.g., electricity for pump station power; fuel for maintenance 0084-12 Greenhouse Gas and inspection vehicles). Has a lifecycle analysis been completed- from raw materials through production to end of life?

The last pipeline was badly corroded causing an oil spill. How would corrosion be monitored and prevented? What is the composition of the oil that would flow through the pipeline? What chemicals and gases might it contain? What are potential impacts from a spill or release? How would a 0084-12 Oil Spills release affect stream ecosystems, most importantly stream organisms? How big of an area could be affected and how many people would be Sierra Club Los Padres Unique affected? How would you compensate or mitigate for a release? 84 Ms. Katie M Davis Chapter Comment Plains Pipeline Scoping Comments As this pipeline would be built specifically to serve and enable offshore oil development from aging platforms, the 0084-12 Scope scoping for this project should include not only the impacts of building and operating the pipeline, but the risks and impacts of re-starting and continuing to operate those aging offshore platforms on the gaviota coast. What are the offshore oil spill risks and impacts? This pipeline would cross over the San Andreas Fault in a portion of the fault at risk of a major quake. What would happen if a major earthquake Seismic 0084-12 caused multiple failures along the pipeline and if emergency response was slow or impossible given that everyone would be dealing with the Conditions aftermath of a major quake. What other fault lines are in the area?

UNIQUE NON-SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 Submission ID First Name Last Name Type Comment ID Issue Comment taken from Submission Unique Non General We don"t need more drilling, fracking, pipelines, etc. We certainly don"t need more spills, and we need to disincetivize the burning of fossil fules 13 Alan Kuhn 0013-1 Substantive Opposition that are leading to climate change and wildfires! Unique Non General 14 Bob Omdahl 0014-1 Please see the attached document for reasons not to allow fracking. Substantive Opposition The Trump Administration has proposed to open over 1 million acres of public lands on the Central Coast to fracking and oil drilling. Our Unique Non General community has witnessed the impacts of oils spills on our environment and economy firsthand. Moreover, we are facing the severe impacts of 15 Camill Gilbert 0015-1 Substantive Opposition climate change, including rising sea levels, drought, and record-breaking fires. We know what"s at stake if we do not act to address climate change by investing in renewable energy resources that do not destroy great swathes of land and pollute ground water. Fracking is dangerous to the health of people living in the vicinity and to the environment. Authorization of fracking would damage our local Unique Non General 17 David E Smith 0017-1 environment and the health of people living here for the sole benefit of rich people who don"t live here. There is no scientific or medical evidence Substantive Opposition that would justify fracking. Do not allow fracking anywhere in California. Dr David Smith Unique Non 18 David Edmondson 0018-1 General Support we need oil. so let them build the pipeline. Substantive Thank you for the opportunity to communicate my opposition to fracking. It is a shortsight solution that has the potential to create unwanted Unique Non General 20 Ellen Perryess 0020-1 consequences -- increased earthquakes and groundwater contamination as well as contributing to climate change and water shortages. Please do Substantive Opposition what you can to prevent fracking on our public lands. Thank you, Ellen Perryess 805-528-4090 Unique Non General 21 Ethel Larrabee 0021-1 Please use your resources for renewable enegy such as wind, solar, and nuclear. Please no francking and no more drilling for oil. Substantive Opposition I am heavily opposed to the intended plan to allow the pipeline reconstuction on the Bureau of Land Management lands. In my mind this runs directly against the r"asion d"etre for the BLM: protecting and holding public lands for the people. This will be not only an eye sore, but impact and Unique Non General 22 Garrett Stephens 0022-1 negatively affect the wildlife throughout the region, as well as soil and ground water quality. I"m sure someone could go produce research that Substantive Opposition shows this is not the case, but fracking for oil always has these built-in errors to the process, and will corrupt this beautiful land that we should protect. I really don"t think hunters or fishers in these areas will like these distractions either... NO FRACKING OR OIL DRILLING ON ANY LAND IN CALIFORNIA. Fracking is an extreme oil-extraction process that blasts toxic chemicals mixed with water underground to crack rocks and happens at unusually shallow depths, dangerously close to underground drinking water supplies, with Unique Non General 23 Helen Manning-Brown 0023-1 unusually high concentrations of toxic chemicals. The impacts of oil spills off the Santa Barbara coast have been devastating on the environment Substantive Opposition and the economy. Fossil fuel extraction has brought about climate change including rising sea levels, drought, and record-breaking fires. No oil companies drilling and spilling their way across our public lands and wildlife habitat. no fracking in Santa Barbara County. The science is unsure what the chemicals do after usd for fracking. Do the chemicals go up, down, sideways or remain where they are. It could take years to comtaniate the water tables . Remember spraying our food with DDT? Then there was a we shouldn"t Unique Non General 24 Jackie Thiele 0024-1 have done that! Now, my generation has a huge increase in cancer. Let"s believe the science! Until we know for sure what the chemicals do after Substantive Opposition they are used let"s not give cancer to the next generation. Believe in science not the big oil companies....we have all seen time and time again that they only care about the bottom line. Unique Non General We"ve ALREADY had environmental disasters here because of oil production. We don"t want the risk, we don"t want the hundreds of trucks daily. 25 Jon Rupp 0025-1 Substantive Opposition Let"s try solar. Let"s try wind. Or don"t you believe in global warming? Unique Non General Absolutely no fracking or even gas and oil operations in any of California. Have trump look at platforms off his decks in Florida if he likes the idea so 26 Lois R Merritt 0026-1 Substantive Opposition much. Unique Non General 29 Marge Schwartz 0029-1 Please do not allow Plains to rebuild its pipeline in Santa Barbara County. Substantive Opposition Pipelines damage the environment due to installation and design deficiencies. All pipelines leak and cause damage to environment and highly important water resource necisary for survival. Profit and business endehevors are not relevant in an evolutionary paradigm of whole support Unique Non General 30 Reda Carr 0030-1 based directives chosen by the masses of billions who prefer life over profit. Regenerative energies and zero point energies are moreso becoming Substantive Opposition the norm and demand has become so prevalent that the oil industry is required to become team player or become irelovent in this wholistic new paradigm. Unique Non I am a voter in Santa Barbara County and would like a full, public meeting about the benefits, costs, and consequences of new fracking and drilling 31 Robert Holmes 0031-1 General Support Substantive in the California Central Coast. Drilling and fracking would create thousands and perhaps even tens of thousands of jobs for Central Coast residents. As a resident of Santa Barbara County, and a property owner with close access to the beach, I oppose the proposed pipeline repair or replacement by Plains Pipeline on the grounds of environmental damage to the coastline. We have already seen the disaster caused by pipeline leakage. Unique Non General 32 Shelley Sherman 0032-1 Continuing to pump oil out of the channel and sending it via pipeline to other states is an accident waiting to happen. This company has already Substantive Opposition demonstrated its negligence and lack of concern for the health and safety of this area"s residents. The BLM should not approve this project, and clean energy alternatives should continue to be prioritized.

