Washington Office

January 2017 

Volume 2
Our Vision

To enhance the quality of life for all citizens

through the balanced stewardship of America’s

public lands and resources.

Our Mission

To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity

of the public lands for the use and enjoyment

of present and future generations.
FEDERAL COAL PROGRAM PROGRAMMATIC EIS

SCOPING REPORT

VOLUME 1- SCOPING REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.INTRODUCTION

2.BACKGROUND

3.PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTAND PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS

4.SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED

5.FEDERAL COAL LEASING PROGRAM

6.PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES 

A.NOTICE OF INTENT 

B.SCOPING MATERIALS

C.LIST OF COMMENTERS 

D.COMMENTS BY ISSUE CATEGORY

E.ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A

Listening Session Materials 
This page intentionally left blank.
January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS A-1

Scoping Report 

APPENDIX A

LISTENING SESSION MATERIALS 

The BLM hosted five listening sessions to offer the public the opportunity to 

comment on how the BLM can best carry out its responsibility to ensure that 

taxpayers receive a fair return on the coal resources managed by the BLM on 

their behalf. Appendix A, Listening Session Materials, includes the presentation 

provided to the public at the five listening sessions. 
A. Listening Session Materials

A-2 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

This page intentionally left blank.
 

 

 

 

 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Federal Coal Leasing Program
 

2015 National Listening Sessions 

• Washington, D.C. – July 29 

• Billings, Montana – August 11 

• Gillette, Wyoming – August 13 

• Denver, Colorado – August 18 

• Farmington, New Mexico – August 20 
 

BLM Coal Program Quick Statistics 

 BLM currently administers 310 coal leases 

 In the last 10 years: 

 BLM-managed lands produced approximately 5.1 billion tons of 

coal worth over $72 billion 

 This production generated $7.9 billion in royalties and nearly $4.0 

billion in revenues from rents, bonuses, and other payments. 

 BLM held 39 coal lease sales 

 In 2014: 

 !pproximately 40% of Nation’s electricity was produced from coal; 

 It is expected to account for 30% by 2040 

 Approximately 40% of the coal produced was from federal coal; 

85% of that was from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. 
Federal Coal Tons Leased and Mined
 

2005 - 2014
 

1,400,000,000 

1,200,000,000 

1,000,000,000 

800,000,000 

600,000,000 

400,000,000 

200,000,000 

0 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Tons Leased 1,045,625,000 113,317,335 227,900,000 591,700,000 56,618,000 3,000,000 758,549,800 1,388,321,336 30,500,000 8,020,000 

Tons Produced 466,949,162 429,370,207 439,985,972 480,254,684 464,053,787 454,786,120 451,352,837 440,462,104 403,156,634 330,733,336 
Federal Coal Bonus Bids and Royalty Collected
 

2005 - 2014
 

$1,600,000,000 

$1,400,000,000 

$1,200,000,000 

$1,000,000,000 

$800,000,000 

$600,000,000 

$400,000,000 

$200,000,000 

$0 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Bonus Bid $814,207,234 $3,526,650 $39,021,420 $456,650,513 $48,650,024 $16,000 $701,100,191 $1,551,743,458 $8,690,000 $2,887,200 

Royalty Collected $457,494,476 $508,130,980 $561,549,252 $673,981,246 $693,890,508 $742,693,852 $774,117,051 $799,306,820 $697,439,021 $699,641,723 
Supporting Text 

Coal Fields of the Lower-48 United States 

Main Federal Coal 

Producing Areas 
Application & 

Review NEPA & Fair Market Value Lease Sale 

Post Bond Sale Review Issue Lease 

Mine permitting 

(OSM/states) Mining 
 

 

General Steps for Federal Coal Leasing and Mining
 

 Land Use Planning (Resource Management Plans) 

 Determines lands open to leasing consideration 

 Application Submittal 

 Environmental Analysis 

 Mineral Authorization (Right of Entry) 

 Coal lease sale (bonus bid revenue generated) 

 SMCRA Permit (Right to Mine) 

 Granted by Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and
 

Enforcement (OSMRE) or state
 

 Mining (royalty revenue generated) 

 Reclamation 

 OSMRE or state 
 

 

Royalty Requirements for Federal Coal
 

Royalty and Royalty Rate Reductions for Federal Coal 

By statute (30 U.S.C. 209) 

 Lessees must pay a royalty of not less than 12 1⁄2% on the sale 

price of the coal 

 The Secretary may determine a lesser royalty rate for 

underground mining to promote development 

 The Secretary may consider lease or region-specific royalty 

rate reductions under certain circumstances (30 U.S.C. 209) 

By regulation (43 CFR 3473.3-1 &2) 

 Lessees must pay a royalty of 

8% for underground mining and 

not less than 12 1⁄2% for surface 

mining 

 Lessees must pay an annual rent 

of not less than $3 per acre 
 

 

 

Bonding Requirements 

•	 Both BLM and the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and 

Enforcement (OSMRE) administer bonds for coal mines, which serve 

different purposes 

Coal Lease Bonds (BLM) 

BLM is responsible for the administration of lease bonds. 

 Lease bonds assure those aspects of the mining operation other than 

approved mining or exploration plan. 

• BLM lease bonds typically cover: 

• Three months of production royalty 

• One year of lease rental 

• Remaining balance of deferred bonus bids 

reclamation operations on a lease are conducted in conformity with the 
 

 

 

 

Bonding requirements (Cont’d)
 

Performance Bonds (OSMRE) 

OSMRE is responsible for the administration of performance bonds. 

 A performance bond is a surety bond, collateral bond and/or self-bond to 

assure the permittee performs the requirements of the permit and 

reclamation plan. 

Lease Protection Bonds (OSMRE)
 

OSMRE is responsible for the administration of Federal lessee protection 

bonds. 

 These bonds hold the permittee responsible for any damages to crops or 

tangible improvements on Federal lands. 

Note: States with OSMRE approved SMCRA regulatory programs may enter into cooperative 

agreements with OSM in order to become the regulatory authority for coal mining on Federal 

lands. 
Recent Improvements to the Management of the 

Federal Coal Program
 

Developed in response to recommendations from the OIG (2013) and 

GAO (2014) which focused on the: 

1. Lease Sale Valuation Process 

2. Royalty Rate Reductions 

The lease valuation process is critically 

important because it establishes the 

pre-sale estimate of the fair market 

value (FMV) for a given tract. 

The high bid at a given sale must meet 

or exceed that estimate. 
Lease Valuation Process Improvements 

Income Approach 

Geologic analysis 

Engineering analysis 

Market analysis 

Valuation 

Comparable Sales 

Valuation based on recent 

similar sales

Published an updated Coal Evaluation Manual and Handbook 

 Providing more robust guidance on FMV procedures 

 Standardizing requirements for sales and reoffers 

 Establishing internal controls and safeguards 

 Requiring additional information, including third party review 

and consideration of export markets 

 Increasing transparency of process 

 Recommends use of two most common appraisal methods 
 

Royalty Rate Reductions Process Improvements 

 Issued new RRR guidance to to streamline the application 

review and consultation process; 

 Required ONRR consultation for financial hardship RRR 

application processing. 
Thank You
 

For further information of BLM’s coal program: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/coal_and_non-energy.html 
 

1.	 Are existing royalty rates appropriate in light of the value of the federal coal 

resources, the costs of their development, and the returns due to American 

taxpayers? 

2.	 How might different levels of royalty rates affect: Return? viability of 

mining operations? Revenues for states and communities? Levels and 

locations of coal production? Jobs and coal exports markets? 

3.	 What are reasonable economic and market assumptions about Federal coal 

in the future, particularly in the West? In particular, what role might coal 

exports play? Do BLM’s lease sale valuation and royalty policies 

appropriately consider exports or other market forces or economics? 

4.	 Are there other ways in which BLM might promote greater competition in 

the coal leasing process? 

5.	 Are there other aspects of the BLM coal program that should also be 

considered with respect to ensuring a fair return to the taxpayer, such as 

appraisals, leasing procedures, lease terms, bonding, cost recovery, or 

penalties? 

6.	 What actions might the BLM take to address any of these issues, consistent 

with our existing statutory authority? 
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix B

Scoping Materials 
This page intentionally left blank.
January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS B-1

Scoping Report 

APPENDIX B

SCOPING MATERIALS 

Public scoping for the Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS included a press 

release, six public scoping meetings, and a project website 

(https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/coal/coal-peis). The formal 

public scoping period began on March 30, 2016, with the publication of an NOI 

in the Federal Register (Vol. 81, No. 61, page 17720), and comments were 

accepted through September 15, 2016.

Information provided to the public during the public scoping period is included 

in this appendix, as follows:

1. Secretarial Order 3338. Discretionary Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program (10 

pages)

2. Federal Register NOI to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement to Review the Federal Coal Program and to 

Conduct Public Scoping Meetings (Federal Register Vol. 81, No. 61, 

March 30, 2016; 9 pages)

3. Sample newspaper advertisement from the Grand Junction Daily 

Sentinel (1 page)

4. Press release, “BLM Gathering Public Input on Coal Program at Six 

Public Meetings,” released May 16, 2016 (1 page)

5. Sample speaker registration card (1 page)

6. Public scoping meeting presentation (14 pages)

7. Question and Answers on the Department of Interior Federal Coal 

Reform (10 pages)
B. Scoping Materials

B-2 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 

. WASHINGTON 

ORDER NO. 3338 

Subject: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the 

Federal Coal Program 

Sec. 1 Purpose. The Department of the Interior (Department) is entrusted with overseeing 

Federal land and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. This responsibility 

includes advancing the safe and responsible development of our energy resources, while also 

promoting the conservation of our Federal lands and the protection of their scientific, historic, 

and environmental values for generations to come. The production of federally managed coal 

presently accounts for approximate I y 41 percent of the coal produced in the Nation. However, 

the existing regulatory and programmatic scheme for leasing that coal has been in place, with 

only relatively minor adjustments, since 1979. It was established at a time when market 

conditions, environmental concerns, and energy infrastructure were considerably different from 

today. To help determine whether and how the current system for developing Federal coal 

should be modernized, this Secretarial Order directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to 

prepare a discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) that analyzes 

potential leasing and management reforms to the current Federal coal program. The PEIS will 

provide a vehicle for the Department to undertake a comprehensive review of the program and 

consider whether and how the program may be improved and modernized to foster the orderly 

development of BLM administered coal on Federal lands in a manner that gives proper 

consideration to the impact of that development on important stewardship values, while also 

ensuring a fair return to the American public. This Order does not apply to the coal program on 

Indian lands as that program is distinct from the BLM's program and is subject to the unique 

trust relationship between the United States and federally recognized Indian tribes and 

government-to-government consultation requirements, nor does it apply to any action of the 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) or the Office of Natural 

Resources Revenue (ONRR). 

Sec. 2 Background. 

a. Summary of the Federal Coal Program. 

The BLM has responsibility for coal leasing on approximately 570 million acres where the coal 

mineral estate is owned by the Federal Government. The owner of the surface estate of these 

lands varies and may be the BLM, other Federal agencies, state and local governments, or private 

landowners. Under authorities, such as the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), the Mineral Leasing 

Act for Acquired Lands, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the BLM regulates 

the leasing and development of this coal. Other Department bureaus, in particular OSMRE and 

ONRR, also have responsibilities in administering coal mining operations. The OSMRE and 

those states that have regulatory primacy under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
(SMCRA) have regulatory responsibilities over surface coal mining and reclamation operations. 

The ONRR collects, disburses, and verifies revenues from the lease, including bonus bids, 

royalties, and rental payments, and distributes those funds evenly between the Federal Treasury 

and the states where the coal resources are located. 

The BLM issued coal leasing regulations in 1979 that contemplated two separate competitive 

coal leasing processes: regional leasing, where the BLM selects tracts within a region for 

competitive sale, and leasing by application, where the public nominates a particular tract of coal 

for competitive sale. The regional leasing system has not been used since the 1980s, and 

currently all BLM coal leasing is done by application. Leasing by application begins with BLM 

review of an application to ensure completeness, that it conforms to existing land use plans, and 

that it contains sufficient geologic data to determine the fair market value of the coal. The 

Agency then prepares an environmental analysis in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). At the same time, the BLM will also consult with tribal governments and 

appropriate Federal and state agencies, and will determine whether the surface owner consents to 

leasing in situations where the surface is not administered by the BLM. 

Preparations for the actual lease sale begin with the BLM formulating, after obtaining public 

comment, an estimate of the fair market value of the coal. This number is kept confidential and 

is used to evaluate the bids received during the sale. Sealed bids are accepted prior to the date of 

the sale and are publicly announced during the sale. The winning bid is the highest bid that 

meets or exceeds the coal tract's presale estimated fair market value, assuming that the bidder 

meets all eligibility requirements and has paid the appropriate fees and payments. 

The BLM receives revenue from coal leasing in three ways: (1) a bonus that is paid at the time 

BLM issues a lease; (2) rental fees; and (3) production royalties. The royalty rates are set by 

regulation at a fixed 8 percent for underground mines and not less than 12.5 percent for surface 

mines. All receipts from a lease are shared equally with the state in which the lease is located. 

Over the last few years, approximately 41 percent of the Nation's annual coal production has 

come from Federal land. Federal coal produced from the Powder River Basin in Montana and 

Wyoming accounts for over 85 percent of that Federal coal production. Federal coal was used to 

generate about 14 percent of the Nation's electricity in 2015. Coal is also used for other critical 

processes, including making steel (metallurgical coal). 

As of Fiscal Year 2014, the BLM administered 310 Federal coal leases, encompassing 475,692 

acres in 10 states, with an estimated 7.75 billion tons ofrecoverable Federal coal reserves. Over 

the last decade, the BLM has held 39 coal lease sales and managed leases that produced 

approximately 4.4 billion tons of coal and $10.3 billion in revenue. The recoverable reserves of 

Federal coal currently under lease are estimated to be sufficient to continue production from 

federal leases at current levels for 20 years, which does not take into account projections from 

the Energy Information Administration (EIA) showing that demand for coal is declining. 

b. Open Conversation about Modernizing the Coal Program. 

On March 17, 2015, I called for "an honest and open conversation about modernizing the Federal 

coal program." The last time the Federal coal program underwent comprehensive review was in 

2 
the mid-1980s, and market conditions, infrastructure development, and national priorities have 

changed considerably since that time. My call also responded to continued concerns from 

numerous stakeholders about the Federal coal program, including concerns raised by the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG), 

Members of Congress, and interested stakeholders. The concerns raised by the GAO and OIG 

centered on whether taxpayers are receiving fair market value from the sale of coal. Other 

commenters raised concerns that the current Federal leasing structure lacks transparency and 

competition and is therefore not ensuring that the American taxpayer receives a fair return from 

Federal coal resources. These groups also questioned whether the leasing program results in 

over-supply of a commodity that has significant environmental and health impacts, including 

impacts on global climate change. 

In response to my call for a conversation to address these concerns, the BLM held 5 listening 

sessions on the Federal coal program in the summer of 2015. Sessions were held in Washington, 

D.C.; Billings, Montana; Gillette, Wyoming; Denver, Colorado; and Farmington, New Mexico. 

The Department heard from 289 individuals during the sessions and received over 92,000 written 

comments before the comment period closed on September 17, 2015. The oral and written 

comments revealed several recurring themes: 

• Concern about global climate change and the impact of coal production and use. 

• Concern about the loss of jobs and local revenues if coal production is reduced. 

• Support for increased transparency and public participation in leasing and royalty 

decisions and concern about whether the structure of the leasing program does not 

provide for adequate competition or a fair return to the taxpayer for the use of federal 

resources. 

• Support for increasing the coal royalty rate, because: (1) the royalty rate should account 

for the environmental costs of coal production; (2) the royalty rate should match the rate 

for offshore Federal leases; and (3) taxpayers are not receiving a fair return. 

• Support for maintaining or lowering royalty rates, because: (1) the coal industry already 

pays more than its fair share because existing Federal rates are too high given current 

market conditions; (2) raising rates will lower production and revenues; and (3) raising 

rates will cost jobs and harm communities. 

• Support for streamlining the current leasing process, so that the Federal coal program is 

administered in a way that better promotes economic stability and jobs, especially in coal 

communities which are already suffering from depressed economic conditions. 

Of these concerns, three aspects of the current coal program received the most attention. First, 

numerous stakeholders are concerned that American taxpayers are not receiving a fair return on 

public coal resources. Second, many stakeholders are concerned that the Federal coal program 

conflicts with the Administration's climate policy and our national climate goals, making it more 

difficult for us to achieve those goals. Third, there are numerous and varying concerns about the 

structure of the Federal coal program in light of current market conditions, including how 

implementation of the Federal leasing program affects current and future coal markets, coaldependent communities and companies, and the reclamation of mined lands. These three main 

concerns are addressed in more detail below. 

3 
i. Concerns about Fair Return. In 2013, both GAO and OIG issued reports 

expressing concerns about the Federal coal program, particularly with respect to the leasing 

process and fair market value. In response, in 2014 the BLM developed new protocols and 

issued policy guidance, as well as a manual and handbook, to implement these changes. 

Nevertheless, stakeholders have expressed concerns that the BLM' s response, while helpful, was 

insufficient to rectify fundamental weaknesses in the program with respect to fair return. 

These concerns arise, at least in part, because there is currently very little competition for Federal 

coal leases. About 90 percent of lease sales receive bids from only one bidder, typically the 

operator of a mine adjacent to the new lease, given the investment required to open a new mine. 

While the BLM conducts a peer-reviewed analysis to determine the "fair market value" of the 

coal and will not sell a lease unless the bid meets or exceeds that value, commenters have 

questioned whether an accurate fair market value can be identified in the absence of a truly 

competitive marketplace. 

Commenters also raised concerns about the royalty rates set in Federal leases, which are set by 

regulation at a fixed 8 percent for underground mines and not less than 12.5 percent for surface 

mines. Many stakeholders believe that these rates do not adequately compensate the public for 

the removal of the coal and the externalities associated with its use. Still others have suggested 

that the impact of Federal coal sales, which currently represent approximately 41 percent of total 

domestic production, artificially lowers market prices, further reducing the amount of royalties 

received. 

Stakeholders also criticize the Federal coal program for obtaining even lower returns through 

certain types of leasing actions, such as lease modifications, and through royalty rate reductions, 

which may result in royalty rates as low as 2 percent. In addition, stakeholders have noted that 

the $100 acre minimum bid requirement, which is rarely applicable due to fair market value 

requirements, but occasionally relevant, is outdated. 

ii. Concerns about Climate Change. The second broad category of concerns about 

the Federal coal program relates to its impacts on climate change. The United States has pledged 

to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to reduce its 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The Obama 

Administration has made, and is continuing to make, unprecedented efforts to reduce GHG 

emissions in line with this target through numerous measures. Numerous scientific studies 

indicate that reducing GHG emissions from coal use worldwide is critical to addressing climate 

change. 

At the same time, as noted above, the Federal coal program is a significant component of overall 

United States' coal production. Federal coal represents approximately 41 percent of the coal 

produced in the United States, and when combusted, it contributes roughly 10 percent of the total 

U.S. GHG emissions. 

Many stakeholders highlighted the tension between producing very large quantities of Federal 

coal while pursuing policies to reduce U.S. GHG emissions substantially, including from coal 

combustion. Critics also noted that the current leasing system does not provide a way to 

systematically consider the climate impacts and costs to taxpayers of Federal coal development. 

4 
111. Concerns about Market Conditions. Stakeholders raised various concerns about 

the implications of current and future coal market conditions. As reported by EIA, between 2008 

and 2013, United States' coal production fell by 16 percent, as declining natural gas prices and 

other factors made coal less competitive as a fuel for generating electricity. In 2015, United 

States' coal production was roughly 900 million short tons (MMst), 10 percent lower than 

2014-the lowest level since 1986. Worldwide, demand for coal appears to be softening as well, 

with EIA projecting a 21 percent decline in total U.S. coal exports in 2015 from the previous 

year. As a result, a number of mines in the U.S. have idled production, several major coal 

companies have entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy, many coal miners have been laid off, and coaldependent communities have suffered. The EIA and other projections of future coal production 

show anticipated continuing declines. 

Stakeholders have urged the BLM to change the Federal coal program to take these significant 

market changes into account, although the recommended changes vary. Some suggest that the 

program should attempt to improve the economic viability of the coal industry and help coaldependent communities by reducing royalties and streamlining the leasing and permitting 

processes. Others raise concerns that the program has contributed to low coal prices by 

incentivizing over-production through non-competitive sales that oversupply the market. 

Some have focused on how current market conditions threaten reclamation of lands disturbed by 

coal mining and may leave state and Federal governments with billions of dollars of unfunded 

reclamation liabilities. Specifically, many coal companies "self-bond" to meet reclamation 

bonding requirements, and some stakeholders have asserted that these companies may no longer 

have the funds to support reclamation activities, and/or they may attempt to shed reclamation 

obligations in bankruptcy. 

Stakeholders also expressed various views regarding exports of Federal coal. Some see export 

markets as a possible way to maintain or expand Federal coal production, while others view the 

production of coal for export as a less valuable activity than coal production for domestic use. 

Still others expressed concern that the export of U.S. coal will contribute to GHG emissions 

worldwide, which undermines our climate objectives. A number of stakeholders expressed 

concern that exports, or the potential for exports, were not adequately considered as part of 

leasing decisions or fair market value determinations. 

c. Previous Comprehensive Reviews. 

The Department has previously conducted two separate comprehensive reviews of the Federal 

coal program. In the late 1960s, there were serious concerns about speculation in the coal 

leasing program. A BLM study discovered a sharp increase in the total Federal acreage under 

lease and a consistent decline in coal production. In response, the Department undertook the 

development of a planning system to determine the size, timing, and location of future coal 

leases, and the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the entire Federal coal 

leasing program. The short-term actions included a complete moratorium on the issuance of new 

coal prospecting permits, and a moratorium with limited exceptions on the issuance of new 

Federal coal leases. New leases were issued only to maintain existing mines or to supply 

reserves for production in the near future, where "near future" meant that development and 

production were to commence within 3 and 5 years, respectively. The moratorium was scaled 

5 
back over time, but was not completely lifted until 1981, after a PEIS had been completed, a new 

leasing system had been adopted through regulation, and litigation was resolved. 

In 1982, concerns about the Federal coal program arose again, this time related to allegations that 

the Government did not receive fair market value from a large lease sale in the Powder River 

Basin under the new procedures adopted as part of the programmatic review in the 1970s. 

Among other reports on the issue, in May 1983, GAO issued a report concluding that the 

Department had received roughly $100 million less than it should have for the leases sold, 

although the Department disputed this conclusion. In response, in July 1983, Congress directed 

the Secretary to appoint members to a commission, known as the Linowes Commission, to 

investigate fair market value policies for Federal coal leasing. Congress also, in the 1984 

Appropriations Act, directed the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to study whether the 

Department's coal leasing program was compatible with the nationally mandated environmental 

protection goals. 

As part of the 1984 Appropriations Bill, Congress imposed a moratorium on the sale or lease of 

coal on public lands, subject to certain exceptions, starting in 1983 and ending 90 days after 

publication of the Linowes Commission's report. The Linowes Commission published the 

Report of the Commission on Fair Market Value Policy for Federal Coal Leasing in February 

1984. The OTA report, Environmental Protection in the Federal Coal Leasing Program, was 

released in May 1984. The principal thrust of these reports was that the Department should: 

(1) temper its pace of coal leasing; (2) improve and better document its procedures for receiving 

fair market value; and (3) take care to balance competing resource uses in making lease 

decisions. 

Interior Secretary William P. Clark extended the suspension of coal leasing (with exceptions for 

emergency leasing and processing preference right lease applications, among other things), while 

the Department completed its comprehensive review of the program. This review included 

proposed modifications to be made by the Department in response to the Linowes Commission 

and OTA reports. Secretary Clark announced on August 30, 1984, that the Department would 

prepare an EIS supplement to the 1979 Final Environmental Statement for the Federal Coal 

Management Program. The Department issued the Record of Decision for the PEIS supplement 

in January 1986, in the form of a Secretarial Issue Document. That document recommended 

continuation of the leasing program with modifications. In conjunction with those modifications, 

Interior Secretary Donald Hodel lifted the leasing moratorium in 1987. 

Sec. 3 Authorities. This Order is issued under statutory authority that includes, but is not 

limited to, the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 181 et seq.; the Mineral Leasing Act for 

Acquired Lands, 30 U.S.C. §§ 351 et seq.; the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 

4321 et seq.; the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 1201 et seq.; and 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq. 

Sec. 4 Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Given the broad 

range of issues raised over the course of the past year (and beyond) and the lack of any recent 

analysis of the Federal coal program as a whole, a more comprehensive, programmatic review is 

in order, building on the BLM's public listening sessions. Accordingly, to meaningfully address 

the breadth and complexity of the issues raised by commenters regarding the Federal coal 

6 
program, I hereby direct the BLM to conduct a broad, programmatic review of the Federal coal 

program it administers through the preparation of a PEIS under NEPA. 

The Department is authorized to undertake this effort in its stewardship role as a proprietor and 

sovereign regulator which is charged by Congress with managing and overseeing mineral 

development on the public lands, not only for the purpose of ensuring safe and responsible 

development of mineral resources, but also to ensure conservation of the public lands, the 

protection of their scientific, historic, and environmental values, and compliance with applicable 

environmental laws. Additionally, the Department has the statutory duty to ensure a fair return 

to the taxpayer and broad discretionary authority to decide where, when, and under what terms 

and conditions, mineral development should occur, including with regard to the issuance of 

Federal coal leases. 

Although I am not proposing any regulatory action at this time, the purpose of the PEIS is to 

identify, evaluate, and potentially recommend reforms to the Federal coal program. This review 

will enable the Department to consider how to modernize the program to allow for the continued 

development of Federal coal resources while addressing the substantive issues raised by the 

public, other stakeholders, and the Department's own review of the comments it has received. 

While the precise issues to be assessed in the PEIS will be determined through the public scoping 

process, the PEIS should at a minimum address the following topics: 

a. How, When and Where to Lease. The regional leasing program authorized in the 

1979 regulations has not worked as envisioned and, instead, BLM has conducted leasing only in 

response to industry applications. Given concerns about the lack of competition in the lease-byapplication system, as well as consideration of environmental goals, the PEIS should examine 

whether the current regulatory framework should be changed to provide a better mechanism or 

mechanisms to decide which coal resources should be made available and how the leasing 

process should work. 

As part of this evaluation, the PEIS should explicitly examine the issue of when to lease. Some 

leasing programs for other Federal resources operate with an established schedule for leasing or 

consideration of leasing (e.g., BLM holds onshore oil and gas lease sales on a quarterly basis if 

parcels are available; offshore oil and gas leasing occurs using a schedule established in a fiveyear plan). The PEIS should examine whether scheduled sales should be used for Federal coal. 

The PEIS should also examine where to lease. In other contexts, the Department has identified 

areas to promote certain kinds of resource development. For example, the BLM' s Solar PEIS 

(Western Solar Plan) amended land use plans across six southwestern states and established 

preferred locations for solar development. The PEIS should examine whether a similar approach 

would be useful for coal to minimize potential user conflicts and streamline leasing decisions. 

b. Fair Return. The PEIS should address whether the bonus bids, rents, and royalties 

received under the Federal coal program are successfully securing a fair return to the American 

public for Federal coal, and, if not, what adjustments could be made to provide such 

compensation. As part of this analysis, the PEIS should examine whether the decision to lease 

large amounts of relatively low cost coal artificially drives down pricing in the U.S. market and, 

if so, how the taxpayer may best be compensated for the reduced royalties due to artificially low 

7 
pnces. The PEIS should also examine whether the BLM estimates of fair market value for 

purposes of establishing minimum bids successfully substitute for competition in the bidding 

process, and if not, how to better estimate fair market value. 

c. Climate Impacts. With respect to the climate impacts of the Federal coal 

program, the PEIS should examine how best to assess the climate impacts of continued Federal 

coal production and combustion and how to address those impacts in the management of the 

program to meet both the Nation's energy needs and its climate goals, as well as how best to 

protect the public lands from climate change impacts. 

d. Socio-Economic Considerations. Beyond the issue of fair market value, the PEIS 

should assess whether the current Federal coal leasing program adequately accounts for 

externalities related to Federal coal production, including environmental and social impacts. It 

should more broadly examine how the administration, availability, and pricing of Federal coal 

affect regional and national economies (including job impacts), and energy markets in general, 

including the pricing and viability of other coal resources (both domestic and foreign) and other 

energy sources. The impact of possible program alternatives on the projected fuel mix and cost 

of electricity in the United States should also be examined. 

e. Exports. The PEIS should address whether leasing decisions should consider 

whether the coal to be produced from a given tract would be for domestic use or export. In 

consultation with other applicable executive branch offices, the PEIS should examine how to 

estimate export potential, particularly given potential differences between the estimates of 

industry and independent economic experts about the prospects for exports in a given 

circumstance. 

f. Energy Needs. Finally, the PEIS should examine the degree to which Federal 

coal supports, or should support, fulfilling the energy needs of the United States. The evaluation 

should include an assessment of how the administration, availability, and pricing of Federal coal 

impacts electricity generation in the United States, particularly in light of other regulatory 

influences, and what other sources of energy supply (including efficiency) are projected to be 

available. 

Sec. 5 Pause on the Issuance of New Federal Coal Leases for Thermal (Steam) Coal. Lease 

sales and lease modifications result in lease terms of 20 years and for so long thereafter as coal is 

produced in commercial quantities. Continuing to conduct lease sales or approve lease 

modifications during this programmatic review risks locking in for decades the future 

development of large quantities of coal under current rates and terms that the PEIS may 

ultimately determine to be less than optimal. This risk is why, during the previous two 

programmatic reviews, the Department halted most lease sales with limited exceptions for small 

sales, emergencies and other situations involving potential economic hardship. Considering 

these factors and given the extensive recoverable reserves of Federal coal currently under lease, I 

have decided that a similar policy is warranted here. A pause on leasing, with limited 

exceptions, will allow future leasing decisions to benefit from the recommendations that result 

from the PEIS while minimizing any economic hardship during that review. 

8 
a. Pursuant to my discretionary authority under the Mineral Leasing Act ( e.g., 30 

U.S.C § 201) and other statutes, and based on the reasons discussed herein, I conclude that 

further evaluation, additional receipt of public input, and comprehensive consideration of the 

Federal coal program is warranted, and accordingly, I hereby direct BLM to apply the following 

limitations on the issuance of Federal coal leases until the completion of the PEIS: 

(i) No new applications for thermal (steam) coal leases or lease modifications will 

be processed, subject to the enumerated exclusions in Section 6 of this Order; and 

(ii) For pending applications, no lease sales will be held, leases issued, or 

modifications approved for thermal (steam) coal, subject to the enumerated exclusions in Section 

6 of this Order. At an applicant's request, preparatory work on pending applications may 

continue (including the preparation of NEPA analyses), but no final decision on whether to hold 

a lease sale will be made unless one of the exceptions listed in Section 6 of this Order applies. 

b. This pause in holding lease sales, issuing coal leases, and approving lease 

modifications will apply to applications for both surface and underground thermal coal, but it 

does not apply to metallurgical coal. Metallurgical coal is produced at far fewer mines and in 

much smaller quantities than thermal coal, and recoverable metallurgical coal reserves may not 

be sufficient to support current production levels for that resource during the pause. In addition, 

metallurgical coal is required for key applications, such as steelmaking, for which substitutes are 

not readily available. Given that the Federal mineral estate includes comparatively very small 

quantities of metallurgical coal, we expect potential impacts from any leasing activities for 

metallurgical coal during the review period to be very limited. 

c. This pause does not constitute a decision on the merits of any application, but is 

merely a deferral of the decision to allow the PEIS to be considered in making future final 

decisions. The pause applies only to the Federal mineral estate administered by the BLM and 

does not apply to coal leases on tribal or allotted lands, which are regulated by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs under a different regulatory structure. The pause applies only to lease sales and 

modifications. It does not apply to other BLM actions related to the Federal coal program, 

including the processing and issuance of coal exploration licenses, the issuance of renewal leases 

when required by the terms of existing leases, and the development and implementation of 

resource management plans. Similarly, the pause does not apply to any actions undertaken by 

ONRR, OSMRE, or any other agency, office, or bureau with duties related to the development, 

production or reclamation of Federal or non-Federal coal resources. 

Sec. 6 Exclusions. Nothing in this Order will be deemed to prohibit or restrict: 

a. emergency leasing as defined in 43 C.F.R. § 3425.1-4; 

b. lease modifications, as defined in 43 C.F.R. § 3432.1, that do not exceed 160 acres or 

the number of acres in the original lease, whichever is less; 

c. lease exchanges as defined in 43 C.F.R. §§ 3435.1, 3436.1, and 3436.2; 

d. the rights of preference right lease applicants based on prospecting permits issued 

prior to August 4, 1976; and 

9 
e. the sale and issuance of new thermal coal leases by application, 43 C.F.R. Subpart 

3425, or the issuance of thermal coal lease modifications, 43 CFR Subpart 3432, 

under pending applications for which the environmental analysis under NEPA has 

been completed and a Record of Decision or Decision Record has been issued by the 

BLM or the applicable Federal surface management agency as of the date of this 

Order. This exception extends to previously issued Records of Decision or Decision 

Records that have been ( or may be) vacated by judicial decision and are undergoing 

re-evaluation in accordance with the judicial decision. Before holding any lease sale 

or issuing any lease under this exception, the BLM must confirm and ensure that the 

applicable NEPA document for a project is adequate and includes, at a minimum, an 

analysis of the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the 

proposed leasing action. 

Sec. 7 Implementation. 

a. The Director of the BLM is responsible for implementation of this Order. This 

responsibility may be delegated as appropriate. 

b. The Director will expeditiously initiate the NEPA scoping process by inviting 

Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, and the public to help identify the environmental 

issues and reasonable alternatives to be examined in the PEIS. Upon completion of the scoping 

process, the Director will provide a scoping report to me along with a proposed schedule for the 

completion of the PEIS. 

Sec. 8 Effect of the Order. This Order is intended to provide for a comprehensive review of 

the Federal coal program and allow for the Department to improve the program going forward. 

This Order and any resulting report or recommendation are not intended to, and do not, create 

any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the 

United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities or entities, its officers or employees, or 

any other person. To the extent there is any inconsistency between the provisions of this Order 

and any Federal laws or regulations, the laws or regulations will control. 

Sec. 9. Effective Date. This Order is effective immediately and will remain in effect until its 

provisions are amended, superseded, or revoked, whichever occurs first. 

JAN 1 5 2016 Date: 

10 
17720 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. international/advisory-council-wildlife- Mr. London (see FOR FURTHER

Cade London, Policy Advisor, trafficking/. INFORMATION CONTACT). 

International Affairs, U.S. Fish and Making an Oral Presentation Gloria Bell, Wildlife Service, by email at cade_ Deputy Assistant Director, International london@fws.gov (preferable method of Members of the public who want to Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. contact); by U.S. mail at U.S. Fish and make an oral presentation in person or Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, [FR Doc. 2016–07113 Filed 3–29–16; 8:45 am] by telephone at the meeting will be MS: IA; Falls Church, VA 22041–3803; prompted during the public comment BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

by telephone at (703) 358–2584; or by section of the meeting to provide their fax at (703) 358–2276. presentation and/or questions. If you DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In want to make an oral presentation in 

accordance with the requirements of the person or by phone, contact Mr. Cade Bureau of Land Management 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 London (FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

[16X.LLWO320000.L13200000.PP0000] U.S.C. App.), we announce that the CONTACT) no later than the date given in 

Advisory Council on Wildlife the DATES section. Notice of Intent To Prepare a Trafficking (Council) will hold a Registered speakers who want to Programmatic Environmental Impact meeting to discuss the implementation expand on their oral statements, or Statement To Review the Federal Coal of the National Strategy for Combating those who wanted to speak but could Program and To Conduct Public Wildlife Trafficking, and other Council not be accommodated on the agenda, are Scoping Meetings business as appropriate. The Council’s invited to submit written statements to 

purpose is to provide expertise and the Council after the meeting. Such AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

support to the Presidential Task Force written statements must be received by Interior. 

on Wildlife Trafficking. Mr. London, in writing (preferably via ACTION: Notice. 

You may attend the meeting in email), no later than April 22, 2016. 

person, or you may participate via SUMMARY: In compliance with the Submitting Public Comments telephone. At this time, we are inviting National Environmental Policy Act of 

submissions of questions and 1969, as amended (NEPA), the Bureau of You may submit your questions and information for consideration during the Land Management (BLM), Washington information by one of the methods meeting. Office, intends to prepare a listed in ADDRESSES. We request that Programmatic Environmental Impact Background you send comments by only one of the Statement (EIS) to review the Federal methods described in ADDRESSES. Executive Order 13648 established the coal program. If you submit information via the Advisory Council on Wildlife This Notice of Intent begins the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http:// Trafficking on August 30, 2013, to process of defining the scope of the www.regulations.gov), your entire advise the Presidential Task Force on Programmatic EIS by providing 

Wildlife Trafficking, through the submission—including any personal background on the Federal coal program identifying information—will be posted Secretary of the Interior, on national and identifying the issues that may be on the Web site. strategies to combat wildlife trafficking, addressed in the Programmatic EIS. This 

including, but not limited to: If your submission is made via a Notice informs the public about: 

1. Effective support for anti-poaching hardcopy that includes personal Concerns that have been raised about 

activities; identifying information, you may the Federal coal program; issues that are 

2. Coordinating regional law request at the top of your document that expected to be assessed in the 

enforcement efforts; we withhold this information from Programmatic EIS; and potential 

public review. However, we cannot 3. Developing and supporting modifications to the Federal coal 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. effective legal enforcement mechanisms; program suggested by stakeholders 

We will post all hardcopy submissions and during the listening sessions that could 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 4. Developing strategies to reduce be considered in the Programmatic EIS. 

illicit trade and consumer demand for This Notice of Intent also announces Reviewing Public Comments illegally traded wildlife, including plans to conduct public scoping 

protected species. Comments and materials we receive meetings, invites public participation in 

The eight-member Council, appointed will be available for public inspection at the scoping process, and solicits public 

by the Secretary of the Interior, includes http://www.regulations.gov. comments for consideration in 

former senior leadership within the U.S. Alternatively, you may view them by establishing the scope and content of 

Government, as well as chief executive appointment during normal business the Programmatic EIS. 

officers and board members from hours at 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls DATES: The BLM will invite interested 

conservation organizations and the Church, VA 22041–3803. Please contact agencies, States, American Indian tribes, 

private sector. For more information on Mr. London (see FOR FURTHER local governments, industry, 

the Council and its members, visit INFORMATION CONTACT). organizations and members of the 

http://www.fws.gov/international/ public to submit comments or Obtaining Meeting Minutes advisory-council-wildlife-trafficking/. suggestions to assist in identifying 

Summary minutes of the meeting will significant issues and in determining Meeting Agenda be available on the Council Web site at the scope of this Programmatic EIS. 

The Council will consider: http://www.fws.gov/international/ The BLM will be holding public 

1. Task Force discussions, advisory-council-wildlife-trafficking/. scoping meetings to obtain comments 

2. Administrative topics, and Alternatively, you may view them by on the Programmatic EIS and plans to 

3. Public comment and response. appointment during normal business hold these meetings in the following 

The final agenda will be posted on the hours at 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls locations: Casper, WY; Grand Junction, 

Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ Church, VA 22041–3803. Please contact CO; Knoxville, TN; Pittsburgh, PA; Salt 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 17721 

Lake City, UT; and Seattle, WA. The listening sessions held last year in billion in revenue collections by the 

BLM will announce the specific dates Washington, DC; Billings, Montana; United States. 

and locations of the scoping meetings at Gillette, Wyoming; Denver, Colorado; The U.S. Energy Information 

least 15 days in advance through local and Farmington, New Mexico. Administration (EIA) estimates total 

media, newspapers, and the project Web U.S. coal production in 2015 was about Background and Need for Agency site at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/ 895 million short tons (MMst), 10 Action prog/energy/coal_and_non-energy/ percent lower than in 2014 and the 

details_on_coal_peis.html. In addition, A. Overview of Federal Coal Program lowest level since 1986.1 EIA projects 

the BLM will consider all written that coal production will fall by another Under the Mineral Leasing Act of comments received or postmarked 12 percent in 2016, then rise by 2 1920, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq., during the public comment period on percent in 2017.2 The approximately and the Mineral Leasing Act for scoping, which will close 30 days after 7.75 billion tons of recoverable reserves 

Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended, 30 the final public meeting. of Federal coal currently under lease is 

U.S.C. 351 et seq., the BLM is ADDRESSES estimated to be sufficient to continue : You may submit written responsible for the leasing of Federal production at current levels for 20 years, comments by the following methods: 

• _ _ _Program_ coal and regulation of the development Email: BLM WO Coal averaged across all leases, and these 

_ of that coal on approximately 570 PEIS Comments@blm.gov. This is the reserves would be sufficient to cover 

million acres of the 700 million acres of preferred method of commenting. production, on average, for even longer 

• Mail, personal, or messenger mineral estate that is owned by the if coal production declines, as is 

delivery: Coal Programmatic EIS Federal government. This includes projected. 

Scoping, Bureau of Land Management, Federal mineral rights on Federal lands EIA estimates that U.S. coal exports 

20 M St. SE., Room 2134LM, and Federal mineral rights located decreased 23 MMst (24 percent) from 

Washington, DC 20003. under surface lands with non-Federal 2014 levels to 74 MMst in 2015, and EIA 

ownership. Under the authority of the expects the current global coal market FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mineral Leasing Act, the BLM trends to continue. Mitchell Leverette, Chief, Division of 3 EIA forecasts that 

administers leasing and monitors coal coal exports will decline by an Solid Minerals, email: mleveret@ production. Other Departmental additional 10 MMst (13 percent) in 2016 blm.gov, telephone: 202–912–7113, or bureaus, in particular the Office of and by 1 MMst (2 percent) in 2017.4 visit the Coal Programmatic EIS Web Surface Mining Reclamation and In terms of employment and revenues site at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/ Enforcement (OSMRE) and the Office of to the States, coal mining employed prog/energy/coal_and_non-energy/ Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), almost 90,000 people in 2012. More details_on_coal_peis.html. also take actions related to coal mining recently, there were an estimated 74,000 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On on Federal lands. The OSMRE, and direct jobs in coal mining as of May January 15, 2016, the Secretary of the those States that have regulatory 2014, including roughly 6,500 in Interior issued Order No. 3338 directing primacy under the Surface Mining Wyoming.5 Revenues from Federal coal the BLM to conduct a broad, Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 provided Wyoming approximately $556 programmatic review of the Federal coal (SMCRA), permit coal mining and million in FY2014. Other States program it administers through reclamation activities, and monitor received the following approximate preparation of a Programmatic EIS reclamation and reclamation bonding amounts: Utah—$44 million; Montana— under NEPA. 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. The actions. The ONRR collects and audits $43 million; Colorado—$36 million; and Order was issued in response to a range all payments required under the lease, New Mexico—$16 million. of concerns raised about the Federal including bonus bids, royalties, and coal program, including, in particular, 2. Federal Coal Program rental payments, and distributes those concerns about whether American funds between the Federal Treasury and The current BLM coal leasing program taxpayers are receiving a fair return the States where coal resources are includes land use planning, processing from the development of these publicly located. applications (e.g., for exploration owned resources; concerns about market licenses and lease sales), estimating the conditions, which have resulted in 1. Federal Coal Leasing and Production value of proposed leases, holding lease dramatic drops in coal demand and On average, over the last few years, production in recent years, with 1U.S. EIA, Short Term Energy Outlook: Coal about 41 percent of the Nation’s annual consequences for coal-dependent (Mar. 8, 2016) (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/

coal production came from Federal communities; and concerns about report/coal.cfm); U.S. EIA, Today in Energy: Coal 

whether the leasing and production of land. Federal coal produced from the Production and Prices Decline in 2015 (Jan. 8, 2016) 

Powder River Basin in Montana and (http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/ large quantities of coal under the detail.cfm?id=24472). Note that the EIA data Wyoming accounts for over 85 percent Federal coal program is consistent with referenced in this Notice is more recent than the 

of all Federal coal production. Federal the Nation’s goals to reduce greenhouse EIA data referenced in the Secretarial Order. 

coal was used to generate an estimated gas emissions to mitigate climate 2U.S. EIA, Short Term Energy Outlook: Coal 

14 percent of the Nation’s electricity in (Mar. 8, 2016) (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/ change. In light of these issues, the 2015. Coal is also used for other critical report/coal.cfm). 

Programmatic EIS will identify and 3U.S. EIA, Short Term Energy Outlook: Coal processes, including making steel evaluate potential reforms to the Federal (Mar. 8, 2016) (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/

(metallurgical coal). coal program. This review will enable report/coal.cfm). 

the Department to consider how to As of FY2015, the BLM administered 4U.S. EIA, Short Term Energy Outlook: Coal 

(Mar. 8, 2016) (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/ modernize the program to allow for the 306 coal leases, covering 482,691 acres report/coal.cfm). 

continued development of Federal coal in 11 States, with an estimated 7.75 5Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2014 National 

resources, as appropriate, while billion tons of recoverable Federal coal. Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and 

addressing the substantive issues raised Over the last decade (2006–2015), the Wage Estimates; NAICS 212100—Coal Mining 

(http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_ by the public, other stakeholders, and BLM sold 32 coal leases and managed 212100.htm); Wyoming Department of Workforce the Department’s own review of the leases that produced approximately 4.3 Services, Wyoming Labor Market Information 

comments it has received during recent billion tons of coal and resulted in $9.55 (http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/CES/nawy14.htm). 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17722 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 

sales, and post-leasing actions (e.g., Regional Coal Team,7 to provide input A Federal coal lease has an initial 

production verification, lease and on leasing decisions. The regional term of 20 years, but it may be 

production inspection and enforcement, leasing system has not been used since terminated after 10 years if the coal 

royalty reductions, and bond review). 1990, and currently all BLM coal leasing resources are not diligently developed. 

The Federal Government receives is done by application.8 Leasing by 30 U.S.C. 207. Existing leases that have 

revenue from coal leasing in three ways: application begins with the submission met their diligence requirements may be 

(1) A bonus that is paid at the time BLM of an application to lease a tract of coal renewed for additional 10 year terms 

issues a lease; (2) Rental fees; and (3) identified by the applicant.9 The BLM following the initial 20 year term. 

Production royalties. The royalty rates reviews the application for 3. Previous Comprehensive Reviews are set by regulation at a fixed 8 percent completeness, to ensure that it conforms 

to existing land use plans, and to ensure The Department has previously for underground mines and not less 

than 12.5 percent for surface mines. All that it contains sufficient geologic data conducted two separate, comprehensive 

reviews of the Federal coal program. In receipts from a lease are shared with the to determine the fair market value of the 

the late 1960s, there were serious State in which the lease is located (51 coal. The agency then prepares an concerns about speculation in the coal percent to the Federal Government and analysis under NEPA (either an leasing program. A BLM study 49 percent to the State). Environmental Assessment or an EIS) discovered a sharp increase in the total The BLM’s planning process for and seeks public comment on the Federal acreage under lease and a Resource Management Plans, supported proposed lease sale. Through this consistent decline in coal production. In by environmental analysis under NEPA, process, the BLM evaluates alternative response, the Department undertook the identifies areas that are potentially tract configurations to maximize development of a planning system to available to be considered for coal competitiveness and value, and to avoid determine the size, timing, and location leasing. The planning process considers, bypassing Federal coal. The BLM also of future coal leases, and the among other things, the impacts of a consults with other appropriate Federal, preparation of a Programmatic EIS for ‘‘reasonably foreseeable development State, and tribal government agencies, the entire Federal coal leasing program. scenario,’’ but it does not directly and the BLM determines whether the Beginning in February 1973, the short- authorize any coal leasing or determine surface owner consents to leasing in term actions included a complete which coal will actually be leased. situations where the surface is not moratorium on the issuance of new coal The Federal Coal Leasing administered by the BLM. Preparations prospecting permits, and a moratorium Amendments Act of 1976 (FCLAA), for the actual lease sale begin with the with limited exceptions on the issuance which amended Section 2 of the BLM formulating, after obtaining public of new Federal coal leases. New leases Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, requires comment, a pre-sale estimate of the fair were issued only to maintain existing that, with limited exceptions, Federal market value of the coal. This estimate mines or to supply reserves for lands available for coal leasing be sold is kept confidential and is used to production in the near future, where by competitive bid, with the BLM evaluate the bids for the lease ‘‘bonus’’ ‘‘near future’’ meant that development receiving ‘‘fair market value’’ for the received during the sale. Sealed bids are and production were to commence lease. While multiple bids are not accepted prior to the date of the sale and within 3 and 5 years, respectively. The required, all successful bids must equal are publicly announced during the sale. moratorium was scaled back over time, or exceed the estimated pre-sale fair The winning bid is the highest bid that but was not completely lifted until market value for the lease, as calculated meets or exceeds the coal tract’s presale 1981, after the Programmatic EIS had by the BLM. Competitive leasing is not estimated fair market value, assuming been completed, a new leasing system required for: (1) Preference right lease that the bidder meets all eligibility had been adopted through regulation, applications for owners of pre-FCLAA requirements and has paid the and litigation was resolved. prospecting permits; and (2) appropriate fees and payments. In 1982, concerns about the Federal Modifications of existing leases, where There are two separate bonding coal program arose again, this time Congress has authorized the Secretary to requirements for Federal coal leases. related to allegations that the allow up to 960 acres (increased from The BLM requires a bond adequate to Government did not receive fair market 

160 acres by the Energy Policy Act of ensure compliance with the terms and value from a large lease sale in the 2005) of contiguous lands for conditions of the lease, which must Powder River Basin under the new 

noncompetitive leasing by modifying an cover a portion of potential liabilities procedures adopted as part of the existing lease. associated with the bonus bid, rental programmatic review in the 1970s. The BLM issued coal leasing fees, and royalties. In addition, under Among other reports on the issue, in regulations in 1979 that provided for SMCRA, the OSMRE or the State with May 1983, the Government two separate competitive coal leasing regulatory primacy requires sufficient Accountability Office (GAO) issued a processes: (1) Regional leasing, where bonding to cover anticipated report concluding that the Department the BLM selects tracts within a region reclamation costs. had received roughly $100 million less for competitive sale; and (2) Leasing by than it should have for the leases sold. 

application, where an industry 7The BLM regulations require a Regional Coal In response, in July 1983, Congress Team to be established for each coal production applicant nominates a particular tract of region, comprised of representatives from the BLM directed the Secretary to appoint coal for competitive sale. and the Governors of each State in the region. The members to a commission, known as the 

Regional coal leasing requires the Regional Coal Teams are to guide the coal planning Linowes Commission, to investigate fair 

BLM to select potential coal leasing process for each coal production region, serve as the market value policies for Federal coal forum for BLM and State consultation, and make tracts based on land use planning, recommendations on coal leasing levels. 43 CFR leasing. Congress also, in the 1984 

expected coal demand, and potential 3400.4. Appropriations Act, directed the Office 

environmental and economic impacts.6 8While the Powder River Basin (PRB) coal of Technology Assessment (OTA) to 

This process includes use of a Federal/ production region was decertified in 1992, the PRB study whether the Department’s coal 

State advisory board known as a regional coal team is still in place and meets 

periodically to review regional activity and make leasing program was compatible with 

recommendations on coal leasing in the region. the nationally mandated environmental 6 43 CFR part 3420. 9See 43 CFR subpart 3425. protection goals. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 17723 

As part of the 1984 Appropriations Inspector General (OIG),11 members of already suffering from depressed economic 

Bill, Congress imposed a moratorium on Congress, interested stakeholders, and conditions. 

the sale or lease of coal on public lands, the public. The concerns raised by the Of these concerns, three aspects of the subject to certain exceptions, starting in GAO and OIG centered on whether current Federal coal program received 1983 and ending 90 days after taxpayers are receiving fair market value the most attention. First, numerous publication of the Linowes from the sale of coal. Others raised stakeholders are concerned that 

Commission’s report. The Linowes concerns that the current Federal American taxpayers are not receiving a Commission published the Report of the leasing structure lacks transparency and fair return on public coal resources. Commission on Fair Market Value competition and is therefore not Second, many stakeholders are Policy for Federal Coal Leasing in ensuring that the American taxpayer concerned that the Federal coal program February 1984. The OTA report, receives a fair return from Federal coal conflicts with the Administration’s 

Environmental Protection in the Federal resources, while also raising questions climate policy and our national climate Coal Leasing Program, was released in regarding current market conditions for goals, making it more difficult for us to May 1984. The principal thrust of these the coal industry generally and related achieve those goals. Third, there are reports was that the Department should: implications for Federal resources. numerous and varying concerns about (1) Temper its pace of coal leasing; (2) Stakeholders also questioned whether the structure of the Federal coal Improve and better document its the leasing program results in over- program in light of current market procedures for receiving fair market supply of a commodity that has conditions, including how value; and (3) Take care to balance significant environmental and health implementation of the Federal leasing competing resource uses in making impacts, including impacts on global program affects current and future coal lease decisions. climate change. markets, coal-dependent communities Interior Secretary William P. Clark In response to the Secretary’s call for and companies, and the reclamation of extended the suspension of coal leasing a conversation to address these mined lands. These three main concerns (with exceptions for emergency leasing concerns, the BLM held 5 listening are addressed in more detail below. and processing preference right lease sessions regarding the Federal coal applications, among other things), while 1. Concerns About Fair Return program in the summer of 2015. the Department completed its Sessions were held in Washington, DC; In 2013, both GAO and OIG issued comprehensive review of the program. Billings, Montana; Gillette, Wyoming; reports expressing concerns about the This review included proposed Denver, Colorado; and Farmington, New Federal coal program, particularly with modifications to be made by the Mexico. The Department heard from 289 respect to the leasing process and fair Department in response to the Linowes individuals during the sessions and market value. In response, in 2014, the Commission and OTA reports. Secretary received more than 92,000 written BLM developed new protocols and Clark announced on August 30, 1984, comments before the comment period issued policy guidance, a manual, and that the Department would prepare an closed on September 17, 2015. The oral a handbook to implement these changes. EIS supplement to the 1979 and written comments reflected several Nevertheless, stakeholders have Programmatic EIS for the Federal coal recurring themes: expressed concerns that the BLM’s management program. The Department response, while helpful, was issued the Record of Decision for the • Concern about global climate change and insufficient to rectify fundamental Programmatic EIS supplement in the impact of coal production and use. weaknesses in the program with respect • January 1986, in the form of a Concern about the loss of jobs and local 

revenues if coal production is reduced. to fair return.12

Secretarial Issue Document. That • Support for increased transparency and These concerns arise, at least in part, document recommended continuation public participation in leasing and royalty because there is currently very little of the leasing program with decisions and concern that the structure of competition for Federal coal leases. modifications. In conjunction with the leasing program does not provide for About 90 percent of lease sales receive those modifications, Interior Secretary adequate competition or a fair return to the bids from only one bidder, typically the Donald Hodel lifted the coal leasing taxpayer for the use of Federal resources. operator of a mine adjacent to the new moratorium in 1987. • Support for increasing coal royalty rates lease, given the investment required to because: (1) The royalty rate should account B. Need for Comprehensive Review of for the environmental costs of coal 

Federal Coal Program production; (2) The royalty rate should match 12See, e.g., Taxpayers for Common Sense, Federal 

Coal Leasing: Fair Market Value and a Fair Return 

On March 17, 2015, Secretary Jewell the rate for offshore Federal leases; and (3) for the American Taxpayer (Sept. 2013). (http:// Taxpayers are not receiving a fair return. called for ‘‘an honest and open www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/downloads/ • Support for maintaining or lowering coal conversation about modernizing the TCS_Federal_Coal_Leasing_Report_-_Final_-_

royalty rates because: (1) The coal industry Updated_10.4.13.pdf); Center for American Federal coal program.’’ As described already pays more than its fair share and Progress, Modernizing the Federal Coal Program 

above, the last time the Federal coal existing Federal rates are too high given (Dec. 2014) (https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpprogram underwent comprehensive current market conditions; (2) Raising rates content/uploads/2014/12/FederalCoal.pdf); 

review was in the mid-1980s, and will lower production and revenues; and (3) Headwaters Economics, An Assessment of U.S. 

Federal Coal Royalties (Jan. 2015) (http:// market conditions, infrastructure Raising rates will cost jobs and harm headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp-content/

development, scientific understanding, communities. uploads/Report-Coal-Royalty-Valuation.pdf); Center • and national priorities have changed Support for streamlining the current for American Progress, Cutting Subsidies and 

leasing process, so that the Federal coal considerably since that time. The Closing Loopholes in the U.S. Department of the 

program is administered in a way that better Interior’s Coal Program (Jan. 6, 2015) (https:// Secretary’s call also responded to promotes economic stability and jobs, cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/

continued concerns from numerous especially in coal communities which are 2015/01/CoalSubs-brief2.pdf); Institute for Policy 

stakeholders about the Federal coal Integrity, Harmonizing Preservation and Production 

program, including concerns raised by (June 2015) (http://policyintegrity.org/publications/ 

Exports, and Provide More Public Information, GAO detail/harmonizing-preservation-and-production/); the GAO,10 the Department’s Office of 14–140 (Dec. 2013). Institute for Policy Integrity, Illuminating the 11OIG, Coal Management Program, U.S. Hidden Costs of Coal (Dec. 2015) (http:// 10 GAO, Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Department of the Interior, Report No.: CR–EV– policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/hiddenAppraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal BLM–0001–2012 (June 2013). costs-of-coal). 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17724 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 

open a new mine. While the BLM demand for coal appears to be softening as a less valuable activity than coal 

conducts a peer-reviewed analysis to as well, with EIA estimating a 23 production for domestic use. A number 

estimate a pre-sale fair market value of percent decline in total U.S. coal of stakeholders expressed concern that 

the coal and will not sell a lease unless exports in 2015 from the previous exports, or the potential for exports, 

the bid meets or exceeds that value, year.15 As a result of these market were not adequately considered as part 

commenters have questioned whether trends, a number of mines in the U.S. of the leasing process. 

an accurate fair market value can be have idled production, companies have 3. Concerns About Climate Change identified in the absence of a truly asked the BLM to hold off on processing 

competitive marketplace. certain lease tracts for sale, several The third broad category of concerns 

Commenters also raised concerns major coal companies have entered about the Federal coal program relates 

about the royalty rates set in Federal Chapter 11 bankruptcy, many coal to its impacts on climate change. The 

leases, which are set by regulation at a miners have been laid off, and coal- United States has pledged under the 

fixed 8 percent for underground mines dependent communities have United Nations Framework Convention 

and not less than 12.5 percent for suffered.16 The EIA and other on Climate Change to reduce its 

surface mines. Many stakeholders projections of future coal production greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 26– 

believe that these rates do not anticipate continuing declines. 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. 

adequately compensate the public for Stakeholders have urged the BLM to The Obama Administration has made, 

the removal of the coal and the modify the Federal coal program to take and is continuing to make, 

externalities associated with its use. these significant market changes into unprecedented efforts to reduce U.S. 

Still others have suggested that the large account, although the recommended GHG emissions in line with this target 

volumes and relatively low costs of changes vary. Some suggest that the through measures such as vehicle 

Federal coal, which currently represents program should attempt to improve the efficiency standards, the Clean Power 

approximately 41 percent of total economic viability of the coal industry Plan, energy efficiency standards, 

domestic production, have the effect of by reducing royalties and streamlining requirements to reduce methane 

artificially lowering market prices for the leasing and permitting processes. reductions from oil and gas production, 

coal, further reducing the amount of Others raise concerns that the program and many other measures. Numerous 

royalties received. has contributed to low coal prices by scientific studies indicate that reducing 

Stakeholders also criticize the Federal incentivizing over-production through GHG emissions from coal use 

coal program for obtaining even lower non-competitive sales that oversupply worldwide is critical to addressing 

returns through certain types of leasing the market. climate change.18

actions, such as lease modifications, and Some have focused on how current As noted above, the Federal coal 

through royalty rate reductions, which market conditions threaten reclamation program is a significant component of 

may result in royalty rates as low as 2 of lands disturbed by coal mining and overall U.S. coal production. In recent 

percent. In addition, stakeholders have may leave State and Federal years, Federal coal has comprised about 

noted that the $100 acre minimum bid governments with billions of dollars of 41 percent of the coal produced in the 

requirement established in the unfunded reclamation liabilities. U.S.19 When combusted, this Federal 

regulations is outdated, and although Specifically, many coal companies coal contributes roughly 10 percent of 

the minimum bid does not apply ‘‘self-bond’’ to meet reclamation total U.S. GHG emissions.20

frequently, given fair market value bonding requirements, and some Many stakeholders highlighted the 

requirements, there are situations in stakeholders have asserted that these tension between producing very large 

which it sets the floor for the bid price. companies may no longer have the quantities of Federal coal while 

Some stakeholders further suggest funds to support reclamation activities, pursuing policies to reduce U.S. GHG 

that a fair return to the taxpayer should and/or they may attempt to shed emissions substantially, including from 

also include compensation for reclamation obligations in bankruptcy.17 coal combustion. They also stated that 

externalities such as the environmental OSMRE currently estimates that there is the current leasing system does not 

damage (or lost environmental benefits) over $3.6 billion in outstanding self- provide a way to systematically 

from the removal and combustion of the bonded reclamation liability in the consider the climate impacts and costs 

coal. United States. to the public of Federal coal Stakeholders also expressed a number development, either as a whole, or in 2. Concerns About Market Conditions of views regarding export of Federal the context of particular projects. In 

Stakeholders raised a variety of coal. Some see export markets as a addition, they raise concerns that 

concerns about the implications of possible way to maintain or expand exporting Federal coal, and the 

current and future coal market Federal coal production, while others associated GHG emissions, undermines 

conditions. As reported by EIA, between view the production of coal for export 

2008 and 2013, U.S. coal production fell 18See, e.g., McGlade and Ekins, The geographical 

by 16 percent in total, as declining 15U.S. EIA, Short Term Energy Outlook: Coal distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting 

natural gas prices and other factors (Feb. 9, 2016) (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/ global warming to 2 °C, Nature, 517, 187–190 (Jan. 

report/coal.cfm); see also U.S. EIA, Coal Production 8, 2015) (finding that globally over 80% of current made coal less competitive as a fuel for and Prices Decline in 2015 (Jan. 8, 2016) (http:// coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 

generating electricity.13 In 2015, U.S. www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=24472). 2050 to meet the target of 2 degrees C). 

coal production was roughly 891 MMst, 16See, e.g., Wall Street Journal, Pressure on Coal 19U.S. EIA, Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced from 

11 percent lower than 2014, and the Industry Intensifies, B1 (Jan. 12, 2016). Federal and Indian Lands, FY 2003 through FY 

17 14 See, e.g., In re Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., 2014 (July 17, 2015) (https://www.eia.gov/analysis/ lowest level since 1986. World-wide et al., Case No. 15–33896 (KRH) United States requests/federallands/) (quantity of Federal coal 

Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia, production in 2014 and percent of total U.S. coal 13U.S. EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2015, 22 Richmond Division (Alpha Resources bankruptcy production). 

(Apr. 14, 2015). filing) (Aug. 3, 2015) (http://www.kccllc.net/ 20 Id.; U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 14U.S. EIA, Short Term Energy Outlook: Coal alpharestructuring); In re Arch Coal, Inc., et al, Case Gas Emissions and Sinks, 3–2 (April 2015) (http:// 

(Feb. 9, 2016) (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/ No. 16–40120–705, United States Bankruptcy Court, www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/

report/coal.cfm) ; U.S. EIA, Coal Production and Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division (Arch ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2015-Chapter-3- 

Prices Decline in 2015 (January 8, 2016) (http:// Coal bankruptcy filing (Jan. 11, 2016) (http:// Energy.pdf) (quantity of U.S. emissions from coal in 

www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=24472). www.archcoal.com/restructuring/). 2013). 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 17725 

our nation’s efforts to encourage all Federal, State, or local agency or tribal the BLM’s unsuitability screening 

countries to contribute to climate government with jurisdiction or special criteria adequately address the 

change mitigation efforts. expertise in matters within the scope of questions of where and/or where not to 

the Programmatic EIS. lease for coal production, as well as C. Secretarial Order other potential factors that could be On January 15, 2016, the Secretary of 1. Issues To Be Addressed applied during the planning process to the Interior issued Order No. 3338 The full set of issues to be assessed in provide guidance on the most directing the BLM to conduct a broad, the Programmatic EIS will be appropriate locations for coal leasing. programmatic review of the Federal coal determined through the public scoping This question is particularly timely in program it administers through the process, but it is expected to include the light of the BLM’s recent proposal to preparation of a Programmatic EIS following topics. The Order identified update the current planning regulations under NEPA. The Order stated: most of these, but the following list has (‘‘Planning 2.0’’).21 The proposed Given the broad range of issues raised been expanded to include additional regulatory changes highlight, in over the course of the past year (and topics and details raised through the particular, opportunities for early public beyond) and the lack of any recent listening sessions. involvement in the planning process analysis of the Federal coal program as a. How, When, and Where to Lease. and landscape level planning efforts a whole, a more comprehensive, The regional leasing program authorized that may cross traditional administrative programmatic review is in order, in the 1979 regulations has not worked boundaries, both of which are relevant building on the BLM’s public listening as envisioned and, instead, the BLM has for planning related to the coal program. sessions . . . . conducted leasing only in response to b. Fair Return. The Programmatic EIS 

* * * * * industry applications. Given concerns will address whether the bonus bids, 

[T]he purpose of the P[rogrammatic] about the lack of competition in the rents, and royalties received under the EIS is to identify, evaluate, and lease-by-application system, as well as Federal coal program are successfully potentially recommend reforms to the consideration of environmental goals, securing a fair return to the American Federal coal program. This review will the Programmatic EIS will examine public for Federal coal, and, if not, what enable the Department to consider how whether the current regulatory adjustments could be made to provide to modernize the program to allow for framework should be changed to such compensation. As part of this the continued development of Federal provide a better mechanism or analysis, the Programmatic EIS will coal resources while addressing the mechanisms to decide which coal examine how each of these components substantive issues raised by the public, resources should be made available and of fair return should be calculated, other stakeholders, and the how the leasing process should work. including whether (and if so, what) Department’s own review of the As part of this evaluation, the externalities should be considered as 

comments it has received. Programmatic EIS will examine the part of the fair return calculation. The Order does not apply to the coal issue of when to lease. Some leasing c. Climate Impacts. With respect to program on Indian lands, as that programs for other Federal resources the climate impacts of the Federal coal program is distinct from the BLM’s operate with an established schedule for program, the Programmatic EIS will program and is subject to the unique leasing or consideration of leasing (e.g., examine how best to measure and assess 

trust relationship between the United BLM holds onshore oil and gas lease the climate impacts of continued States and federally recognized Indian sales on a quarterly basis if parcels are Federal coal production, transportation, tribes and government-to-government available; offshore oil and gas leasing and combustion. This will include 

consultation requirements. The Order occurs using a schedule established in evaluation of potential substitution also does not apply to any action of a five-year plan). The Programmatic EIS effects from any changes in Federal coal OSMRE or ONRR. will examine whether scheduled sales production, and consideration of how should be used for Federal coal. In D. Scoping Discussion best to ensure no unnecessary and addition, the Programmatic EIS will undue degradation of public lands from The Programmatic EIS will identify look at the factors that should be climate change impacts. It will also and review potential modifications to considered in decisions about the consider whether and how to mitigate, the Federal coal program to address the timing of leasing. For example, it will account for, or otherwise address those concerns discussed above and others evaluate whether market conditions impacts through the structure and that may be identified during the should affect the timing of lease sales, management of the coal program, scoping process, and potentially, such that sales would occur when coal including, as appropriate, land use identify a preferred set of actions. Such values are higher rather than during planning, adjustments to the scale and modifications could include changes to periods of market downturns, when pace of leasing, adjustments to royalties guidance, regulations, and/or land use revenues from lease sales would be or other means of internalizing plans. The process of developing the lower. externalities, mitigation through Programmatic EIS will be used to The Programmatic EIS will also greenhouse gas reductions elsewhere, identify and develop potential changes examine where to lease and where not information disclosure, and other to the program and evaluate their to lease, consistent with taking a approaches. The Programmatic EIS will projected effects on the quality of the landscape level view of this question. examine the climate impacts of the coal human environment. In addition, the The Federal Land Policy and program in the context of the Nation’s Programmatic EIS will consider, as an Management Act requires the BLM to climate objectives, as well as the alternative, a continuation of the current develop land use plans, also known as Nation’s energy and security needs. Federal coal program without any Resource Management Plans to guide d. Other Impacts. The Federal coal modifications, as required by NEPA. the BLM’s management of public lands. program has other potential impacts on The scoping process will refine the The BLM uses this planning process to public health and the environment, specific issues to be addressed in the identify and address, at a broad scale, 

Programmatic EIS and the potential potential conflicts over and impacts of 21 Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, modifications to be evaluated. possible resource uses. The Resource Management Planning, Proposed Rule, 

Cooperating agencies may include any Programmatic EIS will consider whether 81FR 9674 (Feb. 25, 2016). 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17726 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 

beyond climate impacts, that will also projected exports of domestic coal from To address concerns about fair returns 

be assessed in the Programmatic EIS. any given tract and potential to taxpayers, the BLM is considering 

These include the effects of coal mechanisms that could be used to evaluating the following approaches: 

production on: The quantity and quality appropriately evaluate export potential. • Raise the royalty rate or adjust the 

of water resources, including aquifer g. Energy Needs. Finally, the royalty terms of new leases, such as: 

drawdown and impacts on streams and Programmatic EIS will examine how Æ Raise the royalty rate to 18.75 

alluvial valley floors; air quality and the percent, consistent with the royalty rate Federal coal supports fulfilling the associated effects on health and for Federal offshore oil and gas; energy needs of the United States. The visibility; wildlife, including evaluation will include an assessment of Æ Raise the royalty rate to a level that 

endangered species; and other land uses would provide parity on an energy how the administration, availability, such as grazing and recreation. These content (Btu) basis with the royalties and pricing of Federal coal impacts impacts are commonly addressed currently collected for Federal onshore electricity generation in the United through mitigation requirements. Recent natural gas, a common substitute fuel; States, particularly in light of other mitigation directives focus on regulatory influences, and what other Æ Raise the royalty rate to the point 

that would maximize revenues to the developing a comprehensive, clear, and sources of energy supply (including taxpayer, taking into consideration any consistent approach for avoidance and efficiency) are projected to be available. minimization of, and compensatory decrease in demand that may result 

mitigation for, the impacts of agency 2. Potential Modifications to the Federal from the higher royalty rate; or 

activities and the projects agencies Coal Program To Be Considered Æ Identify and require an ‘‘adder’’ to 

approve.22 be paid to reflect the cost of the harm The Programmatic EIS will The BLM is considering various to the public from negative externalities evaluate the BLM’s general approach to approaches for reforming the Federal mitigation for these impacts from coal from coal development; coal program to address some or all of • Limit the use of royalty rate production, and specifically, whether the identified issues above, including reductions; impacts from mining and combusting providing a fair return to taxpayers and • Change the methodology for Federal coal are adequately mitigated providing appropriate consideration of determining fair market value when across the Federal coal program, the impacts the program has on the establishing the minimum bid or including the timing and certainty of environment. These approaches may be valuing lease modifications, such as: mitigation, and whether standard considered separately or in any Æ Use the market price of non-Federal mitigation at the programmatic level combination. coal in the region or nation-wide; should be required, in addition to on a To date, stakeholders have made Æ Include the option value of leasing project-by-project basis. suggestions that range from maintaining the coal resource at a given point in e. Socio-Economic Considerations. the status quo to undertaking sweeping time; Beyond the issue of fair market value, changes. During the listening sessions, Æ Include the social cost of mining the Programmatic EIS will assess commenters suggested a variety of (i.e., the cost to taxpayers of mining whether the current Federal coal leasing modifications that could be made to the imposed by fixed cost non-internalized program adequately accounts for Federal coal program to better address externalities, such as loss of recreational externalities related to Federal coal concerns about fair return to taxpayers, or other values, which do not vary by production, including environmental market conditions, and effects on quantity produced); and social impacts. It will more broadly Explicitly include export value in climate change, among others. Some of Æ examine how the administration, establishing fair market value; these suggestions were sufficiently availability, and pricing of Federal coal Replace the lease by application specific to constitute potential Æ affect State, regional, and national approach with an open process of approaches that could be evaluated in economies (including job impacts), and setting (after public comment and expert the Programmatic EIS. These proposals energy markets in general, including the advice) minimal acceptable bid levels are summarized below. pricing and viability of other coal for tracts; or The BLM requests comment on resources (both domestic and foreign) Æ Update the minimum bid whether the Programmatic EIS should and other energy sources. The impact of established by regulation to account for further evaluate some or all of these possible program alternatives on the inflation, and/or establish state-specific specific approaches, or some variation projected fuel mix and cost of electricity minimum bids; on them. The BLM also welcomes in the United States will also be • Raise rental rates to adjust for suggestions for other potential examined. inflation and/or incorporate lost value 

f. Exports. The Programmatic EIS will approaches that should be evaluated in of other uses of the land and anticipated 

address whether and, if so, how leasing the Programmatic EIS, including externalities of exploratory activities; 

decisions should consider actual and/or approaches that may be contrary to • Do not lease to companies that have those articulated below, such as more than 10 years of recoverable 22Secretary of the Interior, Secretarial Order 3330 reforming the leasing process to reserves coal at the time of lease 

(Oct. 31, 2013) (establishing a Department-wide promote coal development through application; and mitigation strategy) (https://www.doi.gov/sites/ steps that might accelerate leasing and • Evaluate whether there is an over- doi.gov/files/migrated/news/upload/Secretarial- reduce delays and costs. As previously Order-Mitigation.pdf); President Obama, supply of Federal coal that is 

Presidential Memorandum: Mitigating Impacts on noted, the Programmatic EIS will also undercutting market prices for coal in 

Natural Resources from Development and consider a ‘‘no action alternative’’—the the United States and thereby leading to Encouraging Related Private Investment (Nov. 3, continuation of the program without lower royalty revenue. 2015) (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- any modifications—as required by office/2015/11/03/mitigating-impacts-natural- The BLM received the following 

resources-development-and-encouraging-related). NEPA. We encourage commenters to be industry proposals concerned with 

Consistent with these directives, the BLM is as specific as possible in identifying the promoting coal production that are also currently working on a mitigation policy that will types of changes to the program that the under consideration: bring consistency to the consideration and Programmatic EIS should evaluate, • Lower royalty rates, including as a application of avoidance, minimization, and 

compensatory actions or development activities and including changes to regulations, means of increasing overall government 

projects impacting public lands and resources. guidance, and management practices. take; 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 17727 

• Broaden the applicability of royalty opportunities for formal public informal. The presiding officer will 

rate reductions; participation through commenting establish only those procedures needed 

• Reform the leasing process to during public scoping and on the draft to ensure that everyone who wishes to 

accelerate leasing and reduce delays and Programmatic EIS, when that is speak has a chance to do so, to the 

costs; published. The BLM aims to complete extent practicable, and that the agency • Base bonus bids on the amount of the Coal Programmatic EIS over roughly representatives understand all issues recoverable coal, not coal reserves; 3 years. The process will include public and comments. Persons wishing to • Convert revenue streams to pay-as- and agency scoping, including public speak on behalf of an organization you go, instead of an upfront payment scoping meetings, collection of public should identify that organization in of bonus bids over five years; and comments during the scoping period, their request to speak. Should any • Reestablish the Royalty Policy issuance of a summary of substantive speaker wish to provide for the record Committee to guide changes to royalties. comments received during the scoping further information that cannot be To address concerns about climate period, as well as issuance of a scoping presented within the designated time, impacts and/or other public health and report at the end of the scoping process; such information may be submitted in environmental harms, the BLM is coordination and consultation with writing or electronically by the date considering evaluating the following Federal, State, tribal and local listed in the DATES section to the approaches: governments; publication of a draft addresses listed in the • ADDRESSES Change the methodology for Programmatic EIS; public review of and section. determining which, or how much, comments on the draft Programmatic In submitting written comments, Federal coal and/or acreage is made EIS; and publication of a final individuals should be aware that the available for leasing, such as: 

Æ Programmatic EIS, which will include Establish a ‘‘budget,’’ or other entire comment—including personal 

the BLM’s responses to substantive quantity-based schedule, for the amount identifying information (including 

comments received on the draft of Federal coal and/or acreage to be address, phone number, and email 

Programmatic EIS. The Programmatic leased over a given period, with the address)—may be made publicly 

budget set on a declining schedule EIS process is intended to involve all available at any time. While the 

consistent with the United States’ interested agencies (Federal, State, commenter can request in the comment 

climate goals and commitments and county, and local), Native American that the commenter’s personal 

market demand; tribes, public interest groups, identifying information be withheld 

Æ Re-establish an updated version of businesses, and members of the public. from public review, this cannot be 

the regional planning and leasing At this time, interested parties are guaranteed. All comments from 

process, using land use planning and invited to participate in the scoping organizations or businesses, and from 

environmental evaluation to decide process to assist the BLM in identifying individuals identifying themselves as 

whether an area should be leased; or and refining the issues and policy representatives or officials of 

Æ Develop a landscape-level approach proposals to be analyzed in depth and organizations or businesses, will be 

to identify geographic areas for potential in eliminating from detailed study those available for public inspection in their 

leasing to identify and address potential policy proposals and issues that are not entirety. If you would like to receive a 

conflicts feasible or pertinent. Participation in the copy of the draft Programmatic EIS and • Raise royalty rates or require an scoping process may take the form of other project materials, you are ‘‘adder’’ to be paid to reflect the cost of attendance at public scoping meetings, encouraged to make this request through the harm to the public from negative speaking at public scoping meetings, the project Web site (http:// externalities from coal development and/or submitting written comments. www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/ (could include production-related In addition to taking comment on the coal_and_non-energy/details_on_coal_ externalities, transportation-related specific approaches discussed above, as peis.html), or you may contact Mitchell externalities, externalities from use of well as welcoming suggestions for other Leverette as provided in the ADDRESSES

coal, and/or costs of infrastructure potential approaches that should be section of this notice. 

demand, such as water and power), evaluated in the Programmatic EIS, BLM Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), the such as: is soliciting input on the following: BLM will use the NEPA public Æ Incorporating the social cost of 1. Potential new leasing models, or potential participation requirements to satisfy the carbon; reforms to the previous or existing Æ public involvement requirements under Incorporating the social cost of leasing models of regional leasing and Section 106 of the National Historic methane; or lease by application; 

Æ Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. Reflecting other externalities; 2. Other approaches to increase competition 470(f). The BLM will consult with • Require climate and/or other public in the leasing process; Indian tribes on a government-to- health and environmental harms to be 3. Data or analyses that justify a specific 

change to the royalty rate; government basis in accordance with mitigated; and 

• 4. Potential approaches to improve the pre- Executive Order 13175 and other Prohibit or otherwise limit leasing sale estimate of fair market value; policies. Tribal concerns, including to entities that are not meeting their 5. Whether, and how, to account in the impacts on Indian trust assets and environmental responsibilities, such as: leasing process for the extent to which Æ potential impacts to cultural resources, Entities listed in the Office of reclamation responsibilities have been will be given due consideration. Surface Mining Reclamation and met; 

Enforcement Applicator Violator 6. Potential approaches to design a ‘budget’ Federal, State, and local agencies, along 

for the amount of Federal coal and/or with tribes and other stakeholders that System; or 

Æ Entities that have not met their acreage to be leased over a given period; may be interested in or affected by the 

reclamation or bonding (including bond and Federal coal program, are invited to 7. How to account for export potential in the release) requirements. participate in the scoping process and, leasing process. if eligible, may request or be requested E. Scoping Process Public scoping meetings will be held by the BLM to participate in the 

The Federal coal program as indicated above under the DATES development of the environmental 

Programmatic EIS process will provide section. These scoping meetings will be analysis as a cooperating agency. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17728 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2016 / Notices 

After gathering public comments on improve livestock grazing management, as use of automated means of collection 

issues and policy proposals that should improve watershed conditions, enhance of the information. A summary of the 

be addressed in the Programmatic EIS, wildlife habitat, or serve similar public comments will accompany our 

the BLM will identify the issues and purposes. The BLM also invites public submission of the information collection 

policy proposals to be addressed in the comments on this collection of requests to OMB. 

Programmatic EIS and the issues and information. The Office of Management Before including your address, phone 

proposals determined to be beyond the and Budget (OMB) has assigned control number, email address, or other 

scope of the Programmatic EIS. number 1004–0019 to this information personal identifying information in your 

Following closure of the scoping period, collection. comment, you should be aware that 

the BLM will prepare a scoping DATES: your entire comment—including your Please submit comments on the summary report and will make the personal identifying information—may proposed information collection by May report available to the public. The report be made publicly available at any time. 31, 2016. will be posted on the project Web site While you can ask us in your comment ADDRESSES: Comments may be (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/ to withhold your personal identifying submitted by mail, fax, or electronic energy/coal_and_non-energy/details_ information from public review, we mail. on_coal_peis.html), or may be requested cannot guarantee that we will be able to Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior, from Mitchell Leverette, as provided in do so. Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The following information pertains to Street NW., Room 2134LM, Attention: 

Authority: The BLM will prepare the this request: Jean Sonneman, Washington, DC 20240. Programmatic EIS in accordance with, but Fax: to Jean Sonneman at 202–245– Title: Grazing Management: Range not limited to, the National Environmental 0050. Improvements Agreements and Permits Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; the Electronic mail: Jean_Sonneman@ (43 CFR Subpart 4120). Council on Environmental Quality OMB Control Number: regulations (CEQ), 40 CFR parts 1500–1508; blm.gov. 1004–0019. 

the U.S. Department of the Interior Please indicate ‘‘Attn: 1004–0019’’ Summary: This request pertains to 

regulations implementing NEPA, 43 CFR part regardless of the form of your range improvements on public lands 

46; and the Federal Land Policy and comments. managed by the BLM. Range Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. improvements enhance or improve FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1701 et seq. livestock grazing management, improve Kimberly Hackett, at 202–912–7216. This notice is published in watershed conditions, enhance wildlife Persons who use a telecommunication accordance with section 40 CFR 1501.7 habitat, or serve similar purposes. At device for the deaf may call the Federal of the CEQ regulations and 43 CFR times, the BLM may require holders of Information Relay Service at 1–800– 46.235 of the DOI regulations grazing permits or gazing leases to 877–8339, to leave a message for Ms. implementing the NEPA. Hackett. install range improvements to meet the 

terms and conditions of their permits or Neil Kornze, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB leases. Operators may also come to the Director, Bureau of Land Management, regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which BLM with proposals for range Department of the Interior. implement provisions of the Paperwork improvements. Often the BLM, [FR Doc. 2016–07138 Filed 3–29–16; 8:45 am] Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, operators, and other interested parties 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P require that interested members of the work together and jointly contribute to public and affected agencies be given an construction of range improvements in opportunity to comment on information order to facilitate improved grazing DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR collection and recordkeeping activities management or enhance other multiple (see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d) and 1320.12(a)). Bureau of Land Management uses. Cooperators may include lenders This notice identifies an information which provide the funds that operators [LLWO2200000.L10200000.PK0000. collection that the BLM plans to submit contribute for improvements. 00000000; Control No. 1004–0019] to OMB for approval. The Paperwork Frequency of Collection: On occasion. Reduction Act provides that an agency Renewal of Approved Information Forms: may not conduct or sponsor a collection Collection • Form 4120–6 (Cooperative Range of information unless it displays a Improvement Agreement); and AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, currently valid OMB control number. • Form 4120–7 (Range Improvement Interior. Until OMB approves a collection of Permit). information, you are not obligated to ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for Description of Respondents: Holders respond. comments. The BLM will request a 3-year term of of BLM grazing permits or grazing 

SUMMARY: leases; affected individuals and In compliance with the approval for this information collection households; and affected tribal, state, Paperwork Reduction Act, the Bureau of activity. Comments are invited on: (1) and county agencies. Land Management (BLM) invites public The need for the collection of 

comments on, and plans to request information for the performance of the Estimated Annual Responses: 1,110. 

approval to continue, the collection of functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 

information from individuals, of the agency’s burden estimates; (3) 1,640. 

households, farms, and businesses ways to enhance the quality, utility and Estimated Annual Non-Hour Costs: 

interested in cooperating with the BLM clarity of the information collection; and None. 

in constructing or maintaining range (4) ways to minimize the information The estimated burdens are itemized in 

improvement projects that enhance or collection burden on respondents, such the following table: 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Public Scoping Meeting for the Bureau of Land Management’s

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

to Review the Federal Coal Program

 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has announced its intent to prepare a Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to examine alternative approaches for reforming the 

federal coal program. The BLM is seeking public input on the issues and policies that should be 

outlined in the Programmatic EIS, including topics such as whether Americans are receiving a 

fair return for federal coal, how market conditions affect coal, how federal coal affects the 

environment, and how these and other factors impact coal-dependent communities. Public 

feedback will help inform the size and scope of the review conducted in the Programmatic EIS. 

The BLM is hosting six public scoping meetings throughout the country to solicit public input. 

The meetings will begin with a presentation on the Programmatic EIS process, including an 

overview of the federal coal program, with the rest of the meeting open for public comment.

Information for the Grand Junction, Colorado meeting is as follows:

Date: Thursday, June 23, 2016 

Location: Two Rivers Convention Center’s Avalon Theatre, 645 Main Street, Grand Junction, 

CO 81501; the BLM will also provide an audio link for the meeting at Phone Number: 888-989-

5165; Passcode: 1924798.

Time: The meeting will be held from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. local time. The sign-in process will begin 

at 8:00 a.m.

Public Comment: The BLM will accommodate those attending the meeting in person who wish 

to provide public comment on a first-come, first-served basis to the fullest extent possible given 

the space and time available. The maximum speaking time per speaker will be 3 minutes. 

Written comments may be submitted until July 28, 2016, using one of the following methods: 

Email: BLM_WO_Coal_Program_PEIS_Comments@blm.gov

Mail: Coal Programmatic EIS Scoping 

 Bureau of Land Management 

 20 M St. SE, Room 2134 LM 

 Washington, D.C. 20003 

Additional information on the BLM’s Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS can be found at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/coal_and_non-energy/details_on_coal_peis.html.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT NEWS RELEASE 

Release Date: 05/16/16
	

Contacts: Jeff Krauss, 202-912-7410
	

BLM Gathering Public Input on Coal Program at Six Public Meetings 

Public Participation is Next Step in Comprehensive Coal Program Review 

Washington, D.C.—As the next step in the Department of the Interior’s comprehensive review of the federal coal program, the Bureau of Land Management
	

(BLM) will solicit public input at six public meetings starting with Casper, Wyo., on May 17.
	

Meetings in Casper, Wyo., Salt Lake City, Knoxville, Seattle, and Grand Junction, Colo., will be held from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. local time. The Pittsburgh meeting will 

be held from 1 to 7 p.m. local time. Specifics for all of the upcoming public scoping meetings can be found below: 

May 17, 2016 

Casper Events Center
	

1 Events Drive
	

Casper, WY 82601
	

Doors open for speaker registration at 8:30 a.m.; meeting 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
	

May 19, 2016 

Salt Palace Convention Center
	

90 South West Temple
	

Salt Lake City, UT 84101
	

Doors open for speaker registration at 8:00 a.m., meeting 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
	

May 26, 2016 

Tennessee Theatre
	

604 S. Gay Street
	

Knoxville, TN 37902
	

Doors open for speaker registration at 8:00 a.m.; meeting 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
	

June 21, 2016 

Sheraton Seattle Downtown
	

1400 6th Avenue
	

Seattle, WA 98101
	

Doors open for speaker registration at 8:00 a.m.; meeting 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
	

June 23, 2016 

Two Rivers Convention Center Avalon Theatre
	

645 Main Street
	

Grand Junction, CO 81501
	

Doors open for speaker registration at 8:00 a.m.; meeting 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
	

No signs or banners are permitted in the auditorium, and bags and backpacks will be subject to search before entry. 

June 28, 2016*
	

Pittsburgh Convention Center
	

1000 Fort Duquesne Boulevard
	

Pittsburgh, PA 15222
	

Doors open for speaker registration at 11:00 a.m.; meeting 1 to 7 p.m.
	

No signs or banners are permitted in the auditorium, and bags and backpacks will be subject to search before entry. 

*Please note this is a new date; the meeting originally scheduled for June 16, 2016, is now scheduled for June 28, 2016. 

The meetings in Casper, Wyo., Seattle and Pittsburgh will be live-streamed at www.blm.gov/live; meetings in Salt Lake City, Knoxville, Tenn., and Grand
	

Junction, Colo., will have a toll-free, listen-only audio link available via telephone.
	

Those who attend the meetings in person and who wish to speak will be asked to sign in. Speakers will be called upon on a first-come, first-served basis 

determined by sign-in order. Attendees wishing to speak will be accommodated to the fullest extent possible given the time available. The maximum speaking 

time per speaker is three minutes. 

Written comments may be submitted until July 28, 2016, using one of the following methods. Comments received after July 28, 2016* will be considered by the 

BLM and included in the scoping report to the extent practicable: 

Email: BLM_WO_Coal_Program_PEIS_Comments@blm.gov 

Mail: Coal Programmatic EIS Scoping
	

Bureau of Land Management
	

20 M St. SE, Room 2134 LM
	

Washington, D.C. 20003
	

Additional information on the PEIS can be found here, and additional information on the federal coal program can be found here. The Notice of Intent to prepare a 

Programmatic EIS can be found here. 

The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land, the most of any Federal agency. This land, known as the National System of Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western states, 

including Alaska. The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. The BLM's mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of 

AmericaÂ’s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. In Fiscal Year 2015, the BLM generated $4.1 billion in receipts from activities occurring on public lands. 

--BLM--

Last updated: 06-24-2016 

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Social Media Policy 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 
1 2 3 

SPEAKER CARD SPEAKER CARD SPEAKER CARD 

Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS 

Public Scoping Meeting Public Scoping Meeting Public Scoping Meeting 

May 26, 2016, Knoxville, Tennessee May 26, 2016, Knoxville, Tennessee May 26, 2016, Knoxville, Tennessee 

Name: Name: Name: 

Organization: Organization: Organization: 

*Receipt of a speaker card is not a guarantee of the *Receipt of a speaker card is not a guarantee of the *Receipt of a speaker card is not a guarantee of the 

opportunity to speak at this meeting. Speakers will be opportunity to speak at this meeting. Speakers will be opportunity to speak at this meeting. Speakers will be 

accommodated, in order of card number, to the fullest extent accommodated, in order of card number, to the fullest extent accommodated, in order of card number, to the fullest extent 

possible given the time constraints of this meeting. possible given the time constraints of this meeting. possible given the time constraints of this meeting.

4 5 6 

SPEAKER CARD SPEAKER CARD SPEAKER CARD 

Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS 

Public Scoping Meeting Public Scoping Meeting Public Scoping Meeting 

May 26, 2016, Knoxville, Tennessee May 26, 2016, Knoxville, Tennessee May 26, 2016, Knoxville, Tennessee 

Name: Name: Name: 

Organization: Organization: Organization: 

*Receipt of a speaker card is not a guarantee of the *Receipt of a speaker card is not a guarantee of the *Receipt of a speaker card is not a guarantee of the 

opportunity to speak at this meeting. Speakers will be opportunity to speak at this meeting. Speakers will be opportunity to speak at this meeting. Speakers will be 

accommodated, in order of card number, to the fullest extent accommodated, in order of card number, to the fullest extent accommodated, in order of card number, to the fullest extent 

possible given the time constraints of this meeting. possible given the time constraints of this meeting. possible given the time constraints of this meeting.

7 8 9 

SPEAKER CARD SPEAKER CARD SPEAKER CARD 

Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS 

Public Scoping Meeting Public Scoping Meeting Public Scoping Meeting 

May 26, 2016, Knoxville, Tennessee May 26, 2016, Knoxville, Tennessee May 26, 2016, Knoxville, Tennessee 

Name: Name: Name: 

Organization: Organization: Organization: 

*Receipt of a speaker card is not a guarantee of the *Receipt of a speaker card is not a guarantee of the *Receipt of a speaker card is not a guarantee of the 

opportunity to speak at this meeting. Speakers will be opportunity to speak at this meeting. Speakers will be opportunity to speak at this meeting. Speakers will be 

accommodated, in order of card number, to the fullest extent accommodated, in order of card number, to the fullest extent accommodated, in order of card number, to the fullest extent 

possible given the time constraints of this meeting. possible given the time constraints of this meeting. possible given the time constraints of this meeting.
Bureau of Land Management Federal Coal Leasing Program 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

Scoping Meeting 

Supporting Text
Federal Coal Regulating Agencies

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

• Leasing 

• Production verification

• Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation & 

Enforcement

• Mine permitting & reclamation 

(including bonding for reclamation)

• Office of Natural Resources Revenue 

• Manages royalty collection and 

disbursement

• Mine Safety & Health Administration 

• Develops and enforces safety and 

health rules for U.S. mines
BLM Coal Program Quick Statistics

• BLM currently administers 306 coal leases 

• In the last 10 years (2006-2015):

• BLM-managed lands produced approximately 4.3 billion tons, 

worth over $63.4 billion1

• This production generated $6.8 billion in royalties and $3.8 

billion in rents, bonuses, and other payments1

• BLM held 32 coal lease sales

• In 2015: 

• 33.2% of Nation’s electricity produced from coal2

• 43.5% of the coal produced was federal coal; 88% of that was 

from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana1

1 Data from Office of Natural Resources Revenue

2 Data from Energy Information Administration
Supporting Text

Coal Fields of the Lower-48 United States

Main Federal Coal 

Producing Areas
Coal Leasing Pause

• The pause does not apply to existing leases and coal production.

• There are about 20 years of reserves at current productions 

levels already under lease.

• Pending lease applications with signed decisions can proceed to 

sale if requested by the operator.

• Pending applications without a decision may proceed with NEPA 

and Fair Market Value analysis .

• Mines that need reserves to continue operations may apply for 

emergency leasing consideration.

• New applications received during the pause that do not meet 

emergency criteria or the other exceptions will be deferred for 

processing.
The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(PEIS) initiated by Secretarial Order 3338 will consider:

• How, when and where to lease

• Fair return

• Climate impacts

• Other impacts

• Socio-economic considerations

• Exports

• Energy needs

• Other potential 

modifications
The full set of issues in the PEIS will be decided through scoping; however, 

some that will be considered are listed in the Notice of Intent, including: 

How, when and where to lease

• Should scheduled sales be used (e.g., like onshore oil & gas)?

• Should market conditions affect the timing of lease sales, such that sales 

would occur when coal values are higher rather than during downturns? 

• Where and where not should the BLM lease consistent with taking a 

landscape level view?

• Do the BLM’s unsuitability 

screening criteria adequately

address the questions of 

where and/or where not

to lease?
Fair Return

• Are the bonus bids, rents, and royalties received under the Federal 

coal program successfully securing a fair return to the American 

public? 

• How should each of these components of fair return be calculated?

• Should externalities be considered as part of the fair return 

calculation? If so, what specifically and how?
Climate Impacts

• How can we best measure and assess the climate impacts of 

continued Federal coal production, transportation, and combustion?

• What are the potential substitution effects from any changes in 

Federal coal production? 

• How may BLM best ensure no unnecessary and undue degradation of 

public lands from climate change impacts?

• How do we mitigate, account for, or otherwise address those 

impacts?

• How does the Federal coal program 

relate to the Nation’s climate 

objectives, as well as its energy and 

security needs?
Other Impacts

• What are the effects of Federal coal production on water resources, 

air quality, wildlife, and other land uses such as grazing and 

recreation? 

• Are impacts from mining and combusting Federal coal adequately 

mitigated?

• Should standard mitigation at the programmatic level be required, in 

addition to on a project-by-project basis?
Socio-economic Considerations

• Does the current program adequately account for externalities 

related to Federal coal production, including environmental and social 

impacts?

• How does the administration, availability, and pricing of Federal coal 

affect State, regional, and national economies (including job impacts), 

and energy markets in general? 

• What is the impact of possible program alternatives on the projected 

fuel mix and cost of electricity? 
Exports

• Whether and, if so, how should, leasing decisions consider actual 

and/or projected exports of domestic coal from any given tract? 

• What potential mechanisms could be used to appropriately evaluate 

export potential?
Energy Needs

• How does Federal coal support fulfilling the energy needs of the 

United States? 

• How does the administration, availability, and pricing of Federal coal 

impact electricity generation in the United States, particularly in light 

of other regulatory influences?

• What other sources of energy supply (including efficiency) are 

projected to be available?
We look forward to your comments on these and other 

important issues related to the Federal coal program
1 

Q&A 

Department of the Interior Federal Coal Reforms 

OVERALL 

What actions are being taken today?

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell announced several actions to strengthen and improve 

the federal coal program that is managed on behalf of all Americans. There are three main 

components that the Interior Department is announcing: 

1) A formal, comprehensive review of the federal coal program that will identify and evaluate 

potential reforms; 

2) A pause on new coal leasing on public lands while the review is underway; and 

3) A series of good government reforms to improve transparency and program administration, 

including establishing a public database to account for the carbon emissions from fossil fuels on 

public lands. 

Why are you taking these actions? 

The federal government has a responsibility to all Americans to ensure that the coal resources it 

manages are administered in a responsible way to help meet our energy needs and that taxpayers 

receive a fair return for the sale of these public resources. And yet, over the past few years, it has 

become clear that many of the decades-old regulations and procedures that govern the federal 

coal program are outdated and do not fully reflect the realities of today’s economy or current 

understanding of environmental and public health impacts from coal production. 

In March 2015, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell called for an “open and honest conversation 

about modernizing the federal coal program,” and she launched a series of listening sessions 

across the country to hear from the public on complex questions, including: Are taxpayers and 

local communities getting a fair return from these resources? How can we make coal leasing 

more transparent and more competitive? How do we manage the program in a way that is 

consistent with our climate change objectives?

As a direct result of these public listening sessions – as well as concerns raised by the 

Government Accountability Office, the Interior Department’s Inspector General, and Members 

of Congress – Secretary Jewell is taking the next step in the conversation by launching a formal, 

comprehensive review of the federal coal program. While the review is underway, consistent 

with practices during previous programmatic reviews of the federal coal program, Secretary 

Jewell has ordered a pause on significant new coal leasing decisions on public lands so that those 

decisions and leases can incorporate lessons learned from the comprehensive review to ensure 

that taxpayers receive a fair return for the sale of these public resources. 

How did the public help shape this path forward? 

Over the summer of 2015, the Interior Department hosted five listening sessions across the 

country (Washington, D.C.; Billings, Montana; Gillette, Wyoming; Denver, Colorado; and 

Farmington, New Mexico). Over the course of the public comment period, the Interior 
2 

Department heard from hundreds of individuals and received over 90,000 written comments that 

represented a wide variety of views. The Interior Department carefully reviewed the public 

feedback before crafting a path forward. 

What concerns have the GAO, IG and Members of Congress raised? 

In June 2013, the Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General issued a report (Coal 

Management Program, U.S. Department of the Interior) that found weaknesses in the sale 

process and deficiencies in inspection and enforcement. In December 2013, the Government 

Accountability Office issued a report that found the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) could 

improve its coal leasing program by enhancing the appraisal process, more explicitly considering 

coal exports, and providing more public information. Over the years, Members of Congress have 

raised a variety of concerns with the program, including the environmental impacts, and the lack 

of competitiveness, transparency, and accounting for full costs of carbon. 

Has the Interior Department undertaken any steps to address these concerns? 

Yes, several. In January 2015, Interior’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue published a 

proposed rule governing the valuation of federal oil and gas, and federal and American Indian 

coal resources. The proposed rule would modernize existing valuation regulations, which were 

put in place for natural gas and coal in the late 1980s, and ensure that the valuation process better 

reflects the changing energy industry while protecting taxpayers and American Indian assets. A 

final rule will be issued in 2016. 

In December 2014, the BLM announced a series of actions aimed at addressing criticisms that its 

process to determine fair market value at the leasing stage is insufficient and fails to adequately 

account for higher prices received overseas. The BLM revised its manual and handbooks for the 

coal program to increase clarity regarding how the agency determines fair market value, provide 

guidance on independent review of appraisal reports, and make improvements that will enable 

the BLM to account for export potential through analysis of comparable sales and income. The 

BLM has also released safety, inspection and enforcement guidance to promote more responsible 

development of coal resources on the nation’s public lands, regarding: improved documentation 

for coal operation inspections on coal exploration licenses, licenses to mine, leases, and logical 

mining units; and increased Mineral Mine Inspector training and certification requirements. 

In addition, Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement has proposed the 

Stream Protection Rule, under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), 

which would modernize 30-year old rules to better protect communities from the adverse effects 

of coal mining, and provide greater certainty to the mining industry about what constitutes harm 

to certain water bodies during mining activities. 

COMPREHSENSIVE REVIEW OF COAL PROGRAM 

What is a PEIS? 

A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) is a formal, comprehensive review, 

with opportunity for extensive public engagement which evaluates the effects of broad proposals 

or program-level decisions. In this case, the Interior Department will use the PEIS process to 
3 

help identify and evaluate potential reforms to the federal coal program. The PEIS process will 

be completed consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act. The process is being 

undertaken as a discretionary action. 

What will the PEIS evaluate? 

The review will take a careful look at issues related to the BLM’s administration of the federal 

coal program, including: 

 The appropriate leasing mechanisms for how, when and where to lease; 

 How to account for the environmental and public health impacts of the federal coal 

program; and 

 How to ensure the sale of these public resources results in a fair return to the American 

taxpayers, including whether current royalty rates should be adjusted. 

The review will also explore whether U.S. coal exports should factor into leasing or other 

program decisions; how the management, availability and pricing of federal coal impacts 

domestic and foreign markets and energy portfolios; and the role of federal coal in fulfilling the 

energy needs of the United States. 

What are the next steps? 

The review will include extensive opportunities for public participation. The PEIS will kick off 

with public meetings in early 2016 to help determine the precise scope of the review. The 

Interior Department will release an interim report by the end of 2016 with conclusions from the 

scoping process about alternatives that will be evaluated and, as appropriate, any initial 

analytical results. The scoping period will help inform the development of a draft PEIS, which 

the BLM will issue for public review and comment. Informed by comments on the draft PEIS, 

the BLM will then issue a Final PEIS. Changes to the coal leasing program may be implemented 

through a Record of Decision or separate processes.

How can I get involved? 

Members of the public and stakeholders are encouraged to participate at all stages of the process, 

including in the public scoping meetings in 2016. There will also be multiple opportunities to 

submit written comments throughout the process. 

How long will the PEIS take? 

A PEIS typically takes several years to complete, providing adequate time for public comment 

and review at each stage of the process. It is expected that the review will take approximately 

three years to complete. 

Have programmatic reviews of the federal coal program been done before? 

Yes – although a programmatic review of the coal program has not been completed in more than 

30 years. In 1983 and 1984, Congress established a commission to investigate fair market value 

policies for coal leasing and required a study of whether the coal leasing program was 

compatible with national environmental protection goals. The Interior Department followed 

these reports with a supplemental PEIS on the federal coal program, completed in 1986. 
4 

Previously, in 1973, President Nixon’s Interior Department launched a PEIS in response to 

serious concerns about speculation in the coal leasing program, which was completed in 1979. 

Both programmatic reviews were accompanied by similar pauses in new coal leasing decisions. 

PAUSE ON NEW COAL LEASING 

Why is the Secretary instituting a pause on new coal leasing? 

Given the serious concerns raised about the federal coal program and the large reserves of 

undeveloped coal already under lease to coal companies, it would not be responsible to continue 

to issue new leases under outdated rules and processes. While the review is underway, and 

consistent with the practice during two previous programmatic reviews, the Interior Department 

is instituting a pause on new coal leasing on public lands so that those leasing decisions can 

benefit from the recommendations that come out of the review. 

What does the pause cover? Will there be exceptions? 

During the pause, the BLM will not hold lease sales or process new lease applications for surface 

and underground coal. Importantly, the pause does not apply to existing leases and coal 

production activities. 

There will be limited, commonsense exemptions to the pause for small lease modifications (160 

acres or less), coal lease exchanges, certain preference right lease interests, and emergency 

leasing as defined by the BLM’s current regulations, such as mines where there is a 

demonstrated safety need or insufficient reserves. Preparatory work on already-pending 

applications may continue, including NEPA analysis, but the BLM will not make final decisions 

on new leases, absent an applicable exemption. Pending leases that have already completed 

NEPA analysis and received a final Record of Decision or Decision Order by a federal agency 

under the existing regulations will be allowed to complete the final procedural steps to secure a 

lease or lease modification, including those that are undergoing re-evaluation after having been 

vacated by judicial decision. The pause does not apply to metallurgical coal (used in steel 

production), renewals of existing leases, or other BLM, Office of Surface Mining, or Office of 

Natural Resources Revenue actions related to the federal coal program, such as mine plan 

approvals. The pause does not apply to coal leases on tribal or allotted lands. 

What is an "emergency" that would allow leasing under the exceptions?

The coal leasing regulations at 43 CFR 3425.1-4 allow for an emergency lease sale where the 

coal is needed within 3 years to maintain production, or where the coal would be bypassed if not 

leased. 

More specifically, the regulations outline two situations in which emergency leasing is 

allowed. In the first situation, the Federal coal is needed within 3 years either to maintain the 

mine at its current average annual production levels, or to supply coal for contracts signed prior 

to July 19, 1979. In the second situation, if the coal deposits are not leased, they would be 

bypassed in the reasonably foreseeable future, and at least some of the tract applied for would be 

used within 3 years. 

In both cases, the applicant for emergency leasing must also show that the need for the coal 
5 

resulted from circumstances that were either beyond the control of the applicant or could not 

have been reasonably foreseen and planned for in time to allow for the normal leasing 

process. Leases issued under the emergency provision are limited to 8 years of recoverable 

reserves at the mine's current rate of production.

Will the pause impact current coal production? 

The Interior Department does not anticipate that the pause will significantly alter current 

production. Under the pause, companies may continue to mine the large reserves of undeveloped 

coal already under lease. 

Based on current production levels, coal companies now have approximately 20 years of 

recoverable coal reserves under lease on federal lands. This estimate may be conservative as 

Energy Information Administration analyses and other market trends show continuing declines 

in demand for coal. Many current lease applications with the BLM are on hold at the companies’ 

request due to reductions in market demand for coal. 

Given the abundance of coal reserves under lease, the declining demand for coal, and the 

accommodations that will be made for emergency circumstances, the pause should have no 

material impact on the nation’s ability to meet its power generation needs. 

Is there precedent for such actions? 

Yes. In 1973, President Nixon’s Interior Secretary Morton suspended coal leasing – including a 

complete moratorium on the issuance of new prospecting permits, and a prohibition on the 

issuance of new federal coal leases except in very limited circumstances. The moratorium was 

lifted in 1981, after a PEIS had been completed, a new leasing system had been adopted, and 

litigation resolved. In 1984, as part of the 1984 Appropriations Bill, Congress imposed a 

moratorium on the sale of coal lease tracts starting in 1983 and ending 90 days after publication 

of the Linowes Commission’s report. The Congressional moratorium was set to expire in May 

1984, but President Reagan’s Interior Secretary Clark continued the moratorium, which 

continued the suspension of all coal leasing (except for emergency leasing, lease modifications

and processing preference right lease applications) while Interior completed its comprehensive 

review of the program. The leasing moratorium was lifted in 1987. 

Does the pause impact existing leases? Coal on tribal lands? Forest Service lands? State or 

private lands? 

The pause does not apply to production on existing leases. The pause only applies to the Federal 

mineral estate administered by the BLM (regardless of whether the BLM also controls the 

surface estate), and it does not apply to coal leases on Tribal or allotted lands, which are 

administered under a different regulatory system. The pause only applies to lease sales and 

modifications; it does not apply to other BLM actions related to the Federal coal program, 

including the processing and issuance of coal exploration licenses, the issuance of renewal leases 

when required by the terms of existing leases, and the development and implementation of 

resource management plans. Similarly, the pause does not apply to actions undertaken by 

ONRR, OSMRE, or any other agency, office, or bureau with duties related to the development, 

production, or reclamation of Federal coal resources. Preparatory work on already-pending 
6 

applications may continue, including NEPA analysis, but the BLM will not make final decisions 

on leases until the review is completed, absent an applicable exemption. 

How long will the pause last? 

The Secretarial Order calls for the limitations on the issuance of federal coal leases to be applied 

until the completion of the PEIS. A PEIS typically takes several years to complete, providing 

adequate time for public comment and review at each stage of the process. It is expected that the 

review will take approximately three years to complete. 

What impact will this pause have on the coal economy? Will this raise electricity rates? 

Given the abundance of coal reserves under lease, the declining demand for coal, and the 

accommodations that will be made for emergency circumstances, the pause should have no 

material impact on the nation’s ability to meet its power generation needs and is not expected to 

impact electricity production or prices. 

What authority does the Secretary have to take this action? 

The Secretary has authority under the Mineral Leasing Act, the Mineral Leasing Act for 

Acquired Lands, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to manage federal coal 

leasing. She has the authority under National Environmental Policy Act to utilize the PEIS 

process as part of a programmatic review of the federal coal program. 

IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY and MEASURING CARBON EMISSIONS ON 

PUBLIC LANDS 

Why are you establishing a database on carbon emissions? 

This year the Interior Department’s U.S. Geological Survey will complete a national inventory of 

carbon that is sequestered (stored) in the lands of the United States. Currently, however, there is 

no dedicated, official measure of the harmful greenhouse gas emissions from coal, oil and gas 

produced on public lands. An analysis from a non-governmental organization suggests that the 

emissions from these activities on public lands could amount to 28 percent of the nation’s annual 

total energy-related fossil fuel emissions. 

In order to better understand and manage carbon stocks on public lands, the USGS will establish 

a baseline and public database that accounts for carbon emitted from fossil fuels produced on 

public lands. Improved, timely and transparent accounting by one of the world’s premier Earth 

science agencies will provide critical information for the public and federal land managers as we 

work to reduce carbon pollution from fossil fuel activities. 

What will be measured? 

The USGS will assess for the carbon stored and sequestered on public lands, and the quantities 

of greenhouse gases emitted from activities on public lands, including potential downstream 

emissions from fossil fuels. 

The publicly available database will include: 

 Baseline carbon stocks and sequestration rates; 
7 

 Other baseline data products such as habitats, ecosystems, soil conditions, protected 

status, land use and change, to facilitate analysis of environmental impacts and 

management policy options; 

 Annually updated major land use and land cover change areas (e.g. wildfire, loss of 

wetlands, new acquisitions) and associated carbon emissions and uptakes; 

 Annually updated net ecosystem carbon flux (i.e. sink or source); 

 Annual estimates of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from energy development 

activities; 

 Annual quantities of oil and gas extractions from federally managed lands; and 

 Potential downstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with oil and gas extraction on 

federally managed lands.

Who will be involved in the initiative? 

The USGS will be the lead agency in developing the database. The database would link to 

existing data from other government sources, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and 

the Energy Information Administration. 

The accounting methodology will rely on ongoing USGS research and completion of the 

LCMAP (land change monitoring, assessment, and projection) project, which is expected to 

provide annual updates of land use/land cover change by 2018. It is also dependent on the 

development and operational use of the LUCAS (land use and carbon scenario simulator) model 

to track annual carbon fluxes as a result of land use change. 

What are the next steps? 

The USGS will first complete its pilot studies of carbon emissions and sequestration on federal 

lands and other requisite inputs to the LUCAS model. The database of carbon emissions and 

storage on federal lands would be established in 2018. 

Why is the BLM issuing guidance that requires State and field offices to post online each 

pending request to lease coal or to reduce royalties? When will this go into effect? 

Although much of this information is already available online, stakeholders have raised concerns 

that there is no formal guidance on the matter and not all BLM State and field offices currently 

post notice of these types of requests in a consistent manner or in real time. The BLM is 

committed to transparency and providing the public access to the information they need to 

understand how we are managing public resources, consistent with protections for confidential 

business information. Updating our guidance to ensure uniform, clear and consistent procedures 

for posting notice of all coal leasing and royalty rate reduction requests online is simply good 

government. We anticipate issuing guidance on this matter in the near term. 

Why is the BLM conditioning any exchange or sale of federal coal to another owner on the 

requirement that the new owner obtain surface owner consent to leasing? When will this go 

into effect? 

One of the concerns raised by stakeholders and Members of Congress during the listening 

sessions was about the potential effect of federal coal exchanges or sales on surface owners. 
8 

Owners of surface lands above federal coal deposits must consent to leasing of the federal 

minerals before the BLM will approve the lease sale. This ensures that a rancher, for example, 

doesn’t unwillingly lose all use of their land for 10 or 20 years during a mining operation and 

before the land is reclaimed. However, when the federal coal is transferred to another owner 

through an exchange or sale, currently, the surface owner consent to leasing is no longer 

required. The BLM recognizes the impact of these situations on surface owners and will issue 

guidance directing that in situations where the BLM has the discretion to make the sale or 

exchange, the BLM will condition any such sale or exchange on the new owner obtaining surface 

owner consent prior to development of the coal. The BLM is working to develop this guidance 

and expects to issue it in the near term. 

Why is the BLM directing new and readjusted leases to authorize the coal lessee to capture 

and sell methane, provided it does not conflict with pre-existing oil and gas lease interests? 

When will this go into effect? 

At underground coal mining operations, the natural gas that is commonly present must be 

removed from the mine for miner safety. Natural gas is largely comprised of methane, a 

greenhouse gas at least 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Traditionally, mine operators 

have released the gas into the atmosphere, adding methane emissions that drive climate change. 

Some coal mine operators would like to capture the natural gas for use or sale, but do not have 

authorization in their coal leases to capture the otherwise vented waste mine methane for use or 

sale. 

The BLM intends to address this problem by issuing guidance that would ensure that, in 

situations where the oil and gas has not already been leased or is owned by another party, the 

operator of the coal mine would be authorized to capture the natural gas instead of venting it, and 

use or sell it. The guidance would provide that, for new coal leases and at the time of lease 

readjustments, the standard lease language would include a provision allowing the coal lessee to 

capture and use or sell that waste mine methane that would otherwise be vented from the coal 

mine, as long as such gas had not already been leased or is owned by another party. In addition, 

the BLM would add this language to existing coal leases with the agreement of the coal lessee. 

The language would not require the coal lessee to capture the gas, but would allow it. The BLM 

is working to develop this guidance and expects to issue it in the near term. 

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND 

What is the BLM’s role in the federal coal program?

The BLM has responsibility for coal leasing on approximately 570 million acres where the coal 

mineral estate is owned by the federal government. The surface estate of these lands could be 

controlled by the BLM, the United States Forest Service, private land owners, state land owners, 

or other Federal agencies. The BLM works to ensure that the development of coal resources is 

done in an environmentally sound manner and is in the best interests of the nation.

What laws govern the federal coal program? 

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands 

of 1947, as amended, give the Secretary responsibility for managing coal leasing on 
9 

approximately 570 million acres of the 700 million acres of mineral estate that is owned by the 

Federal Government, where coal development is permissible. The Secretary has delegated her 

authority for this responsibility to the BLM.

How does the BLM determine where to lease? 

Public lands are available for coal leasing only after the lands have been evaluated through the 

BLM's multiple-use planning process. Leasing federal coal resources is prohibited on public 

lands, such as military reservations, National Parks, or National Wildlife Refuges. In areas 

where development of coal resources may conflict with the protection and management of other 

resources or public land uses, the BLM may identify mitigating measures which may appear on 

leases as either stipulations to uses or restrictions on operations.

There is a rigorous land use planning process through which all public lands are reviewed for 

potential coal leasing. Requirements for the land use plan include multiple use, sustained yield, 

protection of critical environmental areas, application of specific unsuitability criteria, and 

coordination with other government agencies. 

How does the leasing process work? 

There are two distinct procedures for competitive coal leasing: (1) regional leasing, where the 

BLM selects tracts within a region for competitive sale, and (2) leasing by application, where the 

public nominates a particular tract of coal for competitive sale.

Regional coal leasing requires the BLM to select potential coal leasing tracts based on multiple 

land use planning, expected coal demand, and potential environmental and economic impacts. 

This process requires close consultation with local governments and citizens through a 

Federal/state advisory board known as a Regional Coal Team. However, for decades the demand 

for new coal leasing has been associated with the extension of existing mining operation on 

authorized federal coal leases, so all current leasing is done by application.

Leasing by application begins with BLM review of an application to lease a coal tract to ensure 

completeness, that it conforms to existing land use plans, and that it contains sufficient geologic 

data to determine the fair market value of the coal. The Agency then prepares an environmental 

analysis in compliance with NEPA. At the same time, the BLM will also consult with tribal 

governments and appropriate Federal and state agencies, and will determine whether the surface 

owner consents to leasing in situations where the surface is not administered by the BLM. 

Preparations for the actual lease sale begin with the BLM formulating an estimate of the "fair 

market value" of the coal. This number is kept confidential and is only used to evaluate the bids 

received during the sale.

Sealed bids are accepted prior to the date of the sale and are publicly announced during the sale. 

The winning bid will be the highest bid that meets or exceeds the coal tract's presale estimated 

fair market value, assuming that all eligibility requirements are met and the appropriate fees and 

payments are attached (at a minimum, this amounts to the first year's annual rental payment and 

one-fifth of the amount bid).
10

How are revenues generated through leasing coal? 

The BLM receives revenues on coal leasing at three points: a bonus paid at the time BLM issues 

the lease; an annual rental payment of $3.00 per acre or fraction thereof; and royalties paid on the 

value of the coal after it has been mined. 

The royalty rate for federal coal is currently set at the minimum level allowed by statute, 12.5% 

of the gross value of the coal produced. The 12.5% royalty rate applies to coal severed by surface 

mining methods. For coal mined by underground methods, the statute provides that the Secretary 

may establish a lesser royalty rate. By regulation, the BLM requires an 8% royalty for coal 

removed from an underground mine. The federal government and the state where the coal was 

mined share the revenues equally.

###
Appendix C

List of Commenters
This page intentionally left blank.
January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS C-1

Scoping Report 

APPENDIX C

LIST OF COMMENTERS 

The formal public comment period as required by NEPA began on March 30, 

2016, with the publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (Vol. 81, 

No. 61, page 17720, March 30, 2016), and comments were accepted until 

September 15, 2016. Table C-1, Commenters, lists the commenters who 

submitted comments to the BLM in writing as part of the public scoping process 

or provided oral comments at scoping meetings. All comments received on or 

before September 15, 2016, are included in this scoping report. In addition to 

unique submissions, organizations submitted form letters. In total, the BLM 

received 213,748 form letter submissions from 19 form letter campaigns; details 

of the form letter submissions are shown in Table C-2.