*Submission ID and Comment ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions and comments as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. Submission ID First Name Last Name Type Comment ID Issue Comment taken from Submission Unique Non General How smart is it to frack in a region of the country that has earthquakes? I am opposed to opening up the Central Coast of California to fracking and 33 Tammy Allen 0033-1 Substantive Opposition oil drilling. There are higher considerations than the pursuit of wealth. A key issue in any environmental assessment is provision for the correction and assessment errors, including failures of equipment or infrastructure. Such a provision requires the utmost transparency. In this case, the applicant has a record indicating the opposite. When their Unique Non General 34 Dr. Allan Stewart-Oaten 0034-1 pipeline ruptured in 2015, they not only tried to minimize publicity and characterise the incident as minot, but also hired guards to block access to Substantive Opposition the public, journalists, and - most strikingly - local elected officials, including County Supervisors. They cannot be trusted to take care of future problems, or even to reveal them. The application should be denied. I am unalterably opposed to any fracking or oil drilling on the coast of California. We have seen the devastation that results from accidents, and we Unique Non General 35 Dr. Joan Willicombe 0035-1 have also seen that in spite of assurances, accidents have occurred. I value our natural environment and do not want to ever see it damaged or Substantive Opposition destroyed again. EVER! Unique Non General There are moral reasons to not bbuild pipelines in Santa Barbara county related to our ecological being - not just economic and materialist reasons. 36 Dr. Ken Fields 0036-1 Substantive Opposition The world exists where the truth lives. Let"s establish santa barbara in her rich heritage of environmental wealth. Unique Non Oil pipelines should be double-walled when crossing rivers and streams to contain spills. The outer wall should be directed to contain the spill away 37 Dr. Paul Norton 0037-1 Substantive from the water flow. I am a 19-year long resident of Los Osos, California demanding you prevent hydraulic fracking and any new drilling for oil in San Luis Obispo, California County. As a community which relies upon public wells for all our drinking water resources, fracking anywhere near here, including the Mr. Abram Unique Non General 38 Perlstein 0038-1 proposed areas of Montana de Oro State Park and Morro Rock in Morro Bay, California is entirely unacceptable. We need to be moving forward on S. Substantive Opposition developing safe, sustainable, and environmentally sound forms of energy production, including solar, wind, wave action, and what have you. Keep the oil in the ground! Not having to waste 2 "extra" hours in my commutes back and forth. If I have to leave my home in Oxnard at 5:30am (to get to the station on time) to arrive in SB at around 7am, it"s just not worth it. The next train doesn"t leave Oxnard until 10:44!?!? FIVE HOURS LATER? Then, for the trip home, IF I can get to the 4:40 from SB (south), I would arrive at 5:40pm and not get home until 6pm!! If I DON"T make the 4:40, I have to wait for Unique Non 39 Mr. Alan Mckenzie 0039-1 General Support the next one which doesn"t leave until 6:02? Getting me home at WAY after 7pm. This means, either way, I am spending OVER 12 hours time away Substantive from the home just to use the train. Instead, I can drive, it takes me 55 minutes which is about the same TRAIN time, but saves me the 15 min. going/coming to the station. That"s only about 10.5 hours away - 2 hours difference, PLUS I don"t have to get up at 4:30am to shower, eat and head out - I get an extra 1.5 hours sleep! Unique Non l vote to allow the oil companies to drill, if there is a spill, they can pay for the clean up. Resources need to be harvested, no matter what the cost. 40 Mr. Bart I Bader 0040-1 General Support Substantive You can"t prevent life f4om happening. Let my people go Present and future generations will curse the people responsible for BLM approval of this project which is all about power and greed. You should Unique Non General 42 Mr. Daniel Ogrady 0042-1 be ashamed of yourselves for being complicit in the ruination of the earth"s climate and exposing this region to more envirornmental depredations Substantive Opposition of the kind already experienced here. I am for the proposed pipeline because we will need oil for the foreseeable future. We also need the jobs it will create and the economic benefits Mr. David Unique Non 43 Seipel 0043-1 General Support for the area. The previous pipeline is decades old and technology has advanced enough that a pipeline is the best and safest way to move the oil. R Substantive We also need to protect our environment and must insure the pipeline is built to the strictest standards k 2019-08847-Federal Register Notice of Intent-Public Inspection Desk Version BLM: I am a longtime resident of Goleta/Santa Barbara. I oppose the Mr. John Unique Non General 45 Douglas 0045-1 Plains Pipeline replacement project. The danger of more oil leaks is to great, particularly in an area containing so many earthquake faults. I urge Enrico Substantive Opposition you to deny the proposal. Thanks for considering my views. John E. Douglas Unique Non General 46 Mr. John M Gillespie 0046-1 Irreversible, inherently risky and damaging now and in the future Substantive Opposition As a lifelong resident of the Central Coast of California, I have witnessed the impacts of oil spills on our local environment. While I support economic growth within our community, I am concerned about the safe extraction, transportation, and ultimate use of oil within and across our Unique Non General public lands. My questions are as follows; 1) Why is it necessary to renew and upgrade existing infrastructure? 2) What is the real cost-benefit to 47 Mr. Kurt Friedmann 0047-1 Substantive Opposition Central Coast residents? 3) How can the potential of spills be eliminated? Given everything we know about the adverse effects of oil regarding the environment, don"t we owe it to our children and grandchildren to leave the Central Coast a better place than how we found it? How does running more oil through BLM land help accomplish that duty? Help me understand. Thank you.

In regards specifically to the Plains Pipeline replacement document and in fact to all oil pipeline projects may I point out the oil is the lifeblood of our Country, our County, and our way of life. Also, take into account that we may be in an international position to satisfy not only the current but future needs of many countries that exist on foreign oil supplies and potential our ability to supply those needs. This is not only an economic boon for the USA but allows us to influence the political nature and stability of many of our allies and influence others to become our allies. We are rapidly approaching a unique situation if we are able to curtail the Iranian export of oil and that demand must be met by the USA. It is a proven Unique Non 48 Mr. Lloyd A Godlis 0048-1 General Support fact that the cheapest and safest way to transport oil over land is pipelines. So, now is not the time to restrict the development of or repair of or Substantive replacement of an important pipeline, Plains Pipeline. Is will also be a boon to our County producing needed income and jobs. Each salary of each worker goes around 7 times in our community and helps our taxes and economy. The spill that Plains had some time ago in the Goleta area was a result of a recent purchase of that pipeline that was put into use and not a result of Plains doing something wrong. With the replacement of that pipeline we can be assured we will be safe for many years to come whereas if the oil must be transported by truck, well, we see how many accidents occur daily on our streets and freeways. Mr. Michal Unique Non General 49 Robinson 0049-1 I am opposed to the leasing of public lands for the use of tracking. I do not believe such use to be in the public"s interest. R Substantive Opposition Unique Non General 50 Mr. Philip E Guldeman 0050-1 Do not allow expanded oil exploration on the Central Coast or anywhere in California. PLEASE! Substantive Opposition Mr. Unique Non General Hello , I live on the Central Coast and would like to share my opinion with you that I oppose any expansion of oil exploration and production. 51 Jost 0051-1 Randall L Substantive Opposition Thanks I, a resident of Goleta, CA (93117), ask that you please not allow more oil and gas exploration on California public lands. We have already had Unique Non General 52 Mr. Sam Kaufman-Martin 0052-1 enough oil spills, fires, and earthquakes here, thank you very much. We also already have much less dangerous power production options Substantive Opposition available, such as solar, conventional wind turbines, rim-driven wind turbines, and biomass gasification. Sincerely, Sam Kaufman-Martin This project should not be approved for many reasons. Aside from all of the environmental degradation that would result, granting approval to the Unique Non General 53 Mr. Seth Steiner 0053-1 company criminally responsible for the 2015 Refugio oil spill of more than 142,000 gallons would be a travesty. Further, BLM ought not further soil Substantive Opposition its reputation with association to a monumentally foolish project like this one. The plan to utilize fracking in my state of California for obtaining oil is a potentionally dangerous plan. Though more research is needed to prove the danger fracking adds to an already earthquake-vulnerable state, it would be irresponsible to cause this highly probable outcome by moving Mrs. Cindy Unique Non General 54 Stevens 0054-1 forward with this method. It has been proven that fracking will cause crude oil to leak horizontily underground, infecting water supply as well as Ann Substantive Opposition soil, poisoning both. I would ask that you firmly decide to not allow this. Thank-you for your consideration in this most serious matter. Sincerely, Cindy Stevens, Paso Robles, CA. Our community has witnessed the impacts of oils spills on our environment and economy firsthand. Moreover, we are facing the severe impacts of Mrs. Unique Non General 55 Apitz 0055-1 climate change, including rising sea levels, drought, and record-breaking fires. We know what"s at stake if we do not act to address climate change Kathleen Substantive Opposition by investing in renewable energy resources. Do not allow oil fracking on our beautiful environment. We cannot afford to destroy our environment.