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

Elected Official

1. Ray Beck City of Craig

2. Kelsey Berg Congressman Jason Chaffetz

3. Rosie Berger Wyoming House of Representatives

4. Joel Briscow Utah House of Representatives

5. James Byrd Wyoming House District 44

6. Cantwell US Senate

7. Louise Carter-King Gillete, WY

8. Dow Constantine King County

9. Stan Cooper Wyoming State Senate

10. Kerry Donovan Colorado State Senate

11. Odgen Driskill Wyoming Senate District 1

12. Roy Edwards House of Representatives

13. Joe Fitzgibbon House of Representatives

14. Doug Kary State of Montana

15. Dan Kirkbride Wyoming State House

16. Bill Landen Wyoming State Senate
C. List of Commenters

C-2 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

17. Strom Peterson 21st District

18. Keith Ross House of Representatives

19. Lee Slade 48 Democratic House Members

20. Chris Stewart Utah's Second Congressional District

21. Michael Von Flatern Wyoming State Senate

Federal Government

22. John Barrasso United States Senate

23. Steve Daines United States Senate

24. Bill Dardon United States Congress

25. Michelle Jenkins United States Congress

26. Cynthia Lummis United States Congress

27. Mike Penfold BLM

28. Jessica Trice U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Individuals

29. Maris Abelson

30. Jim Abshire

31. Cari Adamek

32. John Adamson

33. Donna Albert

34. Kathryn Albury

35. Pam Alexander

36. Ryan Alexander

37. Jeff Allen

38. Paul Allen

39. Laurie Almoslino

40. Susan Andersen

41. Nicole Andersen

42. Rick Anderson

43. T Anderson

44. Barbara Anderson

45. Joe Andrade

46. Cindy Angerhoffer

47. Barbara Archer

48. Monica Ariowitsch

49. Jeremiah Armstrong

50. Jeremiah Armstrong

51. Patrick Arrington

52. Steve Arveschoug

53. Elias Attea

54. Garrett Atwood

55. Roxann Backer

56. Carl Baer

57. Rainerr Bah

58. Mary Baine Campbell

59. Alicia Baker
C. List of Commenters

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS C-3

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

60. Connie Ball

61. Scott Banbury

62. Bruce Bandorick

63. Eric Bard

64. Wendy Barteaux

65. Chris Bateman

66. Patricia Baumann

67. Laura Baumgartner

68. Bill Bear

69. Bill Bear

70. Mark Benett

71. Barbara Bengtsson

72. Benjamin 

73. Bennett

74. Donna Berg

75. Emery Bernath

76. John Betka

77. John Beyers

78. Erin Bicknese

79. Neal Biggart

80. Becky Bird

81. Merna Blagg

82. David Blair

83. Laura Blake

84. Teri Blanton

85. Beth Blattenberger

86. Randy Blck

87. Maureen Bo

88. Nathan Boddie

89. Ayja Bounous

90. Sheila Bowers

91. Joan Bowers

92. Marilyn Boyd

93. David Bradford

94. Charles Brexel

95. Mike Briggs

96. Bob Brister

97. Hugh Broadus

98. Nelson Brooke

99. Ray Brooks

100. Jack Brooks

101. Scott Brooks

102. Sally Brown

103. Kathy Brown

104. Elizabeth Brown
C. List of Commenters

C-4 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

105. Debbie Bruse

106. Craig Bryan

107. Bobbie Bryant-Salvato

108. Bobbi Bryant-Salvato

109. Kimberly and Rick Buck

110. Dan Bucks

111. Rick Buell

112. Darby Bundy

113. Mark Bunnell

114. Ethan Burger

115. Corinne Burger

116. Sandy Burk

117. Bruce Burnham

118. Laura Burns

119. Brad Burritt

120. Jan Burton

121. James Robert Burton

122. Michelle Butler

123. Ruth Byrne

124. Kelli Cady

125. Cory Camasta

126. Cate Campbell

127. Joel Carlson

128. Windy Carlson

129. J Carlson

130. Lee Carlton

131. Dan Carpita

132. Jared Carson

133. Lance Carter

134. Jeff Carver

135. Doug Cast

136. A Dean Caulfield

137. Steven Cave

138. Chris Cawley

139. Richard Chafee

140. Steve Charter

141. Rick Chermak

142. Brian Cherni

143. Carole Chower

144. Wyatt Christensen

145. Sophia Cinnamon

146. Sophia Cinnamon

147. Michael Clark

148. Jim Clark

149. Marcia Clausing
C. List of Commenters

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS C-5

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

150. Mary Clawsey

151. Beth Clay

152. Scott Clem

153. Brad Cofield

154. Jim Collins

155. Angel Collinson

156. Dave Colton

157. Katie Cooper

158. R. Coppager

159. Robert Coppin

160. John Corkran

161. Peter Cornelison

162. Cheri Cornell

163. Lauri Costello

164. Annie Jane Cotten

165. Rhonda Cowden

166. Vince Cowen

167. Lecia Craft

168. Russ Cranen

169. Gerrit Crouse

170. John Crystal

171. Rich Csenge

172. Patricia Culver

173. Tim Cummins

174. Rob Daggett

175. Eric Dalton

176. Ken Damon

177. David A. Dannenberger

178. Carol Dansereau

179. Mike Dash

180. James Davidheiser

181. Jonis Davis

182. Mike Davis

183. Glen Davis

184. Elizabeth Dawson

185. Steve Degenfelder

186. Ashley Dennehy

187. Lea Derence

188. Beth DeRoog

189. Juliane Devlin

190. Jordan DeWitt

191. Ward DeWitt

192. Kelly Dimmick

193. Phil Dinsmoor

194. G Doddings
C. List of Commenters

C-6 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

195. Pat Doherty

196. Rosemary Donaghue

197. Charlie Donnes

198. MIchelle Doyon

199. Wilrose Drake

200. George Dunlap

201. Lois Dunn

202. Jean C. Durning

203. Bill Dvorak

204. Kevin Dwyer

205. Jack Dyer

206. Tayler Earl

207. Taylor Earl

208. Michelle Edwards

209. Lynden V. Emerson

210. Mike and Lorna Emineth

211. Michael Enk

212. Keith Ervin

213. Cynthia H. Ervin

214. Wayne Estey

215. Raymond Estrada

216. Art Etter

217. Dorcas Evans Miller

218. Jo Everdean

219. David Fagin

220. Clark Fairbanks

221. David Fall

222. Mike Fidel

223. Marjorie Fields

224. Troy Fillmore

225. Susan Finbal

226. Mary Fitzpatrick

227. Terry Fonville

228. Forsgren

229. Michael Foster

230. Wendy Fox

231. Anna Fraser

232. Maggie Frazier

233. Adrian Frazier

234. Kevin Frazier

235. Pat Freiberg

236. Stephen Fribley

237. Bonnie Frye Hemphill

238. Lynn Fusan

239. Deirdre Gabbay
C. List of Commenters

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS C-7

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

240. John Gage

241. Ty Gardiner

242. Robert Garlick

243. Howie Garver

244. Lydia Garvey

245. Maddy Gawler

246. Paul Gellert

247. Gery Gerst

248. Sheryl Getman

249. Greg Gianforte

250. Frans Giddings

251. Gilgen

252. Mike Gillian

253. Darren Ginn

254. Caroline Gleich

255. Carol Glenn

256. Bob Goffena

257. Denise Goins

258. Albert Good

259. RD Goode

260. Sarah Goran

261. Thomas Gordon

262. Diane Gordon

263. Paula Gordon

264. Tom Gordon

265. Shannon Gordon

266. Diana L. Gordon

267. Louise Gorenflo

268. Sandra Goss

269. Kathryn Grady

270. Margaret Graham

271. Lou Grako

272. Jordan Grange

273. Jordan Grange

274. Brent Grassman

275. Royal Graves

276. Ben Graves

277. Lew Gray

278. Eric Greene

279. Nancy Griffin

280. Caleb Griffith

281. Jon Grout

282. Linda Grove

283. Walt Gulick

284. Yulia Gurevich
C. List of Commenters

C-8 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

285. Larry Gussin

286. Brie Gyncild

287. Steve Hall

288. Gary Hallemeier

289. Bourtai Hargrove

290. Rose Haroian

291. Mark Harris

292. Patricia Harris

293. John Hartman

294. Michele Haslam

295. Cody Haslam

296. Steven Hatch

297. Ronald Hawk

298. Libby Hazen

299. Mary Headrick

300. Cierra Headswift

301. Hayden Heaphy

302. William Heaps

303. Ben Heaps

304. Corey Heaps

305. Soulin Heath

306. Kathy Heffernan

307. David Heiblim

308. Luke Helden

309. Gary Helming

310. Winifred Helper

311. Matthew Helper

312. Richard Henighan

313. Mark Hennon

314. Winifred Hepler

315. Cal Hertoghe

316. Debra HigbeeSudyka

317. Jess Highu

318. Alan Hilden

319. Robert Hill

320. Reine Hilton

321. Rebecca Himsl

322. Jeb Himsl

323. Stephen Hinkemeyer

324. Jeri Hodgin

325. Janice Hoem

326. Harold Hoem

327. Steve Hogseth

328. (Unknown) Holappa

329. Patricia Holm
C. List of Commenters

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS C-9

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

330. Bruce Holme

331. Stanley Holmes

332. Allen Holubec

333. Mark Homer

334. Kevin Hooley

335. Carolyn Hooper

336. Christopher Horwitz

337. Judy Hoy

338. Ben Hughey

339. Kathleen Hume

340. Rhonda Hunter

341. Ryan Hutt 

342. Roe Hyche

343. Joe Hyche

344. Kenneth Hyche

345. Alison Hyder

346. Donald Hyndman

347. David Inouye

348. David Iouye

349. Algore Isnutz

350. William Isom

351. Kathryn Iverson

352. SueAnn Jacobson

353. Dan Jaffe

354. Amanda Jahshan

355. Willo Jarocki

356. Gene Jarstad

357. Cynthia Jatul

358. Kindra Jazwick

359. Levi Jensen

360. Paul Jensen

361. Alan Johnson

362. Craig Johnson

363. Kristine Johnson

364. Sandra Jones

365. Monte Jones

366. Eugene Jones

367. Darryl Jozwik

368. Brandon Jubol

369. Carol Judy

370. Brandon Juhl

371. John Justman

372. Gary Kalpakoff

373. Slvyie Karslda

374. Krissy Kasserman
C. List of Commenters

C-10 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

375. Joshua Keagle

376. Jim Keane

377. Patricia Keeshan

378. Amy Kelly

379. John F. Kennedy

380. Mary Kennedy

381. Daniel Kennedy

382. Eric Kettenring

383. David Kidd

384. Claudia Kienholz

385. Keith Kimball

386. Bill King

387. Matt King

388. Warren King

389. Erik Kingfisher

390. Dwight Kinnes

391. Claudia Kirckpatrick

392. Dolores Kirk

393. Bodhi Kivalenko

394. David Kline

395. Chris Klunker

396. Simon Knaphus

397. Terry Kneblik

398. Randall Knowles

399. Gary Kochanski

400. Elias Kocos

401. Bernard Kohler

402. Jon Kohn

403. Wendell Koontz

404. Ashley Korenblat

405. Fred Kraybill

406. Kalee Kreider

407. Larry Krizan

408. Kirsten Krueger

409. Arthur Kukowski

410. Sandra Kurtz

411. Jack Laakso

412. Larry Lambeth

413. Ian Lane

414. Ted Lapis

415. Mary LaPorte

416. Denise Claire Laverty

417. Miki Laws

418. Elise Lazar

419. Gary Leaming
C. List of Commenters

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS C-11

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

420. Thea LeDonne

421. Ben Leers

422. Lawson LeGate

423. Jodie Leidecker

424. Margaret Lekse

425. Bob LeResche

426. Carol Levanger

427. Gene C. Liddell

428. Brenda Lindlief Hal

429. Elizabeth Lindren

430. Cynthia Linet

431. Robert Lippincott

432. Christopher Lish

433. Elke Littleleaf

434. Thor Loftsgaard

435. Roger Lohrer

436. Briana Long

437. Jim Long

438. Al Lowande

439. Wendy Lowe

440. Forrest Luke

441. Steve Lund

442. Shilo Lundvall

443. Karl Lybrand

444. K. Lynch

445. Hamilton MacGregor

446. Jill MacIntyre

447. Vivian MacKay

448. Shayleen Macy

449. Kim Maddox

450. Thomas Mader

451. Travis Madsen

452. Bogdana Manole

453. j marthaller

454. Robin Martin

455. Dustin Martinson

456. Rod Mathis

457. Ray Mathis

458. Barry Matney

459. Gary Maxwell

460. Kenneth May

461. Marilyn Mayers

462. Roy McAnally

463. William McBride

464. Leslie McClure
C. List of Commenters

C-12 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

465. Kurt McFarlane

466. Mary McGann

467. Eugenie (Oogie) McGuire

468. Melinda McIlwaine

469. Tom McIntosh

470. Frankie McIntosh

471. Don McKay

472. Erin McKelvy

473. Michael McLaughlin

474. Kim Meacham

475. Scott Mead

476. Laura Merrill

477. Jill Merritt

478. Robert Meyer

479. Clough Michael

480. Bonnie Miller

481. Anne Miller

482. Jacqueline Miller

483. Casey Miller

484. Bob Milligot

485. Stacey Moeller

486. Dianna Moesh

487. Omar Molinar

488. Oliver and Donna Moore

489. Patrick Morales

490. Bobbie Morgan

491. Bobby Morgan

492. Tess Morgan

493. Eileen Morris

494. A.R. Morris

495. R. Noah Morris

496. Jason Mosher

497. Barbara Mott

498. Larry Moyer

499. Nick Mullins

500. Joseph Mungai

501. David Murnion

502. Jeremy Murphy

503. Brian Murphy

504. Ethan Murray

505. Kathryn Myers

506. Bill Myers

507. John Nagle

508. Sue Navy

509. Dan Neal
C. List of Commenters

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS C-13

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

510. Leroy Neil

511. Gerald C. Nelson

512. Laura Nelson

513. Jerry Nettleton

514. Jerry Nettleton

515. Kevin Newell

516. Newman

517. KGH Nicholes

518. Nicholas Nielsen

519. Mara Nielson Ellison

520. Sharman Niemi

521. Sharon Nolting

522. Weston Norris

523. Chris Nutgrass

524. Talia O'Brian

525. Amy O'Connor

526. Jim O'Connor

527. Jennifer O'Donnell

528. Todd O'Hair

529. Michael O'Leary

530. Court Olson

531. Jerry O'Malley

532. James Opfer

533. Julius Ostby

534. Ramona Owen

535. Paul Paad

536. Brian Paddock

537. Julia Page

538. Juan Palma

539. Kristina Pappas

540. Diane Pasta

541. Susan M. Patton

542. Don Pauack

543. Todd Paulsen

544. Steven Payne

545. Mary Paynter

546. Tom Peeso

547. Helen Pent Jenkins

548. Pamela Perrott

549. Sue Petersen

550. Robert Petersen

551. Robert Peterson

552. Trent Peterson

553. Ben Pfeiffer

554. Ellen Pfister
C. List of Commenters

C-14 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

555. Thomas Phillips

556. Tom Phillips

557. Kasie Pickens

558. Jerry Pierce

559. Suzanne Pierson

560. Tyler Pirruccio

561. Janette Plunkett

562. Paul Pope

563. Aaron Porter

564. Charlie Post

565. Charlie Post

566. John Poulos

567. Leigh Power

568. Jack Pratt

569. Jack Preston

570. John Prinkki

571. Craig J. Provost

572. Craig Provost

573. Dale Provost

574. Renate Puich

575. Shawnna Punteney

576. Laura Quattrochi

577. Kendra Quick

578. Alby Quinlan

579. William Quinn

580. Nancy Rabener

581. Rachel Rakovan

582. Jim Ramey

583. Rex Rammell

584. David Ramsay

585. Timothy Randolph

586. Mary Ranii

587. Sundipta Rao

588. Dan and Shirley Rasmussen

589. Nathan Ratledge 

590. Tarence Ray

591. Jazmine Raymond

592. Toniann Reading

593. Randal Reagan

594. Paul Reagor

595. Richard Reavey

596. Eric Reckle

597. Bob Rees

598. David Regan

599. Maddie Rehn
C. List of Commenters

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS C-15

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

600. Katie Reilly

601. Peter Reum

602. Charles Rial

603. Janis Rich

604. Brenda Rich

605. Amanda Richard

606. Randy Richardson

607. Axel Ringe

608. Michael Riordan

609. Ray Risho

610. Douglas J. Roberts

611. Kim Robinson

612. Joelle Robinson

613. David Robison

614. George and Barbara Rofkar

615. Andrea Rolando

616. Dan Roling

617. Colleen Rose

618. Alexa Ross

619. Ericka Rossi

620. Chuck Rourke

621. Brett Rowley

622. Steve Rubenstein

623. Jeremy Rubingh

624. Ruby

625. Penny Russell

626. Holly Russell

627. Dave Russell

628. Jennifer Sager

629. Carol Sanders

630. Mike Sauber

631. David Saulsbury

632. John Savlove

633. Bill Schilling

634. Alan Schimpff

635. Carma Schlegel

636. Malgorzata Schmidt

637. Phil Schmidt

638. Debra Schneider

639. Joanna Schoettler

640. Molly Schwend

641. David Schwend

642. Kenneth Scissors

643. Robert Scott

644. Cindi Scwartz
C. List of Commenters

C-16 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

645. Jeff Sego

646. Jake Seiter

647. John Sellers

648. Diane Selvaggio

649. Toni Semple

650. Sue Sexton

651. C. Thomas Shaefer

652. Wyatt Shakespear

653. Margaret Sharp

654. Lori Shaw

655. Eddie Shaw

656. Charles Sheffield

657. Jim Shelton

658. Deejah Sherman-Peterson

659. Edward Shiloh

660. Nancy Shimeall

661. Charlie Shinkle

662. Michael Shurgot

663. Sharon Sigrist

664. Anna Silver

665. Patricia Simmons

666. David Simonson

667. Kimberly Sims

668. Cameron Sizemore

669. Yana Slabakov

670. Tyson Slocum

671. David Smaldone

672. Thomas Smith

673. Musulcha Smith

674. Janice Smith

675. Douglas Smith

676. Jacob Smith

677. Casey Smith

678. Joe Smyth

679. Joe Smyth

680. Mark Solie

681. Harris Sondak

682. Mike Spalding

683. Jim Spehar

684. Gretchen Spiess

685. Storey Squires

686. Sharon St. Joan

687. John Stafford

688. Joe Stein

689. Jim Steitz
C. List of Commenters

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS C-17

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

690. Suzanne Stensaas

691. Wayne Stevens

692. Dan Stewart

693. Mary Stewart

694. Mandy Still

695. Amanda Still

696. Jeff Stookey

697. Bob Strayer

698. Don Sullivan

699. Delson Suppali

700. Kenneth Sussors

701. C. David Swanson

702. Spencer Swapp

703. Pat Sweeney

704. Mary Sweet

705. Rocky Swingle

706. Nicole Synadinos

707. Carla Takacs

708. Liz Tally

709. Clint Tanner

710. Kurt Tatten

711. Bruce Taylor

712. Joshua Taylor

713. Vicky Terry

714. Joan Thacher

715. Barry Thacker

716. Lisa Thalken

717. Marc Thomas

718. Ann Thomas

719. Sandy Thomas 

720. bret thompson

721. Kurtis Thompson

722. Suzanne Thrailkill

723. Dick Thweatt

724. Jason Timbreza

725. Jerry Tobe

726. David Todd

727. Virgil Tollefson

728. Patrice Tomcik

729. Christian Torp

730. Thomas E. Towe

731. Karina Toy

732. Michael Trainor

733. Matt Trebella

734. Theresa Trebon
C. List of Commenters

C-18 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

735. Sheryl Tregellas

736. Joe Triolo

737. Geoffrey Trowbridge

738. Angela Tschacher

739. Klaas Tuininga

740. Tom Tully

741. Jack Turner

742. Debra Turnquist

743. Neal Umphred

744. Jim Van Sickle

745. Jordan Van Voast

746. Matthew Vencill

747. Ryan Veuzke

748. Sandra Voelker

749. Denver Wafkers

750. Audrey Wagner

751. Lisa Wallace

752. John Wallace

753. Philip Walling

754. Jim Walls

755. Elizabeth Walsh

756. Marlis Walter

757. Justin Wasser

758. Jeff Wasserburger

759. John Todd Waterman

760. Brian Watterson

761. Howard Watts

762. Corey Weathers

763. Robert Henry Weaver

764. Janet Weaver

765. David Weber

766. Sharon Weidner

767. Karin de Weille

768. Scott Weir

769. Randall Weisenmayer

770. John Weisheit

771. Isa Werny

772. Ray Wheeler

773. David Wheeler 

774. Betty Whiting

775. Judy Whitmore

776. Don Whyde

777. Patricia Whyde

778. Kim Wilbert

779. Tomas Wilde
C. List of Commenters

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS C-19

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

780. Kayla and Bruce Willett

781. Kayla Willett

782. John Williams

783. Tom Williams

784. Donna Williams

785. Imogene Williams

786. Keith Williams

787. Clark Williams-Derry

788. Alec Williamson

789. Kirt Williamson

790. John Willians

791. Raymond Willims

792. Peggy Willis

793. Bea Wilson

794. William Wilson

795. Ryan Wilson

796. Greg Wingard

797. Kristin Winn

798. Tio Winter

799. Dirk Wise

800. Marilyn Wolff

801. Linda Wolff-Bowen

802. William Woodcock

803. Jennifer Woodcock-Medicine Horse

804. Deborah Woolley

805. Ken Wrich

806. Ralph Wynn

807. John Young

808. Barbara Zepeda

809. Jacqueline Ziegler

810. Bob Ziegler

811. Paul Zuekerman

812. Richard Zufelt

813. Michael Zuteck

814. Donna Zwigart

Local Government

815. Scott Bartholomew Sanpete County

816. Jane Berrry Town of Paonia

817. Paul Blackburn City of Hood River

818. Bennett Boeschenstein City of Grand Junction

819. Nicole Borner Musselshell County

820. Keith Brady Emery County Commissioner

821. Dean Brookie City of Durango

822. Arlene Burns City of Mosier

823. Louise Carter King City of Gillette
C. List of Commenters

C-20 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

824. Joan Cathey City of Tumwater

825. Bob Champion City of Mukilteo

826. Steve Child Pitkin County

827. Patti Clapper Pitkin County

828. Kristen Cole Mesa County Colorado, Board of County 

Commissioners

829. Katelin Cook Rio Blanco County

830. Christine Cook City of Mukilteo

831. Jim Cooper City of Olympia

832. Dino Davis City of Bremerton

833. Jim Deutsch North Dakota Public Service Commission

834. Adam Frisch City of Aspen

835. Mark Gamba City of Milwaukee

836. Richarderce Garber Sheridan County Chamber of Comm

837. Dan Gibbs Summit County

838. Art Goodtimes San Miguel County

839. Chuck Grobe Moffat County

840. Lisa Hatch County Commissioners of Rio Blanco County

841. Nigel Herbig City of Kenmore

842. Casey Hopes Carbon County

843. Wally Johnson Sweetwater County

844. Rob Johnson City of Seattle

845. Kent Coalition of Local Governments

846. John Kolb Sweetwater County

847. Mark Kot Sweetwater County Board of Commissioners

848. Robbie LeValley Delta County

849. Michael Lilliquist City of Bellingham

850. Liz Lovelett City of Anacortes

851. Diana Madson Mountain Pact

852. Roland Mason Town of Crested Butte

853. Gary Mason Sevier County

854. V.H. McDonald City of Casper

855. Leo McKinney City of Glenwood Springs

856. Paul Merck Crested Butte Town Council

857. Laura Mitchell Crested Butte Town Council

858. Doug Monger Routt County

859. Ann Mullins City of Aspen

860. George Newman Pitkin County

861. Garth Ogden Sevier County

862. Michael Owsley Pitkin County

863. Corinne Platt City of Ophir

864. Jay Potter County Commissioner

865. Rachel Richards Pitkin County

866. Chris Roberts City of Shoreline

867. Mark Roeber Delta County
C. List of Commenters

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS C-21

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

868. Wayne Roth City of Bainbridge Island

869. Auden Schlendler City of Basalt

870. Jim Schmidt Crested Butte Town Council

871. Mickey Shober Campbell County Commissioner

872. Robert Short Converse County 

873. Steve Skadron City of Aspen

874. Charles Stewart Mayor of Paonia

875. Karn Stiegelmeier Summit County

876. Gordan Topham Sevier County

877. Don Van Matre Sweetwater County

878. Erika Vohman Crested Butte Town Council

879. Randal Wendling Sweetwater County

880. Dick White City of Durango

Organization

881. Bill Adams Saltwater Unitarian Church

882. Jillian Adams Climate Reality Project

883. Shantha Alonso Creation Justice Ministries

884. Shannon Anderson Powder River Basin Resource Council

885. Lee Anderson BlueGreen Alliance

886. Chuck Aurand Creation Justice Ministries

887. Jeff Baierlein Conservation Northwest

888. Michelle Balleck Craig/Moffat Economic Development Partnership

889. Sue Ballenski 350 Colorado Board of Directors

890. Rashad Barber Got Green

891. Cathy Barker Creation Justice Ministries

892. Clare Bastable National Wildlife Federation

893. Sarah Bates National Wildlife Federation

894. Larry Bean Northern Plains Resource Council

895. Lindsay Beebe Utah Sierra Club

896. Brett Befus University of Wyoming Foundation

897. Jason Begger Wyoming Infrastructure Authority

898. Susan Beng Northern Plains Resource Council

899. LeeAnne Beres Earth Ministry/Washington Interfaith Power & 

Light

900. Diana Best Greenpeace

901. Jonathan Betz-Zall University Friends Meeting

902. Jill Bierwirth Creation Justice Ministries

903. Tamme Bishop JE Stoer & Associates

904. John Bohrer Lignite Energy Council

905. Leland Bond-Upson Unitarian Universalist Church of Vancouver

906. John Bradley Montana Wildlife Federation

907. Katie Breen State of Colorado Organizations

908. Katie Breen The WIlderness Society

909. Ted Brooks St. Augustine's in the Woods Episcopal Church

910. Mary Brown United Methodist
C. List of Commenters

C-22 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

911. Sharon Buccino Natural Resources Defense Council

912. Sandy Buchanan Institute for Energy Economics and Financial 

Analysis

913. Michael Burger Sabine Center for Climate Change Law

914. Kaitlin Butler Science and Environmental Health Network

915. Anne Butterfield Clean Energy Action

916. Deborah Campbell 350 Seattle.org

917. Grant Carlisle Environmental Entrepreneurs

918. Amy Carter Creation Justice Ministries

919. Robyn Cascase Great Old Boards for Wilderness

920. Tim Christopher WildEarth Guardians

921. Joanne Clavel Sister of St. Francis

922. Britten Cleveland Green Peace

923. Mark Compton Utah Mining Association

924. Marilyn Cornwell Earth Ministry

925. Chris Covert-Bowlds St. Patrick Catholic Church

926. Gregory Cowan Wyoming County Commissioners Association

927. Nada Culver The Wilderness Society

928. Jessie Dafoe Wyoming Agriculture in the Classroom

929. Luke Danielson Sustainable Development Strategies Group

930. Joel Darmstadter Resources for the Future

931. Barbara Davenport Unitarian Church

932. Mike Denton Pacific Northwest Conference of the United 

Church of Christ

933. Diane Deseck Piazzon UU Church of Whidbey Isle

934. Kristi Disney Bruckner Sustainable Business Development Strategies

935. Beth Doglio Climate Solutions

936. Jessie Dye Earth Ministry

937. Pam Eaton The Wilderness Society

938. Ross Eisenburg National Association of Manufacturers

939. Mike Eisenfeld San Juan Citizens Alliance

940. Aimee Erickson Citizens Coal Council

941. Crystal Estrada Celilo Vilalge

942. Richenda Fairhurst Camas United Methodist Church

943. Geoffrey Fettus Natural Resources Defense Council

944. Lynn Fitzhugh 350Seattle.org

945. Jayni Foley Hein Institute for Policy Integrity

946. Laura Folkwein Creation Justice Ministries

947. Anna Marie Frazier Dine Citizens Against Ruining our Environment

948. Kate French Northern Plains Resource Council

949. Rhondalei Gabuat Gabriela Seattle

950. Richard Gamble Keystone United Chruch of Christ

951. Howie Garber Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

(UPHE)

952. Christy Gerrits Powder River Basin Resource Council
C. List of Commenters

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS C-23

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

953. Kim Glas BlueGreen Alliance

954. KC Golden Climate Solutions

955. Joanne Golden Hill Kentuckians for the Commonwealth

956. Seth Goldstein Temple Beth Hatfiloh

957. Beth Goodnough Western Fields Association and Western Fields 

Wyoming, Inc.

958. Chris Gorzalski Great Old Broads for Wilderness

959. Gail Greener Creation Justice Ministries

960. Patrick Grenter Center for Coalfield Justice

961. Ben Greuel Wilderness Society

962. Stephen Grumm Earth Ministry/WAIPL Board Member

963. Brian Gunn Climate Reality Project

964. Mark Haggerty Headwaters Economics

965. Holly Hallman Earth Ministry

966. Tyler Hamman Lignite Energy Council

967. Tonya Hammond J.E. Stover & Associates

968. Autumn Hanna Tax Payers for Common Sense

969. Jenny Harbine Earthjustice

970. Gina Hardin 350 Colorado Board of Directors

971. Linda Haydock Intercommunity Peace & Justice Center

972. Anne Hedges Montana Environmental Information Center

973. Hegdahl Vet Voice Foundation

974. Tracy Heilman Creation Justice Ministries

975. Jayni Hein Institute for Policy Integrity

976. John Helmiere Valley and Mountain United Methodist Church

977. Doug Henderson 350 Colorado Board of Directors

978. Mitchell Hescox Evengelica Environmental Network

979. Amy Elizabeth Hessel Lutheran Church of the Good Shepard

980. Bruce Hoeft Conservation Committee of Tahoma Audubon

981. Emily Hornback Western Colorado Congress

982. Adam Hughes Statewide Organizing for Community 

Empowerment

983. Debaura James Securing Economic and Energy Democracy of 

Southwest New Mexico

984. Arun Jhaveri Climate Reality Group

985. Judy Jinat Wild Earth First Guardians

986. Alex Johnson Western Slope Conservation Center

987. Matt Johnson Northwest Animal Rights Network

988. Alex Johnson Western Slope Conservation Center

989. Beth Kaeding Nothern Plains Resource Council

990. Eric Kaminetzky Edmonds Unitarian Universalist Congregation

991. Duane Keown Powder River Basin Resource Council

992. Cecilia Kingman Edmonds Unitarian Universalist Congregation

993. Rob Kirby Creation Justice Ministries

994. Jane Kirchner National Wildlife Federation
C. List of Commenters

C-24 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

995. Elke L. Kirk Littlelead Guides

996. Alysia Kirk Littleleaf Guides

997. Katie Klosterman Browns Point United Methodist Church

998. James Kotcon Sierra Club

999. Joan Kresich Yellowstone Bend Citizens Council

1000. Emily Krieger Washington Environmental Council

1001. Alan Krupnick Center for Energy and Climate Economics 

Resources for the Future

1002. Mary Ellen Kustin Center for American Progress

1003. Jill Lancelot Taxpayers for Common Sense Making 

Government Work

1004. Rich Lang United Methodist Church

1005. Bob Laresche Powder River Basin Resource Council

1006. Kimberley Larson Climate Solutions

1007. Todd Leahy New Mexico Wildlife Federation

1008. Todd Leahy New Mexico Wildlife Federation

1009. Rebecca Lefton Climate Advisors

1010. Doug Lempke Tri-State Generation and Transmission 

Association

1011. Jonathan Levenshus Sierra Club

1012. Neil Lindorff Creation Justice Ministries

1013. Alice Lockhart Seattle 350, Seattle Rising Tide

1014. Roger Lynn Creation Justice Ministries

1015. Jim Lyon Naitonal Wildlife Federation

1016. Jim Lyon National Wildlife Federation Action Fund

1017. Cory MacNulty National Parks Conservation Association

1018. Kelly Mader Energy Policy Network

1019. Diana Madison Mountain Pact

1020. Jim Magagna Wyoming Stock Growers Association

1021. Nathaniel Mahlberg First Congressional United Church of Christ

1022. Katie Malzbender Climate Reality Project

1023. Joshua Mantell The Wilderness Society

1024. Ty Markham Mormon Environmental Stewardship Alliance

1025. Miguela Marzoff Washington Environmental Council

1026. Mascall Raging Grannies

1027. Jannah McGrath Washington Environmental Council

1028. Taylor McKinnon Center for Biological Diversity

1029. Katrina McLaughlin Resources for the Future

1030. William McPherson UnitarianUniversalist Voices for Justice

1031. Julie Mihalisin The New Health Club

1032. Barbara Miner Creation Justice Ministries

1033. Paul Mitchell Vashon United Methodist Church

1034. Ron Moe-Lobeda University Lutheran Church

1035. Malin Moench Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment

1036. Betsy Monseu American Coal Council
C. List of Commenters

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS C-25

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

1037. Doug Mork Interfairh worker Justice

1038. Khari Mosley Blue Green Alliance

1039. David Munson Creation Justice Ministries

1040. Mariel Nanasi New Energy Economy

1041. Lincoln Nehring Voices for Utah Children

1042. Jenny Nell Salvation Army

1043. Jonathan Neufeld Seattle Mennonite Church

1044. Jerermy Nichols Wild Earth Guardians

1045. Jeremy Nichols Wild Earth Guardians

1046. Pete Nichols Waterkeeper Alliance

1047. Debbie Notkin KnowWho Services

1048. Donna Obermiller Sierra Club

1049. Mike O'Brien Sierra Club

1050. Linda Olinger Citizens Climate Lobby

1051. Karen Ortiz Western Slope Conservation Center

1052. Ian Pajer-Rogers Interfaith Worker Justice

1053. Marcia Patton Evergreen Association of American Baptist 

Churches

1054. Aaron Paul Grand Canyon Trust

1055. Susan Permut Climate Reality Project

1056. Ed Perry NWF

1057. Bonnie Petersen Associated Governments of Northwest 

Colorado

1058. James G. Petersen Creation Justice Ministries

1059. Hunt Priest Emmanual Episcopal Church, Earth 

Ministry/WAIPL Board Member

1060. Casey Quinn Powder River Basin Resource Council

1061. Ken Rait The Pew Charitable Trusts

1062. Megan Ramer Seattle Mennonite Church

1063. Peggy Rawlins CCA and UCC

1064. Christian Reece CLUB 20

1065. Matt Reed High County Conservation Advocates

1066. Matt Reed High Country Conservation Advocates

1067. Mason Rhoads Veterans for Peace

1068. Nathan Richardson University of South Carolina

1069. Roger Ridgeway United Church of Christ

1070. Wendy Ring Climate911

1071. Nancy Roberts Audubon Society

1072. Brian Ronremoeller Sierra Club, Ohio Chapter

1073. John Rosenberg Earth Ministry/WAIPL Board Member

1074. Catherine Ross Public Lands Solution

1075. Heather Ross Children's Advocacy Project

1076. Katie Ross Public Land Solutions

1077. Barbara Rossing Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago

1078. David Rowell Outdoor Gear
C. List of Commenters

C-26 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

1079. Pamela Rucki Court Appointed Special Advocates

1080. Rick Samyn St. Leo Catholic Church

1081. Stuart Sanderson Colorado Mining Association

1082. Tom Sanzillo Institute for Energy Economics and Financial 

Analysis

1083. Marnie Satterfield Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA)

1084. Michael Saul Center for Biological Diversity

1085. Jim Scheff Kentucky Heartwood

1086. Erik Schlenker-Goodrich Western Environmental Law Center

1087. Larry Seltweiger Penn Future

1088. Jo Ann Showalter Sisters of Prividence

1089. Benjamin Sibelman Sierra Club

1090. Shelley Silbert Great Old Broads for Wilderness

1091. Lorali Simon Alaska Coal Association

1092. Soren Simonsen Mormon Environmental Stewardship Alliance 

(MESA)

1093. Karen Sjoberg Citizens for Clean Air

1094. Jason Smalls Boilermakers Local 11

1095. Robert Smith Boys and Girls Club of Campbell County

1096. Rachel Smith Safe Energy Leadership Alliance

1097. Dan Smitherman The Wilderness Society

1098. Sharon Sneddon Edmonds Citizens Against Coal and Oil Trains

1099. W. Thomas Soeldner Earth Ministry/WAIPL Board Member

1100. Richard Spicer St. Hubert Catholic Church

1101. Bianca Spoci-Belknap Earth Care

1102. Marc Stewart Montana-Northern Wyoming United Church of 

Christ

1103. Marian Stewart Northlake Unitarian Universalist

1104. Grace Stiller Nature's Stewards

1105. Sarah Sullivan Earth Ministry

1106. Frank Szollosi National Wildlife Federation

1107. Mark Szybist national resoruces defense council

1108. Anne Mariah Tapp Grand Canyon Trust

1109. Bob Thaden Creation Justice Ministries

1110. Julie Tran Washington Environmental Council

1111. James Tyson Colorado Wildlife Federation

1112. Rein Van West Western Colorado Congress

1113. Richard Vogel Sierra Club

1114. Glover Wagner Creation Justice Ministries

1115. Barbara A. Walz Tri-State Generation and Transmission 

Association, Inc.

1116. Barbara Webber Health Action New Mexico

1117. David Weiskopf NextGen Climate America

1118. Zari Weiss Kol HaNeshamah

1119. Brian Wenig Cloud Peak Energy
C. List of Commenters

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS C-27

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

1120. Jessica Wentz Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia 

Law School

1121. Willard Westre Sierra Club

1122. Andy Wilson Broadus Creation Justice Ministries

1123. Shay Wolf Center for Biological Diversity

1124. Joan Woodward Colorado Congress and Citizens for Clean Air

1125. Bob Zadow Creation Justice Ministries

1126. Madeleine Greenpeace

Private Industry

1127. David Adair Bowie Resources

1128. Pat Akers Norwest Corporation

1129. Jim Atchison SEMT Economic Development

1130. Anoy Ballow Sufco

1131. Donna Barker Decker Coal Company

1132. Satoshi Bautista Sufco Mine

1133. Rose Becker Cloud Peak Energy

1134. Randy Black Bowie Resouces

1135. Randy Block Bowie Resources

1136. Brad Brown Cloud Peak Energy Resources, LLC

1137. Bob Burnham Burnham Coal, LLC

1138. Phil Christopherson Energy Capital Economic Development

1139. Bruce Coggeshall Cloud Peak Energy

1140. Gene DiClaudio Bowie Resource Partners, LLC

1141. Jeffrey C Dubbert Blue Mountain Energy

1142. P.C. Emrich Cloud Peak Energy Inc.

1143. Jeff Erickson Bowie Resources

1144. Christopher Friez North American Coal Corporation

1145. Steve Garey United Steelworkers

1146. Jed Gordon Skyline Mine

1147. Rose Hanser Colstrip United

1148. David Hibbs Utah American Energy

1149. Chris Horwitz Electrogrip

1150. Rick Houskeeper Dugout Mine

1151. Jason Jochems Rocky Mountain Air

1152. Gabriel Johnson Cloud Peak Energy

1153. Larry Johnson Alton Coal Development

1154. Michael Kelley Bowie Hunter Prep Plant

1155. William King Dugout Canyon Mine

1156. Arnold Kirstatter Bowie Resources

1157. Tamara Kraft Duff Norton Air Jack

1158. Colin Marshall Cloud Peak Energy

1159. Troy Mettler Cloud Peak Energy

1160. Joe Micheletti Westmoreland Coal Company

1161. Jim Miller West Elk Mine

1162. Landon Monholland Over the Edge Sports
C. List of Commenters

C-28 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

1163. Chris Muhr Outdoor Recreation Coalition

1164. Sabrina Neiman West Energy Company

1165. Matt O'Laughlin K2 Sports

1166. Joeg Peterson Bowie Resources

1167. Stuart Sanderson Colorado Mining Association

1168. Brenda Schladweiler BTS Environmental Associates

1169. Brian Sinsel Bowie Resources

1170. Anthony Skinner Skyline Mine

1171. Dave Stewart Vulcan Inc.

1172. Ty Ware Bowie Resources

1173. Larry Watson Ziegler Sales

1174. Kathy Welt Mount Coal Company

1175. Thomas Dugout Mine

State Government

1176. Samuel Anderson University of Utah

1177. Jim Anderson Wyoming Senate

1178. Duane Ankney State of Montana

1179. Jillian Ballow State of Wyoming

1180. Eli Bebout Wyoming Legislature's Select Federal Natural 

Resource Management Committee

1181. Steve Bullock Montana Governor

1182. Leland Christensen Wyoming Legislature

1183. Kathleen Clarke Utah Office of the Governor

1184. Geraldine Custer Montana House of Representatives

1185. Ted Hewitt Wyoming Legislature's Select Federal Natural 

Resource Management Committee

1186. Norine Kasperik Wyoming Legislature's Select Federal Natural 

Resource Management Committee

1187. Margie MacDonald State of Montana

1188. Michael Madden Wyoming Legislature

1189. Matt Mead State of Wyoming

1190. Brian Meinhart Office of Congressman Scott Tiption

1191. Tina Orwall State of Washington

1192. Carol Seeger County and Prosecuting Attorney's Office, 

Campbell County, Wyoming

1193. Tim Stubson Wyoming Legislature

1194. John Swartout Governor Hickenlooper

1195. Tom Walters Wyoming House District 38

1196. Yeulin Willett House District 54

Trade Group

1197. Mark Compton Utah Mining Association

1198. Travis Deti Wyoming Mining Association

1199. Chuck Laine Tennessee Mining Association

1200. Bill President Wyoming Business Alliance

1201. Katie Sweeney National Mining Association
C. List of Commenters

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS C-29

Scoping Report 

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name Affiliation

Tribal Government

1202. Carina Miller Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs

1203. Kaden Walksnice Northern Cheyenne Tribe

1204. Dana Wilson Crow Nation Executive Branch

1One commenter requested to keep their personal information private and is not included in this table. In 

addition, 10 commenters identified as individuals provided no names, or incomplete names (i.e. no last names). 

These individuals are not included in this table.
C. List of Commenters

C-30 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Table C-2

Form Letter Submissions

Initiating Organization Number of Submissions

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity 1,416

Care 2 Petitions 24,102

Center for Biological Diversity 14,104

Count on Coal MT 675

EarthJustice 36,907

Friends of the Earth and Friends of the Earth Action 9,816

Grand Junction meeting -North Fork Valley Letter 43

Keep Electricity Affordable.org 499

National Wildlife Federation 12,538

NextGen Climate Change 1,552

Physicians for Social Responsibility 1,351

The Sierra Club 98,603

The Wilderness Society 10,518

Unknown- maximize returns on Federal coal 27

Unknown- concerns with increased royalty rates 9

Unknown- reconsider the increase in royalty rates 19

Western Organization of Resource Councils 366

Western Values Project 713

WildEarth Guardians 490

Total submissions 213,748

Note: The initiating organizations were identified for all but 3 of the form letters. For letters 

where no organization was identified, a description of the main letter content is included above
Appendix D

Comments by Issue Category
This page intentionally left blank.
January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-1

Final Scoping Report 

APPENDIX D

COMMENTS BY ISSUE CATEGORY

Each unique submission, representative form letter, and form letter with 

additional comments was reviewed by the BLM to identify substantive 

comments related to the reform of the Federal coal program. In total, 459 

comments were identified with references or data, 130 containing a policy 

option, and 3,199 related to one or more of 33 issue categories. Summaries of 

the main themes of comments by issue topic are included in Section 4.6, 

Comment Summaries, in Volume 1. A full report of comments by issue

categories is included in this Appendix. Comments related to references or data 

and those containing policy options are not included within separate categories 

here, but appear under the relevant issue topic. 
D. Comments by Issue Category

D-2 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

This page intentionally left blank.
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-3

Scoping Report 

Issue 1 - NEPA Process 

ISSUE 1.1 - SCOPING MEETING 

Total Number of Submissions: 23 

Total Number of Comments: 23 

Comment Number: 00000334 _ Potter _ Carbon County _ 20160519-1 

Organization1:County Commissioner 

Commenter1:Jay Potter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And I just want to start by telling you that the invitation to come to Carbon, Emery, Sevier, or Sanpete Counties 

to hold these meetings is always open. You, again, picked the wrong location to really see into the eyes of the 

people that are affected by the Federal Government and the overreach there. (Applause.) The other thing that 

goes with that is that, according to NEPA, the best land planning starts in those communities that are affected. 

Now, you're going across the United States and, yes, we're grateful that you're in Utah, because this is an 

important part of our economies, but, again, you're not even abiding by your own rules set up by the Federal 

Government. 

Comment Number: 0000793-1 

Organization1: Skyline Mine 

Commenter1:Anthony Skinner 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It would be nice to have these meeting in the counties and town were we work. 

Comment Number: 0000798-1 

Commenter1:Paul 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Your actions of once again holding a meeting 150 miles away from the nearest mine affected even though the 

BDAC and Carbon Convention Center could easily support this. 

Comment Number: 0001166-1 

Commenter1:Anne Miller 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I would also ask that you expand public hearing to non-stakeholder regions such as New England and California 

that are also affected by climate change as we all are and they should also be allowed to participate in public 

hearings about this federal process. 

Comment Number: 0002001_Stevens_20160607-1 

Commenter1:Wayne Stevens 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Unfortunately, the opposition had little opportunity to speak due to a “first come, first served” system used. A 

better system would have be alternating pro coal, then opposed to coal. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-4 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002009_CenterBioDiversity_20160329-10

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In publishing the notice of intent, we request that you provide at least a 60-day public comment period. and, at a 

minimum, we urge you to schedule public hearings in key areas impacted by the federal coal program. We urge 

you to hold hearings in Billings, MT, Denver, CO, Farmington, NM, and Salt Lake City, UT, and in other locations 

where federal coal management and/or federal oversight of coal mining is a significant issue, including, but not 

limited to, Chicago, IL, Pittsburgh, PA, Tulsa. OK, and Charleston, WV. We also strongly urge you to hold 

hearings in Seattle, WA and Oakland, CA, both areas impacted by the export of publicly owned coal. Finally, we 

urge you to consider holding bearings in areas of our country already or soon to be hit strongly by coal's climate 

impacts; place like New York City, Miami, and New Orleans. 

Comment Number: 0002019_Emineth_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Mike and Lorna Emineth 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Montana has the most recoverable coal resources of any other state in the nation. Yet it is unbelievable that the 

DOI chose Seattle, a place that produces no federal coal and only has 0.26 percent of our nation’s resources, 

over Montana to gather public comment on the federal coal program. 

Comment Number: 0002045_Johnson_20160620-1 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Gabriel Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Not including coal mining states such as Montana will not provide a representative public hearing process. 

Omitting the folks who live in the “sticks” who actually produce the coal, denies us of our constitutional right to 

participate in our democratic process. 

Comment Number: 0002047_Kidd_20160622-1 

Commenter1:David Kidd 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

The DOI chose, Seattle of all places, for public comment on the Federal coal program, a place that produces NO 

federal coal and only has roughly 1/4 of 1% of our nations resources! 

Comment Number: 0002050_Lekse_20160617-1 

Commenter1:Margaret Lekse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

First of all, this action by the BLM to not schedule their scoping meetings in Montana is the same as crossing the 

street so one does not have to talk to a person with whom one disagrees. 

Comment Number: 0002060_Rowell_20160622-1 

Organization1:Outdoor Gear 

Commenter1:David Rowell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is unbelievable that the DOI chose Seattle, a place that produces no federal coal and only has 0.26 percent of 

our nation’s resources, over Montana to gather public comment on the federal coal program. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-5

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002082_Jensen_20160329-1 

Commenter1:Levi Jensen 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM needs to add Gillette, WY as a location for a scoping meeting. 

Comment Number: 0002100_OHair_20160613-6 

Commenter1:Todd O'Hair 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And finally, it was a rude snub to the coal miners and affected businesses and individuals of Montana to refuse to 

hold a public comment period in Montana. I understand the BLM held a listening session in Billings in 2015, but to 

choose Seattle over a location in Billings Montana is an insult to the people of Montana. 

Comment Number: 0002128_Walter_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Marlis Walter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is extremely disappointing that you are not soliciting opinions from the people of Montana. The great state of 

MT has an enormous amount of coal. 

Comment Number: 0002129_Weaver_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Janet Weaver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

How unfortunate and how telling it is that the Obama Administration has chosen to only hear from certain 

people on this issue...and they have turned a deaf ear to the people who will be most affected by their decision 

against coal energy. 

Please give us your ear! You are hand picking winners and losers and that is not how our country was founded 

and has achieved greatness over the last two centuries! The government is supposed to represent all citizens, not 

just a chosen segment of citizens. 

Comment Number: 0002144_Kot_20160519_SweetwtrCnty-1 

Organization1:Sweetwater County, Wyoming 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the county supports Wyoming Governor Mead’s request for a public scoping meeting to be help in Rock Springs, 

WY

Comment Number: 0002149_Hewitt_20160519_WyLSO-7 

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature's Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee 

Commenter1:Ted Hewitt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Committee encourages the BLM to host additional scoping meetings in Wyoming 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THESE LISTENING SESSIONS TO BE HELD IN AREAS THAT ARE 

THE MOST IMPACTED, FOR EXAMPLE, CAMPBELL COUNTY AND SWEET WATER COUNTY WYOMING. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-6 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002215_Pierce_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Jerry Pierce 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

What kind of organization would allow a meeting to be held where public input is being asked for in a place 

where there is little economic impact realized? You would think if it was a fact gathering opportunity to help 

make an informed decision possible it would be held in an area where it was going to have the most affect. 

To talk about coal issues in the city of Seattle makes as much sense as talking about oceanic marine biology issues 

in Billings. 

Comment Number: 0002231_Schwend_20160620-1 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:David Schwend 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am disappointed that in this round of public hearings a session was not held in Montana where coal plays a large 

role in electrical generation, state economics, and community development. 

Comment Number: 0002389_Schwend_20160721-2 

Organization1:Spring Creek Mine 

Commenter1:David Schwend 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am disappointed that in this round of public hearings a session was not held in Montana where coal plays a large 

role in electrical generation, state economics, and community development. 

Comment Number: 0002409-3 

Commenter1:Greg Gianforte 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

You're holding a public meeting in Seattle, and to my knowledge the state of Washington has no federal coal 

reserves. Montana has the largest holdings of federal coal in the 

nation. Why should Seattleites get to weigh in on this topic and not Montanans? 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-5 

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I along with Wyoming's Congressional Delegation requested public meetings in Gillette and Rock Springs, 

Wyoming at a minimum. This did not happen. Coal communities in Wyoming and elsewhere have the most 

relevant and critical information about the industry and its operation. The "listening" sessions- purposefully or 

not- did not suggest this kind of action by DOI No one could have anticipated or talked on the impacts. Coal 

communities deserve an opportunity to provide input. I will assist you in setting up additional public meetings. 

BLM's NEPA Handbook - Section 6.9- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND RESPONDING TO COMMENTS- requires 

the BLM to provide for public hearings when there is a substantial interest in holding the hearing. See also 40 

C.F.R. § 1506.6(c)(1). I specifically request public hearings be held in Gillette and Rock Springs, Wyoming, now, 

and at future points in the PEIS process. I expect, in the event the BLM proceeds, that the draft PEIS will be made 

available to the public at least 15 days in advance of public hearings requested in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 

1506.6(c)(2). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-7

Scoping Report 

ISSUE 1.2 - COOPERATING AGENCY RELATIONSHIP 

Total Number of Submissions: 6 

Total Number of Comments: 11 

Comment Number: 0002009_CenterBioDiversity_20160329-11

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ensure that other key Interior Department agencies are cooperating agencies in the development of the 

programmatic environmental impact statement, including the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, Office of Natural Resource Revenue, and Geological Survey. We also urge you to request that the 

U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and White House 

Council on Environmental Quality participate as cooperating agencies pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act. 

Comment Number: 0002329_Segger_20160724_CambellCntyWY-7 

Organization1:County and Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Commenter1:Carol Seeger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Lastly, Campbell County requests that it be given cooperating agency status in the development of the EIS. 

Comment Number: 0002393-4 

Commenter1:Mike Penfold 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal and State Governments need to start working together to plan for the full 

range of problems faced by communities, the workers doing the mining and the 

reclamation of mined land. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-78

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Because each significant new addition of greenhouse gases increases the extinction risk for many listed species, 

the massive greenhouse gas emissions stemming from the federal coal program, which contributes 13% of all US 

fossil fuel CO2 emissions, clearly affect many listed species. The continuation of the federal coal program 

jeopardizes climate-change-vulnerable species, while an end to coal leasing on public lands would be consistent 

with their continued survival and recovery. As such, the Bureau must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and National Marine Fisheries Service on the impacts to listed species of the significant greenhouse gas emissions 

from the federal coal program. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-25

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM must engage in meaningful collaboration with both states and America’s coal producers in order to fully 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-8 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

consider the impacts on state and local governments and the coal industry resulting from revisions to the federal 

coal program. First, as part of its collaboration with interested government stakeholders (see Executive Order 

No. 12866, Section 1(b)(9) (1993), BLM must perform a federalism assessment. A federalism assessment is 

required for all regulations and policy statements or actions containing federalism implications. Such implications 

arise when the actions contemplated by the agency have a substantial direct effect on the states, the relationship 

between the federal government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 

various levels of government. Exec. Order No. 12612, Sec. 1(a) (1987). BLM’s proposed changes to the federal 

coal program raise sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment 

because any regulatory changes would “have substantial direct effects on the States.” Id.; see also id. Sec. 6(b) 

(when federalism implications exist, “a Federalism Assessment . . . shall be prepared.”). 

In preparing a federalism assessment, BLM should identify the extent to which the federal government’s proposed 

changes would impose additional costs and burdens on state governments, infringe on the states’ ability to 

discharge traditional state governmental functions, or infringe on other aspects of state sovereignty. BLM must 

carefully consider and disclose those impacts on state and local governments, communities, and businesses that 

rely on federal coal leasing and development. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-27

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM must also engage in honest and meaningful discussions with coal producers to better understand the adverse 

economic impacts associated with federal coal program reform. As discussed throughout this comment letter, 

America’s coal producers are heavily burdened by both current economic conditions and the existing 

governmental payments required under the current regulatory scheme. To the extent BLM intends to revise the 

federal regulatory scheme, BLM must prepare a regulatory impact analysis to “assess all costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” Exec. Order No. 12866, Sec. 

1(a)(1993). 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-33

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should collaborate with OSMRE to streamline the leasing and permitting process. BLM and OSMRE should 

jointly clarify that when OSMRE participates as a cooperating agency in a BLM-led environmental analysis, OSMRE 

may rely on that analysis when making its mining plan approval determination. Further, the agencies should jointly 

clarify that OSMRE, when considering whether to approve the mining plan for federal coal reserves, need not 

consider any environmental impacts (such as coal combustion) that have already been considered by BLM and 

which are outside the scope of OSMRE’s administrative discretion. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-20

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When representing a county as a cooperating agency in matters related to the National Environmental Policy Act 

and in federal land use planning, implementation and management action, a board of county commissioners shall 

be deemed to have special expertise on all subject matters for which it has statutory responsibility, including but 

not limited to, all subject matters directly or 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-9 

Scoping Report 

indirectly related to the health, safety, welfare, custom and socioeconomic viability of a county. 

W.S. 18-5-208(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, Wyoming's Counties have special expertise in all matters 

directly or indirectly related to the health, safety, welfare, custom and socioeconomic viability of their county. 

Wyoming Counties should be engaged as cooperating agencies in accordance with their special expertise. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-41

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In order to focus the PEIS process and be able to draw conclusions more definitive than mere speculation, BLM 

will have to pull in experts from a variety of state and federal agencies to predict the changing energy needs. And, 

as part of that process, BLM must provide a transparent discussion of the methods and analyses it uses to predict 

energy supplies and demands as it evaluates the role of federal coal in meeting the nation's energy needs in the 

PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-6 

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the BLM proceeds with its PEIS reviewing the federal coal program, I request "cooperating agency" status for 

the State of Wyoming and its agencies.The State of Wyoming is prepared to engage consistent with the 

requirements of cooperating agencies as outlined in 40 C.F.R. §1501.6 and 43 C.F.R. § 1610.3-1. The State of 

Wyoming possesses special expertise and jurisdiction by law relevant to the BLM's environmental analysis. I 

attach a list of agencies, in addition to the Governor's Office, that the State of Wyoming identifies to BLM as 

cooperating agencies. (Attachment 1). 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-64

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Cooperating Agencies 

Infrastructure Authority- The Infrastructure Authority (WIA) was created in 2004 under W.S. 37-5-301 to 

support the advancement of coal technology and advanced energy technology facilities, electrical transmission, 

and coal exports. The facilities and related supporting infrastructure may include all facilities, structures and 

properties incidental and necessary or useful in the production or transmission of energy. The WIA has the 

ability to issue up to $1 billion in industrial revenue bonds to assist in financing energy infrastructure. 

Department of Environmental Quality- The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) serves as the state's 

regulatory agency charged with protecting, conserving and enhancing Wyoming's land, air and water for the 

benefit of current and future generations. The DEQ is charged with the administration of the Environmental 

Quality Act, W.S. 35-11-101 through W.S. 35-11-1803, and the Industrial Siting Act, W.S. 35-12-101 through 

W.S. 35-12-119. DEQ is responsible for enforcing state and federal environmental laws including: 

• Clean Air Act,

• Clean Water Act,

• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),

• Environmental Quality Act,

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

• Superfund Amendments and Title III Reauthorization Act (SARA), and 

• Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-10 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Land Quality Division- The Department of Environmental Quality- Land Quality Division is charged with 

administering sections W.S. 35-11-401 through W.S. 35-11-437 of the Environmental Quality Act. The Division 

serves the citizens of Wyoming by ensuring environmental protection through permitting, inspection, and 

enforcement of environmental regulations for all mining operations in Wyoming. In addition, the Office of Surface 

Mining approved the Land Quality Division Permanent Coal Program on November 11, 1980.30 C.F.R. §§ 950.10, 

950.15, 950.20. The Land Quality Division has retained primacy for the Coal Program since this original approval.

Air Quality Division - The Department of Environmental Quality - Air Quality Division has primacy to implement 

the Clean Air Act in accordance with state and federal law. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401(a)(3), 7401-7671q, 40 C.F.R. 

subpart ZZ, and W.S. 35-11-201 through W.S. 35-11-214. Wyoming's Air Quality Division has technical expertise 

and experience in applying stringent air quality controls and air pollution monitoring requirements in accordance 

with the Clean Air Act and Wyoming's Environmental Quality Act. 

Water Quality Division- The Department of Environmental Quality- Water Quality Division is charged with the 

administration of sections W.S. 35-11-301 through W.S. 35-11-318 of the Environmental Quality Act. The 

Division is responsible for protecting surface and ground water quality through permitting, inspection, and 

enforcement of environmental regulations governing the discharge of waste into waters of the state (including 

ground water). The Division also coordinates with other Divisions and the Department's Spill Response Program 

to oversee cleanup of spills and other unpermitted releases of oil and/or hazardous substances that have entered, 

or threaten to enter waters of the state. 

Game and Fish Department- The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission is created and empowered in sections 

W.S. 23-1-101 through W.S. 23-6-208. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is created and placed under 

the direction and supervision of the Commission in W.S. 23-1-401. The responsibilities of the Commission and 

the Department are defined in W.S. 23-1-103. In these and associated statutes, the Commission and the 

Department are charged with providing "an adequate and flexible system for the control, propagation, 

management, protection and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife." The Department is the only entity of state 

government directly charged with managing Wyoming's wildlife resources and conserving them for future 

generations. Accordingly, the Department often participates as a cooperating agency providing information on 

potential wildlife impacts from coal leasing and other mining activities. 

School Facilities Department- The School Facilities Department (Department) is under the direction and 

supervision of the School Facilities Commission (Commission). The Director of the Department is appointed by 

the Governor. The Department implements policies, guidelines, and standards adopted by the Commission. The 

Commission includes the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (a statewide elected official) and seven 

members appointed by the Governor. The Commission is required, primarily by W.S. 21-15-108 through W.S. 

21-15-123, to promulgate rules and regulations regarding the planning, design, and construction of schools within 

the forty eight school districts of Wyoming. The intent is that school facilities be similar to other school facilities 

in similar situations and that they are adequate to support the delivery of the state approved educational 

program. Revenue generated from coal leasing and production provides significant funding for the construction of 

school facilities in Wyoming. 

Department of Administration and Information, Economic Analysis Division - The core mission of the Economic 

Analysis Division of the Department of Administration and Information is to coordinate, develop, and disseminate 

economic and demographic research and information. Under W.S. 9-10-1024 the division shall "Establish uniform 

criteria for collecting, compiling, analyzing, reporting and distributing economic data for all Wyoming counties 

related to uses of and economic impacts to state and federal surface and mineral lands, including but not limited 

to development of agriculture, grazing, minerals, timber, water, industrial resources, recreation and energy 

production." Accordingly, the Economic Analysis Division of the Department of Administration and Information 

has special expertise on the economic impact to Wyoming from the federal coal program. 

Department of Revenue - The Department of Revenue administers the collection of mineral and excise taxes as 

well as the valuation of property. The Administrative Services Division is responsible for the deposit of tax 

payments received and the distribution of sales and mineral tax funds. The Mineral Tax Division is responsible for 

collecting mineral severance taxes and providing county governments with an accurate certificate of the mineral 

production value in their respective counties for the assessment of ad valorem taxes. The Property Tax Division 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-11

Scoping Report 

is responsible for supporting, training, and guiding local governmental agencies in the uniform assessment, 

valuation and taxation of locally assessed property; assessing, valuing and allocating public utility property; as well 

as administering, collecting and distributing designated taxes. The Department values and assess coal, and collects 

and distributes taxes on coal and coal production according to the requirements outlined in Wyoming's 

Constitution, article 15 §§ 2, 3 and 19, in addition to W.S. 39-14-101 through W.S. 39-14-111. Accordingly, the 

Wyoming Department of Revenue has special expertise in identifying the fair market value of coal, and assessing 

various kinds of taxes on coal and coal production. 

Public Service Commission- The Public Service Commission regulates the rates, pricing, services, service quality 

and safety of Wyoming electric, gas, water, essential telecommunications and intrastate pipeline companies. The 

three commissioners are appointed by the Governor with Senate confirmation. The general statutory authority 

for the PSC is found in W.S. 37-1-101 through W.S. 37-3-306; W.S. 37-6-101 through W.S. 37-6-107; W.S. 37-

12- 101 through W.S. 37-12-403; and W.S. 37-15-101 through W.S. 37-17-105. Accordingly, the PSC has special 

expertise in the contribution of coal and other fuels to the energy market, including the sources and quality of 

federal coal mined in Wyoming. 

Homeland Security- The Office of Homeland Security, in accordance with W.S. 19-13-101 through 19-13-414 and 

W.S. 35-9-151 through W.S. 35-9-159, assists state and local agencies in their efforts to mitigate, prepare for, 

respond to, and recover from the effects of crisis due to terrorism, natural (fire, flood, earthquake, etc.) or 

technological (hazardous materials spills, etc.) causes. The Office of Homeland Security has special expertise on 

confidential nature of critical infrastructure data collected in support of risk, vulnerability, or threat assessments 

is of vital concern to facility owners, operators, managers, and responders across Wyoming. Additionally, the 

Office of Homeland Security has special expertise and secured access to information on the importance of coal 

mining and all of its interdependencies and dependencies on several national critical infrastructure sectors to 

include, electrical power, rail transportation, road transportation, and diesel fuel. 

Department of Education - The general supervision of the public schools is entrusted to the State Superintendent 

of Public Instruction who is the administrative head and chief executive offer of the Wyoming Department of 

Education (WDE). Wyo. Constit. art. 7 § 14; W.S. 21-2-201. The Superintendent and WDE Staff promulgate and 

enforce rules and regulations consistent with the Wyoming Constitution and state statutes. See W.S. 21-1-101 

through W.S. 21-13-721. The WDE acts as the funding agent for state and federal funds that flow to the 

Wyoming School Districts. Accordingly, the WDE has special expertise on the impact taxes generated by the 

coal leasing program have on public education in Wyoming. 

Department of Workforce Services- The Wyoming Department of Workforce Services (DWS) is the primary 

U.S. Department of Labor (DOI) grantee and contractor in Wyoming. W.S. 9-2-2002 through 9-2-2601. DWS is 

the principle fact-finding agency in the field of labor economics for the State of Wyoming. For example, DWS 

produces county unemployment rates each month under contract to the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. DWS manages Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits payments for those who lose their jobs through 

no fault of their own, and administer UI tax collections from employers. Through Employment Service offices 

DWS seeks to re-employ UI claimants by matching job seekers to employer job openings. For dislocated 

workers, those whose skills no longer match the needs of the labor market, DWS provides training opportunities 

through administration of the Workforce Innovations and Opportunities Act. Accordingly, DWS has special 

expertise on the coal labor market and the impacts the federal coal program has on the labor force in Wyoming. 

Department of Audit- The Department of Audit, authorized by W.S. 9-2-2003, is the independent audit agency 

for the State of Wyoming. The Department includes the Public Funds Division, the Mineral Audit Division, the 

Excise Tax Division, the Banking Division, and the Administration Division, which oversees management services 

and information technology. Specifically, the Mineral Audit Division performs mineral tax and royalty audits to 

ensure compliance with state and federal laws. In performing the independent mineral audits, the Department 

works closely with the Department of the Interior, the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, the Wyoming 

Department of Revenue and the Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments. Accordingly, the Department 

of Audit has special expertise on the collection of and compliance with federal and state coal taxes and royalties. 

Wyoming State Geologic Survey- The Wyoming State Geologic Survey (WSGS) interprets Wyoming's complex 

geology. W.S. 9-2-801 through W.S. 9-2-809. WSGS scientists work to gain a better understanding of our 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-12 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

planet's history, geologic wonders, potential hazards and natural resources such as water, minerals and energy. 

The WSGS gathers key information, provides technical analyses, perform scientific investigations and generate 

maps using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). WSGS teams cover four core subject areas: 1) energy and 

mineral resources; 2) water resources, mapping and hazards; 3) information technology and GIS; and 

communications and public outreach. Accordingly, the WSGS has special expertise on the geologic formations in 

Wyoming's coal regions, including the location and extent of federal coal in Wyoming. 

State Engineer's Office- The State Engineer's Office and State Board of Control provide for the general 

supervision of the waters of the state, including surface and underground water, and of its appropriation, 

distribution, and application to beneficial use as provided under Wyoming statutes and the prior appropriation 

doctrine. See Wyo. Constit. art. 1 § 31, art. 8 §§ 1 through 5, and art. 13 § 5; W.S. 41-1-101 through 41-14-103. 

The State of Wyoming owns all waters in the state. Id. Further, all water produced or used in connection with 

federal coal mining in Wyoming is regulated and controlled by the State Engineer's Office and the State Board of 

Control. Accordingly, the State Engineer's Office and the State Board of Control have special expertise regarding 

the impact coal production has on the appropriation, distribution and use of the waters of the state. 

Department of Agriculture -The Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA) assists the citizens of Wyoming to 

live safe and healthy lives, promote and preserve Wyoming's agricultural community, be responsible stewards of 

Wyoming's natural resources, and achieve integrity in the marketplace. W.S. 11-1-101 through W.S. 11-50-108. It 

is a duty of the WDA to "foster practicable conservation of state natural resources." W.S. 11-2-202(a)(v). WDA 

also provides rangeland health technical assistance to evaluate plant communities, soils and water resources in 

order to sustain healthy grazing and wildlife habitat resources. W.S. 11-2-207. WDA collaborates with private 

landowners, local governments, other state agencies and federal agencies to provide rangeland health assessments 

across jurisdictional boundaries and including areas subject to reclamation or renovation projects. Most of the 

land surrounding ongoing coal mining operations in Wyoming is put to agricultural uses. That same land will likely 

be reclaimed and returned to agricultural uses. Accordingly, the WDA has special expertise in the condition and 

health of pre and post mining lands and resources, including the soils, water resources and plant communities 

that provide healthy grazing and wildlife habitat. 

Office of State Lands and Investments- Upon admission to the Union, Congress granted the State of Wyoming 

certain lands, in surface and mineral, for the benefit of Wyoming institutions, primarily the public schools. Wyo. 

Act of Admission, 26 Stat. 222, §§ 4 through 14 (July 10, 1890). These lands were granted to and accepted by the 

State of Wyoming for the specific purpose of income production. The Wyoming Constitution, Article 18, Section 

3, and Wyoming Statutes 36-2-101 through 36-2-108, statutes mandate that the Office of State Lands and 

Investments and the Board of Land Commissioners manage and protect the underlying value of and derive 

revenue from these trust assets for both short- and long-term returns to the public schools and other designated 

beneficiaries. The value and marketability of Wyoming's coal assets are directly impacted by the federal coal 

program. The Office of State Lands and Investments works closely with the Bureau of Land Management's coal 

team to ensure that Wyoming's trust responsibilities to its citizens are accounted for in the federal coal program. 

Accordingly, the Office of State Lands and Investments has special expertise in the valuation, marketability and 

sale of coal in Wyoming. 

County Government- In Wyoming, counties serve as a legal arm of the state and shoulder the responsibility to 

carry out the state's statutory and regulatory goals at the local level. As such, county government operates on 

the front lines of ensuring Wyoming's communities are both economically vibrant and safe, healthy places to live. 

Wyoming statute provides that: 

ISSUE 1.3 - RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES 

Total Number of Submissions: 30 

Total Number of Comments: 59 

Comment Number: 00000334 _ Potter _ Carbon County _ 20160519-3 

Organization1: County Commissioner 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-13

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Jay Potter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If today's alternative is zero coal, which is what I really believe that the BLM and the Department of the Interior is 

after and to keep it in the ground, the opposite end of that should be full access to all the coal within the United 

States and to do it now. 

Comment Number: 0000363 _HEIN_20160519-2 

Organization1:Institute for Policy Integrity 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

First, the Interior should formulate a broad change of alternatives for federal coal leasing. These alternatives 

could include, for example, no new federal coal leasing, leasing using adjusted royalty rates or carbon adders that 

aim to maximize social welfare by accounting for all quantifiable costs and benefits of the program, and, three, 

leasing that serves declining domestic coal demand alone. 

Comment Number: 0000752_Lempke_Tri-State_20160623-1 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc 

Commenter1:Doug Lempke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Tri-State encourages BLM to include alternatives in the PEIS that maximize federal coal use while maintaining the 

current royalty rate, or even better, proposing ways to reduce it. 

Comment Number: 0000752_Lempke_Tri-State_20160623-3 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc 

Commenter1:Doug Lempke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As BLM develops the PEIS, Tri-State strongly encourages you to consider the following: 

o the impacts on the cost of electricity, 

o federal, state and local government dependence on royalty payments, 

o the true cost to mine federal coal, including state and federal royalty payments, all bonus bids, ad valorem 

property taxes, ad valorem production taxes, sales and use taxes, severance taxes and the AML fees„

o new ways to simplify the reporting and administrative burdens for all parties involved, 

o the long term benefits that coal mining can have for the environment, specifically the reinvigoration of wildlife 

habitats which may be in decline or of poor quality to start with, and 

o the provisions of the mineral leasing act that specifically identify and mandate the development of these 

resources for the benefit of the American public. 

Comment Number: 0001187-1 

Commenter1:Peggy Willis 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

After that review of the science, the financial and public benefits and costs, I would urge the Bureau of Land 

Management to have an option recommending ending the current policy of subsidizing strip mining coal from our 

public land. 

And I really believe this program is broken, and I urge the BLM to include also an option that would permanently 

end the new leasing of coal permits on public lands and leave the coal in the ground as many others have said 

earlier today. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-14 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0001188-1 

Commenter1:John Stafford 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It also seems desirable for the U.S. government to be acting in consistent purposes across its policies. So if we're 

involved in the Paris accords, the clean power plant from President Obama, in Washington state there's I-732 and 

the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy pending proposal to affect the price on carbon, again, why would the U.S. 

government enter into something that works in exact -- at cross purposes to that? 

Comment Number: 0002100_OHair_20160613-2 

Commenter1:Todd O'Hair 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

it is important that the scope be set to include a possible reduction in royalty rates, reduction in bonus bid 

payments and streamlined permitting processes. 

Comment Number: 0002240_Hargrove_20160701-1 

Commenter1:Bourtai Hargrove 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

The scope of your programmatic EIS must be comprehensive, and concentrate on the impact that burning the 

coal you lease will have on the cumulative CO2 already in the atmosphere. The EIS must quantify the amount of 

CO2 that will be added to the atmosphere for each ton of coal which will be burned for every prospective lease 

of coal on federal land. The EIS must also calculate the effect of burning that coal on the carbon reduction levels 

the U.S. agreed to during the 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP 21) in Paris, and on the proposed 

EPA regulations to reduce carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants. 

Comment Number: 0002263_Davidheiser_20160710-2 

Organization1:German House 

Commenter1:James Davidheiser 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

2) evaluate an alternative to coal leasing that would phase it out entirely 

Comment Number: 0002272_BURNHAM_20160707-1 

Commenter1:Bruce Burnham 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Specifically, I urge the BLM to consider and adopt an alternative that ends new coal leasing in order to keep 

unburnable coal in the ground and signal U.S. commitment to clean energy. The PEIS should also consider and 

adopt measures to support and assist coal industry workers and their communities through the coming energy 

transition. 

Comment Number: 0002279_Weber_20160717-1 

Commenter1:David Weber 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I urge the BLM to consider and adopt an alternative that ends new coal leasing in order to keep unburnable coal 

in the ground and signal U.S. commitment to clean energy. The PEIS should also consider and adopt measures to 

support and assist coal industry workers and their communities through the coming energy transition. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-15

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002294_Lowe_20160606-2 

Commenter1:Wendy Lowe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should look at ways to enhance mining of the coal resource, keep costs reasonable, facilitate leasing and 

permitting. 

Comment Number: 0002303_Steitz_20160705-1 

Commenter1:Jim Steitz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I urge you to develop and select an alternative in the federal coal leasing Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement to terminate the sale of federal coal entirely. 

Comment Number: 0002443_Koontz_20160727_BowieResources-13

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Order 3338 states that the PEIS will examine several policies that can only be modified by congressional action. 

These include potential changes in federal royalty rates and the potential imposition of carbon-related fees or 

taxes. The PEIS should expressly identify which alternatives and actions it considers will require legislative 

authorization. In addition, there are a variety of legislative reforms that should further be analyzed. These include: 

Bonus Bid Reform for Maintenance Tracts 

Bonus bids under competitive leasing are required under the FCLAA, and are intended to: (a) provide a 

mechanism for choosing among qualified bidders, (b) incentivize diligence in production, and (c) compensate 

taxpayers for the disposition of federal natural resources. Diligence is independently achieved by the federal 

diligence regulations and requirements, and taxpayers can be equally or more effectively compensated by 

payment of federal royalties. Bonus bids were also an effective tool in the 1970s when there were more frequent 

greenfield coal mine starts, and remain useful for any future greenfield proposals. 

As noted by NMA, there is no evidence of systemic error in the current valuation practices and regulations. 

However, the valuation process is time consuming and demanding on federal staff resources, and is more difficult 

in the current era of stable-to-declining coal prices. Moreover, bonus bids serve no selection function when there 

is only one bidder, which is the norm for maintenance tracts. Consequently, the Secretary should evaluate 

abandoning bonus bids for maintenance tracts, and instead employ an adjusted revenue-neutral royalty schedule 

for those tracts. Shifting taxpayer compensation to royalties would significantly streamline the leasing process, 

ensure that taxpayers are more attuned to market conditions, and reduce the administrative burden on the BLM 

and Office of Natural Resources Revenue. 

More Specific Congressional Directives on Leasing 

As noted, federal law presently mandates coal leasing and encourages coal exports, but otherwise affords the 

Secretary broad discretion in the manner, frequency, and scale of leasing. Since federal coal leasing policy is an 

integral component of federal energy policy, the Secretary should request more precise guidance from Congress 

on general leasing targets within the proven Lease-by-Application system. In that way the legislative and executive 

policies toward federal coal leasing can be better harmonized. 

Congressional Validation, Adjustment, or Rejection of the SCC 

To date the SCC has not undergone notice-and-comment rulemaking, and is deeply problematic at a technical 

and procedural level. In addition, the discounting and time horizon assumptions in the SCC render the SCC an 

inter-generational wealth transfer mechanism. This is especially true of any attempt to impose SCC-derived fees 

or taxes. Finally, the SCC also generates such large value ranges that it is uniquely susceptible to result-driven 

policy choices, that is, project proponents will always be able to identify values that support denial. Because of 

these inherent and profound philosophical and policy dimensions, the SCC is poorly suited to the secretive, 

unilateral Executive processes under which it has been developed to date. Rather, the Secretary (and the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-16 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Administration generally) should seek express Congressional authorization and guidance to the extent there is a 

desire to continue to employ the SCC in federal decision-making. Such authorization, if obtained, would place the 

Executive on a far sounder democratic and constitutional footing than under current and potentially future 

practices. 

Comment Number: 0002443_Koontz_20160727_BowieResources-5 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Mineral Leasing Act specifies that the Secretary "shall" lease federal coal. 30 U.S.C. 201 (a)(1). Moreover, 

federal law has repeatedly directed the Secretary of Energy to examine methods to increase the development of 

the nation's coal reserves and to increase the export of coal. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 13571(1); 42 U.S.C. 13367(a). 

Revisions to the leasing regulations that have the effect of curtailing federal coal production and the export of 

coal would be inconsistent with these mandates. At a minimum, the scope of the PEIS must include a discussion 

of how any proposed regulatory changes would advance the federal policies of development of federal coal 

resources and the export of U.S.-produced coal. 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-17

Organization1: Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Coalition opposes the proposed landscape-level view to analyzing what areas should or should not be 

available for leasing. There is no indication as to how these new boundaries would be drawn or what criteria 

would be used to define a landscape. The management concerns of the BLM Director may not reflect the 

management concerns the field offices have refined by their on-the-ground experience and resource 

management. The landscape boundaries may also be defined by one resource, such as sage-grouse habitat, 

without consideration of all other resources, such as energy, roads, or other wildlife concerns. 

Comment Number: 0002466_Smith_20160728_SELA-1 

Organization1:Safe Energy Leadership Alliance 

Commenter1:Rachel Smith 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To truly understand and address risks and costs to our communities, federal decisions about future coal leases 

should consider the full range of risks, costs, and impacts from mining, transport, and burning as fuel. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-12

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As explained in further detail below, in order to achieve this purpose and need, the PEIS must explore 

alternatives that will achieve the following overarching objectives: 

· Delineating the full scope of GHG emissions associated with federal coal leasing, including upstream and 

downstream emissions; 

· Reducing, mitigating, or eliminating the GHG emissions associated with federal coal leasing to align with the 

Nation’s GHG emission reduction goals;

· Identifying and fully presenting a detailed analysis of the direct adverse environmental impacts associated with 

federal coal leasing and developing new regulations and policies to insure these impacts are minimized, including 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-17

Scoping Report 

insuring proper reclamation; and 

· Reforming the coal leasing price structure to advance GHG reduction objectives, insure meaningful competition, 

and provide a transparent and fair return to taxpayers. 

It is of course too early in the process to set out precisely which reforms will best accomplish these objectives. 

However, at this stage we anticipate that BLM will need to include the following elements to achieve the PEIS’s 

purpose and need: 

· An end to leasing by application and regional coal teams, and development of a national framework for when, 

where, and how much federal coal, if any, must be considered for leasing; 

· A revised lease payment framework that takes into account GHG reduction objectives and provides a 

transparent and fair return to taxpayers, including a new approach to determining FMV and setting rental and 

royalty fees; 

· A systematic examination of the full life-cycle GHG emissions caused by federal coal leasing; 

· A Carbon Budget delineating the extent of GHG emissions that the agency will permit from federally leased 

coal;

· An inter-agency management approach to ensure compliance with all federal laws; 

· Limitations on leasing in areas with environmental conflicts or suitable for renewable energy development; 

· Limitations on who may obtain leases based on the extent of reserves and the company’s demonstrated 

capacity to complete appropriate reclamation; 

· New lease conditions and bonding requirements that will facilitate proper site reclamation; and 

· Regulatory requirements for methane capture and/or offsets. 

To encompass these issues, we recommend that the agency identify the following major federal action as the 

driver of consideration in the PEIS: 

The proposed federal action is to provide a complete environmental analysis of, potential alternatives to, and 

mitigation measures associated with federal coal leasing, as well as an informed basis for restructuring the 

regulatory and policy framework for federal coal leasing with the objectives of minimizing contributions to 

Greenhouse Gas emissions and other environmental harms, while maximizing returns to the American public. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-14

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Once the impacts are properly characterized and analyzed, the PEIS should consider several approaches to 

minimize and mitigate GHG emissions associated with federal coal leasing. These approaches should include a set 

of analytical alternatives of the GHG environmental impacts associated with federal coal leasing: 

a. Establishing a “Carbon Budget” for coal leasing

Under this approach, BLM – in coordination with other appropriate agencies – would present an analysis that 

would determine how much of United States GHG emissions should be permitted to come from federal coal 

leasing (again, considering full life cycle emissions), taking into account the Nation’s GHG reduction objectives 

and other sources of GHG emissions. Once that Carbon Budget is established, BLM would apply it initially to 

take account of existing leases. Any remaining Budget would then be allocated to new leasing based on a revised 

leasing framework, which would incorporate the applicant’s ability to achieve GHG emission and other 

environmental goals. Capping the amount of leasing available, and having coal operators compete for remaining 

leases, could also create an associated benefit of additional competition for federal coal resources. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-25

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-18 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The “no action” alternative

The EIS must consider a “no action alternative,” 40 C.F.R. §1502.14(d), whereby BLM would make no changes to 

the coal leasing regulatory framework. In the PEIS, the agency should detail each of the problems that would 

remain should the agency choose this approach, including: 

· The conflict between federal coal leasing and the Nation’s GHG emission reduction goals;

· The direct environmental harms caused by coal mining on federal lands, and the failure of current reclamation 

standards to protect against those harms; 

· BLM’s failure to obtain FMV for coal resources or to otherwise obtain a full return for taxpayers; and 

· The conflicts between the current regulatory scheme and domestic energy security. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-26

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While the foregoing illustrates many of the alternatives BLM should analyze and consider in the PEIS, we 

recognize that BLM is likely to choose only a small subset of consolidated alternatives to carry forward for 

further consideration. We here offer some initial thoughts on how BLM might approach those alternatives. We 

do not intend this to be a comprehensive list, or to advocate for any particular alternative at this early stage, but 

intend these consolidated alternatives to simply aid BLM’s thinking in how to address alternatives as the process 

moves forward. And in any case, all of these alternative analytical scenarios must include and be based on a PEIS 

that has clearly set forth the environmental impacts; the adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided 

should the proposal be implemented; a sharply defined set of comparative alternatives; the relationship between 

local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; 

and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources should the proposed alternative be 

implemented. See 42 U.S.C. § 4322. 

A. The 21st Century Coal Alternative 

This alternative would contain a combination of the reforms BLM determines will best achieve the goals of 

reducing GHG emissions, protecting the environment, and maximizing returns for American taxpayers. We 

anticipate that under this alternative BLM would determine to implement a new leasing framework whereby coal 

would be leased, solely for domestic use, at appropriate prices and times, from appropriate places, on 

appropriate terms, and in a manner that insures a complete (or almost complete) accounting for GHG emissions 

through adder or royalty fees, or other mitigation or offset measures, and only to companies with a 

demonstrated ability to achieve maximum mitigation and reclamation. 

The discussion of impacts under this alternative would demonstrate that it has the least detrimental 

environmental impacts, maximizes revenue, and poses the least risks to domestic energy security. 

B. The Taxpayer Return Alternative 

This alternative would seek to maximize returns for the public by structuring bonus, rental and royalty rates to 

provide the highest possible returns to taxpayers over the long term – i.e., a century or more. Because coal 

prices are currently low relative to other energy sources, this approach may result in a marked reduction in 

federal coal leasing in the short term. See, e.g. Coal: Survival of the Fittest (Citibank May 27, 2015) (discussing 

anticipated continuing low coal prices). However, BLM would consider whether by requiring higher prices, the 

agency could achieve a greater return in the long term, while providing greater GHG reductions and 

environmental protection in the coming decades. 

C. The Climate Change Focused Alternative 

This alternative would focus principally on the GHG emissions aspects of coal leasing, presumably advocating for 

highly restricted – or no – leasing to best align with GHG emissions reduction goals. Because there would be far 

fewer leases for which the agency would need to value the coal, engage in enforcement, or insure proper 

reclamation, a significantly scaled back scope to public lands coal leasing could make other reforms considerably 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-19

Scoping Report 

easier. 

D. The Land Protection Alternative 

This alternative would focus on reclamation, and other non-GHG environmental issues, limiting leasing in areas 

that pose environmental conflicts and insuring that where leasing occurs, operators follow all environmental 

protection requirements at every stage, including a guarantee that they complete timely and satisfactory 

reclamation. 

E. The Lease Reform Alternative 

This alternative would focus on the coal pricing issues, insuring coal leases are properly valuated, including 

incorporating all externalities, especially GHG contribution. It could also include timing and location restrictions 

that help drive GHG and/or other environmental goals by reducing coal production. 

F. The Domestic Security Alternative 

This alternative would focus on whether coal leasing is necessary to insure domestic energy needs, and restrict 

or forbid leasing for export to protect these resources for the American people, as Congress intended. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-46

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At the outset, we emphasize that, as regards all physical, chemical, radiological and biological, aesthetic, historic, 

cultural, economic, and social effects areas, the PEIS must address all relevant impacts, including cumulative and 

related impacts. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 (explaining that cumulative effects include “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”). Only through a comprehensive 

analysis can BLM make an informed judgment about changes in the federal coal leasing regulatory framework. (12) 

(11) In order to meaningfully address the impacts of federal coal leasing, BLM must take into account important 

geographical considerations. To assist with that aspect of the analysis, attached as Appendix A are additional 

comments focusing on geographic information systems and geospatial analysis and data that should be considered 

in developing the PEIS. 

(12) See, e.g., CEQ, Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act, January 1997 

(explaining that “cumulative effects must be evaluated along with the direct effects and indirect effects... of each 

alternative...” and that “...as the proposed action is modified or other alternatives are developed (usually to avoid 

or minimize adverse effects), additional or different cumulative effects issues may arise”); BLM NEPA Handbook 

at 61 (stating that cumulative effects analysis “must be able to describe the incremental differences in cumulative 

effects as a result of the proposed action and alternatives”).

Moreover, impacts must be analyzed broadly and include all relevant “effects on natural resources and the 

components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems,” including “effects on air and water and other 

natural systems.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b). BLM should also be guided by its statutory mandate to manage public 

lands “in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and 

atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values . . . .” 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8) (emphasis added).

To minimize and mitigate these impacts, in the PEIS BLM must also “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate 

all reasonable alternatives” and “[d]evote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail.” 40 C.F.R. 

§1502.14. Because the alternatives we propose – and those BLM is already considering – are closely tied to the 

impact area they are designed to address, we present a set of tailored alternatives for each impact area in this 

section. In the following section we will offer several combined alternatives for BLM to consider carrying forward 

in the PEIS. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-20 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-51

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

b. Amending the price structure for coal leasing to account for the significant GHG emissions externalities costs 

associated with coal 

Under this alternative, BLM would analyze incorporation of the life-cycle costs of GHG emissions into the royalty 

rates charged for access to federally leased coal. For example, the royalties might include an “adder” that would 

be a flat sum (adjusted over time and keyed to inflation) to reflect these costs. 

While BLM might determine it requires a change to its regulations (21), analysis of this alternative would be well 

within BLM’s broad authority, for the MLA and FLPMA provide the agency with broad discretion to determine 

appropriate royalty rates. 

Finally, BLM should present an analysis of the relevant alternatives associated with where the money raised by 

such fees should be allocated. Possibilities include: 

· paying for carbon mitigation or other efforts to reduce GHG emissions elsewhere – e.g., carbon sequestration; 

· assisting coal mine employees displaced by reductions in federal coal leasing; or 

· supporting coal reclamation projects in areas where operators have not fulfilled their reclamation obligations. 

(22) 

21 Although the existing regulation only provides for a 12.5% (for surface mining) floor on royalties, 43 C.F.R. § 

3473.32, we recommend BLM amend the regulation to explicitly include the adder for GHG emissions. 

22 Although some of these uses may not be within BLM’s present statutory authority, that should not dissuade 

the agency from giving them serious consideration. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 1502.15(c) (requiring consideration of 

“reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency"). 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-52

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

c. Requiring CO2 and/or methane capture and sequestration throughout the coal leasing chain 

To the extent CO2 and methane emissions from the coal supply chain can be captured and sequestered, coal 

leasing’s impacts on GHG emissions, and therefore on climate change, can be mitigated to some extent. BLM 

should therefore consider analyzing such a sequestration alternative. 

Capture during the coal mining process – where most of the fugitive methane emissions occur – is squarely 

within BLM’s authority. As noted, at present operators have no requirement to capture fugitive methane. BLM 

should squarely address this problem by considering an approach that would require every coal lease, permit and 

plan of operations to provide for the capture of all methane releases, or, at bare minimum, to provide strong 

incentives for methane capture (i.e., penalties for non-capture). 

As for downstream emissions, in this alternative BLM should consider structuring its leasing framework to 

incentivize companies to insure downstream sequestration. For example, BLM might reduce the externality cost 

included in leasing prices to the extent the applicants can demonstrate that the downstream emissions will be 

sequestered. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-21

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-53

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

d. Permitting GHG emission mitigation through offsets elsewhere in the economy 

Another alternative to address GHG emissions would be an analysis of permitting applicants to offset life cycle 

GHG emissions by obtaining GHG emissions reductions outside the coal leasing fuel chain. One potential source 

for this mitigation would be investments in renewable energy. Another possibility would be carbon capture with 

biological carbon sinks – i.e., restoration or protection of vegetative communities that naturally absorb 

significantly quantities of carbon dioxide. BLM should identify federal lands that might serve as significant biological 

carbon sinks, and make them available for this purpose, and should also consider permitting carbon capture 

elsewhere, such as through forest or coastal habitat restoration, sustainable land management practices, or other 

measures. See generally CEQ Climate Guidance at 20. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-54

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

e. Prioritizing renewable energy development 

Through the Solar PEIS and other initiatives BLM and other agencies have identified areas suitable for renewable 

energy development, including solar, wind and geothermal projects. BLM should prioritize these efforts by 

precluding coal leasing in these areas. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-55 

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

f. Prohibiting new leasing 

Finally, BLM should consider the environmental impacts that would be associated with no longer issuing federal 

coal leases, which – short of terminating existing leases – would have the greatest impact on GHG emissions 

reduction. Such an alternative would be eminently reasonable given the state of the science on climate change 

and the contribution federally leased coal is making to GHG emissions. In short, because immediate and 

substantial reductions in GHG emissions are critical to reduce or prevent serious impacts from climate change, 

BLM would be well within its broad discretion to maintain a hiatus on further leasing. 

It is also evident that further federal coal leasing will not be necessary to meet the Nation’s energy demands. 

Demand for coal is decreasing, and will continue to decrease, while existing federal coal leases will continue to 

provide adequate coal supplies for decades. See, e.g., U.S. EIA, Today in Energy: Clean Power Plan reduces 

projected coal production in all major U.S. supply regions (July 8, 2016) (available at 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26992) 

It also bears emphasizing that the statutory requirement for “maximum economic recovery,” 30 U.S.C. § 

201(a)(3)(C), would not be impediment to this or any other alternative under which BLM might prioritize 

environmental concerns over simply achieving the highest economic returns. To the contrary, Congress was 

clear that this requirement “does not restrict the authority of the authorized officer to ensure the conservation 

of the recoverable coal reserves and other resources and to prevent the wasting of coal.” 43 C.F.R. § 3480.0-

5(21)(emphasis added). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-22 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

And regardless of whether BLM were to choose such an alternative, fully analyzing what would happen were 

leasing to be halted is critical to permit BLM to meaningfully compare the relative GHG reductions that can be 

reasonably achieved through other alternatives. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-57

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A full assessment of the impacts of the federal coal leasing program going forward requires analysis of the amount 

of development that might occur. See e.g., BLM & DOE, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(PEIS) for Solar Development in Six Southwestern States (July 2012) at 2-64; Interagency Reference Guide: 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenarios and Cumulative Effects Analysis (June 2003). Several key factors 

are relevant to BLM’s preparation of reasonably foreseeable development scenarios. The most important factors 

include: (1) enforceable greenhouse gas reduction targets and policies; (2) other federal and state policies that 

impact federal coal production; (3) market factors affecting demand for federal coal both domestically and 

internationally; (4) financial solvency of coal companies; (5) future production costs for federal coal; and (6) the 

time frame selected for evaluation. 

Each alternative that BLM choses to evaluate in its PEIS should have a reasonably foreseeable development 

scenario associated with it. A transparent description of the federal coal resource can provide a critical 

foundation for each development scenario. This accounting should distinguish between federal coal resources 

already leased and those not yet leased. Economic recoverability will vary in each scenario based on assumptions 

about available technology, demand, price including royalty rate and greenhouse gas emissions, and other policies 

and regulations affecting coal production. Such assumptions and choices should be clearly identified. Moreover, 

the analysis and modeling used to estimate reasonably foreseeable development from the assumptions/ choices 

should be explained and made publically available. Once a reasonably foreseeable development scenario is 

determined for each alternative, BLM can then assess the impacts associated with this level of development. 

Comment Number: 0002471_Reed_20160728-1 

Organization1:High Country Conservation Advocates 

Commenter1:Matt Reed 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The past, current and reasonable foreseeable impacts from public lands coal mining in Gunnison County are 

significant. Gunnison County’s experience with public lands coal mining is a microcosm of the bigger issue of 

federal coal leasing, and our local experience with coal mine pollution and climate change impacts is analogous to 

other rural communities across the west. The federal coal leasing program, which subsidizes the mining and 

burning of coal, is out of step with priorities to avoid pollution that disrupts our climate and with the president's 

commitment to better manage public lands. As such, HCCA urges the BLM to consider and adopt an alternative 

that ends new coal leasing on public lands. 

Comment Number: 0002471_Reed_20160728-2 

Organization1:High Country Conservation Advocates 

Commenter1:Matt Reed 

Other Sections: 6 7.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal Mining and Climate Change are Impacting Gunnison County’s Public Lands Gunnison County is home to the 

Gunnison National Forest, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, and biologically diverse BLM-managed 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-23

Scoping Report 

lands. Ranging in elevation from less than 6,000 feet to mountains over 14,000 feet, it is a rich and varied 

landscape. Yet both subtle and obvious impacts from climate change are impacting millions of acres of local public 

lands and straining federal budgets. Warmer winters and hotter summers, the proliferation of the spruce beetle 

and subsequent die-off of vast swaths of forest, Sudden Aspen Decline, larger and more intense wildfires, and 

reduced snowpack are just some of the climate change impacts we’re seeing on our public lands. In 2005, 

Colorado’s greenhouse emissions were 35 percent higher than they were in 1990. They are projected to grow 

81 percent above the 1990 levels by 2020.7 Current and proposed federal coal leasing and development 

contributes to Colorado’s greenhouse gas emissions and directly impacts public lands and communities. 

(7) U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (February 2016), at 228. 

On June 20, President Obama spoke at Yosemite National Park, declaring that climate change is “the biggest 

challenge we’re going to face in protecting this place and places like it.”8 He could just have easily been discussing 

public lands in western Colorado. President Obama condemned those who pay “lip service” to protecting 

America’s natural areas while making climate change worse:

(8) The White House, Remarks by the President at Sentinel Bridge, Yosemite National Park, Office of the Press 

Secretary (June 20, 2016), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/20/remarkspresidentsentinel-bridge (last viewed July 28, 2016). 

-Make no mistake, climate change is no longer just a threat, it’s already a reality. I was talking to some of the 

rangers here -- here in Yosemite, meadows are drying out. Bird ranges are shifting farther northward. Alpine 

mammals like pikas are being forced farther upslope to escape higher temperatures. Yosemite’s largest glacier, 

once a mile wide, is now almost gone. We’re also seeing longer, more expensive, more dangerous wildfire 

seasons -- and fires are raging across the West right now. I was just in New Mexico yesterday, which is dealing 

with a big wildfire, just like folks here in California and four other states -- all while it’s still really early in the 

season.9 

(9) Id. 

Comment Number: 0002474_Trice_20160728_EPA-5 

Organization1:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Commenter1:Jessica Trice 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The NOI outlines various components of the current BLM Federal coal program and other associated topics that 

the Draft PEIS will consider addressing. EPA recommends that the BLM identify the key alternatives that it will be 

evaluating, and consider the impacts of each of these alternatives, including the key issues identified below. 

Identifying principal alternatives, and considering the impacts of each alternative in a rigorous way, will allow for 

comparison among alternatives and provide useful information to decision makers and the public. 

The Draft PEIS will also consider the no-action alternative, which in this instance would be continuing the current 

Federal coal program without any modifications. EPA recommends that the no-action alternative including an 

analysis of the potential public health and environmental impacts of the current program, including the list of 

potential impacts described below, so that decision makers and the public can compare the potential impacts of 

the alternatives with the impacts of continuing the current program. 

Comment Number: 0002474_Trice_20160728_EPA-6 

Organization1:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Commenter1:Jessica Trice 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Given that changes in economic conditions have led to significant changes in the coal market, EPA recommends 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-24 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

the BLM evaluate alternatives for funding reclamation and post closure activities and consider the role of these in 

leasing decisions to ensure adverse impacts to environmental resources are mitigated. 

Comment Number: 0002475_Kustin_20160728_CAP-4 

Organization1:Center for American Progress 

Commenter1:Mary Ellen Kustin 

Other Sections: 8.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We suggest considering a modified version of intertract bidding. Rather than hosting a lease sale with multiple 

tracts up for simultaneous bid, BLM could allow companies to bid on a fixed amount of mining credits. The 

winning bidders would gain the right to mine a certain amount of coal, as measured in dollars per BTU or dollars 

per ton. These bidders would then submit applications for the specific tracts of land on which they would like to 

mine the coal for which they have rights. This process would allow the BLM to better prioritize the fairest return 

available to taxpayers while allocating credits up to a pre-set carbon, BTU, or tonnage cap. The allocation of 

credits could also be weighted based on the companies’ proven track records of reclamation, financial stability, 

and worker safety and compensation. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-49

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM Should Develop a Broad Range of Alternatives That Considers Avoiding Environmental Harm and 

Supporting Conservation. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-50

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In recent cases, courts have found NEPA violations based on an agency’s failure to evaluate a conservationoriented alternative. See, e.g., New Mexico v. BLM, 565 F.3d 683, 710-711 (10th Cir. 2009) (Alternative 

considering closing Otero Mesa to oil and gas leasing must be considered as part of oil and gas amendment to 

governing land use plan); Colorado Environmental Coalition v. Salazar, 875 F.Supp.2d 1233, 1249-1250 (D.Colo. 

2012) (BLM required to consider community alternative protecting Roan Plateau from surface disturbance). 

Accordingly, the BLM should consider a range of alternatives that includes protecting other resources and values 

in developing alternatives in the Coal PEIS. 

Further, the BLM should fully evaluate a true range of alternatives, rather than setting up alternatives that are at 

far ends of a spectrum with one “compromise.” An agency violates its obligation to consider a reasonable range 

of alternatives and to take NEPA’s hard look at environmental impacts when it only looks at “straw men” for 

comparison, which the agency has no intention of accepting and are put forth only to lead to the agency’s already 

foregone conclusion. See, e.g., California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1982); Blue Mountains Diversity Project 

v. U.S. Forest Service, 229 F.Supp.2d 1140 (D.Or. 2002); Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Singleton, 47 

F.Supp.2d 1182 (D.Or. 1998). In the context of the Coal PEIS, there are a variety of issues to be addressed and 

tools to be considered that merit a range of alternatives that is both broad in terms of options and deep in terms 

of the level of analysis completed. This will provide the agency with a thorough range of options from which to 

develop its final PEIS. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-25

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-51

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Consequently, we recommend that BLM develop alternatives that evaluate the suite of policies that could be used 

to meet climate goals, including: 

- Incorporating a carbon adder into the royalty rate for coal. While measurement and 

assessment of impacts from upstream emissions (from exploration and production) may be easier to quantify and 

downstream emissions (from transportation and combustion) may be more challenging because they are more 

attenuated, a carbon adder may be useful in one or both contexts by offering a straightforward approach and a 

mechanism to direct funding directly to states and local communities. 

- Developing and applying mitigation measures consistent with the mitigation hierarchy, 

including compensatory mitigation requirements to offset climate impacts. 

- Developing a carbon budget and management framework for all fossil fuels developed on 

federal lands that includes a targeted budget for coal. The budget should inform decisions made by the agency and 

could be used as a cap to limit future coal sales. 

- Incorporating a range of tools to measure carbon emissions and impacts from those 

emissions, including those discussed above and others that may be under development. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-88

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM Should Evaluate a Range of Approaches to Meet Other Goals of Reforming the Coal Program. 

In addition to a range of alternatives that includes a focus on reducing environmental impacts and methods to 

meet climate goals, BLM should evaluate a range of alternatives to meet the other goals of the PEIS, including; 

- Developing a regional mitigation strategy for the Coal PEIS and/or developing regional 

mitigation strategies that are focused on high priority areas.

Amending all affected plans or amending a set of priority plans where ongoing 

development and risks to communities are highest and setting up an approach for remaining plans. 

- Incorporating transition approaches for affected communities that can be a set of common 

elements or tailored to specific regions or communities, or simply setting out priority areas where transition will 

be addressed. 

- Evaluating use of royalty rates or mitigation or a combination thereof to address impacts 

to resources and communities. 

- Eliminating LBA or incorporating LBA into a more proactively managed regional leasing 

program. 

- Identifying opportunities to incentivize competition, which could include bidding on a set 

Btu of coal, or determining what role competition can play in other ways. 

- Including a range of tools to ensure a fair return to taxpayers from the federal coal 

program. At a minimum this means identifying and ensuring fair market value for coal produced. It also includes 

evaluating the other public benefits that would be gained from contracting the coal program and considering 

whether and how royalty rates, bonding amounts and reclamation standards should be adjusted.

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-89

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Through this PEIS, the BLM can and should protect natural and cultural values through various management 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-26 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

decisions, including by excluding or limiting certain uses of the public lands. See, 43 U.S.C. § 1712(e). 

Incorporating a robust range of alternatives to address the significant set of issues impacted by the Coal PEIS will 

require evaluating opportunities and tools to protect other resources, meet climate goals, and improve the fair 

return of the program as a whole. Setting out an initial purpose and need and range of alternatives in the scoping 

report will ensure that both the agency and stakeholders get the most benefit from the information provided 

through the scoping process. Developing a range of alternatives with sufficient breadth and depth will provide the 

best opportunities to arrive at the most effective set of reforms for the federal coal program. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-47

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

 Private Industry 

Other Sections: 8.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should consider the following facts and specific recommendations during its PEIS review: 

· The current administration has targeted America’s coal industry through a series of unlawful regulatory and 

administrative actions. Given the administration’s unwillingness to conduct a fair and objective review of the 

federal coal program, BLM should lift the federal coal leasing moratorium pending its completion of the PEIS. 

Cloud Peak Energy also requests that BLM disavow the biased White House Coal Report. 

· Although the Secretary has directed BLM to undertake a review of the federal coal program through the PEIS, 

BLM and federal courts have recently and consistently rejected the notion that a significant overhaul of the 

federal coal leasing program is legally warranted. 

· In determining the FMV of federal coal, BLM should consider federal coal lessees’ significant financial 

contributions to the American people, which we believe are unparalleled across any industry in the United States 

and clearly represent more than a “fair share.” 

· BLM should retain the current royalty rate and other leasing costs in order to ensure the continued leasing and 

production of federal coal in accordance with the MLA. Any increase in coal leasing costs would discourage 

federal coal development, while also reducing federal and state revenues from future coal lease payments. 

· BLM should carefully and thoroughly evaluate the impacts of federal coal program reform on state and local 

communities through meaningful collaboration with coal-producing states concerning socioeconomic impacts 

related to federal coal mining. 

· BLM should implement the recommendations in the IG Report and GAO Report and evaluate their 

effectiveness prior to undertaking an unnecessary overhaul of the entire federal coal program. In addition, BLM 

should reconvene the Royalty Policy Committee to undertake a detailed review of the complex royalty and 

revenue changes contemplated by BLM in its review of the federal coal program. 

· BLM should retain the existing LBA framework, while considering ways to streamline the permitting process 

and reduce the economic burdens on federal coal lessees. 

· BLM should not raise the royalty rate on federal coal production. Any increase in the royalty rate would result 

in the decreased FMV for federal coal leases and decreased lease bonus payments to federal and state 

governments. 

· BLM should acknowledge, as it did in 2011, that it may not legally impose climate change fees or other climaterelated fees under the MLA or any other federal statute. Any increase in coal leasing or production costs to 

advance the administration's political climate objectives would be unlawful. 

· BLM should consider the adverse socio-economic impacts that would result from increased costs on federal 

coal production. Any increase in coal leasing costs would discourage the production of federal coal and thereby 

diminish the significant benefits to state and local communities dependent on federal coal production. 

· BLM should consider the important role of federal coal in meeting America's domestic energy needs, including 

the benefits of low-cost, reliable electricity, independence from foreign energy sources, and jobs for workers in 

coal and coal-related industries. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-27

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-49

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Forest Service, the Forest Service Environmental Impact Statement 

was ruled inadequate for failing to consider the full range of decision alternatives, specifically an analysis of 

cumulative impacts.58 The court stated that an EIS “must include a ‘useful analysis of the cumulative impacts of 

past, present and future projects” in sufficient detail to be ‘useful to the decision maker in deciding whether, or 

how, to alter the program to lessen cumulative impacts.’”59 Interior needs to determine the cumulative effect of 

the coal leasing program, including both existing and expected future leases, on domestic carbon emissions. The 

best way to evaluate these impacts is in the context of an overall carbon budget for the program. The cumulative 

impacts assessment should also consider how the program impedes the development of low-carbon energy 

pathways for countries receiving exported PRB coal. 

[58 Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 421 F.3d 797, 814 (9th Cir. 2005).] 

[59 Id. (quoting Carmel-by-the-Sea, 123 F.3d at 1160).] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-52

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 7.4 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Interior should evaluate decision alternatives in a manner that reasonably examines a range of climate-consistent 

scenarios, and should reject alternatives that assume or result in projected carbon emissions above the level set 

in the carbon budget. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, environmental impact statements 

should “include the environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any adverse 

environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented . . . and any irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented.”63 

Critically, this evaluation of environmental effects includes the question of whether a given action exceeds the 

limited available carbon budget for the Powder River Basin. Interior should evaluate climate consistency under 

the three 450 Scenarios discussed in Part I: climate consistency with CCS deployment in 2020, climate 

consistency with widespread CCS deployment in 2030, and climate consistency with no CCS deployment through 

2040, in addition to any other climate-consistent scenarios. 

[63 40 C.F.R § 1502.16 – environmental consequences.] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-54

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Interior should investigate decision alternatives that address carbon constraints in a variety of ways: the addition 

of a carbon adder, changes to royalty and reclamation requirements, or ending leasing by nomination. In addition 

to the no action reference scenario, this Comment recommends that Interior reject decision alternatives that do 

not comport with the restrictions of a carbon budget. If a given decision exceeds the 2°C target threshold, then 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-28 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Interior should reject the decision alternative, and ultimately select an alternative that most closely approximates 

consistency with the carbon budget and the eventual end of the federal coal program. 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-56

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Alternative A is the No Action Alternative under which the BLM continues its lease-by-application program. 

Secretary Jewell has already acknowledged public concerns with the current program, including concerns about 

global climate change and the impact of coal production and use. The reasonably foreseeable development can be 

calculated from this no action alternative, which represents developments that would occur over the life of the 

plan.64 Emissions associated with business-as-usual have been compiled by Carbon Tracker, in their analysis of 

the 2016 Annual Energy Outlook. Under the 2016 Reference Case, annual demand in the Powder River Basin 

declines to 227 Mt in 2040, and the compounded annual growth rate is - 1.7%. This case exceeds the PRB carbon 

budget. 

[64 Bureau of Land Management, BLM Handbook, at III-7. Available at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.59010. 

File.dat/H_1624_1.pdf] 

Annual Demand (Mt) CAGRs (%) 

2015 2020 2030 2040 2015-20 2020-30 2030-40 2015-40 

AEO 2016 Reference Supply 350 339 285 227 -0.6% -1.7% -2.2% -1.7% 

Source: Modified Table from Carbon Tracker Report (Referencing IEA, EIA, CTI analysis 2016) 

Although the no action alternative is customary in an Environmental Impact Statement, the option is climateinconsistent and in tension with U.S. law and policy, and it should therefore be rejected. 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-57

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 8.3 2 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Alternative B: Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) Permanently Extending Lease Moratorium 

Under this alternative BLM would permanently implement the coal leasing moratorium, allowing all existing leases 

to naturally sunset without extension. Under this alternative, assuming deployment from CCS, as noted by 

Carbon Tracker, “the potential production from existing leases is sufficient to meet projected demand in every 

year through 2040.”65 In this scenario, the number of leases are sufficient to meet demand for a range of 

plausible and high levels of CCS deployment: 450 with CCS deployment in 2020, 450 with widespread CCS 

deployment in 2030, and 450 with no CCS deployment through 2040.66 

[65 Carbon Tracker Report, supra note 3 at 12.] 

[66 Resources for the Future, “Putting a Carbon Charge on Federal Coal: Legal and Economic Issues.” Available 

at http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-15-13.pdf; Carbon Tracker Report, supra 

note 3 at 10.] 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-29 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-59

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 2 7.1 8.7 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Alternative C and D: Social Cost of Carbon and Royalty Rate Increases 

This alternative would internalize the cost of carbon based on federal social cost of carbon estimates reflecting 

the “worldwide incremental damage from climatic change brought about by an additional metric ton of CO2 

emissions.”67 This price is sensitive to discount rates. A midrange price for the year 2020 is $46 per ton of 

CO2.68 Similarly, BLM may consider royalty rates as a means to reform the federal coal program. Increased 

royalty rates can also include royalty carbon adders, which “directly incorporates a carbon price into the royalty 

paid on federal coal sales, reflecting its climate costs.”69 Interior should analyze these decision alternatives and 

compare them against the criterion of budget compatibility – whether the reformed alternatives are consistent 

with federal climate change targets, as illustrated by the 450 Scenario. 

[67 Id. at 29.] 

[68 Alan Krupnick et al., Putting a Carbon Charge on Federal Coal: Legal and Economic Issues, Resources for the 

Future Discussion Paper at 10574; See U.S. GAO, GAO-14-663, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Development of 

Social Cost of Carbon Estimates (July 2014).] 

[69 Spencer Reed and James H. Stock., Federal Coal Leasing Reform Options: Effects on CO2 Emissions and 

Energy Markets – Executive Summary, February 2016 at 2-3.] 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-7 

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A programmatic document should not narrow or otherwise restrict decision(s) that will be addressed in 

subsequent NEPA review(s)." Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA Reviews, Council of Environmental Quality, 

pp. 19-20 (Dec. 18, 2014) 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-4 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 2 8.1 8.7 8.5 7.1 8.9 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

2. Just Transition Alternative 

The “Just Transition Alternative” is meant to both wind down the federal coal program in order to keep fossil 

fuels in the ground and to ensure an orderly, effective, and fair transition of workers and communities away from 

coal to more prosperous and sustainable economies. The “Just Transition Alternative” is defined by the following 

key components: 

1. An end to federal coal leasing: Consistent with authorities and discretion under the Mineral Leasing Act, the 

Just Transition Alternative imposes a permanent pause on the leasing of federal coal. The primary basis for 

adopting this permanent pause would be to ensure the protection of the public interest and the interests of the 

United States. Such justification for an end to leasing is clearly supported by the Mineral Leasing Act. 

This pause would apply to all competitive leases (including all leases by application, including emergency leases, as 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-30 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

defined by 43 C.F.R. § 3425.1-4) and lease modifications. We further believe there is ample justification for 

applying a permanent pause to other forms of non-competitive leasing, such as preference right lease applications 

and lease exchanges. With regards to lease exchanges, the BLM has clear authority to reject exchanges that are 

not in the “public interest.” 43 C.F.R. § 3435.4(a); see also 43 C.F.R. § 3436.0-2(b) (related to alluvial valley floor 

exchanges) and 43 C.F.R. § 2200.0-6 (generally related to exchanges). With regards to preference right lease 

applications, the BLM has the authority to reject such applications where there does not exist “commercial 

quantities” of coal. 43 C.F.R. § 3430.5¬1(a)(1). Given the dismal state of the coal industry and the overwhelming 

climate costs that coal imposes on society, it would be dubious at best to claim that any commercial quantities of 

coal exist where there are preference right lease applications. Accordingly, the BLM has the authority to reject 

such applications. (20) 

Furthermore, to ensure an orderly end to federal coal leasing, the BLM and the Department of the Interior 

should issue a rule or guidance requiring that as land management planning is undertaken pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 

1610, et seq., that all lands within a resource management area that are not currently leased for coal, be made 

unavailable for leasing. The authority to impose such direction is set forth at 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e), which gives 

the BLM broad discretion to “eliminate additional coal deposits from consideration to protect other resource 

values.” 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e)(3). 

(20) The only preference right lease applications that exist are in northwestern New Mexico, where Arch Coal, 

which is currently bankrupt, has the rights to acquire 21,000 acres of leases. Legislation was introduced in the 

U.S. House of Representatives that would allow the Secretary to retire these preference right lease applications. 

See HR-1820, available online at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1820/text. If this 

legislation is passed, there would be no additional preference right lease applications requiring action. We 

support this legislation and urge the Secretary of the Interior to encourage its passage in the U.S. Senate and 

adoption into law. 

Putting a permanent pause on leasing will not destroy the U.S. economy or otherwise endanger our energy 

security. As a recent report looking at leasing in the Powder River Basin found, existing leased reserves in the 

Powder River Basin are sufficient to meet demand and effectively contribute to limiting temperature increases. 

(21) This report is instructive as the Powder River Basin is the largest coal producing region in the United States 

and imposes the greatest influence on energy supply and demand in the nation. If an end to federal leasing can be 

justified in the Powder River Basin, it can be justified for federal leasing elsewhere in the U.S. 

21 See Exhibit 11, Fulton, M., D. Koplow, R. Capalino, and A. Grant, “Enough Already: Meeting 2oC PRB Coal 

Demand Without Lifting the Federal Moratorium,” Report Prepared for Energy Transition Advisors, Earth Track, 

and Carbon Tracker Initiative (July 2016), available online at http://www.carbontracker.org/report/enoughalready-2c-powder-river-basin-coal-demand-federal-moratorium/. 

2. Increased royalty rates and rentals: Coal is exacting a tremendous toll on our nation, costing our society 

billions in climate damages, adverse health impacts from air pollution, and water contamination. Royalty rates 

from production on existing coal leases and rentals on existing leases must be increased to begin to recoup the 

costs of these externalities, which are currently shouldered by the public. 

Although royalty rates are normally imposed through new leasing, we recommend that the Interior Department 

and BLM incorporate higher royalty rates into existing leases as existing leases are readjusted pursuant to 43 

C.F.R. § 3451.1. To accomplish this, we urge the amendment of 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-2(a)(1) and (2) to incorporate 

increased royalty rates for both surface and underground mining. As leases are readjusted, these royalty rates 

must be applied to existing leases pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3451.1(a)(2). 

Increasing royalty rates has been recommended by the White House as both a means to generate revenue and 

address the costs of environmental externalities, including carbon costs. (22) 

(22) See Exhibit 12, Executive Office of the President of the United States, “The Economics of Coal Leasing on 

Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers” (June 2016), available online at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160622_cea_coal_leasing.pdf. 

Furthermore, royalty rate reductions should not be approved. Currently, royalty rate reductions are routinely 

granted as companies claim poverty or difficulty in mining with little apparent scrutiny as to whether the 

reductions are justified. In Colorado, for example, BLM officials have approved royalty rate reductions to facilitate 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-31

Scoping Report 

methane venting and most recently proposed to approve a retroactive royalty rate reduction for a mine that was 

not even producing coal. (23) See Exhibits 13 and 14. 

Similarly, we urge Interior and BLM to amend 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-1(a) to raise rental rates for federal coal leases. 

Currently, rental rates are set at $3.00 per acre, a figure that has not been adjusted since 1979, if not earlier. This 

rental rate not only has failed to be adjusted to account for inflation, but fails to account for the fact that some 

leases may be of small acreage, yet yield significant amounts of coal. Rentals should reflect the value of the lease, 

which depends on the amount of coal a lease contains. In accordance with 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-1(a), any increased 

rental rate must be applied to any readjusted coal lease. 

3. Existing leases that are not producing must be canceled: Where a lease is not meeting continued operation 

requirements under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.1(a)(2), it is subject to cancellation pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3452.2. Where a 

lease is not meeting continued operation requirements, BLM and the Interior Department should make clear that 

cancellation of the lease must be pursued. To this end, discretionary avenues for avoiding cancellation should be 

prohibited. Thus, lease suspensions under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.3 and payment of advanced royalties in lieu of 

continued operation under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.4 should be barred. 

The justification for imposing such direction is very clear. Currently, BLM regularly grants lease suspensions and 

allows payment of royalties in lieu of continued operation with no assessment of whether such actions are 

appropriate or in the public interest. BLM appears to be under the impression that lease suspensions or advanced 

royalties are somehow mandated, and that the agency has no choice but to approve company requests. An 

egregious example of this is with regards to Arch Coal’s Carbon Basin Lease in southern Wyoming (No. WYW139975). Arch acquired this lease with the aim of developing a mine to fuel a proposed coal to liquids facility. 

However, this coal to liquids facility has never materialized or even shown any promise of materializing. Most 

recently, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality terminated the permit for the proposed facility. 

(24) Nevertheless, since 2010, Arch has failed to meet continued operation requirements. The BLM has allowed 

Arch to maintain its lease, however, by routinely allowing the company to pay advanced royalties in lieu of 

continued operation. (25) These decisions appear to be pro forma in nature, and do not reflect any consideration 

as to whether it is appropriate or remotely in the public interest to accept advance royalties in lieu of continued 

operation. 

(24) See Exhibit 15, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, “Permit Termination, Medicine Bow Fuel 

and Power Coal to Liquid Project” (June 27, 2016).