Unique Non General When you look at what fracking has done to other parts of this country, I don"t see how you could ever consider doing it in California. We need to 56 Mrs. Lynn Halsted 0056-1 Substantive Opposition move away from using gas and oil. Move on to other forms of energy that are not devasting to the earth and life as we know it.

California has been subjected to oil spills, including off the coast of Santa Barbara, that are still evident on those beaches 40 years later. In keeping with the BLM"s mission " to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of America"s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations," activities related to drilling can"t be guaranteed to "do no harm" regarding the health and diversity of these lands. Flora and Unique Non General fauna are precious and necessary to our ecosystems, and are at risk and may not be enjoyed by future generations due to spills. These beautiful 57 Mrs. T D Morris 0057-1 Substantive Opposition lands are our playgrounds; camping, fishing, wildflower and wildlife viewing, and hiking are just some activities we Americans and visitors to the US alike enjoy. For the millions who live in cities, as well as those who are fortunate not to, these lands give the soul-enriching reprieve needed for mental, spiritual, and physical health. There are also Native American lands of historic importance that could be disturbed. The deleterious impacts on air and water quality could be substantial. Please deny this request for pipeline replacement.

It is time to redouble our focus on clean, renewable energy sources. We have a limited amount of time during which oil based commerce and Ms. Unique Non General energy will be viable. After a solid seven years of drought, our understanding of the precarious value one of our most primary resources water has 58 Stockdill 0058-1 Elizabeth Substantive Opposition deepened. We will always need clean water; oil will become a relic of the past. It is time to focus on clean, renewable sources of energy and not risk endangering our water supply by continuing to pursue oil using processes that have been shown to foul water supples.