(25) See Exhibit 16. 

Furthermore, where an existing lease is not producing, yet is part of a producing logical mining unit, BLM and the 

Interior Department should use their discretion to modify the boundaries of logical mining units to eliminate the 

non-producing lease and facilitate its cancellation. BLM has such discretion under 43 C.F.R. § 3478.1. 

Cancelling leases that are not producing will serve the goal of preventing any potential future development of 

existing leases and contribute to an orderly end to the federal coal program. 

4. Accounting for carbon costs in coal management: It should be made clear, whether through new rules or 

guidance, that carbon costs must be analyzed, assessed and disclosed as federal coal management decisions are 

made. Such decisions are most likely to include mining plan modifications issued pursuant to the Mineral Leasing 

Act, 30 U.S.C. § 207(c), and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (“SMCRA”), 30 C.F.R. § 746, and 

lease readjustments. It is imperative that the BLM and Interior maintain close accounting of the carbon emissions 

and costs resulting from its coal management actions, to ensure full transparency around these emissions and 

costs, and to meaningfully act to address these emissions and costs. Particularly given that, pursuant to authorities 

under the Mineral Leasing Act and SMCRA, the Secretary of the Interior has full discretion to disapprove mining 

plans authorizing the development of leased federal coal, it is imperative that carbon emissions and costs factor 

into and influence such decisionmaking. 

5. Reclamation must be guaranteed: To ensure an orderly end to the federal coal program, full and final 

reclamation must be guaranteed within a reasonable timeframe. We urge two regulatory changes to ensure this 

occurs. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-32 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

First, Interior should amend regulations at 30 C.F.R. §§ 816.100 and 817.100 to provide clarification and 

specificity around contemporaneous reclamation. Current rules are vague and fail to ensure that reclamation 

proceeds in a manner that is as “contemporaneously as possible” with mining in accordance with 30 U.S.C. § 

1202(e). These regulations should be amended to make clear that the success of contemporaneous reclamation 

must be measured based on a comparison of Phase III bond release acres, as defined under 30 C.F.R. 

§ 800.40(c)(3), with disturbed acres and ensure that reclamation proceeds at a 1:1 rate, in other words for every 

acre disturbed, one acre should be fully reclaimed to meet Phase III bond release standards. 

Second, just as current BLM rules require diligent development of federal coal, these rules should also require 

diligent reclamation. To this end, Interior and BLM should consider rule changes to ensure that nonproducing 

coal leases are fully reclaimed within two years of failing to meet continued operation requirements and set 

deadlines for the full reclamation of federal coal leases that are no later than 2035. This reclamation deadline 

should be established by rule and incorporated into lease terms as leases are readjusted. 

Finally, Interior should amend self-bonding regulations at 30 C.F.R. § 800.23, and any other regulations, as 

appropriate, to prohibit self-bonding whenever publicly owned coal is permitted to be mined. This will ensure 

that, as coal companies continue their decline, that American public resources are fully protected and fully 

guaranteed to be cleaned up. 

6. Prioritizing transition: Above all, the BLM and Interior must make transition away from coal a foremost goal as 

the federal coal program comes to an end. To do this, the agencies should not only explicitly commit, to the 

extent possible, their leadership, resources, and expertise to ensure that workers and communities receive the 

support and assistance they need to transition to more sustainable and prosperous economies. Among the 

actions that Interior and BLM can and should undertake to ensure transition: 

-Work to secure Congressional authorization to direct increased royalty and rental payments toward worker 

and community support. Under NEPA, agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate 

reasonable alternatives “not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(c). Here, although 

BLM and Interior may not be able to direct royalties toward transition support, they can recommend that 

Congress pass legislation that provides such authorization. 

-Establishing an Economic Transition Fund, which would be sustained by an increase in reimbursement fees 

charged by the Interior Department when processing coal-related applications. Under the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (“FLPMA”), Interior has authority to recover reasonable costs associated with its coal 

management program and to appropriate and spend such monies. Specifically, FLPMA provides the Secretary of 

the Interior with authority to “require a deposit of any payments intended to reimburse the United States for 

reasonable costs with respect to applications,” including coal lease application. See 43 U.S.C. § 1734(b). Such 

payments are “authorized to be appropriated and made available until expended” by FLPMA. Id. Funds from the 

Economic Transition Fund should be directed toward transition-oriented initiatives. 

-Prioritizing support and assistance to help communities transition. In addition to securing funds and making them 

available, the Department of the Interior can play a key role in helping direct communities to support, steering 

resources to support conservation and research projects in or near communities, encouraging renewable energy 

development on public lands. Such leadership could be conveyed through a Secretarial Order that simply makes it 

an overarching priority of the Interior Department to advance transition 

Overall, the Interior Department and BLM must move to keep our publicly owned coal in the ground. However, 

keeping coal in the ground should not mean that we turn our backs on the workers and communities that have 

been dependent on coal for so long. Embracing an alternative that ensures “Just Transition,” in other a fair, 

compassionate, and orderly transition away from coal, is the most effective way to both protect our climate and 

help our nation effectively move to more sustainable economies and reliable and affordable means of energy 

production. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-14

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-33

Scoping Report 

We urge BLM to adopt a preferred alternative in the PEIS that will phase out federal coal leasing, meet U.S. 

energy needs with 100 percent clean sources of energy, and require coal producers with existing leases to take 

immediate steps to limit and offset emissions of greenhouse gases that are hastening global climate disruption 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-15

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM also must consider an alternative that would require coal producers to pay to American taxpayers royalties 

on federal coal sales that reflect the extraordinary costs of mining and burning coal on our global climate. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-24

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A. The PEIS Should Evaluate an Alternative that Ends Federal Coal Leasing Consistent with this country’s 

overarching climate goals, the PEIS should identify as its preferred alternative an end to federal coal leasing, 

phased in by declining to issue new leases and by not renewing or modifying existing leases. Such an action is both 

authorized and achievable. BLM has the discretion to end federal coal leasing. The FCLAA provides that the 

Secretary “is authorized” to identify tracts for leasing and thereafter “shall, in his discretion ... from time to time, 

offer such lands for leasing ....” 30 U.S.C. § 201; see also WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 859 F. Supp. 2d 83, 87 

(D.D.C. 2012) (“Under the [FLCAA], the Secretary is permitted to lease public lands for coal mining operations 

after conducting a competitive bidding process” (emphasis added)). Further, the Secretary has discretion to reject 

lease applications on the grounds that “leasing of the lands covered by the application, for environmental or other 

sufficient reasons, would be contrary to the public interest.” 43 C.F.R. § 3425.1-8(a)(3). Here, the public 

interest—as will be reflected in BLM’s thorough analysis in the PEIS—overwhelmingly supports an end to federal 

coal leasing. BLM cannot reject this alternative on grounds that creating an electric generating sector in the U.S. 

that relies on 100 percent clean energy is infeasible. As explained in a recent paper by Environment America “at 

least seven detailed studies of clean energy systems – conducted by academics, government agencies and 

nonprofit organizations– suggest that we have the tools we need to make the transition.”300 For many years, 

scholars explained that the primary barriers achieving a 100 percent clean energy economy were political rather 

than technological. In 2010, the peer-reviewed journal Energy Policy published an article analyzing the feasibility of 

providing world-wide energy for electric power, transportation, and heating and cooling exclusively from wind, 

water, and sunlight. 301 In particular, that paper analyzed current and future energy demand; availability of wind, 

water and sunlight energy resources; the number of facilities then in use and needed to harness sufficient wind, 

water, and sunlight energy; and the variability of renewable resources; the economics of massive renewable 

deployment; and material requirements; and policy implications. The paper concluded that a combination of wind 

turbines, concentrated solar 300 Environment America Research & Policy Center, WE HAVE THE POWER: 

100% RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR A CLEAN, THRIVING AMERICA, ES-7 (Spring 2016), attached as Ex. 59. 301 

Mark Z. Jacobson & Mark A. Delucchi, Providing All Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power, 39 

ENERGY POLICY 1154–1169 (2011), attached as Ex. 60. 78 plants, PV solar plants, rooftop PV solar systems, 

geothermal plants, hydro-electric power plants, wave devices, and tidal turbines could supply all the energy the 

world requires by 2030.302 Further, the study concludes that doing so would reduce world power demand by 30 

percent, require only 0.59 percent more of the world’s land for energy production, and entail similar energy 

costs. 303 More recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) and others have explained 

that in order to achieve the necessary carbon reductions to keep global temperatures within 2 degrees Celsius of 

pre-industrial times, the global electricity sector must be decarbonized by 2050.304 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-34 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-25

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM Should Evaluate an Alternative that Forces Coal Companies to Internalize the Climate Costs of Mining and 

Combusting Federal Coal In any alternative that allows for continued coal leasing, the PEIS should ensure that the 

extraordinary costs of mining and burning coal on our global climate are reflected in the price of federal coal by, 

at a minimum, incorporating into royalties the social costs of carbon and methane. In addition to identifying the 

value that would accurately reflect those costs, BLM should analyze whether such an alternative would sufficiently 

discourage federal coal mining to meet U.S. carbon-reduction targets. In April 2016, researches at Harvard 

University and Vulcan Philanthropies released a paper that utilized the Integrated Planning Model to analyze the 

market and climate impacts of incorporating a “carbon adder” into federal coal royalties. 305 Their findings 

indicated that if the Clean Power Plan (“CPP”) is either struck down or otherwise not implemented, 

incorporating the Interagency Working Group’s social cost of carbon into federal coal royalty rates could achieve 

roughly three-quarters of the emissions reductions that EPA anticipates under the Clean Power Plan. The analysis 

also finds that in a scenario where the CPP is upheld by the courts and ultimately implemented, incorporating the 

social cost of carbon into federal coal royalties would result in a slight up-tick in mining non-federal coal reserves, 

but this substitution would be tempered by a shift to electricity generation by gas and renewables. 306 Under 

both a Clean Power Plan and non-Clean Power Plan Scenario, the modeling conducted as part of the study 

revealed that adding the social cost of carbon into federal coal royalties would increase revenue to the federal 

government and states even while reducing the total amount of coal mined and 302 Id. at 1154. 303 Id. 304 

Lindee Wong, David de jager, & Pieter van Breevoort, The Incompatibility of High-Efficient Coal Technology with 

2 Degrees Scenarios, ECOFYS 1 (April 2016), attached as Ex. 61. 305 Todd Gerarden and James Stock, FEDERAL 

COAL PROGRAM REFORM, THE CLEAN POWER PLAN, AND THE INTERACTION OF UPSTREAM AND 

DOWNSTREAM CLIMATE POLICIES (April 2016), attached as Ex. 62. 306 Id. at 3. 79 GHGs emitted from the 

electric sector. 307 Further, as the White House Council of Economic Advisors recognized, even if carbon 

dioxide emissions from coal combustion are completely internalized through downstream regulation such as the 

CPP (which remains to be seen), BLM may achieve additional emissions-reductions benefits by requiring coal 

producers to internalize the climate costs of coal-bed methane emissions that are released during mining. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-3 

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

III. THE PEIS SHOULD EVALUATE A RANGE OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES BLM must examine 

reasonable alternatives that meet the nation’s energy needs while avoiding the extreme social and environmental 

costs of federal coal leasing. NEPA’s implementing regulations require BLM to “[r]igorously explore and 

objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” to its proposed actions. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). “The alternatives 

section is ‘the heart of the environmental impact statement.’” City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1207 

(9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14). The reasonableness of alternatives is governed by the agency’s 

statement of the “purpose and need” for the action. See Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 661 F.3d 1209, 1244 

(10th Cir. 2011) (alternatives need not be considered that do not meet purpose and need for project); Pac. 

Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Associations v. Blank, 693 F.3d 1084, 1100 (9th Cir. 2012) (same). Here, the purpose 

and need of the PEIS is to “consider whether and how the [federal coal leasing] may be improved and 

modernized to foster the orderly development of BLM administered coal on Federal lands in a manner that gives 

proper consideration to the impact of that development on important stewardship values, while also ensuring a 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-35

Scoping Report 

fair return to the American public.”299 As discussed, those stewardship values include, most prominently for 296 

See letter from E. Zukoski, Earthjustice to R. Welch, Colorado State Director, BLM (Feb. 25, 2016) at 1, attached 

as Ex. 57. 297 Id. at 2-3. 298 See letter from E. Zukoski, Earthjustice to R. Welch, Colorado State Director, BLM 

(Mar. 16, 2016) at 1, attached as Ex. 58. 299 Secretarial Order No. 3338, at 1. 77 purposes of the PEIS, our 

nation’s commitments to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While these comments suggest 

numerous opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions attributable to burning federal coal, BLM must 

examine, at a minimum, two overarching alternatives: first, an alternative that ends federal coal leasing; and 

second, an alternative that requires coal companies to internalize the climate costs of mining and combusting 

federal coal. 

Comment Number: 0020052-12

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Commenter1:Barbara A. Walz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The idea that access to federal coal should be significantly reduced - or even eliminated - would be disastrous and 

should not be considered as a reasonable alternative in the PEIS. The "Purpose and Need" of the federal coal 

program is to satisfy, in part, the requirements of the 

MLA and MMPA. Curtailment or elimination of federal coal outside the confines of these laws is unwarranted and 

inappropriate. 

Comment Number: 0020052-6 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Commenter1:Barbara A. Walz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Tri-State encourages BLM to include reasonable alternatives in the PEIS that maximize federal coal use while 

maintaining the current royalty rate or proposing ways to reduce it. The federal coal program is mature, well 

established, should be more efficient and should be able to reduce the amount of funding necessary to implement 

it.

Comment Number: 0020056-13

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Order 3338 states that the PEIS will examine several policies that can only be modified by congressional action. 

These include potential changes in federal royalty rates and the potential imposition of carbon-related fees or 

taxes. The PEIS should expressly identify which alternatives and actions it considers will require legislative 

authorization. 

Comment Number: 002501_Ring_20160728-1 

Organization1:Climate911 

Commenter1:Wendy Ring 

Other Sections: 8.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

From our perspective as guardians of the nation's health, the glaring deficit in the BLM's proposal is the failure to 

consider ending coal leasing on public lands as a legitimate alternative. Greenhouse gas emissions from coal 

combustion undermine US climate commitments and threaten the world's ability to stay within a 2C carbon 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-36 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

budget. There is no reason to subject public lands and the US population to further risk when we have enough 

coal through existing leases to meet our needs as we transition to clean sources of energy. 

Comment Number: 002501_Ring_20160728-6 

Organization1:Climate911 

Commenter1:Wendy Ring 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Continuing the current moratorium or making it permanent is the true “no action” scenario.

Comment Number: 0000861_Ronremoeller-1 

Organization1:Sierra Club, Ohio Chapter 

Commenter1:Brian Ronremoeller 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

we'd just like to urge BLM to consider the alternative, to end the federal coal leasing program because we can 

never fully account for all the public health and environmental impacts coal leasing. In Ohio we estimate that 

about one out of every 100,000 people die from coal-powered pollution in our state. No number above zero is 

an acceptable number of deaths from coal pollution. No number above zero is an acceptable number of asthma 

attacks of our children in our state. 

Comment Number: 0000869_Kotcon-1 

Organization1:Sierra Club 

Commenter1:James Kotcon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am here today to urge that you look very seriously at the no leasing alternative. I realize that from an agency 

whose mission is to issue leases that's going to be a very heavy lift, and I'd like to give you some reasons why. 

We have heard a lot about the problems with the leasing program, the need to reform reclamation bonding, the 

need to end the self-bonding, the need to consider and incorporate the social cost of carbon in the leasing costs, 

a lot of the adverse impacts on mining communities and so on. And I think you need to consider each of those. 

EPA asks that you consider both the direct impacts of your alternatives as well as the indirect and cumulative 

impacts. Much of what we have heard today is testimony from the eastern United States really looks as evidence 

of the indirect and cumulative impacts of leasing from western states coal. It will be easy to disregard some of 

this testimony today as not relevant to the western states leasing programs, and I'm urging you to resist that 

temptation to disregard that and instead look at the impacts on eastern states of the leasing programs in western 

United States. 

For example, about 40 percent of the coal burned in coal-fired power plants in West Virginia is actually western 

coal. So the air pollution impacts of that western coal, the mercury in the streams, the impacts to fisheries, is an 

indirect impact of your leasing program, and it's happening in my home State of West Virginia. Please consider 

that in your analysis. 

There are indirect impacts of burning western coals on eastern coal communities, impacts to workers. Right now 

a number of the major mining companies in West Virginia are bankrupt and don't have the money for 

reclamation. It is important that you get an estimate of the true cost of coal and that you fully consider those in 

your analysis. 

ISSUE 1.4 - OTHER GENERAL 

Total Number of Submissions: 60 

Total Number of Comments: 151
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-37

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000132_Dinsmoor_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Phil Dinsmoor 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I encourage the BLM, in the course of reviewing the valuation that should have been charged, to try and focus 

their activities or to focus on the leasing process and not all those other extraneous processes. All of that said, 

the leasing process, as I mentioned earlier, is but an early step in a multi-stage process. 

Comment Number: 00000139_Craft_20160517-3 

Organization1:Wyoming Coal Company 

Commenter1:Lecia Craft 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The need to reevaluate the current coal leasing process is unfounded. Prior to BLM leasing any coal, an extensive 

NEPA evaluation is already required including the evaluation of greenhouse gases. Even once this is completed, 

additional state and federal permits must be acquired before the first shovel of dirt can be moved 

Comment Number: 0000073_Reavey_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Richard Reavey 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Mineral Leasing Act, which is a very good data source for you, should you care to read it, is the law under 

which the federal coal leasing program operates. It directs and requires the Secretary to develop guidelines and 

regulations for the program that -- and I quote -- "ensure the maximum economic recovery of coal." The coal 

leasing moratorium violates that requirement. 

Comment Number: 0000082_Marshal_20160517-1 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Colin Marshall 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As the federal coal leasing program is reviewed, it is important that the statutory authority of the Mineral Leasing 

Act constantly be referred to along with the directions of the Secretary of the Interior, and all the guidelines and 

regulations for the federal coal leasing program must ensure the maximum economic recovery of coal. The 

Secretary is instructed by law to do this, designing regulations to keep federal coal in the ground would be a 

violation of the law. 

Comment Number: 0000082_Marshal_20160517-2 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Colin Marshall 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is Congress, not the Secretary that is empowered to tax. Any efforts to impose new carbon taxes as such on 

carbon or, as the Secretary suggests, to reflect the administration's climate objectives in royalty and leasing rate 

hikes would be illegal. 

Comment Number: 0000521_Lummis_US Rep_20160517-1 

Organization1:United States Congress 

Commenter1:Cynthia Lummis 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-38 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

At a minimum, any serious review of the federal coal program should involve far more meaningful consultation 

with states, tribes, and industry. 

Comment Number: 0000604-1 

Commenter1:Richard Reavey 

Other Sections: 7.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the administration wants to impose new taxes on coal mined on federal lands, it must seek legislation 

authorizing such new taxes from Congress. The Secretary has no statutory authority to impose a "social cost of 

carbon" via royalty or leasing rates. She cannot impose a climate change tax. If she wishes the federal coal 

program to "reflect the administration's climate objectives", she must obtain Congress' authorization to do so. 

Comment Number: 0000604-2 

Commenter1:Richard Reavey 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I want to state my objection to this hearing and to Secretarial Order Number 3338 establishing the 

Programmatic EIS for federal coal leasing as violations of the Mineral Leasing Act, the sole authority to the 

Secretary of Interior in operating the federal coal leasing program. The Mineral Leasing Act requires that any 

regulations developed by the Secretary for the federal coal leasing program ensure, and I quote, "the maximum 

economic recovery of coal". 

Comprehensive reviews of the federal coal leasing program have been undertaken in recent years by the 

Inspector General of the Department of the Interior and by the Government Accountability Office. Neither of 

these comprehensive reviews called for or recommended a Programmatic EIS. Neither of these comprehensive 

reviews called for or recommended a Programmatic EIS. Neither of these comprehensive reviews called for or 

recommended increasing royalty rates or leasing rates. Further, the Secretary of the Interior has failed to 

conclusively report on progress, or lack thereof, made against the reforms that these reports did recommend 

Comment Number: 0000752_Lempke_Tri-State_20160623-4 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc 

Commenter1:Doug Lempke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The idea that access to federal coal should be significantly reduced — or even eliminated —would be disastrous 

and should not be considered as a reasonable alternative in the PEIS. The "Purpose and Need" of the federal coal 

program is to satisfy, in part, the requirements of the Mineral Leasing Act. Curtailment or elimination of federal 

coal outside the confines of the Mineral Leasing Act is unwarranted, inappropriate and against the law! 

Comment Number: 0000772_Nielsen_20160623-4 

Commenter1:Nicholas Nielsen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the announcement of this EIS it proves this by saying that the "we need to alter the program so that it is 

consistent with the Nations Goals". What are these goals based on and how are they defined? 

Comment Number: 0000826-2 

Organization1:Wyoming State Senate 

Commenter1:Stan Cooper 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-39

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And yet this appears by most measures to be a mostly one sided partnership with the state and local 

governments losing more ground to the Federal Government in the way of public lands management decisions 

every year. There is this feeling in the West that the BLM and the Administration have little if any sympathy for 

their local partners. 

Comment Number: 0001111_VON FLATERN_WY state senate_20160621-3 

Organization1:Wyoming State Senate 

Commenter1:Michael Von Flatern 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The fact is the 2013 reports by the Government Accountability Office and the Department of the Interior 

Inspector General contained minor recommendations for improvements to Federal Coal Program. And the BLM 

has already acted on reports, the report's recommendations to improve the management of the Federal Coal 

Program. Today the agency has published an updated coal evaluation manual and handbook as well as seven 

instruction memorandums to its field offices in response to that report. 

Comment Number: 0002013_Corkran_20160623-1 

Commenter1:John Corkran 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining & mining in general can be done safely and with better environmental quality considerations if 

everyone payed attention to the laws & regulations that exist today ... MSHA came into being for a reason ... too 

many mine operators run lethal operations ... laws and regulations unenforced like they are today ... it's a morally 

bankrupt scenario in far to many places on this planet that we all share. 

Comment Number: 0002100_OHair_20160613-1 

Commenter1:Todd O'Hair 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Neither the Government Accountability Office or the Inspector General offered recommendations that included 

a moratorium or consideration of royalty rate increases. Both entities conducted extensive review of the coal 

lease program and royalty program and still the Secretary has chosen to undertake an effort that is well beyond 

the recommendations of the GAO and the IG. The PEIS should note specifically that no independent review of 

the coal program has recommended efforts under consideration by the PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002100_OHair_20160613-5 

Commenter1:Todd O'Hair 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should be held to a strict three year time line to avoid further delays and further layoffs. 

Comment Number: 0002144_Kot_20160519_SweetwtrCnty-5 

Organization1:Sweetwater County, Wyoming 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

please carefully consider the potential economic impacts that the Coal PEIS may have on individuals, families, all 

levels of local government and our state. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-40 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-14

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We also would recommend that Congress work with the Government Accountability Office to establish the coal 

lease program as “High Risk” and to conduct oversight studies for at least the next five years accordingly.

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-10

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Other Sections: 8.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to water, soils, vegetation and wildlife are short duration in the whole scheme of things and are already 

managed by state and federal agencies, including: 

-Wyoming DEQ – Land Quality Division, Air Quality Division, Water Quality Division, and Solid & Hazardous 

Waste Division, Industrial Siting 

-Wyoming State Engineers Office – groundwater and surface water use permitting 

-BATF – explosives use licensing and inspections 

-MSHA – safety and health and inspections 

-NRC – nuclear sources related to coal analyzers 

-ACOE – any and all wetland impacts 

-EPA – drinking water, wastes 

-BLM – coal leasing, resource recovery and protection, and inspections 

-USFWS – migratory birds of high federal interest 

Just to name a few, and BLMs review of addressing impacts to water, soil, vegetation and wildlife, during the PEIS 

review, are absolutely not necessary. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-14

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A review of energy needs is also not needed during the PEIS review. Current and pending regulations and 

requirements to meet the climate change commitments are already in place and will dictate energy needs through 

market conditions. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-17

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A formal comprehensive review of the federal coal program is not necessary and a waste of taxpayer money. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-19

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A series of good government reform to improve transparency and program administration is certainly always a 

good idea, as long as the reform includes streamlining the process. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-41

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002157_Madder_20160517_EnergyPolicyNetwork-1 

Organization1:Energy Policy Network 

Commenter1:Kelly Mader 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

EPN agrees that the impact on the projected fuel mix and cost of electricity are relevant considerations in a 

Programmatic EIS on the Federal coal program. EPN urges BLM to ensure that this analysis is comprehensive and 

not one-sided, as a one-sided evaluation of these issues will undoubtedly be urged by scores of comments driven 

by a spoken or unspoken desire to eradicate coal from the resource mix in every state and organized electricity 

market in the country. The BLM must remain cognizant of that fact that emissions from the combustion of coal 

are comprehensively and strictly regulated through air quality rules set forth by the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and state air regulators under the Clean Air Act. These include, without limitation, the Regional 

Haze Rule and Mercury Air and Toxics Standards, and may one day include the carbon emission limits imposed 

by the Clean Power Plan. 

Comment Number: 0002173_Quick_20160622-8 

Commenter1:Kendra Quick 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The facts are that the 2013 Reports by the Government Accountability Office and the Department of the 

Interior Inspector General contained minor recommendations for improvements to the Federal Coal Program. 

Both of these reports confirmed substantial benefits to American taxpayers. While they offered modest 

recommendations for improvements, neither report called for wholesale revisions to the program nor do they 

address in any way royalty rates. The BLM has already acted on the reports’ recommendations to improve the 

management of the Federal Coal Program. To date, the agency has published an Updated Coal Evaluation manual 

and handbook as well as seven instruction memoranda to its field offices in response to the modest suggestions 

by the IG and GAO. 

Comment Number: 0002190_Pfeiffer_20160627-1 

Commenter1:Ben Pfeiffer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM’s analysis must include: 

· increased illness and mortality due to mining pollution 

· climate change from greenhouse gas emissions 

· particulates causing air pollution 

· loss of biodiversity 

· cost to taxpayers of environmental monitoring and cleanup 

· decreased property values 

· infrastructure damages from mudslides resulting from mountaintop removal 

· infrastructure damage from mine blasting 

· impacts of acid rain resulting from coal combustion byproducts; 

· water pollution; and 

· federal, state, and local subsidies to the coal industry. 

Comment Number: 0002282_Bradford_20160719-4 

Commenter1:David Bradford 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Other impacts should also include the impacts of increased cost of electricity if coal mining declines and the cost 

of generating electricity increases. Currently, coal and natural gas compete for the electricity market share. If less 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-42 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

coal is offered for leasing, what impact will this have on the cost of electricity? If the cost of electricity rises due 

to decreased availability of coal what impacts will this have on the cost of living and the health and welfare of 

Americans? These impacts need also to be considered. 

Current coal lease requirements on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests provide 

adequate protections for water resources, wildlife, threatened and endangered species and other land uses. 

These issues are addressed at the time of lease issuance and I believe are the appropriate level for these 

evaluations to be made. A national PEIS is not the appropriate place to make these determinations, other than to 

direct that these items be considered at the project level. 

Comment Number: 0002286_Watts_20160719-2 

Commenter1:Howard Watts 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the costs to pristine environments, health, air quality, and climate are factored in 

Comment Number: 0002309_Monseu_20160721_AmericanCoalCouncil-14

Organization1:American Coal Council 

Commenter1:Betsy Monseu 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As to those who continue to suggest that climate change must be addressed, that suggestion typically has little or 

nothing to do with how comprehensive the mine permitting process is. Rather, the goal is to keep coal in the 

ground. This is completely in conflict with the Mineral Leasing Act and BLM’s charge to promote mining and 

provide for the maximum economic recovery for coal mined on federal lands. In any event, injecting 

environmental policy into this process is clear perversion of BLM’s statutory obligation to promote coal use and 

maximize leasing 

revenues for taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0002309_Monseu_20160721_AmericanCoalCouncil-6 

Organization1:American Coal Council 

Commenter1:Betsy Monseu 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the Mineral Leasing Act (“MLA”) obligates BLM to promote mining of coal and provide for the maximum 

economic recovery for coal mined on federal lands. This is paramount as many of the reforms BLM is considering 

could be in direct conflict with BLM’s obligations as a steward of federally owned natural resources.

Comment Number: 0002329_Segger_20160724_CambellCntyWY-5 

Organization1:County and Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Commenter1:Carol Seeger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Another issue identified that will be considered in the federal coal leasing environmental impact assessment is 

climate change. Campbell County respectfully requests that dollars be invested in exploring cleaner ways to 

develop and use this valuable resource rather than continued assessments, studies and reports on the federal coal 

leasing program. 

Comment Number: 0002443_Koontz_20160727_BowieResources-11

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-43

Scoping Report 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There are several potential options to streamline and speed leasing. First, the PEIS itself can be a valuable tool. An 

organized and practical discussion of national environmental economic conditions and trends will facilitate tiering 

by BLM state offices in individual leasing decisions, facilitating discussion of cumulative and indirect impacts and 

reducing duplication of effort. The PEIS should be expressly designed for tiering, both by BLM in leasing and 

OSMRE in mine planning. 

Similarly, the Secretary should expressly adopt the cumulative impact principles articulated by the D.C. Circuit in 

their recent decisions Sierra Club v. FERC, D.C. Cir. No. 14-1275 (June 28, 2016) and EarthReports, Inc., v. 

FERC, D.C. Cir. No. 15-1127 (July 15, 2016), in which the Court recognized that cumulative impact analyses are 

to be focused on the same geographic area as the proposed action. The PEIS itself would thus have a broad 

cumulative impact analysis, but individual leasing decisions should have substantially more focused cumulative 

impact analyses than those urged by environmental activists. 

Third, the PEIS should examine more express and firm deadlines for the various steps in lease processing, 

including NEPA proceedings. Presently, the only deadlines are various statutory and regulatory minimums. There 

are very few maximums. Consequently leasing processes can drift for months or years, only coming to a head 

when the applicant is approaching a supply crisis. Firmer regulatory timelines will not only greatly facilitate 

planning by the mine operators, they will assist the Department of Interior ("Department") in securing necessary 

appropriations to adequately staff the BLM and other offices to meet those deadlines. At this stage of scoping 

Bowie will not propose any specific timelines for any particular steps in leasing, but simply requests that this be an 

express subject of analysis, discussion, and recommendation in the PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002443_Koontz_20160727_BowieResources-7 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS Must Examine How Any Proposed Leasing Reforms are Reconcilable with the Federal Coal Leasing Act 

Amendments of 1976 ("FCLAA") and the Lessons Learned from the Failed Experiment with Regional Coal 

Leasing in the Late 1970s and Early 1980s. 

Comment Number: 0002443_Koontz_20160727_BowieResources-9 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As noted in Order 3338, a current area of controversy is the degree to which the BLM should analyze the effect 

of leasing decisions on coal combustion downstream. Bowie does not object to the consideration of the impact 

of federal coal leasing in the aggregate on net coal combustion, but any such analysis must consider the 

interaction of federal coal leasing with other law and market constraints. The most important of these is EPA's 

Clean Power Plan ("CPP"). Should the CPP survive judicial review, national coal consumption, and derivatively 

federal coal production, will be capped. As a result, leasing policy will have little effect on aggregate emissions, 

and extensive analysis of combustion effects will serve no policy purpose. 

Moreover, even if the CPP is overturned, leasing policy is only a small driver of net coal combustion. The 

combined effect of MATS, CSAPR, regional haze, and NAAQS revisions has been to render fuel costs a 

continually declining share of consumer operating costs, and to complicate any cause-and-effect relationship 

between federal coal leasing policy and net coal combustion. As a result, whether the CPP is upheld or not, any 

PEIS must evaluate net coal combustion effects of various leasing policy proposals with appropriate sensitivity to 

the highly regulated character of the coal consumer market. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-44 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002448_FoleyHein_20160727-5 

Organization1:Institute for Policy Integrity 

Commenter1:Jayni Foley Hein 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Substitution Analysis and Carbon Budgeting 

The third panel centered on substitution analysis and carbon budgeting. 

Nathaniel Shoaff (Staff Attorney, Sierra Club) discussed BLM’s past substitution analysis and recommendations for 

approaching substitution in the programmatic review. Shoaff explained that while there is an idea that coal is a 

global commodity and that consumers will pay to have coal come out of one spot if it does not come out of 

another; this assumption of “perfect substitution” should be refuted. The Sierra Club takes the position that one 

cannot make a “reasoned choice among alternatives,” as required by the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), until the greenhouse gas emission differences are known. This cannot be done without proper 

substitution analysis. The Sierra Club hopes that through the PEIS, there will be a determination as to whether a 

federal coal leasing program is consistent with the President’s climate objectives and the climate agreements 

(China, Paris, etc.) that we have already made. All of the emissions from coal production, transportation, and 

combustion should be quantified in the PEIS; this is a simple calculation. It is harder to analyze how certain 

policies change the energy market; however, this can and should be done using available tools and models, and is 

called for in the Secretarial Order itself. The agency should explain its historical views on substitution and why it 

is changing them, and make its review as transparent and replicable as possible. 

Jason Schwartz (Legal Director, Institute for Policy Integrity) discussed how other federal agencies have 

conducted substitution analysis and provided recommendations for BLM. He suggested that the first place BLM 

could look was within Interior itself, as its offshore leasing program has an extensive 35 years’ worth of 

experience doing energy substitution analyses. Schwartz explained that before 1982, BLM actually prepared 

Interior’s EIS for offshore leasing, and that today BOEM does much more qualitative and quantitive substitution 

analysis than BLM does. BLM can learn from its sister agencies’—including BOEM, FERC, the Surface 

Transportation Board, the U.S. State Department, and EPA—experiences with substitution analyses and should 

do so by using an economic model that has been used and adopted by other agencies. BOEM’s Market Sim, the 

U.S. Energy Information Administration’s NEMS, and ICF International’s IPM are all available models that have 

different benefits and drawbacks. Policy Integrity recommends that environmental impact statements quantify and 

monetize the full upstream and downstream emission consequences of proposed leasing actions and energy 

substitute scenarios. This approach is consistent with White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

guidance and is necessary to fulfill NEPA’s goals of providing policymakers and the public with information in a 

way that allows full comparison between alternatives. 

Comment Number: 0002448_FoleyHein_20160727-9 

Organization1:Institute for Policy Integrity 

Commenter1:Jayni Foley Hein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Hayes stated that reforming the federal coal program is important for six reasons: 

(1) the federal government’s efforts to earn a fair return have a checkered history outlined in many reports and 

investigations; 

(2) the status quo in terms of federal policy and valuation is not where it needs to be— federal coal is discounted 

even compared to regional coal sold by states and private actors, much less the national market; 

(3) we have a new appreciation today of key externality costs (and greenhouse gas emissions in particular) that 

historically have not been accounted for in the program but are now coming to the forefront. The federal 

government’s coal leasing decisions arguably affect 10 percent of the Nation’s overall greenhouse gas emissions; 

the federal government is both a major player and significant cost center for the impacts associated 

with climate change, like wildfires, droughts, and reduced snowpack; 

(4) we have a new appreciation that the definition of “fair market value” should mean more than the bidder’s 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-45

Scoping Report 

market price. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act takes a reasonable approach, and we ought to be 

considering the totality of a resources’ value when deciding whether to lease federal natural resources; 

(5) Congress recognized that there is a cost to providing federal resources to private parties. In 1964, it created 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund, paid for by oil and gas royalties; and (6) Secretary Jewell has taken a 

leadership role on reform, with a comprehensive effort underway right now through the Programmatic review. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-19

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Integration with other critical agencies, particularly OSM. Many of the failings the federal coal leasing program 

cannot be fully addressed without cooperation with and action from other agencies, particularly OSM. We urge 

BLM to make this reform process a cross-agency effort that comprehensively addresses all of the aspects of 

federal coal mining. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-20

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ensure that federal coal mining is compliant with existing law before permitting new or expanded leasing. The 

PEIS should examine and recommend implementation of a federal coal leasing framework that establishes an 

inter-agency management approach to ensure that coal companies operating under current or new federal coal 

leases bring their operations into full compliance with the SMCRA, the Clean Water Act and other 

environmental requirements governing coal mining and development as well as BLM’s mandates under the MLA, 

the Federal Land Policy Management Act and other statutes. Any company not in compliance with both the spirit 

and letter of these laws should be prohibited from receiving new or extended federal coal leases until it achieves 

compliance. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-46

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Purpose and need. In order to properly arrive at alternatives that will address the current shortcomings of the 

federal coal leasing program, it is critical that BLM and DOI set forth the purpose and need of the PEIS so as to 

reflect the public need to protect wildlife, ensure mining occurs in a manner that is compatible with the spirit and 

requirements of the law, ensure reclamation occurs, ensure the public is protected and receives fair 

compensation for the use of its resource, ensure a just transition for communities as coal use declines, and 

achieve the climate reduction goals needed to meet domestic and international carbon reduction goals. The 

purpose and need must, therefore, address the following concerns: 

o Whether, where, when and how to lease federal coal to best meet the needs of all Americans. 

o Whether adjustments are needed in order to provide a fair return to the American public. 

o How best to protect wildlife, habitat and other natural resources from the impacts of coal mining. 

o How best to assess the climate impacts of federal coal production and combustion. 

o How to ensure that coal mines operating under current and future leases comply with environmental 

protection and reclamation requirements 

o Whether the current coal program adequately accounts for externalities including environmental, climate, 

economic and social impacts. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-46 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

o The degree to which federal coal should support fulfilling the energy needs of the United States and the role of 

coal exports. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-50

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS is governed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA “is our basic national charter for 

protection of the environment.” (23) NEPA has two fundamental purposes: (1) to guarantee that agencies take a 

“hard look” at the consequences of their actions before the actions occur by ensuring that “the agency, in 

reaching its decision, will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant 

environmental impacts,” (24); and (2) to ensure that “the relevant information will be made available to the larger 

audience that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision.” 

(25) 

(23) 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a). 

(24) Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989). 

(25) Id. at 349. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-51

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (38) (MLA) established a leasing process for all deposits of coal, phosphate, 

sodium, potassium, oil, and gas on federal land. The goal of Congress in passing the MLA was to encourage better 

management of federal land and mineral resources. Under the MLA, the two principal methods for leasing coal 

were public sale by competitive bidding (in areas containing known quantities of coal deposits), (39) and 

prospecting permits with a right to obtain a preference right lease upon discovery of commercial quantities of 

coal (in unclaimed and undeveloped areas with no known coal deposits). (40) As is discussed herein, other federal 

laws impact federal coal mining and leasing decisions. These laws – some of which are administered by other 

agencies within DOI – must be considered as part of the reform process, particularly issues concerning 

reclamation, bonding and regulation of surface mining pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 

Act (SMCRA) administered by OSM. These concerns are addressed below. 

(38) 30 U.S.C. §§181 et seq. (1920). 

(39) Id. § 201(a) (1970), amended by scattered sections of 30 U.S.C. §§ 181-352 (1988). 

(40) Id. § 201(b) (1970), repealed, subject to valid existing rights, by scattered sections of 30 U.S.C. §§ 181-352 

(1988). 

Congress amended the MLA with the passage of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act (FCLAA) in 1976. 

(41) The intent of Congress was to remedy several problems with federal coal leasing and enforcement of the 

MLA, including: 

(41) Pub. L. No. 94-377, 90 Stat. 1013 (codified in scattered sections of 30 U.S.C. §§ 181-352 (1988)); see Harold 

P. Quinn, Jr., Lessons from the Coal Law – The Future of Natural Resource Development, Proceedings of the 

Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Forty-First Annual Institute (1995); see also Mark Squillace, The Tragic Story of the 

Federal Coal Leasing Program, 27 NAT. RESOURCES J. 3, at 29 (Winter 2013). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-47

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-54

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While not administered by BLM, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), (133) is 

critical to addressing chief shortcomings in the mining of federally leased coal. As such, coordination with the 

Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) regarding failures in SMCRA regulation and 

enforcement must be a central component of BLM’s and DOI’s effort to reform the federal coal leasing program. 

Failing to coordinate in this manner will not achieve needed reforms and be a much wasted opportunity. This is 

particularly true regarding significant failures regarding mine site reclamation and bonding to secure that 

reclamation. 

(133) 30 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq. 

Comment Number: 0002454_Hoeft_20160727-3 

Organization1:Tahoma Audubon 

Commenter1:Bruce Hoeft 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We ask that the BLM quantify: 

-how much the extraction, processing, transport, and use of coal mined from federal property contributes to 

climate change, including both carbon dioxide, methane, and particulate releases 

-how much coal mining on federal lands constrains the government's ability to comply with carbon-reduction 

provisions of the UN Climate Change Conference 

- how much federal support for coal mining on public lands suppressed the development of alternate energy 

sources and the industries that would develop and deliver alternatives 

- how to ensure that the royalties charged for coal mining on federal property reflect the costs imposed on 

taxpayers to mediate the impacts of the mining, processing, transport, and burning of that coal 

- how to ensure that coal mining protocols on public property compel the mining companies to pay for the 

damage their operation cause, to both the immediate and global environment; the BLM should identify how 

effective self-bonding has been as a mechanism to ensure that reclamation liabilities are paid for by those 

responsible for the damage; simply declaring bankruptcy should not enable companies who bid for coal mining 

leases to evade liability for the environmental, economic, and health impacts of the mining they do, as well as for 

damages incurred in the transport and burning of coal 

Comment Number: 0002456_Degenfelder_20160728-1 

Commenter1:Steve Degenfelder 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Department of Interior must recognize the central role "available" coal leases play in the national security of 

the United States of America. With over forty percent of the Nation's electricity provided by coal fired power 

plants, the national security of the country depends on the availability of coal leases as fuel stock for our coal 

burning electrical generation facilities to delivery of a constant electrical stream to governmental agencies, 

business and homes in our nation. Computer technology is the primary support mechanism for the United States 

national security system, space program, military, local law enforcement, along with millions of computers in 

business and health care which require a constant flow of electrons. These important machines cannot operate 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-48 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

with integrity if their electrical supply is not constant and interruptible which is consistent with electrical supply 

probided by renewable sources. Renewable sources have not proven they can become part of the electrical 

baseload without carbon based backup. Unless the EIS concludes the Department can verify, without any doubt, 

renewable energy sources can be placed into the base load, it must continue a coal leasing program until that 

time ever occurs. Failure to recognize this fact leaves the EIS open to appeal, which will be won, because you 

have not considered all the alternatives and cumulative impacts of the decision making process and the EIS was 

formulated with prejudice. 

Should the ROD be delayed, as many NEPA documents seem to be, and the Department determines to continue 

its leasing moratorium, I hereby request you provide the undersigned with the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 

that allows the Department the authority to disregard the national security of the United States of America in 

lieu of leasing reform. You should also schedule an appearance before the appropriate Congressional Committee 

to explain the delayed NEPA document. 

Comment Number: 0002456_Degenfelder_20160728-2 

Commenter1:Steve Degenfelder 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The EIS analysis has to include making the public aware of costs associated with electrical generation. Only 

comparing operating costs and not including the capital expenditure, federal tax credits and life of project will not 

depict the true costs. As you know, when all "costs" are considered, electrical generation by renewable sources 

is uneconomic. This data should be included in the EIS analysis. In addition, the EIS has to contain a review of all 

scientific views on climate change, not just those on the environmental side who you have established friendships 

with. That analysis should include data readily available basing climate change primarily on tidal changes in the 

Pacific Ocean an dnote that some polar regions have increased ice formation. Without acknowledgement of 

these facts, the EIS will undoubtedly fail the hard look test required in an appeal before the Interior Board of 

Land Appeals or an appellate court. 

Comment Number: 0002462_Compton_20160728_UtahMineAssoc-2 

Organization1:Utah Mining Associaton 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

For example, many of the proposals currently advanced by groups in opposition to leasing federal coal are 

substantially the same as those raised in a 2011 petition for rulemaking calling for the abandonment of the leaseby-application (LBA) method for lease sales and the imposition of “carbon fees.” In denying the petition in 2011, 

BLM explained: how the LBA method is competitive and ensures receipt of fair market value; the pace of leasing 

occurred at generally the same rate as reserve depletion at existing mines; the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) analyses conducted in conjunction for lease sales adequately evaluate GHG emissions; and, imposing a 

carbon or other externality-based fee would require congressional action authorizing such fees. DOT points to 

no evidence or rationale that explains why these conclusions are no longer valid. The failure to explain the 

change in position and abandon the 2011 analysis is arbitrary and capricious. 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-12

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There has been a myriad of proposed and recently finalized regulations that impact coal mining and other energy 

industries. This includes the Clean Water Act Rule - Definition of Waters of the United States, 80 Fed. Reg. 

37054 (June 29, 2015), the Clean Power Plan, 80 Fed. Reg. 64662 (Oct. 23, 2015); BLM’s Proposed Planning 2.0 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-49

Scoping Report 

Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 9674 (Feb. 25, 2016); and the Proposed Regional Haze Rule Revisions, 81 Fed. Reg. 26942 

(May 4, 2016). 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-13

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Clean Water Act Rule purports to grant the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) more discretion in 

determining whether a water will be considered “waters of the United States” and therefore regulated by the 

EPA. The impact this rule would have on coal mining is additional permitting requirements, and costs and delays 

associated with the permits, due to potential impacts to an expansive list of waters now within the EPA’s 

jurisdiction. 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-14

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments

Commenter1: Kent 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Clean Power Plan will also increase costs to the coal mining industry as they have to meet stricter emissions 

standards in the states’ efforts to lower CO2 emissions. See Godby at 7-9; Wyoming Mining Association, at 4. It 

is estimated that the Clean Power Plan will lower Wyoming coal production by 32 percent by 2025 and cause the 

loss of over 7,000 jobs across the state. Godby at 8. See also U.S. Energy Information Administration, Clean 

Power Plan Reduces Projected Coal Production in Major U.S. Supply Regions (July 8, 2016), available at 

http://www.eia.gov/ todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26992 (Total U.S. coal production is expected to decline by 

about 26 percent between 2015 and 2040 with the implementation of the Clean Power Plan). The BLM must 

analyze this in the cumulative impact section of this Coal PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-15

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The recent land use plan amendments to protect sage grouse and their habitat will also impact the coal mining 

industry. These amendments have introduced Sagebrush Focal Areas and sterilized large segments of public land 

to multiple use and natural resource development. Coal is leased on federal land, so it is also affected by all 

management actions related to sage grouse protection. The amendments impose strict timing, density, and 

disturbance limitations for general and priority habitat management areas that will impact coal mining. This must 

be analyzed in the cumulative impact section of this Coal PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-16

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The NOI states that it will consider developing a “landscape-level approach to identify geographic areas for 

potential leasing to identify and address potential conflicts.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 17727; see id. at 17725. The push for 

landscape level review incorrectly assumes this is not done now. Coal lease suitability decisions are made in 

landscape level land use plans. Regional environmental impact statements (EIS) also address development. See e.g. 

Powder River Basin Coal EIS. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-50 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-18

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Under BLM’s Proposed Planning 2.0 Rule, the BLM Director is also given the discretion to decide who manages a 

landscape-level planning effort. 81 Fed. Reg. at 9725. Local field offices may not be in control of the planning effort 

involving the lands they manage, and as a result, local input by counties, conservation districts, and community 

members may get lost in the volumes of other materials addressing other issues on the vast landscape drawn by 

Washington. The Coalition opposes such broad level planning because it dilutes the involvement of local 

governments and community members. 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-19

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This NOI does not currently propose any amendments to the regulations governing the federal coal program, but 

it is requesting commenters to identify possible changes to regulations, guidance, and management practices. 81 

Fed. Reg. at 17726. Further, any changes to the bonus payments, royalty rates, and rental rates would require 

amendments to the regulations found at 43 C.F.R. Part 3470, and any changes to the leasing process would 

require amendments to 43 C.F.R. Part 3420. Amendments to these regulations would trigger rulemaking 

procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §553, and analysis under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (“RFA”), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(“SBREFA”), 5 U.S.C. §601 et seq.

Section 603(a) of the RFA requires that an agency, at the time of issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking, 

publish an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. 5 

U.S.C. §603(a). Small entities includes small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdiction. 5 

U.S.C. §601(3) - (6). Section 603© also requires that the initial analysis describe “any significant alternatives to the 

proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant 

economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. §603©.

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-21

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Small businesses that work in the coal industry or are indirectly tied to the coal industry will also be impacted by 

any modifications to the regulations that will increase the cost of mining. The coal mining industry in Wyoming 

consists of a number of small businesses, such as equipment and parts suppliers, service providers, and other 

vendors. This includes not only businesses that are located in counties where mines are located, but also reaches 

businesses and creates jobs outside of these counties. The BLM must analyze the impacts any proposed rule 

would have on these small businesses, towns, and Coalition member Counties. 5 U.S.C. §603. 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-22

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-51

Scoping Report 

In recognition of their duties to protect the safety and welfare of the communities and to protect the public lands 

and water resources, the Coalition members encourage and support environmentally responsible resource 

exploration and development. See Sweetwater County Comprehensive Plan at 2.9 - 2.10 (2002); SWCCD Land & 

Resource Use Plan & Policy at 30 - 34 (2011); Uinta County Comprehensive Plan at 5, 11, 21 (2011); Lincoln 

County Comprehensive Plan at 5, 7 (2006); Lincoln County Public Lands Policy at 3-5, 3-10, 3-12, 3-32 - 3-35 

(2006); LCD Land Use & Natural Management Long Range Plan at 38-39 (2010-2015). Sweetwater, Lincoln, and 

Uinta Counties and Conservation Districts specifically recognize the importance mining efforts have had and 

continue to have on their local economies. See SWCCD Land & Resource Use Plan & Policy at 13 (2011); Uinta 

County Comprehensive Plan at 11, 21 (2011); Lincoln County Public Lands Policy at 3-5 (2006). 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-3 

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Secretary Jewell issued Order 3338, which directed the BLM to conduct a broad, programmatic review to 

address the “broad range of issues raised over the course of the past year (and beyond) and the lack of any 

recent analysis of the Federal coal program.” Id. at 17725. 

The rationale for this review is not sufficient and contradicts the long history of sound development that has 

occurred since the 1986 revisions. There is no new law or development of any existing law that would have 

triggered this review. There was an extensive statutory and regulatory overall of the coal program in the 1970s 

that brought about the subsequent review in the 1980s, but this is lacking under the current proposed Federal 

coal program review. The amendments that occurred in 1986 were in response to the approval and 

implementation of the following statutes and regulations: Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, the 

Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, and the 

1979 regulations implementing these statutes. Environmental Protection in the Federal Coal Leasing Program 

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-E-237, May 1984). See 81 Fed. Reg. at 

17722. The current proposed review cannot be tied to any similar type of extensive legal overhaul. 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-4 

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

For the Federal coal program review, Congress has not called for any revisions or adopted any new statutes that 

would require changes to any BLM guidelines or regulations. 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-6 

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM is also concerned about the other environmental impacts of coal mining and whether reclamation is 

impacted by market conditions. 81 Fed. Reg. at 17724. The BLM is specifically considering whether to raise 

royalty rates or require an “adder” to be paid to reflect the cost of the harm to the public from “negative 

externalities” of coal development, to require environmental harms to be mitigated, or to account in the leasing 

process for whether reclamation responsibilities have been met. Id. at 17727. Under the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act of 1977, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) and Land 

Quality Division (LQD) of the Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality regulates surface coal mining 

operations and reclamation activities. 30 U.S.C. §§1211, 1235, 1253; 30 C.F.R. §740.4(b). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-52 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

The LQD evaluates surface mining permit applications, revisions, and renewals to ensure mining is accomplished 

in an environmentally sound manner; approves or disapproves the permit applications; and carries out inspections 

of coal mines to ensure compliance with state’s programs. OSMRE and LQD monitor reclamation and 

reclamation bonding actions. See 30 U.S.C. §1259; 30 C.F.R. §740.4(c)(4). Since 1980, Wyoming’s regulatory 

program has been a partnership effort between the State and OSMRE and has successfully regulated surface coal 

mining operations and reclamation activities. Any proposed guidance or regulatory changes by BLM that act to 

control surface coal mining operations and reclamation activities is therefore outside of its jurisdictional 

authority. 

Comment Number: 0002466_Smith_20160728_SELA-7 

Organization1:Safe Energy Leadership Alliance 

Commenter1:Rachel Smith 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The DOI should make affirmative findings that the requirements of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 

Act are met in all mining plans approved by the Secretary. Additionally, the DOI should finalize its stream 

protection rule, including additional protections for water quality and habitat. 

Comment Number: 0002466_Smith_20160728_SELA-8 

Organization1:Safe Energy Leadership Alliance 

Commenter1:Rachel Smith 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The scope of environmental review should assess not only the local impacts of the mining proposal, but also the 

risks and costs to health, safety, environment, traffic, and the economy in communities along rail and barge 

transport corridors associated with proposed coal extraction. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-1 

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In terms of timing, we believe it is imperative that BLM complete the PEIS, and move forward with revising its 

regulations and other initiatives necessary to carry out the decisions that will be made at the conclusion of the 

NEPA process, as soon as practicable. To that end, we urge that particularly with respect to any regulatory or 

other reforms, such as Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendments, that will require notice and comment, 

BLM issue its proposed rules or reforms concurrent with issuance of the Final PEIS. This approach is consistent 

with the process followed by BLM in completing the Solar PEIS. Within three months of completion of the Final 

Solar PEIS, BLM issued a Record of Decision (ROD) incorporating final amendments to specific Resource 

Management Plans with solar energy resources. By proceeding in this manner, BLM can put its revised regulatory 

framework for coal leasing into effect as expeditiously as possible. 

While there are numerous important programmatic decisions that must be considered and resolved in the PEIS, 

BLM must also be careful not to rely on the PEIS process to resolve issues that should be the subject of further, 

site-specific consideration in the site-specific EISs to be prepared for any future lease sales. Rather, at most the 

PEIS should provide guidance for how these issues should be considered in site-specific reviews, which must 

continue to consider the direct environmental impacts associated with the lease under consideration. 

For instance, many direct impacts of mining necessitate review at the site-specific lease or mine level. While the 

PEIS should discuss these impacts at a programmatic level, discussing them in terms of regional or national trends, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-53

Scoping Report 

the PEIS analysis should not replace the need for much more detailed analysis at the leasing stage as effects can be 

extremely site specific. Rather, BLM should appropriately tier to the PEIS when considering impacts on a sitespecific level. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-3 

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

New concerns arose about FMV for coal leases in the 1980s, particularly with respect to a large lease sale in the 

PRB. A GAO Report revealed that the agency had received roughly $100 million less than FMV for the lease. 

Congress responded by directing formation of a commission – subsequently called the Linowes Commission – to 

address the FMV issue. Congress also directed a study into whether federal coal leasing was compatible with the 

Nation’s environmental protection objectives, which resulted in BLM updating its PEIS for the federal coal 

regulatory scheme. 

Once again, coal leasing was halted while these reports were completed, and ultimately the Commission and 

study recommended that BLM slow the pace of coal leasing, improve procedures to better ensure the 

government obtains FMV, and more closely consider environmental and other competing resources in making 

coal leasing decisions. BLM responded by supplementing the PEIS, and then once again modifying the regulatory 

scheme. And, once again, BLM kept its coal leasing moratorium in place until the revised regulatory scheme was 

implemented. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-32

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A PEIS is plainly appropriate at this critical juncture for federal coal leasing. One pressing issue that must be 

addressed in the PEIS has never been the subject of a comprehensive examination under NEPA or any other 

federal analytical tool – the impact of federal coal leasing on GHG emissions, and the changes necessary to 

ensure coal leasing supports GHG emission reduction goals. The many developments since the last PEIS update 

(in the 1980s) also call for the PEIS to comprehensively address both the other environmental issues posed by 

federal coal leasing, and the coal leasing valuation issues that have come under recent scrutiny. Moreover, as the 

Secretarial Order and Scoping Notice reflect, in order to properly inform the federal decision-maker, it is vital 

that these matters all be considered together given that solutions to some issues – such as GHG reductions –

may be found in other areas, such as incorporating the social cost of carbon into coal lease pricing. 

It is also entirely consistent with NEPA and implementing regulations for a PEIS to be prepared for the entire coal 

leasing framework, for, as noted, the CEQ regulations call for a single EIS. Indeed, while a single EIS is appropriate 

where an agency is considering several actions that are either “closely related,” impose “cumulatively significant 

impacts,” or possess other similarities “such as common timing or geography,” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25, here all three 

of these factors support preparation of a single, comprehensive PEIS. See also CEQ Climate Change Guidance at 

30 (recognizing a “programmatic NEPA review may also serve as an efficient mechanism to describe Federal 

agency efforts to adopt sustainable practices for energy efficiency, GHG emissions avoidance or reduction, 

petroleum product use reduction, and renewable energy use, as well as other sustainability practices”).

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-72

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-54 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal leasing and production data. Currently, BLM provides geospatial data pertinent to federal coal 

leasing. However, this data is largely fragmented. Some state BLM offices, particularly Colorado, provide good 

quality data for federal coal leasing. In other states, if there is BLM data, it is not easy to use. BLM operates 

LR2000, a database that contains valuable information regarding coal leases, but it is one that only experts can 

navigate. 

BLM should include a synthesized GIS dataset for all federal coal leasing in the country. Additionally, BLM should 

create datasets of synthesized geospatial information for each state in which federal coal leasing occurs or is 

proposed. This will help to ensure that communities are fully aware of the extent of federal coal leasing in their 

respective regions. Within the scope of a programmatic NEPA analysis, BLM must provide, at minimum, maps of 

the proposed planning area, and indicate which lands are not suitable for development. This GIS data should also 

include current and pending leases, existing leases that are not producing, and lease bidders and holders. Other 

information should include: 

· Surface ownership and mineral rights, including split estate 

· Coal geology and resources on federal lands 

· Conservation areas, species habitat and migration routes 

· Groundwater and surface water resources 

· Coal mining site reclamation operations and the current status of past mined sites 

· Coal transportation and end use (for example, coal-fired power plants) 

· Coal employment data and regional market information 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-73

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Non-federal coal leasing and production data. In order to understand cumulative impacts and the context of 

federal coal leasing within the larger, national context of coal extraction, BLM should also provide stakeholders 

with GIS data on non-federal coal leasing and production. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-74

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To ensure that the PEIS considers a broad range of environmental impacts, it is important to create maps that 

highlight areas where potential federal coal leasing interferes with other significant land uses. BLM will need to 

conduct a geospatial analysis for programmatic analysis of federal coal leasing including, but not limited to: 

· Total acreage of federal coal leases for alternatives 

· Overlap of federal coal leasing with conservation areas and wildlife habitat for alternatives 

· Federal coal leasing impacts on waterbodies such as streams, rivers, estuaries, lakes, ponds, groundwater and 

surface water, and subsurface aquifers 

· Federal coal leasing impacts on nearby populations, and on areas with subsistence and commercial agricultural 

practices 

· Geospatial extent and locations of climate change impacts from federal coal leasing alternatives 

· Cumulative regional environmental impacts of federal coal leasing in combination with other extractive 

resources such as oil, gas and uranium recovery operations. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-75

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-55

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In order to ensure that the federal coal PEIS process is transparent, BLM must make the geospatial data 

accessible to all stakeholders and the public. 

Data must be available in a repository with downloadable GIS files, suitable for a variety of GIS platforms (for 

example: the Esri ArcGIS Online and ArcMap platforms, and the Google Earth Keyhole Markup Language 

platform). 

In addition to the GIS data files, BLM should create an online, interactive data viewer so that non-GIS experts and 

broader communities can understand the extent of federal coal leasing in their respective regions. The data 

viewer should be interactive so that people can view more specific characteristics of each lease. These 

specifications should also be linked to the data repository associated with that particular lease. 

For example, while the general repository will provide all of the federal coal leasing geospatial data, the 

interactive data viewer will allow communities to explore the lease characteristics that are most likely to affect 

them. This will drastically improve community efforts to make the most effective and efficient decisions regarding 

resource use. An example of an interactive data viewer can be found on the Colorado Division of Reclamation 

Mining & Safety website (http://mining.state.co.us/Reports/Pages/GISData.aspx.). A similar data viewer should be 

compiled for all federal coal leasing to satisfy the broad scope of a programmatic NEPA analysis. 

Comment Number: 0002470-17

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should review its guidance and application of standards for the approval of royalty rate reductions 

during the Programmatic EIS. Reductions in royalty rates should be the exception, not the rule. According to 

ONRR data, almost half of the federal coal lease sales in the last 25 years received a royalty rate reduction. 

Comment Number: 0002474_Trice_20160728_EPA-7 

Organization1:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Commenter1:Jessica Trice 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

EPA requests that the BLM analysis of future coal use scenarios be conducted in a manner that is congruent with 

projections and assumptions that EPA has factored into our environmental planning and rule development. As 

one component of its analysis, EPA recommends that the BLM use an electricity sector model to evaluate the 

impacts on electricity generation and corresponding fuel consumption in order to assess the economic impacts 

and potential changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, toxic and criteria pollutant emissions, and water 

pollution. 

Comment Number: 0002474_Trice_20160728_EPA-8 

Organization1:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Commenter1:Jessica Trice 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Additional NEPA analysis will be necessary to provide for a more site-specific and resource-specific geographical 

analysis associated with future coal leasing decisions. Therefore, EPA recommends that the Draft PEIS include a 

well-defined tiering process for future NEPA analysis to explain how Resource Management Plan (RMP) and 

specific coal leasing decisions will tier from this programmatic document. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-56 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-63

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Evaluating the market and resulting emissions consequences of the coal leasing programs is both required by 

NEPA and well within BLM’s capabilities.119 In recent months, at least four sophisticated efforts have been made 

to evaluate the market and emissions consequences of alternative federal coal leasing policies, and concluded that 

a policy of ending new federal coal lease issuance or modification would have significant effects on mitigating 

greenhouse gas emissions, while still exceeding both anticipated coal demand for the coming decades, and the 

time horizon for exceeding 1.5° and 2°C carbon budgets. BLM can and should acknowledge and make use of the 

sources and methods in these studies to formulate quantitative assessments of the emissions and carbon budget 

consequences of leasing alternatives (including cessation of leasing, a declining production schedule based on 

meeting climate targets, and incorporation of a meaningful carbon charge on leased coal production into new or 

modified lease terms). 

(119) See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008); 

Mid States Coalition for Progress v. STB, 345 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2003); High Country Conservation Advocates v. 

United States Forest Serv., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 1196 (D. Colo. 2014); for examples of quantifying end-use 

emissions of coal leasing, see U.S. FOREST SERV., RULEMAKING FOR COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS, 

SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (Nov. 2015) . 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-20

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should prepare an RFD as part of the Coal PEIS that incorporates sufficient analysis to inform 

cumulative impact analysis and management decisions. The RFD should follow the elements identified in BLM’s 

guidance for preparing an RFD for oil and gas development. Further, the RFD analysis in the Coal PEIS must not 

only provide information on the future coal development potential and the amount of coal that will be mined out 

to at least 2050, but should also look at estimates of the amount of land that will be disturbed by coal mining and 

the reclamation needs that will be presented by this level of disturbance. There is a need to know disturbance 

levels and reclamation needs as part of the RFD assessment. The BLM should also update RFDs in existing RMPs 

to the extent needed. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-73

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

An important issue that BLM must address in the PEIS is the Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) level 

for federal coal that is likely in the next several decades. RFD is a term that is routinely used when the BLM 

considers oil and gas development activities, but is also used in other contexts, including for coal and as part of 

the Solar PEIS. As mentioned in section I above, where we discussed scoping issues, the BLM’s NEPA Handbook 

says that in scoping the BLM should identify “reasonably foreseeable actions.” This is essentially direction that the 

BLM consider coal RFD in the PEIS. 

An RFD is essentially a long-term projection of exploration, development, production, and reclamation. Activity 

that can inform the development of alternatives, analysis of environmental consequences, and selection of a 

management approach are all affected by the RFD analysis. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-57

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-94

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition, the BLM may need to conduct formal rulemakings to incorporate specific reforms. The BLM can 

conduct needed NEPA analysis to support the rulemakings and make the ultimate processes more efficient. The 

BLM should commit to completing these rulemakings, set out a schedule, and prioritize the following rulemakings 

where the agency determines they are needed to fulfill reforms: 

1. Update and expand unsuitability criteria; 

2. Update royalty, minimum bid, rental rates and reclamation bonding standards; 

3. Incorporate a carbon adder into royalty rates; 

4. Develop an updated regional coal leasing approach; 

5. Shorten lease review terms; 

6. Complete Mine Methane Waste Rule. 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-13

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To address concerns about fair returns to taxpayers, the BLM will be evaluating whether to raise the royalty rate, 

limit royalty reductions, identify and require an “adder” to address negative externalities; update the minimum 

bid and/or establish state-specific minimum bids; raise rental rates to adjust for inflation and/or incorporate lost 

value of other uses of the land and anticipated externalities of exploratory activities; whether to consider not 

leasing to companies that have more than 10 years of recoverable reserves coal at the time of lease application; 

and modification to valuation methodology, among others. 

Royalty rates are established under the MLA, as amended (30 U.S.C. 207 (a)); therefore, BLM does not have the 

authority to raise royalties above 12.5 percent, only Congress does. The assertion made by some stakeholders 

that current royalty rates do not result in fair return and are lower than the rate established by statute is wildly 

inaccurate and misrepresents data and fact related to royalty valuation by gerrymandering the metrics used to 

determine royalties. 

BLM must maintain its discretion to reduce royalty rates, because without this discretion it could make 

extraction of some coal resources uneconomical. BLM has an obligation under the MMPA (30 U.S.C. §21(a)), and 

FLPMA (43 U.S.C. §1701(a)(12)) to recognize the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals. To that end, 

BLM must be careful that the proposed approaches or combination thereof, comply with the MMPA and FLPMA. 

The proposal to evaluate an externality adder is counterproductive. First, the coal industry already pays for 

climate related impacts through existing regulations. Imposing an adder for other social costs such as loss of 

recreation will only decrease value of the coal resource by making it costlier to produce, resulting in a decrease 

in return to taxpayers. Further, the policy to include an adder for practically any conceivable social impact is 

simply unreasonable, and violates long-standing practice in the management of coal resources. The environmental 

impacts associated with coal mining are already addressed under a variety of laws, including those cited in these 

comments. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-58 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-16

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The proposal to exclude operators with at least 10 years of reserves from lease sales is, again, counterproductive 

because it will reduce competition which critics of the Coal Program complain results in a lack of return to 

taxpayers. This proposal is also unlawful. Lessee qualifications are established under MLA, as amended and 

provides: 

“That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to, and upon the petition of any qualified applicant shall, divide 

any of the coal lands or the deposits of coal, classified and unclassified owned by the United States...” (30 U.S.C. 

21(a)) 

As long as an applicant meets the qualification criteria described in Section 1 of the MLA, (5) the applicant cannot 

be arbitrarily excluded from applying or bidding on a lease. Proposed approaches that are unlawful are not 

implementable. As such, for the reasons, described above, BLM must eliminate these proposed approaches from 

further detailed analysis. 

BLM’s proposal to evaluate valuation methodologies is duplicative. As previously stated, BLM has already begun 

implementing a number of reforms designed to improve and standardize the valuation process, including the 

establishment of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department's Office of Valuation Services. Moreover, 

any proposed approach to deal with concerns related to fair market value is no longer necessary given the fact 

DOI issued new rules governing value and revenue collection on June 30, 2016. Re-addressing these concerns 

under the PEIS is redundant and unnecessary (See 81 FR 43338). 

(5) A citizen of the United States; an association of citizens organized under the laws of the United States or any 

state thereof; a corporation organized under the laws of the United States; or of any state thereof, including a 

company or corporation operating a common carrier railroad public body, including municipalities. Other special 

leasing qualifications include: The aggregate acreage in leases and applications in which you can hold an interest, 

directly or indirectly, cannot exceed 75,000 acres in any one state and no more than 150,000 acres in the United 

States; you may not acquire any other mineral leases under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, if you 

hold or have held a federal coal lease for 10 or more years that has not produced commercial quantities of coal. 

Other minerals that can be leased under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 include oil, natural gas, sodium, 

potassium, phosphate, sulfur, and gilsonite; as a part of your application for a new coal lease, you must provide a 

self-certified statement that you are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. 

CMA recommends BLM eliminate from detailed analyses any proposed approaches and modifications related to 

valuation procedures, including any approaches or modifications rejected or subject to litigation from the recent 

review. BLM cannot allow environmental groups that failed at pressing their agenda in another DOI agency, use 

BLM through the PEIS, as a way to push their agenda through the backdoor. 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-18

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM’s proposal to consider whether landscape scale planning for coal resources is needed, is unnecessary and 

redundant. Under BLM’s Planning 2.0 initiative, BLM is seeking to amend its land use planning regulations to 

consider landscape scale planning, this includes landscape scale planning for all resources managed by the BLM, 

which clearly includes coal. While CMA opposes the changes proposed in the Planning 2.0 initiative, that does not 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-59

Scoping Report 

change the fact that re-evaluating landscape scale planning as part of the Coal Program PEIS is redundant, because 

no new information would be yielded, unless BLM made actual amendments to resource management plans at a 

landscape scale. 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-2 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The commencement of the PEIS was accompanied by a moratorium on issuance of new leases or modifications of 

existing leases with some exceptions, causing great uncertainty among coal producers. All this presupposes some 

defect in the current leasing program, a defect which has not been demonstrated to exist. Other recent reviews 

of the leasing program (GAO and the Department’s Office of the Inspector General or OIG) recommended 

relatively minor updates such as enhancing the appraisal process. Neither contained a call for a wide-ranging 

comprehensive review and moratorium that extends well into the next Administration. The OIG’s conclusions 

state as follows: “Fortunately, most of the identified issues can be resolved with little or no additional funding or 

personnel.” 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-24

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

CMA does recommend that when conducting the cumulative effects analysis all the concurrent reforms impacting 

coal resources must be considered. The proposed PEIS review must be substantially modified and improved, as 

described above, before draft documents are made available for public review. 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-5 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Also, under Office of Management and Budget’s (hereinafter OMB’s) Circular No. A-4, Guidelines for the 

Conduct of Regulatory Analysis, regulatory analysis of proposed rules that may have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more requires approval by OMB. As such, BLM must coordinate with OMB 

throughout the PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-6 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

These legal and policy concerns embrace numerous laws, including the: 

> Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (30 U.S.C. 25 et seq., hereinafter SMCRA) 

> Mining and Minerals Policy Act (30 U.S.C. 21a; hereinafter MMPA); 

> Mineral Leasing Act, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq., hereinafter MLA); 

> Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C 1701 et seq., hereinafter FLPMA); 

> National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., hereinafter NEPA) 

> Data Quality Act (Pub. L. No. 106-554, § 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2764a-153-154 (2000), hereinafter DQA). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-60 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

BLM must address the following issues in the NEPA documents associated with this Notice to ensure compliance 

with these laws. 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-8 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Notice indicates that the PEIS will examine where to lease and where not to lease, through BLM’s land use 

planning authority under FLPMA consistent with the recent BLM Planning 2.0 initiative to conduct landscape scale 

planning. It also will assess whether BLM’s unsuitability screening criteria adequately address the questions of 

where and/or where not to lease for coal production, as well as other potential factors that could be applied 

during the planning process to provide guidance on the most appropriate locations for coal leasing. (81 FR 

17725). 

Review of this issue is unnecessary and duplicative. BLM already analyzes during land use planning the availability 

of certain lands that are open, closed, or limited to mineral leasing. When conducting land use planning BLM is 

required to conduct NEPA analysis. As such, thorough environmental and impact analyses are required when 

deciding what lands are available to coal leasing. 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-9 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The question of whether the unsuitability criteria are adequate to determine where and where not to lease is 

inappropriate because the unsuitability criteria is already established by statute. Neither BLM nor DOI have the 

authority to revise or change statutory direction; only Congress holds the authority to make changes to the 

unsuitability criteria. As such, any findings regarding adequacy of the unsuitability criteria during the PEIS review 

cannot be implemented by BLM or DOI without Congressional action. Therefore, expending resources on 

something that BLM lacks authority to change is an exercise in futility. Thus, further consideration of whether the 

unsuitability criteria are adequate must be eliminated from further detailed analysis. 

In addition, CMA opposes the approach outlined in BLM’s Planning 2.0 initiative, as it violates FLPMA, MMPA, 

among other issues. CMA incorporates by reference the comments of the American Exploration & Mining 

Association regarding the flaws and legal shortcomings related to BLM Planning 2.0, and landscape scale planning. 

(3) 

(3) See, AEMA “Comments on Proposed Amendments to Resource Management Planning Regulations (BLM 

2.0),” (81 FR 9674). Incorporated by reference. Available at: https://www.miningamerica.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/AEMA-Planning-2-0-comments-final-5-24-16-attachments-included.pdf. 

CMA reminds BLM that any proposed approaches or combination of approaches revising the Coal Program must 

comply with FLPMA, MMPA, and all other laws governing minerals. Any proposed approaches, revisions or 

combination thereof that do not comply with law must be eliminated from detailed analysis. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-18

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-61

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Although Secretarial Order No. 3338 now directs BLM to prepare the nation-wide PEIS, BLM has recently 

expressed its unwavering position that a significant overhaul of the federal coal program is unnecessary. As an 

initial matter, neither the MLA, NEPA, or any other statute compels BLM to perform supplemental environmental 

analysis with respect to the existing coal program or to modify the current program. Even the Secretary admits 

that BLM has no affirmative or mandatory obligation to conduct programmatic review of the federal coal 

program. See Secretarial Order No. 3338, Sec. 4 (Jan. 15, 2016) (directing BLM to perform a “[d]iscretionary” 

programmatic review of the federal coal program). More importantly, in the context of rejecting an 

administrative petition to overhaul the federal coal program in Wyoming and Montana, and the extensive federal 

court litigation that followed this decision, BLM has flatly rejected any contemplated overhaul of the federal coal 

program as both unwarranted and unlawful. The recent attempts by environmental groups to compel BLM’s 

modification to the federal coal leasing program have been uniformly rejected by BLM and two federal judges in 

three separate legal decisions. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-19

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the face of BLM’s recent rejections of calls by environmental groups to overhaul the federal coal program, and 

federal court decisions unanimously affirming BLM’s decisions, Secretarial Order No. 3338 represents an 

unnecessary and unsupported administrative “about-face.” There is simply no legal justification for the 

Department’s current proposal to substantially modify the federal coal leasing program. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-20

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM proposes to consider changes to the federal coal program which contravene the congressional mandate 

under the MLA to obtain maximum economic recovery and encourage the development of federal coal 

resources. For example, BLM intends to consider “rais[ing] the royalty rate . . . . [and] limit[ing] the use of royalty 

rate reductions.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 17726. To do so would contravene clear and long-standing congressional 

direction under the MLA. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-22

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Secretary is not authorized under the MLA to impose any new or additional taxes, fees, or penalties on coal 

production, including any fees related to indirect environmental considerations. The Secretary’s rulemaking 

authority under the MLA is limited to promulgating regulations “necessary to carry out and accomplish the 

purposes of this chapter [the MLA leasing provisions.]” 30 U.S.C. § 189. As detailed above, the purpose of the 

MLA’s leasing provisions is to encourage coal development, not render it uneconomical or undesirable. Any 

effort to impose additional costs on coal leasing and development with the intention of lowering federal coal 

production volumes to achieve the administration’s climate objectives, or promote renewable energy growth, is 

not an authority granted to the Secretary under the MLA or any other federal statute. The imposition of new 

revenue measures must be initiated and voted on by Congress. See Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U.S. 472, 501 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-62 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

(1880) (“The power of taxation is legislative, and cannot be exercised otherwise than under the authority of the 

legislature.”). 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-24

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Cloud Peak Energy requests that BLM ensure that any changes to the federal coal program comport with BLM’s 

statutory mandates under the MLA. Specifically, BLM should not consider any changes to the federal coal 

program which would restrict, diminish, or penalize coal production on federal lands by raising leasing and 

production costs or otherwise making federal coal reserves economically unrecoverable. The scope of BLM’s 

programmatic review must not contravene the Secretary’s authority to obtain maximum economic recovery of 

federal coal. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-3 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

No fundamental changes to the federal coal program—including the changes now suggested by the Department 

of the Interior in the PEIS—were recommended by either the Government Accountability Office or the 

Inspector General of the Department of Interior. Both the Government Accountability Office and the Inspector 

General undertook thorough reviews of the federal coal program in 2013. While both entities made 

recommendations for improving the implementation of the current coal program, neither recommended the 

substantial changes to the program contemplated in the PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-34

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In order to reduce the burdens associated with federal coal leasing, BLM (and the Department of the Interior 

more broadly) should consider: (1) spreading bonus bid payments over a longer period of time; (2) decreasing 

rental payments; (3) withdrawing the coal royalty valuation regulations; (4) waiving BLM cost-recovery imposed 

during the federal coal leasing process; and (5) improving or consolidating the NEPA process associated with 

federal coal leasing such that applicants are not required to incur the costs associated with hiring a third party 

contractor in order to complete the leasing process in a timely fashion. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-8 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In reviewing the federal coal program, BLM must comply with the limits imposed by Congress under the MLA 

and other federal statutes. As it currently stands, many of the contemplated changes to the federal coal program 

would exceed BLM’s statutory directives under the MLA. Prior to making any revisions to the federal coal 

program, BLM must ensure that each proposed change is consistent with the underlying statutes from which BLM 

derives its authority. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-63

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-16

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The effectiveness of the programmatic review relies on the credibility of Interior’s assessment of the alternatives 

it considers. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the matter in Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

U.S. Forest Service, which held that the U.S. Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to present complete and 

accurate information to decision makers through its decision alternatives. In particular, the opinion addressed the 

risk of overstating economic benefits. “Presenting accurate market demand information [is] necessary to ensure a 

well-informed and reasoned decision, both of which are procedural requirements under NEPA.”15 

[15 Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 421 F.3d 797, 812 (9th Cir. 2005) 

The current leasing program neglects the carbon budget constraint that will reduce the value of coal assets, 

which compromises the NEPA requirement for well-informed decision making. Interior should use the 

opportunity afforded by the programmatic review to remedy this deficiency in the current program by 

undertaking reforms that will right-size the level of assets on offer to better reflect true market conditions in a 

carbon-constrained economy.] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-17

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 8.2 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Mineral Leasing Act requires BLM to modify its coal leasing program to serve the public interest, which 

includes climate consistency 

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (“MLA”) states that the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to divide any 

lands for coal leasing if found in the public interest.16 Interior has capacious legal authority to interpret this term. 

“The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe necessary and proper rules and regulations and to do 

any and all things necessary to carry out and accomplish the purposes of this chapter.”17 This authority extends 

to Interior’s discretion to reject individual leases or to end the practice of offering new leases and lease 

extensions altogether if the department determines that these practices are not in the public interest, on the 

basis of a broad array of factors. 

[16 30 U.S.C § 201] 

[17 30 U.S.C § 189] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-26

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 6 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The National Environmental Policy Act provides a framework for how Interior can interpret its relative 

contribution to climate change and the corresponding risk to the public interest through cumulative impacts.27 

The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) draft guidance for greenhouse gas emissions states that agencies 

should consider the “potential effects of a proposed action on climate change as indicated by its GHG 

emissions.”28 The draft guidance also accounts for indirect effects of agency actions, defined as effects that are 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-64 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

caused by the action and are “later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.”29 

Up until now, BLM has inadequately evaluated the climate change impacts of its coal leasing program by failing to 

address indirect and cumulative impacts. The programmatic review provides an opportunity to correct this 

shortcoming. 

[27 40 C.F.R § 1508.8 defining direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.] 

[28 Council on Envtl. Quality, Exec. Office of the President, Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and 

Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA reviews, 79 

Fed. Reg. 77,802 (Dec. 24, 2014).] 

[29 Id.] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-28

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Other agencies have relied on climate impact assessments when evaluating whether or not a decision is in the 

public interest. For example, the Department of State decision rejecting the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline 

(“Keystone XL”) provides additional context for construing the public interest. The determination turned on 

whether the project served the national interest, and the environmental impact statement for reaching this 

determination was conducted in a manner consistent with NEPA requirements.30 The decision to reject the 

pipeline relied on many factors, critically including the fact that approval would undermine U.S. climate change 

policy: 

[30 Department of State, Record of Decision and National Interest Determination: TransCanada Keystone 

Pipeline, L.P. Application for Presidential Permit. Available at https://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/nid/249254.htm] 

[A] decision to approve this proposed Project would undermine U.S. objectives on climate change; it could call 

into question internationally the broader efforts of the United States to transition to less-polluting forms of 

energy and would raise doubts about the U.S. resolve to do so. In turn, this could raise questions for some 

countries about how aggressively they should combat climate change domestically, and potentially reduce the 

United States’ ability to advance climate and broader objectives with allies and other partners in various bilateral 

and multilateral contexts... [A] decision to deny the permit would support U.S. relationships with countries 

where climate issues are important and encourage actions that combat climate change and benefit the United 

States.31 

[31 Id.] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-47

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Interior will conduct its Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act as amended (42 U.S.C § 4321, et seq.) and the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) Regulations 

for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 C.F.R § 1500-1508). Crucial to the NEPA process is 

identifying and comparing credible decision alternatives for a proposed action, which the CEQ describes as the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-65

Scoping Report 

“heart of the environmental impact statement.”51 CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require that agencies 

“rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.”52 The purpose of the Programmatic EIS 

as laid out by Secretary Jewell in her Secretarial Order, is to “determine whether and how the current system for 

developing federal coal should be modernized.”53 The Review is broad in nature, ultimately deciding “where,

when, and under what terms and conditions, mineral development should occur, including with regard to the 

issuance of federal coal leases.”54 

[51 40 C.F.R § 1502.14 – Alternatives including the proposed action.] 

[52 Id.] 

[53 Secretarial Order No. 3338, supra note 1 at 1.] 

[54 United States Department of the Interior, Planning for Fluid Mineral Resources. Available at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.59010. 

File.dat/H_1624_1.pdf] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-51

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In WildEarth Guardians v. United States Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, plaintiffs 

successfully alleged that OSM violated NEPA by failing to consider indirect effects of mining planning 

modifications.60 According to NEPA, indirect effects are those “caused by the action and are later in time or 

rather removed in distance . . . but are still reasonably foreseeable.”61 These indirect effects must also be 

accounted for in the analysis of cumulative impacts. In WildEarth Guardians, the court found that “the 

interdependence between the mines and [power plants] effectively guarantees the foreseeability of combustionrelated effects.” The court therefore approved a remedy requiring OSMRE to conduct a new NEPA analysis.62 

[60 WildEarth Guardians v. United States Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation & Enf't, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1208, 

1229 (D. Colo. 2015)] 

[61 40 C.F.R § 1508.8(b).] 

[62 WildEarth Guardians v. United States Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation & Enf't, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1208, 

1230 (D. Colo. 2015).] 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-1 

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Order No. 3338 refers to "concerns raised by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department's 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Members of Congress and interested stakeholders" centered on whether 

taxpayers are receiving fair market value (FMV) from the sale of coal. It is clear from the GAO and OIG reports 

that, in every instance, the BLM Wyoming's implementation of the federal coal program met or exceeded all 

requirements. It was not the focus of the GAO and OIG concerns. In fact, the BLM Wyoming program provides 

the standard by which other state's federal coal leasing programs are measured. Wyoming's program received 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-66 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

positive recognition in the GAO report, including the combination of approaches and subsequent adjustments 

used to estimate FMV, appraisal reporting and sign off, adjustments made to account for differences in market 

conditions over time, and comprehensive lease sale information provided on the Wyoming BLM website. The 

BLM Wyoming office should be consulted to better understand the federal coal program before deciding a 

change is necessary. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-10

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

For example, to accomplish its objective at what it subjectively considers to be "fair," the BLM is proposing to 

create an "adder" to internalize the environmental costs from coal development. 81 Fed. Reg. at 17726. Congress 

has not delegated to the BLM any authority to impose an "adder," much less make policy choices and value 

judgments on what should be included in calculating the environmental adder. See 30 U.S.C. §§ 181 through 207 

and 30 U.S.C. §§ 351 through 360. Additionally, the BLM is proposing to by-pass Interior's Royalty Policy 

Committee and study how it can create out of whole cloth a system for internalizing several environmental costs 

into the royalty rate imposed on federal coal leases. 81 Fed. Reg. at 17726. Congress has authorized the BLM to 

impose a royalty rate starting at 12.5%, with exceptions. 30 U.S.C. § 207. That royalty rate is to be applied against 

the fair market value of the federal coal. Id. §§ 201 and 207. Nothing about that simple formula Congress 

developed to incentivize the exploration and development of the federal coal asset calls for the BLM to 

compensate for externalities. Congress has not delegated any authority to the BLM to create policy on what the 

rate should compensate for and what it should, as a result, penalize or deter. See 30 U.S.C. §§ 181 through ·207. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-21

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The taxable value of coal in Wyoming is based on the FMV of the product extracted. To reach that value the 

Wyoming Department of Revenue (WDOR) allows for deduction of many of the expenses currently allowable by 

the BLM’s Coal Evaluation Handbook H-3073-1 (Oct. 2, 2014). The WDOR Property Tax Division values 

industrial properties in the State and utilizes the income approach in establishing FMV of these properties. This 

approach is the same as that used by BLM in the Coal Evaluation Handbook. Wyoming has a great deal of 

experience in the process of valuing property to establish FMV. The Wyoming constitution and statutes require 

it. See Wyoming Constit., art. 15 § ll(a); W.S. 39-14-103(b)(ii). The BLM must consider its existing guidance and 

Wyoming's expertise and role in determining fair market value and should engage the WDOR when considering 

any changes. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-3 

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 8.3 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS process is having a disproportionate impact on Wyoming and time is of the essence for Wyoming and 

Wyoming mine workers. DOI has suggested that this review is temporary and time limited- three years. 

However, there is no written commitment by the DOI or the BLM to a three-year schedule. It regularly takes a 

minimum of seven to ten years to complete an Environmental Impact Statement in Wyoming. Interestingly the 

BLM's Solar Energy Development PEIS- considered a priority of the Obama administration- took more than four 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-67

Scoping Report 

years to complete and the BLM is only now proceeding with updating its rules and regulations. The BLM needs to 

stop the PEIS, but at a minimum it needs to commit in writing what it has promised repeatedly, that the PEIS will 

be completed by January 15,2019 and, completed or not, that the moratorium will expire on that date. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-52

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

One thing the BLM should do is "[i]dentify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not 

significant[.]" 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7(a)(3). For instance, the BLM is proposing to reevaluate how the coal leasing 

program imposes a royalty on produced coal, and how the agency values that coal. 81 Fed. Reg. 17723-24, 17726-

27. Yet the BLM in 2014 already made changes to its federal coal program leasing process and FMV calculations 

to address concerns raised by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Department of the 

Interior's Office of Inspector General (OIG). See infra 2.3. The BLM developed new protocols and issued policy 

guidance, a manual, and a handbook to implement the changes. Id. And, just this month, the Office of Natural 

Resources Revenue (ONRR) issued a final rule updating the royalty and production valuation regulations that 

cover federal coal. 81 Fed. Reg. 43338 (July 1, 2016). In that final rule, the agency determined that the changes it 

was making to its coal royalty and production valuation regulations were not significant and did not warrant 

review under NEPA. Id. at 43368. Likewise, the BLM should eliminate from its PEIS a study of the royalty rate and 

coal valuation. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-53

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM's request for scoping comments identifies a number of issues that the BLM intends to study. 81 Fed. 

Reg. at 17725-27. In that notice, the BLM claims authority to administer the federal coal program under the 

Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 181 through 207, and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, 30 U.S.C. §§ 

351 through 360. 81 Fed. Reg. at 17721. However, many of the things the BLM is proposing to study in the PEIS 

cannot be made into law unless and until Congress changes the Mineral Leasing Acts to give BLM the authority to 

make those changes. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-60

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The way the BLM Wyoming State Office runs the federal coal program in Wyoming shows that the program is 

not broken. Wyoming dwarfs all other states in federal coal production. 2015 U.S. Energy Information 

Administration- Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced from Federal and Indian Lands, FY 2003 through FY 2014- Page 1 

(Figure 1); (Attachment 3 WY0-00006, 00020). Federal coal produced from the Powder River Basin in Montana 

and Wyoming accounts for more than 85 percent of all federal coal production, and approximately 40 percent of 

all coal mined in the U.S. Therefore, the administration's call for revisions to the federal coal program targets coal 

production in Wyoming, but the administration cannot identify any issues with the way BLM Wyoming manages 

the program. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-61

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-68 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS further states that the BLM will consider ways to compensate for externalities, such as climate change, 

in an attempt to obtain what is now being called a "fair return." That new term, fair return, does not appear in 

any statute granting the Secretary authority to administer the federal coal program. Additionally, Congress has 

never given the Secretary authority to develop a system for internalizing any of the external costs now being 

analyzed in the PEIS process or to determine what is "fair." This PEIS process appears to be an attempt to bypass 

Congress and impose by administrative fiat a Carbon Tax. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-63

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) states its purpose as environmental stewardship. 

States like Wyoming, where coal is produced and environmental stewardship is a model for the nation, were not 

consulted and were caught by surprise. Companies with expertise in mining and reclamation were given no 

warning. Now, national revenues, energy users across the nation, coal miners and their families are at risk. The 

justification for this PEIS and the manner it was unveiled are unjustifiable. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-65

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM must narrow the scope of issues being addressed in the PEIS or its analysis will get out of control 

chasing down every little sub- issue that leads to another sub-issue. Wyoming and its citizens are being 

significantly impacted every day that the moratorium continues to be in place. Therefore, it is imperative that the 

BLM identify only the relevant, truly significant and appropriate issues that need to be studied and get through the 

PEIS process in as efficient a pace as possible. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-66

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The policy choices that must go into deciding what the royalty rate, rental, bonus, or any other charge imposed 

on a federal coal lease should compensate for are Congress's to make in the first instance. These issues should 

not bog down the BLM's PEIS process. Congress has not even authorized or directed the BLM or the DOI to 

study these issues in order to make recommendations for changing the Mineral Leasing Act, or any other act of 

Congress. Only after Congress provides direction and authorization through legislation for the BLM to embark 

on finding ways to address externalities in the federal coal program may BLM create regulations to carry out the 

policy choices made by Congress. Therefore, the BLM should eliminate from the PEIS process any analysis of how 

to internalize costs not already covered by the federal coal program. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-70

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Finally, exclusion section 6(b) contradicts the Energy Policy Act of2005, in which Congress repealed the 160 acre 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-69

Scoping Report 

limitation on coal lease modifications in favor of a higher threshold of 960 acres. Compare Order 3338 at 9, with 

30 U.S.C. § 203(a)(3)(A) (codifying Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594, § 432 (Aug. 8, 2015)). 

The BLM has recognized that its regulation that still uses the lower 160 acre threshold was superseded by the 

Act. See 42 C.F.R. § 3432.1(a); BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2006-004, Interim Guidance for 

Implementation ofthe Energy Policy Act of2005 [P.L. 109-58] for Federal Coal Leasing (Oct. 4, 2006). The 

Secretary should revise Order 3338 to comply with the law and, during the PEIS process, the BLM should apply 

this exclusion as contemplated by Congress. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-8 

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

What is more, the BLM should eliminate from study those things that cannot be made part of a final decision by 

the agency because the BLM lacks statutory authority to make the regulatory change. Cf. Effective Use of 

Programmatic NEPA Reviews, Council of Environmental Quality, pp. 19-20 (explaining that potentially significant 

environmental impacts are those that flow from the proposed federal action and that the proposed action drives 

the issues addressed in the NEPA review); (WY0-00057 to 00058). "A federal agency is a creature of statute and 

derives its existence, authority and powers from Congress alone. It has no constitutional or common law 

existence or authority outside that expressly conveyed to it by Congress." Wyoming v. US. Dep 't of the Interior, 

No. 15-cv-043, 2016 WL 3509415, *12 (June 21, 2016) appeal filed, No. 16-8069 (10th Cir.) (citation omitted); 

(WY0-00130). "Regardless of how serious the problem an administrative agency seeks to address, [] it may not 

exercise its authority in a manner that is inconsistent with the administrative structure that Congress enacted 

into law." Id. at *3. (citation and quotation omitted); (WY0-00119). Therefore, if the BLM lacks authority to take 

a particular action it should not amass needless detail on environmental impacts that might flow from that 

unavailable action. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-82

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

One benefit of the "stay in your lane" approach is to avoid creating inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative 

requirements. Duplicative regulations frustrate and delay development and they incentivize operators to move 

development activity off of federal lands negatively impacting states that rely heavily on those revenues to fund 

public projects and services. The BLM must avoid the impact and consequences of straying outside of its lane and 

the attendant effect of inconsistent, incompatible, and duplicative requirements on state and local governments, 

tribes, and the U.S. economy, and on air pollutant emissions 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-9 

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

For example, the BLM’s scoping notice uses language implying that the BLM will consider impacts from all forms 

of coal development, not just federal coal development and not just the impacts caused by the leasing and mining 

process. 81 Fed. Reg. at 17726. Congress has not delegated BLM authority to use the federal coal program to 

compensate for externalities that result from all "coal development." See 30 U.S.C. §§ 181 through 207 and 30 

U.S.C. §§ 351 through 360. The BLM should limit the scope of its PEIS analysis to the federal coal leasing process 

Congress has charged it to administer and not engage in an analysis of matters beyond the scope of its authority. 

In this vein, the BLM is proposing to study whether the U.S. is receiving a "fair return" on its coal assets. 81 Fed. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-70 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Reg. at 17723. The BLM asserts that there is concern that the public is not getting the full value of the coal being 

leased. Id. However, the BLM already made adjustments to its processes that addressed concerns raised by the 

OIG and GAO. Id.; see also infra 2.3. Moreover, the ONRR has finalized changes to the royalty and valuation 

regulations that impact the return on coal. 81 Fed. Reg. at 43338. Therefore, the BLM is proposing to study how 

to make leasing coal "fair" by charging for the climate change the BLM attributes to coal development and use. 81 

Fed. Reg. at 17723. However, nothing about the Mineral Leasing Acts shows an intent from Congress to delegate 

to the BLM any authority to create a "fair" system based on the environmental concerns raised by BLM. See 30 

U.S.C. §§ 181 through 207 and 30 U.S.C. §§ 351 through 360. The Acts direct the BLM to promote coal leasing, 

they do not contain any provision authorizing the BLM to address climate change. Id. Those authorities are found 

in other acts of Congress and were delegated to states and agencies outside of the U.S. Department of the 

Interior (DOI) that have the expertise to analyze and manage the issues. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-10

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 1 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As BLM and Interior prepare the PEIS, the agencies must analyze and assess the impacts of similar and cumulative 

action consistent with NEPA. Indeed, in accordance with NEPA, the scope of an EIS must include all 

“[c]umulative” and “[s]imilar” actions. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(2) and (3). Cumulative actions are defined as those 

that “when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be 

discussed in the same statement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(2). Similar actions are defined as those that “when 

viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for 

evaluating their environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography.” 40 C.F.R. § 

1508.25(a)(3). Pursuant to NEPA regulations, both cumulative and similar actions must be analyzed and assessed 

together with alternatives and any proposed agency actions in the same EIS. 

With regards to cumulative and similar actions, it is imperative that the PEIS, at a minimum, address the following: 

i. The impacts of oil and gas development in the western United States 

Oil and gas development, particularly the development of federal oil and gas as authorized by the BLM, is not only 

a cumulative action, but a similar action under NEPA. Oil and gas development, particularly federal oil and gas 

development, often occurs on or near mines that are producing federal coal. For example, a massive oil and gas 

project under consideration by the BLM in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming would take place where 

extensive coal mining is currently occurring. See 80 Fed. Reg. 65,242 (Oct. 26, 2015). At a minimum, oil and gas 

development occurs extensively throughout the coal producing regions of the western United States, where the 

vast amount of federal coal is located and mined. 

See Attached for Graphic - Federal oil and gas wells in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah adjacent to the 

Bonanza coal-fired power plant. The Bonanza power plant is fueled by the nearby Deserado coal mine in 

northwestern Colorado, which is comprised almost entirely of federal coal reserves. 

Not only does oil and gas development take place in similar geographies and at similar times as coal mining, it 

poses similar impacts, particularly in terms of air emissions and climate impacts. Indeed, as reports indicate, the 

onshore an offshore development of federal oil and gas contributes to nearly 10% of all U.S. greenhouse gas 

emissions. (46) Onshore development of federal oil and gas, which largely occurs in the western United States, 

often at or near coal mining operations, accounts for nearly 4% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. To this end, 

climate concerns related to oil and gas development are entirely relevant to addressing the climate impacts of the 

federal coal program and must be fully analyzed and assessed in the PEIS as similar and/or cumulative actions. 

The need to address the impacts of oil and gas development in the PEIS together with the impacts of the federal 

coal program is critical given that there are a number of reasonably foreseeable proposed oil and gas 

developments currently under consideration by the BLM, including: 

· The Continental Divide-Creston oil and gas project in southern Wyoming, approval of which would open the 

door for 8,950 new oil and gas wells. See 81 Fed. Reg. 22,628 (April 18, 2016). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-71

Scoping Report 

· The Monument Butte oil and gas project in northeastern Utah, approval of which would open the door for 

5,750 new oil and gas wells. See 81 Fed. Reg. 41,331 (June 24, 2016). 

· The Converse County oil and gas project in eastern Wyoming, approval of which would open the door for 

5,000 new oil and gas wells. See 79 Fed. Reg. 28,538 (May 16, 2014). 

· The Greater Crossbow oil and gas project in northeastern Wyoming, approval of which would open the door 

for 1,500 oil and gas wells. See 80 Fed. Reg. 80 Fed. Reg. 65,242 (Oct. 26, 2015). 

· Extensive oil and gas leasing in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. As the BLM’s own 

statistics show, millions of acres of these states have been leased over the years, opening the door for extensive 

oil and gas development. In the remainder of 2016, the BLM is proposing lease 87 parcels in August comprising 

89,137 acres in Wyoming, 21 parcels in November comprising 30,197 acres in Wyoming, 91 parcels in October 

comprising 19,790 acres in Montana, 28 parcels in November comprising 12,344 acres in Utah, 36 parcels in 

September comprising 13,876 acres in New Mexico, and 37 parcels in November comprising 25,298 acres in 

Colorado. (47) It is reasonable to believe that the BLM is likely to propose, offer for sale, and issue millions more 

acres of federal oil and gas leases in the near future. The climate consequences of such leasing actions must be 

addressed in the PEIS. 

(47) See BLM, “Notice of Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale” (May 4, 2016), available online at 

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/61292/73465/80674/08list.pdf; BLM, “Environmental 

Assessment, November 1, 2016 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale Parcels,” EA No. DOI-BLM-WY-D040-2016-

0138EA (April 2016), available online at https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/nepa/60579/72678/79780/EAv1.pdf; BLM, “Notice of Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale” (July 

2016), available online at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/mt/blm_programs/energy/oil_and_gas/leasing/lease_sale 

s/2016/oct16_2016.Par.89806.File.dat/10_18_16%20SaleNotice_Map_List_Stips_for%20postin g.pdf; BLM, 

“Environmental Assessment, November 2016 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale,” EA No. DOI-BLM-UT-G010-

2016-033-EA, available online at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/mt/blm_programs/energy/oil_and_gas/leasing/lease_sale 

s/2016/oct16_2016.Par.89806.File.dat/10_18_16%20SaleNotice_Map_List_Stips_for%20postin g.pdf; BLM, 

“Notice of Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale” (April 20, 2016), available online at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nm/programs/0/og_sale_notices_and/2016/july_2016.Pa 

r.97830.File.dat/July%202016%20OG%20Lease%20Sale%20Notice.pdf; BLM, “November 10, 2016 Oil and Gas 

Lease Sale” website available at 

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/oilandgas/oil_and_gas_lease/20160/november_20 16.html. 

The climate impacts of the federal coal program cannot be analyzed in a piecemeal fashion that overlooks BLM’s 

twin role in managing onshore oil and gas. Particularly given that the scope of the PEIS will necessarily be national 

in focus, if not broader, the BLM is compelled under NEPA to ensure these similar actions are fully accounted 

for. 

The need to address the reasonably foreseeable climate impacts of oil and gas development is underscored by the 

greenhouse gas emissions that are likely to result. As reported, if fully developed, unleased onshore oil and gas 

reserves stand to release nearly 30 billion metric tons of carbon. (48) See Table below. 

See Attached for Table - Carbon Emissions (in billion metric tons) Projected from Unleased Federal Onshore Oil 

and Gas Reserves(48) See Exhibit 5 at 18 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-11

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

State and Private Coal Development 

The PEIS must analyze and assess the impacts of state and private coal development, particularly as such 

development is often connected to the mining of federal coal. 

Under NEPA, the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of connected actions must be analyzed in the same 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-72 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

NEPA document as a proposed action. As the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”) has held, “connected 

action must be considered to be a part of the proposed action when determining whether a proposed action will 

have a significant effect on the human environment.” Glacier-Two Medicine Alliance, et. al., 88 IBLA 133 (1985), 

134. The 10th Circuit has explained,“[o]ne of the primary reasons for requiring an agency to evaluate ‘connected 

actions’ in a single NEPA analysis is to prevent agency from minimizing the potential environmental consequences 

of a proposed action (and thus short-circuiting NEPA review) by segmenting or isolating an individual action that, 

by itself, may not have a significant environmental impact.” Citizens' Committee to Save our Canyons v. U.S. 

Forest Service, 297 F.3d 1012, 1029 (10th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 

A “connected action” is defined as one that is “closely related” to other actions and is identified based on three 

factors in NEPA’s implementing regulations. Actions are “connected” if they:

(i) automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements. 

(ii) cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously. 

(iii) are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.”

40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(1). To determine whether actions are connected, the Tenth Circuit applies the 

“independent utility test,” which asks whether “each of the two projects would have taken place with or without 

the other” Wilderness Workshop v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 531 F. 3d 1220, 1229 (10th Cir. 2008) (emphasis 

added) (quoting Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456 F.3d 955, 969 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Wetlands Action 

Network, 222 F.3d at 1118 (“[W]e have rejected claims that actions were connected when each of the two 

projects would have taken place with or without the other and thus had independent utility.” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)); South Carolina v. O'Leary, 64 F.3d 892, 899 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that actions are not 

“connected” when they are “independent and separable”).

Here, it is often the case that approval of federal coal mining facilitates the mining of state and privately owned 

coal. In many cases, mines in the western United States consist of an amalgam of privately owned, state owned, 

and federal coal. Not only that, but approval of federal coal mining can influence the development of state and 

privately coal on a larger scale. For instance, if cheap Powder River Basin coal continues to be mined and sold, 

there will be less incentive to develop private and state coal. Conversely, if Powder River Basin coal production 

declines, would private and state coal production necessarily increase? 

See attached for graphic - Twenty Mile Federal Coal Leases 

An example of a mine with extensive state, private, and some federal coal reserves. The Foidel Creek (or 

Twentymile) mine, owned by Peabody Energy, is in northwestern Colorado. The map above shows the location 

of federal coal leases in green. Outside these leases, the coal is state owned (under the blue lands) or private 

(under the white lands). (50) Map from BLM, “Environmental Assessment for the Peabody Twentymile Coal, LLC 

COC54608 Lease Modification” (Oct. 2014), available online at https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/nepa/41852/55032/59723/DOI-BLM-CO-N010-2014-044-EA-Public_Comment.pdf. 

The PEIS must rigorously analyze the effects that the federal coal program has on the connected action of private 

and state coal mining, not only as it relates to direct access to state and federal reserves, but also as it relates to 

economic impacts. Furthermore, where private and state coal mining may not actually be “connected” to the 

federal coal program, Interior and BLM must continue to address the impacts of this coal mining given that they 

represent cumulative actions that must be analyzed and assessed as part of the scope of analysis for the PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-12

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Interim Federal Coal Management Measures 

We are concerned that as the PEIS process is unfolding, the Interior Department and BLM have be falling short of 

ensuring that actions are not undertaken that would prejudice the ultimate decision pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 

1506.1(c)(3). In the Secretary’s January 16, 2016 statement regarding coal reform, it was indicated that the BLM 

would be moving forward in the near-term to provide guidance related to transparency, royalty rate reductions, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-73

Scoping Report 

and waste mine methane. (51) As we conveyed in an earlier letter, we support this effort. However, we would 

urge you to add clarity as follows: 

- On transparency, BLM state and field offices must be directed to immediately post 

online pending requests to lease coal, pending applications to reduce royalties, pending lease readjustments, 

pending lease suspensions and pending proposals to accept advance royalties in lieu of continued operation, and 

any and all findings that operators are not diligently developing or meeting continued operation requirements. 

Ensuring that these proposals and findings are made public will be critical for buttressing the integrity that Interior 

expects to bring to its reform efforts. 

- With regards to royalty rate reductions, the BLM must be directed to pause 

consideration of any pending or new royalty rate reduction requests until completion of the programmatic 

environmental impact statement. With recent media reports indicating royalty rate reductions may be enriching 

coal companies at the expense of the public, these reductions are uncalled for in the near-term. (52) 

- On waste mine methane, the Interior Department must be directed to pause approval 

of any coal lease or mining plan that would lead to underground mining activities requiring degasification systems 

(i.e., systems that vent methane other than normal ventilation air systems) pending completion of BLM 

regulations meant to address coal mine methane. (53) 

(51) See “Fact Sheet: Modernizing the Federal Coal Program,” available at

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/news_re 

lease_attachments.Par.47489.File.dat/Coal%20Reform%20Fact%20Sheet%20Final.pdf. 

(52) See Rucker, P., “U.S. taxpayer due to subsidize Koch-controlled coal mine,” Reuters (Jan. 12, 2016), available 

at http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-koch-coal-idUSL2N14W1JJ20160112. 

(53) In 2014, the Bureau of Land Management issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking requesting 

comments to assist in developing a “program to capture, use, or destroy waste mine methane that is released 

into the mine environment and the atmosphere as a direct consequence of underground mining operations[.]” 79 

Fed. Reg. 23,923 (April 29, 2014). The agency has yet to initiate a rulemaking, however. 

See attached for graphic - Methane Venting Above the West Elk Coal Mine in Colorado. (54) 

(54) More pictures of methane venting above the West Elk mine can be viewed at 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/wildearth_guardians/albums/72157628013512966 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-17

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Given all this, we urge the Department of the Interior and the BLM to ensure that as the PEIS is developed, that 

the purpose and need for the review and the proposed actions is to put an end to the federal coal program and 

lead our nation away from coal toward cleaner, mores sustainable forms of energy. A purpose and need is 

required for an EIS pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13. We strongly urge the Interior Department to make clear 

that, given the collapse of the coal industry, the need to combat climate change, and mounting support for 

keeping coal in the ground, the purpose and need for the PEIS is to ensure an orderly transition away from coal 

and an end to the leasing and future mining of all publicly owned coal reserves. 

Such a purpose and need is entirely within the scope of the Interior Secretary’s discretion and duties under the 

U.S. Mineral Leasing Act. As the Act makes clear, the Secretary is “authorized,” but not compelled to lease coal. 

30 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1). It is telling that not only is the Secretary not only is not required to lease coal, but also is 

authorized to lease coal “as [s]he finds appropriate and in the public interest[.]” Id. Further, the Secretary is even 

authorized to “disapprove” of plans to allowing the mining of leased federal coal. 30 U.S.C. § 207(c). Taken 

together, there is overwhelming authority and discretion for the Interior Department and the BLM to begin to 

say “no” to more federal coal leasing and production and “yes” to a brighter future that is not ruined by fossil 

fuels and driving our world deeper into climate debt. 

Given the public’s immense interest in limiting, if not reversing, the impacts of climate change and preventing 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-74 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

trillions in potential climate damages, there is ample reason for the Interior Department and the BLM to use their 

discretion to make the goal of the PEIS and any future reforms to be to end the federal coal program. (19) 

(19) It is further telling that the BLM is not simply authorized, but actually compelled, to reject coal lease 

applications if “leasing of the lands covered by the application, for environmental or other sufficient reasons, 

would be contrary to the public interest.” 43 C.F.R. § 3425.1-8(a)(3). This applies to leasing by application, which 

is the only way the BLM currently offers leases for competitive sale. Similarly, a lease modification, which is a 

form of non-competitive leasing, cannot be issued if it is not “in the interest of the United States.” 30 U.S.C. § 

203(a)(2)(A). 

We do not suggest that the Interior Department and BLM simply shut down all publicly owned coal mining 

overnight. Rather, we urge the Interior Department and the BLM to consider, consistent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(iii), a range of alternatives to determine the most 

effective and orderly means of ending the federal coal program. At a minimum, we urge the detailed 

consideration, analysis, and assessment of the following alternative, which we describe as the “Just Transition 

Alternative”:

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-24

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The climate impacts of all Interior Department fossil fuel management 

Additionally, if Interior and the BLM are to properly analyze and assess the climate impacts of federal coal 

management, the climate impacts of all Interior Department overseen fossil fuel development must be taken into 

account. This includes, but is not limited to, the impacts of offshore oil and gas development, oil shale, and tar 

sands development. As reports indicate, the potential climate impacts of offshore oil and gas, oil shale, and tar 

sands stand to be tremendous, with more than 222.14 billion metric tons of carbon projected, nearly as much as 

the total carbon emissions that could be released if all unleased federal coal reserves are developed. (49) See 

Exhibit 5 at 18 

See Attached for Table - Carbon Emissions (in billion metric tons) From Other Interior Department-overseen 

Fossil Fuel Development 

Similar to onshore oil and gas development, the Interior Department and BLM’s management of offshore oil and 

gas, oil shale, and tar sands are both cumulative and similar in nature, and therefore must be a part of the scope 

of the analysis for the PEIS. Indeed, if the climate impacts of the federal coal program are to be completely 

understood, they must be analyzed together with the impacts of other fossil fuel management programs that are 

under the control and authority of the Department of the Interior. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-25

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Greater Transparency Must be Achieved 

Finally, we urge the BLM and the Interior Department to live up to its commitment to making federal coal 

management more transparent and accessible to the American public. Currently, information related to federal 

coal management is not readily available, is difficult to track down in a consistent manner, and is not affirmatively 

made available to the public through the internet. 

WildEarth Guardians experienced this firsthand recently. In 2015, we sought to prepare maps presenting 

information related to federal coal leases in the United States. (55) In embarking upon this project, we found 

many shortcomings in the way the BLM manages data regarding coal leases. 

(55) This series of interactive maps is available at 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-75

Scoping Report 

http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/PageServer?pagename=priorities_climate_energy_coal_ 

public_land_interactive_map#.V5qVxyMrIdY. 

For example: 

-BLM does not maintain consistent GIS data for coal leases in the United States. Although some state offices 

maintain shapefiles showing accurate lease boundaries, most state offices do not appear to maintain such data. 

(56) The most reliable form of geographic data is accessible through BLM’s LR2000 database. However, this data 

is not easily transferrable to spreadsheets or databases and does not easily translate into precise geospatial 

presentation. It seems reasonable to expect BLM to maintain consistent, reliable, accurate, and accessible GIS 

data regarding coal leases.(56) The Colorado State Office has very accessible, accurate, and up-to-date coal lease 

GIS data available on its website, 

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/geographical_sciences/gis/GeospatialData.html. 

-Information related to coal management actions is not made available online. Information regarding 

readjustments, lease suspension reviews, royalty rate reductions, etc. is not regularly posted online and made 

available to the public. Furthermore, even though these actions are subject to NEPA, they are not made readily 

available to the public, even on BLM’s NEPA logs. Certainly, the BLM often provides no notice to the public that 

these decisions are being contemplated and/or undertaken. 

-LR2000 is useful (albeit not user-friendly), but it would be more useful if BLM would provide consistent and 

more detailed entries for coal lease cases. We found that LR2000 entries for coal leases varied by state, with 

some states providing greater detail and others not so much. If LR2000 is meant as a clearinghouse for public 

information related to federal coal leases, it could be improved considerably to ensure consistent and more 

useful data is available. LR2000, if it is to be utilized as a public database of federal coal information, should also 

include information regarding mining plan and mining plan modification approvals for federal coal leases. This 

would take coordination with OSMRE and the Secretary, but would provide more robust information regarding 

the status of current leases. 

-Production data for individual federal coal leases has not been made available. It is unclear why this is the case. 

For members of the public wishing to determine whether a specific coal lease is producing and if so, how much 

coal it produces, such data is not available. BLM and Interior should strive to make this data available to provide 

greater transparency around federal coal production. 

BLM and Interior should strive to ensure that records related to federal coal management are made available 

online so that the public can be more informed and engaged in the management of their coal resources. As it 

stands, federal coal management often occurs in a black box, making it very difficult to foster public trust and 

acceptance of BLM and Interior management actions. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-5 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

a. OSMRE Must be Involved in the PEIS Process and Federal Coal Reform Efforts 

We take issue with the apparent exclusion of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(“OSMRE”) from the PETS process. While Secretarial Order 3338 states that it does not “apply to any action of 

the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement” (Order 3338 § 1), this statement does not appear to 

preclude or otherwise prevent OSMRE’s involvement in the PETS and the broader effort to reform the federal 

coal program. In fact, this statement appears to speak to the applicability of the coal leasing moratorium set forth 

under the Order, which clearly does not affect actions undertaken by OSMRE. That OSMRE and its management 

authorities should be implicated in the development of the PETS seems entirely consistent with the Order, which 

directs that a PETS be prepared to, “analyz[e] potential leasing and management reforms to the current Federal 

coal program.” Order 3338 § 1. As the Order acknowledges, OSMRE’s coal management responsibilities are 

considered part of the “Federal Coal Program.” Order 3338 § 2(a).

In fact, OSMRE (as well as the Secretary) has extensive authorities and responsibilities related to the management 

of publicly owned coal that are highly relevant, if not indispensible, to the purpose of the PETS. These authorities 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-76 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

and responsibilities include reviewing and taking action on mining plans and mining plan modifications for the 

mining of leased federal coal pursuant to 30 C.F.R. § 746, ensuring state-issued permits authorizing the mining of 

leased federal coal are consistent with non-delegable federal laws pursuant to 30 C.F.R. § 745, and exercising 

oversight of state permitting of the mining of leased federal coal pursuant to 30 C.F.R. § 740. These duties are 

entirely germane to the core issues that will be addressed in the PETS, including the climate impacts of the 

federal coal program, other impacts of the federal coal program, socio-economic considerations, exports, and 

energy needs. 

For example, the PETS could and should address how OSMRE can best measure, assess, and address the climate 

impacts of continued federal coal production when reviewing and taking action on mining plans and mining plan 

modifications. Especially given that OSMRE and the Secretary have been directly admonished by federal courts for 

ignoring the climate impacts of coal mining decisions, such a move seems imminently wise. (26) To this end, it 

would make sense to consider changes to 30 C.F.R. § 746 (or other provisions of 30 C.F.R. § 740, et seq.) to 

ensure that, even after publicly owned coal has been leased, that reforms are integrated into OSMRE and 

Secretarial reviews and decisionmaking regarding the mining of leased federal coal. Ultimately, it just makes sense 

to ensure OSMRE’s role in the management of federal coal is taken into account to ensure the most effective 

reforms are implemented. 

(26) The Department of the Tnterior and OSMRE have recently lost and/or conceded on at least lawsuits 

challenging their failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act when reviewing and taking action 

on mining plan modifications in accordance with 30 C.F.R. § 746. See WildEarth Guardians v. OSMRE, 104 F.Supp. 

3d 1208 (D. Colo 2015), WildEarth Guardians v. OSMRE, Nos. CV14-13-BLG-SPW, CV14-103-BLG-SPW, 2016 

WL 259285 (D. Mont. Jan. 21, 2016), and Federal Defendants’ Motion for Voluntary Remand and Memorandum 

in Support, WildEarth Guardians. V. OSMRE, Civ. No. 1:14-cv-00112-RJ-CG, filed July 18, 2016. The latter 

motion is attached to these comments as Exhibit 17. 

Furthermore, although the Secretary has the authority to disapprove of mining plans, there are currently no 

explicitly criteria to guide the Secretary in making such decisions. We would urge the Interior Department to 

consider changes to 30 C.F.R. § 746 that would require the Secretary to make, at a minimum, a finding that 

mining leased federal coal is in the public interest for environmental or other sufficient reasons. This “public 

interest” standard is similar to what the BLM considers when determining whether leasing is appropriate. 

Because at times, after a lease is issued, new information or circumstances may arise calling into question any 

“public interest” determination made at the leasing stage, it would make sense to ensure that, even after a lease is 

issued, the mining of the leased federal coal remains firmly within the public interest. 

Comment Number: 0002500_Sweeney_20160728-11

Organization1:National Mining Association 

Commenter1:Katie Sweeney 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I. Department of the Interior (DOI) Previously Rejected Motivations for the Moratorium and Should Not Change 

Course Based on Third Party Conjectures 

In moving forward with the moratorium and preparation of the PEIS, DOI is apparently fully embracing the flawed 

reasoning it had rejected out of hand just a few years earlier. In the PEIS scoping meetings and in the media, 

various anti-development organizations have resurrected these claims by deploying a combination of incomplete, 

misleading data and misinformation to produce a fictional narrative about the revenue and other economic 

returns to the public through bonus bids, royalties and surface rental fees. The Secretarial Order rests upon the 

uncritical acceptance of these contrived “fair market value” concerns by allowing them to serve as proxies for 

substituting climate- centric for market-based policies in the management of the nation’s largest energy resource. 

For example, many of the proposals currently advanced by groups in opposition to leasing federal coal are 

substantially the same as those raised in a 2011 petition for rulemaking calling for the abandonment of the leaseby-application (LBA) method for lease sales and the imposition of “carbon fees.” In denying the petition in 2011, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-77

Scoping Report 

BLM explained: how the LBA method is competitive and ensures receipt of fair market value; the pace of leasing 

occurred at generally the same rate as reserve depletion at existing mines; the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) analyses conducted in conjunction for lease sales adequately evaluate GHG emissions; and, imposing a 

carbon or other externality-based fee exceeds BLM’s delegated authority under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) 

and the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) and would require congressional action. DOI points to no 

evidence or rationale that explains why these factual and legal conclusions are no longer valid. DOI’s change in 

position from its well-considered and legally sound 2011 decision is arbitrary and capricious. 