*Submission ID and Comment ID numbers are unique identifiers, randomly assigned to the submissions and comments as they are input into the comment analysis system and evaluated for specific issues. They are used for tracking purposes only. Submission ID First Name Last Name Type Comment ID Issue Comment taken from Submission I am property and mineral rights owner in Santa Maria. The Plains Pipeline replacement project is critical to the continued success of oil production Ms. Unique Non in our county. California"s oil industry is environmentally safe due to existing regulations and the the strict adherence to those regulations by the 59 Tunnell 0059-1 General Support Cynthia L Substantive pertroleum industry. Second, oil production generates much needed revenue and good paying jobs to the State and County. Please approve the Plains Pipeline L.P. Replacement project. Plains Pipeline, through its extreme negligence in maintaining and monitoring its pipeline in our area, caused tragic damage to our local environment. The damage to marine life is still uncounted; tens of thousands of human beings found we could no longer enjoy our beaches. As a local journalist put it, Plains All American Pipeline company"s policy of premeditated negligence in the first degree . . . blew up for all the world to see four years ago this Sunday. That"s when a stretch of Plain"rsquo; pipeline that had been allowed to fester and rot until its walls were 92 Ms. Unique Non General percent corroded popped it cork, spilling 142,000 gallons of oil. Predictably much of that ran downhill under the freewayvia a culvert that everyone 60 Deborah Rogow 0060-1 Substantive Opposition but Plains seemed to know was thereand leapt lemming-like into the ocean at Refugio State Beach, where it killed and maimed a wide range of sea Beth creatures both uncounted and not. Local prosecutors sought to hit Plains upside the head with a $1.2 billion fine, but Judge James Herman regretfully fined Plains only $3.3 million, noting that was the most allowed by law. $3.3. million for a crime against the planet? And now they want another crack at it? This should never, never happen.Moreover, we know that a sustainable future is in alternative energy sources. For every reason, I hope and trust that the Bureau of Land Management will deny this claim. Plains Pipeline is a criminal actor. I urge you not to proceed with your proposal to open federal public lands to oil gas drilling and fracking. Oil drilling fracking threatens our Unique Non General groundwater, pollutes our air increases earthquake risk. BLM MUST protect our public lands, not exploit them. This proposal will be disastrous to 61 Ms. Ella M Brittingham 0061-1 Substantive Opposition our local communities, our water, our local plants animals our friends neighbors. I strongly oppose this hope you will keep the moratorium on leasing in place. Make it permanent by amending the DEIS to include and adopt a no leasing alternative as the preferred alternative. Thank you! Dear BLM, Thank you for managing our land. I would like to leave a comment and plead with you to NOT ALLOW ANY FRACKING. It is vitally Unique Non General 62 Ms. Gina R Comin 0062-1 important to keep the integrity of our coastline intact for future generations and for the environment of both humans and in fact all of life in our Substantive Opposition and ALL regions. Thank you Gina Comin I am a registered voter that strongly opposes any form of fracking within the California central coast area. I am a home owner, have been a central Unique Non General 64 Ms. Lael K White 0064-1 coast resident since 1974, and have a graduate level education. Thank you for your support. Lael White 5360 Mariquita Ave. Atascadero, CA Substantive Opposition [email protected] Ms. Liana Unique Non General 65 Smith 0065-1 NO MORE PIPELINES!! RENEWABLE ENERGY IS THE ONLY WAY!! PROTECT OUR MOTHER EARTH AND ALL HER CHILDREN!! R. Substantive Opposition I don"t have to read the article to know my opinion on this subject. As good stewards of this planet we need to leave oil in the ground and Unique Non General 66 Ms. Linda K Ashworth 0066-1 emphasize renewable resources to power human activities. Please DO NOT allow any more drilling or Fracking In San Luis Obispo and Santa Substantive Opposition Barbara Countys. To US Dept. of Interior/Bureau of Land Management, My family and I have lived and worked in SB County since the mid-1970s and we have seen the disasterious effects of oil and gas development grow and grow over those decades. Among the most obvious dangers: Spills and leaks into our waterways and onto beaches Oil coating/smothering of water birds and other wildlife Contamination of wells and other bodies of water Increases Unique Non General 67 Ms. Maia Maia 0067-1 in Greenhouse gasses released into our atmosphere Increased negative contributions to climate chaos and destructive weather patterns Increased Substantive Opposition clean-up and mitigation costs not recovered or recoverable from private oil/gas developers Santa Barbara County should be devoted attention and funds to development of sustainable energy and energy systems, NOT gas/oil development. We strongly oppose any expansion of gas/oil development in our County, as well as nearby communities. Unique Non General Plains should not be allowed to replace it"s pipeline which had corroded and caused a bad oil spill. Santa Barbara County is dependent on tourism, 68 Ms. Marge Schwartz 0068-1 Substantive Opposition fishing, and other industies which cannot be compromised by allowing dirty polluting oil from an incompetent, irresponsible company to continue. It is time to bring dependency on fossil fuel to an end. The planet is literally dying, but the speed of that devastation has been put on fast-forward by mankind. We have little wilderness left. Life on earth - plants, animals, our children - depends entirely on us. Species are departing the earth forever as I write. The federal government subsidizes an industry that is destructive and which, when it vomits its filth, refuses to clean up after Ms. Unique Non General itself. In fact, the devastations of the oil industry include: causing earthquakes; fouling ground water; destroying plant and wildlife; destroying 69 Collins 0069-1 Martha R Substantive Opposition natural beauties and resources that create jobs and opportunity; destroying the pleasure and wisdom that sharing in nature provides, destroying potential medicines and life forms yet to be identified and understood. There were jobs at Auschwitz too, that paid well. That was no reason to continue its existence. Ditto for fossil fuel extraction and exploration. It is past time for a New Green Deal. Wake up, America. Crush the industry that is killing you and destroying your children' future. I strongly oppose fracking and more pipelines in California. This is a geogicqlly unstable area. Groundwater is already falling due to agricultural Ms. Mary Unique Non General 70 Hartle 0070-1 consumption and drought. Pipelines pass through areas of high population, touristic value and important biological diversity. Please do not permit Jo Substantive Opposition this.