Similarly, DOI seems to now blithely accept the “keep it in the ground” organizations’ characterization of two 

key government reports as the rationale for the moratorium. These two reports on coal leasing, one conducted 

by the DOI Inspector General (IG) and the other by the General Accountability Office (GAO) however, did not 

identify systemic weaknesses in the current leasing system. Specifically, GAO did not repudiate its 2010 finding 

that the LBA method can achieve the objectives of ensuring fair return to the public. When the IG testified 

before Congress, she confirmed in response to questions that taxpayers are receiving a fair return from the 

federal coal program, and in many cases receiving more than fair market value. In fact, in the months after the 

reports were released, DOI informed members of the U.S. Senate that neither report identified concerns 

meriting a moratorium on federal coal leasing. While each report identified some inconsistencies in the 

application of guidance or documentation for decisions, BLM has since addressed those concerns. To date, the 

agency has published an updated Coal Evaluation manual and handbook as well as seven instruction memoranda 

to its field offices in response to the modest suggestions by the IG and GAO. 

Comment Number: 0002505_Brooke_20160729-3 

Organization1:Black Warrior River Keeper 

Commenter1:Nelson Brooke 

Other Sections: 8.4 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While the applicant states in the EA on page 48 that the ADEM NPDES permit “provides strict water quality 

restrictions that control the quality of water that will be allowed to be discharged into the nearby streams,” 

ADEM’s NPDES permits actually allow for rain event exemptions on pollutant limitations, essentially permitting 

coal mines to discharge sediment and heavy metals-laden water over spillways or through pipes into receiving 

streams during rain events. These unfortunate exemptions circumvent the intent of the Clean Water Act, and 

place downstream waters and species in harm’s way at times when pollutant limitations are needed most. 

ADEM’s coal mining NPDES permits are designed to allow massive quantities of sediment to discharge into 

receiving waters during rain events. The idea touted on page 48 that sediment basins are adequate to trap 

sediment in runoff from coal mines cannot be trusted. There is a lot of talk in the EA about all the regulations and 

plans in place to protect the environment, but the reality on the ground is: strip mines in Alabama are overseen 

by lax regulations and minimal regulatory oversight. 

A misleading representation of the NPDES compliance history of the applicant at its Narley Mine was provided as 

a justification for the lease in this EA. Such misinformation should not be taken lightly, and should be ample 

fodder for revocation of this lease. The EA states on page 48: “Best Coal, Inc. has not experienced a noncompliance discharge from any of its basins associated with the NPDES Permit AL0075752 since March 15, 

2011.” Upon a quick Black Warrior Riverkeeper review of NPDES Permit AL0075752 monthly discharge 

monitoring reports publicly available on ADEM”s eFile database, we found this statement to be patently false. 

From March 15, 2011 to January 2012, Narley Mine had 217 violations of its NPDES permit – by exceeding 

limitations for toxicity and selenium.

On page 48 the following was stated: “In addition, there are no issues or concerns brought forth relating to the 

past mining operations in the area according to their past compliance records.” Additionally on page 35 the 

following was stated: “Best Coal had tested the Narley Mine overburden and interburden to determine whether 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-78 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

acid or other toxic-forming substances were present in amounts that might pollute water resources. The results 

indicated that toxicity issues with respect to the materials tested were minimal. The three overburden cores 

contained small amounts of acid-forming shale zones near one or more of the coal beds to be mined. The volume 

of this toxic material was small compared to the total volume of overburden. Excavation of the overburden 

would not necessarily mix the spoil thoroughly. Therefore, there is a possibility that pods of toxic shale might be 

positioned within the backfill where they could have some localized environmental effect. However, considering 

the volumes involved, that effect would be limited to a few patches of sparse vegetation, which could be mitigated 

with an application of agricultural lime.” Taking these two items into consideration, it is of note that some of the 

NPDES permit violations at the Narley Mine were with respect to toxicity failures in their discharges. It is clear 

that the applicant’s representation of operations at Narley Mine differ from the facts on the ground. 

The stretch of the Locust Fork near Narley Mine No. 3 is classified as federal Critical Habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act for six species of freshwater mussels: Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus) 

[Threatened], Dark pigtoe (Pleurobema furvum) [Endangered], Orange-nacre mucket (Hamiota perovalis) 

[Threatened], Ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) [Endangered], Triangular kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus 

greenii) [Endangered], and Upland combshell (Epioblasma metastriata) [Endangered]. It is also known habitat for 

the following rare species: Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis) [Candidate], Cahaba shiner (Notropis 

cahabae) [Endangered], Flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus) [Threatened], and Plicate rocksnail 

(Leptoxis plicata) [Endangered]. Amazingly, Table 4 in the EA erroneously states about the Cahaba Shiner: “this 

species is only found in the main channel of the Cahaba River.” Actually, the most robust population of the 

Cahaba shiner lives within the Locust Fork near this mine site. With such a clear mistake, it is hard to imagine 

that a Section 7 Consultation meaningfully took place, even though the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service informed the 

BLM on 6/27/13 that Best Coal’s contractor met consultation requirements. Unfortunately, without a serious 

cumulative impacts review, these species well-being and the habitat and water quality impacts from coal mining 

were not seriously considered through this process. The habitat assessment performed by MEC simply focused 

on the immediate area of the mine – an area already impacted by multiple activities over the years, but failed to 

survey areas immediately downstream that will be impacted by polluted runoff from the mine during operation, 

during reclamation activities, and well into the future beyond post-reclamation closure. Alabama is the number 

one state in the U.S. for aquatic biodiversity, and the Locust Fork is a key priority watershed for rare species 

habitat, reintroductions, and recovery. If the BLM’s federal coal EA process were adequate, the importance of the 

Locust Fork, its water quality, its aquatic habitat, and its inhabitants would not have been glossed over as it was 

here. 

Comment Number: 0002506_Nichols_20160729-7 

Organization1:Wild Earth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Finally, we urge you to ensure your Interior Department follows through to produce its scoping report by the 

end of 2016 and ensures that the aforementioned principles are integrated into any identified alternatives for 

future coal management. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-1 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Other Sections: 8.3 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Along with preparation of the EIS, the Secretary of Interior has imposed a de-facto moratorium on coal leasing 

pending completion of this review. 

Part of the stated justification for these actions is reports resulting from review by the Government Accounting 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-79

Scoping Report 

Office (GAO) and the DOI-Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the current coal program. Given, however, that 

the referenced reports stated that the current leasing program is sound and contributes significant benefits to the 

taxpayers, that the reports offered only modest recommendations for program improvements, and that in 2014 

the BLM already developed new protocols, policy guidance, and a manual and handbook to implement the 

GAO/OIG recommendations, there is a reasonable basis to question the need and motivation for both the EIS 

and the leasing moratorium. It must also be noted that the proposed regulatory changes illegally conflict with and 

attempt to supercede existing law and regulation under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 25), FLPMA (30 U.S.C. 1701), MLA 

(30 Us.S.C. 181), MMPA (30 U.S.C. 21a), NEPA (40 U.S.C. 4321, and DQA (Pub. L. No. 106-554, 515). 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-12

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Other Sections: 8.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Multiple levels of broad-scope National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review should also be eliminated 

(currently required at the leasing stage - BLM, mine permitting stage - OSMRE, an dthe utility permitting stage - 

Various agencies). Separate analyses of the impacts of each action would be more realistic and appropriate (limit 

"related and connected" actions). 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-5 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

How, When, and Where to Lease - The BLM already has an established and robust land use planning process, 

which addresses current economic, land-use, and environmental considerations. The process includes an 

evaluation of fair market value, consideration of special and restricted land use designations, and a full NEPA 

review process. The proposed re-evaluation of unsuitability criteria is inappropriate and illegal since the existing 

criteria were established by Congress, and the DOI does not have the authority to re-visit or change them. 

Similarly, any proposed regulatory changes which supersede or conflict with established authority under FLPMA, 

MLA, or MMPA, exceed the DOI's authority and purview and would be inappropriate and illegal. It must be noted 

that issues with the federal coal leasing process that have been identified over time, have been addressed through 

changes in BLM guidelines and procedures, most notably and recently in 2014. The concerns noted and identified 

with the timing and scope of leasing activity have either already been addressed or are irrelevant and impractical 

given current and anticipated future conditions in the coal industry, and the realities of mine location and 

potential future development. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-7 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate Impacts - Due to pressure from environmental interst groups, consideration of potential climate impacts 

is being mandated at every stage of the process, including coal leasing, mine permit approvals, and required 

approvals for powerplant construction and operation. This approach results in multiple redundant reviews, does 

not accurately characterize direct or indirect impacts from those actions preceding combustion of coal in a 

powerplant, and results in significant unnecessary costs and delays. Under the current BLM leasing process and 

practices, potential climate impacts are required to be evaluated and analyzed in the NEPA documents prepared 

for each leasing action. While this requirement is duplicative of subsequent environmental reviews, it adequately 

addresses and satisfies the requirement is duplicative of subsequent environmental reviews, it adequately 

addresses and satisfies the requirement to evaluate these potential impacts. The suggestion that potential climate 

impacts should be evaluated on a broader scale relative to identification of potential lease offerings creates a 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-80 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

situation where the linkage between action and potential impacts is even further removed and speculative, is 

adding one more layer to an already duplicative and redundant review process, and is therefore inappropriate and 

unjustified. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-8 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As an over-riding consideration, maintain a viable coal leasing program consistent with the purpose and intent of 

the Mineral Leasing Act and amendments. 

Comment Number: 0002510_Cowan_20160728-1 

Organization1:Wyoming County Commissioners Association

Commenter1:Gregory Cowan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And because our concerns run deep and broad, it is paramount that the BLM consider not only the appropriate 

scope of issues but so too the appropriate scope of outreach to - and the involvement of - local government 

during development of the PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002510_Cowan_20160728-4 

Organization1:Wyoming County Commissioners Association

Commenter1:Gregory Cowan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Wyoming's counties need to be meaningfully engaged throughout the Coal PEIS process. 

Coordination and cooperation between local government and the BLM are based on the understanding that 

concerns and expertise are best conveyed, and therefore decisions made more robust and durable, when the 

BLM and local governments engage in dialogue. This is because the federal agency decision maker is in a position 

to be more responsive and flexible to the concerns of local government during rule development. Simply put, 

coordination and cooperation provide the context necessary to help the BLM make the right decision the first 

time, and doing so with the buy-in of the local communities most affected by that decision. 

During the PEIS process, the BLM should consider including joint fact finding on issues of high relevance specific 

to areas of local government expertise (socioeconomics, custom and cultural attributes, travel management, etc.). 

Wyoming's counties should also be looked to by the BLM to help with issue identification; arranging for the 

collection and/or assembly of necessary resource, environmental, social, economic, and institutional data; 

analyzing data; identifying alternatives, evaluating alternatives and estimating the effects of implementing each 

alternative; and carrying out any other tasks necessary for the development of the environmental analysis and 

documentation. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-13

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM also must satisfy its NEPA obligation to evaluate feasible alternatives to the status quo that would satisfy the 

needs for federal action 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-81

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-19

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In short, the Secretary of the Interior—through both BLM and OSM—has substantial discretion and control in 

implementing the federal coal program. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-20

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Changed Circumstances Warrant Renewed Programmatic Review of the Federal Coal Leasing Program Because 

the federal coal program “is a coherent plan of national scope, and its adoption surely has significant 

environmental consequences,” NEPA requires BLM to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement 

for the Program as a whole. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 400 (1976) (recognizing need for programmatic 

EIS for federal coal leasing program). BLM’s most recent full programmatic environmental review for the program 

was in 1979—37 years ago—at a time when the federal government’s policy was to increase reliance on coal and 

the threat of climate change had not yet been fully realized or understood. 10 The fundamental reversal of these 

factors requires BLM to renew its programmatic analysis. 10 See Bureau of Land Mgmt., Final Environmental 

Statement: Federal Coal Management Program (Apr. 1979) (“1979 PEIS”). 9 BLM committed to update its 1979 

PEIS “when conditions change sufficiently to require new analyses of [national and interregional] impacts.”11 In 

commencing that update now, BLM complies with a key requirement of NEPA to supplement a past EIS when 

there are “significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the 

proposed action or its impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii).

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-31

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) estimates total U.S. coal production in 2015 was about 895 

million short (MMst), 10 percent lower than in 2014 and the lowest level since 1986. EIA projects that coal 

production will fall by another 12 percent in 2016, then rise by 2 percent in 2017. U.S. EIA, Short Term Energy 

Outlook: Coal (Mar. 8, 2016), available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/coal.cfm (visited July 28, 

2016). 10 have increased the availability of clean energy sources that obviate the need for federal coal. 14 In 

short, NEPA mandates that it is time for BLM to re-evaluate the need for the federal coal leasing program 

altogether 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-3 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:438596 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should also have specific guidelines on what does and does not need to be included in the NEPA work 

for a lease. Many leases are derailed by nuisance lawsuits by NGO's over extraneous items such as Climate 

Impacts when an overall review such as this Programmatic EIS should answer that question for all leases possibly 

moving the NEPA to a faster and less onerous EA. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-82 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0020034_Koontz_TownofHotchkiss_20160729-4 

Organization1:Town of Hotchkiss 

Commenter1:Wendell Koontz 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal government's own agencies, the Government Accountability Office and the Department of the 

Interior Inspector General, developed detailed reports and recommendations in 2013 which provided 

recommendations for improvements to the Federal Coal Program. Both these reports confined that the federal 

leasing program is sound and contributes substantial benefits to American taxpayers. These reports offered 

modest recommendations for improvements, however, neither report called for wholesale revisions to the 

program nor do they address in any way royalty rates. BLM has already acted on the recommendations of these 

reports to improve the management of the federal coal program. To date, the agency has published an Updated 

Coal Evaluation manual and handbook as well as seven instruction memoranda to its field offices in response to 

the modest suggestions by the IG and GAO.[3] 

[3] See: 

* Coal Management Program, U.S. Department of the Interior; Report No.: CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012; June 2013 

* COAL LEASING; BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide 

More Public Information; U. S. Government Accountability Office; GAO- I 4- I 40; December 2013. 

* Letter from BLM Director N. Kornze to Senator E. Markay; August 14, 20 14. 

Comment Number: 0020052-8 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Commenter1:Barbara A. Walz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The development and production of federal coal must comply with strict environmental regulations and is 

historically more regulated than other coal sources. If the federal royalty rates are increased, production will shift 

to privately held coal reserves and reduce overall oversight of coal produced nationally (not to mention it will 

also reduce the revenue currently received by the public from the development of this resource). 

The federal coal program is directed and governed by numerous federal statutory and regulatory programs 

already. The following key laws establish the primary authorities, responsibilities, and requirements for developing 

federal coal resources: 

•Mineral Leasing Act of 1920

•National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA)

•National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

•Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (MMPA)

•Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA)

•Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA)

•Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) 

•Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act of 1973

•Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)

•Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (FCLAA)

•Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

•Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 

Comment Number: 0020052-9 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Commenter1:Barbara A. Walz 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-83

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The following laws and executive orders apply to the mining of federal coal. 

•Noise Control Act 

•Clean Air Act

•American Indian Religious Freedom Act

•Antiquities Act

•Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act

•Archaeological Resources Protection Act

•Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment

•Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites 

•Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

•Executive Order 13287: Preserve America

•Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act (Historic Sites Act)

•Illegal Trafficking in Native American Human Remains and Cultural Items 

•National Historic Preservation Act

•Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

•Theft and Destruction of Government Property

•Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

•Endangered Species Act

•Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management 

•Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands

•Executive Order 12996: Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System

•Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species

•Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

•Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

•Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

•Migratory Bird Treaty Act

•National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act

•Noxious Weed Act

•Rivers and Harbors Act 

•Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act 

•Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

•Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations 

•Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

•Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act 

•Executive Order 12856: Federal Compliance With Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements 

•Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

•Hazardous Materials Transportation Act 

•Pollution Prevention Act

•Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

•Toxic Substances Control Act

•Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act 

•Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 

•Federal Mine Safety and Health Act

•Occupational Safety & Health Act

•Air Commerce and Safety Act

•Farmland Protection and Policy Act

•National Trails System Act

•Rivers and Harbors Act
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-84 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

•Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act

•Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

•Wilderness Act

•Antiquities Act

•Paleontological Resources Preservation

•Theft and Destruction of Government Property Act

•Farmland Protection and Policy Act

•Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act

•Clean Water Act

•Safe Drinking Water Act

Tri-State's Recommendations for the PEIS 

Comment Number: 0020056-16

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Secretary enjoys considerable discretion in the management of coal leasing. However, this discretion is not 

unlimited. The Mineral Leasing Act specifies that the Secretary shall" lease federal coal. 30 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1). 

Moreover, federal law has repeatedly directed the Secretary of Energy to examine methods to increase the 

development of the nation s coal reserves and to increase the export of coal. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 13571(1); 42 

U.S.C. § 13367(a). Revisions to the leasing regulations that have the effect of curtailing federal coal production 

and the export of coal would be inconsistent with these mandates. At a minimum, the scope of the PEIS must 

include a discussion of how any proposed regulatory changes would advance the federal policies of development 

of federal coal resources and the export of U.S.-produced coal. 

Comment Number: 0020056-8 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should be expressly designed for tiering, both by BLM in leasing and OSMRE in mine planning. 

Comment Number: 0020056-9 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Similarly, the Secretary should expressly adopt the cumulative impact principles articulated by the D.C. Circuit in 

their recent decisions Sierra Club v. FERC, D.C. Cir. No. 14-1275 (June 28, 2016) and EarthReports, Inc., v. 

FERC, D.C. Cir. No. 15-1127 (July 15, 2016), in which the Court recognized that cumulative impact analyses are 

to be focused on the same geographic area as the proposed action. The PEIS itself would thus have a broad 

cumulative impact analysis, but individual leasing decisions should have substantially more focused cumulative 

impact analyses than those urged by environmental activists. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-1 

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-85

Scoping Report 

The WMA is compelled to address the release of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, "Economics of 

Coal Leasing on Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers". We find the release and content of this 

study very inappropriate, because it was issued prior to the closing of the scoping comment period for the 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for evaluating the federal coal leasing program. The PEIS is 

a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activity and is intended to be the vehicle to be used to analyze 

environmental impacts of federal agency actions. The President's Council report offers biased analyses in 

response to the same questions posed in the Notice of Intent for the PEIS. The report presumes to be the 

preferred position of the federal administration, since it was issued by the Office of the President. The issuance of 

the President's study makes a mockery of the NEPA process in general and the PEIS for coal leasing in particular. 

The existence of the study and the obvious bias against coal production in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming 

leads us to question whether the integrity of the NEPA process has been violated. The potential legal impact of 

this presumptuous document calls to question whether the PEIS should be withdrawn and the Secretary’s 

moratorium on federal coal leasing be suspended. This administration is obviously incapable of and cannot be 

trusted to conduct a fair and impartial environment analysis. As part of the scoping process the BLM must 

consider whether Secretarial Order No. 3338, “Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to 

Modernize the Federal Coal Program” should be withdrawn, and the scoping report should explain and justify the 

resulting decision.WMA is in general agreement with several United States Senators who have voiced objection 

to the report, and includes their letter for the record in these comments (Attachment 1). 

Comment Number: 000001202_Meinhart_20160623-3 

Organization1:Office of Congressman Scott Tiption 

Commenter1:Brian Meinhart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And then, you go back to the OIG and GAO reports. And they didn't actually suggest that a complete overhaul 

of the Federal Coal Program was necessary to ensure a fair, a fair return to taxpayers. Rather, they focused on 

some potential improvement to calculating fair market value to comply with the Mineral Leasing Act's 

requirements on fair market value standards. 

Comment Number: 000001202_Meinhart_20160623-4 

Organization1:Office of Congressman Scott Tiption 

Commenter1:Brian Meinhart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Well, what about environmental impacts? What about CO2 emissions? Are they skyrocketing? Well, according to 

the Environmental Protection Agency, their data shows that CO2 emissions for 2014 were about equal to the 

mid-1990s. That was a downward trend. What about methane? Those levels are lower than the 1990s. As the 

Congressman is fond of saying, if you want to develop a resource the right way, the most environmentally 

responsible way, then no one does it better than we do here in American. And that includes our coal industry. 

Yet despite those facts, the administration insists on pushing forward with rules and regulations, like the 

[indiscernible] power plan, which some economists estimated will cost a whopping $366 to $479 billion from 

2017 to 2031, and would result in a decrease in CO2 emissions by 2030 of less than 1 percent of current level 

emissions. So, if you can't make a compelling case that the coal industry is unfairly benefiting from a public 

resource, and you can't demonstrate that the industry is the cause of some large-scale environmental crisis, then 

why push forward with these efforts? It's because coal does not have a role to play in this administration's 

misguided energy vision. In 2008, the President famously advocated an energy policy in which he said, "if someone 

wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just it will bankrupt them". And there is absolutely no 

ambiguity in that statement whatsoever. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-86 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 000001202_Meinhart_20160623-5 

Organization1:Office of Congressman Scott Tiption 

Commenter1:Brian Meinhart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the Department has not 

made a compelling case that a complete overhaul of the Coal Program and a delay in new leasing would achieve a 

cost-effective and measurable improvement to any of those questions above. It seems like it's more just another 

blow to an industry that's vital to our economic wellbeing. 

Comment Number: 000001204_Swartout_20160623-1 

Organization1:Governor Hickenlooper 

Commenter1:John Swartout 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And while this review is certainly appropriate, we also ask that you expedite it. 

Comment Number: 000001249_ WILSON_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Ryan Wilson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It shouldn't take a decade for a lease to go through the NEPA process. It should not take a year for the BLM to 

sign a record of decision. It shouldn't take six months for a notice to be published in the Federal Register. 

Comment Number: 000001255_Nettleton_20160623-1 

Organization1:Twenty Mile Coal 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Commenter Type: Individual 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There's a reasonable basis to question the need and motivation for both the PEIS and the leasing moratorium; 

more specifically, addressing the stated reasons for the proposed PEIS and moratorium. 

Comment Number: 000001255_Nettleton_20160623-4 

Organization1:Twenty Mile Coal 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Number 1, maintain a viable policing program consistent with Mineral Leasing Act and Amendments. 

Comment Number: 000001257_Petersen_20160623-2 

Organization1:Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado 

Commenter1:Bonnie Petersen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Opponents of coal mining allege there are serious flaws in the Federal Coal Leasing Program. This is 

unsubstantiated. Reports from 2013 by the Government Accountability Office in the Department of Interior and 

Inspector General contain minor recommendations for improvements to the Federal Coal Program. 

Neither report recommended wholesale revisions to the program, nor do they address in any way royalty rates. 

BLM has already acted on the reports' recommendations to improve the management of the Federal Coal 

Program. To date, the agency has published an updated Coal Evaluation Manual and Handbook, as well as seven 

instruction memorandum to its field offices in response to the suggestions by the IG and the GAO. We 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-87

Scoping Report 

believe large-scale changes in the program are unnecessary and may serve to harm the industry and result in less 

revenue to the American taxpayer. 

Comment Number: 00001303_Leahy_20160623-2 

Organization1:New Mexico Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Todd Leahy 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Second, reconsider how to balance multiple uses. The nation has relied on fossil fuel sources extracted from 

public land since its founding. In the Federal Lands Policy Management Act requires that the BLM balance 

extractive uses against other public, public land uses. It's clear that coal mining doesn't simply compete with other 

uses. Coal [indiscernible] be stabilized and degrade, making other uses impossible. Given the long-term impacts of 

carbon dioxide, the effects of mining public coal today will affect public lands for centuries, damaging recreational 

opportunities, water supplies, wildfire resilient, and even other extractive uses, such as timber and grazing. If a 

disparity exists between the high, long-term cost of coal usage and the low, short-term windfalls from sale, then 

the BLM must consider this disparity when making its decisions. 

Comment Number: 0000850_Mosley_BluegreenAlliance-2 

Organization1:Blue Green Alliance 

Commenter1:Khari Mosley 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The review of the federal coal leasing systems must evaluate BLM authority and opportunities, as well as actions 

of other agencies and Congress could take, to help ensure a just transition for workers and communities to a 

clean energy economy. Such actions should include robust investment in community economic development, 

protection of worker livelihoods, and development of new tax revenue sources for local economies. A 

combination of factors is forging a new reality where lower gas prices, rising coal costs, and the competitive cost 

of renewable energy sources are driving a shift to clean energy. The new energy technologies coming on-line will 

create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and will continue to do so in communities across the country. But, as 

our nation makes this transition, some workers and communities may be impacted. Coal mines, coal-fired power 

plants, coal transportation infrastructure, coal handling facilities and their associated supply and maintenance 

industries are often the lifeblood of small towns, providing significant employment and contributing to their 

communities' tax base. Moving toward clean energy could result in fewer jobs at a local level and a reduction in 

the tax stream going to local governments in these communities. Therefore, we must consider what authority 

and opportunities the federal government possesses, having succeeded in capturing a fair return for extracted 

coal, to ensure that some portion of that increased return is put to use ensuring a just transition for workers, 

communities and regional economies occurs. 

Comment Number: 0000854_Doyon_20160628-5 

Commenter1:MIchelle Doyon 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We call on BLM to prepare a thorough Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy 

Act that critically evaluates the programs's climate and economic impacts for the very first time. The review must 

be comprehensive in scope. It must be transparent with public participation, and the review must acknowledge 

the scientific consensus that the vast majority of fossil fuels must remain in the ground in order to avoid the 

worst effects of climate disruption. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-88 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000861_Ronremoeller-2 

Organization1:Sierra Club, Ohio Chapter 

Commenter1:Brian Ronremoeller 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Second of all, like to urge BLM to also conduct Programmatic EIS for the development of all fossil fuels on our 

public lands. For example, there was an environmental assessment, national forest to lease up to 30,000 acres, oil 

and gas, where the environmental assessment issued a finding of no significant impact because the climate impacts 

were beyond the scope of that study. So we urge that Secretary Jewell also issue an order for Programmatic EIS 

for oil, gas, mine 

Issue 2 - Air quality (local/regional impacts) 

Total Number of Submissions: 36 

Total Number of Comments: 52 

Comment Number: 00000174_ HEADRICK_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Mary Headrick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Consider our air safety. Burning coal pollutes our air. (Inaudible) surface ozone through the nitrogen oxide 

pathways. Burning releases black carbon, fine particulate matter. 

Comment Number: 00000179_ FUSAN_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Lynn Fusan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Keeping unmined coal in the ground improves air quality and reduces the need for coal ash storage 

impoundments. 

Comment Number: 00000356 _ Provost _20160519-1 

Commenter1:Craig Provost 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I moved to Utah a couple of years ago to enjoy the beautiful landscapes and clean air but found out that we have 

a problem out here with particulates in the air. 

Comment Number: 00000356 _ Provost _20160519-2 

Commenter1:Craig Provost 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I'm very aware that it's not coal mining that's the problem, but as the previous gentleman said, that it is the coal 

power production that gets most of the bad stuff in the air. And that needs to be worked on. 

Comment Number: 00000367 _ Rossi _20160519-1 

Commenter1:Ericka Rossi 

Other Sections: 1 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to information I have received, toxic coal mined from our public lands and burned in Utah's coal fire 

plants -- power plants have significantly affected the health of many people. The Hunter and Huntington coal-fired 

power plants are responsible for 40 percent of all of our state's dangerous haze causing nitrogen oxide pollution 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-89

Scoping Report 

from the electricity sector. According to the Clean Air Task Force, pollution from the plants contributes to 11 

premature deaths and 233 asthma attacks every year. 

Comment Number: 0000516_Whyde_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Don Whyde 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal industry has a huge problem. The 1st problem is stringent air quality rules for power plants 

Comment Number: 0000618-2 

Organization1:Citizens for Clean Air 

Commenter1:Karen Sjoberg 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We stand with those neighbors in nearby Delta County and beyond who have legitimate concerns about the 

effects of coal mining on air quality. We urge the BLM to prioritize air quality and the environment in your 

forthcoming recommendations 

Comment Number: 0000764_Fidel_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Mike Fidel 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2010, an independent post mortem study by Berkeley Economic Consulting & the San Francisco State 

University was conducted to determine the haze reduction with the Mohave shutdown. The results of this study 

concluded that: "Mean visibility (deciview) and light extinction in the Grand Canyon National Park did not 

respond to the plant closure in a statistically significant fashion. 

Comment Number: 0000782-2 

Commenter1:Lawson LeGate 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition BLM should examine the contributions to diminished air quality and the deposition of toxic materials 

that result from burning leased coal. 

Comment Number: 0000819-1 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Howie Garber 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The emissions of all the coal power plants in this country have been calculated by the American Lung Association, 

to cause about 25,000 premature deaths every year, or an average of 30 to 50 deaths per plant per year. Coal 

power plant pollution is responsible for half a million asthma attacks, 16,000 episodes of chronic bronchitis, and 

38,000 non-fatal heart attacks every year. This pollution increases the annual health care bill by about 170 billion 

dollars according to the California EPA. The American Heart Association and the American Lung Association 

state that air pollution on average shortens the life span of everyone one to three years. 

Comment Number: 0001147-1 

Organization1:University of Washington 

Commenter1:Dan Jaffe 

Other Sections: 1 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-90 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I'm sure you're aware of the recent DEIS for the Millennium bulk terminal project out of Longview. I reviewed 

that carefully. Based on our data it looks like they've underestimated the coal dust effect by about a factor of 3, 

so this is a real impact and it's quite important. 

Comment Number: 0002001_Stevens_20160607-2 

Commenter1:Wayne Stevens 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Many blamed President Obama for the decline of coal. This is patently false. The decline of coal began in 1963 

with the passage of the Clean Air Act. In 1970 the Act was amended and strengthened. It was weakened in 1977, 

and strengthened again in 1990. The six “criteria pollutants” in the 1970 Clean Air Amendment Act are: sulfur 

oxides, particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and photochemical oxidants. All of these 

compounds are found in coal and/or petroleum products in varying amounts. 

Comment Number: 0002139_Simonsen_20160519_MESA-1 

Organization1:Mormon Environmental Stewardship Alliance (MESA) 

Commenter1:Soren Simonsen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal fired power plants are a major contributor to poor air quality 

Comment Number: 0002183_Jarstad_20160619-1 

Commenter1:Gene Jarstad 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The price to the environment has got to be considered in the fuel that we use. There is a price to the public of 

polluted air in the form of asthma, global warming, etc. If we are going to be a free market society, all costs to 

"we the people" must be considered. 

Comment Number: 0002226_Tobe_20160603-2 

Commenter1:Jerry Tobe 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

An example is - the costs incurred as the result of coal dust emissions from coal cars. Please note that a 

minimum of 182,231 tons of coal dust that was emitted from coal cars in 2012, if the coal in every coal car was 

treated to reduce coal dust emissions by 85%, which they weren't. "182,231 tons of coal dust" is the result of 

calculations based on information in the GAO's report "COAL LEASING: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, 

More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information" GAO-14-140: Published: Dec 18, 

2013 and information the BNSF Railway website. 

Comment Number: 0002318_Gordon_20160722-2 

Commenter1:Diana L. Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We know that coal is a dangerous pollutant. It produces volumes of CO2 and other climate-changing greenhouse 

gases. Its use anywhere around the globe imperils not only the communities nearby but all of us, especially the 

children. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-91

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002318_Gordon_20160722-3 

Commenter1:Diana L. Gordon 

Other Sections: 8.10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Of course, we can take some mitigation measures. However, there is just no way to mitigate the quantity of 

GHG produced by the mining of coal with huge machines in open pit mines and the transport of the coal to 

plants in this country or possibly across the ocean to Asia. Further, that coal will be burned in plants that may or 

may not have effective pollution control devises. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-42

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Burning coal produces airborne compounds, known as fly ash and bottom ash (collectively referred to as coal 

ash), which can contain quantities of heavy metals that settle or wash out of the atmosphere into oceans, 

streams, and land. In 2012, coal plants in the United States produced over 75 million short tons of coal ash, 70% 

of which was disposed of landfill. See 

www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/warm/pdfs/Fly Ash.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-46

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Cigarette smoke contains 69 known carcinogens. Coal-fired power plant emissions contain 67 known 

carcinogens or neurotoxins (U.S.EPA, 1998)—many of the same ones found in cigarette smoke. Cigarette smoke 

and power-plant emissions both contain 

• Fine particulate matter (PM2.5)

• Carbon monoxide

• Ozone precursors

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), such as benzene, toluene, and formaldehyde; 

• Acid gases, such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride;

• Dioxins and furans;

• Lead, arsenic, and other toxic heavy metals;

• Mercury;

• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH); and 

• Thorium, Uranium, Polonium and other radioactive metals

The harm to public health that second-hand cigarette smoke and fossil fuel emissions pose is remarkably similar. 

The difference is primarily quantitative, not qualitative. A typical life-long smoker will shorten his life by ten years. 

The American Lung Association reports that the typical urban dweller in the United States is exposed to enough 

airborne fine particulate matter to shorten his life by one-to-three years. (Pope, C.A. III, 2000.) Nearly all of that 

exposure is due to pollution from the burning of fossil fuels. This shortened life span of a typical urban dweller is 

not just the effect of his exposure to fine particulate pollution. Exposure to other components of air pollution 

caused by burning fossil fuels--such as ozone and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)--further shortens his life. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-92 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-47

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Fossil fuel emissions permeate entire air sheds of most urbanized regions of the country. The largest single 

source of fossil fuel emissions is coal-fired power plants. To escape fossil fuel pollution, one would have to find a 

region without coal-fired power plants or concentrated automobile traffic. Air quality maps show that most 

regional air sheds in the United States are moderately or heavily polluted—almost entirely the result of burning 

fossil fuels 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-68

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Across the U.S., high concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone usually occur together because the sources are largely 

the .same—coal-fired power plants and heavy vehicular traffic. There are, however, regional variations. In the 

Mountain West, the summer forest fire season and winter temperature inversions in mountain valleys also 

contribute to high concentrations of PM2.5. In the Ohio Valley, where coal-fired power plants are heavily relied 

on to produce electricity, concentrations of PM2.5 are higher than most of the rest of the country year round. 

This reflects the fact that burning coal as fuel generates 33 times as much fine soot (the main component of 

PM2.5) as burning oil or gas, on a per-Btu basis. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-83

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Emissions from the burning of fossil fuels come directly from the production of electric power and domestic heat, 

or indirectly in mining, , or activity. Several natural processes contribute to air pollution including forest fires, 

volcanic eruptions, windstorms, and turpene emissions from conifers. The extent and damage from these natural 

sources, however, is a minute portion of the air pollution emitted by manmade activities. 

www.eoearth.org/view/article/149931/. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-84

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Clean air standards have yet to catch up to the science. Up to now, the approach that Federal and state 

governments have taken to regulating fossil fuel emissions has been based on an assumption that the harm from 

these pollutants at concentration levels commonly experienced is minor, and is a small price to pay for a healthy 

economy. This reflects a precept that was once central to the science of toxicology--that “the poison is in the 

dose.”

This precept assumes that most poisons, including those in ambient air, are harmless below a certain threshold 

concentration, and the public policy task is to find that threshold and keep the poisonous substance below it. This 

precept, however, has been shown to be false by a wealth of more recent studies that show that the principal 

fossil fuel pollutants (lead, mercury, fine particulates, and ozone) harm human health at every level of 

concentration. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-93

Scoping Report 

In a major survey of recent research the World Health Organization concluded (World Health Organization 

Report, 2004): 

The potential for serious consequences of exposure to high levels of ambient air pollution was made clear in the 

mid-20th century, when cities in Europe and the United States experienced episodes of air pollution, such as the 

infamous London Fog of 1952 and Donora Smog of 1948, that resulted in large numbers of excess deaths and 

hospital admissions. Subsequent clean air legislation and other regulatory actions led to the reduction of ambient 

air pollution in many regions of the world, and particularly in the wealthy developed countries of North America 

and Europe. New epidemiological studies, however, conducted over the last decade, using sensitive designs and 

methods of analysis, have identified adverse health effects caused by combustion-derived air pollution even at the 

low ambient concentrations that now generally prevail in cities in North America and western Europe (Health 

Effects Institute 2001). 

If fact, many studies show that these pollutants not only cause significant damage at very low concentrations, but 

that the damage is proportionally the greatest (on a parts per billion basis) at the lowest concentrations. Just as 

the first five cigarettes have been found to do more damage to the lung, per cigarette smoked, than the next 15, 

the relationship between concentrations of such pollutants as fine particulates and their impact on health shows a 

similar non-linear curve, i.e. further reductions in atmospheric levels have even more public health benefit when 

levels are comparatively low than when they are high. (Peters, A., 2009.) 

The U.S. Center for Disease Control ranks toxic heavy metals as the number one environmental health threat to 

children.(22) Recent research on the effects of lead pollution, for example, invalidates the notion that exposure 

to lead is safe below a particular threshold concentration. 

(22) ATSDRA/EPA Priority List for 2005: Top Hazardous Substances. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, www.atsdr.cdc.gov/clist.html. 

Human activity has increased the concentration of lead in the environment more than 1,000-fold over the past 

three centuries. This reflects the fact that lead does not break down, so its concentration in the environment 

continually increases. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/PHS/PHS.asp?id=92&tid=22. A typical coal-fired power plant 

without pollution controls emits 114 pounds of lead each year. 

http://www.ucsusa.org/cleanenergy/coalvswind/c02c.html#.VG4Z3YvF-H4. Lead pollution from power plants 

enters the by several pathways. It begins as vapor, is deposited in the soil, leaches into streams, lakes, and 

aquifers, and ends up in drinking water and food supplies. 

Lead is a powerful neurotoxin. At levels that currently prevail in developed countries, it causes substantial harm 

to public health. In the United States, for example, until very recently the Center for Disease Control defined an 

“” lead blood level (the level assumed to require additional pollution controls and/or medical intervention) as 

10.0 micrograms per deciliter. www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm. 

Recent research indicates that the 10.0 μg/dL tolerance level of lead exposure is too high by a factor of 50. 

Acknowledging the findings of more recent research, the CDC conceded in 2012 that there is no level of lead in 

blood serum that is small enough to be considered “safe.” At that time, the CDC cut its tolerance level for 

blood-level lead from 10.0 μg/dL to 5.0 μg/dL (rather than zero) without a clear explanation of the basis for the 

new tolerance level. See www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6213a3.htm. Even CDC’s current tolerance 

level of 5.0 μg/dL is 25 times too high, according to the most recent research.(23) 

(23) It is important to note that the EPA’s current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead 

[0.15 μg/m3] was adopted in 2008. Because it has yet to be reconciled with the current research, the EPA’s 

NAAQS for lead pollution that is now in effect still reflects the CDC’s now-abandoned (and exceedingly lax) 

blood-lead tolerance level of 10.0 μg/dL. 

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-14

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-94 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Burning coal causes smog, soot, acid rain, global warming, and toxic air emissions. Burning coal is the single 

largest source of air pollution.(16) 

Comment Number: 0002331_Kalpakoff _20160725-1 

Commenter1:Gary Kalpakoff 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

dust from the mine and the haul trucks is out of control and i have sent emails and phone calls to the Utah air 

quality describing the lack of adequate dust control. 

Comment Number: 0002443_Koontz_20160727_BowieResources-3 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Aggressive new regulatory initiatives in the consumer market have further sensitized coal consumers to the 

precise characteristics of their coal. The Mercury Air Toxics Standards ("MATS") Rule, Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule ("CSAPR"), regional haze regulations, and ongoing revisions to Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Ozone, and 

Particulate National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS") have prompted numerous older generating unit 

retirements, but they have also spurred extremely expensive and sophisticated new pollution controls on 

surviving units. These pollution controls in turn often require very precise management of influent airstream 

quality, emphasizing the need for consistent and precise fuel characteristics. It is simply not possible for utilities 

and other consumers to haphazardly swap out fuel suppliers - or for fuel suppliers to haphazardly substitute coals 

- and maintain the high degree of environmental performance mandated by current regulations. Notably, this 

often means that a coal mining company must have several lease tracts simultaneously at its disposal, so that it 

can appropriately blend coals from different sources or seams to manage the naturally occurring variation in coal 

qualities and deliver a consistent product. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-11

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Substantial air emissions arise from every stage of coal fuel cycle that have impacts on wildlife: from coal mining 

to transportation to combustion. These emissions significantly impact air quality at local, regional, and global 

scales. The harms caused by these emissions on the climate, the environment, and human health are widely 

documented. (94) 

(94) See, e.g., Center for Health, Environment & Justice, The Health Impacts of Mountaintop Removal Mining, 

available at http://www.chej.org/wp-content/uploads/MTR_Mining_Final_April_18_2013.pdf; Synapse Energy 

Economics, Inc., The Hidden Costs of Electricity: Comparing the Hidden Costs of Power Generation Fuels 

(Hidden Costs), available at 

http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/pdfs/091912%20Hidden%20Costs%20of%20Electricity%20report%20FI 

NAL2.pdf. 

Air pollution from coal mining comes from the engines driving mining equipment, from mine construction and 

development activities, (95) and from the transportation of coal away from the mine pit. (96) As discussed in 

more detail below, coal mining emits greenhouse gases (GHGs) via the release of such gases in coal deposits, the 

release of carbon sequestered in plant matter, and exhaust from the many engines used. (97) Fugitive emissions 

are a major source of air pollution from coal mining. (98) The air pollutants released by surface coal mines 

include: 

• Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is released in great quantities from the burning of fossil fuels and is an 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-95

Scoping Report 

important GHG. A 2012 EPA inventory of industry-reported emissions shows that coal mines nationwide release 

the equivalent of nearly 28 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, as much as 8 coal-fired power plants. 

(99) 

• Methane. Methane is the naturally occurring product of the decay of organic matter as coal deposits are 

formed. Methane is a GHG with more than 25 times the heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide over a hundred 

year period. (100) 

• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2). A poisonous gas that reacts with sunlight to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide forms from 

blasting at surface coal mines, which creates poisonous orange clouds. According to a petition filed by 

environmental groups, in Wyoming alone, the amount of nitrogen dioxide released by strip mining equals the 

amount normally released by 1.12 million passenger vehicles. (101) 

• Particulate matter (PM). During the coal mining process, PM originates from: use of haul roads; wind erosion of 

overburden, exposed areas, and coal piles; bulldozing; blasting a drilling; draglines; loading and dumping 

overburden and coal; conveyors and transfers; and transportation of coal on conveyors, trains, and trucks. (102) 

In the U.S., coal mines release more than 17,000 tons of PM annually, including more than 10,000 tons of PM less 

than 2.5 microns in diameter, the most dangerous form of particulates. (103) 

• Volatile organic compounds (VOCs). VOCs are gases that react with sunlight to form ground-level ozone, the 

key ingredient of smog. Coal mines nationwide release more than 1,790 tons of VOCs every year. (104) 

(95) Fugitive dust emissions are increased by the removal of vegetative cover, hauling and stockpiling of topsoil, 

construction of haul roads, excavation and blasting of coal seams and overburden, displacement of overburden, 

and hauling of coal. Storage and handling of coal generates dust at rates which can be 3 kilograms (kg) per metric 

ton of coal mined, with the ambient dust concentration ranging from 10 to 300 micrograms per cubic meter 

(above the background level) at the mine site. Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, World Bank Group, 

Coal Mining and Production, available at http://www.miga.org/documents/CoalMiningandProduction.pdf. 

(96) Synapse Energy Economics, Hidden Costs, supra. 

(97) Id. 

(98) Fugitive emissions are unintended emissions of any type (including carbon dioxide and methane) that arise 

during the production of coal. Fugitive emissions are released from the coal and surrounding rock strata when 

previously trapped methane and carbon dioxide gas are released into the atmosphere as coal seams are 

mined.See International Council of Mining and Metal, Fugitive Methane Emissions in Coal Mining (Aug. 2011), 

available at http://www.icmm.com/news-and-events/fugitive- emissions-and-climate-change. 

(99) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Facility Level Information on Greenhouse Gases Tool (FLIGHT), 

2012 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Large Facilities, available at http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do. 

(100) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, Methane Emissions, 

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html. 

(101) Earthjustice, Press Release, Coal Mines Clouding America’s Air: Lawsuit filed against EPA to protect public 

health, safety, and the climate from coal mine air pollution (Nov. 23, 2011), available at 

http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2011/coal-mines-clouding-america-s-air; see WildEarth Guardians, Center for 

Biological Diversity, the Environmental Integrity Project, and Sierra Club, Petition for Rulemaking Under the 

Clean Air Act to List Coal Mines as a Source Category and to Regulate Methane and Other Harmful Air 

Emissions from Coal Mining Facilities Under Section 111 (filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

June 16, 2010) at 13-14, available at 

http://www.wildearthguardians.org/Portals/0/support_docs/Petition_Coal_Mine_6_16_10.pdf. 

(102) New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Coal Mining Benchmarking Study: 

International Best Practice Measures to Prevent and/or Minimise Emissions of Particulate Matter from Coal 

Mining (June 2011) at 151-194, available at http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/air/KE1006953volumeI.pdf. 

(103) Earthjustice, Press Release, Coal Mines Clouding America’s Air: Lawsuit filed against EPA to protect public 

health, safety, and the climate from coal mine air pollution, supra. 

(104) Earthjustice, Press Release, Coal Mines Clouding America’s Air: Lawsuit filed against EPA to protect public 

health, safety, and the climate from coal mine air pollution, supra; see WildEarth Guardians et. al, Petition for 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-96 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Rulemaking Under the Clean Air Act to List Coal Mines as a Source Category and to Regulate Methane and 

Other Harmful Air Emissions from Coal Mining Facilities Under Section 111, supra, at 12-13.

Comment Number: 0002459_Ball_20160728-1 

Commenter1:Connie Ball 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal dust is a problem all along the line from extraction to transport. 

Comment Number: 0002459_Ball_20160728-5 

Commenter1:Connie Ball 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Burning coal produces fly ash which cannot reasonably be disposed of and as happened in the past, can lead to 

disasters for inhabited areas. 

Comment Number: 0002461_breen_20160728-5 

Organization1:The WIlderness Society 

Commenter1:Katie Breen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal reforms improves our air quality. During blasting operations, coal mines release significant amounts 

of air pollution, and make our air hazier, not to mention contributing to ozone levels. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-17

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Air Quality Impacts 

The PEIS must evaluate the impacts of coal leasing on local and regional air quality. BLM’s own regulations require 

that the agency manage federal lands according to federal and state air quality standards. (25) The Mineral Leasing 

Act also mandates that the agency insert in each coal lease provisions that require compliance with the Clean Air 

Act (as well as the Clean Water Act). 30 U.S.C. § 201. The PEIS should include a discussion of current local and 

regional air quality conditions and modeling of future compliance under various leasing scenarios. Pollutants which 

require specific attention include PM10 and PM2.5, as well as NOx and ozone. 

(25) See 43 C.F.R. § 2920.7(b)(3) (requiring that BLM “land use authorizations shall contain terms and conditions

which shall . . . [r]equire compliance with air . . . quality standards established pursuant to applicable Federal or 

State law”) (emphasis added); see also 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(8) (“In the development and revision of land use plans, 

the Secretary shall . . . provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal 

air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans.”).

In a related issue, the PEIS should disclose and discuss Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) as established by land 

managers. Although AQRVs lack the legal force of criteria pollutant emission limits, for example, they are not 

without legal significance. The PEIS should provide discussion and analysis of AQRVs and how they factor in the 

air quality permitting process for federal coal leases. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-6 

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-97

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Air Quality Impacts: During blasting operations, coal mines emit significant amounts of toxic air pollution, 

contributing to regional haze and higher ozone levels. Coal haul trucks are surrounded in a cloud of air pollution 

that is carried by the wind to neighboring lands. B LM’s planning documents must ensure compliance with Clean 

Air Act standards for nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, but the mines have violated these standards. Coal 

mines must also mitigate dust under their state SMCRA permits. Mitigation measures to reduce air quality 

impacts must be addressed in the PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002474_Trice_20160728_EPA-3 

Organization1:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Commenter1:Jessica Trice 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to consideration of the impact of the alternatives on domestic air quality in the immediate regions of 

mining activity and nationally through fuel use change, EPA recommends that the Draft PEIS consider the impact 

of the alternatives on broader impacts to air quality through long range transport. EPA recommends the Draft 

PEIS address the potential role of U.S. coal exports on industrial coal use and coal-fired generation in Asia and 

the potential of that coal use to affect U.S. air quality with respect to mercury, criteria pollutants and visibility in 

the United States. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-17

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Once coal is mined and washed, it must be transported to power plants via truck, ship, barge or train. Railroad 

engines and trucks together release over 600,000 tons of nitrogen oxide and 50,000 tons of particulate matter 

into the air every year in the process of hauling coal, largely through diesel exhaust.161 Coal trains and trucks 

also release coal dust into the air, exposing nearby communities to dust inhalation. There are essentially six 

potential local environmental effects of concern related to coal transportation: (1) emission of particulate matter 

in the form of coal dust; (2) emission of particulate matter in the form of diesel locomotive exhaust; (3) 

production of noise and vibration by train movement; (4) congestion and collisions along roadways and rail lines; 

(5) train derailments; and (6) fires due to spontaneous combustion of coal.162 

(161) D.A. Lashof, D. Delano, J. Devine, et al., Coal in A Changing Climate, Natural Resources Defense Council 

(2007), available at: http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/coal/coalclimate.pdf 

(162) Multnomah County Health Department, The Human Health Effects of Rail Transport of Coal Through 

Multnomah County, Oregon: A Health Analysis and Recommendations for Further Action, Health Assessment 

and Evaluation (2013). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-18

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 10 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The "external costs" of electricity generation from coal are the burdens to society that are not included in the 

electricity's monetary price. Estimates of the external costs of electricity generation from coal suggest that 95% 

of the external cost consists of the adverse health effects on the population.163 When coal is burned, it produces 

air-borne pollutants of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides, mercury, arsenic, chromium, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-98 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

nickel, and other heavy metals, acid gases, hydrocarbons, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous 

to human health.164 It also contributes to smog through the release of oxides of nitrogen, which react with 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight to produce ground level ozone, the primary 

ingredient in smog. In 2011, the World Health Organization compiled air quality data from 1,100 cities in 91 

countries and found that residents living in many urban areas are exposed to persistently elevated levels of fine 

particle pollution, partly due to coal-fired power plants, as well as the burning of coal for cooking and heating.165 

A 2007 article published in the medical journal, The Lancet, summarizes the burden of the health effects of 

generating electricity from coal and lignite (a type of coal). It estimated that for every TWh (Terrawatt-hour) of 

electricity produced from coal in Europe, there are 24.5 deaths, 225 serious illnesses including hospital 

admissions, congestive heart failure and chronic bronchitis, and 13,288 minor illnesses.166 When lignite, the most 

polluting form of coal, is used, each TWh of electricity produced results in 32.6 deaths, 298 serious illnesses, and 

17,676 minor illnesses.167 To give these data perspective, consider the fact that nearly half of the 4,160 TWh of 

electricity generated in the United States in 2007 came from coal-fired power plants.168 If these estimates are 

applied to the U.S., as many as 50,000 deaths per year may be attributable to burning coal.169 

The major health effects linked to coal combustion emissions damage the respiratory, cardiovascular, and 

nervous systems and contribute to four of the top five leading causes of death in the United States: heart disease, 

cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases.170 Although it is difficult to ascertain the proportion of 

this disease burden that is attributable to coal pollutants, even very modest contributions to these major causes 

of death are likely to have large effects at the population level, given high incidence rates. 

(163) E. Burt, et al., Health Effects from Coal Use at 4. 

(164) See id. at 3. 

(165) Tackling the Global Clean Air Challenge, News Release, World Health Organization (Sept. 2011). 

(166) A. Markandya & P. Wilkinson, Energy and Health 2: Electricity Generation and Health, The Lancet 979-990 

(2007) 

(167) Id. 

(168) Id. 

(169) A. Lockwood, et al., Coal’s Assault on Health at 2. 

(170) See generally E. Burt, et al., Health Effects from Coal Use; A. Lockwood, et al., Coal's Assault on Human 

Health 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-25

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to a 1993 Norfolk Southern Rail Emission study, each open car carrying metallurgical coal from mines 

in Appalachia to the port terminals in Hampton Roads and Baltimore releases roughly 300 pounds coal dust into 

the air, water, and soil in the communities through which it travels.225 According to a 2011 Burlington Northern 

Santa Fe (BNSF) study, each rail car carrying Powder River Basin [thermal] coal loses between 250 and 700 

pounds of coal and coal dust on each trip, or over 30 tons of coal for a typical 120-car coal train.226 BNSF 

estimates that around 3,600 lbs. per car can be lost in the form of dust.227 

(224) Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, “Coal Dust FAQ,” Mar 2011, found at 

http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/docs/BNSF-Coal-Dust-FAQs1.pdf. 

(225) Simpson Weather Associates , Norfolks Southern Rail Emission Study: Consulting Report Prepared for 

Norfolk Southern Corporation. Charlottesville, VA (30 December 1993) found at 

http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/By+Year/SD581994/$file/SD58_1994.pdf. (appendix E). 

(226) See BNSF Coal Dust FAQ. 

(227) See Id. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-99

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-26

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

U.S. coal emissions from combustion overseas, namely in Asia, returns to the U.S. in the form of particulate 

matter, ozone and mercury deposition. Multiple studies have shown that, depending on the season and 

meteorological conditions, a significant portion of particulate pollution in California originates in Asia, as well the 

precursors for ozone, the ozone itself, and gaseous mercury.237 Indeed, a University of California at Berkley 

study found that 29% of particulate matter pollution in the San Francisco Bay area originated from fossil fuel use 

in China.238 Another study found that the majority of particulate pollution in Lake Tahoe originated in Asia.239 

Coal’s pollution footprint is extremely large, spanning thousands of miles across oceans and continents. The 

health impacts stemming from this pollution are significant and should be addressed in any environmental review 

of the federal coal program. 

(237) Lin, Jintai, et al. China’s international trade and air pollution in the United States, Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of American, vol. 111 no. 5, pgs. 1736-1741, January 21, 2014. 

(238) Ewing, A. Stephanie, et al., Pb Isotopes as an Indicator of the Asian Contribution to Particulate Air Pollution 

in Urban California, Environ. Sci. Technol. Journal, 44 (23), pp 8911–8916. October 29, 2010. 

(239) See Id. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-3 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Effects on air quality: “The evidence concerning adverse air quality impacts provides strong and clear support for 

an endangerment finding. Increases in ambient ozone are expected to occur over broad areas of the country, and 

they are expected to increase serious adverse health effects in large population areas that are and may continue 

to be in nonattainment. The evaluation of the potential risks associated with increases in ozone in attainment 

areas also supports such a finding.”19

(19) Final Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,497 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-69

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ports are also a significant source of coal dust. When a train arrives at a coal export terminal, it may dump its 

coal into an open air storage pile or holding silo. Alternatively, a train arriving at a port terminal may wait for 

days in a train yard at the port before its coal is unloaded. These waiting train cars and open-air coal piles are 

significant sources of coal dust particulate matter at export terminals because typical wind speeds and wind gusts 

prevalent in near-coastal areas cause coal particles from the storage piles and from the uncovered tops of waiting 

coal cars to be released into the air.228 Unloading the coal from rail cars into storage piles at the port facility and 

storing the coal in these piles emits coal dust into the air, soil, and water nearby. In addition, coal dust is carried 

off the storage piles as runoff when the piles are exposed to rain.229 This runoff can impact both surface water 

and underlying groundwater. When a ship is ready for loading, conveyor belts transport the coal from the train 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-100 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

car, silo, or coal pile, and dump the coal onto the ship, releasing additional coal dust into the air and water. 

Coal dust, once emitted, can have multiple impacts on humans and the environment. Fugitive coal dust that is 10 

micrometers or less in diameter is classified as PM10, and fugitive coal dust that is 2.5 micrometers or less in 

diameter is classified as PM2.5. PM10 can travel up to 30 miles, and PM2.5 can travel 500 miles.230 Both PM10 

and PM2.5 are extremely harmful to human health. The particles can travel deep into the lungs and into the 

bloodstream, causing premature death in people with heart or lung disease, heart attacks, decreased lung 

function, and increased respiratory effects, including irritation of the airways, aggravated asthma, coughing, and 

breathing difficulties.231 Groups that are most at risk due to PM10 and PM2.5 exposure include children, older 

adults, low-income communities, and individuals with asthma or preexisting heart and lung disease. Inorganic 

arsenic found in coal dust deposited in soil near coal export terminals is a human carcinogen.232 Human 

exposure to inorganic arsenic by inhalation has been strongly associated with lung cancer, and ingestion has been 

linked to skin, bladder, liver, and lung cancers.233 Chronic inhalation has been associated with irritation of the 

skin and mucous membranes, as well as effects in the brain and nervous system. Gastrointestinal effects, anemia, 

peripheral neuropathy, skin lesions, hyperpigmentation, and liver or kidney damage have resulted from chronic 

oral exposure to elevated levels of inorganic arsenic.234 

In addition to coal dust, the trains and ships used to transport coal emit diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust contains 

significant sources of harmful air pollutants including particulate matter (PM/PM2.5), volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), toxic compounds known as air toxics, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and, in the case 

of ships, sulfur oxides (SOx), and contributes to elevated ozone levels.235 This pollution causes poor air quality, 

reduced visibility, water and soil contamination, and ecosystem damage. Health effects associated with exposure 

to this pollution include premature mortality, increased hospital admissions, heart and lung diseases, asthma, 

reduced lung function, and increased cancer risk.236 

228Bounds, WJ and Johannesson, KH. "Arsenic addition to soils from airborne coal dust originating at a major 

coal shipping terminal." Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 185 (2007): 195-207. 

229 See Id. at 198. 

230 See Id. at 200. 

231 See Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Science Assessment on PM at 25. 

232 See Bounds, WJ and Johannesson.KH at 196. 

233 World Health Organization Fact Sheet on Inorganic Arsenic found at 

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs372/en/. 

234 See Id. 

235 California EPA’s Fact Sheet on Health Impacts of Diesel Exhaust emissions found at: 

http://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf, 

236 See Id. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-48

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to analyzing and permitting coal mine development activities, Wyoming also analyzes and permits coal 

combustion and other facilities that process or consume coal. These facilities are required to obtain air quality 

permits and demonstrate that their air emissions will comply with all applicable emission standards, including the 

health and welfare standards. These facilities include major sources such as power plants (see Basin Electric's 

DEQ/AQD Permit Application Analysis NSR-AP-3546 and Permit CT-4631), activated carbon production 

facilities (see Atlas Carbon's DEQ/AQD Permit Application Analysis A0000253 and Permit P0014996), and coal 

drying and briquetting facilities (see White Energy Coal's DEQ/AQD Permit Application Analysis AP-14387 and 

Permit CT-14387), and others. (WY0-03211 to 03286; WY0-03288 to 03330 and WY0-03332 to 03372) 

The BLM’s analysis in the PEIS must recognize Wyoming's air quality primacy and consider the regulatory control 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-101

Scoping Report 

and permitting expertise of the DEQ, AQD related to coal mine development, combustion, and processing 

activities. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-49

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When considering the environmental impact of mining coal, BLM must consider and evaluate current emission 

trends. See M. J. Bradley & Associates, Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Power Producers 

in the United States (2016). (WY0-03374 to 03447). For example, from 1990 to 2014 emissions of nitrogen 

oxides have fallen 51% from 25.5 million tons to 12.4 million tons and sulfur dioxide emissions have fallen 78% 

from 23 million tons to 5 million tons. EPA Air Emission Trends (1974- 2014); [20] and Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014, Chapter 2- Trends (WY0-03449 to 03482). Methane emissions 

from the mining sector have demonstrated a decreasing trend from 1990 to 2014. Emissions were reduced 29% 

from 96.5 million metric tons of C02 equivalent emissions to 68.1 million metric tons. Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014, Executive Summary; [21] (WY0-03484 to 03510). 

Considering the critical role played by the abundant supply of federal coal mining in Wyoming to meet national 

energy needs, the BLM must consider the ability of our nation to continue to meet our environmental 

requirements (i.e., sulfur, mercury, etc.) if coal from the PRB and elsewhere in Wyoming is reduced or 

eliminated. Wyoming coal has less sulfur than eastern coals, making it attractive to utilities for meeting Clean Air 

Act requirements. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-15

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS must review the air quality impacts of coal mining, including the impacts of nitrogen dioxide emissions 

produced during blasting at surface mines. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-16

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

ii. Coal Combustion Impacts 

The full scope of reasonably foreseeable coal combustion impacts must be analyzed and assessed in the PEIS. 

These impacts include, but are not limited to: 

· Coal burning impacts to air quality: The impacts of burning coal to air quality, including impacts related to 

criteria pollutant emissions, hazardous air pollutant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and black carbon must 

be fully analyzed and assessed. It is imperative that the PEIS provide information and analysis disclosing to what 

extent federal coal production and the reasonably foreseeable impacts of coal combustion contribute to local, 

regional, and national air quality concerns. 

Comment Number: 0002505_Brooke_20160729-5 

Organization1:Black Warrior River Keeper 

Commenter1:Nelson Brooke 

Other Sections: 13 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-102 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Additionally, we have concerns with the use of Powder River Basin coal from out West being burned at Alabama 

Power Company’s Miller Steam Plant on the Locust Fork in Jefferson County. This massive coal-fired power plant 

burns a lot of coal – predominantly from the Powder River Basin – coal which has elevated levels of mercury and 

potentially radionuclides (radioactive isotopes). These contaminants are better left in the ground than put into 

our air and water near Birmingham, Alabama. Miller Steam Plant is one of the largest CO2 emitting power plants 

in the entire U.S., and the BLM does not need to be feeding this 

beast. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-45

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS must consider all air pollutant impacts from coal transport on downstream communities. Coal transport 

by rail also causes significant air quality and health impacts through coal train exhaust, which includes diesel 

particulate matter (DPM), and criteria pollutants including NOx, SO2, PM10, PM 2.5 and CO. Trains emit these 

pollutants while in motion and idling. 189 Communities and workers in close proximity to rail tracks, coal 

terminals, and shipping lanes are at highest risk for DPM exposure. DPM is associated with “acute short term 

symptoms such as headache, dizziness, light headedness, nausea, coughing, difficulty breathing, tightness of chest, 

and irritation of eyes, nose and throat. Long-term exposure can result in increased probability of heart attacks, 

lung cancer, worsening of asthma, and infant mortality. 190 Health risk assessments of rail terminals and ports 

have found significant cancer risks associated with DPM up to two miles from coal terminals. 191 The PEIS should 

quantify health impacts along the entire coal transportation corridor. In addition, the PEIS should analyze air 

emissions from coal export and shipping activities. For instance, air modeling for a proposed state of the art 

covered coal export at the Port of Morrow in Oregon showed major exceedances of particulate matter and 

NAAQs for NOx. 192 Storing coal in communities also generates large amounts of PM. 193 It is also well known 

that coal export can increase acid rain and mercury deposition in the Pacific Ocean and Western US from Asia. 

194 These impacts should also be analyzed. In evaluating the significance of air quality impacts due to coal storage 

and transportation, the analysis should not base its conclusions solely on National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(“NAAQS”) because harms may occur at pollutant concentrations below the NAAQS standards. For example, 

epidemiological studies have shown associations between SO2 188 Pastor, Manuel Jr., et al., Waiting to Inhale? 

The Demographics of Toxic Air Release Facilities in 21st Century California, 85 SOCIAL SCIENCE 

QUARTERLY, no. 2, June, 2004. 189 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental Health and Safety Impacts of the 

Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 19 (Ex. 35). 190 Id. 191 Id. 192 See, e.g., 

AMI International, AIR QUALITY MODELING FOR THE PROPOSED ENCLOSED COAL EXPORT FACILITY 

AT THE PORT OF MORROW (2012), 

http://media.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/other/AERMOD_Modeling_Morrow_vfin.pdf (last visited July 

28, 2016), attached as Ex. 38. 193 See id. 194 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental Health and Safety Impacts 

of the Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 7 (Ex. 35). 54 concentrations and 

emergency room visits and hospital admissions down to the 50 ppb level even though the NAAQS for SO2 is 85 

ppb. 195 Moreover, NAAQS does not account for the fact that some pollutants have higher localized impacts—

pollutants like SO2 concentrate locally. The PEIS should analyze the significance of the health impacts of the 

program associated with air emissions on downstream communities. 

Comment Number: 0003051_Taylor_20160729-1 

Commenter1:Bruce Taylor 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Transport of coal produces dust and particulate matter which contains toxic heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAH's), many of which are carcinogenic. Finally, combustion of coal also releases sulfur dioxides 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-103

Scoping Report 

that contribute to smog and respiratory distress, and dangerous fine particulate matter. The amount of carbon 

dioxide produced per BTU is far greater than the other major energy sources. 

Comment Number: 0020001_Murnion_20160712-4 

Commenter1:David Murnion 

Other Sections: 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The emission control apparatus on all coal generating power plants needs more modifications now, as we 

continue to learn that several chemical agents in the coal emissions are causing lung and heart diseases such as 

heart failure, asthma and cancer. 

Comment Number: 0020006_Cowden_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Rhonda Cowden 

Other Sections: 1 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The UN Environmental Program reported on May 24, 2016 that according to WHO the air pollution level has 

risen 8% between 2008-2013, threatening to kill 7 million people yearly. 80% of these people living in areas where 

are pollution is monitored. 

Comment Number: 0020056-15

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Aggressive new regulatory initiatives in the consumer market have further sensitized coal consumers to the 

precise characteristics of their coal. The Mercury Air Toxics Standards (“ MATS” ) Rule, Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (“ CSAPR” ), regional haze regulations, and ongoing revisions to Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, 

Ozone, and Particulate National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“ NAAQS” ) have prompted numerous older 

generating unit retirements, but they have also spurred extremely expensive and sophisticated new pollution 

controls on surviving units. These pollution controls in turn often require very precise management of influent 

airstream quality, emphasizing the need for consistent and precise fuel characteristics. It is simply not possible for 

utilities and other consumers to haphazardly swap out fuel suppliers or for fuel suppliers to haphazardly 

substitute coals - and maintain the high degree of environmental performance mandated by current regulations. 

Notably, this often means that a coal mining company must have several lease tracts simultaneously at its disposal, 

so that it can appropriately blend coals from different sources or seams to manage the naturally occurring 

variation in coal qualities and deliver a consistent product. 

Comment Number: 000001287_Wrich_20160623-1 

Organization1:Bowie Resources 

Commenter1:Ken Wrich 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am proud to deliver high BTU coal. And it's for all of us. One thing that was brought up earlier, we talked about 

the pollution here in Grand Junction. We did this several years ago in Denver over the coal-fired power plants. 

And they ended up converting those coal-fired power plants. The percentage of pollution that all those coal-fired 

power plants had in Denver was four percent. Likesomebody mentioned that we -- the guys that drove here 

today, produced more pollution than all these coal-fired power plants. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-104 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00001270_Smyth_20160623-4 

Commenter1:Joe Smyth 

Commenter Type: Individual 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Spring coal is a major cause of air pollution, particularly in lower-income communities. 

Comment Number: 00001271_Sussors_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Kenneth Sussors 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Processing and burning fossil fuels contributes significantly to air pollution, which in turn causes health problems, 

especially in the oldest and youngest and those with pulmonary disease. As a doctor, I've seen these health 

problems firsthand, especially here at the VA with its vulnerable population. These heath affects are caused both 

directly by inhaling harmful chemicals and particles and indirectly by upsetting the balance of nature and weather 

Issue 3 - Climate change 

Total Number of Submissions: 166 

Total Number of Comments: 276 

Comment Number: 0000005_Kurtz_20160526_Oral-1 

Commenter1:Sandra Kurtz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Combined with other U.S. steps curbing climate change as we move into an alternative energy economy, your 

stopping this present leasing arrangement will not only get us more quickly to breaking the addiction, but also 

preserve ecosystems so vital to quality of life for future generations. 

Comment Number: 0000005_Kurtz_20160526_Oral-2 

Commenter1:Sandra Kurtz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Those are the reasons I urge you to include in your study of PEIS requirements climate change considerations, an 

in-depth study of the cumulative impacts of mining on water, soil, and vegetation along with an existing species 

inventory, plus risk of environmental disturbance and the related ecosystem as it affects any immediate or future 

use of the land. 

Comment Number: 0000015_Gorenflow_TNInterfaithPwr_20160525-2 

Organization1:Tennessee Interfaith Power and Light 

Commenter1:Louise Gorenflo 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Michael Greenstone, the Milton Friedman professor of economics at the University Of Chicago, has found that 

the climate damages from coal mined from the Powder River Basin are five-to-six-times greater than its market 

value. The actual return the public receives from the extraction and combustion of coal from public resources is 

ever-greater suffering. 

Comment Number: 0000015_Gorenflow_TNInterfaithPwr_20160525-3 

Organization1:Tennessee Interfaith Power and Light 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-105

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Louise Gorenflo 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A study published in Nature in 2015 concluded that the U.S. needs to keep 92% of its coal reserves in the ground 

as part of an overall slashing of fossil fuel use if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. Because 40% of coal 

burned in U.S. power plants comes from federal public lands, the decision of the federal government to ban 

further coal extraction from public lands will have a major impact on improving our well being 

Comment Number: 00000174_ HEADRICK_20160517-4 

Commenter1:Mary Headrick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Burning coal from public lands accounts for thirteen percent of our nation's greenhouse gas emissions. And 

greenhouse gas emissions lead to extreme weather events, such as drowning in floods, extreme heat deaths, or 

infections from warm weather vectors like ticks, mosquitoes. 

Comment Number: 00000178_ RINGE_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Axel Ringe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Public lands coal leasing produces forty percent of this country's coal output. That coal, a significant proportion of 

which comes east to be burned, contributes, I think, thirteen percent of this country's carbon emissions 

contributing to climate change. 

Comment Number: 00000179_ FUSAN_20160517-3 

Commenter1:Lynn Fusan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A permanent moratorium on federal coal leases is needed to fulfill our country's commitment to reducing 

greenhouse gases to fulfill our commitment to reduce global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius. 

Comment Number: 00000200_ QUATTROCHI_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Laura Quattrochi 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to an article by Climate Central, every month in 2016 has made record to being the warmest, 

including this month. In fact, this past year actually set records to being the longest streak in temperature data 

that is kept by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It boggles my mind that to this day, people 

continue to refrain from acknowledging the impact that coal and C02 emissions have on climate change. 

Comment Number: 00000355 _ Thomas _20160519-4 

Commenter1:Ann Thomas 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

On a broader scale, I believe it is important to transition to a more sustainable trajectory of energy production. 

According to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, coal burning produced 24.5 percent of greenhouse 

gas emissions in the US in 2012 and the US is the second largest producer and consumer of coal. 

Comment Number: 00000360 _ Gilgen _20160519-2 

Commenter1: Gilgen 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-106 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The fossil fuel industry and our political leaders that seek the votes of those employed therein contend that the 

science of climate change is not settled. However, the evidence suggests otherwise, the climate scientists of 

NOAA and NASA, the EPA, the scientists at the National Academy of Scientists, the scientists that advise the US 

military and the insurance industry. In fact, every science organization and scientific union in the world has issued 

policy statements confirming their conviction that the threat of climate change is real, ominous, and is the 

consequence of burning fossil fuels. 

Comment Number: 00000366 _ Brady _20160519-2 

Organization1:Emery County 

Commenter1:Keith Brady 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

a key rationale seems for the moratorium -- however, seems to address climate change, which used to be global 

warming, but since that didn't work out, the moniker has changed. And while I'm not a climate change denier, in 

truth the climate does change season by season, year by year. And to say that science has settled makes a 

mockery of science. Science should always be subject to scrutiny. 

Comment Number: 0000066_Keowa_20160517-1 

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resouce Council 

Commenter1:Duane Keown 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Wyoming leads all states and most nations for its coal contribution to increasing CO2. No state except for 

Wyoming has ever produced more than 200 million tons of coal in a year. Best peak for Wyoming was in 2008 

when it produced 462 million tons of coal. It was shipped out of this state. In less abstract terms, in 100 ton coal 

cars, that's 46,000 miles of coal or enough coal to reach around the earth nearly two times at the equator. Most 

of the 462 million tons of coal, Wyoming coal of 2008 is now in the atmosphere as CO2. Where is Wyoming in 

relation to cooling the temperature? 41 percent of U.S. coal comes from the federal land, and 75 percent of it 

comes from just Wyoming. 

Comment Number: 0000082_Marshal_20160517-6 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Colin Marshall 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Unfortunately, the current thinking about climate change in the U.S. has evolved to the point where stopping coal 

production appears to be the number one objective. The climate scientists know that eliminating U.S. coal will 

not fix climate change, and as Secretary Jewell said last week, "The keep in the ground movement is naive." 

Comment Number: 0000090_Nichols_WildEarthGuard _20160517-1 

Organization1:Wild Earth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I want to express our honest belief that we do feel that the result of this reform effort needs to be more coal 

being kept in the ground. We are facing a climate crisis, a global climate crisis right now. We have an enormous 

challenge just to keep global temperatures in check. We're in the all-hands-on-deck era right now, and keeping as 

much fossil fuel in the ground as possible is key to eliminating greenhouse gas emissions and safeguarding our 

climate. I also want to be honest, though, that I firmly believe that keeping coal in the ground shouldn't mean that 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-107

Scoping Report 

people are just kicked down the street and communities are left hanging. I believe that this reform effort presents 

a once-in-a-generation opportunity to chart a just transition. 

Comment Number: 0000094_Gerrits_20160517-1 

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Commenter1:Christy Gerrits 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Last week the level of CO2 in the atmosphere rose to 407.5 parts per million. The historic average or the 

historic high was 208 -- 80 parts per million. This 407.5 parts per million is the highest level measured in over 

800,000 years. Coal-fired electric power plants were responsibile for a quarter of the CO2 emitted by the U.S. 

Comment Number: 0000098_Strayer_ 20160517.txt-1 

Commenter1:Bob Strayer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

But this is a time of transition, and I think it's a cruel deceit on the part of politicians whether it's at the state or 

on the federal level to mislead people into thinking that things are not going to be changing -- changing and 

specifically in the energy we use in this country and primarily I'm talking about coal. It's one of the dirtiest sources 

of pollution that we use for energy. There's no question about that. And 95 percent of the scientists in the world 

plus are convinced that the climate is changing, is warming. And the increase in CO2 is a major cause in that, and 

that's coming from human use of carbon fuels. 

Comment Number: 0000099_Wilbert_ 20160517-1 

Commenter1:Kim Wilbert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

First, the new program must address the tremendous costs of coal mining on federal lands in terms of climate 

change. 

Comment Number: 0000099_Wilbert_ 20160517-5 

Commenter1:Kim Wilbert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The burning of federally owned coal is a huge contributor to the ever-rising carbon dioxide of atmosphere. The 

tremendous future costs of dealing with climate change must be accounted for when the taxpayers of this 

country sell their coal. 

Comment Number: 0000274_Nolting_20160515-1 

Commenter1:Sharon Nolting 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In January, an article in Climate Progress stated that "the combustion of coal from federal lands accounts for 

more than 57 percent of all emissions from fossil fuel production on federal lands." An even more recent study 

by Greenpeace found that almost 80% of the coal produced by the 3 leading coal companies is taken from our 

public lands. There is a serious contradiction in your administration's climate policy here which I am hoping your 

review will make clear so that policy can be changed to align with what must be our highest priority: reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions to fight climate change. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-108 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000363 _HEIN_20160519-4 

Organization1:Institute for Policy Integrity 

Commenter1:Jayni Hein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

For each alternative, the Interior should model its climate impacts and the effects on coal prices, royalty revenue, 

energy markets, including energy substitution effects. The Interior should also calculate the upstream and 

downstream greenhouse gas emissions with its selected alternative. This is consistent with neither requirement 

and the White House Council on Environmental Quality's latest guidance. 

Comment Number: 0000518_Madden_20160517-2 

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature 

Commenter1:Michael Madden 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As an economist, I submit that raising taxes and leases will not increase revenue to the Federal government - it 

will decrease, it will not increase the viability of low cost energy - it will reduce it, it will not increase the stability 

and dependability of the nations power grid - it will reduce both. It will not increase economic growth, but rather 

drastically reduce it. Nobody benefits. Most important, it will not contribute any measurable impact on the 

climate, whatsoever. 

Comment Number: 0000539-1 

Organization1:Gabriela Seattle

Commenter1:Rhondalei Gabuat 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate scientists are clear on this issue: evidence shows that warmer ocean waters contribute to a higher risk of 

more intense hurricanes. And these warmer ocean waters contribute to a higher risk of more intense hurricanes. 

And these warmer ocean waters are due in large part to humanity's continued burning of fossil fuels...fossil fuels 

like coal. 

Comment Number: 0000543-1 

Commenter1:Dianna Moesh 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate impacts need to be included in analysis 

Comment Number: 0000548-1 

Commenter1:Peggy Willis 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To meet the UN Climate Change Conference Accords of 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming, the Federal 

government should continue investing in clean energy and stop subsidizing private companies taking coal from 

public lands. 

Comment Number: 0000555-2 

Organization1:US Senate 

Commenter1: Cantwell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Third, reconsider how to balance multiple uses over time. The U.S. has relied on fuels extracted from public 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-109

Scoping Report 

lands since its founding. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires the BLM to balance extractive 

uses against other uses of public lands. As part of that responsibility, the BLM must take into account the longterm needs of future generations. What has become clear is that coal mining doesn't merely compete as one use 

among others. Coal combustion without carbon sequestration ultimately destabilizes and degrades the conditions 

that make those other uses possible. Given the long atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide, the effects of mining 

a ton of public coal today may rebound on public lands for centuries, damaging opportunities for recreation, 

water supply, wildfire resilience, and even other extractive uses like grazing and timber. A huge disparity exists 

between the high, long-term costs of burning the public's coal and the low, short-term return for selling it. The 

BLM needs to address this disparity. 

Comment Number: 0000608-3 

Organization1:JE Stoer & Associates 

Commenter1:Tamme Bishop 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 1974 we were concerned about global cooling. Now global warming. Has an honest effort been made to look 

at the data and conclude that these changes are a natural occurrence 

Comment Number: 0000611_Leahy_NMWF-2 

Organization1:New Mexico Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Todd Leahy 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

First, rely on independent, peer-reviewed science. We strongly believe that the nation cannot continue to lease 

coal without taking into account that it is the most significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. The current 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) under which federal coal is leased predates the first 

congressional hearings on climate change and the creation of the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Every one of our hottest years on record has occurred in the last 20 years. A scientific consensus has developed 

around the reality of global warming. The BLM must ground its new PEIS in this new reality. 

Comment Number: 0000620-3 

Organization1:University of Illinois

Commenter1:Gerald C. Nelson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Both my own research and my professional assessment of the scientific literature on the effects of climate change 

lead me to the conclusion that climate change poses an existential threat to the human species. Life on our planet 

will survive as it has for several billion years, but we could be the first species to be responsible for its own 

extinction. To reduce the probability of this happening, we must act quickly to slow and eventually stop the net 

addition of greenhouse gasses (GHGs), particularly carbon dioxide, to the atmosphere. Coal, along with the 

other fossil fuels, represents stored sunlight. Unfortunately, with current practices, converting that ancient energy 

into useful energy today requires adding more GHGs to the air at a time when we need to be ending this 

practice. Until commercially viable technology is developed to reduce carbon pollution from coal burning, we 

need to expeditiously phase out the use of coal for energy generation. 

Comment Number: 0000626-1 

Commenter1:Michael Clark 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please see attached. I'd ask the BLM to lead a review of the data behind the consensus claim and act accordingly 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-110 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

on discrepancy that I suspect the re-analysis will uncover.[See attached PDF "American Thinker: Debunking the 

97% consensus on global warming"] 

Comment Number: 0000749_Doddings_20160623-3 

Commenter1:G Doddings 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal Leasing and Climate Considerations - Coal built our country and is a key foundation for our success and 

prosperity. A rational energy policy should be based on a true, "all of the above" approach. In fact, this approach 

is essential if we are to meet our projected future energy needs. Much of the current focus is on addressing 

climate considerations, but this must be balanced with the critical need to maintain reliable energy generation and 

distribution systems and provide affordable power for our households and businesses. Any impact analysis should 

include an alternative which takes this critical balance into consideration. 

Comment Number: 0000750_Atwood_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the last 80 years, we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03% to 0.04% (Scripps 

Institute of Oceanography merged ice core data),and the warming has been barely more than the natural 

warming that occurred in the 80 years before that, when there were virtually no CO2 emissions (Source: UK 

Met Office Hadley Centre).

Comment Number: 0000750_Atwood_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to the international disaster database (Emergency Events Database EM-DAT), climate-related deaths 

are down 98 percent over the past 80 years. In 2013, there were 21,122 such deaths worldwide compared to a 

high of 3.7 million in 1931, when world population was less than a third of its current size. Why is the climate 

killing less people? Because while fossil-fuel use has only a mild warming impact, it has an enormous protecting 

impact. Nature doesn't give us a stable, safe climate that we make dangerous. It gives us an ever-changing, 

dangerous climate that we need to make safe. And the driver behind sturdy buildings, affordable heating and airconditioning, drought relief and everything else that keeps us safe from climate is cheap, plentiful, reliable energy, 

overwhelmingly from coal and other fossil fuels. 

Comment Number: 0000750_Atwood_20160623-4 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I'd like to show you a chart. This chart illustrates 102 different climate change prediction models that have been 

used to predict climate change since 1975. While they very somewhat on how much, all of the models predict 

rapid increase in global temperatures. Now the line at the bottom shows what has actually occurred. Not even 

the most conservative of these 102 models got it right (See Attached). 

Comment Number: 0000750_Atwood_20160623-5 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-111

Scoping Report 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The only thing that climate scientist have proven over the last 40 years is that their climate prediction models are 

incapable of accurately predicting the climate. Nearly all of the models (102) used by manmade climate change 

alarmists over the last 40 years have predicted rapidly increasing global temperatures that would result in 

worldwide catastrophic climate events. Instead, these models have been proven false as we have actually 

witnessed a mild warming effect and an enormous climate protection effect from fossil fuel energy. (Source: Dr. 

John Christy of the University of Alabama Huntsville). We cannot accurately predict climate change at all, let 

alone home much of it is attributable to man or to a specific fuel source such as coal. 

Comment Number: 0000750_Atwood_20160623-6 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This chart illustrates CO2 emissions in China and India over the last 40 yrs and average life expectancy in China 

and India over the same period. While fossil fuel use has significantly increased in these countries, the average life 

expectancy has increased over 10 years! (See Attached). 

Comment Number: 0000750_Atwood_20160623-7 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This chart illustrates climate related deaths in correlation to CO2 emissions and ambient CO2 in our 

atmosphere. (See Attached). 

Comment Number: 0000762_CSUMountaineeringClubetal_20160623-1 

Organization1:Mountaineering Club, 180 Degree Shift at the 11 Lb House, Gunnison Sockeyes, The CSU 

Snowboarding Team, Student Sustainability Center, Wildlife Society, Harmels Ranch and Resort, Animal Welfare 

Society, Uplift, Society for Conservation of Biology, EnAct, Ecosystem Science and Sustainability Club, 

Sustainability Coalition, Gillette Entomology Club, Wellness Peer Advisory Council 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate change is the biggest threat to the places that we love to spend time outdoors, yet today, 20% of all U.S. 

climate emissions comes from coal mining on public lands. One of the single largest climate change contributors 

is happening on the land we should be protecting. As the voice of America's next generation of public land 

stewards, we ask you to acknowledge coal production's toll on public lands and to mitigate climate change effects 

when reforming the federal coal program. 

Comment Number: 0000770_Clarke et al (PETITION)_20160623-2 

Commenter1: Petition 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Forty percent of all coal produced in the U.S., about 400 million tons per year, comes from federal public lands - 

contributing to 13% of total climate emissions in the United States. Now is the time for the Bureau of Land 

Management to address the impacts of mining and burning coal on our climate, natural resources and Western 

quality of life. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-112 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000770_Clarke et al (PETITION)_20160623-4 

Commenter1: Petition 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Disclose the impacts of mining and burning publicly-owned coal on the climate and create a national plan for 

federal coal leasing that meets our climate emission reduction targets. 

Comment Number: 0000809-1 

Commenter1:Beth Blattenberger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate change: Burning coal increases climate change that hurts everyone in the world including in Utah. We are 

losing the greatest snow on earth. That means lost jobs. We can look forward to increasingly severe heat waves 

that kill people. There will be more and more dead trees and forest fires. 

Comment Number: 0000812-4 

Organization1:National Parks Conservation Association 

Commenter1:Cory MacNulty 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal combustion is also a major contributor to climate change, responsible for a quarter of all of American 

greenhouse gas emissions. (http://www.c2es.org/energy/source/coal just for your reference, Cory) Ninety 

percent of our national parks are currently experiencing conditions that scientists link to climate-changing air 

pollution: They are hotter, wetter, or drier than they were for most of the past century. Secretary Jewell, herself, 

said "Climate change is visible at national parks across the country...[we need] to help protect some of America's 

most iconic places-from the Statue of Liberty to Golden Gate and from the Redwoods to Cape Hatteras-that are 

at risk from climate change." 

Comment Number: 0000824-3 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

One thing that climate scientist have proven over the last 40 years is that their climate prediction models are 

incapable of accurately predicting the climate. Nearly all of the models (102) used by manmade climate change 

alarmists over the last 40 years have predicted rapidly increasing global temperatures that would result in 

worldwide catastrophic climate events. Instead, these models have been proven false as we have actually 

witnessed a mild warming effect and an enormous climate protection effect from fossil fuel energy. (Source: Dr. 

John Christy of the University of Alabama Huntsville). 

Comment Number: 0000824-4 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the last 80 years, we have increased the amount of C02 in the atmosphere from 0.03% to 0.04% (Scripps 

Institute of Oceanography merged ice core data and the warming has been barely more than the natural warming 

that occurred in the 80 years before that, when there were virtually no C02 emissions (Source: UK Met Office 

Hadley Centre). 

Comment Number: 0000835-1 

Commenter1:Steve Hogseth 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-113

Scoping Report 

Deniers often site scientific facts from millions of years ago. Such ancient facts are irrelevant since modern man 

did not walk the planet until 200,000 years ago. In the 400,000 years prior to the Industrial Revolution, C02 levels 

cycled between 180 and 290ppm, and in the two+ centuries since, we quickly crossed that threshold, now 

exceeding 400ppm. During those 400,000 years, the most rapid change in C02 levels - EVER!! - was a 90ppm 

change that required 15,000 years. Since 1930, the C02 level has increased 100ppm ... like a skyrocket! ... a rate 

175 times FASTER than the FASTEST change in those previous 400,000 years! Again ... what required 15,000 

years THEN, took only 85 years NOW! These fuels have clearly been a monumental factor in this dilemma. The 

well-being of seven billion people is at risk. 

Comment Number: 0001102_CONSTANTINE_KingCnty_20160621-5 

Organization1:King County 

Commenter1:Dow Constantine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Interior's review should also confront the obvious conflict between our ambitious U.S. climate goals and the 

reality that coal from federal lands contributes roughly 10 percent of total U.S. climate emissions. In effect, our 

current federal coal leasing policies don't just allow; they subsidize the use of an energy source that undermines 

other public investments in clean air and water and economic development and in combating climate change. 

Comment Number: 0001105_BODDIE_20160621-2 

Organization1:Bend 

Commenter1:Nathan Boddie 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Federal Coal Program doesn't account for its contributions to climate change and the resulting impacts facing 

communities everywhere. It's time to factor in the environmental and economic burden of a warmer climate 

when considering the future of the program. 

We need to internalize these costs while easing the transition to more sustainable economies throughout the 

country, but especially in coal country. By adequately considering the scope of impact, we can more appropriately 

factor in coal's associated costs. 

Comment Number: 0001106_CORNELISON_20160621-2 

Organization1:Cityof Hood River, OR 

Commenter1:Peter Cornelison

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And we really need the Department of Interior to account for the toll of climate change and internalize all the 

factors when considering the future of the federal coal and its contributions to a warmer climate. 

Comment Number: 0001107_GREUEL_TWS_20160621-1 

Organization1:Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Ben Greuel 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Going forward we should reduce production in order to align the Federal Coal Program with the nation's climate 

change targets. This includes measuring the climate impacts of all federal coal up for lease, and in turn, using 

information to make land management decisions. Our shared resources should not contribute a disproportionate 

amount to global climate change. 

A problem we are keenly aware of in the Pacific Northwest is the export of coal. We absolutely should not be 

leasing our public lands to coal companies with the expectation that the coal is burned in other countries. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-114 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0001109_MADSON_MtnPact_20160621-1 

Organization1:The Mountain Pact 

Commenter1:Diana Madson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The costs of responding to and adapting to a changing climate are rising, but at the same time, coal companies are 

able to pay well below market rate for coal extracted from taxpayer-owned lands. This deprives many Western 

States and taxpayers across the country their fair share of revenues that should be going to schools, roads and 

other priorities. 

Comment Number: 0001110_FITZGIBBON_20160621-1 

Organization1:House of Representatives 

Commenter1:Joe Fitzgibbon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We are already in Washington state seeing devastating impacts from just the early onset of climate change. 

Ocean acidification is having severe impacts on our shellfish growers in some of the most economically depressed 

parts of our state as more of what's traditionally fallen as precipitation has fallen as snow is now falling as rain. 

We are seeing less ability to store water for irrigation of our crops in Eastern Washington, less ability to store 

water for hydropower purposes, and of course, the last two summers we've seen the most devastating wildfires 

in our state's history. 

So the impacts of climate change are already taking place in Washington. We contribute less than 2 percent of 

the total United States greenhouse gas emissions here in Washington, but we're suffering the impact nonetheless. 

There's only so much that we in our state can do to reduce our fossil fuel emissions, but we're already doing 

what we -- we're doing much of what we can as we shift towards greater reliance on electric vehicles, on public 

transportation, on renewable energy, but the fossil fuels being burned from coal produced on federal lands are --

vastly outweigh anything we can do in Washington state to reduce our own contributions to climate change. 

Comment Number: 0001111_VON FLATERN_WY state senate_20160621-2 

Organization1:Wyoming State Senate 

Commenter1:Michael Von Flatern 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Bureau of Land Management includes consideration of potential greenhouse gas emissions and production 

and use of coal when potential lease sales are analyzed under the National Environmental Policy Act. And you can 

look this up under the -- as defending itself under the WildEarth Guardians versus Salazar; WildEarth Guardians 

versus Forest Service; and Western Organization of Resource Council versus Jewell. Thank you. 

Comment Number: 0001130-2 

Organization1:Climate Reality Project 

Commenter1:Jillian Adams 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I would just like to reiterate that the climate impacts of granting new federal coal leases make a permanent 

moratorium essential, both to allow the U.S. to meet its Paris commitment and to allow my generation to parent 

healthy children who have a fair return on our land, our climate, and our future. 

Comment Number: 0001140-2 

Commenter1:Cheri Cornell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-115

Scoping Report 

A federal coal leasing program that gives away coal leases at below-market rates and fails to account for the costs 

of climate change makes the adults in this room complicit in a scheme to condemn Ethan and Corrine and all the 

other children in this world to perpetual slavery and service of a ruined climate. 

Comment Number: 0001149-1 

Organization1:Climate Solutions 

Commenter1:KC Golden 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I don't think you should think of climate as one of those factors to be traded off against others. We know the 

mathematics, the physics of climate. We know the carbon budget that we must live within in order to preserve 

human civilization as we know it. Those numbers are embodied in the human framework on climate change and 

in the Paris treaty, and I think we can treat that as a hard constraint as an imperative so that whatever you decide 

on coal leasing needs to operate and keep us within that carbon budget. 

Comment Number: 0001153-1 

Commenter1:Cynthia Linet 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We must stop all use and extraction of fossil fuels now before it's too late. We are already seeing the ravages of 

climate change and those in the poor South who have done nothing to bring about these changes are those who 

have been most affected. Droughts, floods, and mass migrations due to war brought about by scarcity of 

resources, 60 million migrants in the world right now. 

Comment Number: 0001158-1 

Organization1:Seattle 350, Seattle Rising Tide 

Commenter1:Alice Lockhart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I ask that in the unlikely and sad event that further coal extraction on our public lands is allowed, BLM must 

please create rules that allow the flexibility to change your policy as the climate emergency progresses. 

Comment Number: 0001163-1 

Organization1:University Unitarian Church 

Commenter1:Deejah Sherman-Peterson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal-fueled climate change is already hurting Washington and the other Western states. We have a lower 

snowpack, we have droughts, we have flooding. We have longer and more intense wildfire seasons. 

Comment Number: 0001170-1 

Organization1:Earth Ministry 

Commenter1:Jessie Dye 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When I ask you to consider climate change, that's going to take some technical evaluation. How much is the coal 

that is sold in the federal leasing program, how does that affect global climate change, what's the temperature, 

what's the effect of blowing back to our coasts in Washington, our glaciers. 

Comment Number: 0001174-2 

Commenter1:Donna Albert 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-116 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I understand that you are implementing the PEIS according to set laws and policies. However, you do not have 

three years if we are to achieve the goals of COP21. As human beings who are dependent on the earth for a 

stable climate, food and water, please recognize that BLM must do whatever is necessary to protect Americans 

from climate change. 

Comment Number: 0001186-1 

Commenter1:Imogene Williams 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Hundreds of coal plants planned for India, but the people -- the people are fighting it just like us. The message is 

that the market for coal in Asia is shifting sands. Climate change is proceeding -- is progressing faster than we 

expected. 

Comment Number: 0001187-2 

Commenter1:Peggy Willis 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And I want to lastly also add that the review should include complete environmental costs of using coal, and that 

I'm talking here about the climate change costs that are seen in our lower snowpacks, droughts, flooding and 

extreme wildfires and the ocean acidification that others have mentioned and that I have experienced personally 

while living here in Washington. 

Comment Number: 0002015_Dash_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Mike Dash 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate change has become so severe that it would be irresponsible and reckless to issue any new coal leases. 

Comment Number: 0002020_Enk_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Michael Enk 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate change is already impacting the lives of Montanans and it's only going to get worse the more coal is 

mined and burned. 

Comment Number: 0002022_Garvey_20160429-1 

Commenter1:Lydia Garvey 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal leasing is not consistent with national climate change objectives. This must be factored into the review. 

Comment Number: 0002058_Richardson_20160621-1 

Commenter1:Randy Richardson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

But the biggest damage is to the atmosphere. We cannot continue to extract carbon that took hundreds of 

millions of years to deposit, in only a couple hundred years. Climate change is definitely upon us, and we must 

stop making it worse. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-117

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002064_Trebon_20160620-1 

Commenter1:Theresa Trebon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Given the severity of climate change and its affect on our environment it is way past time to deliberately and 

clearly study the impacts of coal use in our nation and our world. 

Comment Number: 0002081_Inouye_20160626-2 

Organization1:University of Maryland 

Commenter1:David Inouye 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

ecological impacts of fossil fuel extraction include: 

1) Climate change due to the increase in releases of carbon dioxide and methane associated with coal mining. 

Comment Number: 0002106_Ramsey_20160623-1 

Commenter1:David Ramsay 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please price coal on public lands at its true value. Climate change is a very real and serious issue. 

Comment Number: 0002109_Reading_20160618-1 

Commenter1:Toniann Reading 

Other Sections: 8.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I fully support changes to keep carbon based fuels in the ground (and certainly not to use our public lands for 

private coal company leasing subsidized at ridiculous rates on both ends of the privatization scheme!) and to 

move toward using our public lands for environmentally sound & taxpayer responsible purposes reflecting 

current scientific research and climate change modeling. 

Comment Number: 0002110_Reagor_20160626_att-2 

Commenter1:Paul Reagor 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The EPA is wrongly asserting that CO2 is dangerous gas that falls under their purview. The attached chart of 

global temperatures and CO2 levels over 600 million years shows that the EPA contention (that human caused 

CO2 increases are causing higher global temperatures) is false. This chart is important in that it is the only one I 

found that shows results from several CO2 studies, and unusual in that it shows visually the relationship between 

temperature and CO2 over the full 600 million years for which there is evidence available. 

The chart, produced by the editors at New Scientist for their May 16, 2007 issue, in an article titled Climate 

Myths... shows conclusively that there is no relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. The chart shows 

that CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm in the past (17 times current levels of 400 ppm) without any effect on 

the temperature range of 4 degrees. The chart shows long periods of time where CO2 and temperature move 

together (as in the current time period), and long periods where they move in opposite directions, showing no 

correlation at all. All the studies I looked at that do show a correlation depend on the stopped watch 

phenomenon (being right 2 seconds in each 24 hour period), or a careful selection of the time period. 

As is obvious from the attached chart, the 100 million year Ice Age (from 350 million years ago - 250 million 

years ago) probably caused a world-wide plant die-off, which lead to the spike in CO2 levels from 300 ppm (250 

million years ago) to over 4,000 ppm (200 million years ago). Thus the chart tells us that the only relationship 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-118 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

between CO2 and temperatures is that very low temperatures can cause an ice age, which can cause a biosphere 

die off, which can cause higher CO2 levels when the biosphere no longer absorbs the CO2 generated by 

volcanoes. 

What's especially interesting is that the chart shows that the 50 million year spike in CO2 from 300 ppm to 4,000 

ppm corresponds with the global temperature dropping 4 degrees. Exactly the opposite of what the EPA and 

NASA claim is happening now. As is also obvious from the chart, the current warming period started 20 million 

years ago, well before humans.

Comment Number: 0002110_Reagor_20160626_att-3 

Commenter1:Paul Reagor 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Not only is CO2 not having any effect on global temperatures, but it is, in fact, a beneficial plant food. Plant 

studies show that the earth's biosphere needs a CO2 level of 900 - 1,200 ppm (depending on the species). This is 

obvious when you consider that most plant species can trace their genetic roots back 100 - 200 million years 

when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was at that level or higher. 

Many studies, from 1986 on show all plants do better at higher CO2 levels. Many large European growers have 

been placing their new greenhouses next to power plants so they use the CO2 from the power plant to enhance 

plant growth. As any greenhouse man knows, a proper level of CO2 (900 - 1,200 ppm) increases plant growth by 

50%. There is now a whole industry devoted to providing CO2 generators to greenhouses. 

Comment Number: 0002110_Reagor_20160626_att-4 

Commenter1:Paul Reagor 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

as any physicist can tell you, a greenhouse gas that has a density of 1 in 2,500 (400 ppm = 1/2,500) can not have a 

measurable temperature effect on the surrounding gas. The experiments that show CO2 raising the temperature 

by 6 degrees depend on 100% pure CO2. When converted to actual densities, the effect is 6/2,500 or .0024 

degrees, too small to measure. 

Comment Number: 0002111_Ross_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Alexa Ross 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Your organization seems to ignore the climate impacts from coal production in relation to meeting national and 

international climate commitments. 

At least 80 percent of global coal reserves and 90 percent of U.S. coal reserves must remain in the ground to 

have a 50 percent chance of avoiding catastrophic levels of global warming. Unleased federal coal contains up to 

212 billion tons of potential greenhouse gas emissions, which is 43 percent of the potential emissions of all 

remaining federal fossil fuels, including oil and gas. With more than 57 percent of fossil fuel emissions from 

federal areas coming from the combustion of federal coal, there is no place for the federal coal program in a 

carbon-constrained world. 

Comment Number: 0002115_Schaefer_20160623-3 

Commenter1:C. Thomas Shaefer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Nearly all reputable scientific experts agree that our dependence on fossil fuels--especially coal, the most carbonintensive of those fuels--is responsible for potentially catastrophic climatic warming and a drop in the pH of the 

oceans on a global scale. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-119

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002123_Thweatt_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Dick Thweatt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is essential for the entire planet, Montana included, to act meaningfully to slow down global warming. The clean 

coal program is the first significant step that the United States has taken in this direction and it is critical to give 

other nations to take action too. 

Comment Number: 0002131_Zuteck_20160408-2 

Commenter1:Michael Zuteck 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

President Obama will soon sign the climate accord, along with the Chinese and many other nations. Curtained 

mining on our public lands should be part of this climate solution. 

Comment Number: 0002137_Zeigler_20160607-1 

Commenter1:Bob Ziegler 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Former Secretaries of Defense and State as well as national security advisers have stressed the importance of 

stopping the climate crisis for our national security. See their statement for Partnership for a Secure America: 

http://www.psaonline.org/2015/10/22/republicans-democrats-agree-u-s-security-demands-global-climate-action/ 

Comment Number: 0002137_Zeigler_20160607-3 

Commenter1:Bob Ziegler 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Recent studies have shown ever more sea level rise impacts than previously thought: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html?smprod=nytc

ore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=1 

Comment Number: 0002137_Zeigler_20160607-4 

Commenter1:Bob Ziegler 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

King County Superior Court Judge Hollis Hill has ruled that the threat of climate change is so urgent that the 

state must be placed on a court­ordered deadline to hold polluters accountable now. She commented: “The 

reason I'm doing this is because this is an urgent situation. (...) These children can't wait, the polar bears can't 

wait, the people of Bangladesh can't wait. I don't have jurisdiction over their needs in this matter, but I do have 

jurisdiction in this court, and for that reason I'm taking this action.” 

http://www.king5.com/tech/science/environment/teens-shocked-to-win-lawsuit-against-government/140295400 

Comment Number: 0002137_Zeigler_20160607-5 

Commenter1:Bob Ziegler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impacts (Methane, and Coal Combustion, Mining and 

Transport) from existing leases as well as future leases considered in your program. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-120 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002137_Zeigler_20160607-6 

Commenter1:Bob Ziegler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Secondary impacts to climate if US fails to meet greenhouse gas emission reductions on other countries also 

failing to meet goals. 

Comment Number: 0002151_Cinnamon_20160629-2 

Organization1:Unacceptable Risk Film 

Commenter1:Sophia Cinnamon 

Comment Excerpt Text:

Warming temperatures and extended drought conditions are not only shifting our fire regime but creating a 

year-round fire season. 

Last year was the hottest and most fire-intense year on record. More than 10 million acres burned and the USFS 

spent 1.7 billion dollars on fire suppression. Fire budgets and staff are being stretched as never before. And the 

climate is changing. Warmer temperatures, drought conditions and our earlier and -faster melting snowpack leads 

to drier conditions with more fuel to ignite wildfires. Warming temperatures contribute to extreme weather 

events that create unpredictable, and sometimes deadly conditions for firefighters. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-21

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I can’t argue that we all need to do our part to meet climate change directives and I would like to leave this earth 

better for my children. 

Comment Number: 0002155_Krupnick_20160622-8 

Organization1:Center for Energy and Climate Economics Resources for the Future 

Commenter1:Alan Krupnick 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Exploration with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and other federal agencies as to whether 

downstream climate impacts from the combustion of federally produced fossil fuels must be disclosed or 

otherwise considered prior to individual lease sales and EIS’s, as opposed to only on a programmatic level. 

Comment Number: 0002158_Burger_SabineCenter_9132016-2 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Other Sections: 8.10 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal government has a duty to mitigate climate impacts from downstream GHG emissions associated with 

the coal leasing program 

There are at least four potential non-statutory sources of the federal government’s affirmative duty to mitigate 

greenhouse gas emissions and associated climate impacts from federal coal: the principles of international law and 

the requirements set forth under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; the public 

trust doctrine; the federal common law of public nuisance; and private nuisance under state common law. 

Although it is plausible that none of these sources would result in an affirmative court decision holding the 

government liable for a breach of its duty, that shortfall does not negate the existence of the duty itself. The 

statutes and regulations that govern Interior’s management of public lands provide other, and potentially even 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-121

Scoping Report 

more forceful, sources for a duty to mitigate upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions and associated 

climate change impacts arising from the federal coal leasing program. Pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA), the 

Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) and NEPA, BLM has a duty to analyze and implement mitigation measures for the 

adverse environmental, social and public health impacts attributable to its management of fossil fuels on public 

lands. 

Comment Number: 0002158_Burger_SabineCenter_9132016-3 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Other Sections: 2 8.10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal statutes, regulations and policy provide Interior and BLM with ample authority to adopt a fee as a form of 

compensatory mitigation 

BLM has recognized that compensatory mitigation for unavoidable or residual climate change impacts arising from 

agency decisions is fully consistent with its mission and its multiple use mandate and that it possesses the 

discretion to require it, and has clarified that doing so is in fact the agency’s policy. A climate change impacts fee 

for downstream GHG emissions fits within the agency’s NEPA obligations and its compensatory mitigation policy. 

The climate change impacts at issue in this paper are those that occur as a result of GHG emissions both at the 

coal mine and downstream, when the extracted coal is transported and eventually combusted for its end use. 

These downstream GHG emissions are considered “indirect effects” under NEPA, and the climate change 

impacts associated with those emissions are unavoidable or “residual” impacts. In undertaking the Programmatic 

EIS, Interior has recognized that NEPA requires it to analyze downstream emissions – a conclusion that comports 

with the current trajectory of courts’ interpretations of NEPA. Under NEPA, then, the agency 

must also identify and assess appropriate mitigation measures for these emissions, including compensatory 

mitigation measures. The mitigation measures discussed in the Programmatic EIS should follow the “mitigation 

hierarchy,” and should include both a “net zero” emissions offset program as well as a climate change impacts fee. 

A climate change impacts fee would be consistent with recent directives, including the 

Presidential Memorandum Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related 

Private Investment; Secretarial Order 3330, Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of the 

Interior; and “Landscape-Scale Mitigation Policy,” a new chapter in its Departmental Manual, which effectively 

operationalizes Order 3330. The sum total of the White House and Interior guidance is that BLM can and should 

assess and potentially implement mitigation measures, which might operate through any number of mechanisms, 

including lease stipulations and chargeable fees, among other things. The mitigation measure should first seek to 

avoid GHG emissions and their climate impacts; second, seek to minimize emissions and impacts; and third, 

compensate for unavoidable impacts, as through a climate 

change impacts fee. 

Comment Number: 0002158_Burger_SabineCenter_9132016-6 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Other Sections: 8.10 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal government has the discretion to mitigate climate impacts from 

downstream GHG emissions associated with the coal leasing program 

Even if the duty to mitigate is of uncertain scope or enforceability, FLPMA, the MLA and NEPA all confer a 

definite discretion to mitigate climate change impacts. The multiple use mandate and unnecessary and undue 

degradation prohibition of FLPMA, the public interest requirements of the MLA and the ambitious goals and 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-122 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

specific analytical requirements of NEPA individually and taken together grant the agencies broad discretion to 

mitigate foreseeable impacts, and to require compensation for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized. 

Comment Number: 0002158_Burger_SabineCenter_9132016-7 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The duties imposed on and remedies available against lessors under tort and property law offer a persuasive 

rationale for assigning a climate change impacts fee 

to federal coal 

Climate change impacts from the coal leasing program’s downstream GHG emissions will occur in locations, and 

to persons, both proximate to and remote from a given leased parcel. These impacted locations will include the 

leased parcel, other public lands and resources under BLM’s jurisdiction, other federal lands and resources under 

Interior’s jurisdiction, and private and public property within and outside the United States. Impacts to federal 

lands—including the leased parcel and off-site lands—and even to the public fisc, more broadly writ, are 

compensable under the general principles of property law. For instance, it is a general principle of property law 

that tenants are required to restore leased property to its former condition, or else be subject to termination 

and/or damages. And although there may not be a hornbook principle along these lines to cite to, it makes 

profound sense that a lessor has within its authority the ability to protect its other properties, or to require 

compensation for impacts to them, from activities it permits on its land. Moreover, the federal government, as 

lessor to coal mining companies, could, in principle, be held liable for damages for the climate change impacts 

associated with downstream GHG emissions. Section 379A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and Section 

18(4) of the Restatement (Second) of Property maintain similar standards for lessor liability for remote nuisances 

or personal injuries attributable to lessees’ activities. Because the federal government is consenting to the coal 

mining, and because the federal government is at this time well aware that coal leasing either involves an 

unreasonable risk or else contributes to the identifiable nuisance of climate change impacts, these principles of 

lessor liability put the government on the theoretical hook for damages. 

Comment Number: 0002158_Kasperik_20160517_StateRep-7 

Organization1:HD 32 Wyoming State Legislature 

Commenter1:Norine Kasperik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Comments made by EPA Administer Gina McCarthy repeatedly concede that the Agency’s sweeping climate 

regulation of America’s fossil fuels fired power plants will have no impact on Earth’s climate. McCarthy openly 

admits that the Clean Power Plan (CPP) ‘is not about the end of pipe controls.” She said “it is about driving in 

renewable investment.” “That’s what...reinventing a global economy looks like. “The value of this rule is not 

measured by its output. It’s measured by showing strong domestic action.” 

Comment Number: 0002162_Jones_20160519-1 

Commenter1:Eugene Jones 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In today’s issue of USA Today, the following headline – 

“Global Temperatures Soar for the 12th Straight Month” appeared in the “In Brief” section, 

directly linking it to a 50% increase in the average amount of carbon dioxide in the environment. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-123

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002170_Garber_20160622-4 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment (UPHE) 

Commenter1:Howie Garber 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

COAL-FIRED ELECTRICITY CONTRIBUTES THE SINGLE LARGEST AMOUNT OF GLOBAL WARMING 

POLLUTION OF ANY INDUSTRY. 

Comment Number: 0002173_Quick_20160622-9 

Commenter1:Kendra Quick 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Another myth among the opponents is that the current leasing system does not consider the climate impacts of 

federal coal lease sales. Currently, the BLM addresses all environmental issues including, but not limited to, 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the production and use of coal when potential lease sales are analyzed under 

the NEPA. The Department of the Interior has successfully defended its analyses of climate impacts in a series of 

legal challenges brought by coal project opponents. 

See Wildearth Guardians V Salazar, 880 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D.D.C.2012) aff’d 738 F. 3d 298 (D.C. Cir. 2013); 

Wildearth Guardians V Forest Service, No. 12-CV-85 D. Wyo 2015); Western Organization of Resource 

Councils V Jewell, No. 14-1993 (D.D.C. 2015) 

Comment Number: 0002175_Woodcock_20160627-1 

Organization1:MSU Department of American Studies 

Commenter1:Jennifer Woodcock-Medicine Horse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Montana has, very unfortunately, been a major contributor to world climate change through our production of 

oil, gas and coal 

Comment Number: 0002178_Reum_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Peter Reum 

Other Sections: 8.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please keep coal in the ground in Montana. The use of it only prolongs badly needed change to less climate 

changing energy. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-11

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

HOW CAN WE BEST MEASURE AND ASSESS THE CLIMATE IMPACTS OF CONTINUED FEDERAL COAL 

PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMBUSTION – THIS IS NOT PART OF THE ACT AND 

SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THIS PROGRAM. 

Comment Number: 0002190_Pfeiffer_20160627-3 

Commenter1:Ben Pfeiffer 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Since the National Research Council published its findings, the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-124 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

has revised its analysis of the effects and costs of climate change and has even more emphatically demanded that 

we reckon with the future costs of our greenhouse gas emissions and the extent to which delays in reductions of 

emissions dramatically exacerbate the consequences for many centuries. Since the IPCC issues its fifth 

assessment, scientists have uncovered fresh evidence indicating that the effects of climate change may well be 

much more serious than they had predicted. 

Comment Number: 0002190_Pfeiffer_20160627-4 

Commenter1:Ben Pfeiffer 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The National Research Council warned: 

“All of the model results available to the committee estimated that the climate­related damages per ton of 

CO2-eq would be 50¬80% worse in 2030 than in 2005.... 

Because IAM simulations usually report their results in terms of mean values, this approach does not adequately 

capture some possibilities of catastrophic outcomes. Although a number of the possible outcomes have been 

studied—such as release of methane from permafrost that could rapidly accelerate warming and collapse of the 

West Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets, which could raise sea level by several meters—the damages associated 

with these events and their probabilities are very poorly understood.” 

Comment Number: 0002190_Pfeiffer_20160627-5 

Commenter1:Ben Pfeiffer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate scientists have concluded that we must keep a large proportion of fossil fuel reserves in the ground in 

order to have a reasonable chance of avoiding a catastrophic destabilization of our climate and extremely 

damaging rises in sea level. In fact, we have already emitted enough greenhouse gas to set in motion catastrophes. 

We must avoid compounding the damage even more. We must achieve urgent reductions in emissions to give us 

more than just a reasonable chance of avoiding the worst possible damage. To do so we need to treat the climate 

challenge as an emergency. We owe that to our grandchildren, their grandchildren, their grandchildren, their 

grandchildren, to generations even further in the future, and to the biosphere upon which we all depend. 

Comment Number: 0002197_Wise_20160519-3 

Organization1:Kiewit Mining Group Inc. 

Commenter1:Dirk Wise 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the dept. of interior or the president truly believe that coal is the biggest source of environmental impact then 

there needs to be more funds/research provided to help with technological advances. Currently coal pays over 1 

Billion dollars in taxes whereas alternative energy sources pay little to none and also receive government 

subsidies. It should also be noted that alternative energy sources receive over 11 Billion dollars in subsidies and 

can only generate 4.5% of this nation’s energy needs. Climate impact needs to be studied along with economic 

impact with switching to alternative energy(Can we afford to use alternative energy with this type of government 

funding, is it even economically viable???). 

Comment Number: 0002199_Gyncild_20160626-3 

Commenter1:Brie Gyncild 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We're already seeing devastating effects of climate change, and based on scientific models, we can only expect the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-125

Scoping Report 

devastation effects to accelerate. It is simply irresponsible to continue practices that are detrimental not only to 

our country but to our species and nearly every other species on the planet. 

Comment Number: 0002201_UpSkyRanch_20160622-1 

Commenter1:John Betka 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal has virtually nothing to do with the Climate Changes that are taking place worldwide. 

Comment Number: 0002208_Manole_20160622-2 

Commenter1:Bogdana Manole 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Although coal and oil contributed to the last century’s industrial development and modernization, they are the 

primary cause of climate change, which threatens future life on planet.The effects of climate change are already 

dire, and they are predicted to impact future generations on more drastic scale. Our children are bound to live 

lives threatened by lack of water, polluted air, increased related health hazards, powerful storms, forest fires, 

drought or floods to enumerate only few. 

Comment Number: 0002209_Williamson_20160627-1 

Commenter1:Kirt Williamson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The worlds climate scientists are almost unanimous in their warnings that Climate Change is arguably the most 

serious problem facing this nation and the world--more serious than any other issue. To combat this threat we 

must expeditiously transition to clean energy to power our homes and transport vehicles. 

Comment Number: 0002210_Gabbay_20160621-1 

Commenter1:Deirdre Gabbay 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am asking you to consider the effect that coal burning is producing on the climate. Coal releases the highest 

amount of heat trapping CO2 per BTU of energy of any fossil fuel. 

Comment Number: 0002210_Gabbay_20160621-2 

Commenter1:Deirdre Gabbay 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If we do not ratchet back greenhouse gas emissions to sustainable levels that can be processed by the biosphere, 

we will drive our climate to dramatic and irreversible temperature increases, with potentially catastrophic results. 

Comment Number: 0002225_Wheeler_20160519-2 

Commenter1:Ray Wheeler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Global warming and all of its disastrous subsidary effects 

Comment Number: 0002226_Tobe_20160603-4 

Commenter1:Jerry Tobe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

impact of mining operations and the mined coal on climate change 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-126 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002228_Graves_20160627-3 

Commenter1:Royal Graves 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal-fired power plants produce major carbon dioxide emissions thereby becoming a major contributor to 

climate change. Rising temperatures are likely to increase the spread of disease (through increased mosquitoe and 

tick ranges). The environmental effects are likely to cause worsening drought and flooding which will have 

detrimental effects on food supply from crop failure. 

Comment Number: 0002231_Schwend_20160620-3 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:David Schwend 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the government is convinced that coal generated electricity is increasing the CO2 level in the atmosphere, 

where does the use of vehicles come into play? Or mother nature in the form of volcanos, thunder storm 

created fires, decay of organic material, and breathing. Does putting more concrete and pavement on the ground 

have an effect? Is coal really the cause of CO2 increase or is that just what the Administration and NGO's want 

to focus on? 

Comment Number: 0002233_Sheffield_20160618-1 

Commenter1:Charles Sheffield 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The climate impacts from coal extraction make any increase in production unacceptable. 

Comment Number: 0002237_Hilden_20160622-2 

Commenter1:Alan Hilden 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal as an extraction industry has lead to massive global warming and out of date power plants continue to 

operate without sufficient environmental safeguards. 

Comment Number: 0002238_Bengtsson_20160619-1 

Commenter1:Barbara Bengtsson 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I urge the Bureau of Land Management to let science and the public good guide its policy regarding carbon 

extraction on public land. The last IPCC report released in 2013/2014, included a carbon budget that showed 

that in order to limit Climate Change to a 2°C increase of the average global temperature, three quarters of 

global fossil fuel reserves must be left in the ground (http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/ 

03/visualizingglobalcarbonbudget). 

Comment Number: 0002238_Bengtsson_20160619-2 

Commenter1:Barbara Bengtsson 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Moreover a Harvard study estimates “that the life cycle impacts of coal and the waste stream generated are 

costing the U.S. public a third to over onehalf of a trillion dollars annually.” Pollution from the burning of coal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-127

Scoping Report 

harms people and wildlife (http://www.chgeharvard.org/resource/exploretruecostscoal) and costs the public $100 

billion dollars annually (http://www.rmi.org/RFGraphhealth_ effects_from_US_power_plant_emissions). Public 

land, our shared treasure, should not contribute to environmental degradation, ill public health, and climate 

change. 

Comment Number: 0002239_Baierlein_20160621-7 

Organization1:Conservation Northwest

Commenter1:Jeff Baierlein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Wildfire linked to climate change from coal and other fuel combustion destroys homes for people and wildlife, 

wreaking economic havoc and destroying our precious natural heritage. 

Comment Number: 0002240_Hargrove_20160701-2 

Commenter1:Bourtai Hargrove 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate disruption is already scorching India, where the temperature reached 123.8 F in April, killing hundreds 

and destroying crops in at least 13 states. Climate disruption is fueling the massive Alberta wildfire that forced 

90,000 people to evacuate their homes and is now spreading into Saskatchewan. In Africa 36 million people are 

on the verge of famine, due to climate-change escalated drought, while in Australia 93 percent of the Great 

Barrier Reef has suffered heat-related coral bleaching and death. Climate disruption is accelerating the sixth great 

extinction of life on earth, an extinction which if it continues at the present rate, will eliminate half the plants and 

animals on our planet by the end of the century. We are facing the greatest threat to survival humans have ever 

faced. "Because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for over a century, the only thing that matters in limiting 

temperature is cumulative emissions, the total concentration of greenhouse gases we dump into the atmosphere" 

warns Kevin Anderson, climate advisor to the British government and former director of the Tyndall Energy 

Program. What would it take, Anderson asks, to target 2 degrees C realistically? "No carbon tax is going to do 

that. We won't get there through innovation or new technology, even if we spend a trillion a year for the next 

few years. The only conceivable way to produce that level of reductions," says Anderson," is a full-scale, all-handson deck mobilization, what William James called 'the moral equivalent of war.'" 

Comment Number: 0002260_Gleich_20160707-2 

Commenter1:Caroline Gleich 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our $66 billion snowsports industry is already starting to feel it’s impacts. Winter is shorter, snowfall is less 

abundant, glaciers are melting at astounding rates. We cannot wait any longer to reduce our dependency on fossil 

fuels and stand up against climate change. 

Comment Number: 0002275_Petersen_20160716-1 

Commenter1:Sue Petersen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This program does not take into account the effect of coal on the environment, and the cheap price which is 

subsidized by taxpayers. Please revise the rules to take into account climate change and this use of public lands. 

Comment Number: 0002276_Henderson_20160715_350Colorado-10

Organization1:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Commenter1:Gina Hardin 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-128 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal plays a major role in exacerbating climate change as a result of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 

mining, processing, transportation, burning of coal, and un-reclaimed abandoned mined lands. 

Comment Number: 0002282_Bradford_20160719-3 

Commenter1:David Bradford 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Any evaluation of the effects of coal mining on climate impacts needs to be based on accurate and factual 

information and analysis. While there seems to be some evidence of a warming trend, that evidence also seems 

to be within the natural variability that exists for the earth. Much of the climate impact “science” is theoretical 

and based on computer modeling. Any climate science needs to be accepted, proven science. 

As noted in the Notice in the Federal Register, the coal produced on Federal lands, while comprising 41% of all 

coal produced in the U.S. produced only 10% of the U.S. Green House Emissions. In addition, the coal produced 

in the North Fork Valley of western Colorado is among the cleanest coal. It is reputed to be cleaner than natural 

gas. 

Comment Number: 0002284_Madsen_20160719-1 

Commenter1:Travis Madsen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We should prioritize climate protection as the highest goal of all of our resource management programs. 

Comment Number: 0002300_Csenge_20160710-2 

Commenter1:Rich Csenge 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The science is abundantly clear that burning carbon- based fuels to meet the needs of industry and modern 

lifestyles is rapidly raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere 

Comment Number: 0002303_Steitz_20160705-3 

Commenter1:Jim Steitz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To keep climate change within a level tolerable for human civilization requires, as a mathematical certainty, that 

80% of known remaining fossil fuel reserves must remain underground, not converted into atmospheric carbon 

dioxide. This includes federally owned bodies of coal, oil, and gas on public lands, which account for 40% of 

domestic coal production 

Comment Number: 0002310_Payne_20160721-2 

Commenter1:Steven Payne 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is one of the largest sources of climate pollution 

Comment Number: 0002314_Beres_EarthMinWAInterfaithPower_20160722-2 

Organization1:Creation Justice Ministries 

Commenter1:Shantha Alonso 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

nor its impact on the climate 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-129

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002318_Gordon_20160722-1 

Commenter1:Diana L. Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In Washington State Greenhouse gas emissions are a serious matter. We can see this in a recent lawsuit brought 

by Our Children’s Trust against the Washington State Department of Ecology. They were seeking the legal right 

to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate. On April 29, 2016, Judge Hollis Hill ruled ordered Ecology to come 

up with an emissions reduction rule by the end of 2016 and make recommendations to the state legislature on 

science-based greenhouse gas reductions in the 2017 legislative session. I feel that we should pay attention to 

Judge Hill’s ruling when we consider the matter of leasing public lands to produce more coal often at low, 

subsidized prices. 

Comment Number: 0002318_Gordon_20160722-4 

Commenter1:Diana L. Gordon 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This pollution causes ocean acidification and climate change. We have already evidenced both of these 

phenomena. Ocean acidification which, for example, interferes with the ability of oysters to form shells, has 

already had repercussions in our shellfish industry, especially with oysters. The shellfish industry brings in about 

270 million dollars to Washington's economy and provides jobs for about 3,200 people. Can we afford to do 

anything that we know might affect it further? 

Comment Number: 0002318_Gordon_20160722-5 

Commenter1:Diana L. Gordon 

Other Sections: 8.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate change is amply demonstrated by the number of super storms we are now experiencing. Burning coal 

causes illness, scars our landscape, ties up our railroads, and threatens our way of life. 

Comment Number: 0002319_ODonnell _20160722-1 

Commenter1:Jennifer O'Donnell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to the Fact Sheet: Modernizing the Federal Coal Program, independent analysis of coal, oil, and gas 

produced on public lands could be about 28 percent of the U.S.’s total annual energy-related greenhouse gas 

emissions. Since the United States is the second largest carbon dioxide emitter globally, the emissions from coal 

are consequential to global warming, and, thus, climate change 

Comment Number: 0002321_Gordon_20160722-1 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Peter Cornelius, a Hood River City Councilman, at the June 21, 2016, PEIS hearing in Seattle, put it very 

succinctly, “Climate costs outweigh coal profits.” 

Comment Number: 0002321_Gordon_20160722-2 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Other Sections: 16 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-130 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As the acidity the oceans increase, coral reefs die and harvestable fish die; here in the Northwest, oyster growers 

are moving their oyster start operations to Hawaii. The acidic sea water here on our coasts dissolve the fragile 

beginning calcium shells of the oysters and the starts die. This industry is in danger of disappearing. 

Comment Number: 0002323_Gordon_20160722-1 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The burning of fossil fuels, of which coal is a big part, is radically changing our climate. 

Comment Number: 0002323_Gordon_20160722-5 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Another man from Climate Solutions said he had heard on “Market Place” the day before that more coal might 

need to mined and burned to allow more air conditioners to be run. 

Comment Number: 0002323_Gordon_20160722-6 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please include climate change in your PEIS scoping. 

Comment Number: 0002324_Dubbert_20160722_BME-6 

Organization1:Blue Mountain Energy

Commenter1:Jeffrey C Dubbert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our nation's climate objectives should ensure that we maintain diversified energy sources. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-2 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Subsidizing the price of Federal coal increases the pollution and climate disruption caused by coal beyond what it 

would otherwise be, and ultimately undercuts the president’s Climate Action Plan.

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-26

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The damage from exporting this amount of subsidized coal to Asia would go beyond encouraging more coal 

consumption in that region which is struggling to respond to an air pollution crisis. As the world’s top emitting 

countries, efforts by the United States and China to reduce carbon pollution are watched closely by other 

countries. If the United States government does nothing to stop the current plans of the PRB mining companies 

to ship massive quantities of publicly-owned coal to Asia at drastically subsidized prices, it will signal to the rest of 

the world that the United States’ efforts to mitigate climate change are hypocritical, as the United States 

suppresses coal burning at home while it promotes it abroad. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-131

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-31

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Additional reasons for recertifying the PRB is that climate change is a far more serious risk to the physical and 

economic wellbeing of this nation’s citizens than it was recognized to be 25 years ago. Coal is the nation’s largest 

source of greenhouse gases and PRB coal has become the nation’s largest single source of greenhouse gas 

emissions--accounting for 10% of the total. On a Btu basis, it is twice as carbon intense as natural gas. For that 

reason, the current Administration has acknowledged that burning coal for electric power poses a uniquely grave 

threat of further climate disruption. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-58

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining on federal lands accounts for an estimated 14% of U.S. CO2 emissions. This is a very large number 

compared to the emissions of any individual facility or project. The approximately 160 billion tons of coal that 

remain to be potentially mined in the Powder River Basin, and the 272 billion tons of CO2 which burning that 

coal would emit, are also very large numbers. According to the declaration by climate scientist Mike MacCracken 

in High Country, this amount, by itself, would equal 1/2 of the world’s remaining carbon budget if the global 

warming is to be kept below 2 degrees Celsius. This is the amount of coal (and associated CO2 emissions) that 

falls within this updated programmatic EIS. It is no longer possible to deflect an assessment of the BLS coal leasing 

program on the earth’s climate. This PEIS must undertake that assessment.

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-60

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The most recent fourteen years include 13 of the 14 hottest years the earth has experienced since recording of 

global temperatures began in 1880. As reported in March, 2013, in the journal Science, global temperatures now 

are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years. If this rate of warming continues, global temperatures in the 

coming years will exceed levels not experienced since before the last ice age, which ended roughly 12,000 years 

ago.(33) As a result, an economic and public health catastrophe looms for the Western United states generally, 

and for Utah, in particular. 

(33) See news article “Global Temperature Highest in 4,000 Years,” by Justin Gillis, New York Times, March 7, 

2013, summarizing research published in the journal Science. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1228026, Science 339, 1198 

(2013); Shaun A. Marcott et al. A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years.] 

This study reconstructed global temperatures over virtually the entire Holocene period (the period since most 

recent ice age). 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-61

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Global warming has weakened the force of the giant convection cells (the Polar, Ferrel, and Hadley Cells) that 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-132 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

circulate air from the tropics to the North Pole and back. As a result, the subtropical jet stream that brings 

winter snows and spring rains into the parched Western states has been weakening and retreating northward 

since the mid-1900s, predicted by climate models. See http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/drjennifer-francis-top-climatologists-explain-how-global-warming-wrecks-the-jet-stream-and-amps-up-hydrologicalcycle-to-cause-dangerous-weather/; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416153558.htm. The result 

has been increasingly severe drought expanding from the Southwest through Nevada, Utah, and Colorado, and 

now into the Northwestern state 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-88

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to the National Climate Assessment and most other climate modelling research, climate change is 

affecting all of the United States, but its greatest impacts are being felt in the Western United States, including 

Utah. There is near unanimity among the scientifically literate that these effects are being driven by the burning of 

fossil fuels. The largest of those drivers is coal. Heat, drought, dust, and fire are what the future holds for the 

American West America and the world quickly shift to low-carbon alternatives. A critical first step in that 

process is an end to subsidies in the Federal coal leasing program. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-89

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The disruptive effect that global warming is having on this cycle is summarized by the Bureau of Land 

Management and the National Forest Service. Rising temperatures associated with global warming have already 

altered the characteristics of a broad range of plant and animal species (80% of species from 143 studies). These 

changes include reduced species density, northward or range shifts, altered timing of organism growth and 

reproduction, and reductions in the diversity of species’ gene pools.

There has been a rapid expansion of invasive species. This can be attributed primarily to the direct and indirect 

effects of climate change, including elevated CO2 and N deposition. Changes in past and present land uses, such 

as intense grazing, have also contributed. Consequently, approximately 20% of the sagebrush ecosystem’s native 

flora and fauna are considered imperiled, and the remaining components of the sagebrush-based ecosystem are in 

decline. (Miller and Tausch, 2000, pp. 15–30). 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-90

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As discussed in more detail below, global warming is dramatically increasing the frequency and intensity of fire in 

the Great Basin. Increased wildfires in shrublands in the Great Basin that have been converted to cheatgrass have 

now transformed rangelands that were carbon sinks into carbon sources on a large scale (Bradley et al., 2006). 

The combined effects of increased burn area and overgrazing mean that, by the end of the century, almost 59% of 

sagebrush-bunchgrass communities throughout the western U.S. could be replaced by communities of annual 

grasses and noxious weeds, or juniper and pinyon pines. The consequences for mule deer, pronghorn and other 

species that depend on the sagebrush ecosystem will be devastating. (Glick, 2006). The consequences for the 

Great Basin’s soils will be equally grim. Juniper, pinyon, annual grasses, and noxious weeds do little to prevent 

fluvial erosion, and do not facilitate infiltration of moisture into soil and ground water recharge. The decline in 

the sagebrush-bunchgrass ecosystem in the Great Basin will expose those soils to erosion by wind, rain, and 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-133

Scoping Report 

flood. Although overgrazing, road building, and urban construction all contributing to demise of the sagebrush 

ecosystem, global warming is the main forcing mechanism, largely through its facilitation of fire. (HumboldtToiyabe Report, . 9). 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-91

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Among earth scientists there is nearly complete consensus that accumulating greenhouse gas emissions have the 

planet on a long-run path to an ever hotter atmosphere and ocean, and ever greater climate disruption. The 

debate about this survives only at the political level. It is kept alive primarily by commercial interests who are 

aware of the implications of climate science, but would be disadvantaged if this country to deal with them 

seriously. As rangeland scientist Dr. Thad Box observes, the controversy between scientists and climate change 

critics over whether human-induced changes simply exacerbate “natural” climatic cycles or drive the major 

changes is irrelevant. The countermeasures required in either case are the same, and the diverts society from 

making the responses that it must in order to survive. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-92

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The damage to these biological crusts caused by changes to the climate, combined with the mechanical damage 

from human activity, has increased erosion of Utah’s desert soils. One ominous impact of this increased erosion 

is a substantial increase in the amount of dust that coats the snowpack of the Rocky Mountains. Dust on snow 

causes it to absorb rather than reflect solar radiation. It is estimated that increases in the dust that coats the 

mountain snowpack has reduced the flow of the Colorado River by 6%. 

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/11/14/new-study-dust-warming-portend-dry-future-colorado-river. 

Since the population centers of Arizona, Southern Nevada, and Southern California are utterly dependent on the 

Colorado River, an ongoing reduction in its flow will have a major impact on those desert cities. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-93

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Changes in temperature and precipitation associated with climate change are causing widespread deforestation 

across the globe. (Bonan, et al., 2008.) Deforestation, in turn, is responsible for 20% of the “greenhouse effect.”

In the Great Basin, climate change is expected to continue to produce hotter, drier conditions at high elevations, 

drought-weakened trees, broader insect infestations, more frequent and more intense wildfires, and impaired 

forest ecosystems. White Pine and Aspen are in special peril. http://www.deq.utah.gov/BRAC Climate/docs/Final 

Report/Sec-A-1 SCIENCE REPORT.pdf. 

Of particular concern are the greatly expanded burn acreage caused by a warming climate and the effects of 

extreme wildfire events on ecosystems. It is estimated that increases in temperature will cause annual mean area 

burned in the western United States to increase by 54% by the 2050s relative to the present-day. The forests of 

the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains will experience the greatest increases--78% and 175% respectively. 

The increase in the area burned is expected to cause a near doubling of wildfire carbonaceous aerosol emissions 

by mid-century. (Spraklen et al., DOI:10.1029.) In 2004, researchers at the U.S. Forest Service’s Pacific Wildland 

Fire Lab looked at past fires in the West to create a statistical model of how future climate change may affect 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-134 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

wildfires. They found that by the year 2100, the area annually burned in Montana, New Mexico, Washington, 

Utah, and Wyoming could be five times greater than at present. (McKenzie, et al., 2004, pp. 890-902.) 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-94

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Current trends suggest that the fastest and most wide spread mass extinction of species in the Earth’s history is 

very likely underway. In the tropics alone, we may now be losing 27,000 species per year to extinction. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l 032 04.html. By the year 2050, it is estimated that 15–37% of 

land plants and animals will become extinct as a result of climate change. (Thomas, C. et al., 2004.) Many species 

will die because they will not be able to migrate to places where the climate remains suitable. Others will die 

because suitable habitat will no longer exist. http://www.nature.com/nature/links/040108/040108-1.html. 

When viewed on an evolutionary time scale, the current pace of climate change is essentially instantaneous. For 

example, studies of the fossil record indicate that for tree species to adapt to the current pace of climate change, 

they would have to migrate to suitable habitats ten times faster than most species were able to respond to 

climates shifts in the past two million years. Few tree species have this ability. (Davis and Shaw, 2001.) 

Species mortality has serious consequences. In plant communities, reduced diversity leads to lower productivity, 

less nutrient retention in ecosystems and ecosystem instability. An average plot containing one plant species is 

less than half as productive as an average plot containing 24–32 species. As plant diversity is lost, leaching of 

nutrients from the soil increases, reducing its fertility. (Tilman, D., 2000). 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-95

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A. Impaired Respiratory Function from Increased Ground-Level Ozone. 

The chemical reaction that forms ozone is, in part, heat driven. Hotter temperatures will create higher ozone 

concentrations. The incidence of forest fires is also heat driven. Forest fires are a major source of ground-level 

ozone. As forest fires become more frequent and intense, exposures to ground-level ozone will increase. The 

significance of forest fires as sources of ozone can be appreciated by considering that smoke plumes from forest 

fires in Alaska have been shown to significantly increase ground-level ozone concentrations as far away as Europe. 

(Real E., et al., 2007). 

Ozone creates a positive feedback mechanism for global warming because ozone itself is a greenhouse gas. In yet 

another feedback mechanism, higher ozone concentrations retard the growth of trees, which reduces the ability 

of forests to absorb CO2. 

The American Lung Association estimates that at least one-third of Utah is vulnerable to the impacts of air 

pollution. Of a population of 2.8 million, more than 1 million are under 19 or over 64. About 230,000 have 

asthma, and nearly 494,000 have cardiovascular disease. The effect of ground-level ozone pollution on the 

delicate lining of the lungs is analogous to the effects of sunburn on the skin. It aggravates respiratory diseases like 

asthma, and impairs lung function in the population generally. 

Until recently, high concentrations of ground-level ozone in the Mountain West had been observed only in the 

summer in population centers, as auto and industrial emissions reacted in the presence of sunlight and heat. Now 

high concentrations of ground-level ozone are appearing in the Mountain West’s remote areas as well, especially 

in areas where oil and gas producers have recently drilled thousands of wells. Oil and gas drilling, as presently 

practiced, releases large quantities of ozone precursors, such as nitrogen oxide (NOx), volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), and formaldehyde. http://rd.usu.edu/files/uploads/ubos2011-12finalreport.pdf. Recently, for 

the first time, concentrated ozone has appeared in the winter in the remote energy development areas of 

Wyoming and Colorado and Utah’s Uinta Basin.
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-135

Scoping Report 

Utah’s Uinta Basin covers nearly 6 million acres. In winter, emissions from energy production collect in the lower 

atmosphere where they are transformed into ozone by interacting with sunlight and snow. Air pollution monitors 

installed in the Uintah Basin measured ozone concentrations exceeding federal health standards more than 68 

times in the first three months of 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/10/01/01greenwire-air-qualityconcerns-may-dictate-uintah-basins-30342.html?pagewanted=all. Maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations 

at the Ouray air monitoring station during 2013 reached 142 ppb. This exceeds federal air quality standards by 

89%. http://www.deq.utah.gov/envrpt/Planning/s12.htm. For long periods of time, ground-level ozone 

concentrations in the Uinta Basin now exceed those of Los Angeles County, where the nation’s highest ozone 

concentrations traditionally occur.(36) 

(36) The Uinta Basin’s average ozone concentration for 2010-2011 was 116.5 ppb (based on the NAAQS-created 

measurement of the fourth-highest value averaged over the two years). In comparison, Los Angeles County 

averaged 108 ppb over the same two years. 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut/lands_and_minerals/oil_and_gas/november_2011.Par.75557 

.File.dat/Email%20July%2015%202011%20Garbett%20-%20SUWA%20Comments%20Nov%202011. 

Atmospheric currents are capable of transporting ozone and particulate matter thousands of miles away from 

their original sources. Ozone is showing up now in high concentrations in the air over the middle of the Atlantic 

Ocean. This raises the prospect that the rapidly growing supply of ozone precursors in the Uinta Basin, combined 

with the higher temperatures that global warming will bring, will increase ground-level ozone both there and in 

adjacent regions, such as the mountain valleys of the heavily populated Wasatch Front. 

Another source of ozone adjacent to the Wasatch Front is the ultraviolet light that reflects off of the surface of 

the Great Salt Lake and interacts with the chemical soup produced by the refinery emissions and the vehicle 

exhaust emitted near the shore of the lake. This adds to the concentration of ozone along the Wasatch Front, 

and makes the Wasatch Front all the more vulnerable to the ozone-promoting effects of global warming. 

A recent study of ozone by Utah’s Division of Air Quality reports annual concentrations of ozone in the Salt Lake 

City of 0.079 ppb, violating the National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 70 ppb (based on the 4th highest annual 

8-hour maximum). Furthermore, the study shows, ozone is expanding far beyond the areas traditionally affected 

by photochemical reaction. It reports ozone levels virtually as high in the parks of Southern Utah as in the 

urbanized North. http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Public-Interest/Current-Issues/Ozone/2012 Utah Ozone 

Study.pdf. Utah’s air quality is already being affected by events and policies in other parts of the world, this trend 

will intensify. 

A recent, landmark study led by Brigham Young University’s Arden Pope has enhanced our understanding of the 

impact of ozone on public health. It clearly demonstrates that ozone exposure increases rates of respiratory 

death. Along the Wasatch Front, the study concludes, exposure to ground-level ozone increases the rate of 

respiratory death by about 25%. Other studies establish that ground-level ozone negatively impacts lung function 

across all segments of the population, including young, healthy adults, even at levels below current national air 

quality standards. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-96

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Models from climate researchers indicate that climate change will not just warm the average climate, but will also 

increase extreme climate events, such as heat waves. Studies show a correlation between temperature and 

hospital admissions for respiratory failure and for cardiac death. For example, a study published in The American 

Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine examined populations in 12 different European cities. For each 

city they found a temperature/humidity threshold beyond which each degree of increase resulted in a 4% increase 

in respiratory admissions for all ages, but especially those over 75 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-136 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-97

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As described earlier, hotter temperatures and reduced precipitation expected in the Great Basin as a result of 

climate change is likely to result in widespread loss of native vegetation in the already water-stressed Great Basin. 

This can be expected to expand the sources of dust, or particulate matter pollution, to which Utah residents are 

exposed. Earlier this spring, for example, a storm moving in from the Great Basin filled the atmosphere with 

enough dust to send levels of fine particulates in northern Utah ten times higher than the EPA maximum limit. 

Kinds of particulate exposure that are likely to increase as a result of global warming, and the additional threats 

that they pose to the health of Utah’s residents, are discussed below.

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-98

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Soils in the Western United States also harbor significant concentrations of microorganisms like 

coccidiodomycosis, the fungal spores that cause Valley Fever. Valley Fever is a disease with flu-like symptoms that 

is difficult to diagnose, and is sometimes fatal. It is spread by inhaling windblown coccidiodomycosis spores, 

known by the inhabitants of the Southwest as “Death Dust.” Valley Fever has quadrupled in the last ten years in 

the Southwest. The American Academy of Microbiology estimates that 200,000 people per year contract the 

disease, which is fatal in about one in 1,000 cases. People who are immunosuppressed, women who are pregnant, 

and diabetics, are particularly susceptible to serious courses of this disease. 

Hotter temperatures associated with global warming will give the cocci a survival advantage over other 

microorganisms. More frequent and intense dust storms are the perfect delivery system for increasing this 

infectious disease among residents of the Western U.S. Dale Griffin, a USGS microbiologist, says that one gram of 

desert soil can contain as many as one billion microorganisms. Fungi can travel long distances because the spore 

“housing” acts like a cocoon, protecting the fungus from environmental stresses. More than 140 different 

organisms have been identified as "hitchhiking on to dust particulates.” These include SARS, meningitis, influenza 

and foot and mouth disease. http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/valley-fever/Valley-Fever-blowin2019-

on-a-hotter-wind. 

Climate change, through weather extremes, pollution, habitat fragmentation and destruction, and widespread 

extinction of species, is reducing the viability of world’s ecosystems. If allowed to continue, the collapse of these 

ecosystems is likely to be a major contributor to future pandemics of infectious disease. 

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-1 

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the contributions that the coal leasing program makes to U.S. Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG) are significant. 

Extraction of coal from federal lands should be ended as quickly as possible as a measurable contribution to 

reducing our national release of GHGs in an effort to avoid the most terrible and irreversible effects of global 

warming and climate disruption. 

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-10

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

No profit our government could make by selling the remaining coal on federal lands will match the costs we in 

the U.S. and in the world will suffer from climate change. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-137

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-11

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reforming the coal leasing program is insufficient.(8) Any amount of increased revenue to the federal government 

will be minuscule compared to the costs of adaptation and response to climate disruption.(9) This year (2016) 

the mainland U.S. has already suffered six (6) severe climate-weather events which each caused economic losses 

of $1 Billion or more(10) – thus a single severe event may cause losses that must be replaced that equals the 

current annual revenue of the Coal Leasing Program. This situation will only worsen. The best we can do is to 

stop the release of GHG as rapidly and effectively as possible in an effort to avoid the worst. 

The cost of droughts and flooding and resulting infrastructure damage and crop losses together with forest fire 

fighting costs(11) are greater than the annual revenue for the program even if adaptation to sea level rise is not 

included. If sea level rise is included(12) the Secretary could start by noting “More than $40 billion of National 

Park Service assets, including infrastructure and historic and cultural resources, are at high risk of damage from 

sea-level rise caused by climate change.”(13)

(8) For typical suggestions for financial managment reform of the coal leasing program 

see:http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/federal-coal-leasing-fair-market-value-and-a-fair-return-for-theamerican-t#Recommendations 

(9) Some of the great changes that are increasing occurring are discussed at: http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ For a 

much more detailed discussion see the 2014 National Climate Assessment. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/ 

(10) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/ and authorities there cited. 

(11) http://blogs.usda.gov/2015/08/05/the-cost-of-fighting-wildfires-is-sappingforest-service-budget/ 

(12) https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-level.html 

(13) https://www.doi.gov/pmb/ocean/highlights/sea-level-rise-cost and Adapting To Climate Change in Coastal 

Parks: Estimating the Exposure of Park Assets to 1 m of Sea-Level Rise Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—15/916 http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/coastal/coastal_assets_report.cfm

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-14

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 

Other Sections: 5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Burning coal causes smog, soot, acid rain, global warming, and toxic air emissions. Burning coal is the single 

largest source of air pollution.(16) 

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-17

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The threats to national defense and security from climate disruption were recognized as long as 2009 when the 

CIA set up a climate change unit. About 26 months ago the headline was “Climate Change Deemed Growing 

Security Threat by Military Researchers” because the rate of change was increasing.(20) It has since accelerated 

further. 

(20) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/climate-change-deemedgrowing-security-threat-by-militaryresearchers.html?_r=0 

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-20

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-138 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is time to move beyond “adaption” and take steps to end fossil carbon extraction in an effort to avoid the 

worse effects of increasing GHG releases from our species activities. 

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-9 

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Secretary must fully consider and act upon what science is telling us – that we have become a world of 

melting ice and rising sea levels. Look at the projections on sea level rise and the loss of large parts of New York 

City, Boston, Miami, New Orleans, Galveston, and our eastern barrier islands. Burning coal increases 

atmospheric energy and ocean temperatures which increases the strength of land falling hurricanes. 

We are suffering longer deeper droughts, massive forest fires, widespread flooding and deadly heat waves. 

Comment Number: 0002335_Webber_20160725_HealthActionNM-10

Organization1:Health Action New Mexico 

Commenter1:Barbara Webber 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While these localized threats are extremely important to address, we ask the agencies to consider coal’s global 

impacts: climate change. According to CHGE, coal generates 4/5 of utility sector greenhouse gases even though it 

comprises less than half of the nation’s electricity (4). Soot absorbs solar radiation, further warming the 

atmosphere. Coal mines themselves emit methane (5). 

(4) http://www.chgeharvard.org/resource/explore-true-costs-coal 

(5) http://www.chgeharvard.org/sites/default/files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf 

Comment Number: 0002335_Webber_20160725_HealthActionNM-9 

Organization1:Health Action New Mexico 

Commenter1:Barbara Webber 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Because of climate change, we are already seeing impacts to the environment and public health. We are 

witnessing stronger hurricanes and more frequent floods (6). After heavy rain events and intense storms there 

are increases in asthma and clusters of illnesses (7). Heat waves affect vulnerable populations such as the elderly. 

Droughts contribute to food insecurity. These wide-ranging climate impacts must be considered as the agency 

evaluates the federal coal program. Finally, the government should not incentivize the use of coal through 

subsidies and loopholes. In 2007, the level of federal government subsidies for electricity and mining activities was 

estimated by the Environmental Law Institute to be $5.37 billion or 0.27¢/kWh (8). 

(6) http://www.chgeharvard.org/resource/explore-true-costs-coal 

(7) http://www.chgeharvard.org/sites/default/files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf 

(8) http://www.chgeharvard.org/sites/default/files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf 

This not only shortchanges taxpayers billions of dollars in lost revenues, but actually incentivizes damages to 

public health, costing society many billions of dollars. 

Comment Number: 0002436-4 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Sharon St Joan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-139

Scoping Report 

Dead trees do not emit life--giving oxygen; instead, as they decay, they emit carbon dioxide. This pollution when 

added to the sum total of the pollution given off by the new coal mining itself is a significant addition to green 

house gases 

Comment Number: 0002442_Wolf_20160727_CenterBioDiversoty-2 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Shay Wolf 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to a large body of scientific research, holding temperature rise to “well below 2°C” requires that the 

vast majority of global and US fossil fuels stay in the ground. (4) Effectively, this means that fossil fuel emissions 

must be phased out globally within the next few decades. (5) The global carbon budget — the remaining amount 

of carbon that can be released to the atmosphere before we lose any reasonable chance of holding global 

temperature increase well below 2°C — is extremely limited and is rapidly being consumed by continued fossil 

fuel use. (6) The United States alone has enough recoverable fossil fuels, split about evenly between federal and 

nonfederal resources, that if extracted and burned, would exceed the global carbon budget for a 1.5°C limit, and 

would consume nearly the entire global budget for a 2°C limit. (7) The unleased federal coal resource alone is 

estimated at 212 GtCO2e, or almost two-thirds of the remaining global carbon budget for a reasonable 

probability of limiting warming to 1.5oC. (8) 

Comment Number: 0002442_Wolf_20160727_CenterBioDiversoty-3 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Shay Wolf 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the United States, coal is the largest and most carbon dioxide-intensive conventional fossil fuel resource, (9) 

with federal coal comprising approximately 41% of total US coal production. (10) Coal mining contributes 

substantial additional methane emissions. (11) Mitigation pathways for holding temperature rise well below 2°C 

mandate a rapid phase-out of coal emissions. (12) For example, a recent study estimates that 95% of US coal 

reserves, including both federal and nonfederal coal, must remain unburned to preserve a reasonable probability 

of remaining below 2°C. (13) Coal mining, transport, combustion, disposal, and cleanup also have significant 

external costs on public health and the environment. (14) 

Comment Number: 0002445_Madson_20160727-1 

Organization1:Mountain Pact 

Commenter1:Diana Madson 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As western mountain communities, we represent nearly 200,000 permanent residents and millions of annual 

visitors. Coal extraction and use as a fuel source poses a number of costs currently unaccounted for in federal 

coal program. Onsite, these costs include air pollution from exploration, development, and transportation to and 

from the mine site; fugitive methane emissions; habitat disruption; noise pollution; and water contamination. 

From the perspective of our mountain communities, the coal’s contribution to climate changes poses the greatest 

cost. Economic, public health, and environmental damages from catastrophic wildfire, floods and reduced 

snowpack are some of the threats we face. 

Failing to account for coal’s contribution to these costs in federal coal leases shifts them onto taxpayers -- and in 

our case, at a time when our towns are shouldering the financial burden of climate impacts and proactive 

adaptation. In the face of climate change, it is time to modernize the federal coal program to accurately account 

for its costs to communities, taxpayers and the environment while supporting a transition to a more sustainable 

and resilient economy. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-140 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002448_FoleyHein_20160727-5 

Organization1:Institute for Policy Integrity 

Commenter1:Jayni Foley Hein 

Other Sections: 4.6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Substitution Analysis and Carbon Budgeting 

The third panel centered on substitution analysis and carbon budgeting. 

Nathaniel Shoaff (Staff Attorney, Sierra Club) discussed BLM’s past substitution analysis and recommendations for 

approaching substitution in the programmatic review. Shoaff explained that while there is an idea that coal is a 

global commodity and that consumers will pay to have coal come out of one spot if it does not come out of 

another; this assumption of “perfect substitution” should be refuted. The Sierra Club takes the position that one 

cannot make a “reasoned choice among alternatives,” as required by the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), until the greenhouse gas emission differences are known. This cannot be done without proper 

substitution analysis. The Sierra Club hopes that through the PEIS, there will be a determination as to whether a 

federal coal leasing program is consistent with the President’s climate objectives and the climate agreements 

(China, Paris, etc.) that we have already made. All of the emissions from coal production, transportation, and 

combustion should be quantified in the PEIS; this is a simple calculation. It is harder to analyze how certain 

policies change the energy market; however, this can and should be done using available tools and models, and is 

called for in the Secretarial Order itself. The agency should explain its historical views on substitution and why it 

is changing them, and make its review as transparent and replicable as possible. Jason Schwartz (Legal Director, 

Institute for Policy Integrity) discussed how other federal agencies have conducted substitution analysis and 

provided recommendations for BLM. He suggested that the first place BLM could look was within Interior itself, 

as its offshore leasing program has an extensive 35 years’ worth of experience doing energy substitution analyses. 

Schwartz explained that before 1982, BLM actually prepared Interior’s EIS for offshore leasing, and that today 

BOEM does much more qualitative and quantitive substitution analysis than BLM does. BLM can learn from its 

sister agencies’—including BOEM, FERC, the Surface Transportation Board, the U.S. State Department, and 

EPA—experiences with substitution analyses and should do so by using an economic model that has been used 

and adopted by other agencies. BOEM’s Market Sim, the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s NEMS, and ICF 

International’s IPM are all available models that have different benefits and drawbacks. Policy Integrity ecommends 

that environmental impact statements quantify and monetize the full upstream and downstream emission 

consequences of proposed leasing actions and energy substitute scenarios. This approach is consistent with 

White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance and is necessary to fulfill NEPA’s goals of 

providing policymakers and the public with information in a way that allows full comparison between alternatives. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-12

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 17 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Likewise, in western Montana and the northwestern United States, “warmer and drier conditions have helped 

increase the number and extent of wildfires .... Higher temperatures and drought stress [] contribut[e] to 

outbreaks of mountain pine beetles that are increasing pine mortality.” (119) Climate change also threatens 

western fisheries by “increas[ing] disease and/or mortality in several iconic salmon species,” (120) as well as 

“lead[ing] to increasing fragmentation of remaining habitats and accelerated decline” of Montana’s native Bull 

trout. (121) To reduce other stressors, fishing restrictions during periods of high water temperatures are being 

put in place for trout fisheries like the Bitterroot, Blackfoot, and Clark Fork Rivers due to warm water 

conditions. The average number of days each year that are thermally stressful for trout has nearly tripled in 

Montana’s Madison River since the 1980s. (122) Closures of these popular fishing locations during summer 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-141

Scoping Report 

vacations can have major economic implications. The fishing opportunities in Yellowstone National Park, where 

there have also been closures, are valued at between $67.5 and $385 million annually. (123) 

(119) U.S. National Climate Assessment, supra, at 495. 

(120) Id. at 491. 

(121) Bruce E. Reiman et al., Anticipated Climate Warming Effects on Bull Trout Habitats and Populations Across 

the Interior Columbia River Basin, 136 TRANSACTIONS AM. FISHERIES SOC’Y 1552 , 1552 (2007).

(122) NWF, Wildlife in Hot Water, at 8. 

(123) Id. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-13

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Additionally, a report commissioned by the Wilderness Society in 2012, updated in 2014, that details the carbon 

emissions from fossil fuel extraction on federal lands, and how these emissions compare to the ability of federal 

lands to absorb carbon. The report found that CO2 emissions in 2012 generated from energy development on 

public lands could make up almost 21% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions – equal to the annual emissions from 

more than 280 million cars. (126) 

(126) Stratus Consulting, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fossil Energy Extracted from Federal Lands and 

Waters: AN Update (Prepared for: The Wilderness Society, Washington D.C. 2014) at 11, available at. 

http://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/Stratus-Report.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-14

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 8.7 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A recent study has concluded that introduction of higher royalty rates would reduce carbon dioxide emissions of 

coal even with demand side policies, like the Clean Power Plan, in place. (127) This would be in part due to the 

induction of substitution of lower carbon emitting fuel and energy sources for coal. (128) The study finds 

significant reductions in CO2 emissions with the imposition of royalty rates that internalized carbon pollution 

costs by reflecting the social cost of carbon in the royalty rate. (129) While scenarios vary depending on demand 

side policy, with strong CPP implementation a carbon adder to royalty rates as low as 20% of the SCC could 

further lower carbon emissions by between 59 and 25 million metric tons in 2020 and by 39 and 10 million 

metric tons in 2030 depending on CPP implementation schemes. (130) The reason for the larger near term 

increase in emissions reductions is that the increased costs of coal will speed near term investment in lower 

carbon fuel sources including renewables. (131) The effects of a royalty rate increase without the CPP is also 

quite substantial. If the CPP is not implemented, a royalty rate at or equal to 100% of the SCC would result in 

carbon emission reduction equal to 70% of those that would have been achieved by the CPP as currently 

designed. (132) 

(127) Spencer Reed and James H. Stock, Federal Coal Leasing Reform Options: Effects on CO2 Emissions and 

Energy Markets, Executive Summary (Feb 2016) at 1, available at 

http://www.vulcan.com/MediaLibraries/Vulcan/Documents/FedCoalLeaseModelResults_ExecutiveSummary_Vulca

n_FINAL_16Feb2016.pdf 

(128) Id. 

(129) Id. at 4. 

(130) Id. at 4 and 6. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-142 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

(131) Id. at 6. 

(132) Id. at 8. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-22

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal program must be consistent with federal carbon reduction policy and goals, like the Administration’s 

Climate Action Plan, and properly internalize the costs of carbon pollution to industry. The Obama 

Administrations has put forth a bold climate initiative aimed to aggressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 

levels that scientists tell us we must by aiming for carbon pollution reductions of between 26-28% by 2025. In 

December of last year, the U.S. made international commitments to achieving worldwide reductions that will 

limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius with an aspirational goal of not exceeding warming of 1.5. degrees 

Celsius. Two degrees Celsius is the level of warming scientists have told policy makers is the amount of warming 

the earth can likely occur without triggering the most calamitous impacts of climate change. 1.5 degrees is 

considered a safer and more prudent level, especially for lower lying areas, but harder to achieve. The federal 

coal program must be reformed so as to in sync with these goals. The Federal coal program can no longer be 

divorced from the nation’s climate policy. To align the federal coal leasing program with climate goals, BLM and 

DOI should: 

o Properly account for the carbon pollution impacts from coal mining by looking at the cradle to grave emissions 

from coal. o Manage the federal coal program to strategically reduce the production of coal to help achieve 

reduction of associated greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 through five-year leasing 

plans. 

o Develop quarterly estimates of all greenhouse gas emissions associated with the extraction, transport, and 

consumption of federal coal to serve as basis for future decisions regarding the federal coal program and report 

the carbon emissions and impacts for all agency leasing decisions. 

o Fully analyze the true life-cycle impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from federal coal leasing and development. 

Protocols should be established to consider upstream and downstream impacts for methane and carbon including 

monetizing the impacts using the EPA’s social cost of methane and the Interagency Working Group’s social cost 

of carbon methodologies. 

o Include stipulations in every lease, permit and plan of operations to require mines to capture or offset methane 

releases. o Ending substitution analyses that do not add up. 

o Once the costs of carbon pollution from coal mining have been assessed, incorporate these costs into coal 

royalty rates so as to internalize the carbon pollution costs to the lessee companies. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-29

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Carbon pollution from coal combustion and other sources further presents profound impacts to wildlife. We are 

already experiencing record-breaking and destructive storms and floods; unprecedented severe droughts; earlier, 

more frequent and more intense wild fires; decreased snow pack; ocean acidification; and other troubling 

impacts. (18) This warming is projected to get more intense. (19) 

(18) U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2014 National Climate Assessment (2014), available at 

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/observed-change. 

(19)Id. 

With a warming world comes shifting habitats and changes in suitable wildlife ranges. As a result, many wildlife 

species are finding or will find themselves without a home. Plant and animal species are moving their entire ranges 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-143

Scoping Report 

in search of colder locales, in many cases two-to three times faster than scientists anticipated. (20) If carbon 

pollution continues at the current rate, scientists predict that higher temperatures will lead to extinctions of 50% 

of species around the globe. (21) 

(20) National Wildlife Federation, Wildlife in a Warming World (Jan. 2013), available at 

www.nwf.org/climatecrisis. 

(21)Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of 

Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (2007), Geneva, Switzerland, available 

at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-42

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is virtually undisputed that carbon pollution from the extraction, use and combustion of fossil fuels is causing 

warming global temperatures leading to accelerating climate change. In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) released its Fifth Assessment Report, stating that “[w]arming of the climate system is 

unequivocal,” and that “[h]uman influence on the climate system is clear.” (105) “[M]ore than half of the 

observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic 

increase in [greenhouse gas (“GHG”)] concentrations.” (106) Furthermore, between 1970 and 2010, “CO2 

emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 78% to the total GHG emission 

increase.” (107) As detailed below, the potential impacts from climate change are immense and threaten wildlife 

and communities globally. Of fossil fuels, coal accounts for the greatest amount of carbon pollution from its 

extraction and use. In the United States, a significant amount of those coal emissions can be traced to federally 

leased coal. 

(105) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (IPCC Report) 

(Nov.2014) at 2, 4, available at http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/ipcc/resources/pdf/IPCC_SynthesisReport.pdf. 

(106) Id. at 48. 

(107) Id. at 4. 

The costs of these emissions are immense: increased droughts, floods, forest fires, coastal erosion, threats to 

water supplies and many other impacts. Currently, these costs are not being accounted for in leasing decisions or 

being borne by the coal companies responsible for them. 

The single greatest cause of increasing global temperatures is emissions resulting from the combustion of fossil 

fuels such as coal. (108) Coal is one of the dirtiest fossil fuels in terms of contributing to the GHGs that are 

causing climate change. Scientists estimate that in order for worldwide emissions to stay below a level that will 

push the earth above 2 degrees Celsius of warming – a threshold world leaders have agreed is too dangerous to 

cross – 95% of U.S. coal reserves will have to remain undeveloped. (109) In Paris, world leaders agreed to aspire 

to keep warming below a safer target of 1.5 degrees Celsius. To achieve these needed reductions, the President 

has made clear that he intends to lower U.S. emissions by up to 28% by 2025. (110) On August 3, 2015, the 

Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule – the Clean Power Plan – intended to reduce the emissions of 

GHGs from the power sector, primarily by demanding reductions in coal consumption. (111) While these rules 

are being challenged in court, it is almost certain federal policies will continue to move our power sector away 

from coal. 

(108) Id. at 39. 

(109) Christophe McGlade and Paul Ekins, The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting 

globalwarming to 2°C, NATURE, Vol 517 (Jan. 8, 2015) at 189. 

(110) White House, FACT SHEET: U.S. Reports its 2025 Emissions Target to the UNFCCC, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/31/fact-sheet-us-reports-its-2025-emissions-target-unfccc. 

(111) 80 F.R. 64661(Oct. 23, 2015). 

Climate change poses a direct threat to wildlife and communities. With a warming world comes habitat shifts, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-144 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

and many wildlife species are finding themselves without a home and many species could go extinct. The latest 

National Climate Assessment report shows that wildlife and communities are already feeling the impacts of 

climate with rising seas, heavier precipitation, changes in growing seasons, fewer cold snaps, decreased snow 

pack, increased incidence of pests, devastating wildfires and droughts, and other significant impacts. (112) Plant 

and animal species are shifting their entire ranges in search of colder locales, in many cases two-to-three times 

faster than scientists anticipated. (113) Due to irreversible changes, fish like trout are already disappearing from 

streams, big game populations such as moose are being pushed out of their historic range, and duck and wetland 

habitats are vanishing. (114) 

(112) IPCC Report, Observed Change, http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/observedchange 

(113) NWF, Wildlife in a Warming World, supra. 

(114) Lisa A. Eby, Olga Helmy, Lisa M. Holsinger and Michael K. Young, Evidence of Climate-Induced Range 

Contractions in Bull Trout Salvenius confluentus in a Rocky Mountain Watershed, U.S.A., PLOS: ONE (June 

2014), available at http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0098812. 

See Figure 1: Potential GHG Emissions from U.S. Federal Fossil Fuels (115) 

(115) Chart from Ecoshift Consulting et al., The Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Federal Fossil 

Fuels (August 2015) at Fig. 1, available at http://www.ecoshiftconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/PotentialGreenhouse Gas-Emissions-U-S-Federal-Fossil-Fuels.pdf 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-43

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate change is also affecting many areas directly impacted by federally leased coal mining. According to the 

U.S. National Climate Assessment, climate change impacts the Great Plains region, including the Powder River 

Basin area, by causing “more frequent and more intense droughts, severe rainfall events, and heat waves.” (116) 

As acknowledged by a recent Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed and now rejected Tongue 

River Railroad, Montana has already “experienced a warming trend in the past five decades, and annual average 

maximum temperatures have increased by 1.4°F.” (117) This trend is expected to continue: 

Across Montana, hot summer temperatures (those at the 90th percentile) could rise by 4.8 to 5.0°F in moderate 

and high GHG concentration scenarios from 2025 to 2050, relative to the 1950 to 2005 period. Cold winter 

temperatures (those at the 10th percentile) are projected to increase by 3.8 to 4.5°F in moderate and high GHG 

concentration scenarios over 2025 to 2050, relative to the 1950 to 2005 period. (118) 

(116) U.S. National Climate Assessment, Climate Change Impacts in the United States, (May 2014) at 442, 

available at, 

http://s3.amazonaws.com/nca2014/high/NCA3_Climate_Change_Impacts_in_the_United%20States_HighRes.pdf?

d ownload=1. 

(117) Surface Transportation Board, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (April 2015) at 5.3-5, available 

at 

http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/fc695db5bc7ebe2c852572b80040c45f/e7de39d1f6fd4a9a85257e

2a0049104d?OpenDocument. 

(118) Id. (citation omitted). 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-44

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-145

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Energy development on public lands, particularly the coal program, is responsible for as much as 21% of all 

America’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 originated from coal, oil and gas extracted from public lands. (124) 

As the Secretary’s order notes, the federal coal program accounts for a substantial share of those emissions –

10% of total US greenhouse gas emissions according to the order. 

(124) Ecoshift Consulting et al., The Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Federal Fossil Fuels (August 

2015) at 7, available at http://www.ecoshiftconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/Potential-Greenhouse-Gas 

Emissions-U-S-Federal-Fossil-Fuels.pdf, citing Stratus Consulting, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fossil Energy 

Extracted from Federal Lands and Waters (2014), available at 

http://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/FINAL%20STRATUS%20REPORT.pdf. 

BLM has only recently begun to disclose the amount of carbon pollution associated with its coal leasing decisions 

and take steps toward analyzing the consequences of those emissions. It is important for the American people to 

have an understanding of how their resources are contributing to climate change and how the managers of those 

resources, the federal government, are working to reduce the impact on the climate over time. 

Comment Number: 0002461_breen_20160728-3 

Organization1:The WIlderness Society 

Commenter1:Katie Breen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal reform is vital to combating climate change. Government-owned coal harvested in one region of the U.S., 

the Powder River Basin, accounts for 10% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and 24% of greenhouse gas 

emissions is from coal. That's a lot! The impacts of climate change will be one of the greatest challenges facing 

our youth, and accounting for carbon emissions would be a first step in mitigating coal's harmful effects. 

Comment Number: 0002463_Keagle_20160728-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Joshua Keagle 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The vast majority of biologists and climatologists agree that climate change is manmade, and the continue burning 

of coal is a titanic polluter. 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-5 

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Further, one of the issues to address in the proposed Federal coal program review is climate impacts of Federal 

coal production, transportation, and combustion; how to mitigate, account for, and address these impacts 

through the coal program; and ensure that there is no unnecessary and undue degradation of public lands from 

these impacts. 81 Fed. Reg. at 17725. The BLM has no authority over air quality or the emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the governing agency authorized to establish 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants. 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. The states are also provided with authority over air quality if 

they have developed approved state implementation plans (SIP). 42 U.S.C. §7410. The State of Wyoming’s 

regional haze SIP was partially approved by the EPA in 2014, with the EPA promulgating a Federal plan to fill in 

any missing gaps. 79 Fed. Reg. 5032 (Jan. 30, 2014). The recently adopted Clean Power Plan, 80 Fed. Reg. 64662 

(Oct. 23, 2015), also addresses concerns about climate change and reducing carbon pollution from power plants. 

The EPA and the State of Wyoming have provided sufficient protection over air quality and any further 

restrictions by BLM is unwarranted and without authority. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-146 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-21

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Direct Impacts Associated With Climate Change 

Finally, the PEIS must examine the impacts from climate change to the ecosystems in which federal coal leasing 

occurs. Secretarial Order No. 3226 recognizes BLM’s responsibility to identify changes that may result from 

climate change and directs bureaus to “consider and analyze potential climate change impacts” in “long range 

planning” and/or when making “major decisions affecting DOI resources.” (27)

(27) This order was replaced by Secretarial Order No. 3289, Amendment No. 1, Feb. 22, 2010. However, the 

text of the relevant portion is unchanged and the new order specifically recognizes that that portion of Order 

No. 3226 remains in effect. 

From 2003 to 2007, the 11 western states warmed 70% more than the rest of the world as a whole. Nowhere is 

this impact felt more than in water supplies — the warming has led to decreases in snowpack, reduced snowfall, 

shifts in precipitation from snow to rain, earlier snowmelt, increased peak spring flows, and decreased summer 

flows. These dynamics are also making the West increasingly vulnerable to future wildfires, which are weighing 

more and more on federal, state and local budgets in mountain communities and towns across the West. For 

example, 

• Climate models based on a 2.4C warming show a 17% reduction in runoff in the Colorado River Basin, which 

leads to a 40% reduction in basin storage. 

• The Sierra Nevada Range in California may experience a 99% loss of its April 1st baseline snowpack, and other 

western mountain ranges will suffer reduced late-season snowpacks by the end of the century. 

See Paying The Costs of Climate Change: How Closing Coal Loopholes Can Supply Western Communities With 

Much-Needed Revenue To Fight Wildfires, Prepare For Droughts, and Adapt To A Changing Climate (Mountain 

Pact 2015) at 2. 

Climate change can increase the vulnerability of resources and ecosystems, making them more susceptible to 

environmental damage. For example, a proposed coal lease might require water from a stream that has 

diminishing quantities of available water because of decreased snow pack in the mountains. The PEIS should 

evaluate these impacts and provide direction for their consideration in site-specific EISs. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-33

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

CEQ has also issued draft Guidance on how agencies should incorporate the impacts of GHG and climate change 

into their EIS analyses, as well as Guidance on cumulative impact analyses. See CEQ Revised Draft Guidance on 

the Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews (Dec. 

2014) (Climate Change Guidance); CEQ Guidance on Cumulative Impacts (1997) (Cumulative Impacts Guidance). 

As the Climate Change Guidance explains, although “[c]limate change is a particularly complex challenge given its 

global nature and inherent interrelationships among its sources, causation, mechanisms of action, and impacts,” it 

is a “fundamental environmental issue, and the relation of Federal actions to it falls squarely within NEPA’s focus. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-147

Scoping Report 

Id. at 2 (emphasis added). As the Guidance explains, “analyzing the proposed action’s climate impacts and the 

effects of climate change relevant to the proposed action’s environmental outcomes can provide useful 

information to decisionmakers and the public and should be very similar to considering the impacts of other 

environmental stressors under NEPA.” Id. This is consistent with CEQ’s Cumulative Impacts Guidance, which 

calls on agencies to consider impacts on the “global atmosphere.” Cumulative Impacts Guidance at 15; see also id. 

at 13 (describing “release of greenhouse gases” as a cumulative effect to be considered in NEPA analyses). 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-34

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

[M]any agency NEPA analyses to date have concluded that GHG emissions from an individual agency action will 

have small, if any, potential climate change effects. Government action occurs incrementally, program-by-program 

and step-by-step, and climate impacts are not attributable to any single action, but are exacerbated by a series of 

smaller decisions, including decisions made by the government. Therefore, the statement that emissions from a 

government action or approval represent only a small fraction of global emissions is more a statement about the 

nature of the climate change challenge, and is not an appropriate basis for deciding whether to consider climate 

impacts under NEPA. Moreover, these comparisons are not an appropriate method for characterizing the 

potential impacts associated with a proposed action and its alternatives and mitigations. This approach does not 

reveal anything beyond the nature of the climate change challenge itself: the fact that diverse individual sources of 

emissions each make relatively small additions to global atmospheric GHG concentrations that collectively have 

huge impact. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-37

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As much as 21% of all of America’s GHG emissions in 2012 originated from coal, oil and gas extracted from 

public lands. And the federal coal program accounts for the lion’s share of those emissions – over 57% of 

emissions from federal fossil fuel production, or 12% of total U.S. GHG emissions. It has been estimated that if all 

available fossil fuels from public lands were extracted and used, the lifecycle GHG emissions would be almost 500 

gigatons (Gt) of CO2. (8) 

(8) See Dustin Mulvaney et al., Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth, The Potential 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions of U.S. Federal Fossil Fuels (Aug. 2015). 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-39

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As stated in the Scoping Notice, the PEIS will “examine how best to measure and assess the climate impacts of 

continued Federal coal production, transportation, and combustion,” as well as “whether and how to mitigate, 

account for, or otherwise address those impacts through the structure and management of the coal program.” 81 

Fed. Reg. 17,725. Among the approaches BLM is already considering to address climate change goals are: 

• changing the methodology used to determine which areas and how much coal is available for leasing, such as:

- establishing a coal leasing budget tied to U.S. GHG emission reduction goals 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-148 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

- creating a new regional lease planning process to make affirmative leasing decisions 

- developing a land-scape level approach to identify areas for leasing; 

• raising royalty rates with an “adder” to incorporate GHG externalities from all stages of the coal process, 

including the social cost of carbon and methane; and 

• requiring mitigation for climate and environmental harms from coal production. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-4 

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

i. Climate Change Impacts 

As the Interior Department recognizes in the Secretarial Order and Scoping Notice, federally leased coal’s 

contribution to anthropogenic climate change is one of the central issues that must be addressed in the PEIS. 

Federal coal fuels power plants across the country, and increasingly around the world, and coal-fired power 

plants are a leading emitter of carbon dioxide. Coal mining also accounts for approximately 15% of methane 

emissions – which at present operators are not required to address. (7) These Greenhouse Gas (GHG) 

emissions contribute to climate change, the single biggest threat facing our world and nation today. 

(7) In 2014, BLM issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to assess ways its 

regulations could be amended to allow the capture, use, sale, or destruction of waste mine methane from Federal 

coal leases. 79 Fed. Reg. 23,923 (Apr. 29, 2014). While this rulemaking was abandoned, the Secretary’s 

announcement in January 2016 committed to issuing guidance that would facilitate the capture of waste mine 

methane. We encourage BLM to complete this necessary and appropriate effort to issue guidance outside the 

PEIS process, but to be sure, emissions of waste mine methane must still be included within the scope of issues to 

be analyzed in the PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002471_Reed_20160728-2 

Organization1:High Country Conservation Advocates 

Commenter1:Matt Reed 

Other Sections: 4.5 7.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal Mining and Climate Change are Impacting Gunnison County’s Public Lands Gunnison County is home to the 

Gunnison National Forest, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, and biologically diverse BLM-managed 

lands. Ranging in elevation from less than 6,000 feet to mountains over 14,000 feet, it is a rich and varied 

landscape. Yet both subtle and obvious impacts from climate change are impacting millions of acres of local public 

lands and straining federal budgets. Warmer winters and hotter summers, the proliferation of the spruce beetle 

and subsequent die-off of vast swaths of forest, Sudden Aspen Decline, larger and more intense wildfires, and 

reduced snowpack are just some of the climate change impacts we’re seeing on our public lands. In 2005, 

Colorado’s greenhouse emissions were 35 percent higher than they were in 1990. They are projected to grow 

81 percent above the 1990 levels by 2020.7 Current and proposed federal coal leasing and development 

contributes to Colorado’s greenhouse gas emissions and directly impacts public lands and communities.

(7) U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (February 2016), at 228. 

On June 20, President Obama spoke at Yosemite National Park, declaring that climate change is “the biggest 

challenge we’re going to face in protecting this place and places like it.”8 He could just have easily been discussing 

public lands in western Colorado. President Obama condemned those who pay “lip service” to protecting 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-149

Scoping Report 

America’s natural areas while making climate change worse:

(8) The White House, Remarks by the President at Sentinel Bridge, Yosemite National Park, Office of the Press 

Secretary (June 20, 2016), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/20/remarkspresidentsentinel-bridge (last viewed July 28, 2016). 

-Make no mistake, climate change is no longer just a threat, it’s already a reality. I was talking to some of the 

rangers here -- here in Yosemite, meadows are drying out. Bird ranges are shifting farther northward. Alpine 

mammals like pikas are being forced farther upslope to escape higher temperatures. Yosemite’s largest glacier, 

once a mile wide, is now almost gone. We’re also seeing longer, more expensive, more dangerous wildfire 

seasons -- and fires are raging across the West right now. I was just in New Mexico yesterday, which is dealing 

with a big wildfire, just like folks here in California and four other states -- all while it’s still really early in the 

season.9 

(9) Id. 

Comment Number: 0002471_Reed_20160728-6 

Organization1:High Country Conservation Advocates 

Commenter1:Matt Reed 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Subsidizing coal development on public lands - lands that belong to all Americans - accelerates climate change, 

land and water pollution, and public health impacts. 

Comment Number: 0002471_Reed_20160728-9 

Organization1:High Country Conservation Advocates 

Commenter1:Matt Reed 

Other Sections: 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the western United States, higher temperatures and lower precipitation are expected to lead to drought 

conditions that will exacerbate forest stressors, especially fire and insect disturbance. The majority of land in 

Gunnison County is managed by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the Gunnison National Forest, which is 

administered jointly with the Grand Mesa and Uncompahgre National Forests. Over the course of only a decade 

on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forests, approximately 223,000 acres of 

spruce forest have been affected by spruce beetle and 229,000 acres of aspen by Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD).13 

These disturbances are occurring because of and in the context of a changing climate. Higher summer 

temperatures can foster spruce beetle outbreaks by allowing beetles to reproduce every year rather than every 

two years. Anticipated more frequent drought conditions make stands more vulnerable to insect and disease. 

And wildfire behavior in recently dead spruce-fir and areas with heavy fuel loadings can create more 

unpredictable fire behavior that is more hazardous to manage.14 

(13) Supra note 7, at 2. 

(14) Id. at 6. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-3 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Effects on air quality: “The evidence concerning adverse air quality impacts provides strong and clear support for 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-150 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

an endangerment finding. Increases in ambient ozone are expected to occur over broad areas of the country, and 

they are expected to increase serious adverse health effects in large population areas that are and may continue 

to be in nonattainment. The evaluation of the potential risks associated with increases in ozone in attainment 

areas also supports such a finding.”19

(19) Final Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,497 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-36

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal already under lease is already exceeds both the quantity that can be burned while maintaining even a 

50% change of limiting warming to 2°C, and the anticipated demand for Powder River Basin coal under such a 

scenario. Facing the realities of physics and international climate commitments requires the BLM to recognize 

that new federal coal leasing is inconsistent with even the least ambitious climate mitigation targets. The sooner 

the agency acknowledges this reality, the sooner BLM, other agencies, and coal-producing communities can 

engage with the necessity of an orderly end to the federal coal program, and a just and sustainable transition for 

the miners and communities whose labor fueled the twentieth century. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-4 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Effects on health from increased temperatures: “The impact on mortality and morbidity associated with increases 

in average temperatures, which increase the likelihood of heat waves, also provides support for a public health 

endangerment finding.”20

(20) Final Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,497 

Increased chance of extreme weather events: “The evidence concerning how human induced climate change may 

alter extreme weather events also clearly supports a finding of endangerment, given the serious adverse impacts 

that can result from such events and the increase in risk, even if small, of the occurrence and intensity of events 

such as hurricanes and floods. Additionally, public health is expected to be adversely affected by an increase in the 

severity of coastal storm events due to rising sea levels.”21

(21) Final Endangerment Finding at 66,497-98.

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-41

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Numerous authoritative scientific assessments have established that climate change is causing grave harms to 

human society and natural systems, and these threats are becoming increasingly dangerous. The 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its 2014 Fifth Assessment Report, stated that: “[w]arming of the 

climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over 

decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea 

level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased” and that “[r]ecent climate changes 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-151

Scoping Report 

have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”12

(12) IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report at 2. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-44

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to Public Lands: Climate change is causing and will continue to cause specific impacts to public lands and 

resources. Although public lands provide a variety of public benefits, one recent Forest Service attempt at 

quantification estimates the public land ecosystem services at risk from climate change at between $14.5 and 

$36.1 billion annually.27 In addition to the general loss of public land resources, irreplaceable species and 

aesthetic and recreational treasures are at risk of permanent destruction. High temperatures are causing loss of 

glaciers in Glacier National Park; the Park’s glaciers are expected to disappear entirely by 2030, with ensuing 

warming of stream temperatures and adverse effects to aquatic ecosystems.28 With effects of warming more 

pronounced at higher latitudes, tundra ecosystems on Alaska public lands face serious declines, with potentially 

serious additional climate feedbacks from melting permafrost.29 In Florida, the Everglades face severe ecosystem 

disruption from already-occurring saltwater incursion.30 Sea level rise will further damage freshwater ecosystems 

and the endangered species that rely on them. 

(27) Esposito, Valerie et al., Climate Change and Ecosystem Services: The Contribution and Impacts on Federal 

Public 

Lands in the United States, USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-64 at 155-164 (2011). 

(28) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change and Public Lands: National Parks at Risk (1999). 

(29) See National Climate Assessment at 48; MacDougall, A. H., et al., Significant contribution to climate warming 

from the permafrost carbon feedback, 5 Nature Geoscience 719-721 (2012), doi:10.1038/ngeo1573. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-45

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to Biodiversity and Ecosystems: Across the United States ecosystems and biodiversity, including those on 

public lands, are directly under siege from climate change—leading to the loss of iconic species and landscapes, 

negative effects on food chains, disrupted migrations, and the degradation of whole ecosystems.31 Specifically, 

scientific evidence shows that climate change is already causing changes in distribution, phenology, physiology, 

genetics, species interactions, ecosystem services, demographic rates, and population viability: many animals and 

plants are moving poleward and upward in elevation, shifting their timing of breeding and migration, and 

experiencing population declines and extirpations.32 Because climate change is occurring at an unprecedented 

pace with multiple synergistic impacts, climate change is predicted to result in catastrophic species losses during 

this century. For example, the IPCC concluded that 20% to 30% of plant and animal species will face an increased 

risk of extinction if global average temperature rise exceeds 1.5°C to 2.5°C relative to 1980-1999, with an 

increased risk of extinction for up to 70% of species worldwide if global average temperature exceeds 3.5°C 

relative to 1980-1999.33 

As greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting harms from climate change grow, the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service are increasingly recognizing climate change as a significant threat to listed 

species. The Services determined that climate change is a threat (and a listing factor) in the listing rules for the 

vast majority of species listed as threatened and endangered in recent years. Our analysis of listing rules found 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-152 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

that climate change was determined to be a threat for 96% and 91% of all species listed in 2012 and 2013, 

respectively. 

In recent years, several species have been listed primarily because of climate change threats resulting from 

continued greenhouse gas emissions, including the polar bear in 2008, the bearded seal and ringed seal in 2012, 

and 20 coral species in 2014. The best-available science has concluded that the survival and recovery of these 

climate-vulnerable species depends on a return to lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations than the present level 

of 400 ppm. As such, the massive greenhouse gas emissions stemming from the federal coal program are clearly 

not consistent with the survival and recovery of these species. 

from the permafrost carbon feedback, 5 Nature Geoscience 719-721 (2012), doi:10.1038/ngeo1573. 

(30) See National Climate Assessment at 592; Foti, R., Met al., Signs of critical transition in the Everglades 

wetlands 

in response to climate and anthropogenic changes, 110 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 6296- 

6300, (2013), doi:10.1073/pnas.1302558110. 

(31) National Climate Assessment at 13. 

(32) See Parmesan, C. and G. Yohe, A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural 

systems, 

421 Nature 37 (2003); Root, T. et al., Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants, 421 Nature 57 

(2003); Chen, I. et al., Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming, 333 Science 

1024 (2011). 

(33) IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 48 [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K 

and Reisinger, A.(eds.)] (2007). Other studies have predicted similarly severe losses: 15%-37% of the world’s 

plants and animals committed to extinction by 2050 under a mid-level emissions scenario, see Thomas et al., 

Extinction risk from climate change, 427 Nature 145 (2004)); the potential extinction of 10% to 14% of species by 

2100 if climate change continues unabated, see Maclean, I. M. D. and R. J. Wilson, Recent ecological responses to 

climate change support predictions of high extinction risk, 108 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 12337-12342 (2011); and the 

loss of more than half of the present climatic range for 58% of plants and 35% of animals by the 2080s under the 

current emissions pathway, in a sample of 48,786 species, see Warren, R. J. et al., Increasing Impacts of Climate 

Change Upon Ecosystems with Increasing Global Mean Temperature Rise, 106 Climatic Change 141 (2011). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-46

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Corals: For example, NMFS’ 2015 Final Recovery Plan for Elkhorn and Staghorn Coral includes a recovery 

criterion with specific targets for ocean temperature and ocean acidification conditions that must be achieved for 

these corals to survive and recover. As noted in the Final Recovery Plan, meeting this criterion is consistent with 

a return to an atmospheric CO2 concentration of less than 350 ppm, as concluded by numerous scientific studies 

that have examined coral species viability in response to ocean warming and ocean acidification. Recognizing the 

responsibility of all federal agencies to promote listed species’ conservation, the Final Recovery Plan further 

includes a recovery criterion calling for the adoption of “adequate domestic and international regulations and 

agreements” to abate threats from increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The plan also includes a 

recovery action to “develop and implement U.S. and international measures to reduce atmospheric CO2 

concentrations to a level appropriate for coral recovery.”
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-153

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-47

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Polar Bears: Similarly, the 2015 Draft Polar Bear Conservation Plan acknowledges that the polar bear cannot be 

recovered without decisive action to mitigate the primary threat to the species—greenhouse gas (“GHG”) 

emissions driving sea-ice loss: 

The single most important step for polar bear conservation is decisive action to address global warming 

(Amstrup et al. 2010, Atwood et al. 2015), which is driven primarily by increasing atmospheric concentrations of 

greenhouse gases. Short of actions that effectively addresses the primary cause of diminishing sea ice, it is unlikely 

that polar bears will be recovered. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-48

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Loggerhead sea turtles: Other marine species are also at risk from numerous consequences of GHG emissions 

and ensuing ocean temperature increase, sea level rise, disruption of ocean currents, and extreme weather 

events. The 2011 listing rule for the loggerhead sea turtle found climate change and sea level rise to be a 

significant threat to multiple distinct population segments of the loggerhead sea turtle, including the North and 

South Pacific populations.34 The Services found that “Similar to other areas of the world, climate change and sea 

level rise have the potential to impact loggerheads in the North Pacific Ocean.”35 This includes beach erosion 

and loss from rising sea levels, skewed hatchling sex ratios from rising beach incubation temperatures, and abrupt 

disruption of ocean currents used for natural dispersal during the complex life cycle (Hawkes et al., 

2009;Poloczanska et al., 2009). Scientific reviews of the impacts of climate change on sea turtles confirm that 

climate change poses significant threats to the loggerhead (Fuentes et al. 2009, Hawkes et al. 2009, Witt et al. 

2010). Hawkes et al. (2009) concluded that “[o]verall, climate change could supersede current documented 

threats posed to marine turtle populations” including bycatch, habitat destruction, and pollution (p.146). Fuentes 

et al. (2010) highlighted that sea turtles will be affected simultaneously by changes in multiple climatic processes 

which will create amplifying effects, especially in combination with other threats. Furthermore, many researchers 

have cautioned that sea turtles are especially vulnerable to climate change because they are slow to recover from 

disturbances due to their life history characteristics. The best available science on the impacts of observed and 

projected climate change on loggerhead sea turtles, reviewed below, clearly indicates that climate change--

including sea level rise, increasing sand temperatures, increasing storm activity, rising ocean temperatures and 

changes in circulation pattern, and ocean acidification—is a significant threat to the survival of the species. 

(34) Fish and Wildlife Service, Determination of Nine Distinct Population Segments of Loggerhead Sea Turtles 

and Endangered or Threatened, 76 Fed. Reg. 58,868, 58,909 (Sept. 22, 2011). (35) Id. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-49

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-154 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Monarch Butterfly: The Monarch butterfly, due to its narrow thermal requirements and specific microhabitat 

requirements, is also at exceptional risk due to climate change:36 

The monarch is threatened by several other factors including global climate change, severe weather events, 

pesticides, and the spread of invasive species. Unfavorable weather conditions have been identified as a primary 

factor contributing to the recent drastic declines in monarch populations. Weather that is too hot or too cold at 

critical times in monarch development can cause massive mortality of caterpillars and adults. A single winter 

storm event in Mexican overwintering habitat in 2002 killed an estimated 450-500 million monarchs. This high 

death toll from a single storm event is particularly staggering given that the entire monarch population now 

numbers only about 35 million butterflies. Because of their narrow thermal tolerance and specific microhabitat 

requirements, climate change threatens monarchs in their summer and winter ranges. The threat from climate 

change in the monarch’s overwintering habitat in Mexico is so dire that monarchs may no longer occur in the 

Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve by the end of the century due to climatic changes. The monarch’s summer 

breeding habitat in the United States is also predicted to become too hot in many areas for monarch’s to be able 

to successfully reproduce.37 

(36) Center for Biological Diversity, PETITION TO PROTECT THE MONARCH BUTTERFLY (DANAUS 

PLEXIPPUS LEXIPPUS) UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. 

(37) Id. at 10-11.

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-5 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 16 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to water resources: “Water resources across large areas of the country are at serious risk from climate 

change, with effects on water supplies, water quality, and adverse effects from extreme events such as floods and 

droughts. Even areas of the country where an increase in water flow is projected could face water resource 

problems from the supply and water quality problems associated with temperature increases and precipitation 

variability, as well as the increased risk of serious adverse effects from extreme events, such as floods and 

drought. The severity of risks and impacts is likely to increase over time with accumulating greenhouse gas 

concentrations and associated temperature increases.”22

Impacts from sea level rise: “The most serious potential adverse effects are the increased risk of storm surge and 

flooding in coastal areas from sea level rise and more intense storms. Observed sea level rise is already increasing 

the risk of storm surge and flooding in some coastal areas. The conclusion in the assessment literature that there 

is the potential for hurricanes to become more intense (and even some evidence that Atlantic hurricanes have 

already become more intense) reinforces the judgment that coastal communities are now endangered by humaninduced climate change, and may face substantially greater risk in the future. Even if there is a low probability of 

raising the destructive power of hurricanes, this threat is enough to support a finding that coastal communities 

are endangered by greenhouse gas air pollution. In addition, coastal areas face other adverse impacts from sea 

level rise such as land loss due to inundation, erosion, wetland submergence, and habitat loss. The increased risk 

associated with these adverse impacts also endangers public welfare, with an increasing risk of greater adverse 

impacts in the future.”23

(22) Final Endangerment Finding at 66,498. 

(23) Final Endangerment Finding at 66,498 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-50

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-155

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Colorado River listed fishes (Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail chub, humpback chub, and razorback sucker): 

Anthropogenic climate change is profoundly impacting the Colorado River in ways that are altering temperature, 

streamflow, and the hydrologic cycle. As detailed below, changes observed to date include rising temperatures, 

earlier snowmelt and streamflow, decreasing snowpack, and declining runoff and streamflow. Modeling studies 

project that these changes will only worsen, including continued declines in streamflow and intensification of 

drought. Climate change is likely to have significant effects on the endangered fish and the Colorado River 

ecosystem.38 

(38) Impacts of Climate Change on the Colorado River Basin, Shaye Wolf, Ph.D., Climate Science Director, 

Center for Biological Diversity (March 10, 2016). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-51

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts from Algal Blooms: Toxic algal blooms are a public health menace and they have an obvious and distinct 

relationship with global warming.39 Many types of algae release toxic compounds, or harbor other deadly 

bacteria, that can have a wide range of health consequences, especially neurotoxicity, and can even be fatal if 

swallowed.40 The public health threat is enhanced because the toxicity of the blooms is not always proportional 

to their visibility.41 In fact, the blooms can be dilute and inconspicuous and still highly toxic to wildlife and human 

health.42 

(39) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Impacts of Climate Change on the Occurrence of Harmful Algal 

Blooms, EPA Office of Water 820-S-13-001 (May 2013), found at 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/climatehabs.pdf. 

(40) Anderson, M. Donald et al., Estimated Annual Economic Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the 

United States, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (September 2000) pg. 5-6, found at 

https://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=24159&pt=10&p=19132. 

(41) Id. 

(42) Id. 

Algae feed on nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus whose presence in water may be the result of reckless 

agricultural practices, inadequate regulations, and leaky sewage systems.43 But warmer temperatures ignite the 

process.44 In fact, climate change promotes the growth and dominance of harmful algal blooms through a cascade 

of multiple mechanisms, including: warmer water temperatures, changes in rainfall patterns, increases in the 

acidity of ocean waters, and sea level rise.45 

(43) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nutrient Pollution Sources and Solutions, EPA Office of Water 

(January 

2016), found at https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions. 

(44) See generally EPA, Impacts of Climate Change. 

(45) See Id. 

Algae need carbon dioxide to survive. Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the air and water accelerate algae 

growth, especially toxic blue-green algae which can float to the water’s surface, depriving other marine life of 

oxygen and sunlight.46 When global warming unleashes heavy rainfall and flooding more nitrogen/phosphorus 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-156 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

pollution from farms and sewage seeps into waterways, serving up the nutrient banquet for the algae to thrive on. 

47 Where global warming leads to drought, the salinity of fresh water bodies is increased.48 This can cause 

marine algae to invade freshwater ecosystems. In the southwestern and south central United States, toxic marine 

algae have been killing fish in freshwater lakes since 2000.49 

(46) See Id. 

(47) See Id. 

(48) See Id. 

(49) See Anderson, Estimated Annual Economic Impacts, at 24. 

Warmer temperatures inhibit mixing of water layers, allowing stagnation of warmer layers near the surface, 

promoting thicker and faster algae growth.50 Algal blooms actually increase water surface temperatures by 

absorbing more sunlight, creating a feed-back spiral of more blooms, absorbing more sunlight, warming the water 

further, and promoting more blooms.51 

(50) See generally EPA, Impacts of Climate Change. 

(51) See Id. 

Warmer temperatures reduce the viscosity of water, increasing the speed at which small aquatic organisms can 

vertically migrate.52 This makes it easier for the small, toxic, cyanobacteria to float to the surface to form the 

dangerous blooms.53 

(52) See Id. 

(53) See Id. 

While algal blooms are not new, there has been a worldwide increase in their frequency, severity and geographic 

distribution, in concert with the rise in global temperatures.54 Significant outbreaks have occurred in the last few 

years in Ohio, Florida, New York, and Utah. Last year, a mass of record breaking warm water triggered a bloom 

that extended from southern California to Alaska, damaging the entire marine food web throughout the West 

Coast, especially the crab industry.55 The bloom was 40 miles wide and 650 ft deep in some places.56 Marine 

scientists said last year’s toxic algal bloom was “unprecedented” and “diagnostic of what we can expect more of 

in the future.”57 The EPA notes that these blooms are now a serious environmental problem plaguing all 50 

states, not just those on the coasts.58 

(54) See Id. 

(55) Mapes, Lynda V., Toxic Algae Creating Deep Trouble on West Coast, The Seattle Times, November 15th, 

2015, 

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/toxic-algae-creating-deep-trouble-on-west-coast/ (last 

visited 

July 28th, 2016). 

(56) See Id. 

(57) See Id. 

(58) See generally U.S. EPA, Nutrient Pollution Sources and Solutions. 

The blooms also have a significant economic impact. In 2000, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 

estimated that the annual economic cost to the US economy at that time was about $450 million dollars.59 That 

figure would be markedly increased today. 

(59) See Anderson, Estimated Annual Economic Impacts at 4. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-52

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 17 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-157

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to oceans: Oceans have absorbed the vast bulk of warming to date, and will continue to suffer 

increasingly severe impacts on temperature, acidity, circulation, and marine ecosystems from climate change.60 A 

recent survey of science regarding climate change impacts to the world’s oceans finds that:

Marine ecosystems are centrally important to the biology of the planet, yet a comprehensive understanding of 

how anthropogenic climate change is affecting them has been poorly developed. Recent studies indicate that 

rapidly rising greenhouse gas concentrations are driving ocean systems toward conditions not seen for millions of 

years, with an associated risk of fundamental and irreversible ecological transformation. The impacts of 

anthropogenic climate change so far include decreased ocean productivity, altered food web dynamics, reduced 

abundance of habitat-forming species, shifting species distributions, and a greater incidence of disease. Although 

there is considerable uncertainty about the spatial and temporal details, climate change is clearly and 

fundamentally altering ocean ecosystems. Further change will continue to create enormous challenges and costs 

for societies worldwide, particularly those in developing countries.61 

(60) See National Climate Assessment at 558-59. 

(61) Ove Hoegh-Guldberg et al., The Impact of Climate Change on the World’s Marine Ecosystems, Science 328, 

1523 (2010), DOI: 10.1126/science.1189930 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-53

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report on Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability similarly 

summarizes the state of scientific research on foreseeable impacts to marine systems and reaches the following 

conclusions: 

Due to projected climate change by the mid 21st century and beyond, global marine-species redistribution and 

marine-biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity 

and other ecosystem services (high confidence). Spatial shifts of marine species due to projected warming will 

cause high-latitude invasions and high local-extinction rates in the tropics and semi-enclosed seas (medium 

confidence). Species richness and fisheries catch potential are projected to increase, on average, at mid and high 

latitudes (high confidence) and decrease at tropical latitudes (medium confidence). . . . The progressive expansion 

of oxygen minimum zones and anoxic “dead zones” is projected to further constrain fish habitat. Open-ocean net 

primary production is projected to redistribute and, by 2100, fall globally under all RCP scenarios. Climate change 

adds to the threats of over-fishing and other nonclimatic stressors, thus complicating marine management 

regimes (high confidence). 

For medium- to high-emission scenarios (RCP 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5), ocean acidification poses substantial risks to 

marine ecosystems, especially polar ecosystems and coral reefs, associated with impacts on the physiology, 

behavior, and population dynamics of individual species from phytoplankton to animals (medium to high 

confidence). Highly calcified mollusks, echinoderms, and reef-building corals are more sensitive than crustaceans 

(high confidence) and fishes (low confidence), with potentially detrimental consequences for fisheries and 

livelihoods. . . . Ocean acidification acts together with other global changes (e.g. warming, decreasing oxygen 

levels) and with local changes (e.g. pollution, eutrophication) (high confidence). Simultaneous drivers, such as 

warming and ocean acidification, can lead to interactive, complex, and amplified impacts for species and 

ecosystems.62 

(62) IPCC, 2014: Summary for Policymakers 17, in: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. 

Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-158 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, 

P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 

York, NY, USA, pp. 1-32.

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-54

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Third National Climate Assessment likewise has identified five significant ways in which climate change will 

adversely affect U.S. oceans and marine resources: 

1. The rise in ocean temperature over the last century will persist into the future, with continued large impacts 

on climate, ocean circulation, chemistry, and ecosystems. 

2. The ocean currently absorbs about a quarter of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, 

leading to ocean acidification that will alter marine ecosystems in dramatic yet uncertain ways. 

3. Significant habitat loss will continue to occur due to climate change for many species and areas, including Arctic 

and coral reef ecosystems, while habitat in other areas and for other species will expand. These changes will 

consequently alter the distribution, abundance, and productivity of many marine species. 

4. Rising sea surface temperatures have been linked with increasing levels and ranges of diseases in humans and 

marine life, including corals, abalones, oysters, fishes, and marine mammals. 

5. Climate changes that result in conditions substantially different from recent history may significantly increase 

costs to businesses as well as disrupt public access and enjoyment of ocean areas.63 

(63) National Climate Assessment at 558. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-55

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts from Ocean Acidification: The ocean’s absorption of anthropogenic CO2 has already resulted in more 

than a 30% increase in the acidity of ocean surface waters, at a rate likely faster than anything experienced in the 

past 300 million years, and ocean acidity could increase by 150% to 200% by the end of the century if CO2 

emissions continue unabated.64 Ocean acidification negatively affects a wide range of marine species by hindering 

the ability of calcifying marine creatures to build protective shells and skeletons and by disrupting metabolism and 

critical biological function.65 The adverse effects of ocean acidification are already being observed in wild 

populations, including reduced coral calcification rates,66 reduced shell weights of foraminifera in the Southern 

Ocean,67 and mass die-offs of larval Pacific oysters in the Pacific Northwest.68 

Coral reef ecosystems, which are estimated to harbor one-third of marine species and which support the 

livelihoods of a half billion people, are particularly threatened by ocean acidification. Some corals are already 

experiencing reduced calcification.69 Due to the synergistic impacts of ocean acidification, mass bleaching, and 

other stresses, reefs are projected to experience “rapid and terminal” declines worldwide at atmospheric CO2 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-159

Scoping Report 

concentrations of 450ppm.70 Prominent coral scientists have called for reducing atmospheric CO2 to less than 

350 ppm to protect coral reefs from collapse.71 

Numerous U.S. and international scientific and policy bodies have identified ocean acidification as an urgent threat 

to ocean ecosystems, food security, and society.72 The United Nations Environment Program concluded that 

ocean acidification’s impact on marine organisms poses a threat to food security and the billions of people that 

rely on a marine-based diet.73 Moreover, a recent study estimated that the damage our oceans will face from 

emissions-related problems will amount to $428 billion a year by 2050 and nearly $2 trillion per year by the 

century’s end.74

(64) Orr, J. C., V. J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S. C. Doney, R. a Feely, A. Gnanadesikan, N. Gruber, A. Ishida, F. 

Joos, R. M. Key, K. Lindsay, E. Maier-Reimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray, A. Mouchet, R. G. Najjar, G.-K. Plattner, K. 

B. Rodgers, C. L. Sabine, J. L. Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R. D. Slater, I. J. Totterdell, M.-F. Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, and 

A. Yool. 2005. Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying 

organisms. Nature 437:681–6; . Feely, R., S. Doney, and S. Cooley. 2009. Ocean acidification: Present conditions 

and future changes in a high CO2 world. Oceanography 22:36–47; Hönisch, B., A. Ridgwell, D. N. Schmidt, E. 

Thomas, S. J. Gibbs, A. Sluijs, R. Zeebe, L. Kump, R. C. Martindale, S. E. Greene, W. Kiessling, J. Ries, J. C. Zachos, 

D. L. Royer, S. Barker, T. M. Marchitto, R. Moyer, C. Pelejero, P. Ziveri, G. L. Foster, and B. Williams. 

2012. The geological record of ocean acidification. Science 335:1058–63. 

(65) Fabry, V., B. Seibel, R. Feely, and J. Orr. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem 

processes. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65:414–432; Feely et al 2009; Kroeker, K.J, R.L. Kordas, R. Crim, I.E. 

Hendriks, L. Ramajo, G.S. Singh, C.M. Duarte, and J-P Gattuso. 2013. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine 

organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interactions with warming. Global Change Biology 19: 1884-1896. 

(66) De’ath, G., J. M. Lough, and K. E. Fabricius. 2009. Declining coral calcification on the Great Barrier Reef. 

Science 323:116–119. 

(67) Moy, A. D., W. R. Howard, S. G. Bray, and T. W. Trull. 2009. Reduced calcification in modern Southern 

Ocean planktonic foraminifera. Nature Geoscience 2: 276-280 

(68) Barton, A., B. Hales, G. G. Waldbusser, C. Langdon, and R. A. Feely. 2012. The Pacific oyster, Crassostrea 

gigas, shows negative correlation to naturally elevated carbon dioxide levels: Implications for near-term ocean 

acidification effects. Limnology and Oceanography 57:698–710. 

(69) Cooper, T. F., G. De’Ath, K. E. Fabricius, and J. M. Lough. 2008. Declining coral calcification in massive 

Porites in two nearshore regions of the northern Great Barrier Reef. Global Change Biology 14:529–538; 

Gledhill, D. K., R. Wanninkhof, F. J. Millero, and M. Eakin. 2008. Ocean acidification of the greater Caribbean 

region 1996–2006. Journal of Geophysical Research 113:C10031; De’ath et al. 2009; Bates, N., A. Amat, and A. 

Andersson. 2010. 

Feedbacks and responses of coral calcification on the Bermuda reef system to seasonal changes in biological 

processes and ocean acidification. Biogeosciences 7:2509–2530. Human-caused climate change is already causing 

widespread damage from intensifying global 

food and water insecurity, the increasing frequency of heat waves and other extreme weather 

(70) Veron, J. E. N., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, T. M. Lenton, J. M. Lough, D. O. Obura, P. Pearce-Kelly, C. R. C. 

Sheppard, M. Spalding, M. G. Stafford-Smith, and A. D. Rogers. 2009. The coral reef crisis: the critical importance 

of<350 ppm CO2. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58:1428–36. 

(71) Veron et al. 2009; Frieler, K., M. Meinshausen, A. Golly, M. Mengel, K. Lebek, S.D. Donner, and O. HoeghGuldberg. Limiting global warming to 2oC is unlikely to save most coral reefs. Nature Climate Change. Published 

Online. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1674. 

(72) NRC. 2010. Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean. National 

Academies Press; UNEP. 2010. UNEP Emerging Issues: Environmental Consequences of Ocean Acidification: A 

Threat to Food Security; Rogers, A. D., and D. d’A. Laffoley. 2011. International Earth system expert workshop 

on ocean stresses and impacts Summary Report. IPSO Oxford. 

(73) UNEP 2010. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-160 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

(74) Noone, K., R. Sumaila, and R. Diaz. 2012. Valuing the Ocean : Executive Summary, Stockholm Environment 

Institute. Stockholm Environment Initiative

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-59

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Immediate and aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions are necessary to keep warming below a 1.5o or 

2°C rise above pre-industrial levels. Put simply, there is only a finite amount of CO2 that can be released into the 

atmosphere without rendering the goal of meeting the 1.5°C target virtually impossible. A slightly larger amount 

could be burned before meeting a 2°C limit became an impossibility. Globally, fossil fuel reserves, if all were 

extracted and burned, would release enough CO2 to exceed this limit several times over.91 

(91) Cimons at 6, 33 n.2. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-6 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 18 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to energy, infrastructure, and settlements: “Changes in extreme weather events threaten energy, 

transportation, and water resource infrastructure. Vulnerabilities of industry, infrastructure, and settlements to 

climate change are generally greater in high-risk locations, particularly coastal and riverine areas, and areas whose 

economies are closely linked with climate-sensitive resources. Climate change will likely interact with and 

possibly exacerbate ongoing environmental change and environmental pressures in settlements, particularly in 

Alaska where indigenous communities are facing major environmental and cultural impacts on their historic 

lifestyles.”24

(24) Final Endangerment Finding at 66,498 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-60

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The science is clear that the vast majority of the world’s fossil fuels must remain in the ground in order to 

maintain any reasonable hope of limiting global warming to 1.5o or even 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Global 

fossil fuel reserves and resources far exceed the carbon budgets needed to stay below a 1.5o or 2°C temperature 

target.99 

(99) Analyses by the Carbon Tracker Initiative estimated that 80% of proven fossil fuel reserves must be kept in 

the ground to have a reasonable probability (75-80%) of staying below even 2°C. This estimate includes only the 

fossil fuel reserves that are considered currently economically recoverable with a high probability of being 

extracted. See Carbon Tracker Initiative at 2, 6. 
D. Comments by Issue Category

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-161

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-62

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity

Commenter1:Michael Saul

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text:

Even the lowest of these estimates (2,900 GtCO2) is more than three times greater than the most generous 

carbon budget nominally consistent with a 2°C temperature limit (~900 GtCO2), while the largest (50,092 

GtCO2) is over 160 times greater than the remaining budget for a 66% probability of not exceeding a 1.5°C limit 

(<300 GtCO2).

As stated by one study, “the disparity between what resources and reserves exist and what can be emitted while 

avoiding a temperature rise greater than the agreed 2C limit is therefore stark.”105 Another recent report on 

global carbon reserves found that:

The reserves of coal, oil and natural gas outlined in this report contain enough carbon to rocket the planet far 

beyond the° 2 C limit. Warming from fossil fuels puts other carbon sinks at risk. As permafrost melts and peat 

bogs dry, they emit enormous quantities of carbon dioxide, furthering a chain reaction where the release of 

carbon results in a warmer world, which in turn releases more carbon.106

The unleased federal coal resource alone is estimated at 212 GtCO2e, or almost two-thirds of the remaining 

global carbon budget for a reasonable probability of limiting warming to 1.5oC.107

In the United States, coal is the largest and most carbon dioxide-intensive conventional fossil fuel resource.108 

The Department of Interior’s fossil fuel leasing program contributes about one-quarter of all US fossil fuel 

emissions, with 14% of US emissions coming from the federal coal program,109 which comprises approximately 

41% of total US coal production.110 Coal mining, particularly underground mining, also contributes substantial 

additional methane emissions, with vastly higher radiative forcing potential than carbon dioxide.111

Mitigation pathways for holding temperature rise well below 2°C mandate a rapid phase-out of coal emissions. 

112 For example, a recent study estimates that 95% of US coal reserves, including both federal and non-federal 

coal, must remain unburned to preserve a reasonable probability of remaining below 2°C.113 Coal mining, 

transport, combustion, disposal, and cleanup also have significant external costs on public health and the 

environment that must be taken into consideration in the PEIS.114

A near-term phase-out of federal coal is also critical because new leasing locks in investment and high-carbon 

infrastructure for mining, transport, and coal combustion, all of which is inconsistent with the pressing need to 

end fossil fuel emissions.115 A rapid end to federal coal extraction would send an important signal internationally 

and domestically to markets, utilities, investors and other nations that the United States is committed to 

upholding its climate obligation to limit temperature rise to well below 2°C.

(105) McGlade and Ekins at 188.

(106) Cimons at 6. 

(107) Mulvaney et al. at 5. The remaining carbon budget for a 66% probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C and 

2°C above pre-industrial is 240 GtCO2 and 850 GtCO2 , respectively, from 2015 onward, equivalent to ~334 

GtCO2e and ~1180 GtCO2e (gigatonnes CO2 equivalent) based on the ratio of 1.39 CO2e/CO2 from 

Meinshausen et al. (2009). [See Meinshausen, M. et al. 2009. Greenhouse gas emission targets for limiting global 

warming to 2 degrees Celsius. Nature 458: 1158–1162.] 212 GtCO2e comprises 63% of a 334 GtCO2e budget 

and 18% of an 1180 GtCO2e budget. 

(108) See Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014 

(April 2016) at 3-5. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-162 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

(109) See Climate Accountability Institute. 2015. Memorandum from Richard Heede to Friends of The Earth and 

Center for Biological Diversity, at http://webiva-downton.s3.amazonaws.com/877/3a/7/5721/Exhibit_1- 

1_ONRR_ProdEmissions_Heede_7May15.pdf; Stratus Consulting. 2014. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fossil 

Energy Extracted from Federal Lands and Waters: An Update, at 13, 

http://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/Stratus-Report.pdf 

(110) U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2014. Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced from Federal and Indian Lands, 

FY 2003 through FY 2013, at Table 1, http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/federallands/pdf/eiafederallandsales. 

pdf. 

(111) EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks at ES-6; IPCC AR5 Physical Science Basis 

Chapter 8 at 714, Table 8.7 & note b (20-year radiative forcing potential of fossil fuel methane is 87 times that of 

carbon dioxide). 

(112) McGlade, C. and P. Ekins. 2015. The geographic distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global 

warming to 2°C. Nature 517: 187-192; Rogelj, J. et al. 2015. Energy system transformations for limiting end-of

century warming to below 1.5°C. Nature Climate Change 5: 519-528; Raupach, M. et al. 2014. Sharing a quota on 

cumulative carbon emissions. Nature Climate Change 4: 873-879; Stockholm Environment Institute. 2016. How 

would phasing out U.S. federal leases for fossil fuel extraction affect CO2 emissions and 2°C goals? Peter 

Erickson and Michael Lazarus, Working Paper No. 2016-02,

https://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-WP-2016-02-USfossilfuelleases.pdf 

(113) McGlade and Elkins (2015) use a global least-cost model for allocating unburnable fossil fuel reserves that 

does not incorporate global equity considerations; including equity considerations suggests that more US fossil 

fuel reserves should remain unburned. 

(114) See Epstein, P.R. et al. 2011. Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal. Annals of the New York 

Academy of Sciences 1219: 73-98. 

(115) Climate Action Tracker. 2015. The Coal Gap: planned coal-fired power plants inconsistent with 2C and 

threaten achievement of INDCs, 

http://climateactiontracker.org/assets/publications/briefing_papers/CAT_Coal_Gap_Briefing_COP21.pdf 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-67

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate change health effects 

Pollution from the life-cycle of coal is one of the leading causes of climate change.196 Climate change itself is a 

significant threat to human health and well-being.197 The health impacts of climate change include harms from 

increasing heat stress and other extreme weather events, increases in air pollution, the spread of vector-borne 

diseases, food insecurity and under-nutrition, changing exposure to toxic chemicals, displacement, and stress to 

mental health and well-being.198 Although everyone is vulnerable to health impacts from climate change, certain 

groups are particularly vulnerable to climate change-related health harms such as children, the elderly, lowincome communities, some communities of color, immigrant groups, and persons with disabilities and preexisting 

medical conditions.199 The 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change highlighted that climate 

change is causing a global medical emergency, concluding that “the implications of climate change for a global 

population of 9 billion people threatens to undermine the last half century of gains in development and global 

health.”200

Climate change-driven health impacts are already occurring in the United States, particularly due to morbidity 

and mortality from extreme weather events which are increasing in frequency and intensity.201 Heat is already 
D. Comments by Issue Category

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-163

Scoping Report 

the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the United States, and extreme heat is projected to lead to 

increases in future mortality on the order of thousands to tens of thousands of additional premature deaths per 

year across the United States by the end of this century.202 Extreme precipitation events have become more 

common in the United States, contributing to increases in severe flooding events in some regions.203 Floods are 

the second deadliest of all weather-related hazards in the United States and can lead to drowning, contaminated 

drinking water leading to disease outbreaks, and mold-related illnesses.204

Air pollution components, specifically ozone, air particulates, and allergens, are expected to increase with climate 

change. 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 §IV.B.1(b). Climate-driven increases in ozone will cause more premature deaths, 

hospital visits, lost school days, and acute respiratory symptoms.205 Projected climate-related increases in 

ground-level ozone concentrations in 2020 could lead to an average of 2.8 million more occurrences of acute 

respiratory symptoms, 944,000 more missed school days, and over 5,000 more hospitalizations for respiratoryrelated problems.206 In 2020, the continental U.S. could pay an average of $5.4 billion (2008$) in health impact 

costs associated with the climate penalty on ozone, with California experiencing the greatest estimated impacts 

averaged at $729 million.207

Risks from infectious diseases are also increasing as climate change alters the geographic and seasonal distribution 

of vector-borne diseases.208 Climate change favors the spread of some pathogen-carrying vectors. Lyme disease 

is the most common vector-borne disease in the United States, with 25,000–30,000 cases reported to the CDC 

per year, with the highest incidence among children between ages 5 and 9.209 The risk of human exposure to 

Lyme disease is expected to increase as ticks carrying Lyme disease and other pathogens become active earlier in 

the season and expand northward in response to warming temperatures.210 Rising temperatures and changes in 

rainfall have already contributed to the maintenance of West Nile virus in parts of the United States, and climate 

change is expected to increase suitable conditions for the mosquitoes that transmit West Nile virus, increasing 

human exposure risk to the disease.211

As highlighted by the Third National Climate Assessment, fighting climate change by reducing greenhouse gas 

pollution provides critical “opportunities to improve human health and well-being across many sectors,” including 

a wide array of important health co-benefits.212

The impacts of coal combustion can also be described in economic terms, and several papers have attempted to

estimate the cost of using coal by assigning value to the environmental and public health damage caused during 

each stage of coal’s extraction, transportation, combustion, and disposal. One such study estimated that the 

external costs of coal-fired electricity in the U.S. add an extra 17.8 cents to each kWh of electricity produced; an 

amount that would triple its cost to consumers.213 Another U.S. report by Machol et al. estimates 45 cents per 

kWh as the cost of the health burden and environmental damages from coal combustion.214 In 2011, the US EPA 

estimated the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act, a law which regulates emissions of sulfur dioxide, oxides of 

nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter in the United States. The EPA calculated that the ratio of 

health care cost savings to compliance costs was 25:1 in 2010.215 This means that for every dollar spent 

complying with the Clean Air Act, twenty-five dollars were saved in health care costs due to lower disease 

burden, including a reduction in premature deaths, and cases of bronchitis, asthma, and myocardial infarction.216

(196) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report Chapter 7, Energy Systems. pg 554. 

(197) Luber, G. et al. 2014: Ch. 9: Human Health. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third 

National Climate Assessment. J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, 220-256. doi:10.7930/J0PN93H5. See also Watt, N. et al. 2015. Health and climate change:

policy responses to protect public health. The Lancet 386: 1861-1914. 

(198) Sheffield, P. and Landrigan, P.J. 2011. Global Climate Change and Children’s Health: Threats and Strategies 

for Prevention. Environmental Health Perspectives 119: 291-298.. 

(199) See Id. See also USGCRP [US Global Change Research Program]. 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on 

Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, A., J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, C.B. Beard, J.E. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-164 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J. Eisen, N. Fann, M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D.M. Mills, S. Saha, M.C. Sarofim, 

J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 312 pp. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0R49NQX. 

(200) Watt, N. et al. 2015. Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. The Lancet 386: 

1861-1914. 

(201) See Id. See also Luber, G. et al. 2014: Ch. 9: Human Health. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: 

The Third National Climate Assessment. J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, 220-256. doi:10.7930/J0PN93H5; USGCRP [US Global Change Research Program]. 

2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, 

A., J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, C.B. Beard, J.E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J. Eisen, N. Fann, M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. 

Jantarasami, D.M. Mills, S. Saha, M.C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

Washington, DC, 312 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0R49NQX. 

(202) See USGCRP, 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States. 

(203) See Luber, G. et al. 2014: Ch. 9: Human Health. Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 

(204) See Id. 

(205) See USGCRP, 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States. 

(206) UCS [Union of Concerned Scientists]. 2011. Rising Temperatures and Your Health: Rising Temperatures, 

Worsening Ozone Pollution. Available at 

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-change-andozonepollution.pdf. 

(207) See Id. 

(208) See USGCRP, 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States 

(209) Bernstein, A.S. and S.S. Myers. 2011. Climate change and children’s health. Current Opinion in Pediatrics 

23: 221–6. 

(210) See USGCRP, 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States. 

(211) Harrigan, R.J., H.A. Thomassen, W. Buermann, and T.B. Smith. 2014. A continental risk assessment of West 

Nile virus under climate change. Global Change Biology 20: 2417-2425; Paz, S. 2015. Climate change impacts on 

West Nile virus transmission in a global context. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370: 

20130561. 

(212) See Luber, G. et al. 2014: Ch. 9: Human Health. Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 

(213) P.R. Epstein, et al., Full Cost Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal, Ann. NY Acad. Sci. (2011) 

(214) B. Machol & S. Rizk, Economic Value of U.S. Fossil Fuel Electricity Health Impacts, 52 Env. Intl. 75-80 (2013) 

(215) The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1990-2020, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Air and Radiation (2010). 

(216) Id. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-9 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Department of Interior’s fossil fuel leasing program contributes about one-quarter of all US fossil fuel 

emissions, with approximately 14% of US emissions coming from the federal coal program. See Climate 

Accountability Institute. 2015.116 Based on EIA, USGS, and BLM data, the best available estimate of the entire 

unleased federal coal resource is 212 GtCO2e, or almost two-thirds of the entire remaining global carbon budget 

for maintaining a reasonable probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C.117 The PEIS must not only quantify the 

contribution of the federal coal leasing program to greenhouse gas emissions and global carbon budgets, but also 

the foreseeable results of the various alternatives on near- and medium-term national and global emissions. The 

fact that emissions rates are influenced by multiple factors (including market, policy, and regulatory factors) does 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-165 

Scoping Report 

not obscure the fact that a variety of models exist and can be used to evaluate the emissions consequences of 

leasing policy under a variety of scenarios (including business as usual, implementation of the Clean Power Plan, 

and predicted coal demand in a scenario that achieves 450 ppm CO2 climate targets). 

As an initial matter, it is important to note that the role of the federal coal program in coal supply, infrastructure, 

consumption, is larger than its (considerable) share of U.S. coal production. As the Institute for Energy 

Economics and Financial Analysis has noted; 

The availability of cheap coal from the PRB has not only provided the industry with a price advantage that has 

allowed much deeper market penetration throughout the years—from 5 percent in 1982 to nearly 48 percent 

today—but it has also had significant implications for the nation’s energy policy. For the past 30 years, the U.S. 

government has effectively selected coal as its primary energy source to power the nation’s electric grid. In 

addition to its market penetration, analysts have concluded that coal’s dominance has effectively prevented the 

development of public-private partnership policies and programs to improve energy diversity in the United 

States.118 

In other words, the expectation of a continued policy below-market federal coal leasing, particularly from the 

Powder River Basin, encourages investment in coal mining, coal export schemes, and, in particular, continued 

infrastructure investment and lock-in coal transportation, export, and electricity generation, based on the 

assumption that the BLM’s leasing policies will continue to provide a plentiful supply of cheap, reliable, relatively 

low-sulfur sub-bituminous coal from the Powder River Basin. As the IEEFA noted, “Given that the United States 

owns almost all the coal in the [Powder River Basin] region, the U.S. government holds an effective monopoly of 

western coal. As a result, government policies—or more precisely those of the DOI—are extremely influential 

and shape annual coal production levels and the market price of coal.”

(116) Memorandum from Richard Heede to Friends of The Earth and Center for Biological Diversity, at 

http://webivadownton. 

s3.amazonaws.com/877/3a/7/5721/Exhibit_1-1_ONRR_ProdEmissions_Heede_7May15.pdf; Stratus 

Consulting. 2014. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fossil Energy Extracted from Federal Lands and Waters: An 

Update, at 13, http://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/Stratus-Report.pdf 

(117) Mulvaney et al. 2015 at 4; see IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report at 63-64 & Table 2.2; Rogelj 2016 at Table 2. 

(118) Institute for energy Economics and Financial Analysis, “The Great Giveaway: An analysis of the costly 

failures of federal coal leasing in the Powder River Basin” (June 2012).

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-24

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We also note that while the PEIS is fundamentally directed at the coal leasing and development program, our 

concerns about climate change relate to all fossil fuels that are produced from the federal mineral estate—oil, 

natural gas, and coal, as well as oil shale and tar sands. Thus, this Section of our comments applies to climate 

change issues that are created from fossil fuel extraction on the federal mineral estate, not just coal production. 

While the immediate opportunity—and indeed the carbon necessity—starts with the climate change impacts of 

coal, the analysis should not end there and oil, natural gas, oil shale and tar sands should also be included in a 

Department-wide analysis as soon as possible. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-25

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 7.4 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-166 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM is clearly required to measure, evaluate and fully consider the GHG emissions and climate change 

impacts of the federal coal program in the PEIS based on a number of policies of the BLM and other agencies, and 

even the President. NEPA also requires the BLM to fully consider climate change issues in the PEIS. This must 

include both upstream and downstream emissions, including those from coal combustion at power plants. This 

analysis must inform BLM’s requirements to avoid, minimize and compensate for these impacts consistent with

this country’s climate change commitments, specifically the requirement to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent 

below 2005 levels by 2025. This analysis and decision-making should seek to achieve a no more than 2 degrees C 

temperature increase, which will require the U.S. to reduce emissions an average of 70 to 80 percent below 2000 

levels by 2050. The PEIS should put in place requirements to achieve these commitments. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-29

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is also critical that the BLM assess climate change impacts from a global perspective, not just a local or even 

national perspective. The PEIS is national in scope—this is a perfect time to look at the overall impacts of GHG 

emissions and not claim individual impacts are too small. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-30

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Related to the issue of ensuring there is a global and life-cycle analysis of GHG impacts on climate change is the 

question of “perfect substitution” by other coal from other sources for federal coal that is not mined. Some claim 

that “perfect substitution” will occur if there is less federal coal mined, and therefore any climate change and 

other benefits of the reduction in federal coal supply will be nullified. This argument has no basis. Much (85 

percent) of the federal coal is mined in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana. This coal is notable for 

being low cost and having low sulfur content relative to other sources of coal in the U.S. What this means is that 

if Powder River Basin coal is not produced, the costs of other coal will make these sources less economically 

attractive than the Powder River Basin coal. In addition, it will not have the low sulfur (reduced air pollution) 

benefits of the Powder River Basin coal. That is, there will not be a basis for “perfect substitution.”

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-32

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The local benefits of “fuel switching” to things like greater reliance on development of renewable sources of 

energy in local areas should be fully considered in the PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-33

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 7.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The second critical step in analyzing climate change issues in the PEIS after determining the amount of GHG that 

are emitted is to evaluate the climate change impacts of those emissions. This can be done by utilizing the Social 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-167

Scoping Report 

Cost of Carbon (and companion EPA Social Cost of Methane) protocol. The BLM should use this method for 

climate change impact assessment in the PEIS. But in addition, due to some shortcomings in the SCC method, the 

BLM must also evaluate qualitative, non-monetary impacts that are caused by climate change, such as from earlier 

snowmelts in our western mountains that are changing water supplies. This analysis should be done from a global 

perspective because as recognized in the CEQ Climate Change NEPA Guidance, “diverse individual sources of 

emissions each make relatively small additions to global atmospheric GHG concentrations that collectively have 

huge impact.” That said, local impacts also need to be considered especially since the BLM has traditionally 

published the local monetary benefits of the coal program in its NEPA analyses. BLM should not assume that 

federal coal that is not produced will simply be replaced by production from other sources (so-called “perfect 

substitution”) thus eliminating any climate change benefits —this unfounded myth is not based on empirical 

evidence or sound economic theory, and it has been rejected in several reports. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-76

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There are three critical needs relative to BLM decision-making and climate change, including for the federal coal 

program. First, the agency must provide an accurate and comprehensive assessment of the amount of GHG 

produced by its fossil fuel program activities. Second, it must ensure a fair and comprehensive assessment of the 

impacts of these GHG emissions. It is critical that two GHG in particular receive treatment in these analyses: 

carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), both of which are emitted at significant levels as a result of the 

federal coal leasing and development program. Third, it must commit to avoiding, minimizing and offsetting 

impacts through compensatory mitigation. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-77

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Making the case for the need to consider climate change in NEPA documents, the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) issued its revised draft Climate Change NEPA Guidance in December, 2014. (20) It provides 

direction to all agencies on when and how to consider the effects of GHG emissions and climate change in the 

evaluation of federal actions. The guidance states that, “[i]t is essential . . . that federal agencies not rely on 

boilerplate text to avoid meaningful analysis, including consideration of alternatives or mitigation.” The CEQ draft 

guidance provides detailed reasons and instruction on how climate change and GHG NEPA analyses can be 

effectively accomplished. Any “boilerplate” claims that GHG and climate change analyses are impossible are 

rejected. 

(20) Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/ghg-guidance. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-78

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

S.O. 3330 (Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of the Interior) as well as the report to 

the Secretary of the Interior from the Energy and Climate Change Task Force, (21) and the BLM’s current 

mitigation guidance (IM No. 2013-142 and Draft Manual Section 1794), all also direct the BLM to incorporate 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-168 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

mitigation strategies into planning and to address climate change. S.O. 3330 notes that a key reason for issuing 

the new policy is to “focus on mitigation efforts that improve the resilience of our Nation’s resources in the face 

of climate change.” More recent guidance in the form of the Presidential Memorandum: Mitigating Impacts on 

Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment (2015) and the Department of 

the Interior’s Landscape-Scape Mitigation Manual (2015) also emphasize the importance of mitigation in BLM 

planning and decision-making and how it can and should apply in the context of addressing impacts from climate 

change. Again, the BLM must have an accounting for the amount of GHG emissions and climate change impacts 

from its coal program in order to mitigate for those impacts. 

(21) Clement, J.P. et al. 2014. A strategy for improving the mitigation policies and practices of the Department of 

the Interior. A report to the Secretary of the Interior from the Energy and Climate Change Task Force, 

Washington, D.C. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-81

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Perfect substitution of other coal for federal coal that is not mined is an unfounded myth and should not be used 

to avoid evaluating climate change impacts in the PEIS. This theory is not based on empirical evidence and it is not 

supported by economic theory. In addition, there have been several recent papers that bring into question the 

perfect substitution theory by the White House Council of Economic Advisors, Vulcan Philanthropy, Stockholm 

Environment Institute, and the Carbon Tracker Initiative. (30) 

(30) CEA. 2016. “The Economics of Coal Leasing on Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers”. 

Council of Economic Advisers. May 2016. 

Vulcan/ICF. 2016. “Federal Coal Leasing Reform Options: Effects on CO2 Emissions and Energy Markets. Final 

Report: Summary of Modeling Results.” A Vulcan Philanthropy | Vulcan, Inc. report with analysis supported by 

ICF International, Fairfax, VA. February 2016. 

Erickson, Peter and Lazarus, Michael. “How would phasing out U.S. federal leases for fossil fuel extraction affect 

CO2 emissions and 2°C goals?” Stockholm Environment Institute, Working Paper 2016-02. May 2016. 

Fulton, Mark; Kaplow, Doug; Capalino, Reid; and Grant, Andrew. “Enough Already: Meeting 2°C PRB Coal 

Demand Without Lifting the Federal Moratorium.” July 2016.

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-40

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The existing regulatory regime provides ample opportunity for complete and thorough consideration of the 

environmental impacts, including global climate change, associated with coal leasing and production. The current 

project-specific analysis allows for a more complete review of environmental impacts, which accounts for 

localized impacts that would be difficult to assess at a programmatic level. BLM should not engage in a speculative, 

nation-wide review of global climate change impacts of coal leasing that is divorced from actual leasing decisions. 

Instead, to the extent BLM continues to analyze climate change impacts as part of its leasing decisions, that 

analysis should take place within the context of the existing regulatory and environmental review process. Such a 

limited and site-specific analysis would best serve the purpose of NEPA, which seeks to promote informed 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-169

Scoping Report 

decision-making by considering reasonably foreseeable impacts within the control of the agency. See Dep’t of 

Transp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 770 (2004). 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-41

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM asserts that the PEIS will “examine the climate change impacts of the coal program in the context of the 

Nation’s climate objectives . . .” 81 Fed. Reg. at 17725. Nowhere in the MLA does Congress authorize BLM to 

impose a climate-related fee on the production of federal coal reserves. BLM has expressly rejected any form of 

“carbon tax” as unlawful. Attachment 5, BLM Petition Denial, at 7 (Jan. 28, 2011). 

Further, an increase in royalties or other leasing costs to account for climate impacts would prevent coal from 

being produced economically. Any climate change fee imposed solely on the coal industry would unfairly 

disadvantage federal coal as compared to alternative electrical generation fuels, such as natural gas and 

renewables. These additional costs would prevent BLM from achieving maximum economic recovery of federal 

coal—a clear statutory mandate under the MLA—while at the same time punishing electricity consumers by 

artificially suppressing competition between fuel sources. 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-10

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 7.4 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The production models analyzed by Carbon Tracker, which inform our recommendations for modernizing the 

federal coal program, are inherently conservative on the basis of two factors.8 First, the 2°C target used by the 

IEA is an uppermost-limit for temperature warming but does not represent a “safe” threshold. For this reason, 

technical experts to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”) have 

cautioned keeping temperature warming well below 2°C in order to significantly reduce the risks of climate 

change, and Parties to the UNFCCC adopted this goal under the Paris Agreement.9 Second, the IEA 450 

Scenario only assigns a 50% probability of successfully staying below the 2°C threshold and assumes a relatively 

rapid deployment of CCS technology by 2020.10 

[8 The calculated balance of the global carbon budget and the implication for fossil fuel use varies across studies. 

A recent article in the scientific journal Nature applies a global carbon budget to identify the fraction of U.S. coal 

reserves that are unburnable before 2050 under a 2°C scenario, concluding that 95% of U.S. reserves cannot be 

combusted. The Nature analysis models the optimal global use of oil, natural gas and coal with the constraint of a 

2°C emissions trajectory. Coal is heavily disfavored in relation to oil and gas, especially in the United States, due 

both to coal’s carbon intensity and the wide availability of lower-cost, lower-carbon electricity sources. Even with 

CCS technology widely deployed from 2025 forward, the study concludes that 92% of U.S. coal reserves remain 

unburnable. See Christopher McGlade & Paul Eakins, The geographic distribution of fossil fuels unused when 

limiting global warming to 2 °C, 215 Nature 187 (January 8, 2015) at 189.] 

[9 For a discussion on the relative risks of temperature targets, see: United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change Secretariat, Report on the structured expert dialogue on the 2013-2015 review (2015). Available 

at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/sb/eng/inf01.pdf. The Paris Agreement on climate change identifies the 

need for greater temperature ambition. The Agreement aims to hold “the increase in the global average 

temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” with “efforts to limit the temperature increase to 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-170 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

1.5°C above pre-industrial levels” (emphasis added). Paris Agreement, Article 2 (Dec. 13, 2015), in UNFCCC, 

Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Twenty- First Session, Addendum, at 21, UN Doc. 

FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1 (Jan. 29, 2016) (hereinafter, “Paris Agreement”).] 

[10 Forecasting the rapid deployment of carbon capture and storage projects is characterized by uncertainty. 

CCS projects are not utilized at scale and only 15 large-scale projects currently operate. See Global CCS 

Institute, “Large Scale CCS Projects,”https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-projects.] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-25

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to health effects, the federal coal program exacerbates the climate problem, which impairs the public 

interest. Emissions associated with the program comprise a large share of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The 

collective emissions from existing production under the federal coal program are responsible for 11% of 

American greenhouse gas emissions,25 and the United States has already leased more coal than it can afford to 

burn in a manner that is consistent with meeting climate goals. The climate change impacts of the federal coal 

program disrupt ecosystems on federal lands, including national parks, monuments, and reserves, through the 

effects of climate change. A technical climate change report prepared for BLM identified potential climate impacts 

on BLM lands, which include increased risk of extreme temperatures, water scarcity and drought, and frequency 

of wildfires.26 These risks extend beyond publicly-owned lands to encompass all areas of the United States. 

[25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, supra note 7. (0.36) * (0.76) * (0.41) = (0.11)] 

[26 Erica Simmons et al., Potential Climate Change Impacts and the BLM Rio Puerco Field Office's Transportation 

System: A Technical Report. Available at ntl.bts.gov/lib/54000/54700/54763/RioPuercoClimateChange.pdf at x-xi. 

] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-26

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 4.6 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The National Environmental Policy Act provides a framework for how Interior can interpret its relative 

contribution to climate change and the corresponding risk to the public interest through cumulative impacts.27 

The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) draft guidance for greenhouse gas emissions states that agencies 

should consider the “potential effects of a proposed action on climate change as indicated by its GHG 

emissions.”28 The draft guidance also accounts for indirect effects of agency actions, defined as effects that are 

caused by the action and are “later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.”29 

Up until now, BLM has inadequately evaluated the climate change impacts of its coal leasing program by failing to 

address indirect and cumulative impacts. The programmatic review provides an opportunity to correct this 

shortcoming. 

[27 40 C.F.R § 1508.8 defining direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.] 

[28 Council on Envtl. Quality, Exec. Office of the President, Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and 

Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA reviews, 79 

Fed. Reg. 77,802 (Dec. 24, 2014).] 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-171

Scoping Report 

[29 Id.] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-29

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 7.4 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When the President established a climate test for determining whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, he 

examined whether the infrastructure would significantly exacerbate the climate problem.32 The same test applies 

to the federal coal program: if any reforms are inconsistent with the global climate budget, then the federal coal 

leasing program does not pass the climate test. 

[32 Remarks by the President on Climate Change, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., June 25, 2013. 

Available at www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-change] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-9 

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Any eventual decisions to grant new leases should be made with reference to what coal is unburnable under the 

2oC energy pathway. Doing so requires reference to production at currently producing mines, planned 

production from privately owned reserves, and the application of CCS technology, in addition to broader energy 

market conditions. If a given policy is consistent with the 2°C climate budget it is considered “climate 

consistent.”7 

[7 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report assigns a remaining carbon budget 

of 1,000 metric GtCO2 when using a greater than 66% probability of keeping the temperature increase below 

2°C. This budget is relaxed to 1,300 GtCO2 when using a 50% probability of success. The Fifth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summarizes the characteristics of this 1,000 GtCO2 

budget. “Multi-model results show that limiting total human-induced warming (account for both CO2 and other 

human influences on climate) to less than 2°C relative to the period 1861-1880 with a probability of >66% would 

require total CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources since 1870 to be limited to about 2900 GtCO2 

when accounting for non-CO2 forcing... About 1900 [1650 to 2150] GtCO2 were emitted by 2011, leaving 

about 1000 GtC02 to be consistent with this temperature goal. Estimated total fossil carbon reserves exceed this 

remaining amount by a factor of 4 to 7, with resources much larger still” (emphasis added). Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III 

to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. 

Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 at 63.] 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-57

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As part of the BLM's development of a PEIS to review the federal coal program, it must adequately and 

comprehensively evaluate the real and likely negative impacts to local, state, and the U.S. economy if investments 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-172 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

in and deployment of C02 emission reduction strategies related to coal mine production and coal consumption 

are not addressed in a manner similar to that applied to traditional air pollutants. BLM must provide a 

comprehensive evaluation of the ongoing advancement of clean coal technologies at a global scale if it is to 

adequately evaluate environmental impacts of federal coal use. The BLM must also evaluate the negative impacts 

to local, state, and the U.S. economy of stranding the more than $111 billion made in emission reduction 

investments to address emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides and other pollutants. See 

Energy Ventures Analysis, Inc., Capital Investments in Emission Control Retrofits in the U.S. Coal-fired 

Generating Fleet through the Years- 2016 Update (Jan. 26, 2016); (WY0-03863 to 03869). 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-83

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should also evaluate the influence of various coal market conditions, value propositions, coal market 

price conditions, and climate policies in those markets. See ICF International 2016, Millennium Bulk TerminalsLongview, SEPA EIS, SEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, April, Scope of Analysis at § 2.2.2.1; 

(WY0-01490 to 01498 

Technology is always improving and since coal may not be mined and used until years after the lease has been 

award, there is no way of accurately predicting what those emissions levels may be since the coal may be utilized 

in a technology that is not commercial today or for something other than energy production. For those reasons, 

if the BLM factors GHGs into the leasing process, they should only consider those directly tied to the extraction 

process. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-10

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 4.6 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As BLM and Interior prepare the PEIS, the agencies must analyze and assess the impacts of similar and cumulative 

action consistent with NEPA. Indeed, in accordance with NEPA, the scope of an EIS must include all 

“[c]umulative” and “[s]imilar” actions. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(2) and (3). Cumulative actions are defined as those 

that “when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be 

discussed in the same statement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(2). Similar actions are defined as those that “when 

viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for 

evaluating their environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography.” 40 C.F.R. § 

1508.25(a)(3). Pursuant to NEPA regulations, both cumulative and similar actions must be analyzed and assessed 

together with alternatives and any proposed agency actions in the same EIS. 