I am writing to express my strong concerns about opening up fracking options in the California Central Cost region. As a long time resident of the area, I believe that the proposal will potential put the environment at risk and greatly reduce the natural beauty of the area. The central coasts Ms. Unique Non General greatest asset is the beauty of the coast and surrounding area. The local economies rely on the tourism industry. If the area were to be opened to 71 Fritz 0071-1 Suzanne Substantive Opposition increased oil production it would damage the beauty of the area and damage the tourism industry. The long term impacts of oil spills like the one that happpened in Santa Barbara are huge. California has a history of leading the country on conservation efforts. The government needs to focus on increasing oil conservation and not on destroying the environment. Unique Non I"m also for fracking, which Rep. Carbejal referenced in his dessimination of this link, though I don"t see it here. I am for the thousands of good 72 Ms. Suzie Clary 0072-1 General Support Substantive paying jobs in an area with little access to such income, but live in this expensive area. I am totally opposed to any and all additional extraction of oil or gas on public lands anywhere within the US and especially here in california. We Unique Non General 73 Ms. Terry Kleiman 0073-1 are already among the world"s largest exporters of fossil fuel so that as a nation we do not need this additional supply. We should be investing in Substantive Opposition renewables exclusively and removing/taking off line as much of our current fossil fuel extraction industry as possible. It is difficult for me to comprehend how we could/would allow this company to operate in our county again. After their mismanagement of the last Unique Non General environmental disaster they caused; their bankrupcy; the cost that had to be borne by the state and county to clean up after their mess and the 74 Ms. Terry Kleiman 0074-1 Substantive Opposition paultry fine imposed by the courts, they should be prohibited from doing business here. Moreover, I am completely opposed to more drilling for oil or gas anywhere within California on or off shore. I am strongly opposed to the proposal by the Plains Pipeline LP to replace the 127 mile pipeline. The potential devastating impact of this project on Unique Non General 75 Dr. Jane E. Granskog 0075-1 the existing historic and cultural resources in the state and federal lands that will be affected as well as it"s impact on water resources and the Substantive Opposition existing environmental resources cannot be overstated. There is no way that these issues can be mitigated. As a concerned California resident, I strongly urge you to deny Plain' oil-pipeline proposal. The 2015 Plains spill released more than 120,000 gallons of oil into the environment, killing hundreds of birds and marine mammals. A jury later found the company guilty of failing to maintain its pipeline and criminally liable for the spill. This company must not be allowed another chance to cover our public lands and waters in oil. Transporting oil by pipeline is dangerous. Between 1986 and 2013, there were nearly 8,000 significant incidents with U.S. pipelines that involved death, injury and Unique Non General economic and environmental damage. That"s more than 300 incidents per year. And federal data shows that new pipelines carry an especially high 76 Eugene Debs 0076-1 Substantive Opposition risk of spills, mostly due to faulty design or construction. The company"s proposal also poses a serious threat to our public lands from more oil spills, air and water pollution, and harm to endangered species. And it would worsen climate change by prolonging our dependence on fossil fuels at a time when we must transition to clean energy. To the extent that your agency is considering the application, it must prepare an environmental review that fully analyzes all the harms listed above. Any reasonable review will reveal that there"s no way to avoid these unacceptable costs and that the project must be rejected. Unique Non General 77 Mr. Ken Meersand 0077-1 I am opposed to ANY fracking and oil drilling along the California coast. The potential for catastrophe is too great . Thank You Substantive Opposition I respectfully urge the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors to block further drilling in the Cat Canyon area. As a resident of Los Alamos, I am concerned about further spills, accidents and pollution of our water sources. A few weeks ago I drove some visitors from the East Coast from Orcutt Victoria Richard Kam Unique Non General to Los Alamos along the Sisquoc/Cat Canyon/Palmer roads to show them the stunning beauty of our area. They were shocked when we 78 0078-1 Gill Jacoby Substantive Opposition approached the section where the land has been decimated by oil drilling. It is clear we need to wean ourselves from our national addiction to oil and create jobs by transferring our power resources to clean energy. Please do not give permission to Plains Pipeline to inflict further damage to our most precious natural resources. Thank you. Fracking is a dirty destructive process to extract oil for private oil companies that would then sell it on the export market. This is private profit from Mrs. Unique Non General 79 Mulkey 0079-1 Public Land. The Bakersfield Proposal will only degrade our natural resources and leave a legacy of damage to be cleaned up and paid for by future Sharon Substantive Opposition generations. Please drop this idea and move on to better energy generators. Unique Non 80 Erika Morgan 0080-1 Just testing the comments section Substantive