With regards to cumulative and similar actions, it is imperative that the PEIS, at a minimum, address the following: 

i. The impacts of oil and gas development in the western United States 

Oil and gas development, particularly the development of federal oil and gas as authorized by the BLM, is not only 

a cumulative action, but a similar action under NEPA. Oil and gas development, particularly federal oil and gas 

development, often occurs on or near mines that are producing federal coal. For example, a massive oil and gas 

project under consideration by the BLM in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming would take place where 

extensive coal mining is currently occurring. See 80 Fed. Reg. 65,242 (Oct. 26, 2015). At a minimum, oil and gas 

development occurs extensively throughout the coal producing regions of the western United States, where the 

vast amount of federal coal is located and mined. 

See Attached for Graphic - Federal oil and gas wells in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah adjacent to the 

Bonanza coal-fired power plant. The Bonanza power plant is fueled by the nearby Deserado coal mine in 

northwestern Colorado, which is comprised almost entirely of federal coal reserves.
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-173

Scoping Report 

Not only does oil and gas development take place in similar geographies and at similar times as coal mining, it 

poses similar impacts, particularly in terms of air emissions and climate impacts. Indeed, as reports indicate, the 

onshore an offshore development of federal oil and gas contributes to nearly 10% of all U.S. greenhouse gas 

emissions. (46) Onshore development of federal oil and gas, which largely occurs in the western United States, 

often at or near coal mining operations, accounts for nearly 4% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. To this end, 

climate concerns related to oil and gas development are entirely relevant to addressing the climate impacts of the 

federal coal program and must be fully analyzed and assessed in the PEIS as similar and/or cumulative actions. 

The need to address the impacts of oil and gas development in the PEIS together with the impacts of the federal 

coal program is critical given that there are a number of reasonably foreseeable proposed oil and gas 

developments currently under consideration by the BLM, including: 

· The Continental Divide-Creston oil and gas project in southern Wyoming, approval of which would open the 

door for 8,950 new oil and gas wells. See 81 Fed. Reg. 22,628 (April 18, 2016). 

· The Monument Butte oil and gas project in northeastern Utah, approval of which would open the door for 

5,750 new oil and gas wells. See 81 Fed. Reg. 41,331 (June 24, 2016). 

· The Converse County oil and gas project in eastern Wyoming, approval of which would open the door for 

5,000 new oil and gas wells. See 79 Fed. Reg. 28,538 (May 16, 2014). 

· The Greater Crossbow oil and gas project in northeastern Wyoming, approval of which would open the door 

for 1,500 oil and gas wells. See 80 Fed. Reg. 80 Fed. Reg. 65,242 (Oct. 26, 2015).

· Extensive oil and gas leasing in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. As the BLM’s own 

statistics show, millions of acres of these states have been leased over the years, opening the door for extensive 

oil and gas development. In the remainder of 2016, the BLM is proposing lease 87 parcels in August comprising 

89,137 acres in Wyoming, 21 parcels in November comprising 30,197 acres in Wyoming, 91 parcels in October 

comprising 19,790 acres in Montana, 28 parcels in November comprising 12,344 acres in Utah, 36 parcels in 

September comprising 13,876 acres in New Mexico, and 37 parcels in November comprising 25,298 acres in 

Colorado. (47) It is reasonable to believe that the BLM is likely to propose, offer for sale, and issue millions more 

acres of federal oil and gas leases in the near future. The climate consequences of such leasing actions must be 

addressed in the PEIS. 

(47) See BLM, “Notice of Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale” (May 4, 2016), available online at 

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/61292/73465/80674/08list.pdf; BLM, “Environmental 

Assessment, November 1, 2016 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale Parcels,” EA No. DOI-BLM-WY-D040-2016-

0138EA (April 2016), available online at https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/nepa/60579/72678/79780/EAv1.pdf; BLM, “Notice of Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale” (July 

2016), available online at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/mt/blm_programs/energy/oil_and_gas/leasing/lease_sale 

s/2016/oct16_2016.Par.89806.File.dat/10_18_16%20SaleNotice_Map_List_Stips_for%20postin g.pdf; BLM, 

“Environmental Assessment, November 2016 Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale,” EA No. DOI-BLM-UT-G010-

2016-033-EA, available online at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/mt/blm_programs/energy/oil_and_gas/leasing/lease_sale 

s/2016/oct16_2016.Par.89806.File.dat/10_18_16%20SaleNotice_Map_List_Stips_for%20postin g.pdf; BLM, 

“Notice of Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale” (April 20, 2016), available online at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nm/programs/0/og_sale_notices_and/2016/july_2016.Pa 

r.97830.File.dat/July%202016%20OG%20Lease%20Sale%20Notice.pdf; BLM, “November 10, 2016 Oil and Gas 

Lease Sale” website available at 

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/oilandgas/oil_and_gas_lease/20160/november_20 16.html. 

The climate impacts of the federal coal program cannot be analyzed in a piecemeal fashion that overlooks BLM’s 

twin role in managing onshore oil and gas. Particularly given that the scope of the PEIS will necessarily be national 

in focus, if not broader, the BLM is compelled under NEPA to ensure these similar actions are fully accounted 

for. 

The need to address the reasonably foreseeable climate impacts of oil and gas development is underscored by the 

greenhouse gas emissions that are likely to result. As reported, if fully developed, unleased onshore oil and gas 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-174 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

reserves stand to release nearly 30 billion metric tons of carbon. (48) See Table below. 

See Attached for Table - Carbon Emissions (in billion metric tons) Projected from Unleased Federal Onshore Oil 

and Gas Reserves(48) See Exhibit 5 at 18 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-24

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 4.6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The climate impacts of all Interior Department fossil fuel management 

Additionally, if Interior and the BLM are to properly analyze and assess the climate impacts of federal coal 

management, the climate impacts of all Interior Department overseen fossil fuel development must be taken into 

account. This includes, but is not limited to, the impacts of offshore oil and gas development, oil shale, and tar 

sands development. As reports indicate, the potential climate impacts of offshore oil and gas, oil shale, and tar 

sands stand to be tremendous, with more than 222.14 billion metric tons of carbon projected, nearly as much as 

the total carbon emissions that could be released if all unleased federal coal reserves are developed. (49) See 

Exhibit 5 at 18 

See Attached for Table - Carbon Emissions (in billion metric tons) From Other Interior Department-overseen 

Fossil Fuel Development 

Similar to onshore oil and gas development, the Interior Department and BLM’s management of offshore oil and 

gas, oil shale, and tar sands are both cumulative and similar in nature, and therefore must be a part of the scope 

of the analysis for the PEIS. Indeed, if the climate impacts of the federal coal program are to be completely 

understood, they must be analyzed together with the impacts of other fossil fuel management programs that are 

under the control and authority of the Department of the Interior. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-4 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Other Sections: 8.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal Leasing and Climate Considerations - Coal built our country and is a key foundation for our success and 

prosperity. A rational energy policy should be based on a true, "all of the above" approach. In fact, this approach 

is essential if we are to meet our projected future energy needs. Much of the current focus is on addressing 

climate considerations, but this must be balanced with the critical need to maintain reliable energy generation and 

distribution systems and provide affordable power for our households and businesses. Any impact analysis should 

include an alternative which takes this critical balance into consideration. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-7 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Other Sections: 4.6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate Impacts - Due to pressure from environmental interst groups, consideration of potential climate impacts 

is being mandated at every stage of the process, including coal leasing, mine permit approvals, and required 

approvals for powerplant construction and operation. This approach results in multiple redundant reviews, does 

not accurately characterize direct or indirect impacts from those actions preceding combustion of coal in a 

powerplant, and results in significant unnecessary costs and delays. Under the current BLM leasing process and 

practices, potential climate impacts are required to be evaluated and analyzed in the NEPA documents prepared 

for each leasing action. While this requirement is duplicative of subsequent environmental reviews, it adequately 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-175

Scoping Report 

addresses and satisfies the requirement is duplicative of subsequent environmental reviews, it adequately 

addresses and satisfies the requirement to evaluate these potential impacts. The suggestion that potential climate 

impacts should be evaluated on a broader scale relative to identification of potential lease offerings creates a 

situation where the linkage between action and potential impacts is even further removed and speculative, is 

adding one more layer to an already duplicative and redundant review process, and is therefore inappropriate and 

unjustified. 

Comment Number: 0002509_Iverson_20160728-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Kathryn Iverson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In reviewing the Federal Coal Leasing Program, the climate cost must be accounted for. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-32

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS Should Evaluate Climate Change Impacts of the Federal Coal Program We applaud the Secretary of the 

Interior for ordering BLM to take its first comprehensive look at the climate impacts of leasing and burning 

federally owned coal. In the PEIS process, the BLM must finally acknowledge – for the first time in its history –

that its federal coal program perpetuates and exacerbates climate change. Such an analysis is the only responsible 

approach to addressing climate impacts of mining and burning hundreds of millions of tons of taxpayer-owned 

coal every year, and it is the only approach that honors Secretary Jewell’s call for “an honest and open 

conversation” with the American people about the federal coal program. 21 As the White House Council of 

Economic Advisors acknowledged, coal combustion and the impacts of coal combustion are indirect impacts of 

federal coal leasing. 22 Indeed, “[f]ederal coal was used to generate about 14 percent of the Nation’s electricity in 

2015.”23 For the past several years, while the much of the Obama Administration has developed significant and 

forward-thinking policies aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions in order to stave off the worst effects of 

climate change, the Department of Interior and BLM have continued to lease billions of tons of federally owned 

and managed coal while telling the public and decision-makers that doing so has no impact on the climate. The 

Department, in particular BLM and OSMRE, have based this idea—that although burning coal may harm the 

climate, their decisions to approve more coal mining do not—on a discredited assumption that courts have 

referred to as “perfect substitution.” The idea behind BLM’s perfect substitution theory, which defies even the 

most basic understanding of the way in which energy markets work, is that if the Department were to reject any 

particular coal lease, coal from other mines would perfectly substitute for one-hundred percent of that coal in 

the marketplace—that is, coal-fired power plants would simply buy the same amount of coal at the same price 

from other mines. Another significant and consistent flaw in BLM NEPA reviews for proposals to mine federal 

coal is that many of these reviews continue to state that the individual mining proposal would only minimally 

contribute to state, national, and global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, even though the White House’s Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) – which promulgates NEPA regulations that other agencies are required to 

follow– explicitly advised against this approach in 2014. For example, in June 2016, in evaluating climate impacts of 

a proposed expansion at Spring Creek Mine, OSMRE quantified direct and indirect GHG emissions from 21 Sec’y 

Sally Jewell, Speech at the Center for International Strategic Studies (March 17, 2015), available at 

https://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/secretary-jewell-offers-vision-for-balanced-prosperous- energy-future 

(last visited July 20, 2016). 22 See White House Fair Return Report, at 28 (describing environmental externalities 

of leasing federal coal, including coal combustion impacts). 23 Secretarial Order 3338, at 2. 13 coal production 

and combustion and compared those to Montana and national emission totals. 24 This, however, is precisely the 

kind of limited analysis that CEQ specifically directed agencies not to do: [T]he statement that emissions from a 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-176 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

government action or approval represent only a small fraction of global emissions is more a statement about the 

nature of the climate change challenge, and is not an appropriate basis for deciding whether to consider climate 

impacts under NEPA. Moreover, these comparisons are not an appropriate method for characterizing the 

potential impacts associated with a proposed action and its alternatives and mitigations. This approach does not 

reveal anything beyond the nature of the climate change challenge itself: the fact that diverse individual sources of 

emissions each make relatively small additions to global atmospheric GHG concentrations that collectively have 

huge impact. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-33

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM must reject, once and for all, this unnecessarily limited approach to understanding the climate impacts of its 

decisions and the unsupported, incorrect, and damaging assumption of perfect substitution. In order to 

adequately understand the impacts of the federal coal leasing program as a whole—and to take the hard look at 

those impacts that NEPA requires—BLM must analyze the extent to which continued expansion and long-term 

operation of the program affects the mix of resources used to generate electricity and how the concomitant 

greenhouse gas emissions differ among alternatives. As described below, there are multiple energy market 

models that would allow BLM to quantify how alternative proposals (such as a “no new leasing” alternative and an 

alternative that captures externalities of climate damage into royalty rates) would affect demand for coal, natural 

gas, and renewables used to generate electricity. Once BLM quantifies the different levels of climate pollution 

associated with various alternatives, it must do more than simply use the volume of greenhouse gas emissions as 

a proxy for the effect of those BLM emissions. In particular, BLM must analyze whether the continued leasing of 

federal coal is consistent with our national GHG emission reduction goals and international climate 

commitments, and BLM must use the social cost of carbon and social cost of methane as tools to understand the 

severity of climate impacts without merely relying on the volume of GHG emissions as proxy for their effect. 24 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Spring Creek Mine EA, 4-17 (June 2, 2016), available at 

http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/SpringcreekMineLBA1/documents/EA0616.pdf (last visited June 26, 2016). 

25 Council on Environmental Quality, Revised Draft Guidance on the Consideration of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews, at 9 (2014), available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nepa_revised_draft_ghg_guidance_searchab le.pdf (last visited 

July 1, 2016) (hereafter “CEQ Draft Climate Guidance”) (emphasis added). 14 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-36

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

. BLM Must Acknowledge that the Federal Coal Program Exacerbates Climate Change. Federal agencies that 

make regulatory decisions that affect the amount of coal that can be produced from public lands have an 

obligation under NEPA to accurately analyze and disclose the environmental impacts of those decisions. With 

regard to assessments of climate impacts, agencies must quantify the amount of GHG emissions that will occur as 

a result of the agency’s action. But that does not mean merely tallying up the direct emissions of carbon dioxide 

and methane emissions emitted during mining and adding them to the carbon dioxide emissions emitted from 

burning the coal once it is mined. In order to make an accurate assessment of GHG emissions, agencies must first 

thoroughly examine coal markets and the extent to which the market will respond to the agency’s decision. The 

nature and extent of the market’s response to 15 a single regulatory decision can lead to complex questions that 

require rigorous economic evaluation—agencies may not simply assume a given market response, as BLM has 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-177 

Scoping Report 

done repeatedly in the past. We support the Secretary of the Interior’s commitment in the Secretarial Order 

announcing this PEIS process to studying this precise issue, and her recognition that many commentators have 

noted the tension between producing very large quantities of federal coal while pursuing policies to reduce U.S. 

GHG emissions. Specifically, the Secretary’s order directs the agency to address: [H]ow the administration, 

availability, and pricing of Federal coal affect regional and national economies (including job impacts), and energy 

markets in general, including the pricing and viability of other coal resources (both domestic and foreign) and 

other energy sources. The impact of possible program alternatives on the projected fuel mix and cost of 

electricity in the United States should also be examined. BLM’s March 30, 2016 Notice of Intent repeats the 

Secretary’s direction, with an explicit commitment to study this issue, explaining that the PEIS “will broadly 

examine” these issues. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-49

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the PEIS, BLM must disavow perfect substitution both to disclose the cumulative impacts of the federal coal 

leasing program, and to comport with the legal principle that when agencies change their minds on key issues 

they explain why the reversal is not arbitrary and capricious. NEPA regulations define a “cumulative impact” as 

one that “results 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. As recently articulated by the D.C. Circuit Court, “[o]ne of the core tenets 

of reasoned decision-making is that ‘an agency [when] changing its course . . . is obligated to supply a reasoned 

analysis for the change.’” Sierra Club v. Salazar, No. 10-1513 (RBW), 2016 WL 1436645, at *22 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 

2016) (quoting Republic Airline Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 669 F.3d 296, 299 (D.C. Cir. 2012)). See also W. 

Deptford Energy, LLC v. FERC, 766 F.3d 10, 17 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (noting that agencies “cannot depart from 

[prior] rulings without provid[ing] a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being 

deliberately changed, not casually ignored”); Wis. Valley Improvement v. FERC, 236 F.3d 738, 748 (D.C. Cir. 

2001) (stating that “an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it abruptly departs from a position it 

previously held without satisfactorily explaining its reason for doing so”). 26 Secretarial Order 3338, 

Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program, at 8 (Jan. 

15, 2016) (emphasis added). 27 Notice of Intent, 81 Fed. Reg. at 17,226. 16 In disavowing the myth of perfect 

substitution, BLM has an unfortunate and long history to refute. Although BLM routinely quantifies the amount of 

carbon dioxide that would result from mining and burning the coal made available by individual BLM leasing 

decisions, and often provides a general overview of climate change, in nearly every environmental impact 

statement and environmental assessment this administration has prepared under NEPA evaluating the climate 

impact of various coal leasing proposals, the Department has dismissed the notion that its decisions opening up 

more federal coal have any impact on the total amount of coal mined and burned, and thus on the amount of 

carbon dioxide emitted from the electric sector. As documented below, this assumption can be found in the 

environmental analyses for the largest surface mine approvals in the history of the program, comparatively tiny 

mines in Washington, underground mines in Colorado and Montana, and analyses from as early as 2008 and as 

recent as last month. The following examples are an illustrative, but by no means exhaustive, list of NEPA review 

documents in which BLM, OSMRE, and/or the U.S. Forest Service, which is part of the Department of 

Agriculture, have relied on perfect substitution to help justify its decision to authorize new or expanded coal 

leases. • West Antelope, proposal to lease 400 million tons of coal (2008): “It is not likely that selection of the 

No Action Alternative would result in a decrease of U.S. CO2 emissions attributable to coal-burning power 

plants in the long term. There are multiple other sources of coal that, while not having the cost, environmental, 

or safety advantages, could supply the demand for coal beyond the time that the Antelope Mine completes 

recovery of the coal in its existing leases.”28 • Belle Ayr and Caballo, proposal to lease 230 million tons of coal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-178 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

(2009): “It is not likely that selection of the No Action alternatives would result in a decrease of U.S. CO2 

emissions attributable to coal-burning power plants in the longer term because there are multiple other sources 

of coal that, while not having the cost, environmental, or safety advantages, could supply the demand for coal 

beyond the time that the Belle Ayr, Coal Creek Caballo, and Cordero Rojo Mines complete recovery of the coal 

in their existing leases.”29 28 Bureau of Land Management, West Antelope II FEIS, at 4-109, (2008), available at 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/cfo/West_Antelope_II.html (last visited June 26, 2016). 29 

Bureau of Land Management, South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications FEIS, at 4-120-121 (2009), available at 

http://www.blm.gov/publish/content/wy/en/info/NEPA/documents/hpd/SouthGillette.html (last visited June 26, 

2016). 17 • Wright Area coal mines, proposal to lease 2 billion tons of coal (2010): “It is not likely that selection 

of No Action alternatives would result in a decrease of U.S. CO2 emissions ... because there are multiple other 

sources of coal that . . . could supply the demand.”30 • Colorado Roadless Rule, proposal to open to leasing 347 

million tons of coal (2012): “[C]oal is increasingly a global commodity and any reductions in coal production 

associated with a roadless rule likely would be by coal from another source.”31 • John Henry Mine, proposal to 

develop 740,000 tons of coal (2014): “The end users of coal, in particular the cement manufacturing plant located 

in Richmond, British Columbia, will show no net increase in CO2 emissions as [the mine’s] coal will displace coal 

from other sources.”32 • Bull Mountain Mine, proposal to develop 100 million tons of coal (2015): “The No 

Action Alternative would not likely result in a decrease of CO2 emissions attributable to coal-burning power 

plants in the long term. There are multiple other sources of coal that could supply the demand for coal beyond 

the time that the Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 completes recovery of all coal proposed for mining. Without 

continued coal export from the Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 after the remaining 35 million tons is mined, it is 

reasonable to expect that power plant(s) would obtain coal from alternative sources on the spot market and coal 

combustion emissions would be comparable to the Proposed Action, depending on the coal quality and 

associated efficiency. Negligible impacts to climate change are expected under the No Action Alternative.”33 • 

Spring Creek Mine, proposal to develop 84 million tons of coal (2016): “In addition, there is no certainty that 

GHG emissions at power plants would actually be reduced if the federal coal associated with the Proposed 

Action was not mined, given that the power 30 Bureau of Land Management, Wright Area FEIS, at 4-141 (2010), 

available at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hpd/Wright-Coal.html (last visited June 26, 2016). 

31 U.S. Forest Service, Colorado Roadless Rule FEIS, at 138-139 (2012), available at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/roadmain/roadless/coloradoroadlessrules/finalruledocuments (last visited June 26, 2016). 

32 Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, John Henry Mine EA, at 23, (2014), available at 

http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/johnHenryMine/JHM_EA.pdf (last visited June 26, 2016). 33 Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Bull Mountain No. 1 Mine EA, at 4- 24, (Jan. 2015), available at 

http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/bullMountainsMine/BullMountainsMineEA.pdf (last visited June 26, 2016). 

18 plants supplied by [Spring Creek Coal Mine] have alternative sources for coal, and the [Mine] also has nonfederal coal reserves that could be mined.”34 In stark contrast to this long-standing practice of BLM and other 

agencies, the only times that federal courts have ruled on an agency’s use of perfect substitution, they have 

rejected the theory. In Mid States Coal. for Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., the Surface Transportation Board 

approved a new railroad line that would have provided a shorter route to deliver Powder River Basin coal to 

power plants in the Midwest. 345 F.3d 520, 532, 550 (8th Cir. 2003). The Surface Transportation Board argued 

that the rail line would not cause an increase in the use of Powder River Basin coal, since the project would 

merely provide a shorter and straighter route to power plants for coal mines that already served those plants 

through existing railways. Id. at 549. The Eighth Circuit rejected the unsupported notion that demand would 

remain unaffected in the face of a proposal that increased the availability and decreased the price of 

approximately 100 million tons of coal per year coal: [T]he proposition that the demand for coal will be 

unaffected by an increase in availability and a decrease in price . . . is illogical at best. The increased availability of 

inexpensive coal will at the very least make coal a more attractive option to future entrants into the utilities 

market when compared with other potential fuel sources, such as nuclear power, solar power, or natural gas. ... 

[The railroad] will most certainly affect the nation’s long-term demand for coal. Id. (emphasis added). More 

recently, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado rejected the Forest Service’s reliance on perfect 

substitution when analyzing the impact of making available approximately 347 million tons of coal in Colorado. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-179

Scoping Report 

High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F.Supp. 3d 1174, 1197-98 (D.Colo. 2014). The 

Forest Service argued that “if the coal does not come out of the ground in the North Fork consumers will simply 

pay to have the same amount of coal pulled out of the ground from somewhere else—overall [greenhouse gas] 

emissions from combustion will be identical under either scenario.” Id. The High Country court rejected the 

Forest Service’s conclusion, explaining that the increased supply made possible by the Forest Service’s decision 

would “impact the demand for coal relative to other fuel sources” and that “[t]his reasonably foreseeable effect 

must be analyzed.” Id. at 1198. Significantly, every time agencies have actually analyzed the impact of coal-related 

proposals by modeling the market impacts, they have concluded that proposals to facilitate coal mining on public 

lands will result in increased carbon dioxide emissions. 34 Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

Spring Creek Mine EA, at 4-17 (June 2, 2016), available at 

http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/SpringcreekMineLBA1/documents/EA0616.pdf (last visited June 26, 2016). 

19 Earlier this year, the Washington Department of Ecology analyzed the impacts of the proposed Millennium 

Bulk coal export terminal. As part of its analysis, Ecology used the ICF Integrated Planning Model to analyze 

impacts of the proposal. Ecology studied relevant factors, including how changes in supply can affect coal price. 

Ultimately, Ecology concluded that the proposal could affect the delivered coal price and thus total coal 

consumption, recognizing that: “[a]s delivered coal prices change, the demand for coal changes in the opposite 

direction.”35 Similarly, following the High Country decision, the Forest Service used the ICF Integrated Planning 

Model to analyze the market and environmental impacts of the proposal to allow access to approximately 170 

million tons of coal in otherwise protected areas of Colorado. In November 2015, the Forest Service released its 

Supplemental DEIS, which concluded that “[c]hanges in gross production and consumption of coal from the 

North Fork Coal Mining Area are expected to have an effect on production and consumption of other fuel 

sources, including alternative supplies of coal, natural gas, and other energy supplies such as renewables, 

especially in later years of the analysis.”36 The Forest Service explained that opening up approximately 170 

million tons of coal would cause “the mixture of fuels [to] shift[],” including increases in production and 

consumption of underground coal, and decreases in production and consumption of substitute fuel sources such 

as surface coal, natural gas, and renewable energy. Moreover, the Forest Service concluded based on its 

Integrated Planning Model runs that this relatively modest proposal, in terms of volume of coal when compared 

to the federal coal leasing program, would displace approximately 40,000 gigawatt hours of renewable energy 

from the U.S. electricity grid 35 Washington Department of Ecology, Millennium Coal Export Terminal Draft EIS, 

SEPA Market Assessment Technical Report, at 4-11 (2016). ICF conducted a literature review to identify a 

specific demand elasticity, and supplied the following studies when asked to identify the documents it relied upon: 

Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR 

EPA’S MULTI-POLLUTANT ANALYSIS ELECTRICITY DEMAND RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN PRICE IN 

EPA’S POWER SECTOR MODEL (2005), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/progsregs/cair/docs/DemandResponse.pdf; James Espey & Molly Espey, Turning on 

the Lights: A Meta-Analysis of Residential Electricity Demand Elasticities, 36 J. OF AGRIC. & APPLIED ., no. 1, 

2004, at 65, available at https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joaaec/42897.html; R. Laffery, et al., Office of Markets, Tariffs 

and Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DEMAND RESPONSIVENESS IN ELECTRICITY MARKETS 

(2001); Mark Bernstein & James Griffin, The RAND Corporation, REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN THE PRICEELASTICITY OF DEMAND FOR ENERGY (2005), available at 

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2005/RAND_TR292.pdf; Nathan Joo, Matt LeeAshley, & Michael Madowitz, Center for American Progress, 5 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT 

POWDER RIVER BASIN COAL EXPORTS (2014), available at http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/08/PowderRiver-factsheet.pdf (From The structural break and elasticity of coal demand in 

China: empirical findings from 1980-2006); U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, 

FUEL COMPETITION IN POWER GENERATION AND ELASTICITIES OF SUBSTITUTION (2012), available at 

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/fuelelasticities/pdf/eia-fuelelasticities.pdf. 36 U.S. Forest Service, Colorado 

Roadless Rule SDEIS, at 80 (Nov. 2015) (emphasis added). 20 over the life of the proposal, and result in a net 

increase of 130 million tons of CO2 over the life of the proposal. 37 In sum, the PEIS must disclose the volume of 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-180 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

GHGs likely to occur as a result of each alternative, by acknowledging and disclosing the substitution of effects of 

other energy sources. 

Comment Number: 0003004_MasterFormD_TheSierraClub-2 

Organization1:The Sierra Club 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Thank you for preparing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) of the Federal Coal Leasing 

Program. The program is outdated, out of step with our nation’s commitment to act on climate, and fails to 

account for the damage done to both local communities and the planet. This review is a critical step in ensuring 

America meets its climate goals and continues to be an international leader on climate and clean energy following 

the recent signing of the Paris Climate Agreement. 

Comment Number: 0003006_MasterFormE_TWS-1 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We already know burning fossil fuels extracted from our public lands account for 21% of all U.S. greenhouse 

gases. Yet millions of acres of public lands are open to new coal leasing. 

To reform the current coal program, the Bureau of Land Management should disclose and reduce the impacts of 

mining and burning publicly-owned coal on the climate, our shared public lands and communities as well as ensure 

taxpayers receive a fair return from the sale of federal coal. 

Comment Number: 0003010_MasterFormI_PhysiciansSocialRespon-5 

Organization1:Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Other Sections: 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Health effects associated with climate change: Because coal-fired power plants account for so much of U.S. 

carbon dioxide emissions, coal is a major contributor to the health impacts of climate change. Determination of 

the climate threats needs to be quantified by the PEIS to evaluate the ultimate cumulative impact of additional 

leasing on federal land. For example, more frequent heat waves will lead to a rise in heat exhaustion and heat 

stroke, potentially resulting in death, especially among elderly and poor urban dwellers. Rising temperatures are 

expanding the ranges for disease-carriers like mosquitoes and ticks in some cases causing epidemics of Lyme 

disease. Drought causes detrimental effects on food supply resulting in crop failure, higher prices and worsening 

nutrition. The increased frequency of intense precipitation events contributes to flooding, water contamination 

and the spread of infectious and mosquito-borne diseases. Drought, declining food supplies and rising sea levels 

increase the migration of affected populations and increase armed conflict and global instability. 

Comment Number: 0003015_MasterFormN2_WORC-2 

Organization1:Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Accounting for the impacts of mining, including climate change, and 

Comment Number: 0003016_MasterFormO_EarthJustice-2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Using public lands in a manner consistent with America's climate goals and leadership on clean energy 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-181

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0003035_Coppin_J_06082016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Robert Coppin 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Man caused global warming has not been proven. Glacier shortening in the Alps started in 1750. 

Carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere started to increase in 1900. The effect of increased carbon dioxide 

concentration in the atmosphere probably started in 1970 because of the lag effect. Increased carbon dioxide 

concentration after 1900 can not cause glacier shortening in 1750. 

Comment Number: 0003039_Estey_J_06042016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Wayne Estey 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

You would have to shut down every power plant in the US and it would effect temperature by only .1 degree in 

100 years. There is 50000 power plants world wide and 8000 in US. Coal is slowly going away. 

Comment Number: 0003125_Gurevich_07282016-1 

Commenter1:Yulia Gurevich 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we must keep 80% of existing fossil fuels in the ground - to do so, 

we must halt new coal mining leases on federal land. 

There is no need to put even more of our coal in the hands of big polluters who profit off of the destruction to 

our land, air, and water and exacerbate climate change. 

Comment Number: 0003128_Lostetter_06052016-1 

Commenter1:Robin Lostetter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to the many urgent reasons to protect the environment and transition away from coal use, we need 

to retain forested lands for their capability to cleanse the air of CO2 and provide us with b!sic oxygen. 

Comment Number: 0020008_Hoem_20160712-7 

Commenter1:Harold Hoem 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Burning coal is the greatest contributor of greenhouse gases and therefore climate change. 

Comment Number: 0020009_Shurgot_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Michael Shurgot 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

C02 pollution is destroying the atmosphere everywhere, as Bill McKibben showed in his book The End of Nature 

way back in 1989! 

Comment Number: 0020010_Sims_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Kimberly Sims 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal needs to be kept in the ground where its carbon is sequestered instead of being released into the 

atmosphere. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-182 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0020011_Perrott_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Pamela Perrott 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Global warming is real and it is here. We need to transition off of coal as soon as possible - it's the worst fuel for 

CO2 pollution and other air pollution. 

Comment Number: 0020013_Hyndman_20160712-2 

Commenter1:Donald Hyndman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal burning anywhere on Earth is by far the largest polluter/CO2 generator of all energy sources - CO2 has 

been well documented as the leading source of climate change. 

Comment Number: 0020021_Hoem_20160712-2 

Commenter1:Janice Hoem 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Burning coal is the greatest contributor of greenhouse gases and therefore climate change. 

Comment Number: 0020027_Harris_20160722-4 

Commenter1:Mark Harris 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If we are going to stop catastrophic climate change, we must permanently stop new coal mining on public lands. 

Comment Number: 0020034_Koontz_TownofHotchkiss_20160729-6 

Organization1:Town of Hotchkiss 

Commenter1:Wendell Koontz 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the Town looks to take a pragmatic and realistic approach to the politics of climate change. Indeed the Bureau of 

Land Management includes consideration of potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the production and use 

of coal when potential lease sales are analyzed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 

Department of the Interior has successfully defended its analyses of climate impacts in a series of legal challenges 

brought by coal project opponents.[4] 

[4] See: 

* WildEarth Guardians v Salazar, 880 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D.D.C. 2012) aff'd 738 F. 3d 298(D.C. Cir. 2013); 

* WildEarth Guardians v Forest Service, No. 12-CV-85 (D. Wyo. 2015); 

* Western Organization of Resource Councils v. Jewell, No. 14-1993 (D.D.C. 2015) 

Comment Number: 0020037-1 

Commenter1:Corey Weathers 

Other Sections: 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We strongly oppose coal leasing in WA state as coal is not only a public health threat but also one of the key 

contributors to climate change 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-183

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 002501_Ring_20160728-3 

Organization1:Climate911 

Commenter1:Wendy Ring 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Accelerating climate disaster 

US federal coal reserves amount to 25% of the world's carbon budget for 2 C global warming. Keeping this coal 

in the ground is an essential part of the United States' international climate commitments. Existing federal coal 

leases will still be in production when the global carbon budget for 2 degrees is exceeded (EcoShift, 2016). New 

leases will speed up this accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and bring us closer to a tipping point 

to runaway global warming. 

Comment Number: 003067_Karlsda_1072016-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Slvyie Karslda 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Among its deadly consequences, it's attacking the ocean and the ocean life we depend on for food, recreation, 

and the oxygen we breathe. Coral is dying from a warmer ocean, fish are forced to change their migratory 

patterns and suffering depletion, toxic algae is proliferating, shellfish are having problems growing shells due to 

water acidification 

Comment Number: 003073_Gordon_1872016-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Tom Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As coal is burned, CO2 is released. CO2 is a gas that disperses all over the globe. As it circulates around, it 

combines with water or water vapor to create a mild acid. Slowly but inexorably our oceans are becoming more 

acidic as a result. Ocean acidification is a huge problem for the economy of Washington State. It affects one of 

our major industries, one that earns an estimated $270 million a year for the state coffers every year, the shellfish 

industry. Acidic water affects oysters and, even more important, shell-forming marine plankton which is critical in 

basic marine food chains. These effects start in the higher latitudes and gradually move toward the equator. The 

burning of coal in Asia will affect ocean acidification all over the world, especially having an impact on ecosystems 

such as coral reefs, an important support system for fish stocks 

Comment Number: 3057-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Jim Steitz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Scientists have shown with overwhelming and ever-increasing evidence that our emissions of carbon dioxide, if 

pursued for several more decades, will lead to global warming of 4-5 Celsius or more. This level of climate 

change would devastate the basic life-support functions of Planet Earth, and place in grave jeopardy the 

persistence of human civilization. The current level of carbon dioxide is over 400 parts per million and increasing. 

The warming to date, 1 degree C, is more rapid than anything Earth has experienced in several million years, and 

will accelerate under projected emission scenarios 

Comment Number: 3057-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Jim Steitz 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-184 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To keep climate change within a level tolerable for human civilization requires, as a mathematical certainty, that 

80% of known remaining fossil fuel reserves must remain underground, not converted into atmospheric carbon 

dioxide. This necessarily includes federally owned bodies of coal, oil, and gas on public lands, which account for 

40% of domestic coal production, an additional supply that is retarding our urgently needed transition from 

carbon fuels. 

Comment Number: 000001242_ SANDERSON_Colorado Mining Association _2016062-5 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And it's important to keep in mind that in assessing the minuscule climate related carbon emissions from coal, it's 

important to keep in mind that these are already being regulated. 

Comment Number: 000001245_ COFIELD_20160623-3 

Organization1:Wagner Equipment Company 

Commenter1:Brad Cofield 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Let's consider the climate impacts of the Federal Coal Lease Program. The BLM already includes consideration of 

potential greenhouse gas emissions in the production and use of coal when potential lease sales are analyzed 

under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Department of Interior successfully has defended its analysis of 

climate impacts in a series of legal challenges brought by coal project opponents. 

Comment Number: 000001264_ Breen_20160623-1 

Organization1:State of Colorado Organizations 

Commenter1:Katie Breen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Extracting and burning coal at the rate it has been is harming our climate, causing irreplaceable damage to land, 

including our air and water. Coal companies are not paying their fair share for the damage they're causing, and 

our generation is left to foot the bill. That needs to change. 

Comment Number: 000001296_Gawler_20160623-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Maddy Gawler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Currently, every second, a person is displaced due to climate change and natural disasters. The 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that by the end of the century, 50 million to 1 billion 

individuals will be displaced. The Federal Coal Leasing Program is not -- is contributing to this pollution that is 

creating climate refugees. 

Comment Number: 000001301_Permut_20160623-1 

Organization1:Climate Reality Project 

Commenter1:Susan Permut 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Also, mining coal and burning coal poisons our air and water and contributes to climate chaos. And for me, that 

is the crux of the dilemma about coal. Yes, people need good jobs and they need to be able to feed their families 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-185

Scoping Report 

and enjoy the beauty of the landscape here in the West. But, we need to find a different way for all our 

hardworking miners to make a living. This is something that is bigger than Western Colorado or the U.S. It is a 

global issue. 

Comment Number: 00001284_Sager_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Jennifer Sager 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Last May, the White House released a report called the National Security Implications of the Changing Climate, 

which included findings from DHS, DOD, and other Federal agencies. This report makes clear that climate 

change posses an immediate and far-reaching threat to America's safety and stability. The Pentagon refers to 

climate change as a threat multiplier because it aggravates existing stressors, such as poverty, poor farming 

conditions and political instability, which in turn provides environments where terrorist activity thrives. This 

results in the need for more frequent defense missions. This increased scale and intricacy costs human lives and 

taxpayer dollars. Domestically the IC and DOD recognizes that climate change posses serious threats to our 

coastal communities and military bases, two essential aspects of our economy and food security, like agriculture 

and water; and to our critical national energy and transportation infrastructure. 

Comment Number: 00001292_Grako_20160623-3 

Organization1:Bowie Resources 

Commenter1:Lou Grako 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There has been a concern that fossil fuels cause global warning. But, according to the scientific studies, in the last 

15 years, there has been little or no change in the earth's temperature. 

Comment Number: 00001303_Leahy_20160623-1 

Organization1:New Mexico Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Todd Leahy 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

First, rely on independent peer review Clients. We strongly believe that the nation cannot continue to lease coal 

without taking into account that it is the most significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. The current PEIS, 

under which the Federal coal was leased, was completed in the '80s. Every one of our hottest years on record 

has occurred in the last 20 years. A scientific consensus was developed around the reality of global warning. And 

the BLM must grant its new PEIS in this reality. 

Comment Number: 0000728_noname_20160628-1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We ask that the BLM address the evident inconsistency between the conclusions of the best available climate 

science and the agency's continued expansion of the federal coal program 

Comment Number: 0000741_Perry_NWF-2 

Commenter1:Edward Perry 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate scientists have firmly established that fossil fuels are causing the planet to heat up, leading to massive 

wildfires, more intense hurricanes, long-term drought, loss of wildlife and public health problems. The costs 

generated by these environmental disasters are being borne but by the people who are being harmed instead of 

the companies who have created the harm. Already, wildlife all across our great country are already being 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-186 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

harmed. Here in Pennsylvania, scientists forecast that we are on the way to losing our state tree, our state fish, 

and our state bird. Species that have been with us for millions of years will be gone in the next 100 years, and this 

loss to our biological heritage needs to be considered an external cost that someone should pay for. 

Comment Number: 0000849_Perry_20160628-3 

Organization1:NWF 

Commenter1:Ed Perry 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate scientists have firmly established that fossil fuels are causing the planet to heat up, lead to massive 

wildfires, more intense hurricanes, loss of wildlife and public health problems. These costs generated by these 

environmental disasters are being borne by the people who are being harmed, 

not by the companies who are creating this harm. Already, wildlife are seeing the effects of climate change all 

across our great country. And here in Pennsylvania scientists forecast that our state tree, the hemlock, our state 

fish, the brook trout, and our state bird, the rough grouse, will be gone in the next 90 years unless we take 

action to reduce carbon pollution. This costs and this loss of our biological heritage needs to be considered and 

someone should be bearing that cost. 

Comment Number: 0000852_Burns-1 

Commenter1:Laura Burns 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We ask that the BLM address the evident inconsistency between the conclusions of the best available climate 

science and the agency's continued expansion of the Federal Coal Program 

Comment Number: 0000854_Doyon_20160628-1 

Commenter1:MIchelle Doyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need climate protection reform. The Federal Coal Program accounts for roughly 40 percent of U.S. coal 

production linking it to 13 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. BLM must assess the external cost that 

mining and burning federal coal imposes on society, disclose to the public and decision makers how BLM's 

decisions to lease federally owned coal affects the amount of wind and solar generation available in the 

marketplace. BLM must evaluate an alternative that would phase out federal coal 

leasing and create a plan transition of the federal government out of the coal leasing business. 

Comment Number: 0000854_Doyon_20160628-5 

Commenter1:MIchelle Doyon 

Other Sections: 4.6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We call on BLM to prepare a thorough Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy 

Act that critically evaluates the programs's climate and economic impacts for the very first time. The review must 

be comprehensive in scope. It must be transparent with public participation, and the review must acknowledge 

the scientific consensus that the vast majority of fossil fuels must remain in the ground in order to avoid the 

worst effects of climate disruption. 

Comment Number: 0000870_erickson_CitizesCoalCouncil-1 

Organization1:Citizens Coal Council 

Commenter1:Aimee Erickson 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-187

Scoping Report 

Other Sections: 8.8 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Even though the coal industry has seen a significant decline over the last decade, we can't ignore the reality of the 

United States is the fourth largest source of coal exports in the world. Of those exports, the majority of our coal 

is headed to Asia. Joby Warrick in a Washington Post article put it most 

aptly: "Each shipment highlights what critics describe as a hypocrisy, underlining U.S. climate policy: While 

boasting of pollution cuts at home, the United States is facilitating the sale of large quantities of governmentowned coal abroad." To make it abundantly clear, continuing the mining and export of 

government owned coal is making a statement to the world where our priorities lie and most importantly it goes 

against President Obama's Climate Action Plan. By the Bureau of Land 

Management not taking into account the effects of coal exports on global warming, you are undermining global 

efforts to address climate change. In yesterday's USA Today article on the West Virginia floods, it stated that 

climate change may have added to this disaster. According to the National Climate Assessment, the part of the 

U.S. that includes West Virginia has seen a 71 percent increase in extreme precipitation since 1958. We are 

exporting our pollution and that pollution is not only still 

contributing to global climate change, but its local effects are impacting poor and vulnerable populations. Now is 

the time to take a serious stance on climate change and protect the most vulnerable. 

Comment Number: 0000872_Kraybill-2 

Commenter1:Fred Kraybill 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I ask the BLM and the Department of the Interior to make addressing climate change your most important 

priority when considering how to revamp the federal coal leasing program. 

Comment Number: 000857_Wisenmayer_20160628-1 

Commenter1:Randall Weisenmayer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

a significant amount of coal is being extracted from our public lands. This means that a significant amount of 

carbon dioxide, mercury, lead and other toxic materials are being spewed into the atmosphere at a cost of about 

$300 billion estimated. That's far more than the $68 billion that was shown up there as income generated from 

the extraction of coal. Today the carbon dioxide levels are 460 parts per million. That's up from 180 parts per 

million. The ice is melting. Greenland's ice caps, glaciers are melting. Antartica's glaciers are melting. Alpine's 

glaciers are melting. And according to James Hanson, the current rate of melting, sea level rise expected to go up 

or rise by 12 feet by the end of this century. That's 12 feet by the end of this century. It's estimated that 2 billion 

people are going to be displaced by the sea level rises. That's far more extensive in terms of the losses there than 

the short term gains by the extraction of fossil fuels. The oceans are dying. The carbon dioxide levels have caused 

the oceans to warm and acidify. This acidification is ruining our reefs, which are an ecological indicator of the 

tropical rain forest in terms of its reduction of ecosystems, and at the same time that plankton is being destroyed 

in the oceans as well. Plankten, by the way, is a source of 70 percent of our oxygen that we breathe. In addition 

to this, this warming is causing the melting of permafrost and we see methane being released. Methane levels 

have been recorded at that exceeding 3,000 parts per billion. That's the highest rate of methane that has been 

recorded. Methane is 80 times more potent than greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is, according to Michael 

Mann in his book "Dire Predictions." For the sake of future generations, we must transition from fossil fuels to 

renewable sources of energy. For the sake of our eternity of Earth's ecosystems that support human life on this 

planet, we must transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-188 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Issue 4 - Carbon/GHG Emissions 

ISSUE 4.1 - SOCIAL COST OF CARBON, METHANE, ETC.

Total Number of Submissions: 73 

Total Number of Comments: 125 

Comment Number: 00000159_ Kreider_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Kalee Kreider 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

look at the social cost of carbon. It was a concept that was introduced recently and that the National Academies 

of Science have looked into and former council of economic adviser Jim Stock just recently put out a paper on 

this issue, but it is a complex set of issues to try to look at how and in what way we should be looking at the 

issue of climate change across federal agencies, which includes the Department of Interior and the Bureau of 

Land Management. 

Comment Number: 00000163_ MORALES_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Patrick Morales 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current policy and program used to manage the resources on and within our federal lands must be brought 

up to date with the true cost of the life cycle of coal included in determining the royalty fees are the externalities 

that are described in a study, which I'm going to leave you a copy of. Came out of Harvard, their medical school, 

in 2011. It is Epstein, et al. And it shows that the annual -- This is an annual number. This is a quote: "Our 

comprehensive review finds that the best estimate for the total economically quantifiable cost, based on a 

conservative weighting of many of the studies' findings, amount to some $345 billion annual." That is looking at 

everything from lung damage to (Inaudible) effects, and in some cases not all the health effects, as you will see in 

the study, but $345 billion, and it doesn't include the subsidies and such that are received every year amongst the 

different industries, parks and industry. 

Comment Number: 00000164_ LEVENSHUS_20160517-3 

Organization1:Sierra Club 

Commenter1:Jonathan Levenshus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Incorporate the social cost of carbon into royalty rates so that companies pay for the right to mine taxpayerowned coal. It will ensure a true cost of calculating the mining and burning of coal and what that cost imposes on 

society. 

Comment Number: 00000307_ SONDAK_20160519-1 

Organization1:Town of Alta 

Commenter1:Harris Sondak 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is time to consider the environmental and social costs of carbon when evaluating the price of federal coal. 

Science shows that the mining and burning of coal contributes to climate change. We must internalize those costs 

by including them in the price of extracting coal from federal land. 

Comment Number: 00000309_ CAWLEY _20160519-1 

Commenter1:Chris Cawley 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-189

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It's time for the Department of Interior to account for these social environmental costs. 

Comment Number: 0000363 _HEIN_20160519-5 

Organization1:Institute for Policy Integrity 

Commenter1:Jayni Hein 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Interior should also use the social cost of carbon and the social cost of methane to quantify the climate 

impacts of proposed alternatives. These tools are critical to evaluating the overall return of the Federal Coal 

Program to all citizens and taxpayers. The Interior should also analyze the optimal term for any new and modified 

coal leases by assessing the social cost of carbon and social cost of methane and using potential adders to the 

royalty rate. Both NYU Policy Integrity and Vulcan Group have conducted analysis on increasing royalty rates to 

account for some of these costs. We found that using an upstream social cost methane adder, which would be 

equivalent to only a dollar per ton of coal would add up to $2 billion in royalty revenue over four years in just 

four western states, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, and Utah. Vulcan found that using an adder instead of 20 

percent for the social cost of carbon would add nearly 3 billion in royalty receipts by 2025, with those benefits 

extending all the way to 2050. In other words, by increasing royalty rates to recoup some of the social and 

environmental cost of production, the Interior can increase revenue for states and the Federal Government while 

also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Comment Number: 0000604-1 

Commenter1:Richard Reavey 

Other Sections: 4.6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the administration wants to impose new taxes on coal mined on federal lands, it must seek legislation 

authorizing such new taxes from Congress. The Secretary has no statutory authority to impose a "social cost of 

carbon" via royalty or leasing rates. She cannot impose a climate change tax. If she wishes the federal coal 

program to "reflect the administration's climate objectives", she must obtain Congress' authorization to do so. 

Comment Number: 0000620-1 

Organization1:University of Illinois 

Commenter1:Gerald C. Nelson

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As an economist, I strongly favor relying on market based mechanisms to simplify the leasing program and 

increase its transparency. In particular, the application of the royalty rate to the gross market price, a statistic 

that is readily and widely available, would make the program much more transparent. However, without further 

modification, this approach does not take into account the negative effects of additional carbon pollution from 

coal burning. A simple modification would be to add the social cost of carbon to the gross market price and apply 

the royalty rate to the combined amounts. 

Comment Number: 0000620-4 

Organization1:University of Illinois

Commenter1:Gerald C. Nelson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The US court system has recognized the harmful effects of carbon pollution and directed the government to take 

these effects into account. For example, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in 2014 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-190 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

specifically required the use of the social cost of carbon (SCC) in a cost-benefit analysis underpinning the 

approval of federal coal leases. This information should become a key part of revisions to the leasing program to 

address the PEIS focus on fair return, a topic to which I now turn 

Comment Number: 0000769_Cascade_Great Old Broads_20160623-4 

Organization1:Great Old Boards for Wilderness 

Commenter1:Robyn Cascase 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Require NEPA analyses to fully evaluate the social cost of carbon and reflect the impact of leasing coal on our 

global climate and the future of our communities. For example, firefighters in Colorado have spoken out about 

the increase in the number, intensity, size, danger, and cost of wildfires due to climate change. We ask that you 

account for these costs in lives, property, and decimated forests in our state and across the nation. 

Comment Number: 0000812-2 

Organization1:National Parks Conservation Association 

Commenter1:Cory MacNulty 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal leasing reforms should systematically consider the true costs and impacts to communities, climate, health 

and the environment from the full lifecycle of coal. 

Comment Number: 0001105_BODDIE_20160621-1 

Organization1:Bend 

Commenter1:Nathan Boddie 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The review of federal coal and its contributions to climate change comes at a pivotal moment and the 

Department of the Interior must ensure that the environmental consequences of carbon are accurately reflected 

in the cost of coal. 

Comment Number: 0001161-1 

Commenter1:Mark Hennon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There are many reasons to keep coal in the ground, but let's focus on methane pollution, which big coal has done 

its best to hide. Coal mining dumps millions of tons of climate-destroying methane gas into the air. Most of it 

goes unmeasured because big coal is not exactly scrupulous about self-reporting the extent of its own sins. 

Comment Number: 0001161-2 

Commenter1:Mark Hennon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Methane pollution heats us up far more than carbon dioxide. Methane from just one coal train causes significant 

global warming. A standard coal train of 120 cars carries 120 tons of coal for each car for a total of 14,400 tons 

of coal. 

Based on the latest science, the methane pollution from that coal is equal to at least 6,400 tons of carbon 

dioxide. That's 6,400 tons of pollution for every 14,400 tons of coal, 44 percent of the weight of each coal train. 

Comment Number: 0001178-1 

Commenter1: Ruby 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-191

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I want to suggest that you should include as one of the elements in the price calculation the social costs of 

carbon. When the coal is extracted and burned, it does, of course, release carbon dioxide into the air, and that's 

what we price. 

The social cost of carbon for a given year is an estimate in dollars, but the present discounted value of the 

damage caused by one metric ton increase in CO2 emissions into the atmosphere for that year were equivalently 

the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions by the same amount in that year. 

The social cost of carbon is intended to provide a comprehensive measure of the monetized value of the net 

damages from global climate change that results from an additional unit of CO2, including but not limited to 

changes in the net agricultural productivity use, energy use, human health effects, property damages from 

increased blood risk. 

Federal agencies use the social cost of carbon to value the CO2 emission's impacts on various regulations, 

including emission and fuel economy standards for vehicles, emission standards for industrial manufacturing 

power plants, solid waste incineration, and appliance energy efficient standards and I believe it should be used in 

writing this EIS. 

The amount of CO2 released per ton of coal will depend on the actual use of coal and the way it is burned or 

consumed. This will vary by lease and can be more or less depending, for example, on the efficiency of the power 

plant. But for the most part, it will be sufficient to assume that it is burned in the national average coal-fired 

power plant unless there is a dedicated contract for purchase of the coal for the entire lease period. 

The U.S. federal government's interagency working group on the social cost of carbon has developed a 

methodology for estimating the social cost of carbon, and has applied that methodology to produce estimates 

that government agencies can use in regulatory impact analyses under Executive Order 12866. 

Comment Number: 0001178-2:

Commenter1: Ruby 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am recommending that you use these values. I have attached to my comments which I gave you, a page from a 

recent report in the US National Academy of Sciences. It gives you the values in three different interest rates and 

two different levels of probability from the Monte Carlo calculation method as used to develop these estimates. 

Comment Number: 0001181-1 

Organization1:Green Peace

Commenter1:Britten Cleveland 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our federal agencies must incorporate the social cost of carbon and its valuation of what we deem a fair price for 

leasing and the taxpayer-owned coal. 

Comment Number: 0002009_CenterBioDiversity_20160329-8 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ensuring that carbon costs (including the costs of methane) are accounted for in each and every leasing and 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-192 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

mining plan approval that may move forward as the programmatic environmental impact statement is completed. 

As you have acknowledged, the moratorium on new leasing does not affect a number of pending leases and does 

not affect the Interior Department's review and approval of mining plans authorizing the extraction of leased 

federal coal. To ensure the Department and the American public are informed of the actual costs and benefits of 

near-term coal approvals and to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, interior must, at a minimum. 

ensure that the social cost of carbon emissions due to coal mining, transportation, and combustion are analyzed 

and considered. This is already being done in the context of a proposal to open roadless forest to coal leasing in 

western Colorado 

Comment Number: 0002025_Grove_20160131-1 

Commenter1:Linda Grove 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I just found out that a new report was released Monday (January 25th) by three of the world's leading 

environmental organizations: Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and 350.org. 

In the report, titled Keep it in the Ground (Pdf), it says that in order to curb escalating greenhouse gas emissions 

and fend off their disastrous consequences, "the overwhelming majority of the large coal reserves in China, Russia 

and the United States as well as more than 260 billion barrels of oil reserves and 60% of gas reserves in the 

Middle East must all remain unused". Arctic resources should also "be off-limit to development", they say. 

Comment Number: 0002027_Sharon_20160523-1 

Commenter1:Sharon Nolting 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In January, an article in Climate Progress stated that "the combustion of coal from federal lands accounts for 

more than 57 percent of all emissions from fossil fuel production on federal lands." An even more recent study 

by Greenpeace found that almost 80% of the coal produced by the 3 leading coal companies is taken from our 

public lands. 

Comment Number: 0002099_Notkin_20160611-1 

Organization1:KnowWho Services 

Commenter1:Debbie Notkin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am relying on you to include, at a minimum, this list of topics: 

The pros and cons of phasing out coal leasing on publicly-owned lands making companies pay the_full_cost of 

carbon, including carbon emissions 

Comment Number: 0002100_OHair_20160613-3 

Commenter1:Todd O'Hair 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Part of the rational for the PEIS seems to be rooted in the desire to make coal accountable for its carbon cost. 

Raising the royalty rate in an effort to compensate for carbon cost would be considered a carbon tax. I do not 

believe the Secretary has the legal authority to raise or create new taxes and any rationalization to increase 

royalty rates due to “carbon costs” can only be construed as a carbon tax.
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-193

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002111_Ross_20160623-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Alexa Ross 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the social cost of carbon were incorporated into the lease price, federal coal should be as high as $62 per ton. 

By putting an accurate price that reflects the true economic, environmental and social cost of federal coal, it 

would become clear that the only place for dirty fossil fuels like coal is to leave them in the ground. 

Comment Number: 0002111_Ross_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Alexa Ross 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

For coal leases already in production, using the social cost of carbon to raise the royalty rate and other fees for 

federal coal production could help return millions of dollars to state budgets to support coal workers, schools, 

infrastructure, and other important programs. 

Comment Number: 0002122_Swanson_20160623-3 

Commenter1:C. David Swanson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We must not allow bad science, radical elites in the federal government, and radical environmentalists to kill jobs 

and strangle the American economy further! CO2 isnt a pollutant in the first place trees and plants need it for 

photosynthesis, remember nobody wants to destroy the environment and like everything else which we use and 

eat, it comes from the ground and, therefore, must be gotten out of the ground harvested 

Comment Number: 0002131_Zuteck_20160408-1 

Commenter1:Michael Zuteck 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please ensure that reform of the federal coal program accelerates our transition to a clean energy future, both by 

limiting expanded mining on public land, and by deriving climate cost adjusted revenue from mining in progress. 

Comment Number: 0002137_Zeigler_20160607-9 

Commenter1:Bob Ziegler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In your presentation you ask: •How can we best measure and assess the climate impacts of continued Federal 

coal production, transportation, and combustion? June 27, 2014 United States District Judge R. Brooke Jackson 

ruled that in assessing Climate Impacts BLM and Forest Service should use the social cost of carbon protocol. He 

states: “Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, Technical Support Document (Feb. 2010); see 

FSLeasing- 0041245 at 0041403, 0041404. The protocol—which is designed to quantify a project’s contribution 

to costs associated with global climate change—was created with the input of several departments, public 

comments, and technical models. FSLeasing-0041245 at 0041403, 0041404-06. The protocol is provisional and 

was expressly designed to assist agencies in cost benefit analyses associated with rulemakings, but the EPA has 

expressed support for its use in other contexts.” Why is this not pursued? 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-11

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-194 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

transparent carbon accounting by the USGS will provide critical information for the public and the federal 

government to manage carbon emissions as part of the administration’s Climate Action Plan, and to better enable 

an assessment of the true market value of extracted resources, accounting for all externalized costs. 

Comment Number: 0002151_Cinnamon_20160629-3 

Organization1:Unacceptable Risk Film 

Commenter1:Sophia Cinnamon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate change is creating a life safety issue on the fireline due to unprecedented fire behavior. We know carbon 

pollution is accelerating climate change and the burning of coal is the single largest source of carbon emissions. 

Comment Number: 0002155_Krupnick_20160622-1 

Organization1:Center for Energy and Climate Economics Resources for the Future 

Commenter1:Alan Krupnick 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In March of 2015, we released a report examining the legal and economic issues associated with putting a carbon 

charge on federal coal;(1) A modified version of this report will be a forthcoming article in Environmental Law 

Reporter. (http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-15-13.pdf). 

(1) Krupnick et al. 2015. Putting a Carbon Charge on Federal Coal: Legal and Economic Issues. RFF DP 15-13. 

Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 

Our legal analysis concluded the following: 

· BLM appears to have the statutory and regulatory authority to institute such a charge, with the clearest place to 

do so being through a modification to the royalty rate. 

· A carbon charge sufficiently large enough to dramatically curtail federal coal leasing could face legal risk by 

violating the “dual mandate” to balance environmental goals and federal revenue generation. 

· The optimal solution would be an economy-wide carbon charge on all fossil fuels, irrespective of federal, state, 

or private ownership. 

Comment Number: 0002155_Krupnick_20160622-10

Organization1:Center for Energy and Climate Economics Resources for the Future 

Commenter1:Alan Krupnick 

Organization2:Resources for the Future 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Consideration for partnership with relevant subnational (notably state/regional) and international partners on 

setting carbon charges on publicly owned fossil fuels, including coal. We note particularly the ongoing North 

American energy harmonization dialogue with Canada and Mexico as a possible venue for coordinating policies. 

Comment Number: 0002155_Krupnick_20160622-3 

Organization1:Center for Energy and Climate Economics Resources for the Future 

Commenter1:Alan Krupnick 

Other Sections: 8.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The lack of competitiveness in the federal coal leasing market may limit the effectiveness of any carbon charge. 

Since most leases are granted in bids with only one bidder, bidders may simply reduce their bid by some amount 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-195

Scoping Report 

of the carbon charge. Protections against such actions may be gained through evaluation of BLM’s internal fair 

market valuation processes to ensure that climate costs are considered in those processes. 

· The Administration’s Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon has released estimates for the 

social cost of carbon for agencies to consider in their programs. 

· At the midrange SCC estimate ($46/ton CO2), the corresponding carbon charge would be over $90/ton of 

coal, which far exceeds the average mine-mouth price of coal from the Powder River Basin (recently selling at 

around $9.35/ton. 

Comment Number: 0002155_Krupnick_20160622-9 

Organization1:Center for Energy and Climate Economics Resources for the Future 

Commenter1:Alan Krupnick 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Tracking of the various Administration-wide initiatives on use of the social cost of carbon in federal 

decisionmaking. The Council on Environmental Quality in December 2014 released new proposed draft guidance 

for assessing the climate impacts in federal NEPA documents. As of this writing, this draft guidance has not been 

further finalized, and case law continues to lack definitive guidance. Additionally, the National Academies of 

Science is currently conducting a study assessing approaches to updating the social cost of carbon for which the 

Department of Interior is a sponsor along with others. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-4 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ken Gillingham discussed coal mined from federal lands and the royalties charged for that extraction. He noted 

that 42% of thermal coal sold in the U.S. is “federal coal” and that such coal had out-competed other sources on 

price for decades. Gillingham then explained several of the reasons that the Department of Interior is reviewing 

its coal leasing program and planning to issue a programmatic environmental impact statement to update that 

program: royalties charged for coal are 1/6th its market price and many times below the Social Cost of Carbon 

(in contrast to other fossil fuels, for which royalties are closer to what charging the SCC would yield); 90% of 

auctions have a single bidder because they are generally for continuations rather than new leases; and most bids 

for those leases are near the (confidential) minimum bid. Gillingham then noted that charging royalties equal to 

the SCC would effectively keep federal coal in the ground and suggested that charging 20% of the SCC—because 

royalties are split with states—could provide a revenue stream for programs that ease the pain of a transition 

away from coal. 

Comment Number: 0002158_Burger_SabineCenter_9132016-1 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

One alternative would be to impose a carbon price on federal coal. To assess its options, BLM can undertake an 

environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that accounts for greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions under a range of alternative scenarios and that uses the Social Cost of Carbon and Social Cost 

of Methane, or perhaps some other metrics, to assign a monetary value to associated climate impacts. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-196 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002162_Jones_20160519-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Eugene Jones 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At a minimum, while the transition to a clean energy grid occurs, these costs that are directly attributable to 

fossil fuel emissions should be considered on a full absorption basis in determining royalty rates (to the extent 

possible). Certain human social costs (reduction in life span, pain and suffering, etc.), and costs associated wildlife 

and wild lands are impossible to fully comprehend in economic terms. 

Comment Number: 0002162_Jones_20160519-4 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Eugene Jones 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal burning is the most egregious contributor to carbon dioxide buildup, with other fossil fuels (oil and its 

derivatives and gases) also significant contributors. As addressed by commentators today the costs to our global 

economy of these emissions (also including mercury, lead and other toxic elements) and resulting global warming 

(e.g. increased health care costs, violent storm damage, drought, wild fires, habitat loss, extinction, insect 

proliferation resulting damage to forests and spread of disease, glacial melting and loss of precious water sources, 

ocean acidification and warming, higher sea levels, loss of ocean reefs, loss of fishing habitat and stocks, relocation 

of communities, rising sea levels, measures taken by cities and towns to mitigate impacts, etc.) far exceed the 

revenues. Also these cost of the impact of these emissions (along with unmet reclamation liabilities) to the US 

Government eclipse the revenues provided from leases and extraction royalties. 

Comment Number: 0002168_Kohler_20160629-2 

Commenter1:Bernard Kohler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is a carbon-rich fuel that contributes massively to rising carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-32

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

ANY EFFORTS TO IMPOSE NEW CARBON TAXES ON A SOCIAL COST ON CARBON OR TO REFLECT 

THE ADMINISTRATION'S ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES, UNDER THIS PROGRAM WOULD BE ILLEGAL. 

Comment Number: 0002190_Pfeiffer_20160627-2 

Commenter1:Ben Pfeiffer 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In its comprehensive 2010 study, Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and 

Use, the National Research Council concluded that the external costs of electricity generated from coal impose 

non-climate damages of an average of 3.2 cents per kWh. In addition, the Council concluded that the climate 

damages range from 1 cent to 10 cents per kWh depending on the extent to which you choose to discount 

mortalities, morbidities, and costs in the medium and long run future. These estimates were expressed in present 

values in 2007 dollars. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-197

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002205_McPherson_20160620-1 

Organization1:UnitarianUniversalist Voices for Justice 

Commenter1:William McPherson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM leases sites for destructive openpit mining at rates well below their true cost. When coupled with the 

pollution effects of coal burning, the prices of coal represent less than half of the cost of combustion (one ton of 

coal produces almost 3 tons of CO2 when burned). Estimates of $70 per ton by EPA are probably too low, but a 

ton of CO2 will cost a lot more than the lease price of 18 cents per ton of coal, plus the cost of mining and 

transport. Coal companies are ruining the atmosphere for a pittance. 

Comment Number: 0002217_Maxwell_20160619-1 

Commenter1:Gary Maxwell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The science is overwhelming that CO2 emissions from burning carbon based fuels are causing global warming 

that poses a serious threat to society. 

Comment Number: 0002226_Tobe_20160603-5 

Commenter1:Jerry Tobe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The net must be added to or subtracted from the fair market value in order to determine the true value of the 

mined coal to the American people 

Comment Number: 0002276_Henderson_20160715_350Colorado-11

Organization1:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Commenter1:Gina Hardin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We are particularly concerned that these coalrelated activities emit around 10% of all U.S. releases of methane, a 

potent GHG with many times greater near-term Global Warming Potential than CO2. Coal mining represents 

the fourth largest source of methane in the U.S., following landfills, natural gas systems, and ruminant animals. The 

most efficient means of reducing these hazardous emissions is to not mine coal at all. 

Comment Number: 0002276_Henderson_20160715_350Colorado-12

Organization1:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Commenter1:Gina Hardin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We also believe that once coal is correctly priced to reflect its true costs, the market will naturally continue the 

downward trend in production and use. 

Comment Number: 0002276_Henderson_20160715_350Colorado-8 

Organization1:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Commenter1:Gina Hardin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A carbon tax (and dividend) may actually be passed before these regulations are revised again (even though in the 

present situation it seems unlikely). When passed, coal companies will be hard pressed to make the tax and 

produce, particularly under their present technologies. We want to emphasize the importance of 

encouraging/subsidizing innovation by the coal industry to reduce their GHG emissions. A quote from the coal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-198 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

industry stated that they should be allowed to continue without restrictions because the onus is on renewables 

to innovate future power sources. Under a carbon tax scenario, coal producers will be increasingly pressed to 

produce under less profitable scenarios. BLM can encourage industry to face the implications of mining oblivious 

to the damage and look for innovation before it costs them big time. Potentially, there is something that we have 

not considered in these comments that can help inspire industry to face forward rather than entrench in the past. 

We encourage BLM to include those ideas or take them to the local offices for dissemination. 

Comment Number: 0002295_Stewart_20160719-2 

Commenter1:Dan Stewart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should not impose a social cost of carbon in its new policy 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-101

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the BLM’s coal leasing program should require that the price of Federally-leased coal cover the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s estimate of the Social Cost of Carbon before it can be leased 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-44

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Only by ignoring its enormous health and environmental impacts can coal-fired power be considered a “lowcost” energy source, the use of which promotes economic efficiency and job creation. Failing to reflect all of the 

cost of a product in the product’s sale price misallocates resources. If society, through a tax or a regulation, shifts 

a dollar of spending away from a product that is less valuable to society to a product that is more valuable to 

society (on a unit basis) it creates more jobs than it “kills.” This principle is taught in Economics 101 in every 

accredited undergraduate course in the country, and is undisputed. Applied in the context of using fossil fuel to 

provide electricity, a kilowatt/hour obtained from coal is actually worth from one-half to one-one tenth as much 

to society as a kilowatt/hour obtained from a non-polluting source, depending on how many of its external costs 

are accounted for. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-55

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The EPA estimates that the health care costs imposed on society as a whole from burning a ton of coal (which it 

labels the Social Costs of Carbon) would be $43 in 2020 ($36 on a present value basis at 3%).(32) An alternative 

Social Cost of Carbon estimate based on middle-of-the-road assumptions is $62 in 2020 ($55 on a present value 

basis at 2%). (Johnson, L., et al., 2012.) The average price of a short ton of coal delivered to the electric power 

industry in 2012 was $45.77. The future value of $45.77 in 2020 at 2.3% interest is $52.46. These Social Cost of 

Carbon estimates indicate that the average price of coal in 2020 would need to increase by from 82% to 105% if 

it were to cover its social costs. It should be borne in mind that these are only a partial estimate of coal’s 

external costs. They do not include the most economically significant ones, such as the long-term reduction in 

labor productivity described above 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-199

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-56

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Over its life cycle, coal generates a waste stream that carries multiple hazards for human health and the 

environment. These costs are not imposed on the coal industry, but on the rest of society. The Harvard study 

estimates that the life-cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the American public from 

one-third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually. The costs of substituting energy efficiency and renewable 

forms of energy for the output of existing coal-fired power plants are a small fraction of the costs of not doing 

so, when the life-cycle costs of coal are taken in to account. 

The Harvard study monetized costs imposed on the public health system by NOx, SO2, PM2.5, and mercury 

emissions; fatalities of members of the public due to rail accidents during coal transport; the added public health 

burden in Appalachia incurred by coal mining; government subsidies; and the lost value of mined land after it has 

been abandoned. The estimate is conservative in that it does not account for damages outside of Appalachia, nor 

does it account for unquantifiable costs, such as the cost to a family of losing a wage earner due to black lung 

disease. It notes that many of these external costs of coal are cumulative. (Epstein, et al, 2011.) 

The Harvard study conservatively estimates that if the external costs of coal were accounted for, they would 

double or triple its price. If electricity produced from burning coal were priced to cover its social costs (which 

amount to $345.3 to $523.3 billion annually), it would add a tax of from 17.7 to 26.9 cents to the current average 

retail price of electric power (11 cents per kilowatt hour). 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-57

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the current moratorium on new Federal coal leases is not made permanent, the next best option is for the 

BLM to require that the price of Federally leased coal cover the Social Cost of Carbon before the sale can go 

forward. Currently, there is no consistent approach that State and local BLM offices follow when they draft 

Environmental Impact accompanying fossil fuel lease applications. Some offices make reference to carbon 

pollution and climate disruption and even include some efforts to estimate these externalities. Others offices 

mention these externalities in the abstract, but argue that the social cost of carbon cannot be objectively 

determined, or they view the potential climate effects of a particular lease proposal on a global scale and dismiss 

them as de minimis or unquantifiable as a percentage of the entire globe’s warming. 

There is a critical need for the Secretary of the Interior to require an organized and consistent approach to the 

issue of carbon pollution and climate disruption and how it relates to a particular fossil fuel lease, whether a coal, 

conventional oil, or shale gas lease is involved. The new approach should make it clear that carbon pollution and 

climate disruption are external costs of burning fossil fuel, that there are objective standards and methods for 

determining a reasonable range of what those costs are on a per-ton basis, and that the percentage of total global 

warming that might be caused by a particular proposed lease is not normally a meaningful criterion to apply in an 

Environmental Impact Statement. Rather, above a certain threshold, estimating a carbon contribution and climate 

impact of a fossil fuel lease is meaningful when estimated on a per-ton, or per-Btu basis 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-59

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The most important reform that the BLM can make to its coal leasing program is to require that Federal leasing 

of additional coal not proceed unless the minimum price for that coal per ton exceeds the Social Cost of Carbon 

that reflects the effect of the resulting CO2 on the earth’s climate. To achieve consistency, the Social Cost of 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-200 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Carbon used should be a standardized measure, or range of measures, approved by the Council of Environmental 

Quality 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-66

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The crippling drought in California is just one example of what economists call the “external cost,” or “social 

cost,” of continuing to rely on carbon to power our nation. It is a “social cost” because neither the producer nor 

the consumer of carbon pays it directly—society as a whole pays it. The cost of the intensifying drought that is 

virtually certain to grip the Southwest and the Central Plains before this century is out is not reflected in the 

Social Cost of Carbon estimates developed by the EPA or the Harvard Medical School described earlier. This 

provides another reason for treating those estimates as lower-bound estimates. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-8 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to the BLM, every ton of PRB coal burned yields 1.7 metric tons of CO2. Under the Obama 

administration’s first seven years, the Bureau of Land Management leased 2.2 billion tons of publicly owned coal, 

unlocking 3.9 billion metric tons of carbon pollution. This is equivalent to the annual emissions of over 825 

million passenger vehicles, and more than the 3.7 billion tons that was emitted in the entire European Union in 

2012. Each ton of publicly-owned coal leased during the Obama administration, when burned, will cause 

economic damage estimated at between $22 and $237, using the Department of Environmental Quality’s own 

estimates of the social cost of carbon. Yet the average price charged by the Federal government per ton for that 

coal was a mere $1.03 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-80

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The value of avoiding the various forms of harm that burning coal causes to the health of the public is best 

appreciated by the major efforts to estimate the Social Cost of Carbon. In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

the EPA estimated that its Clean Power Plan would reduce CO2 and other pollutant emissions (SO2, NOx, 

PM2.5) by 30% with respect to 2005 levels. The EPA estimates that this co-benefit of CO2 reduction would save 

from $48 to $84 billion in health-related costs (primarily, the economic value of lives saved). The EPA estimated 

the cost of complying with the Clean Power Plan would be between $7.3 and $8.8 billion in the year 2030. This, 

it estimated, would raise electricity prices by 3%. The EPA estimated that the ratio of benefit to cost for the 

Clean Power Plan ranges from 7:1 to 12:1.(15) 

(15) See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: 

Electric Utility Generating Units, June 18, 2014, 79 FR 13726, section X.A. 

16See http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution-standards/. 

These estimates of the effect of the Clean Power Plan on CO2 and related emissions, however, are much too 

low because they are based on stale data and because they look at only part of the benefits of carbon reduction. 

The most recent data relied on by the EPA is for the year 2010. The Natural Resources Defense Council has 

gathered data for the years since 2010 and updated the EPA estimate. The new data reflects both a sharp drop in 

the demand for electric power and a sharp drop in the cost of utility-scale wind and solar power. The NRDC has 

input the new data into the same Integrated Planning Model that the EPA used to generate its initial cost 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-201

Scoping Report 

estimates. The updated model’s estimate of reduced CO2 and related emissions for 2030 is 30% with respect to 

2012 levels, not 2005 levels, as was case with the EPA’s original estimate.

The updated model’s estimate is that complying with the Clean Power Plan will save from $28 to $63 billion in 

health related costs in 2030, due to reduced emissions of ozone precursors and fine particulates. When 

environmental benefits are added to these health benefits, the savings range from $64 to $99 billion in 2030. The 

NRDC update also estimates that the Clean Power Plan would reduce the annual costs to electric power 

consumers by between $6.4 and $9.4 billion in the year 2030.16 That translates to an expected reduction in 

consumer’s electric bills of 3% in 2030. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-86

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

An alternative estimate of the social cost of carbon is found in a study by the faculty of Harvard Medical School. 

Published in 2011, it compiled an estimate of the social costs incurred in the United States annually by using coal 

to generate power. It is more comprehensive than the EPA’s Social Cost of Carbon estimate because it considers 

the costs incurred at each stage of the life cycle of coal—extraction, transport, processing, and combustion. It 

does not, however, consider future losses in labor productivity. 

(32) Technical Support Document, Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/ 

files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-87

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The CEQ expressly warns agencies that their NEPA duties are not satisfied by recitations in EISs or EAs that 

emissions resulting from a government action or approval represent only a small fraction of global emissions and 

therefore require no further analysis. Instead, agencies are to follow a principle of proportionality in which the 

extent of analysis of GHG emissions is commensurate with the quantity of proposed GHG emissions. 

NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of proposed actions. See, 

40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, .8. NEPA also requires consideration of “connected actions.” The CEQ defines “connected 

actions” as those that automatically trigger other actions which may require an EIS, actions that cannot or will 

not proceed unless other actions are also taken, or actions that are interdependent parts of a larger action. Based 

on these broad, long-standing definitionsCEQ now believes that Federal agencies must discuss climate change and 

GHG emissions in an EIS or EA if the effects are significant, including a discussion of emissions from other 

activities that have a reasonably close causal relationship with the proposed action and are either “upstream” or 

“downstream” from the proposed action.

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-9 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The carbon pollution from publicly owned coal leased during the Obama administration will cause damages 

estimated at between $52 billion and $530 billion, using the federal government’s own methodology for 

estimating the social cost of carbon. In contrast, the total amount of Federal revenue generated from those coal 

leases sales was $2.3 billion. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-202 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002329_Segger_20160724_CambellCntyWY-6 

Organization1:County and Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Commenter1:Carol Seeger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Campbell County is concerned about potential changes to the federal coal leasing program that will rely on 

criteria that is simply incapable of measurement and subjective in nature. For example, raising the royalty rate to 

"reflect the cost of harm to the public from negative externalities from coal development" and "include the social 

cost of mining imposed by fixed cost non-internalized externalities, such as loss of recreational or other values". 

(See, Vol. 81, No. 61 Federal Register, pg.17726, March 30, 2016.) A stated goal of a revision, if any, to the 

federal coal leasing program is to increase transparency. The use of such nebulous, unquantifiable and subjective 

"costs" and criteria for valuing coal does not contribute to the stated goal of increased transparency. 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-10

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We recommend that BLM use the federal SCC and other available tools to assign a cost value to both direct and 

indirect GHG emissions—or a benefit value to avoided GHG emissions—that will occur as a result of existing 

leases and all future leasing scenarios under consideration (including the downstream emissions described in 

Section 1 of these comments). (16) This information should be used to evaluate different coal production 

scenarios. 

(16) The SCC is a tool developed by the federal government to estimate the costs of GHG emissions that are 

either released or avoided as a result of agency rulemakings. It provides a comprehensive estimate of climate 

change damages, including changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and changes in energy system costs. For more details, see EPA, The Social Cost of Carbon, 

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html. There is also a peer reviewed 

methodology that can be used to calculate the social costs of methane and nitrous oxide, which has been used by 

EPA in prior rulemakings. See Marten et al., Incremental CH4 and N2O Mitigation Benefits Consistent with the 

US Government’s SC-CO2 estimates, 15 CLIMATE POLICY 272 (2015); EPA, REGULATORY IMPACT 

ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED EMISSION STANDARDS FOR NEW AND MODIFIED SOURCES IN THE OIL 

AND NATURAL GAS SECTOR, 4-14 (2015); EPA, REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED 

REVISIONS TO THE EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING SOURCES AND SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED 

NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN THE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS SECTOR, 4-

10–4-14 (2015). 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-11

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 

Other Sections: 2 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We also recommend that BLM use this information to inform its decisions about rental fees and royalty rates. 

According to Secretarial Order 3338, two of the primary goals of the PEIS are to ensure that the American public 

receives fair market value (or a “fair return”) from the sale of the coal, and to assess whether the program 

“adequately accounts for externalities related to Federal coal production, including environmental and social 

impacts.” (19) GHG emissions are one of the externalities that should be accounted for when determining 

whether the American public is receiving fair market value from the sale of the coal. Many other commenters, 

including the White House and members of Congress, have agreed that climate impacts and other externalities of 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-203

Scoping Report 

the federal coal program should be incorporated into the assessment of the market value of federal coal. (20) 

(19) U.S. Dept. of Interior, Secretarial Order No. 3388 (Jan 15, 2016). 

(20) See, e.g., Letter from Raul Grijalva and others to Secretary Jewell (June 21, 2016), available at 

http://democratsnaturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20Jewell%20on%20Coal%20Reforms%20- 

%20signed%20-%206-21-16.pdf; Executive Office of the President, The Economics of Coal Leasing on Federal 

Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers (June 2016), available at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160622_cea_coal_leasing.pdf; Alan Krupnick et al., 

Resources for the Future, Should We Price Carbon from Federal Coal? (2015), available at 

http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-Resources-189_Featurette-Krupnick.etal.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-12

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

An analysis of a range of price alternatives would be consistent with the purposes of NEPA. In particular, BLM 

should consider a range of carbon price alternatives that correspond with the different SCC estimates at the 5% 

average, 3% average, 2.5% average, and 3% 95th percentile average, and evaluate the effect of these different 

pricing scenarios on coal production, revenue, and environmental impacts (including GHG emissions). This 

information should be used to frame and assess the range of alternative leasing scenarios that are under 

consideration, and to compare these to a “no leasing” alternative. One critical question will be how higher rental 

fees or royalties would affect lifecycle GHG emissions from federal coal.(21) 

(21) According to one study, the introduction of higher royalties, phased-in over a ten year period, would reduce 

overall Co2 emissions, even with the Clean Power Plan in place; ramping down coal production could achieve a 

similar emissions benefit, but with diminished revenue implications. Spencer Reeder & James Stock, Federal Coal 

Leasing Reform Options: Effects on CO2 Emissions and Energy Markets (February 2016), available at 

http://www.vulcan.com/news/articles/2016/coal-leasing-report. 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-2 

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

(2) Social Cost of GHG Emissions: The PEIS should use the federal social cost of carbon (SCC) and other 

available tools to assign a cost value to the impacts of the inventoried emissions, including non-CO2 GHG 

emissions, and use this information to evaluate possible carbon price alternatives and their effect on coal 

production, revenues, and environmental impacts. 

Comment Number: 0002339_Satterfield_20160726_IECA-12

Organization1:Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) 

Commenter1:Marnie Satterfield 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The SCC estimates must be made consistent with OMB Circular A-4. As noted by leading researchers, the IWG 

SCC value is calculated differently than other measures of social benefits and costs. (11) Among other issues, it 

uses a lower discount rate than recommended by OMB Circular A-4 and values global benefits rather than solely 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-204 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

U.S. domestic benefits. By introducing an SCC value with a different denomination in both the social cost and 

social benefit calculation, it muddies the results even more and renders comparison among regulatory options 

and among regulations even more difficult. (11) Gayer, T. and Viscose, K. Determining the Proper Scope of 

Climate Change Benefits, June 2014.

Comment Number: 0002339_Satterfield_20160726_IECA-13

Organization1:Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) 

Commenter1:Marnie Satterfield 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The addition of the unreasonably high SCC estimates as a cost often shifts the net benefits of a regulatory option 

from negative to positive. This use of the SCC by regulatory agencies to place a heavy thumb on the scale and tilt 

the balance of the outcome to a few winners while harming the overall economy, including domestic 

manufacturers who will pay the higher pipeline costs, is highly inappropriate and this approach must be rejected. 

Comment Number: 0002339_Satterfield_20160726_IECA-5 

Organization1:Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) 

Commenter1:Marnie Satterfield 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Use of the social cost of carbon unfairly imposes “global” climate costs on “domestic” producers of coal which 

will increase electricity prices for U.S. manufacturing.The Obama Administration has directed agencies to 

monetize a regulation’s direct or indirect effect of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). Federal agencies 

have estimated the potential benefits of rules using the social cost of carbon (SCC) and the social cost of 

methane (SCM). An important glaring problem with the SCC or the SCM is that it indirectly imposes global 

carbon costs on coal producers, which will increase electricity costs on domestic manufacturers, which damages 

the industry’s ability to compete with foreign competitors. No other country in the world imposes global carbon 

costs onto industry. 

Comment Number: 0002339_Satterfield_20160726_IECA-7 

Organization1:Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) 

Commenter1:Marnie Satterfield 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office report highlights severe uncertainties in SCC values. 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) report entitled, “Development of Social Cost of Carbon 

Estimates” (8) highlights that the SCC cost estimates have great economic and scientific uncertainty. 

(8) U.S. Government Accountability Office, Development of the Social Cost of Carbon Estimates, July, 2014, 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-663

On page 12 it states, “The Technical Support Document (TSD) states that reported domestic effects should be 

calculated using a range of values from 7 to 23 percent of the global measure of the social cost of carbon, 

although it cautions that these values are approximate, provisional, and highly speculative due to limited 

evidence.” The quote illustrates that when applying the SCC on domestic industry, 77-93 percent of the 

estimated climate benefits will flow to entities outside of the U.S.! In other words, the TSD guarantees that 

domestic application of the SCC will harm the U.S. economy, to the benefit of others around the world. Taking 

such action is clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the U.S. government and every federal agency. The TSD 

inappropriately ignores longstanding guidance from OMB to analyze only domestic cost-benefits. If BLM wishes to 

apply the SCC, it must revise downward the range of benefits by 77-93 percent. 

On page 14 it states, “The TSD states that the working group decided to calculate estimates for several discount 

rates (2.5, 3, and 5 percent) because the academic literature shows that the social cost of carbon is highly 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-205

Scoping Report 

sensitive to the discount rate chosen, and because no consensus exists on the appropriate rate.” Clearly this 

means that the social cost of carbon is not based on reasonable economic analysis to accurately reflect the cost 

of capital. The TSD inappropriately ignores longstanding guidance from OMB under Circular A-4 to analyze cost 

benefits using a 7 percent discount rate. 

On page 17 it states, “Some of the participating agencies have incorporated discussions of these limitations into 

regulatory impact analyses using social cost of carbon estimates. For example, in a 2012 rule setting pollution 

standards for certain power plants, EPA noted that the social cost of carbon estimates are subject to limitations 

and uncertainties.” (9)

(9) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal-and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam 

Generation Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial – Commercial –

Institutional, and Small Industrial –Commercial-Institutional steam generating Units, 77 Fed. Reg. 9304 (Feb. 16, 

2012)

Comment Number: 0002339_Satterfield_20160726_IECA-8 

Organization1:Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) 

Commenter1:Marnie Satterfield 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

4. The social cost of carbon value is unrealistically high. 

The SCC for 2016 is $36 per metric ton (in $2007), while other carbon trading prices are far lower. Some of 

those include: RGGI’s auction clearing price at $4.53 per metric ton (on June 1); California’s cap and trade price 

at $12.71 per metric ton (on July 13); and the EU ETS price at $5.29 per metric ton (on July 14). And, throughout 

the overwhelming majority of the world, the price is even lower. These stated real-time carbon market prices 

raise serious questions about the validity and appropriateness of the SCC. 

Comment Number: 0002339_Satterfield_20160726_IECA-9 

Organization1:Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) 

Commenter1:Marnie Satterfield 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Before BLM applies any SCC estimate in its programmatic environmental impact statement, BLM must correct 

the methodological flaws that commenters have raised about the IWG’s SCC estimate. SCC estimates fail to 

comply with guidance for developing influential policy-relevant information under the Information Quality Act 

(IQA). 

Further, SCC estimates are the product of an opaque process and any pretensions to their supposed accuracy 

(and therefore usefulness in policymaking) are unsupportable. The models and all of their assumptions with inputs 

used for the SCC estimates and the subsequent analyses were not subject to peer review, as required under 

OMB Circular A-4. The SCC estimate from integrated assessment modeling is a highly uncertain academic 

exercise that does not offer a reasonably acceptable range of accuracy for use in policymaking. 

According to the Financial Post, equations “that connect CO2 emissions to temperature change depend on a 

parameter called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is the amount of warming in degrees Celsius from 

doubling the amount of CO2 in the air, after the atmosphere and oceans have fully adjusted. The equations that 

connect temperature change to economic impacts make up what is called the damage function. The IWG made 

updates to the damage functions that boosted the costs, but it did not change the ECS even though the ECS has 

dropped in recent years. The higher the ECS, the longer it takes the climate to adjust to higher greenhouse gas 

levels. Under a high-ECS case the damages occur much farther in the future and need to be discounted more 

heavily. But the IWG does not take this into account; instead it allows high-ECS and low-ECS scenarios to occur 

on the same time scales, biasing the SCC upwards.” (10) 

(10) “What’s the right price for carbon? Take a guess (everyone else is),” Financial Post, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-206 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/junk-science-week-whats-the-right-price-for-carbon-take-a-guesseveryone-else-is

Comment Number: 0002342_Etter_20160726-3 

Organization1:Bowie Resources, LLC 

Commenter1:Art Etter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

•Royalty rates cannot sustain increases. Increasing rates based on carbon created during the combustion process 

would create a double taxation scenario, especially with the newly formed carbon limits proposed under the 

EPA’s Clean Power Plan. It is evident from the long list of coal companies going out of business the royalty rates 

are currently too high for companies to be profitable. 

Comment Number: 0002443_Koontz_20160727_BowieResources-12

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Bowie recognizes that the Secretary is constrained by Administration policy to use the Federal Social Cost of 

Carbon ("SCC") in rulemaking proceedings, despite the fact that the SCC is technically unsound, was not 

developed through notice-and-comment rulemaking, and sharply diverges from OMB guidelines regarding critical 

elements such as discount rates. Nevertheless, the Secretary does have discretion to set policy for project-level 

decisions, including leasing decisions, and should categorically reject the SCC in those contexts. Not only was the 

SCC not developed for project-level decisions, but the SCC cannot provide useful information at the project 

level. This is because at the project level, the incremental SCC impact of the proposed action in relation to the 

no-action alternative or other project alternatives will generally be indeterminable. For example, for local effects, 

e.g., the impact of a lease on a stream, the no action or project alternatives will have identifiable different impacts. 

But for global impacts of the type attempted to be measured by the SCC, one cannot know the effect of, for 

example, the no action alternative, without knowing how the various actors will respond. Even if coal lease 

application A is denied, there will be no effect on net SCC calculations unless there is a coordinated policy to 

deny other similarly-situated coal leasing, and such broad policy determinations are inherently beyond the scope 

of project-level analyses. 

In addition, as the BLM and OSMRE have recognized in recent project level NEPA analyses, the SCC by itself 

provides an incomplete and biased accounting of the impacts of a decision. There is presently no corresponding 

"Social Benefit of Carbon" metric. While short term tax, employment, and economic activity measures account 

for some of the benefits of coal production, they are by no means a complete accounting in the same manner and 

at the same horizon and scale as attempted by the SCC. Consequently, the SCC is not useful at the project level 

and the PEIS and any resulting regulatory or policy changes should make that clear. 

Comment Number: 0002448_FoleyHein_20160727-3 

Organization1:Institute for Policy Integrity 

Commenter1:Jayni Foley Hein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Peter Howard (Economics Director, Institute for Policy Integrity) discussed royalty 

reform scenarios that would account for upstream methane and transportation costs. Policy 

Integrity’s analysis found that internalizing the upstream methane externally costs, alone, would 

lead to a $1 per metric ton charge on federal surface-mined coal in the Powder River Basin (or a 

shift from a 12.5% royalty rate to an 18.7% royalty rate), and approximately a $10 per metric ton 

charge for federal underground coal. Using the 18.7% royalty rate for federal coal produced in 

the Powder River Basin from 2009 to 2014 would have provided about $1 billion in additional 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-207

Scoping Report 

revenue, not accounting for the externality benefits. These values were derived using the Social 

Cost of Methane, and represent lower bound estimates of production externality costs, as some 

externalities cannot easily be quantified (such as water use and pollution). Transportation of coal 

accounts for 40 percent of all train traffic in the United States. Howard stated that if Interior 

accounted for both methane and transportation costs, it would lead to an 82% royalty based on 

Wyoming mine mouth prices. This work is additive and complementary to the work of Vulcan 

Philanthropies, discussed below, which focuses on downstream combustion emissions. 

Comment Number: 0002448_FoleyHein_20160727-4 

Organization1:Institute for Policy Integrity 

Commenter1:Jayni Foley Hein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Spencer Reeder (Senior Program Officer, Vulcan Philanthropies) and Professor James Stock (Harold Hitchings 

Burbank Professor of Political Economy, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and faculty member, Harvard Kennedy 

School) discussed modeling several federal coal program reform scenarios with a focus on their interaction with 

the Clean Power Plan. Their work considered reforms that increased coal royalties, including royalty increases 

linked to the monetized externality value of the combustion of the coal as estimated by the Social Cost of 

Carbon. In addition, they discussed reforms that would place quantity caps on coal from federal lands. Reeder 

discussed the White House Council of Economic Advisers’ (CEA) recent report, which discussed fair market 

value, environmental externalities, and how Interior can maximize royalty revenue (coming up with an estimated 

value of $3 billion or more in additional annual payments from royalty reform). Reeder stressed that, despite the 

coal industry currently having bankruptcy issues, their underlying mine assets are valuable (once the burden of 

overextended debt is lifted) and now is the time to look at reforming the coal leasing program because there 

have been market failures. Reeder also stated that an economy-wide carbon price would be a proper solution, 

but that does not yet exist, nor does the Clean Power Plan because of the current stay by the Supreme Court. 

Reeder noted that when discussing the appropriate royalty rate for federal coal, calculations are often based on a 

below-market price, as Haggerty’s work has shown. It is better to think of it in absolute terms (and in dollars per 

ton of coal), as the CEA report does. The Vulcan study looked at the effect of different carbon adder scenarios 

and their effect on energy sector greenhouse gas emissions, including substitution effects, and revenue. 

Using a 20% Social Cost of Carbon adder results in a dramatic increase in revenue accompanying a decline in 

production. The CEA report looked at maximizing revenue, and they came up with an adder equivalent to about 

30% of the Social Cost of Carbon. Reeder stressed that the revenues from this adder can be used to address the 

broader economic transition away from coal, and the affected states have the opportunity to direct their share of 

the increased funds to affected communities without federal legislation. Reeder also stressed that this is new 

territory and we are confronting a new problem of how to deal with addressing climate change externality 

costs, consistent with Hein’s remarks. 

Professor James Stock discussed the modeling conducted for the Vulcan study, using the ICF Integrated Planning 

Model (IPM), which is the same model EPA used for the Clean Power Plan regulatory impact analysis. Stock 

described how the analysis examined scenarios with the Clean Power Plan in place, and without it. For example, 

without any Clean Power Plan, using a royalty rate equivalent to 100% of the Social Cost of Carbon would 

provide three-quarters of the emissions reductions that the Clean Power Plan would provide if it were fully 

implemented as EPA envisions. If the Clean Power Plan is in place, the effect is smaller and it would be doublecounting to use a full Social Cost of Carbon adder. In the study, as the royalty rate increases, there is some 

substitution of federal coal for non-federal eastern coal, but the price for eastern coal also goes up, making 

natural gas and solar more attractive. So there is a “self-limiting” feature; as the adder approaches about 20% of 

the Social Cost of Carbon, there is less substitution of eastern coal for federal. Internalizing some of the 

externality cost of coal through royalty reform takes some of the compliance burden off the Clean Power Plan. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-208 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

The effect on wholesale electricity prices, in a mass-based Clean Power Plan scenario with royalty reform, 

actually decreases the price of electricity. 

Stock summarized in four points: (1) while good government reforms are important and we should come up with 

a pricing basis that is fair, accurate, and prevents gaming by companies, that is not enough. Interior must adjust 

for the externality value of burning the coal mined on federal lands if it wants to govern to protect the interest of 

future generations; (2) an optimal Social Cost of Carbon adder that avoids double-counting depends on the 

implementation details of the Clean Power Plan (under a mass-based Clean Power Plan, about 20% of the Social 

Cost of Carbon may be appropriate; if the Clean Power Plan is weaker, then a larger adder would be 

appropriate); (3) small increases in the coal royalty rate will yield small climate effects and larger increases will 

yield greater climate benefits while still increasing revenue; and (4) making changes through royalty rate reform, 

as opposed to conducting no new leasing indefinitely, will provide revenue to states (and the federal government) 

that will need assistance transitioning away from coal. 

Comment Number: 0002457_Johnson_20160728-4 

Organization1:Western Slope Conservation Center 

Commenter1:Alex Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

- Develop guidelines and rules for methane recapture and flaring to mitigate the impacts of methane exhaust on 

miners' health and green house gas emissions for active and closed mining operations. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-50

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should also work to qualitatively monetize the impacts of these GHG emissions using the EPA’s social cost 

of methane and the Interagency Working Group’s social cost of carbon methodologies, as well as the USGS 

carbon database. Relying on these data, BLM should develop quarterly estimates of all GHG emissions associated 

with the extraction, transport, and consumption of federal coal to serve as basis for informing future decisions 

regarding the federal coal regulatory scheme, and report the carbon emissions and impacts for all agency leasing 

decisions. 

Finally, fugitive methane is the biggest other contributor to the GHG emissions (after burning of coal for 

electricity generation), and coal mining accounts for approximately 15% of United States methane emissions. 

Methane is formed in coal as the coal is created over time from various plant remains, and is retained by the 

coalbed and surrounding strata as long as it remains under pressure. When coal mining occurs, the trapped 

methane is released from both the coal seams and surrounding strata. 

To address this other potent contributor to climate change. BLM must develop a method to account for the 

methane emissions associated with mining, and incorporate those emissions into its calculations of the full lifecycle emissions associated with federal coal leasing. 

Comment Number: 0002471_Reed_20160728-2 

Organization1:High Country Conservation Advocates 

Commenter1:Matt Reed 

Other Sections: 4.5 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal Mining and Climate Change are Impacting Gunnison County’s Public Lands Gunnison County is home to the 

Gunnison National Forest, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, and biologically diverse BLM-managed 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-209

Scoping Report 

lands. Ranging in elevation from less than 6,000 feet to mountains over 14,000 feet, it is a rich and varied 

landscape. Yet both subtle and obvious impacts from climate change are impacting millions of acres of local public 

lands and straining federal budgets. Warmer winters and hotter summers, the proliferation of the spruce beetle 

and subsequent die-off of vast swaths of forest, Sudden Aspen Decline, larger and more intense wildfires, and 

reduced snowpack are just some of the climate change impacts we’re seeing on our public lands. In 2005, 

Colorado’s greenhouse emissions were 35 percent higher than they were in 1990. They are projected to grow 

81 percent above the 1990 levels by 2020.7 Current and proposed federal coal leasing and development 

contributes to Colorado’s greenhouse gas emissions and directly impacts public lands and communities.

(7) U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Spruce Beetle Epidemic and Aspen Decline Management Response Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (February 2016), at 228. 

On June 20, President Obama spoke at Yosemite National Park, declaring that climate change is “the biggest 

challenge we’re going to face in protecting this place and places like it.”8 He could just have easily been discussing 

public lands in western Colorado. President Obama condemned those who pay “lip service” to protecting 

America’s natural areas while making climate change worse:

(8) The White House, Remarks by the President at Sentinel Bridge, Yosemite National Park, Office of the Press 

Secretary (June 20, 2016), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/20/remarkspresidentsentinel-bridge (last viewed July 28, 2016). 

-Make no mistake, climate change is no longer just a threat, it’s already a reality. I was talking to some of the 

rangers here -- here in Yosemite, meadows are drying out. Bird ranges are shifting farther northward. Alpine 

mammals like pikas are being forced farther upslope to escape higher temperatures. Yosemite’s largest glacier, 

once a mile wide, is now almost gone. We’re also seeing longer, more expensive, more dangerous wildfire 

seasons -- and fires are raging across the West right now. I was just in New Mexico yesterday, which is dealing 

with a big wildfire, just like folks here in California and four other states -- all while it’s still really early in the 

season.9 

(9) Id. 

Comment Number: 0002471_Reed_20160728-7 

Organization1:High Country Conservation Advocates 

Commenter1:Matt Reed 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The West Elk mine is Colorado’s worst methane polluter, spewing more methane into the atmosphere than the 

state’s largest oil and gas operator.5 But a proposed mine expansion deeper into sensitive National Forest lands 

would push emissions much, much higher, not to mention carve up a biologically rich, forested landscape with 

roads, wells and other infrastructure.6 It doesn’t make environmental sense, it doesn’t make economic sense, and 

it shouldn’t be allowed to occur on public lands. Gunnison County’s healthy, intact public lands and the economic 

opportunities they provide shouldn’t be sacrificed to support a failing coal mine that is being heavily subsidized by 

U.S. taxpayers. 

(5) See http://www.coloradoindependent.com/159131/colorados-worst-methane-polluter-is-an-arch-coalminewestelk-john-hickenlooper (last viewed July 28, 2016). 

(6) See U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Rulemaking for Colorado Roadless Areas, Supplemental Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (November 2015). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-1 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-210 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Meaningful consideration of greenhouse gas emissions is clearly within the scope of required NEPA review3. As 

the Ninth Circuit has held, in the context of fuel economy standard rules: 

The impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of cumulative impacts analysis 

that NEPA requires agencies to conduct. Any given rule setting a CAFE standard might have an “individually 

minor” effect on the environment, but these rules are “collectively significant actions taking place over a period of 

time” (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7)4.

Whether or not any given lease sale is “individually minor” (a questionable assertion, given that single sales such 

as the Wright Area sales can implicate 2 billion tons of coal), it is beyond dispute that the federal coal program as 

a whole implicates a significant chunk of national and global greenhouse gas emissions – at current rates 

approximately 14% of U.S. fossil fuel emissions,5 10% of U.S. total GHG emissions,6 and 1.6% of total global 

GHG emissions.7 The courts have ruled that agency consideration indirect GHG emissions resulting from agency 

policy, regulatory, and leasing decisions cannot ignore the impact of decisions regarding coal supply.8 

(3) Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1217 (9th Cir. 2008); 

(4) Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1216 (9th Cir. 2008). 

(5) Climate Accountability Institute. 2015. Memorandum from Richard Heede to Friends of The Earth and Center 

for 

Biological Diversity, at http://webiva-downton.s3.amazonaws.com/877/3a/7/5721/Exhibit_1- 

1_ONRR_ProdEmissions_Heede_7May15.pdf. 

(6) Stratus Consulting, Cutting Greenhouse Gas From Fossil-Fuel Extraction on Federal Lands and Waters 5 

(2015), 

citing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data”, available at 

hhtp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghghemissions/usinventoryreport.html; 

(7) Boden, T.A., Marland, G., and Andres, R.J. (2015). National CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement 

Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2011, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2015. 

(8) See Mid States Coal. For Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 520, 532, 550 (8th Cir. 2003); 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-61

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Two recent studies estimated that global oil, gas, and coal resources considered currently economically 

recoverable contain potential greenhouse gas emissions estimated at 2,900 GtCO2 100 and 4196 GtCO2(101) 

respectively. Other sources estimate even greater global fossil fuel reserves at 3,677 to 7,120 GtCO2.102 When 

considering all fossil fuel resources (defined as those recoverable over all time with both current and future 

technology irrespective of current economic conditions), potential combustion emissions have been estimated at 

nearly 11,000 GtCO2(103) upwards to 31,353 and 50,092 GtCO2.104 

(100) McGlade and Ekins at 187-192. 

(101) Raupach, M. et al., Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions. 4 Nature Climate Change 873-879 

(2014) at Figure 2. 

(102) IPCC, 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at Table 7.2 [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. 

Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-211

Scoping Report 

Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.(“IPCC AR5 Mitigation of Climate Change”) 

(103) McGlade and Ekins at 188. 

(104) IPCC AR5 Mitigation of Climate Change at Table 7.2. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-26

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is a leading tool for quantifying the climate impacts of proposed federal actions. 

The SCC is an estimate, in dollars, of the long term damage caused by a one ton increase in carbon dioxide 

(CO2) emissions in a given year; or viewed another way, the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions by that amount 

in a given year. The SCC is intended to be a comprehensive estimate of climate change damages that includes, 

among other costs, the changes in net agricultural productivity, risks to human health, and property damages 

from increased flood risks. The method was initially designed for application in rulemakings, but the courts have 

recognized its applicability to NEPA analyses. (25) 

(25) See High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014). 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-27

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There is at least one court case supporting the use of the SCC protocol. In High Country Conservation 

Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014), a case involving coal mining EISs, the court 

rejected claims that it was too speculative to estimate coal combustion emissions when the SCC method was 

available to the agency and had been recognized earlier by the agency. This was particularly true because the 

agency presented the benefits of the project in a monetary form. By refusing to quantify the climate change costs 

of the project, the agency effectively zeroed out the costs of greenhouse gasses. Presenting only a project’s 

economic upsides while omitting a projection of the project’s costs was arbitrary and capricious and violated 

NEPA. 

However, the SCC has some limitations. The method is recognized as an underestimate of the total likely 

damages associated with a proposed action. (28) 

(28) EPA concluded, “The models used to develop SC-CO2 estimates, known as integrated assessment models, 

do not currently include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change 

recognized in the climate change literature because of a lack of precise information on the nature of damages and 

because the science incorporated into these models naturally lags behind the most recent research. Nonetheless, 

the SC-CO2 is a useful measure to assess the benefits of CO2 reductions.” 

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html (emphasis added). Accessed July 25, 2016. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-28

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-212 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

One alternative method identified by the National Academies of Science is an interactive risk management 

assessment. In a risk management assessment the BLM would consider means to reduce or respond to GHG 

emissions such as through mitigation, adaptation, geo-engineering, or an improved knowledge base. Many 

responses are possible for estimating risk reduction potential. Such a method should seek to pursue the most 

feasible options, pursue options with the lowest costs and good cost effectiveness, put in place options with 

proven effectiveness, ensure equity and fairness, and be robust to the uncertainties surrounding climate change. 

The approximate costs would then serve as the basis for determining the risk cost of a proposed action. (29) 

(29) See America’s Climate Choices, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council at 46-50 

(presenting and discussing these issues). 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-31

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The SCC is well adapted to assessing impacts on a broad, global, level but may not be as well suited to a 

consideration of local monetary impacts. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-33

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The second critical step in analyzing climate change issues in the PEIS after determining the amount of GHG that 

are emitted is to evaluate the climate change impacts of those emissions. This can be done by utilizing the Social 

Cost of Carbon (and companion EPA Social Cost of Methane) protocol. The BLM should use this method for 

climate change impact assessment in the PEIS. But in addition, due to some shortcomings in the SCC method, the 

BLM must also evaluate qualitative, non-monetary impacts that are caused by climate change, such as from earlier 

snowmelts in our western mountains that are changing water supplies. This analysis should be done from a global 

perspective because as recognized in the CEQ Climate Change NEPA Guidance, “diverse individual sources of 

emissions each make relatively small additions to global atmospheric GHG concentrations that collectively have 

huge impact.” That said, local impacts also need to be considered especially since the BLM has traditionally 

published the local monetary benefits of the coal program in its NEPA analyses. BLM should not assume that 

federal coal that is not produced will simply be replaced by production from other sources (so-called “perfect 

substitution”) thus eliminating any climate change benefits —this unfounded myth is not based on empirical 

evidence or sound economic theory, and it has been rejected in several reports. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-45

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 2 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Another approach to managing the carbon emissions associated with the Federal Coal Program is by addressing 

the costs borne by society due to federal coal leasing and production through economic tools designed to ensure 

that taxpayers receive a fair return. Referred to by some as a carbon adder, such an approach increases the price 

paid to the federal government for the use of federal coal to reflect some or all of its climate costs (i.e., climate 

externality). (52) Some have argued that such an adder could be incorporated into the existing bonus bid, rents, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-213

Scoping Report 

or royalty paid on federal coal sales because it offers the administratively simplest and most efficient strategy, and 

because of the potential for states and communities impacted by reductions in coal mining to receive a portion 

revenue generated by the adder even as coal production declines. (53) An adder could be set at a price to 

address emissions associated with lifecycle emissions of federal coal or just the direct (upstream) emissions of 

from coal mining. (54) Fully incorporating the lifecycle costs would potentially result in a very large price increase, 

but could be phased in. (55) Another approach would be for DOI to initially apply an upstream (direct) carbon 

adder for all fossil production, including coal, as part of the royalty rate. In a forthcoming paper, we will 

demonstrate in more detail how this approach has myriad benefits, including market flexibility so that least cost 

options will be made, clearly under the purview of DOI and BLM, more straightforward and transparent than a 

lifecycle cost, increases taxpayer fairness by beginning to internalize externalities and increasing state and federal 

revenue, is complimentary to leasing reform. Lastly, “The statutory case for a BLM coal pricing initiative appears 

to be stronger than the case against it since BLM is required to consider the environment when making multiple 

use decisions for public land. BLM’s leasing statutes also appear to afford the agency a significant amount of 

discretion to set the financial terms of coal leases.” (56)

(52) A.J. Krupnick et al., “Putting a Carbon Charge on Federal Coal: Legal and Economic Issues”, Resources for 

the Future Discussion Paper 15---13, 2015, Washington, DC: RFF. Available at 

http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-15-13.pdf. Last accessed, July 22, 2016. 

(53) Krupnick et al.; T. Gerarden, W. Spencer Reeder, and J. Stock, “Federal Coal Program Reform, the Clean 

Power Plan, and the Interaction of Upstream and Downstream Climate Policies,” April 2016. Available at 

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stock/files/fedcoal_cpp_v9.pdf. Last accessed July 22, 2016. Note that under 

existing law, the government’s authority to share revenue collected from federal coal leasing and production is 

limited. See Baldwin, Pamela. 2010. “Fair Market Value for Wind and Solar Development on Public Land.” 

Whitepaper commissioned by The Wilderness Society and Taxpayers for Common Sense. Pages 21-24. Available 

at https://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/Fair-Market-Value-Whitepaper.pdf (accessed July 26, 2016). 

(54) For an in-depth look at the distinction between lifecycle and direct (upstream) emissions, see Burger, 

Michael and Wentz, Jessica. 2016. “Downstream and Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Proper Scope of 

NEPA Review.” Forthcoming working paper.

(55) Krupnick et al. 

(56) Krupnick, et al. p. 3. 

Recommendations: BLM should consider adjusting bonus bids, rents, and royalties to address the associated 

externalities (a so-called “carbon adder”) as a pathway to meeting its goals to reduce climate emissions from the 

federal coal program consistent with national climate commitments. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-80

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The SCC was developed through a rigorous multi-agency process based on generally accepted research methods 

and years of peer-reviewed scientific and economic studies. In 2010, an interagency working group was convened 

by the Council of Economic Advisers and the Office of Management and Budget to design an SCC modeling 

exercise and develop estimates for use in rulemakings. The interagency group was comprised of scientific and 

economic experts from the White House and federal agencies, including: Council on Environmental Quality, 

National Economic Council, Office of Energy and Climate Change, and Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

EPA, and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Transportation, and Treasury. The interagency 

group identified a variety of assumptions, which EPA then used to estimate the SCC using three integrated 

assessment models, which each combine climate processes, economic growth, and interactions between the two 

in a single modeling framework. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-214 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

This method has undergone careful peer review from a number of agencies and has been subject to updates and 

revisions, and considerable public comment. For example, see the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) 

SCC site, which presents the OMB response to the public comments received through its solicitation for 

comments on use of SCC estimates in Federal regulatory analyses. (26) In this response, OMB announced plans 

to obtain expert, independent advice from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on 

how to approach future updates to the estimates. This panel is concluding its review but published an interim 

review generally reaffirming the methods used to develop the SCC for use in evaluating proposed federal actions. 

(27) 

(26) See https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/social-cost-of-carbon. (Accessed July 25, 2016.) 

(27) National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Assessment of Approaches to Updating 

the Social Cost of Carbon: Phase 1 Report on a Near-Term Update. Committee on Assessing Approaches to 

Updating the Social Cost of Carbon, Board on Environmental Change and Society. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-84

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The carbon budget analysis serves as the basis for setting these targets, and would be used to inform decision 

making by the agency as part of a carbon management system. It could also be used when evaluating new policies, 

in NEPA processes or to dictate actual leasing decisions. While a carbon budget should be developed for all 

energy resources on federal lands, we believe that applying this concept to the coal leasing program is a logical 

starting point presented by the PEIS. The coal budget (measured in terms of CO2e) will provide a target for the 

agency to stay below when making leasing decisions. The agency could consider how each new lease impacts the 

budget and, while a more robust system could be used to construct a firm limit or “hard cap” in the future, we 

recommend the budget be used to develop “soft targets” to guide decisions in the near term. Thus, we envision 

the coal budget playing an integral role in the agency’s determination of what, where and how much coal will be 

made available for lease. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-85

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should develop a carbon budget and carbon management system for fossil fuels on public lands modeled 

after the analysis done by The Wilderness Society. Using the carbon budget, BLM should create a coal budget 

that will be used as a soft target and decision making tool. The budgets and carbon management system should 

play an integral role in the leasing process as proposed in Section IV.H. When considering new leases BLM should 

measure and manage toward the budget as well as requiring compensatory mitigation for the GHG emissions and 

climate change impacts new leases would cause. 

Comment Number: 0002486_Ratledge_20160728_Apogee-1 

Organization1:Apogee EP 

Commenter1:Nathan Ratledge 

Other Sections: 7.4 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-215

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The most straightforward route would be to implement a carbon adder for upstream (or direct) emissions –

those occurring during the mining and production phase. Recent research estimates those costs would be roughly 

$2 for surface federal coal and $6 for underground federal coal. Without a more comprehensive carbon pricing 

program – like a national carbon tax, and given the widely recognized externalities associated with coal use, 

choosing not to price coal emissions from federal production via an upstream adder (or another similar 

approach) would represent a glaring misstep in meeting the nation’s climate commitments.

Comment Number: 0002486_Ratledge_20160728_Apogee-2 

Organization1:Apogee EP 

Commenter1:Nathan Ratledge 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is a well---established and frequently utilized approach for capturing the 

externalities of emissions. A recent paper by Resources for the Future (Krupnick et al 2015) shows that the BLM 

has the regulatory and statutory authority to implement a price on carbon. Thus, including a carbon price (or 

‘adder’) based on the SCC and coal emissions would be a practical step to account for carbon costs. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-23

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This lack of authority extends to any attempt by the Department of the Interior to utilize the social cost of 

carbon, or similar analytical tools, to further burden coal leasing on public lands through indirect taxation or 

mitigation. In other words, BLM has no authority to discourage coal mining at the leasing stage based on 

downstream effects, such as greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and combustion, using the social cost 

of carbon or any other similar analytical method. Even BLM has previously recognized that the imposition of 

climate-related costs “is outside the scope of [the Federal Land Policy and Management Act] and the MLA.” See 

Attachment 5, BLM Petition Denial (Jan. 28, 2011) (“Carbon and any other fees dedicated to raising monies to 

fund other initiatives would require legislation allowing that authority to the BLM.”). 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-39

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal coal leasing program is governed by the MLA, which embodies fundamental principles of maximum 

economic recovery and diligent development of federal coal reserves. In evaluating climate change impacts related 

to the federal coal program, BLM’s analysis must be informed by the MLA, which indisputably favors mineral 

development. BLM’s climate change analysis, including the social cost of carbon, cannot be used as a justification 

to increase costs associated with coal leasing or otherwise attempt to discourage coal leasing and development 

on public lands. The social cost of carbon is not only an inaccurate and inappropriate tool to measure climate 

change impacts, but it is also wholly inconsistent with the MLA’s mandate to encourage the development of 

federal coal reserves. 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-59

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-216 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 2 4.5 8.7 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Alternative C and D: Social Cost of Carbon and Royalty Rate Increases 

This alternative would internalize the cost of carbon based on federal social cost of carbon estimates reflecting 

the “worldwide incremental damage from climatic change brought about by an additional metric ton of CO2 

emissions.”67 This price is sensitive to discount rates. A midrange price for the year 2020 is $46 per ton of 

CO2.68 Similarly, BLM may consider royalty rates as a means to reform the federal coal program. Increased 

royalty rates can also include royalty carbon adders, which “directly incorporates a carbon price into the royalty 

paid on federal coal sales, reflecting its climate costs.”69 Interior should analyze these decision alternatives and 

compare them against the criterion of budget compatibility – whether the reformed alternatives are consistent 

with federal climate change targets, as illustrated by the 450 Scenario. 

[67 Id. at 29.] 

[68 Alan Krupnick et al., Putting a Carbon Charge on Federal Coal: Legal and Economic Issues, Resources for the 

Future Discussion Paper at 10574; See U.S. GAO, GAO-14-663, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Development of 

Social Cost of Carbon Estimates (July 2014).] 

[69 Spencer Reed and James H. Stock., Federal Coal Leasing Reform Options: Effects on CO2 Emissions and 

Energy Markets – Executive Summary, February 2016 at 2-3.] 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-30

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 7.3 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

1. Current life cycle analysis (LCA) studies are inadequate and do not factor in all variables. Any LCA that the 

BLM may undertake as a part of this review needs to be a consequential LCA. 

2. If the BLM studies the LCA of mined federal coal, it must take into account current and future technological 

advancements that may reduce emissions. Studies have shown that new technologies can drastically reduce coal 's 

C02 emissions. 

3. Because of the highly speculative nature of a social cost of carbon analysis, the BLM should avoid conducting 

one as part of the PEIS. 

4. The BLM lacks the statutory authority and technical expertise to implement a carbon taxing program or 

promulgate other requirements to address C02 and other GHG emissions. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-34

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Neither NEPA nor the Council on Environmental Quality regulations specifically requires quantitative 

consideration of the economic impacts of climate change or use of the SCC. Climate Integrated Assessment 

Models (IAMs) which are a mechanism for conducting an SCC estimate are imperfect and provide a rough 

estimation at best - "the actual economic impacts associated with an additional metric ton of GHG emissions are 

unknown." Therefore, an SCC based upon IAMs is "largely speculative." Id. at p. 65; (WY0-01785). 

In reviewing a challenge to the Wright Area FEIS, the Court upheld the agencies' qualitative disclosure rather 

than quantitative analysis of the effects of GHG emissions. WildEarth Guardians, 120 F. Supp. 3d at 1269-1273; 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-217 

Scoping Report 

(WY0-01391 to 01396). Distinguishing the coal leases analyzed in the Wright Area FEIS from a coal lease at the 

mouth of a power plant, the Court recognized that "the mined coal would be entering the free marketplace, thus 

diminishing the agencies' abilities to foresee the effect of coal combustion." Id. at 1272-73 (distinguishing Wright 

Area FEIS challenge from High Country Conserv. Advocates v. USFS, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014)); 

(WY0-01394 to 01395). It accepted the agencies' rational that "information regarding the precise impact on 

global warming was not then available and that 'given the current state of science, it is not yet possible to 

associate specific actions with the specific climate impacts." WildEarth Guardians, 120 F. Supp. 3d at 1272; (WY0-

01395). 

Because of the highly speculative nature of a SCC analysis, the BLM should avoid conducting one as part of the 

PEIS. If the BLM persists, it must consider that the overall trend in GHG emissions is trending down. See 

Inventory ofU.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014, Recent Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks at §2.1. (WY0-01792 to 01813). Overall, net emissions in 2014 were 8.6 percent below 2005 

levels as shown in Figure 3.4.1 below. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-1 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

we want to emphasize that the move to reform the federal coal program comes as a critical moment in our 

nation’s energy history. In the past several years, the federal coal program, which has sought to maximize 

economic return for the United States of America, has faced the new reality that more coal mining is not yielding 

the economic benefits intended when the program was first enacted. As our understanding of the costs of climate 

change have evolved, it is now clear that the federal coal program is not producing an economic return, but 

rather costing society tremendously. 

One vivid illustration of this is with regards to the climate costs of publicly owned coal production. As reports 

have found, every ton of carbon released into the atmosphere imposes a cost to society in the form of economic 

damages. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has explained this “social cost of carbon” concept 

as follows: 

The [social cost of carbon] SC-CO2 is an estimate of the economic damages associated with a small increase in 

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, conventionally one metric ton, in a given year. This dollar figure also represents 

the value of damages avoided for a small emission reduction (i.e., the benefit of a CO2 reduction). (1) EPA, “The 

Social Cost of Carbon,” website available at 

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html. 

Although a U.S. Interagency Working Group consisting of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, the EPA, the Department of Energy, and others reports that the current cost of 

carbon emissions may be as high as $105 per metric ton of carbon dioxide released, peer-reviewed studies 

actually indicate the cost is as high as $220 per metric ton. (2) Agencies have lately been using a mid-range value 

of $37 per metric tons of carbon dioxide. 