Yes, we want you to do a complete EIS, starting out with the players...you have Exxon, who"s been lying to us about global warming since 1977 and who wants to re-open three old oil platforms off the SB coast (that requires a whole environmental study in itself), and you have Plains Pipeline L.P., whose felonious negligence (literally!) caused the 2015 Santa Barbara Pipeline Oil Spill. They want to try again with a new pipeline system in a county that, with few exceptions, would ride the both of them out of town on a rail - for the dead birds and mammals, the sickened townspeople and workers, the polluted beach and land that $100 million couldn"t completely fix, and the $78 million hit over 3 years to their economy. In addition, Plains has had 239 incidents (mostly oil spills) nationwide from 20062017, including 20 in California. They"ve been responsible for nearly $180 million in property damage from spilling more than 822,000 gallons of hazardous liquids from its pipelines. For the pipeline that caused the Refugio spill, they"d assured the government that it was extremely unlikely that the pipe would break and that they had state-of-the-art monitoring could quickly detect possible leaks and alert operators, which they apparently just ignored. We don"t want them here. No second chances to destroy more of our environment. Now, the star of the show...a proposed spanking new pipeline. Absolutely guaranteed to leak, or Indivisible Unique Non General 82 0082-1 rupture, because they ALL do...it"s just a matter of when. Corrosion, faulty construction, soil movement, time. They do not last forever. According Ventura Substantive Opposition to government data, many leak in the first two years, a risk that must be added to our collection of pipelines that have reached the second danger point 40 years or older. Even the relatively new Keystone pipeline, running over flat farmland, has had three major leaks since 2010. (At this point, you should be reading the ALL the environmental impact reports from the County of Santa Barbara, especially the including the Geologic Hazards Evaluation Report. (http://www.countyofsb.org/plndev/projects/energy/Plains.sbc) So where were we..? Oh, yes...a criminally negligent company wants to run 123 miles of pipeline over 10 different earthquake faults, and in part of the San Andreas Fault Zone, in a state known for its earthquakes BEFORE fracking was invented. The route also involves areas of serious liquefaction risk, landslides, highly erodible soil, expansive and collapsible soil, scour hazards at numerous drainages and even the possibility of dam inundation. When the next big earthquake hits, (chances are increasing as fracking near fault lines continues) a line will rupture so completely that even the sensor mitigation concept of the report engineers will be as spit in the wind. And it will most likely be in a back country area that is difficult to get to in regular circumstances, nearly impossible after an earthquake. Possibly surrounded by fire. Or dead animals and fish.

This is a catastrophic newspaper headline waiting to happen and you can be sure that all the environmental wonks in this area will be looking up your Linkedin references if you give a go sign to both this out-of-state contractor and a bad-actor international oil company. Ultimately neither will be able to fix all the damage that they"ll do in the name of corporate profits. Think how much better it would have been if all that $100 million spent cleaning up their last nightmare had instead been invested into solar or wind technology - that doesn"t leak, poison people and kill animals. You will also note on SB County"s Ground Water Protection Report that the engineers included release prevention and post release procedures for possible groundwater and well contamination, eerily using the description extremely unlikely, the same words Plains used to describe their failed pipeline"s chance of rupture. No, what is actually unlikely is that a line that crosses so many rivers, groundwater basins and stream valleys with shallow and sensitive aquifers is not going to pollute one or more after a seismic upheaval, or just a normal leakage event. The odds are also good Indivisible Unique Non 0082-1 General 82 that the pollution won"t be noticed for a long time, as even projects that are completely on federal land are not being inspected in a timely Ventura Substantive cont… Opposition fashion. The chances of this crazy quilt of BLM land, Forest Service Land, state and private land being properly monitored is slim to none. There"s currently a lawsuit asking for a moratorium on projects until the inspection issue is resolved. There are other environmental issues, like a greenhouse gas emission rate of over 18,984 metric tons/year with another 5,000 metric tons/yr of indirect emissions for just the pipeline part of the project, in a county that already is fighting polluted air and who counts 1000 MT/a year as a significant issue. Also, they"re planning on wiping out 600-800 oak trees in an area that counts trees, and especially oak trees, as close to sacred. But most importantly, CA just voted in Senate Bill 100, where we are aiming for carbon neutrality by 2045. Not only is this proposal intending to install an environmental time bomb in three counties, it is in direct conflict with the will of our voters for the energy future of our state. There is no way to mitigate the ultimate ending of a failed pipeline or a leaking platform and our area has already been scarred by both. This project must be rejected.

I"m writing to urge you to deny Plain' oil-pipeline proposal. Nearly 120,000 gallons of oil was accidentally released into the environment causing massive destruction to wildlife in this area. We do NOT need more pipelines or tankers carrying oil. This is the 21st century and we are still using 19th century technology. Why? GREED and profits for a few, destruction of health and welbeing for the masses. It doesn"t matter what company proposes this - it must be stopped. Cleaner forms of energy are available and less costly (if not as profitable for a few). We, the U.S., should be promoting all forms of cleaner, renewable energy NOW! We should be the global leader, instead we are leaving to countries like China. We have Unique Non General the technology, but lack the insight and support to make it happen in a timely manner. We should no longer be using dirty and dangerous fossil 85 Ms. Mala Wingerd 0085-1 Substantive Opposition fuels and/or nukes. No form of energy use is perfect, but there are certain forms that are much less damaging. If the govt had supported these forms decades ago, as they have funded fossil fuels and nukes for the past decades, we would be in a much healthier position on Earth today! Very few cried for wagon makers when the car replaced wagons. The economy will right itself - we need to give it that chance! If you are afraid of losing money - DIVEST from the dirty forms of energy and INVEST in a cleaner, more sustainable future. The Plain' Oil-Pipeline must be denied! Any reasonable review will reveal that there"s no way to avoid these unacceptable costs and that the project must be rejected. Thank you for your consideration and thoughtfulness for our future! I do not believe that Plains All American should be given permission to re-build the pipeline, expecially over critical natural land within the BLM. Oil Mrs. Unique Non General pipelines regularly fail in California. Federal pipeline data shows there were 621 pipeline incidents in Californiafrom 1986 through 2014, causing 86 Sharon John T Broberg 0086-1 Substantive Opposition 200 injuries, 48 fatalities and almost $800 million in property damage. A Center analysis of federal pipeline data found pipeline failures are most Broberg common after 30 years and shortly after they"re completed, as a result of faulty welds and other construction-related problems. I support the need to keep oil in the ground to meet our pollution reduction needed for the sustainability of future generations. This elimination of Ms. Unique Non General offshore pipelines supports that important value, common for the common good of all humankind. Pipeline Shutdown Prevented 27 Million Tons 87 Earls 0087-1 Maureen C Substantive Opposition of Carbon Pollution in California Four Years Ago, Plains Pipeline"s Oil Spill Idled Seven Offshore Drilling Platforms Lets keep this oil in the ground and protect our planet. Deny this project. Maureen Earls How can you even consider approving a permit for a comany that has been charged with a felony in not maintaing a previous pipeline resulting in a Unique Non General 88 Ms. Ruth Schwartz 0088-1 spill? Their proposed pipelne crosses groundwater basins with the potential for the contamination of groundwater and well. We have had Substantive Opposition incidences of unsafe water in several area of our country. When do you say Enough"?

FORM LETTER EXAMPLE

Plains Replacement Pipeline Project Public Scoping Summary Report September 2019 First Last Submission ID* Name Name Organization City State Type Issue Comment ID* Individual Comment

I'm writing to urge you to deny Plains' oil-pipeline proposal. The 2015 Plains spill released more than 120,000 gallons of oil into the environment, killing hundreds of birds and marine mammals. A jury later found the company guilty of failing to maintain its pipeline and criminally liable for the spill. This company must not be allowed another chance to cover our public lands and waters in oil. Transporting oil by pipeline is dangerous. Between 1986 and 2013, there were nearly 8,000 significant incidents with U.S. pipelines that involved death, injury and economic and environmental damage. That's more than 300 incidents per year. And federal data General FORM LETTER EXAMPLE Form Letter 1 0089-1 shows that new pipelines carry an especially high risk of spills, mostly due to faulty design or construction. The Opposition company's proposal also poses a serious threat to our public lands from more oil spills, air and water pollution, and harm to endangered species. And it would worsen climate change by prolonging our dependence on fossil fuels at a time when we must transition to clean energy. To the extent that your agency is considering the application, it must prepare an environmental review that fully analyzes all the harms listed above. Any reasonable review will reveal that there's no way to avoid these unacceptable costs and that the project must be rejected.