(2) According to the Interagency Working Group, the 2015 cost of carbon based on the 95th percentile value 

across three models at a 3% discount rate was $105 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. See Exhibit 1, Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, “Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of 

Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866” (July 2015), available online at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf. However, recent studies 

have determined that current estimates for the social cost of carbon should be as much as $220 per ton. See 

Exhibit 2, Moore, C.F. and B.D. Delvane, “Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent 

mitigation policy,” Nature Climate Change (January 12, 2015).

Based on recent reports that federal coal production is responsible for 765,241,950 metric tons of carbon 

dioxide, this would put the total climate cost of the federal coal program at up to $168,353,229,000 based on a 

$220 per metric ton social cost of carbon value. (3) Even based on a $105 per metric ton of carbon value, the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-218 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

costs of the federal coal program would be as much as $80,350,404,750. These are staggering expense. Especially 

considering the Department of the Interior has estimated the total economic benefits from all oil, gas, and coal 

production overseen by the BLM may be as high as only $64.50 billion, the net costs of the federal coal program 

alone are obvious and far overshadows any economic benefits. (4) 

(3) According to a recent report for The Wilderness Society, total carbon dioxide emissions related to federal 

coal production are estimated to be 765,241,950 metric tons annually. See Exhibit 3, Stratus Consulting, 

“Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fossil Energy Extracted From Federal Lands and Waters: an Update,” Final 

Report Prepared for The Wilderness Society (Dec. 23, 2014) at 10, available online at 

http://wilderness.org/sites/default/files/Stratus-Report.pdf. 

(4) In the Department of the Interior’s most recent Economic Report for FY 2015, the agency estimates a total 

economic contribution from all coal, oil, and gas production overseen by the BLM to amount to $64.5 billion. See 

U.S. Department of the Interior, “Economic Report, FY 2015) (June 17, 2016) at 22, available online at 

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/fy2015_doi_econ_report_2016-06-17.pdf. This number is based 

on the direct economic benefits of all oil, gas, and coal production overseen by the BLM, which are estimated to 

be $29.5 billion, and the “value added” benefits, which are vaguely defined and amount to $36.64 billion. The 

report does not disaggregate between coal, oil, and gas benefits, but rather presents an aggregate figure for all 

fossil fuel production overseen by the BLM. 

The costs of the federal coal program are underscored by methane emissions associated with federal coal 

production. As recent reports have found, among federal fossil fuel development, federal coal production is the 

largest source of methane pollution, releasing 13,080 metric tons annually. (5) According to recent studies, the 

social cost of methane as of 2015 was as high as $3,000 per metric ton. (6) This puts the cost of methane 

emissions associated with federal coal production at $39,240,000, further highlighting how costly the climate 

consequences of the federal coal program are to our society. 

(5) See Exhibit 3 at 10. Contrast this figure with total methane emissions from onshore natural gas production, 

which at 12,358 metric tons is the second largest source of methane from federal fossil fuel production. 

(6) See Exhibit 4, EPA, “Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Emission Standards for New and Modified 

Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector” (Aug. 2015) at 4-14, available online at 

https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/og_prop_ria_081815.pdf. 

Put another way, the annual climate costs of just the federal coal program far outweigh the benefits of all fossil 

fuel production overseen by the BLM. Taking into account all carbon dioxide and methane emissions associated 

with federal coal production, the costs are 2.5 times greater than all economic benefits. See Attached for Figure 1 

- Benefits of BLM Oil, Gas, and Coal Production and High and Low Carbon Cost Estimates Associated with 

Federal Coal Production. 

Another way to look at this is to assess the climate costs that society stands to bear from future coal production. 

According to estimates, 231.92 billion metric tons of carbon stands to be unleashed if all remaining leased and 

unleased federal coal reserves are mined and consumed. (7) Based just on carbon cost estimates for 2015, these 

emissions stand to produce as much as $51.03 trillion in damages, more than 17 times the total budget of the 

United States of America. However, because these emissions are likely to occur later in time, when carbon costs 

are more pronounced, these estimates represent very conservative amounts. Nevertheless, they remain 

illustrative of the need for reforms to ensure the United States, and indeed the world, are not forced to shoulder 

these costs. 

(7) See Exhibit 5, Eco-Shift Consulting, “The Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Federal Fossil Fuels,” 

Report Prepared for Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth (Aug. 2015), available at 

http://www.ecoshiftconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/Potential-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-U-S-Federal-FossilFuels.pdf. See Attached for Table 1 - Projected Carbon Emissions and Costs Related from Unleased and Leased 

Federal Coal Reserves 

Even under the more conservative, mid-range value of $37 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, the total carbon 

emissions from unleashed federal coal reserves stands to be more than $7.8 trillion. No matter how you slice it, 

the liabilities of future coal development are nearly unfathomable and certainly cannot be something the BLM and 

Interior Department should expect future generations to shoulder. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-219 

Scoping Report 

These climate costs are not theoretical. As the Interior Department itself has acknowledged, the cost of climate 

change to the resources it manages is and stands to be enormous, including: 

-More than $40 billion in National Park resources and infrastructure at risk because of climate change; (8) 

-Devastating impacts to western water supplies, including decreased precipitation in the American southwest, 

decreased runoff, and decreased streamflow; (9) 

-Loss of imperiled and iconic American wildlife, including polar bear, caribou, salmon, and moose; (10) and 

-Greater difficulty in reclaiming land disturbed by energy and mineral extraction and other human activities on 

public lands. (11) 

(8) See National Park Service, “Interior Department Releases Report Detailing $40 Billion of National Park 

Assets at Risk from Sea Level Rise” (June 23, 2015), website available at 

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/release.htm?id=1715. 

(9) See Department of the Interior, “Interior Releases Report Highlighting Impacts of Climate Change to 

Western Water Resources” (April 25, 2011), website available at 

https://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Interior-Releases-Report-Highlighting-Impacts-of-Climate-Change-toWestern-Water-Resources; see also Department of the Interior, “Interior Department Releases Report 

Underscoring Impacts of Climate Change on Western Water Resources” (March 22, 2016), website available at 

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-releases-report-underscoring-impacts-climate-changewestern-water. 

(10) See Department of the Interior, “9 Animals that are Feeling the Impacts of Climate Change” (Nov. 16, 2015), 

website available at https://www.doi.gov/blog/9-animals-are-feeling-impacts-climate-change. 

(11) See Exhibit 6, Department of the Interior, “Climate Change Adaptation Plan” (Jan. 2014) at 6, available at 

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/greening/sustainability_plan/upload/2014_DOI 

_Climate_Change_Adaptation_Plan.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-4 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 4.5 2 8.1 8.7 8.5 8.9 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

2. Just Transition Alternative 

The “Just Transition Alternative” is meant to both wind down the federal coal program in order to keep fossil 

fuels in the ground and to ensure an orderly, effective, and fair transition of workers and communities away from 

coal to more prosperous and sustainable economies. The “Just Transition Alternative” is defined by the following 

key components: 

1. An end to federal coal leasing: Consistent with authorities and discretion under the Mineral Leasing Act, the 

Just Transition Alternative imposes a permanent pause on the leasing of federal coal. The primary basis for 

adopting this permanent pause would be to ensure the protection of the public interest and the interests of the 

United States. Such justification for an end to leasing is clearly supported by the Mineral Leasing Act. 

This pause would apply to all competitive leases (including all leases by application, including emergency leases, as 

defined by 43 C.F.R. § 3425.1-4) and lease modifications. We further believe there is ample justification for 

applying a permanent pause to other forms of non-competitive leasing, such as preference right lease applications 

and lease exchanges. With regards to lease exchanges, the BLM has clear authority to reject exchanges that are 

not in the “public interest.” 43 C.F.R. § 3435.4(a); see also 43 C.F.R. § 3436.0-2(b) (related to alluvial valley floor 

exchanges) and 43 C.F.R. § 2200.0-6 (generally related to exchanges). With regards to preference right lease 

applications, the BLM has the authority to reject such applications where there does not exist “commercial 

quantities” of coal. 43 C.F.R. § 3430.5¬1(a)(1). Given the dismal state of the coal industry and the overwhelming 

climate costs that coal imposes on society, it would be dubious at best to claim that any commercial quantities of 

coal exist where there are preference right lease applications. Accordingly, the BLM has the authority to reject 

such applications. (20) 

Furthermore, to ensure an orderly end to federal coal leasing, the BLM and the Department of the Interior 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-220 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

should issue a rule or guidance requiring that as land management planning is undertaken pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 

1610, et seq., that all lands within a resource management area that are not currently leased for coal, be made 

unavailable for leasing. The authority to impose such direction is set forth at 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e), which gives 

the BLM broad discretion to “eliminate additional coal deposits from consideration to protect other resource 

values.” 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e)(3). 

(20) The only preference right lease applications that exist are in northwestern New Mexico, where Arch Coal, 

which is currently bankrupt, has the rights to acquire 21,000 acres of leases. Legislation was introduced in the 

U.S. House of Representatives that would allow the Secretary to retire these preference right lease applications. 

See HR-1820, available online at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1820/text. If this 

legislation is passed, there would be no additional preference right lease applications requiring action. We 

support this legislation and urge the Secretary of the Interior to encourage its passage in the U.S. Senate and 

adoption into law. 

Putting a permanent pause on leasing will not destroy the U.S. economy or otherwise endanger our energy 

security. As a recent report looking at leasing in the Powder River Basin found, existing leased reserves in the 

Powder River Basin are sufficient to meet demand and effectively contribute to limiting temperature increases. 

(21) This report is instructive as the Powder River Basin is the largest coal producing region in the United States 

and imposes the greatest influence on energy supply and demand in the nation. If an end to federal leasing can be 

justified in the Powder River Basin, it can be justified for federal leasing elsewhere in the U.S. 

21 See Exhibit 11, Fulton, M., D. Koplow, R. Capalino, and A. Grant, “Enough Already: Meeting 2oC PRB Coal 

Demand Without Lifting the Federal Moratorium,” Report Prepared for Energy Transition Advisors, Earth Track, 

and Carbon Tracker Initiative (July 2016), available online at http://www.carbontracker.org/report/enoughalready-2c-powder-river-basin-coal-demand-federal-moratorium/. 

2. Increased royalty rates and rentals: Coal is exacting a tremendous toll on our nation, costing our society 

billions in climate damages, adverse health impacts from air pollution, and water contamination. Royalty rates 

from production on existing coal leases and rentals on existing leases must be increased to begin to recoup the 

costs of these externalities, which are currently shouldered by the public. 

Although royalty rates are normally imposed through new leasing, we recommend that the Interior Department 

and BLM incorporate higher royalty rates into existing leases as existing leases are readjusted pursuant to 43 

C.F.R. § 3451.1. To accomplish this, we urge the amendment of 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-2(a)(1) and (2) to incorporate 

increased royalty rates for both surface and underground mining. As leases are readjusted, these royalty rates 

must be applied to existing leases pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3451.1(a)(2). 

Increasing royalty rates has been recommended by the White House as both a means to generate revenue and 

address the costs of environmental externalities, including carbon costs. (22) 

(22) See Exhibit 12, Executive Office of the President of the United States, “The Economics of Coal Leasing on 

Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers” (June 2016), available online at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160622_cea_coal_leasing.pdf. 

Furthermore, royalty rate reductions should not be approved. Currently, royalty rate reductions are routinely 

granted as companies claim poverty or difficulty in mining with little apparent scrutiny as to whether the 

reductions are justified. In Colorado, for example, BLM officials have approved royalty rate reductions to facilitate 

methane venting and most recently proposed to approve a retroactive royalty rate reduction for a mine that was 

not even producing coal. (23) See Exhibits 13 and 14. 

Similarly, we urge Interior and BLM to amend 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-1(a) to raise rental rates for federal coal leases. 

Currently, rental rates are set at $3.00 per acre, a figure that has not been adjusted since 1979, if not earlier. This 

rental rate not only has failed to be adjusted to account for inflation, but fails to account for the fact that some 

leases may be of small acreage, yet yield significant amounts of coal. Rentals should reflect the value of the lease, 

which depends on the amount of coal a lease contains. In accordance with 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-1(a), any increased 

rental rate must be applied to any readjusted coal lease. 

3. Existing leases that are not producing must be canceled: Where a lease is not meeting continued operation 

requirements under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.1(a)(2), it is subject to cancellation pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3452.2. Where a 

lease is not meeting continued operation requirements, BLM and the Interior Department should make clear that 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-221

Scoping Report 

cancellation of the lease must be pursued. To this end, discretionary avenues for avoiding cancellation should be 

prohibited. Thus, lease suspensions under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.3 and payment of advanced royalties in lieu of 

continued operation under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.4 should be barred. 

The justification for imposing such direction is very clear. Currently, BLM regularly grants lease suspensions and 

allows payment of royalties in lieu of continued operation with no assessment of whether such actions are 

appropriate or in the public interest. BLM appears to be under the impression that lease suspensions or advanced 

royalties are somehow mandated, and that the agency has no choice but to approve company requests. An 

egregious example of this is with regards to Arch Coal’s Carbon Basin Lease in southern Wyoming (No. WYW139975). Arch acquired this lease with the aim of developing a mine to fuel a proposed coal to liquids facility. 

However, this coal to liquids facility has never materialized or even shown any promise of materializing. Most 

recently, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality terminated the permit for the proposed facility. 

(24) Nevertheless, since 2010, Arch has failed to meet continued operation requirements. The BLM has allowed 

Arch to maintain its lease, however, by routinely allowing the company to pay advanced royalties in lieu of 

continued operation. (25) These decisions appear to be pro forma in nature, and do not reflect any consideration 

as to whether it is appropriate or remotely in the public interest to accept advance royalties in lieu of continued 

operation. 

(24) See Exhibit 15, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, “Permit Termination, Medicine Bow Fuel 

and Power Coal to Liquid Project” (June 27, 2016).

(25) See Exhibit 16. 

Furthermore, where an existing lease is not producing, yet is part of a producing logical mining unit, BLM and the 

Interior Department should use their discretion to modify the boundaries of logical mining units to eliminate the 

non-producing lease and facilitate its cancellation. BLM has such discretion under 43 C.F.R. § 3478.1. 

Cancelling leases that are not producing will serve the goal of preventing any potential future development of 

existing leases and contribute to an orderly end to the federal coal program. 

4. Accounting for carbon costs in coal management: It should be made clear, whether through new rules or 

guidance, that carbon costs must be analyzed, assessed and disclosed as federal coal management decisions are 

made. Such decisions are most likely to include mining plan modifications issued pursuant to the Mineral Leasing 

Act, 30 U.S.C. § 207(c), and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (“SMCRA”), 30 C.F.R. § 746, and 

lease readjustments. It is imperative that the BLM and Interior maintain close accounting of the carbon emissions 

and costs resulting from its coal management actions, to ensure full transparency around these emissions and 

costs, and to meaningfully act to address these emissions and costs. Particularly given that, pursuant to authorities 

under the Mineral Leasing Act and SMCRA, the Secretary of the Interior has full discretion to disapprove mining 

plans authorizing the development of leased federal coal, it is imperative that carbon emissions and costs factor 

into and influence such decisionmaking. 

5. Reclamation must be guaranteed: To ensure an orderly end to the federal coal program, full and final 

reclamation must be guaranteed within a reasonable timeframe. We urge two regulatory changes to ensure this 

occurs. 

First, Interior should amend regulations at 30 C.F.R. §§ 816.100 and 817.100 to provide clarification and 

specificity around contemporaneous reclamation. Current rules are vague and fail to ensure that reclamation 

proceeds in a manner that is as “contemporaneously as possible” with mining in accordance with 30 U.S.C. § 

1202(e). These regulations should be amended to make clear that the success of contemporaneous reclamation 

must be measured based on a comparison of Phase III bond release acres, as defined under 30 C.F.R. 

§ 800.40(c)(3), with disturbed acres and ensure that reclamation proceeds at a 1:1 rate, in other words for every 

acre disturbed, one acre should be fully reclaimed to meet Phase III bond release standards. 

Second, just as current BLM rules require diligent development of federal coal, these rules should also require 

diligent reclamation. To this end, Interior and BLM should consider rule changes to ensure that nonproducing 

coal leases are fully reclaimed within two years of failing to meet continued operation requirements and set 

deadlines for the full reclamation of federal coal leases that are no later than 2035. This reclamation deadline 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-222 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

should be established by rule and incorporated into lease terms as leases are readjusted. 

Finally, Interior should amend self-bonding regulations at 30 C.F.R. § 800.23, and any other regulations, as 

appropriate, to prohibit self-bonding whenever publicly owned coal is permitted to be mined. This will ensure 

that, as coal companies continue their decline, that American public resources are fully protected and fully 

guaranteed to be cleaned up. 

6. Prioritizing transition: Above all, the BLM and Interior must make transition away from coal a foremost goal as 

the federal coal program comes to an end. To do this, the agencies should not only explicitly commit, to the 

extent possible, their leadership, resources, and expertise to ensure that workers and communities receive the 

support and assistance they need to transition to more sustainable and prosperous economies. Among the 

actions that Interior and BLM can and should undertake to ensure transition: 

-Work to secure Congressional authorization to direct increased royalty and rental payments toward worker 

and community support. Under NEPA, agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate 

reasonable alternatives “not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(c). Here, although 

BLM and Interior may not be able to direct royalties toward transition support, they can recommend that 

Congress pass legislation that provides such authorization. 

-Establishing an Economic Transition Fund, which would be sustained by an increase in reimbursement fees 

charged by the Interior Department when processing coal-related applications. Under the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (“FLPMA”), Interior has authority to recover reasonable costs associated with its coal 

management program and to appropriate and spend such monies. Specifically, FLPMA provides the Secretary of 

the Interior with authority to “require a deposit of any payments intended to reimburse the United States for 

reasonable costs with respect to applications,” including coal lease application. See 43 U.S.C. § 1734(b). Such 

payments are “authorized to be appropriated and made available until expended” by FLPMA. Id. Funds from the 

Economic Transition Fund should be directed toward transition-oriented initiatives. 

-Prioritizing support and assistance to help communities transition. In addition to securing funds and making them 

available, the Department of the Interior can play a key role in helping direct communities to support, steering 

resources to support conservation and research projects in or near communities, encouraging renewable energy 

development on public lands. Such leadership could be conveyed through a Secretarial Order that simply makes it 

an overarching priority of the Interior Department to advance transition 

Overall, the Interior Department and BLM must move to keep our publicly owned coal in the ground. However, 

keeping coal in the ground should not mean that we turn our backs on the workers and communities that have 

been dependent on coal for so long. Embracing an alternative that ensures “Just Transition,” in other a fair, 

compassionate, and orderly transition away from coal, is the most effective way to both protect our climate and 

help our nation effectively move to more sustainable economies and reliable and affordable means of energy 

production. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-6 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Must be Analyzed 

The PEIS must fully analyze and assess the climate impacts of coal reforms using the social cost of carbon 

protocol. 

The social cost of carbon protocol for assessing climate impacts is a method for “estimat[ing] the economic 

damages associated with a small increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, conventionally one metric ton, in a 

given year [and] represents the value of damages avoided for a small emission reduction (i.e. the benefit of a CO2 

reduction).” (27) As explained above, the protocol was developed by a working group consisting of several 

federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, EPA, CEQ, and others, with the primary aim of 

implementing Executive Order 12866, which requires that the costs of proposed regulations be taken into 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-223

Scoping Report 

account. 

(27) EPA, “Fact Sheet: Social Cost of Carbon” (Nov. 2013) at 1, available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/EPAactivities/scc-fact-sheet.pdf. 

In 2009, an Interagency Working Group was formed to develop the protocol and issued final estimates of carbon 

costs in 2010. (28) These estimates were then revised in 2013 by the Interagency Working Group, which at the 

time consisted of 13 agencies. (29) This report and the social cost of carbon estimates were again revised in 

2015. (30) 

(28) Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, “Technical Support Document: Social Cost of 

Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866” (Feb. 2010), available online at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf. 

(29) Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, “Technical Support Document: Technical Update of 

the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866” (May 2013), available 

online at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/social_cost_of_carbon_for_ria_2013 

_update.pdf. 

(30) See Exhibit 1. 

Depending on the discount rate and the year during which the carbon emissions are produced, the Interagency 

Working Group estimates the cost of carbon emissions, and therefore the benefits of reducing carbon emissions, 

to range from $11 to $220 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. See Chart Below. In its most recent update to the 

Social Cost of Carbon Technical Support Document, the White House’s central estimate was reported to be $36 

per metric ton. (31) In July 2014, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) confirmed that the 

Interagency Working Group’s estimates were based on sound procedures and methodology. (32)

(31) Exhibit 18, White House, “Estimating the Benefits from Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions,” website 

available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/07/02/estimating-benefits-carbon-dioxide-emissionsreductions. 

(32) Exhibit 19, GAO, “Regulatory Impact Analysis, Development of Social Cost of Carbon Estimates,” GAO-14-

663 (July 2014), available online at http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665016.pdf. 

See Attached for Table - Revised Social Cost of CO2, 2010-2050 (in 2007 dollars per metric ton of CO2) 

Although it appears that Interior and BLM must analyze and assess carbon costs consistent with Executive Order 

12866, agencies within the Interior Department, including the BLM, have already been utilizing the social cost of 

carbon protocol in the context of analyzing the impacts of fossil fuel development under NEPA. 

In recent Environmental Assessments for oil and gas leasing in Montana, the agency estimated “the annual SCC 

[social cost of carbon] associated with potential development on lease sale parcels.” (33) In conducting its 

analysis, the BLM used a “3 percent average discount rate and year 2020 values,” presuming social costs of 

carbon to be $46 per metric ton. (34) Based on its estimate of greenhouse gas emissions, the agency estimated 

total carbon costs to be “$38,499 (in 2011 dollars).” (35) In Idaho, the BLM also utilized the social cost of carbon 

protocol to analyze and assess the costs of oil and gas leasing. Using a 3% average discount rate and year 2020 

values, the agency estimated the cost of carbon to be $51 per ton of annual CO2e increase. (36) Based on this 

estimate, the agency estimated that the total carbon cost of developing 25 wells on five lease parcels to be 

$3,689,442 annually. (37) 

(33) Exhibit 20, BLM, “Environmental Assessment for October 21, 2014 Oil and Gas lease Sale,” DOI-BLM-MT0010-2014-0011-EA (May 19, 2014) at 76, available online at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/mt/blm_programs/energy/oil_and_gas/leasing/lease_sale 

s/2014/oct__21_2014/july23posting.Par.25990.File.dat/MCFO%20EA%20October%202014%2 

0Sale_Post%20with%20Sale%20(1).pdf. 

(34) Id. 

(35) Id. 

(36) Exhibit 21, BLM, “Little Willow Creek Protective Oil and Gas Leasing,” EA No. DOI-BLM-ID-B010-2014-

0036-EA (February 10, 2015) at 81, available online at https://www.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/nepa/39064/55133/59825/DOI-BLM-ID-B010-2014-0036-EA_UPDATED_02272015.pdf. 

(37) Id. at 83. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-224 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

To be certain, the social cost of carbon protocol presents a conservative estimate of economic damages 

associated with the environmental impacts climate change. As the EPA has noted, the protocol “does not 

currently include all important [climate change] damages.” (38) As explained:

(38) EPA, “Fact Sheet: Social Cost of Carbon” (Nov. 2013) at 1, available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/EPAactivities/scc-fact-sheet.pdf. 

The models used to develop [social cost of carbon] estimates do not currently include all of the important 

physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature because 

of a lack of precise information on the nature of damages and because the science incorporated into these 

models naturally lags behind the most recent research. In fact, more recent studies have reported significantly 

higher carbon costs. For instance, a report published this month found that current estimates for the social cost 

of carbon should be increased six times for a mid-range value of $220 per ton. (40) In spite of uncertainty and 

likely underestimation of carbon costs, nevertheless, “the SCC is a useful measure to assess the benefits of CO2 

reductions,” and thus a useful measure to assess the costs of CO2 increases. (41)

(41) EPA, “Fact Sheet: Social Cost of Carbon” (Nov. 2013) at 1, available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/EPAactivities/scc-fact-sheet.pdf. 

That the economic impacts of climate change, as reflected by an assessment of social cost of carbon, should be a 

significant consideration in agency decisionmaking, is emphasized by a recent White House report, which warned 

that delaying carbon reductions would yield significant economic costs. (42) As the report states: 

(42) Exhibit 22, Executive Office of the President of the United States, “The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem 

Climate Change” (July 2014), available online at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/the_cost_of_delaying_action_to_stem_clima te_change.pdf. 

[D]elaying action to limit the effects of climate change is costly. Because CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, 

delaying action increases CO2 concentrations. Thus, if a policy delay leads to higher ultimate CO2 

concentrations, that delay produces persistent economic damages that arise from higher temperatures and higher 

CO2 concentrations. Alternatively, if a delayed policy still aims to hit a given climate target, such as limiting CO2 

concentration to given level, then that delay means that the policy, when implemented, must be more stringent 

and thus more costly in subsequent years. In either case, delay is costly. (43)The requirement to analyze the 

social cost of carbon is supported by the general requirements of NEPA and by federal case law. 

To this end, courts have ordered agencies to assess the social cost of carbon pollution, even before a federal 

protocol for such analysis was adopted. In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to include a monetized benefit for carbon emissions reductions in 

an Environmental Assessment prepared under NEPA. Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 538 F.3d 1172, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008). The Highway Traffic Safety Administration had 

proposed a rule setting corporate average fuel economy standards for light trucks. A number of states and public 

interest groups challenged the rule for, among other things, failing to monetize the benefits that would accrue 

from a decision that led to lower carbon dioxide emissions. The Administration had monetized the employment 

and sales impacts of the proposed action. Id. at 1199. The agency argued, however, that valuing the costs of 

carbon emissions was too uncertain. Id. at 1200. The court found this argument to be arbitrary and capricious. Id. 

The court noted that while estimates of the value of carbon emissions reductions occupied a wide range of 

values, the correct value was certainly not zero. Id. It further noted that other benefits, while also uncertain, 

were monetized by the agency. Id. at 1202. 

More recently, a federal court has done likewise for a federally approved coal lease. That court began its analysis 

by recognizing that a monetary cost-benefit analysis is not universally required by NEPA. See High Country 

Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Service, 52 F.Supp.3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014), citing 40 C.F.R. § 1502.23. 

However, when an agency prepares a cost-benefit analysis, “it cannot be misleading.” Id. at 1182 (citations 

omitted). In that case, the NEPA analysis included a quantification of benefits of the project. However, the 

quantification of the social cost of carbon, although included in earlier analyses, was omitted in the final NEPA 

analysis. Id. at 1196. The agencies then relied on the stated benefits of the project to justify project approval. 

This, the court explained, was arbitrary and capricious. Id. Such approval was based on a NEPA analysis with 

misleading economic assumptions, an approach long disallowed by courts throughout the country. Id. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-225

Scoping Report 

A recent op-ed in the New York Times from Michael Greenstone, the former chief economist for the President’s 

Council of Economic Advisers, confirms that it is appropriate and acceptable to calculate the social cost of 

carbon when reviewing whether to approve fossil fuel extraction. (44) 

(44) Exhibit 23, Greenstone, M., “There’s a Formula for Deciding When to Extract Fossil Fuels,” New York 

Times (Dec. 1, 2015), available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/upshot/theres-a-formula-fordeciding-when-to-extract-fossil-fuels.html?_r=0. 

Comment Number: 0002504_Lefton_20160729-1 

Organization1:Climate Advisors 

Commenter1:Rebecca Lefton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM must Ensure that Reforms to the Federal Coal Program Are Consistent With United States’ Climate Goals

The historic December 2016 Paris Agreement on climate was achieved in large part because of the strong 

leadership shown by the United States. The domestic measures to address carbon pollution, such as the Clean 

Power Plan and passenger-vehicle fuel- efficiency standards, gave the global community confidence that the 

United States was not only pressing for international action on climate change, but also leading by example at 

home. The Paris Agreement was not expected to enter into force for several years, but thanks in part to the 

continued leadership of the United States, it appears the momentum is continuing and the Agreement will enter 

into force later this year. 

To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, including impacts within the United States on federally managed 

lands, the U.S. government needs to identify additional policy measures to reduce emissions. Recent estimates of 

U.S. emissions under current policies – including the Clean Power Plan – indicate the United States needs take 

additional actions to achieve its Paris commitment of reducing emissions in 2025 by 26-28 percent below 2005 

levels.[1] It is incumbent upon all federal agencies to assess the impact of major policy decisions on GHG 

emissions and weigh them in light of the U.S. climate goals and international leadership on climate. The 

importance of extending these considerations to BLM’s review of the federal coal program was reinforced when 

input at Interior’s public listening sessions identified that ensuring consistency of the federal coal program with 

the United States’ (and the world’s) climate goals was one of three key areas of concern to address. 

Comment Number: 0002506_Nichols_20160729-4 

Organization1:Wild Earth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Carbon costs must be accounted for and disclosed in coal management: As your Interior Department continues 

to make coal management decisions, such as approving mining plans or lease readjustments, your Interior 

Department must account for and disclose the carbon costs of its actions using, at a minimum, social cost of 

carbon figures. Such analysis and transparency is key to ensuring the American public is effectively apprised of the 

climate consequences of the federal coal program, even as it winds down and ultimately ends. 

Comment Number: 0002511_Krieger_20160727-3 

Organization1:Washington Environmental Council 

Commenter1:Emily Krieger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The true social price of coal must be examined and reflected in leasing costs. Costs do not currently reflect the 

cost to our climate and communities, and the leasing practices are harming the most vulnerable members of our 

population first. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-226 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002513_Lish_20160707-11

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Christopher Lish 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Use the social cost of carbon to evaluate the climate impacts of current and potential 

federal coal leases. 

If the social cost of carbon were incorporated into the lease price, federal coal should be as 

high as $62 per ton. By putting an accurate price that reflects the true economic, 

environmental and social cost of federal coal, it would become clear that the only place for 

dirty fossil fuels like coal is to leave them in the ground. For coal leases already in 

production, using the social cost of carbon to raise the royalty rate and other fees for federal 

coal production could help return millions of dollars to state budgets to support coal workers, 

schools, infrastructure, and other important programs. 

Comment Number: 0002513_Lish_20160707-4 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Christopher Lish 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Accounting for the financial, environmental, health and other costs of climate pollution (the 

"social cost of carbon") caused by federal coal mining and combustion; 

Incorporating the social cost of carbon into the royalty rate that companies pay for the right to 

mine taxpayer-owned coal in order to reflect the true cost that mining and burning coal 

imposes on society; 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-5 

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

4. BLM Must Use the Social Cost of Carbon and Social Cost of Methane to Evaluate Climate Impacts of 

Considered Alternatives in the PEIS. Beyond quantifying the volume of carbon dioxide and methane emissions 

that result from the federal coal program, and comparing those emissions totals among alternatives, BLM must 

also use the social cost of carbon and social cost of methane to evaluate the impact, and not just the volume, of 

carbon pollution. These social-cost tools are based on sound science; have already been used by federal agencies, 

including BLM, to evaluate the impacts of agency policy 59 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fact Sheet, 

Overview of the Clean Power Plan, available at https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-overview-cleanpower-plan (last visited July 27, 2016). 60 White House Fact Sheet, U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate 

Change and Clean Energy Cooperation (Nov. 11, 2014), attached as Ex. 71, available at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change (last visited 

July 27, 2016). 61 See White House Fact Sheet, U.S. Reports its 2025 Emissions Target to the UNFCCC (March 

31, 2015), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/31/fact-sheet-us-reports- its-2025-

emissions-target-unfccc (last visited July 28, 2016); United States, UNFCC submission supra note 11. 62 Doug 

Vine, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Achieving the United States’ Intended Nationally Determined 

Contribution (July 2016), available at http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/achieving-us-indc-07-2016-update.pdf (last 

visited July 27, 2016). 27 proposals; and help put climate impacts into a context that is easily understood by both 

the public and decision-makers. Federal agencies evaluating climate impacts of their proposals have frequently 

claimed that science has not developed the tools to analyze climate impacts of individual proposals. This is not 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-227

Scoping Report 

accurate. The social cost of carbon and social cost of methane are two reliable tools that are available and should 

be utilized by BLM in the PEIS process. Under NEPA’s implementing regulations, where “information relevant to 

reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are 

exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known,” NEPA regulations direct agencies to evaluate a project’s 

impacts “based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific 

community.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b)(4). The social cost of carbon and social cost of methane are based on 

generally accepted research methods and years of peer-reviewed scientific and economic studies. They are the 

best tools now available for agencies to use in analyzing the climate impacts of proposed federal actions. a. 

Background: The Social Cost of Carbon and Social Cost of Methane The social cost of carbon was created by an 

interagency working group (“IWG”) in 2010 that consisted of scientific and economic experts from a dozen 

federal agencies and offices, including EPA, and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, 

Transportation, and the Treasury. 63 The working group’s primary goal was to help federal agencies engaged in 

rulemaking to quantify the economic benefit of federal actions that reduce CO2 emissions. The result of their 

efforts was the social cost of carbon – a schedule of estimates of the global economic harm caused by each ton of 

CO2 emissions in a given year, expressed as $/ton. 64 These values encompass damages from decreased 

agricultural productivity as a result of drought, human health effects, and property damage from increased 

flooding, among other factors. 65 The IWG updated the social cost of carbon in 2013.66 Like the social cost of 

carbon, the social cost of methane estimates the global economic cost of adding one additional ton of methane to 

the atmosphere (the social cost of carbon does 63 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, 

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, at 2-3 (Feb. 10, 2010), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/scc-tsd.pdf (last visited July 27, 2016). 64 U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Fact Sheet: Social Cost of Carbon (Nov. 2013), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/EPAactivities/scc-fact-sheet.pdf (last visited July 27, 2016). 65 

Interagency Working Group, Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon, at 2 (May 2013), available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/social_cost_of_carbon_for_ria_2013_ update.pdf (last 

visited July 27, 2016). 66 Id. 28 the same thing, but for carbon dioxide). In August 2015, EPA used the Marten et 

al. social cost of methane estimate in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed New Source Performance 

Standard for methane from oil and gas production. 67 This study estimates that methane emissions in 2015 result 

in global economic damages that range from $490 to $3,000/ton, depending on the discount rate used. 68 EPA 

explained why using Marten et al. (2014) is a sound, justifiable methodology. Following the agency’s protocol, EPA 

transparently disclosed the social cost estimates under four different discount rates, just as the IWG does for the 

social cost of carbon. 69 Although it was initially developed to help agencies craft regulatory impact assessments 

of proposed rules, the social cost of carbon need not and should not be limited to this application. 70 The social 

cost of carbon and social cost of methane are particularly useful with regard to coal leasing because it allows 

decision makers to understand the impact of projects “that have small, or ‘marginal,’ impacts on cumulative global 

emissions.”71 As CEQ has confirmed, statements that a particular agency decision will result in only a small 

fraction of global GHG concentrations should not be used to avoid analyzing the impact of those emissions. 72 

Such statements, according to CEQ, reflect the nature of climate change rather than the impact of any particular 

project. 73 Using the social cost of carbon in NEPA reviews, by contrast, would help agencies move beyond the 

frequent and problematic boilerplate statements about climate change by providing a scientifically defensible 

means of quantifying the federal coal leasing program’s climate impacts. Understanding the climate impacts of coal 

mining are particularly useful on a programmatic level, given the cumulative and global nature of climate change. 

As noted in CEQ’s draft NEPA climate guidance, analyzing the climate impact of any one proposal may appear 

small given the global nature of the problem, whereas a programmatic review of the federal coal program will 

provide a far more comprehensive understanding of BLM’s contribution to the climate problem and the 

economic damages from climate change that are already being felt in this country. Given that in most years 

federally-owned coal accounts for approximately 41 percent of all coal burned in the U.S., 81 Fed. Reg. 17,200, 

17,221 (Mar. 31, 2016), the social costs of burning that much coal are surely significant. For example, the gross 67 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Emission Standards for New 

and Modified Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector, 4-12 to 4- 17 (August 2015), available at 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-228 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/og_prop_ria_081815.pdf (last visited July 27, 2016). 68 Id. at 4-14. 

69 Id. 70 In any event, it is possible that the PEIS at issue here will involve proposed changes to BLM regulations, 

which would trigger the use of the social cost metrics. 71 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, 

Technical Support Document, at 1. 72 Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Effects 

in NEPA Reviews, 79 Fed. Reg. at 77,825. 73 Id. 29 social costs of burning the approximately 400 million tons of 

coal mined from federal leases each year is approximately $30 billion per year. 74 That is more than 20 times 

BLM’s annual budget. The gross social costs between now and 2050 of the federal coal program, continued at 

current levels, would likely exceed $1 trillion. Despite some uncertainties, the social cost of carbon and social 

cost of methane nonetheless reflects the best economic and scientific understanding available, and are intended 

to be updated to reflect the most current thinking on the topic. In July 2014, the Government Accountability 

Office affirmed the IWG’s 2010 and 2013 analyses on the social cost of carbon and praised the group for its 

transparent process, accurate disclosure of scientific and economic uncertainties, and consensus-based decision 

making model. 75 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-50

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM must also be aware that the federal social cost of carbon values likely under-count the true social cost of an 

additional ton of CO2, perhaps by multiple orders of magnitude. For instance, researchers at Stanford University 

published a study showing that the integrated assessment models (“IAMs”) that generated the federal social cost 

of carbon (“SCC”) estimates do not properly account for several critical variables, particularly effect of climate 

change on economic growth rates and resulting disparities between rich and poor regions. This study calculated 

that adjusting the IAM models to account for these factors would increase the near-term SCC by a factor of 

close to seven. 78 Other research demonstrates that the SCC discount rates do not adequately represent the 

level of risk aversion that decisionmakers generally adopt in response to conditions of heightened uncertainty. 

Adjusting the SCC to include a risk premium in accord with accepted econometric principles would increase the 

federal values by several orders of magnitude. 79 Another critique of the federal SCC values observes that the 

IAM models use quadratic damage functions, which greatly underestimate the rate and intensity of economic 

damage after a certain temperature threshold is crossed. 80 76 Mark Squillace & Alexander Hood, NEPA, 

Climate Change, and Public Land Decision Making, 42 ENVTL. L. 469, 510, 517 (2012). 77 Moore, F. & Diaz, D., 

Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy, 5 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE 

127-131 (Jan. 12, 2015), prepublication version attached as Ex. 8. 78 Id. at 128. 79 Howarth, R.B., et al., Risk 

mitigation and the social cost of carbon, 24 Global Environmental Change 123-131 (Jan. 2014), prepublication 

version attached as Ex. 9. 80 Weitzmann, M.L., GHG Targets as Insurance Against Catastrophic Climate 

Damages, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 16136 (2010), attached as Ex. 10; see also 

Sierra Club, Comments on the Interagency Working Group’s (IWG) Technical Support Document: Social Cost of 

Carbon (SCC) for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (Docket Not.OMB-2013-0007-

0083) (Feb. 25, 2014), attached as Ex. 11 (discussing Wietzmann, Howarth, and other research). 31 EPA itself has 

reached a similar conclusion: [G]iven current modeling and data limitations, [the federal SCC values] do[] not 

include all important damages. As noted by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, it is “very likely that [SCC] 

underestimates” the damages. The models used to develop SCC estimates, known as integrated assessment 

models, do not currently include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change 

recognized in the climate change literature because of a lack of precise information on the nature of damages and 

because the science incorporated into these models naturally lags behind the most recent research. 81 

BLM should explain this fact in its PEIS and at least acknowledge the body of a research pointing to much higher 

values for each additional ton of carbon emitted. While we agree that BLM should start with the federal SCC 

values when analyzing the impacts of the carbon dioxide emissions from the federal coal leasing program and its 

alternatives, BLM must also directly confront the fact that the true social impacts of the associated carbon 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-229

Scoping Report 

dioxide emissions are probably much greater than the federal SCC values represent. Third, although NEPA does 

not require agencies to conduct a cost-benefit analysis (i.e., a comparison where a project gets approved only if 

the benefits outweigh the costs), in every NEPA document, BLM and other agencies routinely calculate a 

proposed project’s economic benefit to the local economy, measuring the dollar value of jobs, royalties, and 

taxes, among other factors. 82 Agencies often use these quantified economic benefits to justify approving the 81 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Social Cost of Carbon, 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html (last visited July 27, 2016). 82 See, e.g., Office 

of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement, Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Environmental Assessment (Jan. 2015), 

http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/bullMountainsMine/BullMountainsMineEA.pdf; U.S. Forest Service, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for Pawnee National Grassland (Dec. 2014), 

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/ne 

pa/95573_FSPLT3_2393686.pdf. 32 project, without any attempt to quantify the costs of the agency’s decision. 83 

Using the social costs of carbon and methane in the PEIS would provide a useful dollars-to-dollars comparison 

outside the parameters of a strict cost-benefit analysis, allowing the public to understand the scale of climate 

impacts of the federal coal leasing program and its alternatives. It would further provide BLM with the 

opportunity to weigh global economic harm caused by the climate impacts of the program against the extent of 

any economic benefit in terms of jobs, taxes, etc., and thus allow BLM and the Secretary of Interior to make a 

fully informed decision on the best course forward. By omitting any discussion of the economic harm caused by a 

project, federal agencies often effectively put a zero on that side of the ledger, making it appear as though there is 

no quantifiable cost associated with a project. In the context of climate change, this is a demonstrably (and 

overwhelmingly) untrue assumption—the social costs of carbon and methane allow decision makers and the 

public to estimate the climate-based costs of a proposed project. The White House estimates that in 2012, 

climate-related disasters cost the American economy more than $100 billion84 and affirmed that “climate change 

is not a distant threat, we are already seeing impacts in communities across the country.”85 Moreover, NEPA 

specifically requires federal agencies to analyze and disclose the environmental effects of their actions, including 

“ecological . . . economic [and] health” impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8. By ignoring the social costs of carbon and 

methane, as most federal agencies do now when evaluating federal coal leases, the agencies perform half of an 

analysis, quantifying purported economic benefits while ignoring an available and easy-to-use tool for similarly 

quantifying economic costs of the proposed project—precisely the sort of misleading analysis NEPA is designed 

to avoid. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172, 1217 (9th Cir. 2008). 83 See, e.g., Bureau of 

Land Management., Environmental Assessment for the West Elk Coal Lease Applications (June 2012), available at 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/information/nepa/uncompahgre_field/ufo_nepa 

_documents0.Par.96415.File.dat/12- 13%20West%20Elk%20Coal%20Lease%20Mod%20EA.pdfp (last visited July 

28, 2016); Bureau of Land Management, Wright Area FEIS available at 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hpd/Wright-Coal.html (last visited July 28, 2016); Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement, Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Environmental Assessment (Jan. 2015), 

available at http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/bullMountainsMine/BullMountainsMineEA.pdf (last visited July 

28, 2016). 84 The White House, Climate Change and President Obama’s Action Plan, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change (last visited July 26, 206). 85 White House, Fact Sheet, Administration 

Announces Actions To Protect Communities From The Impacts Of Climate Change, (Apr. 7, 2015), 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ 2015/04/07/fact-sheet-administration-announces-actions-protectcommunities-impacts- (last visited July 28, 2016). 33 As one recent example reveals, BLM has already utilized a 

social cost metric for determining the potential benefits of a rulemaking proposal to reduce climate emissions. 

On February 8, 2016, BLM published a proposed rule to reduce waste of natural gas from venting, flaring, and 

leaks during oil and natural gas production. BLM, Proposed Rule, Waste Prevention, Production Subject to 

Royalties, and Resource Conservation, 81 Fed. Reg. 6616 (Feb. 8, 2016). BLM used the social cost of methane 

metric developed by EPA experts to evaluate the costs and benefits of the proposed rule, relied on the metric 

throughout its analysis, and explicitly concluded that the benefits of the proposed natural gas rule outweighed the 

costs based on the monetized benefits of methane reduction as calculated via the social cost of methane. See id. 

at 6624-25, 6670-72. The Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”) for the rule explains BLM’s use of the metric, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-230 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

stating: [BLM] estimated the social cost of methane using the values presented by Marten et al. (2014) and used 

by the EPA in its analysis of its Subpart OOOOa proposed regulation . . . and its proposed rule New Source 

Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. . . . [BLM] calculated the global social benefits of 

methane emissions reductions expected from the proposed NSPS [New Source Performance Standards] using 

estimates of the social cost of methane (SC-CH4), a metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts 

associated with marginal changes in methane emissions in a given year. It includes a wide range of anticipated 

climate impacts, such as net changes in agricultural productivity and human health, property damage from 

increased flood risk, and changes in energy system costs, such as reduced costs for heating and increased costs 

for air conditioning. 86 Consistent with BLM’s analysis of the draft natural gas waste rule, the PEIS should use 

social cost metrics, including the 2013 Interagency Working Group’s social cost of carbon, and EPA’s 2014 social 

cost of methane, and any subsequent updates thereto, in evaluating the climate impacts of each alternative. 87 86 

See Bureau of Land Management, Regulatory Impact Analysis for: Revisions to 43 C.F.R. 3100 (Onshore Oil and 

Gas Leasing) and 43 C.F.R. 3600 (Onshore Oil and Gas Operations) (RIA) (Jan. 14, 2016) at 32-33, attached as 

12. 87 We note that the leaders of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada last month issued a joint statement in which 

stated in part: “Canada, the U.S. and Mexico will align approaches to account for the social cost of carbon and 

other greenhouse gas emissions when assessing the benefits of emissions-reducing policy measures.” See The 

White House, Leaders’ Statement on a North American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership 

(June 29, 2016), attached as Ex. 13. A policy measure to reduce federal coal mining is one that would result in 

emissions reductions, and thus per the partnership agreement should be accounted for using the social cost of 

carbon. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-64

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Social Cost of Carbon and Social Cost of Methane Are Helpful to Decision Makers in the NEPA Process The 

guiding principle of NEPA is that the public is entitled to a clear understanding of the likely impacts of federal 

agencies’ decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court has called the disclosure of impacts the “key requirement of 

NEPAholding that agencies must “consider and disclose the actual environmental effects” of a proposed project 

in a way that “brings those effects to bear on [an agency’s] decisions.” Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. 

Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 96 (1983). The social cost of carbon and social cost of methane provide decision 

makers and the public with an informative, accessible mechanism for both analyzing and understanding the climate 

impacts of a proposed decision. First, although agencies such as BLM, the Forest Service, and OSMRE often 

quantify the amount of carbon dioxide or CO2-e (carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions from mining and burning 

coal from federal leases, these agencies have not yet taken the next step of employing the social cost of carbon to 

inform the public about the impact of those emissions. An isolated calculation of the amount of carbon emissions 

that would result from a particular project provides no meaningful insight as to the effect that those emissions 

will have on our climate. By contrast, the social cost of carbon offers an actual estimate of the damage caused by 

each incremental ton of carbon emissions. Second, the social cost of carbon and methane protocols describe 

those damage estimates in monetary terms, which are far easier for decision makers and the public to 

comprehend and contextualize than tons of CO2-e. In doing so, the social cost of carbon provides a concrete 

assessment of a project’s social and environmental impacts and provides a tangible sense of the 74 Calculated by 

taking 400 million (tons coal mined per year) * 2 (tons of CO2 emitted during combustion per ton of coal mined, 

at a conservative estimate) * $38 (per ton figure for the 2015 SCC at 3% discount rate) = $30.4 billion. This is 

the gross, rather than net social cost. Net social cost would account for substitution of other fuels such as coal, 

natural gas, and renewables, and overall changes in electricity demand. 75 Gov’t Accountability Office, Regulatory 

Impact Analysis: Development of Social Cost of Carbon Estimates (July 2014), available at 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665016.pdf. 30 scale of damage that both the public and decision makers can 

readily understand. As explained by one legal commentator, the social cost of carbon “allow[s] agencies to 

consider those GHG emissions ... in a meaningful way,” and “assigning a price to carbon emissions – even a 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-231

Scoping Report 

conservative price – makes the cost of those emissions concrete for agency decision makers.”76 Of course, we 

do not imply that the impacts of climate change can be fully captured by a dollar figure. Droughts, floods, extreme 

weather events, rising sea levels, and other phenomena related to climate change present threats to our planet 

that extend far beyond economic harms. Agencies must analyze not only the quantitative (and monetizable) 

climate impacts of proposed actions, but the qualitative and non-monetizable impacts as well. Nevertheless, to 

the extent that a project’s impacts can be quantified, the social cost of carbon and social cost of methane are the 

best and most rigorous tools currently available for understanding the damages linked to GHG emissions, rather 

than simply the extent of the emissions themselves. 

Comment Number: 0003004_MasterFormD_TheSierraClub-3 

Organization1:The Sierra Club 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Incorporating the social cost of carbon into the royalty rate that companies pay for right to mine taxpayer-owned 

coal in order to reflect the true cost that mining and burning coal imposes on society; 

Comment Number: 0003009_MasterFormH_FriendsEarth-2 

Organization1:Friends of the Earth 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Use the social cost of carbon to evaluate the climate impacts of current and potential federal coal leases. 

If the social cost of carbon were incorporated into the lease price, federal coal should be as high as $62 per ton. 

By putting an accurate price that reflects the true economic, environmental and social cost of federal coal, it 

would become clear that the only place for dirty fossil fuels like coal is to leave them in the ground. 

For coal leases already in production, using the social cost of carbon to raise the royalty rate and other fees for 

federal coal production could help return millions of dollars to state budgets to support coal workers, schools, 

infrastructure, and other important programs. 

Comment Number: 0003016_MasterFormO_EarthJustice-3 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Accounting for the financial, environmental, health and other costs of climate pollution (the "social cost of 

carbon") caused by federal coal mining and combustion 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-2 

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We feel that the coal leasing program does not yield a fair return to Americans, in part because it allows the coal 

industry to continue shifting societal and environmental costs onto the public. 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-4 

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

First of all, American citizens will not realize a fair return from the sale of federal coal until royalty rates reflect 

the true costs of coal extraction, transportation, combustion, and waste disposal. The current coal leasing 

program fails to adequately monetize the societal and environmental damages caused by coal taken from federal 

lands. In fairness, these expenses -now borne by taxpayers- should be incorporated into what companies must 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-232 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

pay for coal. Royalty rates may need to be raised significantly; and, the practice of royalty rate reductions should 

probably be eliminated. 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-5 

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS now underway presents an opportunity for the federal government to develop a comprehensive, coalspecific "costs test" analysis tool that can be used to not only monetarily assess the full range of societal and 

environmental damages caused by coal, but also monetize the true "avoided costs" value of renewables when 

used to replace coal. This new costs-of-coal model should be used to inform fair royalty rates. 

Comment Number: 0020020_LaPorte_20160712-3 

Commenter1:Mary LaPorte 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Look at the social costs of carbon (Health, economics, clean water, clean air...) 

Comment Number: 0020026_Olinger_20160712-1 

Organization1:Citizens Climate Lobby 

Commenter1:Linda Olinger 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Citizens Climate Lobby.org believes that a carbon fee on all fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases should be 

imposed where they first enter the economy. The fee shall be collected by the Treasury Dept. The fee on that 

date shall be $15 per ton of CO2 equivalent emissions and result in equal charges for each ton of CO2 equivalent 

emissions potential in each type of fuel or greenhouse gas. The Dept. of Energy shall propose and promulgate 

regulations setting forth CO2 equivalent fees for other greenhouse gases including at a minimum methane, 

nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluride, hydrafluorocarbons, perfluorcarbons, and nitrogen trifluoride. The Treasury 

shall also collect the Fees imposed upon the other greenhouse gases. All fees are to be placed in the Carbon Fees 

Trust Fund and be rebated 100% to American households. Equal monthly per-person dividend payments shall be 

made to all American households (1/2 payment per child under 18 yrs old with a limit of 2 children per family) 

each month. The total value of all monthly dididend payments shall represent 100% of the total carbon fees 

collected per month. 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-18

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the BLM considers the use of the "Social Cost of Carbon" in their analysis of BLM coal lands, they must also 

consider the Social Benefits of low cost and reliable energy at the same time. 

Comment Number: 0020056-11

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Bowie recognizes that the Secretary is constrained by Administration policy to use the Federal Social Cost of 

Carbon ( SCC” ) in rulemaking proceedings, despite the fact that the SCC is technically unsound, was not 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-233

Scoping Report 

developed through notice-and-comment rulemaking, and sharply diverges from OMB guidelines regarding critical 

elements such as discount rates. Nevertheless, the Secretary does have discretion to set policy for project-level 

decisions, including leasing decisions, and should categorically reject the SCC in those contexts. Not only was the 

SCC not developed for project-level decisions, but the SCC cannot provide useful information at the project 

level. This is because at the project level, the incremental SCC impact of the proposed action in relation to the 

no¬ action alternative or other project alternatives will generally be indeterminable. For example, for local 

effects, e.g., the impact of a lease on a stream, the no action or project alternatives will have identifiably different 

impacts. But for global impacts of the type attempted to be measured by the SCC, one cannot know the effect of, 

for example, the no action alternative, without knowing how the various actors will respond. Even if coal lease 

application A is denied, there will be no effect on net SCC calculations unless there is a coordinated policy to 

deny other similarly-situated coal leasing, and such broad policy determinations are inherently beyond the scope 

of project-level analyses. 

Comment Number: 0020056-12

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition, as the BLM and OSMRE have recognized in recent project level NEPA analyses, the SCC by itself 

provides an incomplete and biased accounting of the impacts of a decision. There is presently no corresponding 

Social Benefit of Carbon metric. While short term tax, employment, and economic activity measures account for 

some of the benefits of coal production, they are by no means a complete accounting in the same manner and at 

the same horizon and scale as attempted by the SCC. Consequently, the SCC is not useful at the project level 

and the PEIS and any resulting regulatory or policy changes should make that clear. 

Comment Number: 0020056-21

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To date the SCC has not undergone notice-and-comment rulemaking, and is deeply problematic at a technical 

and procedural level. In addition, the discounting and time horizon assumptions in the SCC render the SCC an 

inter-generational wealth transfer mechanism. This is especially true of any attempt to impose SCC-derived fees 

or taxes. Finally, the SCC also generates such large value ranges that it is uniquely susceptible to result-driven 

policy choices, that is, project proponents will always be able to identify values that support approval, and project 

opponents will always be able to identify values that support denial. Because of these inherent and profound 

philosophical and policy dimensions, the SCC is poorly suited to the secretive, unilateral Executive processes 

under which it has been developed to date. Rather, the Secretary (and the Administration generally) should seek 

express Congressional authorization and guidance to the extent there is a desire to continue to employ the SCC 

in federal decision-making. Such authorization, if obtained, would place the Executive on a far sounder democratic 

and constitutional footing than under current and potentially future practices 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-20

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

WMA is concerned about possible artificial inflation of FMV through the use of arbitrary “social cost of carbon” 

standards. Attempts to artificially increase the FMV on these grounds appear political with the intent of making 

the resource uneconomical to develop in violation of the Mineral Leasing Act. The cost of excessive manipulation 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-234 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

in determining FMV will fall on American consumers. If the agency does choose to pursue this, we would surely 

recommend the inclusion of a much more empirical “social benefit” standard to include not only the positive 

economic realities of vital jobs and revenue, schools and infrastructure, but the measurable positive contribution 

of reliable, low-cost electricity to our country and the world. 

Comment Number: 0000872_Kraybill-1 

Commenter1:Fred Kraybill 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

But ultimately, the most important consideration to this issue is how much coal can still be burned 

in our remaining carbon budget. How much must we reduce our carbon emissions to prevent a 2 degree Celsius 

warming and to try to stay within a 1.5 degree Celsius warming? Most of the people I know will say that we must 

keep fossil fuels in the ground. The BLM has many competing interests to think about, but at the very least it 

seems to me that if the BLM continues to lease federal lands for coal, then it must be at a price that accounts for 

the social cost of carbon and it must be at a price that allows clean, renewable energy to rapidly overtake fossil 

fuels in the energy marketplace. 

ISSUE 4.2 - CARBON CAPTURE 

Total Number of Submissions: 15 

Total Number of Comments: 16 

Comment Number: 00000143_ Short_20160517-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Robert Short 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Greenhouse gas concerns associated with coal can be virtually negated through a flue-stream capture, value-add 

reuse in the extraction of oil, to name but one methodology 

Comment Number: 0000082_Marshal_20160517-4 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Colin Marshall 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I believe that what we should be doing is using some of the $11.3 billion per year that currently subsidizes largescale wind and solar projects to developing the commercialized carbon capture and storage. This is what the 

scientists of the IPCC called for in the 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change report. This advice from the IPCC is 

ignored by most groups who consider our climate. If the U.S. put some effort into this carbon capture, it could 

lead the world among power producers by reducing emissions massively and allow the world to have affordable 

electricity. 

Comment Number: 0000095_Mead_GovWy_20160517-2 

Organization1:State of Wyoming 

Commenter1:Matt Mead 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And if there was a serious attempt to address the President's climate change concern, the Obama Administration 

should be investing, as Wyoming has invested, to make real improvements in carbon capture, sequestration, and 

utilization technology. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-235

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002149_Hewitt_20160519_WyLSO-6 

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature's Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee 

Commenter1:Ted Hewitt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Improvements in emissions technology, particularly carbon capture and sequestration, could make new coal-fired 

power plants viable in our modern regulatory environment. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-6 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ali Zaidi of OMB joined the panel to describe the Obama administration’s commitment to smoothing the 

transition for coal industry workers, and to developing carbon capture and sequestration technologies, which 

DOE currently aims to make viable at a $40/ton carbon price within 10 years. 

Comment Number: 0002158_Kasperik_20160517_StateRep-6 

Organization1:HD 32 Wyoming State Legislature 

Commenter1:Norine Kasperik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Fossil fuel opponents regularly dismiss meaningful ways to reduce CO2 emissions, like carbon capture, use and 

sequestration (CCUS) or high-efficiency boiler technology, which America's ally Japan is funding. 

Comment Number: 0002389_Schwend_20160721-4 

Organization1:Spring Creek Mine 

Commenter1:David Schwend 

Comment Excerpt Text:

Why is there not federal aid for the development of carbon capture technology instead of only private 

industry researching and developing th is technology? 

Comment Number: 0002450_Trainor_20160727-3 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Michael Trainor 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Additionally when considering the impacts of emissions the solution is to improve the technology within our 

power plants and invest in carbon capture and recycle technologies. Again it does not serve the community, 

businesses or the environment to keep coal in the ground. Our energy infrastructure will continue to rely on 

coal for many generations to come and the solution to reducing our environmental footprint is in developing 

better emission technologies. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-11

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 7.4 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In July 2016, Eco-Shift consulting projected the “production horizons”- the number of years’ worth of remaining 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-236 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

production - from currently leased federal fossil fuels using the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 

2016 “reference case” for fossil fuel production.132 EcoShift found that, under the EIA reference case (including 

Clean Power Plan implementation), “Coal under federal lease would last 25 years, through 2041.”133 This 

production horizon greatly exceeds the dates at which carbon budgets for 1.5°C and 2°C would be exceeded by 

continued emissions at 2014 rates – 2021 and 2036 respectively.134 The discrepancy between the production 

horizon for already-leased coal and carbon budget exceedance dates makes clear that, barring either 

extraordinarily rapid global emissions declines or rapid, widespread and successful deployment of carbon capture 

and sequestration technology, there is no scenario where new federal coal leasing at any significant level is 

consistent with the nation’s stated climate aims.

(132) Dustin Mulvaney et al., Over-Leased: How Production Horizons of Already Leased Federal Fossil Fuels 

Outlast 

Global Carbon Budgets 1 (July 2016). 

(133) Id. 

(134) Id. at Figure 1. 

Significantly, both Vulcan and SEI examined the effect of leasing policies in a context where the Clean Power Plan 

was the only meaningful downstream constraint on U.S. coal consumption. More recently, Energy Transition 

Advisors, Earth Track, and Carbon Tracker Initiative undertook to examine the role of federal Powder River 

Basin coal in a (modestly ambitious) climate scenario – the International Energy Agency’s “450 scenario” aimed at 

modeling the energy demands consistent with an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450 ppm, and an ensuing 

50% probability of keeping warming within 2°C of preindustrial levels.135 Although the IEA “450 scenario” is less 

ambitious than Paris goals or the demands of protecting health and biodiversity, it provides an existing model for 

assessing the role of federal leasing, PRB production, and coal markets in a modestly climate-constrained 

scenario.136 The ETA first examined U.S. EIA “reference case” coal production projections under the CPP to 

conclude that demand for PRB coal tracks reasonably well with US-wide demand for power-sector control under 

a modestly CO2-constrained scenario.137 It then applies coal trajectories under the IEA “450 Scenario” to the 

Powder River Basin, to find, under various CCS scenarios, a rapid decline in demand for PRB coal from 2016 

through 2030, leveling off somewhat around 2030.138 Fulton et al. then compared these anticipated demand 

scenarios with the best available information regarding coal deposits already under lease in the PRB.139 Their 

conclusion was that, “[u]nder the 450 Scenario with no CCS, potential production from existing leases is 

sufficient to meet projected demand in every year through 2040.”140 Moreover, they found that “even without 

additional efforts to pursue a 2°C scenario beyond those already announced, significant production from new 

leases is not expected to be needed until 2031.”141

(135) Mark Fulton et al., Enough Already: Meeting 2°C PRB Coal Demand Without Lifting the Federal 

Moratorium 

(July 2016). 

(136) The IEA 450 Scenario also makes aggressive assumptions regarding the deployment of CCS technology; 

Fulton 

et al. provides alternative scenarios involving later CCS development. See id. at 6 n.10. 

(137) Id. at 7. 

(138) Id. at 9 & Figure 1. 

(139) Id. at 11 & Figure 3. 

(140) Id. at 12. 

(141) Id.. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-82

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-237

Scoping Report 

BLM should take a hard look at the short- and long-term impacts of each alternative on carbon storage. BLM 

lands can be an important carbon “sink” that functions to store carbon and keep it out of the atmosphere. BLM 

has a duty under FLPMA to prepare a current and up-to-date inventory of public lands and their new and 

emerging resource values. 43 USC § 1711. This more local issue should also be considered the PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002487_Clarke_20160728_UtahGovOffice-4 

Organization1:Utah Office of the Governor 

Commenter1:Kathleen Clarke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Not only does Utah's coal have environmental advantages, but Utah's coal-fired power plants are among the most 

efficient in the country, and because they are located in rural Utah they do not contribute to air quality challenges 

along the Wasatch Front where the majority of Utah's population lives. Rather, because coal keeps electricity 

prices low, coal supports electric vehicles, electric home appliances, and other electric alternatives that make a 

difference in improving Wasatch Front air quality. Utah is leading advanced coal technologies including carbon 

capture, oxy-firing, gasification, and coal to liquids. For example, the University of Utah's Institute for Clean and 

Secure Energy is one of nation's top coal research institutes that is commanding a five-year, $16 million grant to 

conduct supercomputer simulations aimed at developing a prototype low-cost, low-emissions coal power plant to 

provide new opportunities for coal utilization. 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-12

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 7.4 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The potential supply from existing leases from 2016 to 2040 is 5,763 million metric tons (Mt), which is 1,252 Mt 

greater than the supply required under the 450 Scenario (See Figure 1). 

The 450 scenario assumes an aggressive build-out of CCS technology, at a pace that outstrips current market 

trends. In order to better reflect likely real-world conditions, Carbon Tracker also assessed scenarios in which 

large-scale deployment of CCS does not occur until 2030, and in which this technology never becomes a 

significant factor in energy supply markets. Because lower levels of CCS deployment reduce the ability to mitigate 

coal’s intrinsic high carbon intensity, production from existing mines is necessarily also sufficient under scenarios 

where CCS is delayed until 2030 (cumulative supply production of 2985 Mt) and where no CCS is deployed 

(cumulative supply production of 2773 Mt).11 In the energy scenario where no CCS is deployed, the projected 

production from existing leases alone is 2,990 Mt greater than the 2°C scenario carbon budget threshold.12 As 

noted above, the 450 Scenario is also a higher risk pathway due to the 50% probability it assigns for achieving 

2°C, and thus coal production consistent with a climate safe scenario would be even less when assigning a higher 

probability of success. 

[Figure 1: Cumulative potential production of PRB coal versus projected demand under different scenarios, 2016-

2040 (Mt)13] 

[11 Carbon Tracker Report, supra note 3 at 5.] 

[12 5763 (potential production from existing leases, in Mt) - 2773 (production with CCS delayed until 2030, Mt) 

= 2,990 Mt] 

[13 Carbon Tracker Initiative analysis of data from Wood Mackenzie Global Economic Model, IEA, and EIA. Supra 

note 3 at 14.] 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-238 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-4 

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Carbon Tracker Initiative’s analysis reveals that thermal coal reserves on existing Powder River Basin leases are 

sufficient to meet projected electric power generation demand in scenarios that align electricity demand profiles 

with carbon emissions consistent with limiting warming to no more than 2°C. Scenarios examined include 

demand profiles that anticipate development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (“CCS”) 

technology at a level that significantly outpaces current trajectories, as well as scenarios that assume CCS is 

deployed at lower rates that more closely approximate current market trends. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-84

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

An essential focus for CCUS technology R&D efforts around the world is to recycle/reuse energy by utilizing C02 

emitted from burning biomass or fossil energy natural resources. The production of numerous products being 

pursued by conversion of C02 and described in the Department of Energy (DOE) Carbon Capture Technology 

Program Plan and the NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE would provide increased quality full-time jobs for the 

American public. See National Energy Technology Laboratory Carbon Capture Program Plan (2013); (WY0-

03773 to 03834); National Energy Technology Laboratory Carbon Capture News; (WY0-03836 to 03856). [5, 6] 

Since C02 is a very low density substance, export of C02 created in the U.S. for conversion into products by 

other countries would not be cost-effective nor a sustainable energy and economic consideration. In fact, the 

C02 emitted by the U.S. can now be considered a global competitive advantage as a domestic resource feedstock 

to bolster U.S. manufacturing sustainability and in turn increase U.S. jobs 

In addition, the sourcing of supply chain materials and products domestically would aid wealth creation, 

contribute to lowering the U.S. balance of trade deficit, and enhance global environmental health by avoiding 

energy consumption and emissions within existing conventional material and product supply chain long-distance 

transportation life cycle activities. This provides a framework for the U.S. to advance progress toward greater 

national energy, resource and financial efficiency akin to the strategic planning and achievements sought through 

the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy Environmental Design [7] certification 

program and the Energy Productivity [8] strategic goal described in the DOE's 2006 Strategic Plan. 

This positive outcome provides the DOI with potential to gain higher value returns to the American public when 

it displaces import of materials and products from countries that use local resources as geopolitical and economic 

trade weapons and use the attendant wealth to support terrorist activities against the U.S. and our allies. 

Therefore, by utilizing the U.S. C02 emissions as a productive resource the American public can actually realize a 

greater holistic fair return rather than zero return as would result if the DOI followed non-holistic "thought 

leadership" presented to date by anti-fossil energy advocates. 

Comment Number: 0002503_Hamman_20160729-4 

Organization1:Lignite Energy Council

Commenter1:Tyler Hamman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The industry is dedicated to tackling the issue of carbon capture, utilization, and storage. Millions have been, and 

continue to be invested by the industry and State of North Dakota to develop next generation energy solutions 

that will capture carbon dioxide and put it to beneficial use. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-239

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0003061_Post_N_20160707-4 

Commenter1:Charlie Post 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Remember that there may be future technologies that could allow for less damaging use of coal and vow to keep 

a significant portion of the coal in the ground for future uses, 

ISSUE 4.3 - LIFE CYCLE EMISSIONS 

Total Number of Submissions: 14 

Total Number of Comments: 27 

Comment Number: 00000159_ Kreider_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Kalee Kreider 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

So, if you could try to look at from cradle to grave the issue of coal, coal pollution from air pollution to climate 

change, I think that would make this a really successful programmatic environmental impact statement. 

Comment Number: 00000163_ MORALES_20160517-4 

Commenter1:Patrick Morales 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

full life cycle of coal, which is looked at in detail, again, in this study by Epstein, et al. 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-10

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In order to better understand and manage carbon emissions from public lands, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

intends to establish and maintain a public database to account for annual carbon emissions from fossil fuels 

developed on federal lands. As there is currently no dedicated, official measure of these emissions, the BlueGreen 

Alliance supports this effort to ensure a transparent process that accounts for costs, which would otherwise be 

externalized. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-16

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

GILLETTE IS HOME TO THE ONE OF THE CLEANEST COAL-BURNING PLANTS. THERE'S NO REASON 

TO BELIEVE THAT WE CAN'T ACHIEVE MORE TECHNOLOGICAL ACHIEVEMENTS IN THE FUTURE. 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-1 

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

(1) Scope of Emissions: The PEIS should include an inventory of both direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-240 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

emissions from federal coal leasing, including all downstream emissions from transportation, processing, and enduse of the coal. 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-4 

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

1. BLM Should Prepare Inventories of Direct and Indirect GHG Emissions 

We recommend that BLM prepare an inventory of all direct and indirect GHG emissions from federal coal 

leasing, including downstream emissions from the transportation, processing and end-use of federal coal. The 

inventory should encompass current and projected emissions under existing leases, and emissions from future 

leasing scenarios that are under consideration in the PEIS. (1) It should also clearly delineate estimated emissions 

from different parts of the coal supply chain and different emission sources. Finally, the information should be 

presented in a way that is clear and accessible to decision-makers and the public – for example, readers should be 

able to easily determine the proportion of emissions that is attributable to a particular activity or source 

category, and compare emissions across different leasing scenarios. 

(1) If data is available, BLM may also want to account for historical emissions so that it can consider the long-term 

cumulative impact of the federal coal program on climate when deciding how to proceed with the program. 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-5 

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Including downstream emissions in the inventory is consistent with the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), as they have been interpreted by the Council on Environmental Quality 

(“CEQ”) and federal courts. NEPA requires agencies to evaluate both direct and indirect environmental effects 

from projects. Indirect effects are “caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but 

are still reasonably foreseeable.” (2) Such effects include “growth inducing effects related to induced changes in 

the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural 

systems, including ecosystems.” (3)

(2) 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b) 

(3) Id. 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-6 

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Since 2014, there have been five district court decisions regarding the scope of downstream emissions that must 

be evaluated in NEPA reviews for proposals involving the extraction of coal. In all of these cases, the reviewing 

court agreed that GHG emissions from coal combustion was a reasonably foreseeable indirect effect of coal 

production. 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-7 

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-241

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The courts have not yet had opportunity to define an agency’s obligation to evaluate emissions from the 

transportation or processing of fossil fuels in the context of a proposal that involves fossil fuel production, but 

the Ninth Circuit held that NEPA required analysis of conventional air pollutants from the transportation and 

processing of gold ore as indirect effects of a gold mine where there was sufficient information about the 

transportation route and processing activities to generate a reasonable estimate of those emissions. (8) 

(8) S. Fork Band Council Of W. Shoshone Of Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 588 F.3d 718, 725 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-8 

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Demonstrating that such analysis is feasible, many federal agencies (including BLM) have begun to account for 

downstream emissions in their NEPA reviews. For example, the United States Forest Service (“USFS”) conducted 

a life cycle assessment for an oil and gas leasing decision in 2013, which quantified emissions from transport, 

refining, and end-use. (9) In 2015, USFS prepared a revised DPEIS for the Colorado Roadless Rule coal mining 

exemptions that included a much more detailed analysis of GHG emissions from mining, transportation (both 

within the U.S. and to overseas markets) and combustion. (10) BLM also recently published an EIS in which it 

acknowledged that “the burning of the coal is an indirect impact that is a reasonable progression of the mining 

activity” (11) and quantified emissions from combustion. (12) 

(9) U.S. FOREST SERV., RECORD OF DECISION AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, OIL 

AND GAS LEASING ANALYSIS, FISHLAKE NATIONAL FOREST 169 (Aug. 2013) (Table 3.12-7: GHG 

emissions from transportation, offsite refining and end-use are 299,627 MT CO2e; total direct and indirect 

emissions are 365,336 MT CO2e). See also id., Appendix E/SIR-2 (more detailed calculations of direct and 

indirect emissions). 

(10) U.S. FOREST SERV., RULEMAKING FOR COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS, SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (Nov. 2015) at 33. 

(11) BUREAU OF LAND MGMT., FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR 

THE LEASING AND UNDERGROUND MINING OF THE GREENS HOLLOW FEDERAL COAL LEASE 

TRACT, UTU-84102, 287 (Feb. 2015). 

(12) Id. at 286. 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-9 

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The NEPA documents cited above suggest that the preparation of a downstream emissions inventory is a 

relatively straightforward task, and that tools and data are available to estimate emissions from each different 

phase of the coal supply chain. (13) The more challenging task is to determine how these emissions differ from a 

theoretical “no action” baseline – the idea being to calculate the incremental (or net) impact of agency action on 

GHG emissions. (This type of analysis has not been required by the courts, but it has been upheld. (14)) To 

calculate net impact, agencies typically use a model to determine what energy sources would be substituted for 

the federal resource if it were not produced (e.g., non-federal coal, oil and gas, renewables, energy efficiency, and 

energy conservation) and then estimate the supply chain emissions for the substitute energy sources. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-242 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

(13) For example, BLM can estimate emissions from the combustion of coal by multiplying the amount of coal to 

be produced by the emissions factor for that type of coal. BLM could also adjust its estimates of future emissions 

to account for the installation of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology at coal-fired power plants. 

To do so, BLM should use two or more scenarios that reflect varying levels of CCS deployment. 

(14) See, e.g., Mayo Foundation v. Surface Transportation Board, 472 F.3d 545, 556 (8th Cir. 2006) (finding that, 

in the downstream emissions analysis for a coal railway, it was appropriate to rely on an assumption that “not all 

of the... transported coal would represent new combustion, that some would simply be a substitute for existing 

coal supplies”).

We have two recommendations for BLM in regards to a net impact analysis. First, BLM should disclose gross 

emissions as well as net emissions and all underlying assumptions in the draft PEIS. This will make it easy for the 

public to comment on the integrity and accuracy of the analysis. Second, BLM should use a reference case that 

corresponds with a scenario where the United States meets its GHG reduction targets. This is important 

because the choice of reference case determines the outcome of the analysis: in a scenario where we exceed the 

GHG targets, a larger proportion of the foregone federal coal production will be substituted by other coal and 

fossil fuel resources (as opposed to renewables or energy efficiency), and thus the net GHG impact of federal 

coal production will appear to be smaller. (15) 

(15) To illustrate this point: the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) used the Energy Information 

Agency (EIA)’s 2015 Reference Case to calculate future demand for oil and gas in the United States when the 

incremental GHG impacts of the proposed 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Leasing Program. The EIA 

2015 Reference Case does not account for present and future actions aimed at reducing fossil fuel consumption 

in the United States, such as the Clean Power Plan, and reflects a scenario in which we would completely fail to 

meet our domestic and international GHG reduction targets (under the Reference Case, the U.S. will have 445% 

higher GHG emissions than the level we committed to in our INDC). Because it relied on this Reference Case, 

BOEM predicted that the demand for oil and gas would remain strong in future years and that it would actually 

reduce emissions slightly to produce oil and gas closer to home. Thus, “BOEM is dismissing the climate impact of 

drilling for fossil fuels... because its model assumes we will not act on climate and will accept a catastrophic level 

of climate change.” See Lorne Stockman, Government Assumes U.S. Will Fail Climate Goals in Its 5-Year 

Offshore Drilling Proposal (2016), http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2016/04/5YearPlan-ClimateTest.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002442_Wolf_20160727_CenterBioDiversoty-4 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Shay Wolf 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A near-term phase-out of federal coal is also critical because new leasing locks in investment and high-carbon 

infrastructure for mining, transport, and coal combustion, all of which is inconsistent with the pressing need to 

end fossil fuel emissions. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-13

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As discussed, see supra at 13-14, climate change poses concrete risks to the environment globally, including 

water availability, ocean acidity, weather, sea-level rise, and the health of ecosystems and the public. To address 

these concerns, the United States and other countries committed in the Paris Agreement for the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change to “Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well 

below 2°C above pre¬industrial levels.” Some reports have estimated that to meet this goal 90% of U.S. coal 

reserves must remain in the ground. See, e.g. Christophe McGlade & Paul Ekins, “The geographical distribution of 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-243

Scoping Report 

fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C,” Nature, Jan. 8, 2015; see also July 27, 2016 Letter from 

Scientists on the BLM PEIS. 

The first order of business is for BLM to develop the appropriate methodologies to calculate the GHG emissions 

associated with the entire fuel cycle for federally leased coal, including extraction, transportation and refining, and 

combustion, for only through such an approach can the climate change impacts of coal be properly assessed. 

Next, the PEIS must explore alternatives that should be considered to mitigate those impacts and insure that 

federally leased coal does not stand as an obstacle to GHG emission reduction goals. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-47

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A critical threshold change required in BLM’s approach to federal coal leasing, and crucial for a technically 

defensible NEPA analysis in the PEIS, is to account for all the “links in the chain” stemming from granting coal 

leases, and consideration of those links comprehensively. This includes emissions associated with coal extraction, 

transportation, refining, and combustion – i.e., the entire coal fuel cycle. 

NEPA requires just such an approach, for, as noted, it calls on agencies to take a hard look at the direct, indirect, 

and cumulative impacts of federally permitted activities, as well as impacts from related activities. See, e.g. 40 

C.F.R. § 1508.8(b) (requiring consideration of “growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced 

changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and 

other natural systems, including ecosystems, as well as “effects on natural resources and the components, 

structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems,” including “effects on air and water and other natural 

systems”); see also Climate Change Guidance at 11 (requiring consideration of all emissions having “a reasonably 

close causal relationship to the Federal action, such as those that may occur as a predicate for the agency action 

(often referred to as upstream emissions) and as a consequence of the agency action (often referred to as 

downstream emissions) . . . .”).

Recognizing this obligation, other agencies have begun to include this kind of analysis in their environmental 

review documents. For example, the Department of Energy has begun doing lifecycle GHG analyses in 

considering the impacts associated with Liquid Natural Gas terminals and exports. (13) The Forest Service has 

also considered CO2 emissions from coal combustion anticipated to be produced under coal leases, (14) and the 

State Department included a relatively comprehensive life-cycle GHG analysis in its review of the proposed 

Keystone XL Pipeline. (15) EPA has also commented on FERC proposals that upstream and downstream 

emissions should be considered (Burger and Wentz at 27-28). Finally, numerous courts have confirmed that, to 

comply with NEPA, agencies must consider upstream and/or downstream emissions associated with fossil fuel 

projects. See Burger and Wentz at 3, 28-57 (citing cases); e.g. High Country Conservation Advocates v. United 

States Forest Serv., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 1196 (D. Colo. 2014). 

(13) See Dept. of Energy, Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied 

Natural Gas (May 2014); Dept. of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Freeport LNG Expansion, Docket no. 10-161-

lng, Final Opinion and Order (Nov. 14, 2014); Dept. of Energy, Addendum to Environmental Review Documents 

Concerning Exports of Natural Gas (Aug. 2014); Dept. of Energy, Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on 

Exporting LNG (May 29, 2014) (all cited in Burger and Wentz). 

(14) U.S. Forest Serv., Final EIS, Federal Coal Lease Modifications (Aug. 2012); see also 

U.S. Forest Serv., ROD and EIS, Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis, Fishlake National Forest (Aug. 2013) (considering 

downstream emissions for oil and gas leasing) (cited in Burger and Wentz). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-244 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

(15) U.S. Dept. of State, Final Supplemental EIS For the Keystone XL Project § 4.14.3 

Appendix U (Jan. 2014). 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-48

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM itself has also begun to include some consideration of downstream emissions in EISs. (16) Nonetheless, in 

some prior environmental review documents, BLM – and other agencies – have suggested that the GHG 

emissions from fossil fuel combustion can ultimately be ignored because the same quantity of coal or other fuel 

will be used regardless of its source. (17) BLM should reject this “perfect substitute” approach in the PEIS. 

Rather, BLM must engage in a reasoned energy substitution analysis to estimate the extent to which other coal –

or other energy sources – might replace reduced quantities of federal coal in the marketplace. Although BLM 

should assume implementation of the Clean Power Plan in undertaking this analysis (which would partially, though 

not completely, resolve emission externalities), it should also consider how the analysis might change in the 

unlikely event the Plan does not go into effect. See James Stock et al, Federal Coal Program Reform, the Clean 

Power Plan, and the Interaction of Upstream and Downstream Climate Policies (Harvard Kennedy School April 

2016) at 3 (concluding that a royalty adder that addresses the social cost of carbon could reduce emissions by 

roughly 3/4 of the emissions reduction that the Clean Power Plan is projected to achieve). 

In considering this issue, we urge BLM to consider the numerous peer-reviewed studies and government reports 

that evaluate the life-cycle emissions associated with coal development. (18) 

(16) See Bureau of Land Mgmt., Final EIS For the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications, 4- 

140 (July 2010); Bureau of Land Mgmt., Final Supplemental EIS For the Leasing and Underground Mining Of the 

Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract (Feb. 2015) (cited in Burger and Wentz). 

(17) See Bureau of Land Mgmt., Final EIS for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications (July 

2010) (determining that the No Action alternative of rejecting six large coal leases to expand Powder River Basin 

coal mines would not reduce GHG emissions). 

(18) A list of these documents are provided in the Appendix to Burger and Wentz, and include 

the following: Greenhouse Gas Protocol, WRI and WBC on Sustainable Development, 

http://www.ghgprotocol.org/ ; Oil and Gas Production Protocol, The Climate Registry, 

http://www.theclimateregistry.org/wpcontent/; U.S. Energy Info. Admin., the National Energy Modeling System: 

An Overview (2009); New Tool Yields Custom Environmental Data for Lifecycle Analysis, Dep’t of Energy (Sept. 

10, 2012), http://energy.gov/fe/articles/new-tool-yields-custom-environmental-data-lifecycle-analysis; Greet Model, 

Argonne Natl. Lab. https://greet.es.anl.gov; OPGEE: The Oil Production Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimator, 

Stanford School of Earth, Energy & Envtl. Sciences, 

https://pangea.stanford.edu/researchgroups/eao/research/opgee-oil-production-greenhouse-gasemissionsestimator; Natural Gas Models, Deloitte Marketplace LLC, 

https://www.deloittemarketpoint.com/industries/natural-gas/world-gas-model; EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule, 40 C.F.R. Pt. 98; Paulina Jaramillo et al., Comparative Life-Cycle Air Emissions of Coal, Domestic Natural 

Gas, LNG, and SNG for Electricity Generation, 41 Environ. Sci. Technol. 6290 (2007); Andrew Burnham et al., 

Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Shale Gas, Natural Gas, Coal, and Petroleum, 46(2) Environ. Sci. 

Technol. 619 (2012); Richard K. Lattanzio, CRS, Life-Cycle GHG Assessment of Coal and Natural Gas in the 

Power Sector (June 26, 2015); U.S. Dept. of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Life Cycle Analysis 

of Natural Gas Extraction and Power Generation, , May 29, 2014 (although the report focuses on natural gas 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-245

Scoping Report 

LCA, it also includes coal LCA for the purpose of comparison); U.S. Dept. of Energy, National Energy Technology 

Laboratory, Life Cycle GHG Perspective on Exporting LNG (May 29, 2014) (although the focus is on natural gas, 

coal is also evaluated for comparison); Leslie S. Abrahams et al., Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. 

Liquefied Natural Gas Exports: Implications for End Uses, 49 Envtl Science and Technology 3237 (2014); Mohan 

Jiang et al., Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Marcellus Shale Gas, 6(3) Env. Rsch. Letters 034014 (2011); 

James Bradbury, et al., WRI, Clearing the Air: Reducing Upstream GHG Emissions from U.S. Natural Gas Systems 

(2013); Christopher L. Weber & Christopher Clavin, Life Cycle Carbon Footprint of Shale Gas: Review of 

Evidence and Implications, 46(11) Environ. Sci. Technol. 5688 (2012); Daniel Zavala-Araiza et al., Reconciling 

Divergent Estimates of Oil and Gas Methane Emissions, PNAS Early Edition DOI 10.1073 (Nov. 2015), 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/12/03/1522126112.abstract; Paul R. Epstein et al., Full Cost Accounting 

for the Life Cycle of Coal, 1219 Ecological Econ. Review 73 (2011); see also Greenpeace, Leasing Coal, Fueling 

Climate Change (2014). 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-49

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A full life-cycle analysis must also include the other downstream emissions that come before combustion. This 

includes emissions tied to the substantial amount of electricity and fossil fuels used to operate mining equipment, 

as well as those associated with the transportation of coal and other coal related infrastructure. In the United 

States, coal companies transport 70% of their product by rail, approximately 10% by truck, 10% or more by 

waterways, and the rest using a variety of means including conveyor belts and slurry pipelines. Jayni Hein and 

Peter Howard, Institute for Policy Integrity, Reconsidering Coal’s Fair Market Value (New York Univ. School of 

Law 2015) at A4. One report estimates that transportation of coal accounts for 1.7% of CO2 emissions in the life 

cycle of coal production. See Spath, P. L., Mann, M. K., & Kerr, D. R., Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-fired Power 

Production (National Renewable Energy Lab 1999). Each of these forms of transportation must be factored into 

determining the entire fuel cycle cost of federally leased coal. 

In terms of combustion emissions, we applaud Secretary Jewell’s plan to have the U.S. Geological Survey establish 

and maintain a public database to account for the annual carbon emissions from fossil fuels developed on federal 

lands. If completed in a timely manner, this quantitative database can certainly contribute to the required analysis. 

However, even without this database, BLM can – and must – quantify emissions for this PEIS. One 

straightforward approach to calculate those emissions is to multiply the amount extracted by the CO2 emissions 

factor for that fuel (Burger and Wentz at 58). (19) 

(19) The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes emission factors (or coefficients) for the 

amounts of certain gases that are released when fuels are burned, and publishes emission factors for when 

electricity is generated and used. For example, for subbituminous coal, EIA’s emission factor for electricity 

generation is 97.20 kilograms of CO2 emitted per million Btu (and a Btu refers to the amount of energy needed 

to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit). See 

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2 vol mass.cfm. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-64

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-246 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

In May 2016, the Stockholm Environment Institute, building on the Vulcan/ICF modeling, undertook a more 

nuanced analysis of the emissions consequences of federal leasing cessation, taking into account additional factors 

including (a) a supply and demand model for coal exports; (b) exclusion of metallurgical coal; (c) accounting for 

non-federal coal that may be constrained due to the highly-intermingled ownership of federal and nonfederal coal 

in the PRB.127 Applying this more nuanced model to Vulcan’s ICF results, SEI ultimately found:

In our reference case, assuming Clean Power Plan implementation, we find that leasing restrictions would reduce 

CO2 emissions in 2030 from coal by about 107 Mt CO2, but increased use of gas would increase emissions by 

about 36 Mt CO2, resulting in a net reduction of 71 Mt CO2.128 

SEI notes that this 2030 reduction of 2030 million tons CO2 would be rivaled, as an emissions reduction policy, 

only by the EPA CAFÉ standards for light-duty vehicles (approximately 200 Mt) and the Clean Power Plan (up to 

610 Mt).129 Should the Clean Power Plan not be implemented, a coal leasing cessation would reduce emissions 

by 270 Mt in 2030 – nearly half the savings of the CPP.130 Ultimately, SEI concludes that ending new leasing (and 

lease modifications expanding reserves), would; 

Send national coal production on a declining pathway, potentially to levels more consistent with a 2°C pathway 

for U.S. coal extraction. Such an action could leave 4 billion short tons of federal coal in the ground that 

otherwise would be combusted between now and 2040, equivalent to about 7 Gt of CO2 emissions.131 

(127) Peter Erickson and Michael Lazarus, How would phasing out U.S. federal leases for fossil fuel extraction 

affect 

CO2 emissions and 2°C goals? at 18-22 (May 2016), SEI Working Paper 2016-02. 

(128) Id. at 22. 

(129) Id. at 28 & Figure 7. 

It then applies coal trajectories under the IEA 

(130) Id. 

(131) Id. at 31. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-75

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2012 as much as 21 percent of the Nation’s GHG emissions originated from coal, oil and natural gas extracted 

from the public lands, with coal contributing over 57 percent of this. Federally produced coal is contributing 

roughly 10 percent to U.S. GHG emissions. (19) 

(19) Claire Moser, Joshua Mantell, Nidhi Thakar, Chase Huntley and Matt Lee-Ashley. Cutting Greenhouse Gas 

from Fossil-Fuel Extraction on Federal Lands and Waters. March 19, 2015. Policy brief and underlying analysis is 

available at http://wilderness.org/blog/blind-spot-plan-reduce-emissions-slowing-progress-fight-against-climatechange (accessed July 28, 2016). 

See Attached for Table 5 - TWS Analysis of Lifecycle Emission from Federal Lands by Fuel Type 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-30

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 7.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-247

Scoping Report 

1. Current life cycle analysis (LCA) studies are inadequate and do not factor in all variables. Any LCA that the 

BLM may undertake as a part of this review needs to be a consequential LCA. 

2. If the BLM studies the LCA of mined federal coal, it must take into account current and future technological 

advancements that may reduce emissions. Studies have shown that new technologies can drastically reduce coal 's 

C02 emissions. 

3. Because of the highly speculative nature of a social cost of carbon analysis, the BLM should avoid conducting 

one as part of the PEIS. 

4. The BLM lacks the statutory authority and technical expertise to implement a carbon taxing program or 

promulgate other requirements to address C02 and other GHG emissions. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-31

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Considering the facts discussed above, a project level NEPA process is currently more appropriate for the 

analysis of GHG lifecycle net impacts and benefits than the programmatic process. See Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Climate Change, Millennium Bulk Terminals-Longview, Draft SEPA EIS, ch. 5 § 5.8 (April2016) 

(acknowledging that the analysis of GHG emissions from future coal extraction are covered in separate GHG 

emissions NEPA analyses); (WY0-00933 to 00965); see also, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change; Life-Cycle 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Tongue River Railroad DEIS, ch. 5, Appx. F (April2015); (WY0-00967 to 01025 and 

WY0-01027 to 01083); and Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Appendix U at p. U-74, § U.4.3; (WY0-01085 to 01360) 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-32

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A GHG lifecycle analysis of coal extraction should limit its focus to extraction. It is too speculative to analyze or 

address the possible impacts of unknown future projects, especially where there is no information on how the 

resource will be used or control technologies that will be employed until and well after there is a specific project 

proposed. However, should the BLM proceed with such a speculative analysis as part of the PEIS, the BLM must 

limit its analysis to the extraction phase emission profiles of coal and other fuels, and the potential consequential 

NCCIBs of national and international climate and energy policies, CCUS technology commercialization, national 

and economic security, laws, and regulations on the demand for and supply of coal and other energy resources 

and products produced by CCUS technologies. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-33

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Should the BLM proceed with a GHG lifecycle analysis from extraction through consumption/end use, which it 

should not, the BLM should include worldwide energy intensity measured as energy consumption per unit of 

gross domestic product. Worldwide energy intensity decreased globally by nearly one-third between 1990 

through 2015 (See Figure 3.1.1.). 

Comment Number: 0002513_Quinlan_20160707-2 

Commenter1:Alby Quinlan 

Other Sections: 8.1 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-248 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At his time, there is abundant evidence that the burning of coal is hugely detrimental to the accumulation of 

carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. It is time to stop mining and 

burning coal completely. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-37

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM Must Use One of the Available Energy Models to Analyze Market Effects of Alternatives in the PEIS. There 

are multiple models that exist and have already been used for decades by other federal agencies that can assist 

BLM in quantifying the amount of climate pollution emissions (principally carbon dioxide and methane) that will 

likely occur as a result of considered alternatives in the PEIS. Understanding the net climate pollution differences 

is essential information in any review that promises to analyze “[t]he impact of possible program alternatives on 

the projected fuel mix” in order to understand the comparative differences in the resulting GHG emissions.”38 

NEPA requires agencies to use the tools available to them in order to ascertain essential information or explain 

why they cannot do so. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22. Under the applicable NEPA regulations, if an agency intends not to 

include essential information in its NEPA review, it “shall” explain (1) why such essential information is 

incomplete or unavailable; (2) its relevance to reasonably foreseeable impacts; (3) a summary of existing science 

on the topic; and (4) the agency’s evaluation based on any generally accepted theoretical approaches. Id. § 

1502.22(b). that other agencies have long used energy models to analyze market and climate impacts of their 

proposals, that information is plainly “available” within the meaning of the regulation, and BLM must utilize these 

available tools to understand the impacts of various alternatives in this PEIS. In 2015, Power Consulting prepared 

a thorough investigation of available energy-economy models that the Forest Service could have used in 

evaluating the market and climate impacts of a proposal to open up federal lands for coal mining in Colorado. 39 

That report concluded that the two models best suited to the task, based on the prior use by other agencies and 

the known characteristics of the models, were the Energy Information Administration’s (“EIA”) National Energy 

Modeling System (“NEMS”), used by EIA to generate its widely-cited Annual Energy Outlook reports, and, to a 

lesser degree, ICF International’s Integrated Planning Model (“IPM”), used for years by EPA to evaluate market 

responses to various policy proposals since at least 2004.40 EIA’s NEMS model is an energy-economy model that 

projects future energy prices, supply, and demand and can be used to isolate variables such as changes in coal 

supply and 37 Id. at 97. 38 81 Fed. Reg. 17,200, 17,226 (Mar. 30, 2016) (emphasis added). 39 Thomas Power, et 

al., ASSESSING THE ABILITY OF CONTEMPORARY MODELS TO CALCULATE THE GHG IMPLICATIONS 

OF FEDERAL COAL LEASING DECISIONS AND OTHER FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 

(2015), attached as Ex. 4. 40 Id. at v. 21 variations in delivered coal price. NEMS uses input data from all sectors 

of the energy economy to forecast national energy supply and demand balance for varying sets of regulatory and 

fuel price scenarios. The model has a high degree of sophistication in its structure, which allows the model to give 

solutions for many types of problems. As noted by the Surface Transportation Board, which used NEMS to 

evaluate the market effects of a proposal to build a coal rail line, NEMS “not only forecasts coal supply and 

demand but also quantifies environmental impacts.” Mayo Found. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 472 F.3d 545, 555 (8th 

Cir. 2006). According to ICF, its Integrated Planning Model (IPM) uses a linear optimization framework and can 

be used to evaluate changes in wholesale power dispatch taking into account system reliability, environmental 

constraints, fuel choice, transmission, and capacity expansion. 41 ICF has been used in recent years to evaluates 

the market and environmental impacts of several high-profile proposals related to the extraction and 

transportation of fossil fuels, including the U.S. State Department’s review of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, 

the Surface Transportation Board’s evaluation of the proposed Tongue River Railroad, EPA’s evaluation of the 

Clean Power Plan, the Forest Service’s supplemental evaluation of a proposed coal mining loophole for the 

Colorado Roadless Rule, and Washington Department of Ecology’s evaluation of the Millennium Bulk coal export 

terminal. Earlier year, the Institute for Policy Integrity released a report detailing and evaluating various strengths 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-249

Scoping Report 

and weakness of three available models: the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s MarketSim model; the U.S. 

Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS); and ICF International’s Integrated 

Planning Model (IPM). 42 That report in particular highlights the tradeoff between model complexity and 

transparency that BLM will need to address in selecting one or more models to use in its analysis. 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-15

Organization1: 

Commenter1:438596 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the BLM leasing process is not the appropriate means to address emissions of any kind unless they are occurring 

at the mining operation. The facility using the coal mined on BLM lands is required to obtain an operating permit 

or license that will address their emissions and interior facilities to use coal. Any impacts should be addressed at 

the user level, not at the producer level. 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-17

Organization1: 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM leasing process is not the appropriate place to review climate impacts associated with the use of coal. 

The BLM and a Proponent interested in leasing the BLM coal lands cannot know definitively what the final use will 

be for the coal mined or how efficiently it will be burned. This is determined by the purchaser of the product. 

Climate impacts must be considered at the point of use not the point of production. Operations using coal mined 

on BLM lands are required to obtain air quality permits and other licenses to address their emissions and coal 

handling facilities. Also they be covered by the EPA's Clean Power Plan when it is implemented. Additional 

stipulations or regulations by the BLM would only add confusion to a process that already exists to evaluate the 

impact of emissions, and regulate them. BLM adding climate change impact stipulations to the leasing process 

effectively is a doubling up on those impacts and will inappropriately apply any unfavorable impacts twice, once at 

the point of production, and once at the point of sale. 

Comment Number: 0020056-5 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As noted in Order 3338, a current area of controversy is the degree to which the BLM should analyze the effect 

of leasing decisions on coal combustion downstream. Bowie does not object to the consideration of the impact 

of federal coal leasing in the aggregate on net coal combustion, but any such analysis must consider the 

interaction of federal coal leasing with other law and market constraints. The most important of these is EPA s 

Clean Power Plan ( CPP ). Should the CPP survive judicial review, national coal consumption, and derivatively 

federal coal production, will be capped. As a result, leasing policy will have little effect on aggregate emissions, 

and extensive analysis of combustion effects will serve no policy purpose. 

Moreover, even if the CPP is overturned, leasing policy is only a small driver of net coal combustion. The 

combined effect of MATS, CSAPR, regional haze, and NAAQS revisions has been to render fuel costs a 

continually declining share of consumer operating costs, and to complicate any cause-and-effect relationship 

between federal coal leasing policy and net coal combustion. As a result, whether the CPP is upheld or not, any 

PEIS must evaluate net coal combustion effects of various leasing policy proposals with appropriate sensitivity to 

the highly regulated character of the coal consumer market. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-250 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

ISSUE 4.4 - NATIONAL CARBON REDUCTION GOALS 

Total Number of Submissions: 55 

Total Number of Comments: 109 

Comment Number: 0000363 _HEIN_20160519-1 

Organization1:Institute for Policy Integrity 

Commenter1:Jayni Hein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Department of the Interior's programmatic environmental review has the potential to set federal coal 

production on a trajectory that will meet current and future energy climate change and economic needs. 

Comment Number: 0000364_Albury_20160519-1 

Commenter1:Kathryn Albury 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Last December, the United States, along with 194 other countries, agreed at the Paris Climate Conference to put 

the world on track to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting coal warming to well below two degrees 

centigrade Celsius by 2020. That's only four years from now. People, we are in a state of emergency and it's time 

that we begin to act that way. Continuing to lease parcels of federal land for burning coal is clearly inconsistent 

with our commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Comment Number: 0000531-1 

Organization1:Climate Reality Group 

Commenter1:Arun Jhaveri 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Honor the United Nations 2015 Paris Agreement on Global Climate Change and the United States commitment, 

as a leader, to significantly reducing green house gas (GHG) emissions via keeping the earth's atmospheric 

temperature rise below 2-degrees centigrade, by 2030. 

Comment Number: 0000559-1 

Organization1:Saltwater Unitarian Church 

Commenter1:Bill Adams 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To comply with Paris Accords of 12/15, you cannot be leasing coal which has been proven to be the largest 

source of greenhouse gases. 

Comment Number: 0000584-1 

Organization1:350Seattle.org 

Commenter1:Lynn Fitzhugh 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The US just in Dec. signed an international treaty setting targets to reduce GHG. Scientists say the targets were 

so insufficient that they would still make life on this planet unlivable within my daughter's lifetime. Immediately 

after signing of the US turned around and announced this coal leasing program which is an insult to the 

international community after the signing. We know that the fossil fuel companies already OWN 5x more 

resources than can be safely extracted and used - why on earth would we give the coal companies at bargain 

basement prices more resources to burn! This is going in the wrong direction and makes impossible the ability to 

meet our pledged targets! 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-251

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000782-3 

Commenter1:Lawson LeGate 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should bear in mind the commitments made by the U.S. to the Paris Climate Agreement. BLM should also 

take into account the effects of coal mining on wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation and tourism. 

Comment Number: 0000822-2 

Commenter1:Nicholas Nielsen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the Notice from the BLM it is stated a number of times that the program needs to be altered so that it "is 

consistent with the Nations Goals". How are the nations goals defined? Are these goals considering any of the 

pro coal opinion or is it all driven by the agenda of the Obama administration? 

Comment Number: 0001131-1 

Commenter1:Jill MacIntyre 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

You're saying that you're going to be making decisions in three years' time and so right now today we need to get 

back to 350 parts per million. These are facts. With CO2 increased, we have increase of temperature. Physics, 

chemistry, and temperatures do not lie. We have the global scientific consensus saying we must act now. We 

have 195 countries, governments that just agreed to taking action and actually a hearing to a 1.5 degree Celsius 

increase in order to stay alive. That was a last-minute addition to the Paris agreement. We can't go to 2 degrees. 

Comment Number: 0001141-1 

Commenter1:Ethan Burger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Plenty of American utilities are working towards using sustainability and turning away from coal power. Our 

partners in the Paris Climate Agreement continue to do this. 

Comment Number: 0001155-1 

Organization1:Unitarian Universalist 

Commenter1:Mary Paynter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should address the intragovernment conflict which amounts to the mere insanity between the clean 

power plant and the Paris accords on the one hand and the extraction and burning for export of coal on the 

other. 

Comment Number: 0001164-1 

Organization1:Sierra Club 

Commenter1:Benjamin Sibelman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The commitments we made in Paris, as people have noted, give the Obama Administration a clear mandate to 

phase out this leasing program and put us on track to a bright future of clean energy and climate stability and 

healthy lives for all people and indeed all living beings on earth. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-252 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0001182-1 

Commenter1:Joelle Robinson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Paris climate commitment made it very clear that we must keep it in the ground and we must phase out the 

leasing program and, instead, put our effort, our financial resources, and our courage to rise up and transition 

together to a just and sustainable clean energy future. 

Comment Number: 0001191-1 

Commenter1:A.R. Morris 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM coal leasing program is inconsistent with the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate disruption. Coal 

companies already own enough land privately to increase greenhouse gases to cause U.S. to fail its Paris 

commitments. Thus, leasing public land for even more creation of greenhouse gases is not -- is not for the public 

good. It will make us fail our Paris commitment. 

Comment Number: 0002043_Holm_20160530-1 

Commenter1:Patricia Holm 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We insist on a comprehensive scope for the EIS, concentrating on the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse 

gases the leasing program will have on the cumulative CO2 already in the atmosphere, and how the sale of more 

federal coal will undermine U.S. commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. We cannot continue this policy, we 

must change, along with the rest of the world, to cleaner fuel. 

Comment Number: 0002137_Zeigler_20160607-2 

Commenter1:Bob Ziegler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

How does this BLM Coal Leasing Program fit with goals of last December’s International Climate agreement to 

keep temperatures to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius rise? How does it conform even with President Obama’s 

Clean Energy Plan that although a good start is still insufficient to meet the goals of COP 21 Paris Agreement? 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-17

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

With the proper accounting and transparency, the BlueGreen Alliance believes that modernizing the management 

of public energy resources should and can be in harmony with the need to significantly reduce the nation’s 

climate emissions. Managing these two areas in concert, first and foremost, requires scientific data to understand 

what the impacts are, and how they should be environmentally and economically accounted for. 

Comment Number: 0002166_Pasta_20160629-1 

Commenter1:Diane Pasta 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Bureau of Land Management has a coal leasing program that is inconsistent with the 2015 Paris agreement on 

Climate disruption. I would like for us to honor the world-wide commitment to reduce the climate disruptions 

our activities cause. Coal has already contributed to the devastating effects of greenhouse gases. Furthermore, 

coal companies already own or lease enough land on private property it increase greenhouse gases to cause the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-253

Scoping Report 

US to fail on its commitments in the Paris agreement (keeping global temperature rise to at or below 1.5 C). 

Obviously, leasing public land for coal mining and fossil fuel development is not in the public good nor consistent 

with the International Paris Climate Change agreement. 

Comment Number: 0002179_Hughey_20160624-1 

Commenter1:Ben Hughey 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the BLM coal leasing program is inconsistent with the 2015 Paris agreement on climate. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-15

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

HOW DOES THE FEDERAL COAL PROGRAM RELATE TO THE NATION’S CLIMATE OBJECTIVES, AS 

WELL AS ITS ENERGY AND SECURITY NEEDS -- THIS IS NOT PART OF THE ACT AND SHOULD NOT BE 

TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THIS PROGRAM. IN REFERENCE TO SECURITY NEEDS, WE NEED TO 

MINE AS MUCH COAL AS WE CAN, SO WE ARE NOT RELIANT ON OTHER COUNTRIES FOR OUR 

ENERGY NEEDS. 

Comment Number: 0002199_Gyncild_20160626-1 

Commenter1:Brie Gyncild 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS must consider, first, the national priority and commitment to the international community to reduce 

our carbon output and other contributions to global warming. Leasing coal from federal lands increasing the 

mining of fossil fuels is incompatible with progress towards reduced carbon output and the sustainability of a 

livable environment. 

Comment Number: 0002268_Hunter_20160713-2 

Commenter1:Rhonda Hunter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We, as taxpayers, in a nation signed onto the Paris Climate Accord, should not be giving away more coal to be 

burned for climate destroying carbon pollution. 

Comment Number: 0002284_Madsen_20160719-3 

Commenter1:Travis Madsen 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

we should make sure that the coal program is aligned with -- and even more ambitious than-- the Paris Climate 

Agreement. Not only our national contribution (or INDC) to the global target, but to the full ambition of the 

agreement itself -- limiting warming to well below 2 degrees celsius, and targeting 1.5 degrees. 

Comment Number: 0002303_Steitz_20160705-2 

Commenter1:Jim Steitz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To keep climate change under 2 degrees C, as the US committed in the Paris accord, requires that our carbon 

emissions decline by at least half by 2040, and continue to decline thereafter. To issue leases on federal land that 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-254 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

extend for decades, supplying subsidized coal that undercuts a true market cost for electricity, renders this 

mathematically impossible. 

Comment Number: 0002311_Costello_20160721-2 

Commenter1:Lauri Costello 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

President Obama's commitment to the values expressed in the Paris climate talks 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-22

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 8.8 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PRB mining companies are now laying the groundwork for massive coal exports to Asia to take advantage of 

the huge subsidy of PRB coal taking place under the current Federal coal leasing program. If DOI does not take 

steps to eliminate that subsidy, the consequence will be additional CO2 emissions in Asia that more than offset all 

the emission reductions that the Obama Clean Power Plan is struggling to achieve domestically. It will not only 

doom the Obama Administration’s climate mitigation goals within the United States to failure, but could undo 

commitments made by 190 nations at the Paris climate summit last December to mitigate climate change. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-32

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To mitigate that threat, the Obama Administration has devised a Clean Power Plan (CPP) that applies to every 

part of the country, including the part containing the PRB. The goal of the Clean Power Plan is to enforce the 

Clean Air Act’s mandate to reduce CO2 emissions, which have been found to endanger public health. To do this, 

the CPP requires each state or region to reduce the carbon intensity of the electricity that it generates. The 

CPP’s primary strategy for achieving that objective is to shift the nation’s electric power industry away from its 

reliance on coal. By selling massive amounts of coal far below its fair market value, current Federal coal leasing 

policies pull strongly in the opposite direction 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-33

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the Department of the Interior, for some reason, refuses to recertify PRB as a Coal Production Region, and 

continues the current leasing system with only the minor tweaks that are currently proposed, the production of 

PRB coal will continue to be subsidized and the broader effects of these subsidies will continue to be ignored. 

Continuing such subsidies, for example, will give the electric power industry an artificial incentive to reject clean 

energy in favor of coal. This will directly conflict with the Administration’s efforts to reduce the nation’s carbon 

emissions. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-38

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-255

Scoping Report 

Other Sections: 8.8 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As noted earlier, continuing to subsidize PRB coal has the potential to alter the economics of exporting coal to 

South Asia. Subsidizing the price of PRB coal will artificially make exporting this coal to China and India profitable 

where it would not otherwise be. If China and India can count on a long-run supply of underpriced coal from the 

United States, it will increase their use of coal to generate electric power and raise the odds that they will rely on 

coal rather than renewable forms of energy as both of these countries race to industrialize. This would 

undermine the commitment that the Administration secured from China in 2015 to cap its reliance on coal after 

the year 2020. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-4 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Because Asia’s demand for coal is highly elastic, shipping subsidized coal into that market will stimulate the use of 

coal in that region. This prospect is in direct conflict with the objectives of the Obama Administration’s Climate 

Action Plan, including its Clean Power Plan, its recent agreements with China and India to reduce their reliance 

on coal for power generation, and its agreement with the 30 OECD countries to phase out their financing of 

coal-fired power plants in less developed countries 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-78

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A key assumption underlying the emission-reduction targets that the EPA has assigned to each State is that they 

can cut the CO2 emissions of a coal-fired power plant in half by converting it to a gas-fired plant of equivalent 

Btu capacity. The presence of massive amounts of cheap PRB coal in our domestic energy markets, however, is a 

powerful disincentive to do that. By one estimate, the presence of low-priced PRB coal in the domestic energy 

market (the 800-pound gorilla in the room) reduces domestic demand for natural gas by 27%, and thereby 

prevents the use of 5.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas annually in the electric power industry. (Considine, T., 

2013.) 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-99

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Federal government’s Clean Power Plan proposes state standards for reducing CO2 emission-rates for 

existing power plants. This is a modest first step towards meeting America’s obligation to keep global warming 

within the 2°C limit that was committed to in the landmark COP 21 Agreement reached in Paris last December. 

The Federal coal leasing program currently transfers massive quantities of coal to private hands virtually without 

charge, thereby incentivizing America’s overreliance on coal. If not reformed, it will offset all of the benefits of the 

Clean Power Plan and increase the risk that the COP 21 agreement to mitigate climate change signed by 190 

nations will unravel. 

The BLM’s subsidies of Federal coal distort U.S. energy markets, incentivize U.S. coal exports by subsidizing 

transportation costs, put clean sources of energy at a disadvantage, and ultimately undercut the goals of the 

President’s Climate Action Plan. It is essential that the Bureau of Land Management reform its current leasing 

program by formally certifying the Powder River Basin as a Coal Production Region, thereby invoking the legal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-256 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

obligation to begin the leasing process with regional planning that takes into account market conditions and the 

environmental and climate impact of leasing Federal coal. 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-13

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

CEQ’s revised draft guidance on NEPA and climate change instructs agencies to provide a frame of reference for 

decision-makers by disclosing the extent to which a project’s GHG emissions are consistent with the goals of 

Federal, state, and local climate change policies. (23) BLM should therefore consider whether a continuation of 

federal coal leasing would be consistent with federal and state climate policies, and in particular, our GHG 

reduction targets. 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-14

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As part of our participation in the Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change (UNFCCC), we have stated that we intend to reduce our economy-wide GHG emissions by 26-28% 

below 2005 levels by 2025, which will put us on a trajectory to achieve emission reductions of 80% or more by 

2050. (24) To achieve this, we must lower annual emissions to 5,460 – 5,312 MtCO2e by 2025 (a reduction of 

1,410 – 1,558 MtCO2e over 2014 levels). (25) Even with the Clean Power Plan and other existing regulations, the 

U.S. is not yet on track to achieve these reductions—additional measures will be needed to meet the 2025 

target. (26) 

(24) UNITED STATES, INTENDED NATIONALLY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION, SUBMISSION TO THE 

UNFCCC SECRETARIAT (2015), http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx. 

(25) These figures are based on the EPA GHG inventory estimates for 2005 GHG emissions and 2014 emissions 

(which were used as a baseline for current emissions, since these are the most recent estimates). EPA, 

INVENTORY OF U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SINKS: 1990-2014 (2016). 

(26) C2ES, Achieving the United States’ Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (June 2015), 

http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/achieving-us-indc.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-15

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This short term emissions reduction target is part of a broader commitment on the part of the U.S. and the 177 

other signatories of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to “well below” a 2 °C increase above preindustrial temperatures, and seek to limit it to 1.5 °C. (27) The only way to achieve this goal is to refrain from 

extracting and using the majority of the planet’s known fossil fuel reserves. According to a recent scientific study, 

over 80% of global coal reserves and 92% of U.S. coal reserves must remain unused to have even a 50% chance of 

meeting the 2 °C target. (28) President Obama cited this need to keep fossil fuels in the ground as one of the 

reasons for rejecting the Keystone Pipeline. (29) 

(27) Paris Agreement, Article 2, FCC/CP/2015/L.9 (Dec. 12, 2015). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-257

Scoping Report 

(28) Christophe McGlade & Paul Ekins, The Geographical Distribution of Fossil Fuels Unused When Limiting 

Global Warming to 2 °C, 517 NATURE 187 (2015) (regional estimates of unburnable reserves were based on an 

“economically optimal” distribution).

(29) Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline (Nov. 6, 2015), https://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2015/11/06/statement-president-keystone-xl-pipeline (“ultimately, if we’re going to prevent large 

parts of this Earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to 

keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky”).

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-16

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should evaluate how coal production under existing federal leases will affect our ability to meet these 

targets before deciding how to proceed with future leasing decisions. BLM estimates that there are approximately 

7.75 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves under existing federal leases, an amount sufficient to continue 

production for another 20 years at current rates. (30) The combustion of all of this coal would result in the 

release of approximately 18,000 MtCO2 (based on an average emissions rate for coal of 4,631.5 lbs CO2 / ton). 

(31) 

(30) ECOSHIFT CONSULTING, OVER-LEASED: HOW PRODUCTION HORIZONS OF ALREADY LEASED 

FEDERAL FOSSIL FUELS OUTLAST GLOBAL CARBON BUDGETS (2016). 

(31) Carbon Dioxide Coefficients by Fuel. U.S. EIA INDEPENDENT STATISTICS & ANALYSIS, 

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.cfm. 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-17

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To understand the magnitude of these emissions, it is helpful to compare them to our “carbon budget” (the total 

amount of CO2 or CO2e that can be emitted if we are to limit warming to 1.5 °C or 2 °C). One of the most 

recent studies on the global carbon budget concluded that, in order to have a > 66% chance of meeting the 2 

degree C target, we must limit future emissions to 590 – 1,240 GtCO2 (590,000 – 1,240,000 MtCO2). (32) 

There are various ways to determine the U.S. share of this budget. One approach is to simply divide the budget 

by our proportion of the global population (~ 4%), in which case the U.S. emissions budget is 23,600 – 49,600 

MtCO2. Using this as our benchmark, the combustion of all of the recoverable coal under existing federal leases 

would account for 36 – 76% of the U.S. emissions budget. 

(32) Joeri Rogelj et al., Differences Between Carbon Budget Estimates Unravelled, 6 NATURE CLIMATE 

CHANGE 245 (2015). 

Comment Number: 0002337_Wentz_20160726_SabinCntrClimateChange-3 

Organization1:Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School 

Commenter1:Jessica Wentz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

(3) Effect of Production on our Ability to Meet GHG Targets: The PEIS should consider how coal production 

under existing federal leases will affect our ability to attain national and international GHG reduction targets, and 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-258 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

whether any new coal production can be allowed on federal lands without undermining our ability to meet those 

targets. 

Comment Number: 0002339_Satterfield_20160726_IECA-6 

Organization1:Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) 

Commenter1:Marnie Satterfield 

Other Sections: 11 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

2. The BLM has failed to include increased global GHG emissions because of industrial GHG leakage.The BLM has 

not included the cost of industrial GHG leakage in its cost calculations. When coal and coal-fired electricity prices 

increase, energy-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) industries will shift production to other countries in order to be 

competitive. (7) When they do, their GHG emissions and jobs move with them and global GHG emissions will 

not have been achieved. 

7) Climate Change Trade Measures: Consideration for U.S. Policymakers, GAO, 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-724R

Comment Number: 0002442_Wolf_20160727_CenterBioDiversoty-1 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Shay Wolf 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Human caused climate change is already causing widespread damage from intensifying global food and water 

insecurity, the increasing frequency of heat waves and other extreme weather events, inundation of coastal 

regions by sea level rise and increasing storm surge, the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice, increasing species extinction 

risk, and the worldwide degradation of coral reefs. Limiting further temperature rise is needed to prevent 

increasingly dangerous and potentially irreversible impacts. (2) However, current climate policy and emissions 

reduction pledges in the United States and globally are not sufficient to achieve a 1.5°C or 2°C limit, and stronger 

action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is urgently needed. (3) 

Comment Number: 0002448_FoleyHein_20160727-6 

Organization1:Institute for Policy Integrity 

Commenter1:Jayni Foley Hein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Pete Erickson (Senior Scientist, Stockholm Environment Institute) discussed the impact of ramping down federal 

coal and oil leasing on U.S. carbon dioxide emissions and climate change goals. The Stockholm Environment 

Institute released a new study on federal coal, oil, and gas leasing, looking specifically at lease phase-out or an 

extension of the coal moratorium. 

For example, under an economically efficient 2 degrees Celsius limit scenario (with the Clean Power Plan in 

effect), U.S. coal production drops dramatically and immediately. The Institute’s analysis finds that in 2030 under a 

permanent moratorium on new leases, Interior could save about 70 million tons of net CO2 in 2030 and an 

additional 30 million tons of CO2 if this policy were extended to federal oil leases, as well. (This analysis accounts 

for energy substitution effects.) These greenhouse gas emission reductions are at least as large (if not larger) than 

those expected from the new EPA fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy- duty vehicles, and 

approaching the reductions expected from new light-duty vehicle standards. Erickson stressed that there is no 

single right answer as to how the U.S. could best develop a carbon budget for federal lands that is consistent with 

the 2 degree Celsius warming limit goal as articulated in the Paris Agreement, but that BLM could develop criteria 

for which lands (both federal and non-federal) should get preference in meeting such a carbon budget and could 

then analyze different scenarios as part of the PEIS to determine how each would play out. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-259

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002448_FoleyHein_20160727-7 

Organization1:Institute for Policy Integrity 

Commenter1:Jayni Foley Hein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Chase Huntley (Director of the Energy & Climate Program, The Wilderness Society) focused on the policy goals 

and process for carbon budgeting for federal lands. Huntley pointed to the stark contrast between an 

Administration that has made more progress on climate than any before it with an Administration that has 

presided over the two largest coal lease sales in U.S. history. He said that the federal government has not 

invested in the data systems needed to track the kinds of emissions data that an accurate assessment of climate 

emissions from public lands needs. An agency cannot accurately manage something that it is not measuring. The 

Secretarial Order acknowledges this and tasks the United States Geological Survey (USGS) with creating a 

database of emissions (fossil energy volumes on a production basis) from public lands. Huntley summarized: the 

United States can set and meet meaningful goals, but first it will need to decide on an appropriate contribution of 

public lands to total U.S. emissions and the role of coal in that portfolio; that the maximum allowable carbon 

emissions from all fossil energy under the current climate commitments are about 500 million metric tons of 

CO2e in 2050; and that finally, we want to improve transparency and the performance of Interior as the energy 

asset manager for the American public. 

Comment Number: 0002457_Johnson_20160728-6 

Organization1:Western Slope Conservation Center 

Commenter1:Alex Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

- Bring the federal coal leasing program into the 21st century by operating it within the confines of our nation's 

climate objectives. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-36

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As of 1970, the mean level of atmospheric carbon dioxide had been elevated to 325 parts per million (ppm). 

Since 1970, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased at a rate of about 1.6 ppm per year 

(1970–2012) to approximately 395 ppm in 2014. It is now well established that rising global atmospheric GHG 

emission concentrations are significantly affecting the Earth’s climate. These conclusions are built upon an 

incontrovertible scientific record including key contributions from the United States Global Change Research 

Program, the National Research Council, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Broadly stated, 

the effects of climate change observed to date and projected to occur in the future include more frequent and 

intense heat waves, more and/or severe wildfires, degraded air quality, more heavy downpours and flooding, 

increased drought, greater sea-level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture, and 

harm to wildlife and ecosystems. For these reasons, and others, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 

issued a finding that the changes in our climate caused by increased concentrations of atmospheric GHG 

emissions endanger public health and welfare. 

To address this fundamental threat to our planet and humanity, last year countries around the world committed 

to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Paris Agreement). In the Paris Agreement the 

United States and other countries committed to a goal of “Holding the increase in the global average 

temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase 

to 1.5°C.” In addition the United States committed to reduce the GHG emissions from within our borders by 

26-28% below 2005 levels by the year 2025. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-260 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-38

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

GHG emissions arise from the coal extraction process, from the transportation and refining of coal, and from its 

combustion – all of which must be comprehensively considered in the PEIS. In short, the PEIS must provide the 

necessary information for BLM to restructure the coal leasing regulatory framework in order to insure that 

federal coal leasing does not stand as an obstacle to the United States achieving the GHG reduction goals to 

which it committed in the Paris Agreement. See, e.g., CEQ Climate Change Guidance at 14 (directing that an EIS 

address the role of the agency action in meeting climate change goals). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-10

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In January 2016, Vulcan Philanthropy., employing analytic models supplied by ICF International, “commissioned a 

forward-looking analysis using ICF International’s (ICF) Integrated Planning Model (IPM®), relying on assumptions 

and scenarios as specified by Vulcan.”120 The Vulcan study applied the ICF model of coal prices and consumption 

to various scenarios including no Clean Power Plan, a Clean Power Plan with mass-based caps on emissions, and 

a Clean Power Plan with emissions trading under a rate-based rule. The study then assessed the effects of various 

policy choices, including royalty increases based on the Social Cost of Carbon and (in their policy case 6), a 100% 

ramp-down of federal coal leasing. The Vulcan application of the ICF model found that a “production limit policy 

case,” i.e. a cessation of new federal leasing, would have significant impacts on coal production, coal markets and 

exports, generation capacity and mix, and ultimately CO2 emissions.121 Ultimately, Vulcan found that ending 

new leasing would sharply reduce PRB coal production from 2037 on, with only a partial shift to production in 

other regions.122 This would also end Montana coal exports starting in 2040.123 The net result of Vulcan’s 

finding is that, for a no new leasing policy, U.S. coal production would decline 348 Mt through 2040 without the 

Clean Power Plan, and 85 Mt under a mass-based Clean Power Plan.124 This in turn would result in a shift to 

more efficient gas-fired generation and, to a lesser extent, renewable energy deployment and efficiency 

improvement.125 Vulcan concludes the net effect on CO2 emissions in 2040 would be nearly 500 Mt/year 

without the CPP, and a lesser reduction under the CPP.126 

(120) Vulcan Philanthropy, Federal Coal Leasing Reform Options: Effects on CO2 Emissions and Energy Markets 

(Jan. 

2016). 

(121) See id. at 49-57. 

(122) Id. at 46-47. 

(123) Id. at 50. 

(124) Id. at 47. 

(125) Id. at 51-52. 

(126) Id. at 56-57, Exhibits 89-90.

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-11

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-261

Scoping Report 

Other Sections: 7.2 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In July 2016, Eco-Shift consulting projected the “production horizons”- the number of years’ worth of remaining 

production - from currently leased federal fossil fuels using the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 

2016 “reference case” for fossil fuel production.132 EcoShift found that, under the EIA reference case (including 

Clean Power Plan implementation), “Coal under federal lease would last 25 years, through 2041.”133 This 

production horizon greatly exceeds the dates at which carbon budgets for 1.5°C and 2°C would be exceeded by 

continued emissions at 2014 rates – 2021 and 2036 respectively.134 The discrepancy between the production 

horizon for already-leased coal and carbon budget exceedance dates makes clear that, barring either 

extraordinarily rapid global emissions declines or rapid, widespread and successful deployment of carbon capture 

and sequestration technology, there is no scenario where new federal coal leasing at any significant level is 

consistent with the nation’s stated climate aims.

(132) Dustin Mulvaney et al., Over-Leased: How Production Horizons of Already Leased Federal Fossil Fuels 

Outlast 

Global Carbon Budgets 1 (July 2016). 

(133) Id. 

(134) Id. at Figure 1. 

Significantly, both Vulcan and SEI examined the effect of leasing policies in a context where the Clean Power Plan 

was the only meaningful downstream constraint on U.S. coal consumption. More recently, Energy Transition 

Advisors, Earth Track, and Carbon Tracker Initiative undertook to examine the role of federal Powder River 

Basin coal in a (modestly ambitious) climate scenario – the International Energy Agency’s “450 scenario” aimed at 

modeling the energy demands consistent with an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450 ppm, and an ensuing 

50% probability of keeping warming within 2°C of preindustrial levels.135 Although the IEA “450 scenario” is less 

ambitious than Paris goals or the demands of protecting health and biodiversity, it provides an existing model for 

assessing the role of federal leasing, PRB production, and coal markets in a modestly climate-constrained 

scenario.136 The ETA first examined U.S. EIA “reference case” coal production projections under the CPP to 

conclude that demand for PRB coal tracks reasonably well with US-wide demand for power-sector control under 

a modestly CO2-constrained scenario.137 It then applies coal trajectories under the IEA “450 Scenario” to the 

Powder River Basin, to find, under various CCS scenarios, a rapid decline in demand for PRB coal from 2016 

through 2030, leveling off somewhat around 2030.138 Fulton et al. then compared these anticipated demand 

scenarios with the best available information regarding coal deposits already under lease in the PRB.139 Their 

conclusion was that, “[u]nder the 450 Scenario with no CCS, potential production from existing leases is 

sufficient to meet projected demand in every year through 2040.”140 Moreover, they found that “even without 

additional efforts to pursue a 2°C scenario beyond those already announced, significant production from new 

leases is not expected to be needed until 2031.”141

(135) Mark Fulton et al., Enough Already: Meeting 2°C PRB Coal Demand Without Lifting the Federal 

Moratorium 

(July 2016). 

(136) The IEA 450 Scenario also makes aggressive assumptions regarding the deployment of CCS technology; 

Fulton 

et al. provides alternative scenarios involving later CCS development. See id. at 6 n.10. 

(137) Id. at 7. 

(138) Id. at 9 & Figure 1. 

(139) Id. at 11 & Figure 3. 

(140) Id. at 12. 

(141) Id.. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-262 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-12

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our analysis suggests that pursuit of a 2°C or less climate commitment obviates the need to award new leases 

for PRB coal mining through at least 2040. Under the power system that the US must transition to if it is to fulfill 

its Paris Agreement commitments, the 745 Mt of potential production from new PRB mines is unneeded to meet 

projected demand through 2040. 

In contrast, awarding leases for such mines invites up to $2.9 billion of investment that is at odds with America’s 

stated climate ambitions and should prove unnecessary as the world moves towards a 2°C outcome. As PRB 

mines account for the majority of coal produced on federal lands, this suggests that a continued moratorium on 

all new leases is warranted under a 2°C scenario. Indeed, taking steps to slow production from the PRB would 

send a strong signal to other parties to the Paris Agreement that the United States is beginning to put its own 

house in order. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-2 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Over 65 eminent climate scientists agree: the vast majority of known coal in the United States must stay in the 

ground if the federal coal program is to be consistent with national climate objectives and be protective of public 

health, welfare, and biodiversity9. As set forth below, the science is clear that (a) climate change is a serious and 

imminent threat to health, welfare, and biodiversity, (b) mitigating the worst effects of climate change requires 

rapid implementation of limits not just on rates of greenhouse gas emission, but on total greenhouse gas loads to 

the atmosphere, and (c) continued federal coal leasing is inconsistent with any reasonable path to mitigating 

greenhouse gas emissions to the degree necessary to protect health, welfare, and biodiversity. 

(9) Ken Caldeira et al., Scientists support ending leasing on public lands to protect the climate, public health, and 

biodiversity (July 27, 2016), 

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/coal/pdfs/16_7_26_S

cientist_sign-on_letter_Coal_PEIS.pdf 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-40

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

On December 12, 2015, nearly 200 governments, including the United States, agreed to the commitments 

enumerated in the Paris Agreement to “strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change”10 The 

Paris Agreement codified the international consensus that the climate crisis is an urgent threat to human societies 

and the planet, with the parties recognizing that: 

Climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet and 

thus requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries, and their participation in an effective and 

appropriate international response, with a view to accelerating the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions 

(emphasis added).11 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-263

Scoping Report 

(10) Paris Agreement, Art. 2(1). 

(11) Paris Agreement, Decision, Recitals. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-42

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The United States’ 2014 Third National Climate Assessment, prepared by a panel of nongovernmental experts 

and reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and multiple federal agencies similarly stated that “[t]hat the 

planet has warmed is ‘unequivocal,’ and is corroborated though multiple lines of evidence, as is the conclusion 

that the causes are very likely human in origin”13 and “[i]impacts related to climate change are already evident in 

many regions and are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and 

beyond.”14 The United States National Research Council similarly concluded that: “[c]limate change is occurring, 

is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in 

many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.”15

(13) Melillo, Jerry M., Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, 

Terese 

(T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2 (2014) 

(Third National Climate Assessment) at 61 (quoting IPCC, 2007:. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate 

Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, Eds., 

Cambridge University Press, 1-18.). 

(14)Third National Climate Assessment at 10. 

(15) National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change (2010), available at www.nap.edu. 

(“Advancing the Science of Climate Change”) at 2.

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-43

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The IPCC and National Climate Assessment further decisively recognize the dominant role of fossil fuels in 

driving climate change: 

While scientists continue to refine projections of the future, observations unequivocally show that climate is 

changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping 

gases. These emissions come mainly from burning coal, oil, and gas, with additional contributions from forest 

clearing and some agricultural practices.16 

CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 78% to the total GHG 

emission increase between 1970 and 2010, with a contribution of similar percentage over the 2000–2010 period 

(high confidence).17 

These impacts emanating from the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels are harming the United States in 

myriad ways, with the impacts certain to worsen over the coming decades absent deep reductions in domestic 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-264 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

and global GHG emissions. EPA recognized these threats in its 2009 Final Endangerment Finding under Clean Air 

Act Section 202(a), concluding that greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion endanger public health and 

welfare: “the body of scientific evidence compellingly supports [the] finding” that “greenhouse gases in the 

atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare.”18

(16) Third National Climate Assessment at 2. 

(17) IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report at 46. 

(18) Final Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,497. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-56

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The United States has committed to the climate goal of holding the increase in the global average temperature to 

“well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C 

above pre-industrial levels under the Paris Agreement.75 Human-caused climate change is already causing 

widespread damage from intensifying global food and water insecurity, the increasing frequency of heat waves and 

other extreme weather events, inundation of coastal regions by sea level rise and increasing storm surge, the 

rapid loss of Arctic sea ice, increasing species extinction risk, and the worldwide degradation of coral reefs. 

Limiting further temperature rise is needed to prevent increasingly dangerous and potentially irreversible 

impacts.76 However, current climate policy and emissions reduction pledges in the United States and globally are 

not sufficient to achieve a 1.5°C or 2°C limit, and stronger action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is urgently 

needed.77 

(75) The Paris Agreement, which was adopted at the 2015 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change Conference of the Parties and signed by the United States in April 2016, commits all signatories to 

“[h]olding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to 

pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would 

significantly reduce 

the risks and impacts of climate change.” See Paris Agreement at Article 2, Section 1(a), 

https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf 

(76) IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, at 65, Box 2.4, Figure 2.5, 

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf; U.N. Framework Convention on 

Climate Change. 2015. Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice. Report on the Structured Expert 

Dialogue on the 2013-15 Review, No. FCCC/SB/2015/INF.1, at 15-16, 30-32, 

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/sb/eng/inf01.pdf; Schleussner, C-F. et al. 2016. Differential climate impacts for 

policy-relevant limits to global warming: the case of 1.5°C and 2°C. Earth System Dynamics 7: 327-351. 

(77) Climate Action Tracker ranks the United States INDC (intended nationally determined contribution) 

submitted to the UNFCCC as “not yet consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C unless other countries 

make much deeper reductions and comparably greater effort than the USA.” Climate Action Tracker finds that 

current US climate policy is insufficient to meet the US INDC. See 

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa.html Analyses of the 

aggregate effect of national climate pledges (INDCs or intended nationally determined contributions) submitted 

to the UNFCCC under the Paris Agreement estimate a 2.7 to 3.7°C temperature rise above pre-industrial levels. 

See Rogelj, J. et al. 2016. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2°C. 

Nature 534: 631-639; UNEP. 2015. The Emissions Gap Report 2015. United Nations Environment Programme 

(UNEP), 

Nairobi, http://uneplive.unep.org/media/docs/theme/13/EGR_2015_301115_lores.pdf; Climate Action Tracker. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-265

Scoping Report 

2015. 2.7°C is not enough – we can get lower, http://climateactiontracker.org/news/253/Climate-pledges-willbring-2.7C-of-warming-potential-for-more-action.html; Climate Interactive. 2015. Climate Scoreboard: UN 

Climate Pledge Analysis, https://www.climateinteractive.org/programs/scoreboard/. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-57

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

International consensus and commitments acknowledge the global climate emergency and demand decisive action 

to limit fossil fuel extraction. On December 12, 2015, 197 nation-state and supra-national organization parties 

meeting in Paris at the 2015 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the 

Parties consented to an agreement (Paris Agreement) committing its parties to take action to avoid dangerous 

climate change.78 As the Paris Agreement opens for signature in April 2016(79) and the United States is 

expected to sign the treaty as a legally binding instrument through executive agreement,80 the Paris Agreement 

commits the United States to critical goals—both binding and aspirational—that mandate bold action on the 

United States’ domestic policy to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

The United States and other parties to the Paris Agreement recognized “the need for an effective and 

progressive response to the urgent threat of climate change on the basis of the best available scientific 

knowledge.”81The Paris Agreement articulates the practical steps necessary to obtain its goals: parties including 

the United States have to “reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible . . . and to 

undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science,”82 imperatively commanding 

that developed countries specifically “should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute 

emission reduction targets”83 and that such actions reflect the “highest possible ambition.”84

The Paris Agreement codifies the international consensus that climate change is an “urgent threat” of global 

concern,85 and commits all signatories to achieving a set of global goals. Importantly, the Paris Agreement 

commits all signatories to an articulated target to hold the long-term global average temperature “to well below 

2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels”86(emphasis added).

(80) See U.S. Department of State, Background Briefing on the Paris Climate Agreement, (Dec. 12, 2015), 

http://www. 

state.gov/ r/pa/prs/ps/2015/12/250592.htm. 

(81) Id., Recitals. 

(82) Id., Art. 4(1). 

(83) Id., Art. 4(4). 

(84) Id, Art. 4(3). 

(85) Id., Recitals. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-58

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In light of the severe threats posed by even limited global warming, the Paris Agreement established the 

international goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels in order to “prevent dangerous 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-266 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

anthropogenic interference with the climate system,” as set forth in the UNFCCC, a treaty which the United 

States has ratified and to which it is bound.87 The Paris consensus on a 1.5°C warming goal reflects the findings 

of the IPCC and numerous scientific studies that indicate that 2°C warming would exceed thresholds for severe, 

extremely dangerous, and potentially irreversible impacts.88 Those impacts include increased global food and 

water insecurity, the inundation of coastal regions and small island nations by sea level rise and increasing storm 

surge, complete loss of Arctic summer sea ice, irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet, increased 

extinction risk for at least 20-30% of species on Earth, dieback of the Amazon rainforest, and “rapid and 

terminal” declines of coral reefs worldwide.89 As scientists noted, the impacts associated with 2°C temperature 

rise have been “revised upwards, sufficiently so that 2°C now more appropriately represents the threshold 

between ‘dangerous’ and ‘extremely dangerous’ climate change.”90 Consequently, a target of 1.5oC or less 

temperature rise is now seen a essential to avoid dangerous climate change and has largely supplanted the 2°C 

target that had been the focus of most climate literature until recently. As demonstrated below, under any 

formulation, the majority of United States fossil fuels, particularly federal coal, must stay in the ground. 

(86) Id., Art. 2. 

(87) See U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Cancun Agreement. Available at 

http://cancun.unfccc.int/ 

(last visited Jan 7, 2015); United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Copenhagen Accord. 

Available at http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5262.php (last accessed Jan 7, 2015). The 

United States Senate ratified the UNFCC on October 7, 1992. See https://www.congress.gov/treatydocument/ 

102nd-congress/38. 

(88) See Paris Agreement, Art. 2(1)(a); U); U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Subsidiary Body for 

Scientific and Technical Advice, Report on the structured expert dialogue on the 2013-15 review, No. 

FCCC/SB/2015/INF.1 at 15-16 (June 2015);IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report at 65 & Box 2.4. 

(89) See Jones, C. et al, Committed Terrestrial Ecosystem Changes due to Climate Change, 2 Nature Geoscience 

484, 

484–487 (2009);Smith, J. B. et al., Assessing Dangerous Climate Change Through an Update of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘Reasons for Concern’, 106 Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 4133, 4133–37 (2009); ; Veron, J. E. N. et al., The Coral 

Reef 

Crisis: The Critical Importance of <350 ppm CO2, 58 Marine Pollution Bulletin 1428, 1428–36, (2009); ; Warren, 

R. J. et al., Increasing Impacts of Climate Change Upon Ecosystems with Increasing Global Mean Temperature 

Rise, 106 Climatic Change 141–77 (2011); Hare, W. W. et al., Climate Hotspots: Key Vulnerable Regions, 

Climate 

Change and Limits to Warming, 11 Regional Environmental Change 1, 1–13 (2011); ; Frieler, K. M. et al., Limiting 

Global Warming to 2oC is Unlikely to Save Most Coral Reefs, Nature Climate Change, Published Online (2013) 

doi: 

10.1038/NCLIMATE1674; ; M. Schaeffer et al., Adequacy and Feasibility of the 1.5°C Long-Term Global Limit, 

Climate Analytics (2013). 

(90) Anderson, K. and A. Bows, Beyond ‘Dangerous’ Climate Change: Emission Scenarios for a New World, 369 

Philosophical Transactions, Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 20, 20–44 (2011). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-8 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The question of what amount of fossil fuels can be extracted and burned without negating a realistic chance of 

meeting a 1.5 or 2°C target is relatively easy to answer, even if the answer is framed in probabilities and ranges. 

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report and other expert assessments have established global carbon budgets, or the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-267

Scoping Report 

total amount of remaining carbon that can be burned while maintain some probability of staying below a given 

temperature target. According to the IPCC, total cumulative anthropogenic emissions of CO2 must remain 

below about 1,000 gigatonnes (GtCO2) from 2011 onward for a 66% probability of limiting warming to 2°C 

above pre-industrial levels.92 Given more than 100 GtCO2 have been emitted since 2011,93 the remaining 

portion of the budget under this scenario is well below 900 GtCO2. To have an 80% probability of staying below 

the 2°C target, the budget from 2000 is 890 GtCO2, with less than 430 GtCO2 remaining.94 

To have even a 50% probability of achieving the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels equates to a carbon budget of 550-600 GtCO2 from 2011 onward,95 of which more than 100 

GtCO2 has already been emitted. To achieve a 66% probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C requires adherence 

to a more stringent carbon budget of only 400 GtCO2 from 2011 onward,96 of which less than 300 GtCO2 

remained at the start of 2015. An 80% probability budget for 1.5°C would have far less that 300 GtCO2 

remaining. Given that global CO2 emissions in 2014 alone totaled 36 GtCO2,97 humanity is rapidly consuming 

the remaining burnable carbon budget needed to have even a 50/50 chance of meeting the 1.5°C temperature 

goal.98 

(92) IPCC AR5 Physical Science Basis at 27; IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report at 63-64 & Table 2.2. 

(93) From 2012-2014, 107 GtCO2 was emitted (see Annual Global Carbon Emissions at 

http://co2now.org/CurrentCO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html). 

(94) Carbon Tracker Initiative at 6; Meinshausen et al. 2009 at 1159 

(95) IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report at 64 & Table 2.2. 

(96) Id. 

(97) See Global Carbon Emissions, http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html 

(98) In addition to limits on the amount of fossil fuels that can be utilized, emissions pathways compatible with a 

1.5 or 2°C target also have a significant temporal element. Leading studies make clear that to reach a reasonable 

likelihood of stopping warming at 1.5° or even 2°C, global CO2 emissions must be phased out by mid-century 

and likely as early as 2040-2045. See, e.g. Joeri Rogelj et al., Energy system transformations for limiting end-ofcentury warming to below 1.5°C, 5 Nature Climate Change 519, 522 (2015). United States focused studies 

indicate that we must phase out fossil fuel CO2 emissions even earlier—between 2025 and 2040—for a 

reasonable chance of staying below 2oC. See, e.g. Climate Action Tracker, 

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa. Issuing new legal entitlements to explore for and extract federal 

fossil fuels for decades to come is wholly incompatible with such a transition. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-25

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM is clearly required to measure, evaluate and fully consider the GHG emissions and climate change 

impacts of the federal coal program in the PEIS based on a number of policies of the BLM and other agencies, and 

even the President. NEPA also requires the BLM to fully consider climate change issues in the PEIS. This must 

include both upstream and downstream emissions, including those from coal combustion at power plants. This 

analysis must inform BLM’s requirements to avoid, minimize and compensate for these impacts consistent with 

this country’s climate change commitments, specifically the requirement to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent 

below 2005 levels by 2025. This analysis and decision-making should seek to achieve a no more than 2 degrees C 

temperature increase, which will require the U.S. to reduce emissions an average of 70 to 80 percent below 2000 

levels by 2050. The PEIS should put in place requirements to achieve these commitments. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-268 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-34

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A “carbon budget” is often defined as the quantity of carbon dioxide that the nations of the world can emit and 

still limit warming to 2-degree C above pre-industrial levels, although recently it has been applied to determine 

quantities of fossil energy that could be burned by individual nations consistent with their commitments. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-35

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the context of these comments, we use the term “carbon budget” to refer to the estimated annual volumes of 

CO2 advisable from federal lands under international goals set by leading climate science and prevailing national 

climate emissions reduction commitments. To us, these volumes function best as performance targets set as a 

matter of policy rather than as a hard and fast cap. We believe BLM can create a “carbon budget” to establish a 

CO2 emission reduction target that takes into consideration our domestic and international climate 

commitments and can be used as a policy and decision-making tool when addressing the questions of when and 

how much fossil fuel development should be permitted on federal land. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-36

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The IPCC’s analytic method was further advanced in January 2015 in a paper published in the scientific journal 

Nature entitled “The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 degrees 

C.” (35) The study evaluates known fossil fuel reserves to determine, based on current emissions factors and 

global warming potential, how much should be left in-place to maximize the planet’s chances of remaining below 

2 degrees C. Importantly, it quantifies the regional distribution of known fossil-fuel reserves and resources and, 

through modeling a range of scenarios based on least-cost climate policies, identifies geographically-specific 

resources that should not be burned between 2010 and 2050 to ensure the world stays within a 2-degree C limit 

in the most cost-efficient manner. (36) This study demonstrates two important facts: first, one way in which 

geographically-specific analysis can be undertaken to make comparative judgments about the appropriateness of 

tapping into different resources and plays, and, second, that policy priorities can be brought into such an 

analysis—in McGlade et al it was cost-efficiency, but priorities like land use intensity, water demand, or impact on 

sensitive resources could as well. In addition to being the analytic source of ignition for the self-proclaimed “Keep 

it in the Ground” movement, the paper spawned a number of related inquiries looking at modified scenarios and 

derivative analysis examining U.S. demand scenarios in the specific context of already-leased federal fossil energy 

resources. (37) Attachment 1 provides a fuller discussion of the literature. 

(35) McGlade, Christophe and Paul Ekins, The Geographical Distribution of Fossil Fuels Unused When Limiting 

Global Warming to 2 °C, 517 Nature (187) (2015). 

(36) See id. at 187-90.

(37) CEA 2016, Vulcan/ICF 2016, Erickson and Lazarus 2016, and Fulton, Kaplow, Capalino, and Grant 2016. 

Reaching international climate commitments, including the Paris Agreement goals, will require the U.S. to adopt 

measures that reduce the GHG associated with production of fossil fuels on public lands in addition to efforts to 

reduce GHG from power plants and fuel efficiency for vehicles. (38) Nearly all other significant federal activities 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-269

Scoping Report 

have had GHG reduction targets set for them (see Appendix 1)—it is time to put a similar set of performance 

targets in place for federal fossil energy leasing and production. As described below, it also will require measures 

that phase down the supply of fossil fuels from federal lands starting with the coal PEIS. 

(38) 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662 (Oct. 23, 2015) (existing power plants); 80 Fed. Reg. 64,510 (Oct. 23, 2015) (new power 

plants); 77 Fed. Reg. 62,624 (Oct. 15, 2012) (light-duty vehicles); 76 Fed. Reg. 57,106 (Sept. 15, 2011) (mediumand heavy-duty vehicles). 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-38

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This analysis and decision-making should seek to achieve a no more than 2 degrees C temperature increase, 

which will require the U.S. to reduce emissions an average of 70 to 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. This 

will require that a carbon budget be developed that limits carbon emissions from federal energy development to 

below 500m metric tons CO2e by 2050. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-40

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text:

We provide the results from our assessment of a “carbon budget” for federal lands to illustrate that such an 

exercise can be conducted with available data provided key assumptions are disclosed, and encourage BLM to 

prepare its own analysis utilizing a similar approach. From there, BLM can create a coal target based on coal’s 

projected future share of federal fossil energy production and/or CO2e emissions. (40) We recommend the 

agency focus on simply scenarios, rather than complex models, to establish leasing targets based on a “carbon 

budget” analysis. A scenario-based approach was used by the Carbon Tracker Initiative in determining a critical 

input (future demand for Powder River Basin coal under a 2-degree scenario) used in their recent report 

reviewing the necessity of future federal coal leasing. (41) This approach should be closely examined by the 

agency for potential use in establishing a coal production target under a fossil energy “carbon budget” for the 

Department. We will explore this and alternative methods more fully in our forthcoming whitepaper. 

(40) This determination is based on scenario modeling and therefore will require the agency to be transparent 

with its methods. 

(41) Fulton 2016. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-46

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM also has the authority—and we believe the obligation—to reduce climate emissions from the federal coal 

program through regulation. The PEIS should examine and advance regulations to reduce the emissions of 

methane and other greenhouse gases from coal mining operations. BLM has already taken steps in this direction 

with an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to regulate methane that is released as a direct results of mining 

operations, known as waste mine methane. BLM should move forward with the Coal Mine Waste rule and, 

through the PEIS, examine other rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal mining operations. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-270 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-48

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 8.12 8.10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Recommendations: The BLM should examine and advance regulations to reduce the emissions of methane and 

other greenhouse gases from coal mining operations, both underground and surface operations. Unless and until 

those regulations are complete, the BLM should immediately consider other options to offset these emissions or 

otherwise address the associated climate impacts. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-57

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Attachment 1. History of the Origins of the Carbon Budget Concept in the Scientific Literature 

In 2012, the International Energy Agency, an international organization established to “provide authoritative 

research and analysis on ways to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy” for its members, (76) concluded 

there is a limit to the amount of fossil fuels that can be developed if the world is to remain within acceptable 

warming thresholds. Based on an assessment of global carbon reserves, and given existing pollution controls, the 

agency concluded that “[n]o more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 

2050 if the world is to achieve the 2-degree C goal.” (77)

(76) International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2012 at 2 (2012), available at 

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2012_free.pdf. 

(77) Id. at 25.

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-79

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition, on June 29, 2016, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States committed to the North 

American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership. Under this agreement the countries will pursue 

an historic goal for North America to strive to achieve 50 percent clean power generation by 2025. “Canada, the 

U.S., and Mexico will work together to implement the historic Paris Agreement, supporting our goal to limit 

temperature rise this century to well below 2 degrees C, and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase 

to 1.5 degrees C.” (22)

(22) See https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/29/leaders-statement-north-american-climateclean-energy-and-environment (presenting Leaders’ Statement on a North American Climate, Clean Energy, and 

Environment Partnership). 

These commitments are consistent with and required by The President’s Climate Action Plan (June 2013) which 

calls for many steps to combat climate change such as reductions in CO2 emissions from power plants, increased 

use of renewable energy, improved automobile efficiency standards, and reducing methane emissions, among 

many other things. (23) But to achieve the goals of the Climate Action Plan, which include “steady, responsible 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-271

Scoping Report 

action to cut carbon pollution, [so] we can protect our children’s health and begin to slow the effects of climate 

change so that we leave behind a cleaner, more stable environment,” it will also be necessary to address issues 

related to fossil fuel extraction from our public lands. The Coal PEIS and other BLM regulatory actions should 

look to these commitments as part of decision-making, in order to ensure that steps are taken to meet these 

commitments. 

(23) See also Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions (March 2014) (presenting the 

President’s methane reduction strategy). 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-83 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The concept of a carbon budget builds upon the well-established scientific understanding that the global increase 

in temperature due to greenhouse gas emissions must be capped at or below 2-degree C to avoid unmanageable 

climate change consequences. The 2-degree C threshold was first enshrined in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord 

(32) and reaffirmed in the 2015 Paris Agreement as the limit for “acceptable” warming. (33) 

(32) Copenhagen Accord ¶ 1, agreed Dec. 18, 2009, FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1, available at 

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/11a01.pdf (“recognizing the scientific view that the increase in 

global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius” relative to pre-industrial temperatures to “stabilize 

greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic 

interference with the climate system”); id. at ¶ 2 (agreeing that “deep cuts in global emissions are required 

according to science” to meet this goal).

(33) The United States and other signatory nations committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions “well below 

2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels.” Paris Agreement art. 2, ¶ 1(a), adopted Dec. 12, 2015, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9, available at 

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf. The authority cited in the letter is being provided via 

regualtions.gov and it should be included in the administrative record for this decision. 

During that time, the international scientific community’s understanding of the interaction between fossil fuel 

development and temperature thresholds has greatly increased, and today it is widely agreed that development of 

additional reserves should be considered in the context of warming goals—giving rise to the idea of a carbon 

budget for the planet. In fact, this notion has been assessed and supported by the IPCC in all assessment reports 

going back to 1990 and has yielded a methodology routinely employed and updated annually by the Global 

Carbon Project. (34) 

(34) The IPCC has produced and reviewed a carbon budget for the planet in all assessment reports (Ciais et al., 

2013; Denman et al., 2007; Prentice et al., 2001; Schimel et al., 1995; Watson et al., 1990), as well as by others 

(e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2012). These assessments included carbon budget estimates for the decades of the 1980s, 

1990s (Denman et al., 2007) and, most recently, the period 2002–2011 (Ciais et al., 2013). The IPCC 

methodology has been adapted and used by the Global Carbon Project (GCP, www.globalcarbonproject.org), 

which has coordinated a cooperative community effort for the annual publication of global carbon budgets up to 

the year 2005 (Raupach et al., 2007), 2006 (Canadell et al., 2007), 2007 (published online; GCP, 2007), 2008 (Le 

Quéré et al., 2009), 2009 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), 2010 (Peters et al., 2012b), 2012 (Le Quéré et al., 2013; 

Peters et al., 2013), 2013 (Le Quéré et al., 2014), and most recently 2014 (Friedlingstein et al., 2014; Le Quéré et 

al., 2015). Each of these papers updated previous estimates with the latest available information for the entire 

time series. From 2008, these publications projected fossil fuel emissions for one additional year using the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-272 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

projected world gross domestic product (GDP) and estimated trends in the carbon intensity of the global 

economy (Rogelj, 2016). 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-95

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the fall of 2014, this analysis was expanded and strengthened by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (Panel). The Panel published a comprehensive synthesis of the latest worldwide scientific consensus on 

climate change, called the Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. (78) The synthesis describes the recent 

scientific consensus that there is an overall limit to the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that can be released into 

the atmosphere to stay within the 2 degree C warming cap. (79) It calculated that emissions from the year 1870 

on would need to be limited to about 2,900 gigatons of CO2 (GtCO2) to have a reasonable chance of staying 

within the cap. (80) The Panel noted that as of 2011, about 1,900 GtCO2 had already been emitted. (81) 

Therefore, the report concluded, to provide better than a 66 percent chance of limiting warming to less than 2 

degree C, additional carbon dioxide emissions must be limited to 1,000 GtCO2. (82) The Panel also estimated 

that there are about 3,670 to 7,100 GtCO2 in proven fossil fuel “reserves” remaining in place, (83) which it 

describes as quantities of fossil fuels “able to be recovered under existing economic and operating 

conditions.”(84) As the report notes, this volume of reserves is four to seven times the amount that can be 

burned to have better than a 66 percent chance of remaining within the 2 degree C warming goal. (85) One of 

the expert reports feeding into the Panel’s synthesis explained that to meet “[t]he emissions budget for stabilizing 

climate change at 2 degree C above pre-industrial levels... only a small fraction of reserves can be exploited.” (86)

(78) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Panel), Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (2014), 

available at http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/. In fact, a carbon budget has been assessed by the IPCC in all 

assessment reports (Ciais et al., 2013; Denman et al., 2007; Prentice et al., 2001; Schimel et al., 1995; Watson et 

al., 1990), as well as by others (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2012). These assessments included budget estimates for the 

decades of the 1980s, 1990s (Denman et al., 2007) and, most recently, the period 2002–2011 (Ciais et al., 2013). 

The IPCC methodology has been adapted and used by the Global Carbon Project (GCP, 

www.globalcarbonproject.org), which has coordinated a cooperative community effort for the annual publication 

of global carbon budgets up to the year 2005 (Raupach et al., 2007), 2006 (Canadell et al., 2007), 2007 (published 

online; GCP, 2007), 2008 (Le Quéré et al., 2009), 2009 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), 2010 (Peters et al., 2012b), 

2012 (Le Quéré et al., 2013; Peters et al., 2013), 2013 (Le Quéré et al., 2014), and most recently 2014 

(Friedlingstein et al., 2014; Le Quéré et al., 2015). Each of these papers updated previous estimates with the latest 

available information for the entire time series. From 2008, these publications projected fossil fuel emissions for 

one additional year using the projected world gross domestic product (GDP) and estimated trends in the carbon 

intensity of the global economy (Rogelj, 2016). 

(79) Id. at 63. 

(80) Id. 

(81) Id. 

(82) Id. 

(83) Id. at 64 Table 2.2. 

(84) Id. at Table 2.2 n.f (defining “reserves” and noting that “resources,” by contrast, are quantities of fossil fuels 

where economic extraction is potentially feasible). 

(85) Id. at 63. 

(86) Blanco, Gabriel et al., Drivers, Trends and Mitigation, in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, 

Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change at 251, 380 (2014), available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter5.pdf. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-273

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-96

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Panel’s synthesis analysis was refined further in January 2015, when the scientific journal Nature published a 

study entitled “The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 degree C.” 

(87) The study identifies which fossil fuels must remain undeveloped to improve the chances of remaining below 

the warming cap. It quantifies the regional distribution of fossil-fuel reserves and resources and, through modeling 

a range of scenarios based on least-cost climate policies, identifies which reserves and resources could not be 

burned between 2010 and 2050 if the world efficiently complies with the 2 degree C limit. (88) It concludes that 

“a stark transformation in our understanding of fossil-fuel availability is necessary,” because “large portions of the 

reserve base and an even greater proportion of the resource base should not be produced if the temperature 

rise is to remain below 2 degree C.” (89) Thus, expanding on the prior analyses’ conclusion that development of 

already-existing reserves would far exceed the cap, let alone development of the more speculative category of 

resources, the study concludes that a commitment to meet the 2 degree C limit would “render unnecessary 

continued substantial expenditure on fossil-fuel exploration, because any new discoveries could not lead to 

increased aggregate production.” (90)

(87) McGlade, Christophe and Paul Ekins, The Geographical Distribution of Fossil Fuels Unused When Limiting 

Global Warming to 2 °C, 517 Nature (187) (2015). 

(88) See id. at 187-90.

(89) Id. at 190. 

(90) Id. at 187. 

Comment Number: 0002486_Ratledge_20160728_Apogee-1 

Organization1:Apogee EP

Commenter1:Nathan Ratledge 

Other Sections: 7.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The most straightforward route would be to implement a carbon adder for upstream (or direct) emissions –

those occurring during the mining and production phase. Recent research estimates those costs would be roughly 

$2 for surface federal coal and $6 for underground federal coal. Without a more comprehensive carbon pricing 

program – like a national carbon tax, and given the widely recognized externalities associated with coal use, 

choosing not to price coal emissions from federal production via an upstream adder (or another similar 

approach) would represent a glaring misstep in meeting the nation’s climate commitments.

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-1 

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The principle finding that informs our recommendation is that more recoverable coal is currently under lease 

than can safely be developed under a carbon budget that limits global warming to 2°C. Interior has the legal 

authority and a strong policy basis to align the federal coal program with U.S. commitments on climate change. 

Interior should therefore reject any reforms to the coal program that imply a level of coal production that is 

inconsistent with a scientifically sound carbon budget. Ultimately, the agency must end the practice of issuing new 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-274 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

coal leases and undertake other necessary reforms to conform the program to the United States’ policy goals and 

international commitments to limit global warming to well below 2°C. 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-10

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The production models analyzed by Carbon Tracker, which inform our recommendations for modernizing the 

federal coal program, are inherently conservative on the basis of two factors.8 First, the 2°C target used by the 

IEA is an uppermost-limit for temperature warming but does not represent a “safe” threshold. For this reason, 

technical experts to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”) have 

cautioned keeping temperature warming well below 2°C in order to significantly reduce the risks of climate 

change, and Parties to the UNFCCC adopted this goal under the Paris Agreement.9 Second, the IEA 450 

Scenario only assigns a 50% probability of successfully staying below the 2°C threshold and assumes a relatively 

rapid deployment of CCS technology by 2020.10 

[8 The calculated balance of the global carbon budget and the implication for fossil fuel use varies across studies. 

A recent article in the scientific journal Nature applies a global carbon budget to identify the fraction of U.S. coal 

reserves that are unburnable before 2050 under a 2°C scenario, concluding that 95% of U.S. reserves cannot be 

combusted. The Nature analysis models the optimal global use of oil, natural gas and coal with the constraint of a 

2°C emissions trajectory. Coal is heavily disfavored in relation to oil and gas, especially in the United States, due 

both to coal’s carbon intensity and the wide availability of lower-cost, lower-carbon electricity sources. Even with 

CCS technology widely deployed from 2025 forward, the study concludes that 92% of U.S. coal reserves remain 

unburnable. See Christopher McGlade & Paul Eakins, The geographic distribution of fossil fuels unused when 

limiting global warming to 2 °C, 215 Nature 187 (January 8, 2015) at 189.] 

[9 For a discussion on the relative risks of temperature targets, see: United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change Secretariat, Report on the structured expert dialogue on the 2013-2015 review (2015). Available 

at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/sb/eng/inf01.pdf. The Paris Agreement on climate change identifies the 

need for greater temperature ambition. The Agreement aims to hold “the increase in the global average 

temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” with “efforts to limit the temperature increase to 

1.5°C above pre-industrial levels” (emphasis added). Paris Agreement, Article 2 (Dec. 13, 2015), in UNFCCC, 

Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Twenty- First Session, Addendum, at 21, UN Doc. 

FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1 (Jan. 29, 2016) (hereinafter, “Paris Agreement”).] 

[10 Forecasting the rapid deployment of carbon capture and storage projects is characterized by uncertainty. 

CCS projects are not utilized at scale and only 15 large-scale projects currently operate. See Global CCS 

Institute, “Large Scale CCS Projects,”https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-projects.] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-12

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 7.2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The potential supply from existing leases from 2016 to 2040 is 5,763 million metric tons (Mt), which is 1,252 Mt 

greater than the supply required under the 450 Scenario (See Figure 1). 

The 450 scenario assumes an aggressive build-out of CCS technology, at a pace that outstrips current market 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-275

Scoping Report 

trends. In order to better reflect likely real-world conditions, Carbon Tracker also assessed scenarios in which 

large-scale deployment of CCS does not occur until 2030, and in which this technology never becomes a 

significant factor in energy supply markets. Because lower levels of CCS deployment reduce the ability to mitigate 

coal’s intrinsic high carbon intensity, production from existing mines is necessarily also sufficient under scenarios 

where CCS is delayed until 2030 (cumulative supply production of 2985 Mt) and where no CCS is deployed 

(cumulative supply production of 2773 Mt).11 In the energy scenario where no CCS is deployed, the projected 

production from existing leases alone is 2,990 Mt greater than the 2°C scenario carbon budget threshold.12 As 

noted above, the 450 Scenario is also a higher risk pathway due to the 50% probability it assigns for achieving 

2°C, and thus coal production consistent with a climate safe scenario would be even less when assigning a higher 

probability of success. 

[Figure 1: Cumulative potential production of PRB coal versus projected demand under different scenarios, 2016-

2040 (Mt)13] 

[11 Carbon Tracker Report, supra note 3 at 5.] 

[12 5763 (potential production from existing leases, in Mt) - 2773 (production with CCS delayed until 2030, Mt) 

= 2,990 Mt] 

[13 Carbon Tracker Initiative analysis of data from Wood Mackenzie Global Economic Model, IEA, and EIA. Supra 

note 3 at 14.] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-29

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When the President established a climate test for determining whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, he 

examined whether the infrastructure would significantly exacerbate the climate problem.32 The same test applies 

to the federal coal program: if any reforms are inconsistent with the global climate budget, then the federal coal 

leasing program does not pass the climate test. 

[32 Remarks by the President on Climate Change, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., June 25, 2013. 

Available at www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-change] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-3 

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Interior and BLM should adopt the concept of a global carbon budget as an instructive framework for 

understanding the climate impact of its coal leasing decisions and the federal coal program more broadly. 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-37

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-276 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

The EIA projects that fully implementing the CPP will reduce coal’s share of the generation mix to 21% in 2030 

(down from 50% in 2005 and 33% in 2015).40 The Clean Power Plan establishes a clear mandate for states to 

develop a comprehensive framework for climate action that will cut CO2 emissions from the electricity sector. 

The federal coal program is currently inconsistent with the policy vision established by the Clean Power Plan, 

envisioning a perpetual continuation of coal production from federal lands, and a constant stream of revenues and 

royalties associated with this mining to fund reclamation and offset other costs associated with coal production 

and combustion. 

[40 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2016 Early Release: Annotated Summary of 

Two Cases, May 2016. Available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2016).pdf] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-41

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

On March 31, 2015, the U.S. submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to the United 

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The INDC articulates a national target of reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions by 26%-28% below the 2005 level in 2025 while making “best efforts” to reduce 

emissions by the upper-target of 28%.42 As part of this target, the U.S. INDC explicitly accounts for the land 

sector, stating that the United States will “include all categories of emissions by sources and removals by sinks, 

and all pools and gases, as reported in the Inventory of the United States Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks; 

to account for the land sector using a net-net approach.”43 This means that the United States commits to 

accounting for carbon emissions beyond the smokestack and tailpipe. We are committed to accounting for and 

planning around a comprehensive picture of our carbon profile, including our fuel stocks and our policies that 

affect how those stocks are deployed – whether they are sold off to be burned at taxpayer expense, or 

maintained as a permanent reserve stock of sequestered potential carbon pollution. 

[42 United States Intended Nationally Determined Contribution, March 31, 2015. Available at 

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission percent20Pages/submissions.aspx.] 

[43 Id.] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-43

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Article 4.19 of the Paris agreement provides a policy basis for why BLM should account for coal resources in 

federal lands in alignment with climate objectives, stating that all Parties should “strive to formulate and 

communicate long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies, . . . taking into account their 

common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national 

circumstances.” 44 

[44 Paris Agreement, supra note 9.] 

Article 4.2 of the Paris Agreement establishes the requirement for countries to contribute domestic mitigation 

measures. Article 4.2 states that “Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures, with the aim of achieving the 

objectives of such [Nationally Determined Contributions].”45 The U.S. INDC to the Paris Agreement reflects the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-277

Scoping Report 

national ambition to address climate change. When combined with the commitments from 187 other countries, 

the U.S. INDC aims to serve the Paris Agreement objective of limiting the global average temperature to well 

below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.46 Interior should reform its coal program in a way that is consistent with 

our nation’s commitment to the international community. This conclusion is also affirmed by 67 climate scientists 

who wrote to Interior to express their support for ending coal leasing on public lands, stating, “The science is 

clear: to satisfy our commitment under the Paris Agreement to hold global temperature increase well below 2oC, 

the United States must keep the vast majority of its coal in the ground.”47 

[45 Id.] 

[46 Id.] 

[47 Ken Caldeira et al., Re: Scientists Support Ending Coal Leasing on Public Lands to Protect the Climate, Public 

Health, and Biodiversity, July 27. Available at 

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_development/coal/pdfs/16_7_26_S

c ientist_sign-on_letter_Coal_PEIS.pdf] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-45

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The North American Climate Plan establishes a goal of 50% clean electricity generation by 2025 in North 

America.48 More broadly the plan also calls for the United States, Mexico, and Canada to advance clean energy 

development.49 The credibility of the North American Climate Plan relies on actions from each country to do its 

share to accomplish the clean electricity generation goal.50 Decisions made to reform the federal coal program 

will have lasting impacts on the ability of the three countries to achieve this objective. 

[48 White House, North American Leaders Summit, May 2016. Available at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/06/29/president-obama-goes-canada-north-america-leaders-summit] 

[49 White House, North American Climate Clean Energy and Partnership Action, May 2016. Available at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/29/north-american-climate-clean-energy-and-environmentpartnership-action] 

[50 Id.] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-48

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate consistency must be a criterion for deciding whether to include – and then ultimately in evaluating 

whether to support – a decision alternative under the PEIS. Climate consistency is a key criterion because of the 

significant and cumulative nature of the program’s environmental effects. The CEQ draft guidance provides a 

framework how Interior should consider the effects of its decisions on climate change.55 This draft guidance 

states, “Federal agencies, to remain consistent with NEPA, should consider the extent to which a proposed 

action and its reasonable alternatives contribute to climate change through GHG emissions.”56 Agencies that fail 

to effectively compare decision alternatives are increasingly at risk of facing legal challenge. In a review of NEPA 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-278 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

alternative analysis case law, Michael Smith identifies that the 

“most common challenge [to alternative analyses] was that federal agencies had not included a full reasonable 

range of alternatives.”57 

[55 Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews, 79 Fed. Reg. 77,802 (Dec. 24, 2014).] 

[56 Id. at 8.] 

[57 Michael D. Smith, A review of recent NEPA alternatives analysis case law, Environmental Impact Assessment 

Review 27.2 (2007): 126-144, at 126 and 134.] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-5 

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The carbon budget represents a maximum CO2 emissions level that is consistent with a 2°C warming scenario. 

Any eventual decision to grant new leases should be made with reference to what coal is unburnable within this 

global carbon budget. The level of production that is projected from existing leases already exceeds the 

production levels that are consistent with meeting U.S. climate goals. 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-52

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 4.5 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Interior should evaluate decision alternatives in a manner that reasonably examines a range of climate-consistent 

scenarios, and should reject alternatives that assume or result in projected carbon emissions above the level set 

in the carbon budget. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, environmental impact statements 

should “include the environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any adverse 

environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented . . . and any irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented.”63 

Critically, this evaluation of environmental effects includes the question of whether a given action exceeds the 

limited available carbon budget for the Powder River Basin. Interior should evaluate climate consistency under 

the three 450 Scenarios discussed in Part I: climate consistency with CCS deployment in 2020, climate 

consistency with widespread CCS deployment in 2030, and climate consistency with no CCS deployment through 

2040, in addition to any other climate-consistent scenarios. 

[63 40 C.F.R § 1502.16 – environmental consequences.] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-6 

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The remaining available carbon budget for limiting temperature increase to 2°C depends on key physical and 

mathematical parameters, such as the modeled sensitivity of the atmosphere to carbon pollution, potential 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-279

Scoping Report 

climate feedback effects, and other factors that affect the probability of successfully staying below the chosen 

temperature target.2 Across a range of budgets based on a variety of reasonable and conservative inputs, expert 

analysis collectively identity a constraint imposed on fossil fuel production.3 Extrapolating from a carbon budget 

that reflects a maximum level of atmospheric CO2, it is possible to assess energy demand scenarios for 

consistency with that budget based on energy market data and the carbon intensity of various fuels. 

[2 Additional factors that impact the carbon budget include the time period covered, assumptions regarding 

mitigation of other greenhouse gas emissions, and the scale and success of CCS deployment. See Carbon Tracker 

Initiative, Things to look out for when using carbon budgets! Available at http://www.carbontracker.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/08/Carbon-budget-checklist-FINAL-1.pdf] 

[3 Carbon Tracker Initiative, “Enough Already: Meeting 2°C Powder River Basin Demand Without Lifting the 

Federal Moratorium.” July 2016. Available at http://www.carbontracker.org/report/enough-already-2c-powderriver-basin-coal-demand-federal-moratorium/ (hereinafter, “Carbon Tracker report”). This comment 

incorporates the Carbon Tracker report in its entirety, by reference.] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-7 

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Enough Already: Meeting 2°C Powder River Basin Coal Demand Without Lifting the Federal Moratorium.4 

Carbon Tracker modifies the “450 Scenario” emissions pathway used by the International Energy Agency, which 

provides an energy trajectory “consistent with the goal of limiting the global temperature increase to 2°C by 

limiting concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to around 450 parts per million of CO2.”5 In 

particular, Carbon Tracker identifies what level of coal production from existing Powder River Basin federal 

leases is consistent with stabilizing CO2 emissions at 450 parts per million based on dynamic market impacts.6 

[4 Id.] 

[5 International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook Overview. Available at 

http://www.iea.org/publications/scenariosandprojections/] 

[6 Carbon Tracker compares its results with the following three studies modeling Powder River Basin leasing 

changes: Wood Mackenzie, ICF International in cooperation with Vulcan Philanthropy, and Erickson and Lazarus 

for the Stockholm Environment Institute. In their comparison of other assessments, Carbon Tracker notes “none 

of the papers reviewed showed results that would alter our core conclusion that reserves on current federal 

Powder River Basin leases are adequate to meet domestic supply needs with minimal dislocations under most 

scenarios.” Carbon Tracker, supra note 4 at 18.] 

Comment Number: 0002494_Smyth_20160728-1 

Commenter1:Joe Smyth 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This review of the way our federal coal resources are managed should focus on finding ways that the Interior 

Department can support US national and global climate policy goals. Most critically, reforms of the federal coal 

program should support the commitments made by President Obama along with the international community in 

the Paris Climate Agreement (1) aimed at “Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 

2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above preindustrial 

levels.” 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-280 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

(1) http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf 

Indeed, President Obama emphasized the global climate in his 2016 State of the Union address (2) call for reform 

of the federal coal program: 

(2) 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/thepressoffice/2016/01/12/remarkspresidentbarackobama%E2%80%93pepareddeliver

ystateunionaddress 

Comment Number: 0002494_Smyth_20160728-3 

Commenter1:Joe Smyth 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And the Secretarial Order establishing the PEIS (4) notes that during the listening sessions and public comment 

period in 2015, “Many stakeholders highlighted the tension between producing very large quantities of Federal 

coal while pursuing policies to reduce U.S. GHG emissions substantially, including from coal combustion.” The 

Secretarial Order also appropriately directs the PEIS to consider the climate impacts of the federal coal program: 

(4http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/news_release_attachme

nts.Par.4909.File.dat/FINAL%20SO%203338%20Coal.pdf 

With respect to the climate impacts of the Federal coal program, the PEIS should examine how best to assess the 

climate impacts of continued Federal coal production and combustion and how to address those impacts in the 

management of the program to meet both the Nation's energy needs and its climate goals, as well as how best to 

protect the public lands from climate change impacts. 

Comment Number: 0002494_Smyth_20160728-4 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Joe Smyth 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To meet US climate commitments, nearly all US coal reserves must remain unburned In order to meet the US 

and global community’s commitments to avoid two degrees of global warming, nearly all US coal reserves must 

remain unburned. A January 2015 study published in Nature, “The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused 

when limiting global warming to 2 °C,” (5) found that between 90% and 95% of US coal reserves must remain 

unburned (including both federal and nonfederal coal) in order to stay within the two degree carbon budget. (6) 

(5) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7533/nature14016/metrics/news 

(6) 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/20150107/morethan90percentofuscoalshouldstayundergroundclimatest

udy 

Importantly, the study found that even using optimistic assumptions about the viability and widespread future use 

of carbon capture and sequestration technologies wouldn’t significantly change the need to avoid extraction and 

burning of nearly all US coal reserves the optimistic CCS scenarios allow the 90% figure, instead of 95% without 

CCS: 

Because of the expense of CCS, its relatively late date of introduction (2025), and the assumed maximum rate at 

which it can be built, CCS has a relatively modest effect on the overall levels of fossil fuel that can be produced 

before 2050 in a 2 °C scenario. 

A July 2016 study, “Enough Already: Meeting 2°C PRB Coal Demand Without Lifting the Federal Moratorium” (7) 

looked more specifically at the implications for federal coal of US climate policy commitments, and found that 

there is more federal coal already under lease than can be burned in scenarios that would avoid two degrees of 

global warming. That means that in order to support US and global climate change commitments, no new federal 

coal should be leased, and the moratorium on new federal coal leases should be made permanent. (7) 

http://www.carbontracker.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/FEDERALLEASINGOFPRBCOAL_071816_CLEAN.pd

f 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-281

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002494_Smyth_20160728-5 

Commenter1:Joe Smyth 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Some federal coal already under lease should be taken back Moreover, meeting US climate commitments to avoid 

two degrees of warming means that a significant amount of federal coal that has already been leased should be 

taken back from current lease holders. Accordingly, the PEIS scoping process should study which federal coal 

reserves that have already been leased should be taken back from coal mining companies. That could include 

lower BTU coal that is uneconomic in the current market. The Institute For Energy Economics and Financial 

Analysis found that of the roughly 6 billion tons of federal coal under lease to the top four federal coal lease 

holders (Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, Cloud Peak Energy, and Alpha Natural Resources), “1.957 billion tons — or 

32% of the total currently under lease — is low-quality coal and is not economically recoverable.”

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-3 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal industry’s collapse is a clear sign that now is the time for a new path forward for managing publicly 

owned coal that moves us away from this destructive, carbon-based form of energy. This is underscored by the 

reality that, to meet our nation’s and our world’s climate objectives, we have to completely transition from 

burning coal—and unleashing the attendant carbon pollution—as quickly as possible. This means not only 

transitioning electricity generation from coal to cleaner sources of energy, a shift that is already happening, but 

also keeping unmined coal reserves in the ground. 

How does keeping coal in the ground work to combat climate change and rein in carbon pollution? Aside from 

the obvious, which is that coal left unmined will never be burned, reports have found myriad reasons for the 

climate benefits of keeping coal, as well as other fossil fuels, in the ground. Among them: 

-Keeping coal in the ground could “‘widen the cost mitigation curve,’ allowing greater emission reductions at the 

same (or lower) cost than demand-side policies alone, and can also help address carbon leakage risks;”

-Keeping coal in the ground “can help to reduce carbon lock-in effects, making it easier for lower-carbon 

alternatives to compete with fossil fuels;”

-Keeping coal in the ground can “bring added pressure to bear on climate change mitigation efforts, and could 

help make the case for more ambitious global climate action.” (15) Exhibit 7, Lazarus, M., P. Erickson, and K. 

Tempest, “Supply-side climate policy: the road less taken,” Stockholm Environment Institute, Working Paper No. 

2015-13 at 18, available online at http://sei-us.org/Publications_PDF/SEI-WP-2015-13-Supply-side-climatepolicy.pdf. 

Not surprisingly, scientific reports confirm that keeping coal and other fossil fuels unburned is a critical means of 

reducing carbon emissions and limiting global warming. As a recent report in the journal Nature found to meet 

international goals of limiting global temperature increases to no more than 2°C, 95% of all U.S. coal reserves, or 

245 billion metric tons of coal, must remain unburned. (16) A recent report prepared by the Stockholm 

Environmental Institute confirmed that the benefits of putting an end to new federal coal leasing and the 

inevitable mining, effectively avoiding carbon “lock-in effects,” stands to reduce carbon emissions by 238 million 

metric tons annually. (17) 

(16) See Exhibit 8, McGlade, C. and P. Ekins, “The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting 

global warming to 2oC,” Nature, Vol. 15 (Jan. 2015).

(17) See Exhibit 9, Erickson, P. and M. Lazarus, “How would phasing out U.S. federal leases for fossil fuel 

extraction affect CO2 emissions and 2°C goals,” Stockholm Environmental Institute Working Paper No. 2016-02 

(May 2016) at 27, available online at https://www.seiinternational.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-WP-2016-US-fossilfuel-leases-climate.pdf. 

Perhaps it’s not surprising that the President himself recently remarked, “[I]f we’re going to prevent large parts of 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-282 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

this Earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep 

some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky.” (18) 

(18) See Exhibit 10, President of the United States, “Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline” 

(Nov. 6, 2015), available online at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/06/statement-presidentkeystone-xl-pipeline. 

Comment Number: 0002513_Lish_20160707-10

Commenter1:Christopher Lish 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Burning coal produces a third of global carbon emissions and is 

one of the largest contributors to climate change. To hold up our end of the deal and prevent the 

global average temperature from rising above one and a half or two degrees Celsius, the federal 

coal-leasing program must be reformed and the moratorium on new leases must be made 

permanent.This PEIS provides the BLM the opportunity to reevaluate how our public lands should 

be managed for the best interests of people and the environment. To better align the federal coal 

program with a safe climate future that protects people and the planet, the federal coal PEIS must 

do two important things: 

1. Fully evaluate the climate impacts from future federal coal production in relation to 

meeting national and international climate commitments. 

At least 80 percent of global coal reserves and 90 percent of U.S. coal reserves must remain 

in the ground to have a 50 percent chance of avoiding catastrophic levels of global warming. 

Unleased federal coal contains up to 212 billion tons of potential greenhouse gas emissions, 

which is 43 percent of the potential emissions of all remaining federal fossil fuels, including 

oil and gas. With more than 57 percent of fossil fuel emissions from federal areas coming 

from the combustion of federal coal, there is no place for the federal coal program in a 

carbon-constrained world. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-11

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Indeed, in order to stay within planetary carbon budgets to avoid worst-case climate change scenarios, additional 

mining and burning of U.S. federal coal is simply untenable. Future mining and burning of federal coal at current 

levels would undermine the nation’s pledge to reduce climate emissions by 26-28% by 2025 and by 80% by 2050 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-29

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM Must Evaluate Whether Continued Federal Coal Leasing is Inconsistent with U.S. GHG Emission Reduction 

Goals and International Climate Commitments. President Obama has called climate change “a challenge that will 

define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other.”43 As aptly summarized in PEIS scoping 

comments submitted by dozens of renowned climate scientists: “We are scientists writing to urge the 

Department of the Interior to take meaningful action to fight climate change by ending federal coal leasing, 

extraction, and burning. The vast majority of known coal in the United States must stay in the ground if the 

federal coal program is to be consistent with national climate objectives and be protective of public health, 

welfare, and biodiversity.”44 Given this strong and clear signal from leading climate scientists, as well as the ever 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-283

Scoping Report 

growing body of research demonstrating the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground in order or avoid the work 

effects of climate change, it is imperative that BLM analyze whether the continuation of the federal coal leasing 

program is consistent with our international climate commitments and the need to keep global warming within 

tolerable levels. In particular, BLM 43 President Obama, Remarks By The President At The Glacier Conference --

Anchorage, AK (SEPT. 1, 2015), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/01/remarkspresident- glacier-conference-anchorage-ak (last visited July 18, 2016). 44 Letter from Ken Caldeira. et al., to 

Sec’y Sally Jewell, et al., “Scientists Support Ending Coal Leasing on Public Lands to Protect the Climate, Public 

Health, and Biodiversity” (July 27, 2016), attached as Ex. 5. 23 should listen to what the aObama dministration’s 

climate scientists have said on the importance of taking immediate steps to curb GHG emissions. In December 

2015, U.S. EPA climate scientists with more than 25 years of professional experience in climate change, including 

work on the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) reports, Dr. Christopher Field submitted a 

declaration in support of the President’s Clean Power Plan that included a stark picture of the dire need to take 

immediate steps to keep fossil fuels in the ground in order to address the worst effects of climate change. Dr. 

Field states, “[i]f the world is to limit the likelihood of exceeding 2°C over pre-industrial temperatures, the 

window for cost-effective action is narrow and rapidly closing. A delay of only a few years will increase the 

likelihood of missing the target as well as the cost and complexity of reaching it.”45 With regard to the available 

global carbon budget for remaining within 2 degrees Celsius of pre-industrial times, Dr. Field’s finding is dramatic: 

“at 2014 emission rates, we burn through the remaining budget of 900 billion tons of CO2 in only 24 years. In 

every passing year without action, CO2 emissions consume about 4% of the total remaining budget. Against this 

background, it is apparent why delaying emission reductions by even a few years can make a big difference for our 

prospects for staying within this budget and limiting the risks of severe consequences.”46 In the PEIS, BLM must 

address whether issuing new federal coal leases and renewals for existing federal coal leases is in line with the 

goals of our national climate objectives and international climate commitments, and it must do so in the context 

of the overwhelming state of science that tell us we must take immediate action to avoid irreversible climate 

harms. It appears very unlikely, given the state of scientific consensus around climate change, that efforts to meet 

our international climate commitments are compatible with leasing and burning federally-owned coal well into the 

future. Simply put, BLM must evaluate whether it is time for the U.S. government to get out of the business of 

selling taxpayer owned coal based on the urgent need to address GHG emissions and the desire to meet our 

national and international emission reduction goals. As explained by the Council on Environmental Quality in its 

2014 Draft Climate Guidance, federal agencies evaluating the climate impacts of their decisions should 

“incorporate by reference applicable agency emissions targets such as applicable Federal, state, tribal, or local 

goals for GHG emission reductions to provide a frame of reference and make it clear whether the emissions 

being discussed are consistent with such goals.”47 This draft guidance, of course, does not impose any new 

obligations on agencies. NEPA regulations provide that federal agencies “shall discuss any inconsistency of a 

proposed action with any approved State or local plan,” 40 C.F.R. § 1506.2(d), and further require agencies to 

disclose “[p]ossible conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of Federal, regional, State, and local 

(and in the case of a 45 Declaration of Christopher Field, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in West Virginia 

v. EPA, Case No. 15-1363, Document #1586661, (D.C. Cir.) (filed Dec. 3, 2015) at 3, attached as Ex. 6. 46 Id. at 

9-10. 47 Council on Environmental Quality, “Revised Draft Guidance on the Consideration of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews,” 79 Fed. Reg. 77,802, 77,826 (Dec. 24, 2014) 

(emphasis added). 24 reservation, Indian tribe) land use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned.” 40 

C.F.R. § 1502.16(c). The U.S. has established several critical targets calling for the reduction of greenhouse gas 

emissions. Most prominently, earlier this year the U.S. signed the historic Paris Agreement, which represents an 

international agreement to limit global temperatures to 1.5-2°C above pre-industrial levels: This Agreement, in 

enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response 

to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, 

including by: (a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial 

levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing 

that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. 48 To meet this threshold of safety, 

“deep reductions in global emissions will be required,” and “Developed country Parties shall continue taking the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-284 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets.”49 Further, an increasing body of 

scientific literature indicates that to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, the vast majority of fossil 

fuel reserves must stay in the ground. President Obama expressed a similar point when rejecting a permit for the 

Keystone XL pipeline, stating: “if we’re going to prevent large parts of this Earth from becoming not only 

inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather 

than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky.”50 For example, the IPCC has concluded that 

in order to have better than even odds of keeping global temperatures at tolerable levels, “cumulative CO2 

emissions from all anthropogenic sources [must] stay between ... 0 and 1000 GtC.... An amount of 531 [446 to 

616] GtC, was already emitted by 2011.”51 This means that for the rest of century all nations on the planet can 

only emit approximately 470 GtC. To meet this limit, “between two-thirds and 48 United Nations, Framework 

Convention on Climate Change, Paris Agreement, Article 2 ¶ 1(a) (Dec. 11, 2015). 49 Paris Agreement, 

Adoption of the Paris Agreement, Proposal by the President, Draft decision-/ CP.21, at 1; id. at Article 4 ¶ 4. 50 

The White House, Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline (Nov. 6, 2015), attached as Ex. 2, and 

available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ 2015/11/06/statement-president-keystone-xl-pipeline 

(last visited July 28, 2016). 51 IPCC, Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report: 

Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policy Makers (2013) at 25. 25 four-fifths of the 

planet’s reserves of coal, oil, and gas” need to stay in the ground. 52 However, if unabated, “[b]urning all fossil 

fuels would produce a different, virtually uninhabitable, planet.”53 A recent peer-reviewed article published in the 

prestigious research journal Nature concluded that if we are to keep climate change below dangerous levels – 80 

percent of global coal reserves, half of all oil reserves, and a third of oil reserves must stay in the ground through 

2050.54 The United States must leave between 92% and 95% of its coal reserves in the ground. 55 As President 

Obama affirmed recently, “climate change can no longer be denied – or ignored.”56 In May 2016, the Stockholm 

Environment Institute (“SEI”) released a paper analyzing the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that could be 

achieved by a policy of rejecting new lease proposals for fossil fuel extraction on federal lands and waters, and 

not renewing existing leases when their current authorization expires. The study explained the need for 

meaningful evaluation of strong policy choices in stark terms: “[e]ven with large-scale deployment of bioenergy 

and carbon capture and storage technologies, scientific assessments show that limiting warming to 2°C, and 

avoiding dangerous climate tipping points, will require a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels around the world. 57 SEI 

ultimately concluded that under a choice to phase out the federal coal leasing program in favor of a “no leasing” 

alternative, “U.S. coal production would steadily decline, moving closer to a pathway consistent with a global 2°C 

temperature limit. ... Phasing out federal leases for fossil fuel extraction could reduce global CO2 emissions by 

100 million tonnes per year by 2030, and by greater amounts thereafter.” 58 In addition to the Paris Agreement 

and the IPCC findings, the Clean Power Plan, implementation of which is currently stayed pending litigation, calls 

for reducing power sector 52 Bill McKibben, Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math, ROLLING STONE (Aug. 2, 

2012); Bill McKibben, Obama and Climate Change: The Real Story, ROLLING STONE (Dec. 17, 2013). 53 

Hansen, et al., Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, 371 PHIL. TRANS. R. SOC’Y 

(2013); see also Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Budget 2014 (Sept. 14, 2014). 54 Christophe McGlade & 

Paul Ekins, The Geographical Distribution of Fossil Fuels Unused When Limiting Global Warming to 2 [deg] C, 

NATURE Vol. 517, at 187-190 (Jan. 7, 2015) summary available at 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7533/full/nature14016.html (last visited Jan. 15, 2016), attached as 

Ex. 3. 55 Id. at 189, Table 1. 56 Barack Obama, President of the United States, Weekly Address (Apr. 18, 2015), 

available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/17/weekly-address-climate-change-can-nolonger-be-ignored-0 (last visited June 15, 2016). 57 P. Erickson & M. Lazarus, Stockholm Environment Institute, 

How would phasing out U.S. federal leases for fossil fuel extraction affect CO2 emissions and 2°C goals?, at 9 

(May 2016) (citing Rogelj et al. 2011; IPCC 2014; Raupach et al. (2014)), attached as Ex. 7. 58 Id. at 3. 26 

greenhouse gas emissions to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.59 In November 2014 the President 

announced a joint U.S.-China agreement aimed at reducing climate pollution that calls for even more aggressively 

cutting net greenhouse gas emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025,60 which mirrors the United States’ 

Paris agreements. 61 Even assuming the Clean Power Plan is implemented as designed, in combination with other 

efforts, at least one study has concluded that the U.S. is unlikely to meet the 26%-28% reduction target without 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-285

Scoping Report 

deep additional cuts to GHG emissions, and that leasing additional coal will only make that job more difficult. 62 

In order to comply with its NEPA obligations and the draft guidance provided by CEQ, BLM must evaluate 

whether continued expansion and operation of the federal coal program is consistent with the nation’s GHG 

emission reduction goals and international agreements. BLM must be frank with the public and decisionmakers 

about the scientific consensus to leave fossil fuels in the ground in order to avert the worst impacts of climate 

disruption, and BLM must evaluate whether a decision to continue with the federal coal program would 

undermine our efforts to meet our national and international climate commitments. We are skeptical that 

business as usual in the federal coal program—or any new leasing at all—is compatible with achieving the interim 

goals of a 25%-28% reduction in U.S. GHG emissions by 2025, or 80% by 2050, let alone the goal of keeping 

global temperatures below 1.5- 2.0 degrees Celsius. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-34

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At the outset, BLM should identify the purpose and need for the programmatic EIS that is consistent both with 

the purposes of the federal coal leasing program and national policies to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 

from burning fossil fuels. In particular, the purpose and need of the EIS is to meet the nation’s energy needs in a 

manner that is consistent with our nation’s commitments to dramatically reduce domestic greenhouse gas 

emissions. An EIS must “briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in 

proposing the alternatives including the proposed action.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13. This requirement is a key 

component of NEPA. “The EIS’s purpose-and-need statement reflects both the agency’s immediate objective ... 

as well as the broader policy goals that the agency considered in deciding among alternative proposals.” Protect 

Our Communities Found. v. Jewell, No. 14-55666, 2016 WL 3165630, at *5 (9th Cir. June 7, 2016) (noting “the 

agency’s duty to consider federal policies” in its NEPA review). Here, those policy goals necessarily include U.S. 

commitments in connection with the Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change (“UNFCCC”). To satisfy those commitments, the U.S. must reduce our economy-wide greenhouse gas 

(“GHG”) emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, which will put us on a trajectory to achieve emission 

reductions of 80% or more by 2050.15 This goal is part of the broader commitment by the nearly 180 signatories 

to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to “well below” a 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures, with a 

goal of limiting warming to just 1.5°C. 16 One recent analysis concluded that 92% of U.S. coal reserves—

including reserves already under lease—must remain unused to have even a 50% chance of remaining below the 

2°C threshold. 17 Secretarial Order 3338, which directs BLM to prepare the federal coal program PEIS, states 

that the purpose of the PEIS is “to undertake a comprehensive review of the [federal coal leasing] program and 

consider whether and how the program may be improved and modernized to foster the orderly development of 

BLM administered coal on Federal lands in a manner that gives proper consideration to the impact of that 

development on important stewardship values, 14 See infra § III.A. 15 See United States, UNFCC submission 

supra note 11. 16 Paris Agreement, Article 2, FCC/CP/2015/L.9 (Dec. 12, 2015). 17 Christophe McGlade & Paul 

Ekins, The Geographical Distribution of Fossil Fuels Unused When Limiting Global Warming to 2 °C, 517 

NATURE 187 (2015), attached as Ex. 3. 11 while also ensuring a fair return to the American public.”18 We 

largely agree with this statement. 

Comment Number: 0003005_MasterFormD2_TheSierraClub-1 

Organization1:The Sierra Club 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Thank you for preparing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) of the Federal Coal Leasing 

Program. The program is out of date, out of step with our nation's commitment to act on climate, and fails to 

account for the damage done to both local communities and the planet. This review is a critical step in ensuring 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-286 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

America meets its climate goals and continues to be an international leader on climate and clean energy following 

the recent signing of the Paris Climate Agreement. 

Comment Number: 0003009_MasterFormH_FriendsEarth-1 

Organization1:Friends of the Earth 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Fully evaluate the climate impacts from future federal coal production in relation to meeting national and 

international climate commitments. At least 80 percent of global coal reserves and 90 percent of U.S. coal 

reserves must remain in the ground to have a 50 percent chance of avoiding catastrophic levels of global 

warming. Unleased federal coal contains up to 212 billion tons of potential greenhouse gas emissions, which is 43 

percent of the potential emissions of all remaining federal fossil fuels, including oil and gas. With more than 57 

percent of fossil fuel emissions from federal areas coming from the combustion of federal coal, there is no place 

for the federal coal program in a carbon-constrained world. 

Comment Number: 0003127_Roessler_20160607-1 

Commenter1:Leslie Roessler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

With the Paris agreement, the whole world has now signaled its 

acknowledgement of man-made climate change and the urgency of moving 

forward together to slow its effects. As a major emitter, the United 

States must take its role very seriously, both to rein in its own 

greenhouse gas production but also to be an example for the rest of the 

world. Coal is among the dirtiest of energy choices and therefore has 

no place in this newly enlightened world. Please keep in place the 

President's moratorium, which is the bare minimum step we need to take 

in order to meet the critical goals of the Paris accord and have any 

hope of a sustainable energy future. 

Comment Number: 0020006_Cowden_20160712-2 

Commenter1:Rhonda Cowden 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I welcome this review to ensure that by your actions the US will continue to demonstrate international 

leadership by support of the Paris Climate Agreement 

Comment Number: 0020008_Hoem_20160712-6 

Commenter1:Harold Hoem 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate change. It is unreasonable to assume that climate change goals can be met by adding to the amount of 

land leased to coal companies for extraction, or even with existing leases. 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-13

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The global scientific community overwhelmingly concurs that the process of generating electricity from coal emits 

greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are a major cause of global warming and climate change. If, as the EPA reports, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-287

Scoping Report 

10% of U.S. GHG emissions come from federal coal alone, it's clear that continued use of this citizen-owned 

commodity must be weighed against its drag on U.S. efforts to slow climate change.The PEIS should look at the 

economic and political impacts of a failure to meet national pollution reduction goals by the margin that would 

have been provided by limiting or curtailing federal coal sales. The purchase cost for federal coal should reflect 

these impacts and charge for the mitigation of their associated costs. 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-3 

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We also feel that the system conflicts with federal government attempts to address climate impacts 

Comment Number: 0020013_Hyndman_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Donald Hyndman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Montana cannot meet any reasonable climate change goals while adding to the amount of land leased to coal 

companies, nor even with existing leases. 

Comment Number: 0020016_Willims_20160712-2 

Commenter1:Raymond Willims 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should also take into account national climate change goals. 

Comment Number: 0020018_Risho_20160712-2 

Commenter1:Ray Risho 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

also insure that the coal leasing program is meeting climate change goals. 

Comment Number: 0020020_LaPorte_20160712-2 

Commenter1:Mary LaPorte 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Examine role of this program in meeting climate change goals. 

Comment Number: 0020021_Hoem_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Janice Hoem 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is unreasonable to assume that climate change goals can be met by adding to the amount of land leased to coal 

companies for extraction, or even with existing leases. 

Comment Number: 0020023_Baer_20160712-3 

Commenter1:Carl Baer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Modifications to the leasing program should be made to be consistent with President Obama's Clean Power Plan 

and the Paris Climate Accords. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-288 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 000001248_ WOODWARD_20160623-2 

Organization1:Colorado Congress and Citizens for Clean Air 

Commenter1:Joan Woodward 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

coal is responsible for roughly 30 percent of this country's greenhouse gas emissions. The fact that [indiscernible] 

generates greenhouse gas emissions and China is shrinking its coal plant construction because the pollution is 

making people sick, is no justification for a country as large and important as the United States to abandon all 

efforts to contain its emissions. 

Comment Number: 000001256_Best_20160623-1 

Organization1:Greenpeace 

Commenter1:Diana Best 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And the reforms, I believe, should be included in this program review is, one, incorporating the social cost of 

carbon. It absolutely needs to be factored into how we price our Federal taxpayer on coal. The Federal 

Government already has a working and established price for the social cost of carbon. And I believe that must be 

applied to the Federal Coal Program immediately. Coal companies have been allowed to privatize the profits 

while socializing the cost of damages associated with climate. This could be applied as a carbon adder in a royalty 

rate or through another vehicle. But, coal companies that want to mine Federal coal, must also account for the 

cost to the climate. 

Comment Number: 000001261_Beebe_20160623-1 

Organization1:Utah Sierra Club 

Commenter1:Lindsay Beebe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Whatever fleeting profits we gain from extracting and burning coal, we will pay a thousand-fold in healthcare 

cost, in disaster relief, in environmental reclamation, in environmental refugee relocation, and in replacing or 

repairing eco system services that all of us take for granted. Symptoms of those costs are plainly visible if you 

have the courage to look. 

Comment Number: 000001294_Peterson_20160623-3 

Organization1:GCC Energy 

Commenter1:Trent Peterson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This is a bid one. Increasing coal royalties to cover the cost of carbon emissions. It's a blatant ideological 

statement that greenhouse gases produced by coal are somehow different than greenhouse gases produced by 

any other source. If we must expect someone to pay for carbon emissions, it really has to be done at the demand 

end, instead -- of the equation, rather than the supply end. So, every one of us here that expects energy can pay 

our fair share or what we're contributing to the mess. 

Comment Number: 0000733_Szybist_NRDC_20160628-3 

Organization1:natural resoruces defense council 

Commenter1:Mark Szybist 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-289

Scoping Report 

BlM needs to align coal leasing policies with our national climate goals. That means managing federal coal to meet 

US GHG commitments to reduce emissions 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. 

Comment Number: 0000850_Mosley_BluegreenAlliance-3 

Organization1:Blue Green Alliance 

Commenter1:Khari Mosley 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM has sought comment as to whether the extraction of fossil resources from federal Lands is consistent with 

U.S. climate goals. In order to better understand and manage carbon emissions from 

public lands, the U.S. Geological Survey intends to establish and maintain a public database to account for annual 

carbon emissions from fossil fuels developed on federal lands. The Blue Green Alliance supports this effort to 

ensure a transparent process that accounts for costs, which would otherwise be 

externalized. 

Comment Number: 0000862_Martin-1 

Commenter1:Robin Martin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I'm requesting the BLM to conduct a thorough review on new coal leases that acknowledges the scientist 

consensus that a vast majority of unmined coal must remain in the ground to circumvent most devastating effects 

of climate disruption. Continuing to issue new coal leases would be a direct contradiction to the United States' 

commitment to climate resolutions made during the Paris Climate Agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions 

in order to achieve global temperature rise levels below 2 degrees Celsius, or 1.5 if we are really motivated. 

Issue 5 - Coal Program Topics 

ISSUE 5.1 - GENERAL COMMENT ON COAL 

Total Number of Submissions: 212 

Total Number of Comments: 278 

Comment Number: 0000010_Swingle_20160526_Oral-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Rocky Swingle 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Phasing out coal leasing entirely on publicly-owned lands. 

Comment Number: 00000103_Williams_Arch Coal_ 20160517-1 

Organization1:Arch Coal 

Commenter1:Keith Williams 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the goal of this project says it should be to keep the federal coal program functioning at a high level and to ensure 

the coal from public lands maintains it's central place in the U.S. energy mix. 

Comment Number: 00000104_Lindlief Hal_National Wildlife Association_ 20160517-3 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Brenda Lindlief Hal 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-290 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Until sweeping reforms addressing our concerns are in place National Wildlife Federation requests no new coal 

leases on our federal lands. We respectfully request that the BLM, the OSM, ONRR work in concert and for now 

that there be no new leases until coal companies are held fully accountable for complete reclamation of federal 

lands they have mined. No new leases until self-bonding is banned and surety bonds are in place to ensure 

complete reclamation. No new leases until we are assured of a fair return to taxpayers for the lease of federal 

coal and that there be transparency in the leasing process and that royalties are commensurate with the true 

costs of leasing coal. 

Comment Number: 00000119_Schilling_20160517-1 

Organization1:Wyoming Business Alliance 

Commenter1:Bill Schilling 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the "Federal Register" that talked about this program today, the EIA talked about a five-year cycle 2008 to 

2013, where coal production was down by 16 percent nationwide. That's correct. But what that register fails to 

do and what the BLM and, I'm assuming, EPA and others combining forces in terms of research failed to mention 

is the cyclical nature of commodity production, and that needs be to accounted for in your research because 

minerals have a cyclical effect because of supply and demand, generally five- to ten-year cycles. 

Comment Number: 00000123_Edwards_20160517-1 

Organization1:House of Representatives 

Commenter1:Roy Edwards 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is the only way that we will have a base power that would be able to keep the lights on in America 24 hours 

a day, 7 days a week, 365 or -6 days a year, depending whether we're in a leap year or not. We must have a 

reliable source of power. Green energy is not that. 

Comment Number: 00000128_Schladweiler_BTS_Environmenta-2 

Organization1:BTS Environmental Associates 

Commenter1:Brenda Schladweiler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the natural resource information gained by the citizens of this state[Wyoming] during energy development is a 

valuable asset. These studies are funded by the energy developers and provide insights into soils, vegetation, 

wetlands, wildlife, hydrology, archaeology, et cetera, that we otherwise would not have. The knowledge base 

including the understanding of how these resources interact in our own landscape has been useful in applications 

and projects other than energy development. 

Comment Number: 00000133_Blake_20160517-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Laura Blake 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Money from federal coal should be allocated to clean coal research to further advance the use of one of the most 

abundant, lowest cost and most reliable fuels in the world 

Comment Number: 00000155_ Jenkins_ Congressman Griffith _20160517-1 

Organization1:United States Congress 

Commenter1:Michelle Jenkins 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-291

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

"Some of the key power providers in Virginia have made it clear that coal will be a part of their strategy for a 

long time to come. At a recent conference, Dominion Power indicated that by 2030, they expect 30 percent of 

their energy production will still be from coal. American Electric Power indicated that they anticipate about 50 

percent of theirs will still be from coal." 

Comment Number: 00000164_ LEVENSHUS_20160517-2 

Organization1:Sierra Club 

Commenter1:Jonathan Levenshus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Phase out coal leasing on publically-owned land to better protect our climate and our health. 

Comment Number: 00000171_ BLANTON_20160517-4 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Teri Blanton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Phasing out at this time issuing new permits is important, but in my state, Kentucky, there are already 9,400,000 

tons leased with only 3,284,558 tons already mined. I think it would be in the best interest of our state to reevaluate these agreements 

Comment Number: 00000175_ MORRIS_20160517-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:R. Noah Morris 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I would encourage the BLM and federal government to suspend all further leases on federal land for not just coal, 

but all energy fossil fuel extract. I would furthermore encourage the BLM to not simply be a -- not simply 

challenge or review this policy, but strip these leases from companies that are actively negligent. 

Comment Number: 00000180_ SCHEFF_20160517-1 

Organization1:Kentucky Heartwood 

Commenter1:Jim Scheff 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To say that the environmental effects will simply be displaced, but that the economic benefits are additive reveals 

substantial bias and even dishonesty on the part of the BLM and Forest Service in analyzing and approving federal 

coal leases in Kentucky. Our experience with the Federal Coal Leasing Program in Kentucky is that the process is 

deeply biased and it rewards bad actors. The environmental moxie of these leases are essentially a formality with 

a predetermined outcome. I urge the Department of Interior to engage in the honest accounting of the Federal 

Coal Leasing Program and to help move our nation beyond coal and toward a renewable energy economy 

Comment Number: 00000183_ MCKAY_20160517-3 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Don McKay 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Three, insure that in a transition to a new system that the land, water, and people are given priority protection 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-292 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000186_ GELLERT_20160517-6 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Paul Gellert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And if it is not available, I urge you to make it available, things such as the location and amount over time of all of 

the leased coal 

Comment Number: 00000193_ HEPLER_20160517-1 

Organization1:South Appalachian Mountian Stewards 

Commenter1:Matthew Helper 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

end the practice of leasing coal on federal lands 

Comment Number: 00000199_ BURTON_20160517-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:James Robert Burton

Comment Excerpt Text: 

extensive programmatic environmental impact study looking at the entire life cycle of coal from mines to coal ash 

landfills 

Comment Number: 00000315_ SMITH _20160519-2 

Organization1:Canyon Fuel Company 

Commenter1:Jacob Smith 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

consider the potential benefits that could result from providing subsidies to help advance clean coal technology. 

Comment Number: 00000337_Bounous_20160519-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Ayja Bounous 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We don't need any new leases to make sure our economies stay afloat. What we do need is a transitional 

strategy sensitive to our coal culture. 

Comment Number: 00000365 _ Lund _20160519-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Steve Lund 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As we talk about our future, we ought to be talking about better ways to develop clean coal technology, not shut 

down an industry. 

Comment Number: 0000068_Smitherman_20160517-3 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Dan Smitherman 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Right now it's estimated that we have 20 years of federal coal reserves already leased. It is an ideal time to take 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-293

Scoping Report 

stock of where we are and where we want to go. We need to look to how we can adapt and diversify to ensure 

that boom and bust cycles don't affect individuals in the way that they have. We need a diverse economy, and 

that means looking to our public lands for value outside of coal, including renewable energy, recreation, and 

conservation. With reform of the federal coal program, what we have in front of us is an opportunity to really 

look at what we want the future to be. 

Comment Number: 0000072_Tully_20160517-8 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Tom Tully 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And last, the BLM should be planning for an orderly decline of coal mining in the U.S. and in the West. Much of 

the federally owned coal under the control of the BLM is interspersed with privately owned coal or coal owned 

by the State. So how the BLM manages their coal has a tremendous impact on the contiguous coal field. 

Comment Number: 0000077_Penfold_20160517-3 

Organization1:BLM 

Commenter1:Mike Penfold 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

But I tell you the sense I have is that it would really be important for federal government and state government 

to start looking at this as a transition. We don't have coal production like we used to have. Let's develop 

something like the old coal teams that we had before. This would involve state and federal government, the 

private sector even, and bring all the forces that are to bear on this changing countryside that clearly has an 

impact on the land, the people, and the communities and our future. 

Comment Number: 0000080_VonFlatern_WySenate_20160517-1 

Organization1:Wyoming State Senator 

Commenter1:Michael Von Flatern 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Gillette is home to one of the cleanest coal-fired power plants ever built. It's called the Dry Fork Station. There's 

no reason to believe our utilities industry in the nation cannot achieve even more advanced technological 

achievements in the future. Now we have power reconstruction in an integrated test center at the Dry Fork 

Power Station. This will prove that our product can be produced from the exhaust of power stations and that 

once again we will build coal-fired power stations in this country. 

Comment Number: 0000214_Black_20160519-1 

Organization1:Canyon Fuel Co 

Commenter1:Randy Blck 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is our cleanest source of energy and the industry is already overregulated by the federal government. 

Comment Number: 0000279_Nelson_20160519-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Laura Nelson 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Located in the heart of the western energy corridor, Utah has world-class coal resources. Utah's low sulphur, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-294 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

high energy coal provides significant environmental advantages relative to other domestic and global coal sources. 

In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Administration's forecast, coal power will continue to play an expanded role 

in our energy economy as demand will increase globally through 2040 to meet the needs of developing 

economies, and that need is for affordable, reliable power, and it's important that Utah's superior coal is available 

to meet these needs. 

Comment Number: 0000279_Nelson_20160519-3 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Laura Nelson 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the University of Utah is leading a five-year, $16 million grant to conduct superconductor simulation aimed at 

developing a prototype, low-cost, low- emissions coal power plant that would provide new opportunities for coal 

utilization. Utah's support of coal does not ignore climate change concerns but rather recognizes that Utah's 

cleaner coal and advanced coal technologies can contribute to the U.S. and the world's energy needs as part of a 

robust, resilient portfolio of energy options. 

Comment Number: 0000521_Lummis_US Rep_20160517-3 

Organization1:United States Congress 

Commenter1:Cynthia Lummis 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Despite the self-inflicted economic wounds that are the Administration's Clean Power Plan and this coal lease 

moratorium, coal demand will continue to skyrocket in developing nations. The U.S. leads the world in its 

environmental protections in mining, and possesses the entrepreneurial spirit necessary to solve our energy 

problems without harming our economy. America should take a global leadership role on coal, producing 

American energy and the means to use it cleanly and safely, not pretending that global demand for coal doesn't 

exist. If we forfeit global leadership towards clean coal, we will hamstring our economy while other nations meet 

their coal needs elsewhere and without the same level of environmental stewardship. 

Comment Number: 0000530-2 

Organization1:Keystone Green Team 

Commenter1:Margaret Graham 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is gradually being replaced as an energy sources by countries such as China. Therefore, it is becoming less 

economically feasible to mine coal. 

Comment Number: 0000540-1 

Commenter1:Colleen Rose 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is time to stop federal coal leasing program given our current information regarding the science of coal mining 

and burning 

Comment Number: 0000576-1 

Organization1:350 Seattle.org 

Commenter1:Deborah Campbell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-295

Scoping Report 

Failing to account for the extensive externalized costs of coal extraction and transport, or to acknowledge the 

role that coal extraction and burning play in climate and environmental degradation are unjust, immoral and not 

legally justifiable 

Comment Number: 0000608-4 

Organization1:JE Stoer & Associates 

Commenter1:Tamme Bishop 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Is there a plan in place to replace the electricity currently being generated by coal that will go offline due to this 

process? 

Comment Number: 0000611_Leahy_NMWF-4 

Organization1:New Mexico Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Todd Leahy 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Second, reconsider how to balance multiple uses. The nation has relied on fossil fuel sources extracted from 

public lands since its founding. The Federal Lands Policy Management Act (FLPMA) requires the BLM to balance 

extractive uses against other public lands uses. As part of that responsibility, BLM must consider the needs of 

future generations. What is abundantly clear is that coal mining doesn't simply compete with other uses 

Comment Number: 0000627-1 

Organization1:CCA and UCC 

Commenter1:Peggy Rawlins 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Combining CBM, fuel cell and water desalination can be an economic opportunity for coal producers 

Comment Number: 0000664-1 

Organization1:J.E. Stover & Associates 

Commenter1:Tonya Hammond 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I personally believe that the coal industry has more than enough rules and regulations at the level necessary to 

keep our air, water, etc. clean for the human, plant, and animal populations. No new regs are required. 

Comment Number: 0000750_Atwood_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Since 1980, the world has increased its use of coal, oil, and natural gas by over 80 percent - because that is the 

most cost-effective way to produce energy. At the same time, the average life expectancy of our worlds 7 billion 

people has gone up 7 years - that's 7 years of precious life! Every other metric of human well-being has also 

improved, from income to access to health care to nourishment to clean water access. The most growth has 

been among the poorest people in the world. (Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, Historical data 

workbook World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI)). 

Comment Number: 0000768_King_TWS_20160623-1 

Organization1:Wilderness Society 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-296 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Warren King 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal leasing program has not been substantially updated in over 30 years. This has resulted in a number of 

issues including, a loss of revenue to taxpayers from royalties, a lack of transparency and competition in 

leasingiand market oversupply. As currently structured and implemented, the leasing program has provided the 

coal industry with all of the advantages a private enterprise needs to flourish. 

Comment Number: 0000769_Cascade_Great Old Broads_20160623-3 

Organization1:Great Old Boards for Wilderness 

Commenter1:Robyn Cascase 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

See Attached for "Essay 1. Nick Mullins A Coal Miner's Goodbye" 

See Attached for "What Leaving Fossil Fuels Behind Can Do For Inequality Yessenia Funes" 

Comment Number: 0000792-1 

Organization1:Bowie Resources 

Commenter1:Terry Fonville 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is a reliable resource, it provides a good way of life and contributes to the state and county by paying taxes 

and employing people who work hard to provide for their families and love the jobs they perform. 

Comment Number: 0000814-1 

Commenter1:Amy O'Connor 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I hope that the result of your evaluation of our Federal coal program is that the program must be brought to an 

end as quickly as possible, with declining coal production each year for the next 5-10 years. This should be 

accomplished in an orderly manner that helps our coal communities transition to new jobs and a clean energy 

economy! Let's invest in their and our future now! If we do our part in reducing greenhouse gases and reversing 

the trend of warming our planet, millions of people in the world and innumerable species of animals and plants 

will benefit. 

Comment Number: 0000829-2 

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy (UCARE) 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Are coal lease royalty payments shared with the states used in ways that serve national policy goals or do they 

undermine those efforts. For example: How did the State of Utah spend the $44 million in federal coal lease 

royalties it received in FY2014? The PElS might consider setting "appropriate use" parameters. 

Comment Number: 0001112_DRISKILL_20160621-1 

Organization1:Wyoming Senate District 1 

Commenter1:Odgen Driskill 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Did you know that there's not a single coal-fired power plant proposed for construction in the United States 

right now? Great, great news. But there's 2,000 new ones worldwide. We live in a world economy, folks. There's 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-297

Scoping Report 

2,000 of them worldwide. 363 in China. 445 in India. Those plants are all going to burn coal that doesn't look like 

this. It's high sulfur, black, nasty what you think about. Really we ought to be thinking really hard, maybe this coal 

should be going into those plants that are being built, and maybe this coal should be what fires those plants if you 

want clean air in the Northwest, because what they burn is coming your way. 

Comment Number: 0001128-1 

Organization1:Social and Environmental Justice Council 

Commenter1:Piazzon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There are exciting, healthy, economy-expanding options to burning rocks in the 21st century. We must reject the 

madness and injustice of this, accept the reality and opportunities and keep coal in the hole. 

Comment Number: 0001174-1 

Commenter1:Donna Albert 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Order 3338 states that the PEIS should examine the degree to which federal coal should support fulfilling the 

energy needs of the United States. The answer is that coal has no place in our energy future. Experts like Mark 

Jacobson of Stanford University have provided practical plans for modernizing our electricity generation and 

electrifying our transportation system to completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

Comment Number: 0001180-1 

Organization1:Alaska Coal Association 

Commenter1:Lorali Simon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The EIA states that coal will continue to play a significant role in providing electricity to Americans for decades. 

The PEIS must evaluate how changes to the Federal Coal Program impact reliability and affordability of the 

electricity. 

Comment Number: 0001199_Stiller_20160621-1 

Organization1:Nature's Stewards 

Commenter1:Grace Stiller 

Other Sections: 19 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal government should continue investing in clean energy and stop subsidizing private companies to take 

coal from public lands. Please keep it in the ground. 

Comment Number: 0002001_Stevens_20160607-3 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Wayne Stevens 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Another theme at this meeting was that “coal does not get subsidies from the federal government.” This 

statement is not true. Subsidies are received through mining on public lands where royalties are low. The Coal 

Industry gets or has gotten, billions of dollars of funding and loans from the US Government. The Coal industry 

has also gotten tax exempt and Build America bonds from the government for the construction of coal fired 

power plants. Coal fired power plants received funding for “retrofitting” power plants to comply with the Clean 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-298 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Air Act. Another subsidy, albeit, hidden and at the end of useful life of a coal mine is the cost to reclaim the 

mining area. 

Comment Number: 0002009_CenterBioDiversity_20160329-1 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We therefore call on you to explicitly acknowledge that the paramount goal of long-term reform is to chart an 

orderly and effective path toward ending the federal coal program. This path must be paved with common sense 

policy changes that address our near-term climate challenges, aid coal-dependent communities to help them 

emerge from transition more sustainable and prosperous, defend taxpayers and the broader American public 

interest, and protect our legacy of public lands. 

Comment Number: 0002014_Dalton_20160429-1 

Commenter1:Eric Dalton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I would like to stop leasing coal and other fossil fuel drilling rights on all federal lands as soon as practical. It is 

completely non-sensical to use public lands to further degrade our atmosphere when it looks like we may already 

be in a planetary death spiral. 

Comment Number: 0002029_Baumann_20160608-1 

Commenter1:Patricia Baumann 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I recommend that your agency simplify the coal leasing program, expedite review of coal lease applications and 

eliminate any additional taxes or royalties on coal. 

Comment Number: 0002034_Carlson_20160620-1 

Commenter1:J Carlson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If we have to have coal production, the cost should be commensurate to its value and issues surrounding 

environmental impact 

Comment Number: 0002041_Hertoghe_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Cal Hertoghe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please work to maximize coal usage by minimizing the negative impacts. Develop and use technology for clean 

coal such as liquification and skrubers to clean emissions from burned coal. 

Comment Number: 0002055_Pope_20160621-1 

Organization1:Montana State University Billings 

Commenter1:Paul Pope 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Senator, Specifically, what is the government's plan for life after coal? Is there an intended timeline to transition 

towards clean energy? 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-299

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002071_Young_20160622-1 

Commenter1:John Young 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I strongly favor the termination of future coal leases on federal lands 

Comment Number: 0002084_Kettenring_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Eric Kettenring 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There is a real possibility to produce energy through clean coal, which should be our highest priority. 

Comment Number: 0002095_Mader_20160428-1 

Commenter1:Thomas Mader 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I think that all Coal Mining on Public Lands should gradually be terminated over the next decade 

Comment Number: 0002104_Quam_20160622-1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need to keep coal as an energy resource. It's cheap, efficient & provides many jobs & can be burned in a clean 

manner. 

Comment Number: 0002109_Reading_20160618-1 

Commenter1:Toniann Reading 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I fully support changes to keep carbon based fuels in the ground (and certainly not to use our public lands for 

private coal company leasing subsidized at ridiculous rates on both ends of the privatization scheme!) and to 

move toward using our public lands for environmentally sound & taxpayer responsible purposes reflecting 

current scientific research and climate change modeling. 

Comment Number: 0002111_Ross_20160623-4 

Commenter1:Alexa Ross 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal coal program is contrary to U.S. and global efforts to combat climate disruption, safeguard our public 

lands and waters, and protect the welfare of coal communities. 

Comment Number: 0002112_Sanderson_20160624_CoMineAssoc-7 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is time for the war on coal mining jobs and affordable energy to end. 

Comment Number: 0002114_Savlove_20160613-2 

Commenter1:John Savlove 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This Bureau needs to manage our land in terms of real long-term strength. It should be a land and wildlife festival 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-300 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

of biology, habitat cultivation, and human intelligence through God's gift to us of nature. Please phase out coal at 

once. I can help you with alternative incentives for the industry if you like. 

Comment Number: 0002115_Schaefer_20160623-1 

Commenter1:C. Thomas Shaefer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The only sensible course of action is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and especially coal. Consequently, 

for the U.S. government to continue to allow mining of coal from publicly owned lands is utterly unacceptable. 

No amount of royalties that might be collected from such activity is sufficient compensation for the irreversible 

damage inflicted. The Bureau of Land Management must undertake a comprehensive assessment of all external 

costs that the mining and combustion of coal from federal lands impose on society, and must disclose to the 

public and decision-makers the results of that assessment. BLM must evaluate strategies to phase out federal coal 

leasing altogether. 

Comment Number: 0002116_Sharp_20160626-3 

Commenter1:Margaret Sharp 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM must prioitize creating a plan for an alternative that would phase out federal coal leasing 

Comment Number: 0002117_Solie_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Mark Solie 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I like the benefits of COAL, OIL & Natural Gas, Lumber & Mining in General as it has raised the standard of 

'living' in the U.S. A. above that of anyone else in the wolrd..... In additon what will replace the Tax $ these 

Industiries Provide?? 

Comment Number: 0002119_Stensaas_20160504-1 

Commenter1:Suzanne Stensaas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This is not the time to bulldoze, strip, mine for more coal when there are other sources of energy what are 

cleaner and produce less influence on the climate. 

Comment Number: 0002122_Swanson_20160623-1 

Commenter1:C. David Swanson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is a tremendously important source of fuel and industrial power, essential not only to America, but the world. 

It cannot now, nor should it ever be declared off limits. 

Comment Number: 0002122_Swanson_20160623-2 

Commenter1:C. David Swanson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Regarding the move to staunch the mining, use and exporting of coal in and from the U.S., I add my voice in 

opposition. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-301

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002124_Todd_20160622-1 

Commenter1:David Todd 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I support the President's plan to reduce coal extraction and burning and reject the efforts of Steve Daines to 

block those reductions. 

Rather than burn coal to keep US jobs, Daines might better lead an effort to keep US companies from shipping 

jobs abroad. 

Comment Number: 0002125_Turnquist_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Debra Turnquist 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I believe it is time to do away with coal production. 

Comment Number: 0002126_VanHelden_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Luke Helden 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Though one of my Senators is more concerned with jobs than a sustainable land management policy. I want you 

to know that we do not want coal extraction in Montana or any other further development of non-renewable 

resources. 

Comment Number: 0002127_Walling_20160624-1 

Commenter1:Philip Walling 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I’m writing to urge you to put a stop to the Federal Coal Program for good. The environmental and social 

impacts of mining and burning coal far outweigh the economic gains of these land leases. Federal lands were 

establish for the people. Yet this program will have devastating impacts not only on people in surrounding 

communities but on future generations who already have human-induced global warming and climate change to 

contend with. Please do the right thing and ensure that our public lands continue to benefit all of the people by 

providing the natural undisturbed habitats we so desperately need to provide ecological balance in our shrinking 

world. 

Comment Number: 0002130_Willett_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Kayla Willett 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is a more cost effective energy source, readily available in Montana, and relied upon in Montana. If the 

government were to shut down our coal production, it should have another source to fulfill the vital needs that 

coal presently meets in our state and throughout our nation. There is no such plan being put into action. 

Comment Number: 0002137_Zeigler_20160607-7 

Commenter1:Bob Ziegler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ways to rescind current coal leases and compensate lease owners to keep this coal in the ground. 

Comment Number: 0002143_Bruce_20160519-1 

Commenter1:Bruce 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-302 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

No coal! 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-10

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

IEEFA proposes an alternative to the current system that incorporates the following major elements: 

· Financing would come from a combination of private-sector borrowing and public-sector 

asset transfers (of coal), revenue and market guarantees (through price setting) and regulatory streamlining. This 

public-private partnership arrangement would will be faster, more certain and more accountable than the current 

system (see discussion on planning) below. 

· All planning for new coal offerings would be the domain of the Department of Interior (10) in consultation with 

the Department of Energy (DOE). The first assignment of the DOI/DOE team would be to assess the true level 

of economically available coal under lease, various coal demand scenarios, (11) and an accurate read of the life 

cycle of existing mines. This analysis would provide the basis for determining if and when new coal reserves are 

needed. Based on this information, a system would be established for the federal government to take back leases 

from coal companies (many such mines will have no value and carry only liabilities). (12) The review should 

establish the broad parameters for the demand for coal in the U.S. and the role of federal coal in meeting that 

demand. The Departments, collectively and with the advice and guidance of Congress, would work with the coal 

industry to implement public policy goals. Coal producers would submit both long-term and short-term mining 

plans very similar to the planning analysis that currently takes place within each corporation under the current 

program design. 

· Price-setting for the sale of coal would be done by a federal-state coal price commission. The Commission 

would establish prices that would cover a coal producer’s reasonable operational costs (including full funding of 

pension and environmental liabilities), debt, and profit (reinvestment and dividends). The lower limit of the pricing 

structure would be driven in large measure by state public service commissions. They would set the lower price 

levels consistent with their mission to maintain affordable and reliable electricity to residents. The price would be 

set at the upper limit by establishing a national energy adjusted average for the price of coal sold in the rest of the 

country (outside the PRB) through traditional market mechanisms. The Commission would be bound by these 

upper and lower limits and set annual prices according to their own methodology. 

· Prices would be established annually to allow for changing market conditions and state variations. Adjustments 

on a year-to-year basis could be established very much like that used in rate-setting for regulated utilities. A 

price-setting committee could consist of representatives of the Department of Energy, Department of the 

Interior, Office of Management and Budget, Securities and Exchange Commission (13) and two members selected 

by the National Governors Association and two members selected by the National Association of Regulatory 

Utility Commissions. Staff from the Department of Energy would be responsible for technical monitoring and 

data inputs necessary to maintain real-time changes. DOI would be required to maintain basic financial and 

economic data required to ensure market balance and adherence to national policy directives. The Department 

of Interior would be the lead staff and prepare all documents and studies necessary to set annual prices and keep 

committee members informed. All of this information should be presumed to be public information for the 

purpose of stimulating and maintaining a robust environment for external review. 

· Coal producer borrowing for any venture outside of mining operations for mines under contract with the 

federal government would have to receive the approval of the Department of Interior in consultation with the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-303

Scoping Report 

price-setting Committee. As a matter of national security and to protect against reckless speculation, coal 

exports would be prohibited. Such prohibition would cover mine acquisitions outside the U.S., mine acquisitions 

inside the U.S. to be used for exports, and port and rail projects related to exporting coal. 

· Consistent with the public-private partnership, the lease program would establish standards for coal producers 

based upon coal producer competencies in coal mining and production efficiencies, not the gaming of a 

government program. 

· Royalty policy would be amended. The current policy of dividing coal royalty revenue between the federal and 

state government lacks a rationale. The federal portion of the money goes for general funding purposes at the 

federal level, and states tend to do much of the same with some targeting money to coal infrastructure and other 

coal-related programs. The federal portion of the royalty money should instead be set aside to satisfy coal 

liabilities: 1) to establish a new arrangement where coal producers and the federal government share 

responsibility for coal reclamation cleanups (bonds should be required of coal producers for their portion, selfbonding should be eliminated, and the federal government should set aside an actuarially-sound portion of federal 

coal revenues to meet their portion of cleanup costs) and 2) to provide additional set-asides for coal miner 

employee pensions. 

· For the first six years of the Committee’s existence, the Inspector Generals from both the Department of 

Energy and Department of Interior would be required to conduct bi-annual oversight evaluations (14) of price 

setting and other related program elements to insure: 1) adherence to internal control procedures; 2) proper 

accounting for coal price setting and underlying valuation mechanisms; 3) proper accounting for the levels of 

government support of coal production and coal producers; 4) protections against fraud and abuse; 5) 

assessments of methods used by state public service commissions to establish the price floor, the methods used 

by the Commission to establish the ceiling and to establish an annual coal price; and 5) assessments of the impact 

of lobbying and political interference on the program design and model. 

· Consistent with the management of an ongoing public-private partnership, the BLM would retrain staff and add 

new competencies to secure the benefits sought on the government side of the equation. BLM would need to 

hire at a minimum: 1) expert investment specialists with core competencies in infrastructure development 

(supported by individuals that possess an understanding of institutional investment asset allocations); 2) mining 

engineers and mine operators; 3) labor experts; 4) energy planners and 5) negotiators with competency in 

business, contract and budget negotiations. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-16

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

IEEFA has commented extensively on the federal coal leasing program in the past, (3) beginning with our Great 

Giveaway report in 2012, which demonstrated that the coal lease program had not been audited in 30 years, 

recommended a moratorium, and prompted several federal investigations of the program. IEEFA provided 

extensive comments on the DOI Inspector General’s audit of the program in 2013, commented on proposed 

royalty reforms in 2015, and testified at Bureau of Land Management (BLM) “listening sessions” in 2015. Our 

research on the coal industry is informed by continuous monitoring of companies, coal production and pricing 

trends. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-18

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-304 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

An example of the industry’s failure to grasp new market realities is the outlook that Peabody Energy projects in 

its bankruptcy filings. Rather than recognizing the shrinking markets and persistent low prices, Peabody’s plans for 

success require increases in natural gas prices and a more robust global market to support the new entity as a 

going concern. (5) Neither of these trends in the cards for the foreseeable future, yet this is the position of the 

largest holder of federal coal leases. 

(5) See Taylor Kuyendall, Headwinds that pushed coal to bankruptcy potentially changing course, SNL, April 29, 

2016.

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-21

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 1979, one political commenter, Guy Paul Land, made a salient observation on why the courts are sometimes 

asked to resolve problems that are more appropriately the domain of legislative and executive action. The 

political dynamic he describes can clearly be applied to coal policy in the U.S. today: 

“Perhaps the most crucial factor shaping the increased resort to the courts—and the one with the most 

important long-term consequences—is the growing dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the ability of 

representative assemblies, at whatever level, to reflect accurately, efficiently and effectively the desires of the 

people whom they presume to represent. Over the past decade, public opinion polls have shown a consistent 

decline in the American public’s belief in the efficacy of Congress to solve major problems or protect private 

rights ... In the view of many Americans, their representatives are more the voices of large, organized special 

interests and less the spokesperson for individual constituents. In short, there is a growing feeling among the 

public that many of its elected officials and their agents cannot or will not adequately serve the individual interests 

and needs of the members of society.” 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-27

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Major Changes Are Needed to Respond to the "New Normal" of Coal Mining in the U.S. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-28

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal producer business models were predicated historically on a slow, steady increase in coal demand and use, 

producing modest profits. Recently the industry has distorted the model by perpetuating the idea that global coal 

markets will offer an opportunity to super-size domestic coal production and profits. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-3 

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-305

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS and the moratorium that accompanies it come at a time of energy transition in the U.S. The coal 

industry’s widespread financial distress has now moved from being a principally Central Appalachian phenomenon 

to the Powder River Basin. Three of the largest holders of coal leases on western land—Peabody Energy, Alpha 

Natural Resources, and Arch Coal — have declared bankruptcy. Most of the coal producers in the U.S. presume 

that bankruptcy will allow them to get rid of burdensome debt and liabilities, close some mines, and emerge as 

new companies, leaner and able to operate as going concerns. 

This presumption is false because it assumes there will be an ongoing, stable demand environment for coal (and 

that demand may even increase) and that coal prices will rise. It ignores the reality that the coal industry is 

undergoing a structural realignment, caused by shrinking demand for coal in the United States and globally. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-5 

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As the largest owner of coal reserves in the U.S., the federal government must now revamp federal coal lease 

policy against a backdrop of decline in demand for coal in the U.S. that is both market and policy driven.It must 

also do so with a coal industry that seems determined to sell more coal into an oversupplied market using 

traditional business models. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-7 

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal coal lease program is also built on a cornerstone belief in constant growth, whether it be slow and 

steady or more aggressive. The federal government expects coal producers to apply for new sites when there is a 

market for the coal and it always presumes a market for coal, more or less. Prior coal lease moratoria always 

took place when the industry and the federal government were facing growth and coal market expansion. This is 

not the case in the current environment. 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-1 

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BlueGreen Alliance believes that the federal coal leasing program is broken and long overdue for an update 

that ensures fairness to taxpayers and better accounts for environmental impacts. 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-12

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal has been an important domestic energy source for decades and that fact will continue in the years ahead. 

Production of this energy resource has been facilitated by the federal government, as roughly 40 percent of all 

U.S. coal production occurs on taxpayer-owned federal land. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-306 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-2 

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Other Sections: 2 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The contemplated overhaul of this program is, however, not only an opportunity to fix a broken system, but also 

an opportunity to take a hard look at how coal-dependent communities, regional economies, and individual 

workers can transition to new economic models. 

Comment Number: 0002148_OLaughlin_20160621_K2-2 

Organization1:K2 Sports 

Commenter1:Matt O'Laughlin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While our companies look for ways to improve our own carbon footprint, we also look to decision-makers like 

you for broad policy action on climate, including keeping fossil fuels like coal in the ground. 

Comment Number: 0002149_Hewitt_20160519_WyLSO-10

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature's Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee 

Commenter1:Ted Hewitt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

States that rely on coal-powered electricity generation have consistently enjoyed among the lowest electricity 

rates in the country. Additionally, coal-fired power plants provide vital base-load for our grid. That reliability 

ensures that everyone in the country—our families, our businesses, and our military—have access to the 

electricity they need. 

Comment Number: 0002149_Hewitt_20160519_WyLSO-12

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature's Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee 

Commenter1:Ted Hewitt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

widespread adoption of electric vehicles could dramatically increase our nation’s demand for electricity. Our 

country has shown repeatedly that it can make tremendous technological leaps in a short time; the federal 

government should not preclude coal as an important energy resource for our future. 

Comment Number: 0002149_Hewitt_20160519_WyLSO-2 

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature's Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee 

Commenter1:Ted Hewitt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Wyoming coal production provides benefits to our state and country because it allows for affordable electricity, 

creates energy stability, and promotes our national security, all while minimally impacting the environment. 

Comment Number: 0002150_Nagle_20160629-1 

Organization1:Carnegie Mellon University 

Commenter1:John Nagle 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I believe that no more coal should be burned. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-307

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002150_Nagle_20160629-3 

Organization1:Carnegie Mellon University 

Commenter1:John Nagle 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I believe that coal leasing on public lands should be ended forthwith. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-10

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Other Sections: 4.6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to water, soils, vegetation and wildlife are short duration in the whole scheme of things and are already 

managed by state and federal agencies, including: 

-Wyoming DEQ – Land Quality Division, Air Quality Division, Water Quality Division, and Solid & Hazardous 

Waste Division, Industrial Siting 

-Wyoming State Engineers Office – groundwater and surface water use permitting 

-BATF – explosives use licensing and inspections 

-MSHA – safety and health and inspections 

-NRC – nuclear sources related to coal analyzers 

-ACOE – any and all wetland impacts 

-EPA – drinking water, wastes 

-BLM – coal leasing, resource recovery and protection, and inspections 

-USFWS – migratory birds of high federal interest 

Just to name a few, and BLMs review of addressing impacts to water, soil, vegetation and wildlife, during the PEIS 

review, are absolutely not necessary. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-20

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal should be part of the energy mix in America and I believe that it will continue to be for some time. 

Comment Number: 0002155_Krupnick_20160622-7 

Organization1:Center for Energy and Climate Economics Resources for the Future 

Commenter1:Alan Krupnick 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Incorporation of ownership status into coal statistics produced by the Energy Information Administration, and 

other relevant agencies. For example, creating a filter for coal produced from federal and Indian versus other 

lands in the EIA coal data browser. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-10

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Finally, Anna Zubets-Anderson provided the perspective of a credit rating company on the current status of coal 

mining companies. She noted that the credit ratings for coal companies have declined quite sharply in recent 

years, and that the outlook for the coal industry is negative. She said that companies that recently reorganized 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-308 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

under Chapter 11 are better situated in many instances than the companies that have not filed for bankruptcy, 

but this does not change the long-term outlook for these companies. She concluded by saying that, even if gas 

prices go up, the credit ratings of coal companies will likely remain low due to the regulatory environment. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-18

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The panelists generally agreed that a build-out of gas pipelines and export facilities would boost natural gas prices, 

at least regionally and under certain circumstances, by connecting the Marcellus and Utica shale plays to national 

and international markets, and that the coal industry 

would benefit from this price increase. However, they also generally agreed that U.S. coal would benefit relatively 

little over the long term from changes in Asian markets, because of the competition they would face from 

producers across the Pacific. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-2 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Colleen Regan noted the recent crescendo in coal-fired power plant closures—14.5GW in 2015—and 

anticipated that additional closures would follow in the coming years. She said that four key non-regulatory 

factors account for this: oil and gas prices have fallen to historic lows; renewables are putting downward pressure 

on electricity prices; steady improvements to energy efficiency are keeping rates of electricity demand flat; and 

increasing usage of demand side management tools are shaving peaks off of high-demand days and with them 

higher electricity prices. In addition to these factors, Regan also observed that U.S. coal plants are generally quite 

old, meaning that they are not good candidates for the addition of emissions control equipment. David Schissel 

echoed several of Regan’s points, illustrating some of them with the example of seven plants in Texas whose 

financial profiles have been undermined by natural gas and renewables, as well as by compliance requirements 

related to the newly issued Haze Rule. Schissel also pointed out that an enormous volume of natural gas 

capacity—16GW in PJM alone—will shortly come online, that wind capacity factors are rising nationwide, and 

that coal is in many instances no longer providing base load power, but only load-following or peaking service. 

Clark Williams-Derry supplemented Regan and Schissel’s description of domestic electricity sector dynamics with 

several points about international markets for coal, and metallurgical coalin particular. He described the recent 

history of the Pacific rim market as featuring two bubbles: the general commodities bubble that ended with the 

2009 crash, and a bubble specific to Chinese metallurgical coal demand that burst in 2012. Williams-Derry 

described how U.S. coal companies engaged in a bidding war for assets and firms in Australia and elsewhere in 

the run up to the burst of the second bubble, in the hopes of offsetting loses in the U.S. with sales abroad. That 

resulted in those companies paying top dollar at the height of the 2011 coal price peak and then facing a sharp 

downturn in coal prices and demand as China reduced its demand for coal and as multiple competing sources of 

coal came online in Australia, Indonesia, Russia, within China, and elsewhere. The acquisition of these overpriced 

assets, coupled with a generally unforgiving U.S. market for coal, pushed several firms into bankruptcy. All three 

panelists agreed that fluctuations in natural gas prices would lead to occasional departures from U.S. coal’s 

secular downward trend, but that the growth of renewables and storage would continue to gnaw away at an 

accelerating rate at the basic underpinnings of coal’s place in the electricity sector. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-3 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-309

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The panelists described different facets of the coal marketplace, but all—implicitly or explicitly—highlighted the 

relevance of policy to coal’s future. Howard Gruenspecht of the U.S. EIA noted that about 95% of coal consumed 

in the U.S. is burned to generate electricity, but that EIA’s projections had included no new coal-fired plants since 

2012 owing to several factors. That particular projection did not change in a modeled scenario in which the 

Clean Power Plan never entered into force. However, other EIA projections reflect significant negative effects of 

the CPP on coal production in the Powder River Basin, and lesser but still notable effects in the Illinois Basin and 

Appalachia. Gruenspecht also pointed out that EIA does not anticipate that prospective changes in international 

demand will offset the large secular declines expected in domestic markets. Tony Yuen titled his presentation “a 

duel between policy and markets,” and summarized the scenario facing coal in this way: the U.S. pie (i.e., the 

domestic electricity marketplace) is shrinking owing to renewables growth, efficiency gains, and demand side 

management, but international coal consumption is likely to continue at its current rate, and the coming rise in 

natural gas prices is likely to slow or stop coal’s recent slide in the near term. In consequence, policy, by putting a 

thumb on the scales in one direction or another, will matter a great deal to coal’s prospects. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-5 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ted O’Brien described 2011-2015 as a disastrous window of years for U.S. coal, but also described relatively rosy 

prospects for coal in the near future. He said that prices have jumped in recent months—and even days—owing 

to several sources of novel international demand (notably including mandated limits on Chinese coal mine 

production) and hiccups in several Australian mines. He also said that coal-to-gas switches in the U.S. electricity 

sector would likely reverse in several instances as natural gas prices rise in the coming year. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-7 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Professor Ed Morrison began the panel with an overview of bankruptcy law and the procedural aspects of 

bankruptcy proceedings for coal companies. He noted that there has been a significant increase in bankruptcy in 

the past few years, with nearly 40 filings in 3 years by mid-2015. While 50% of the recent filings are liquidations 

under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, the largest coal companies have filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. 

Under Chapter 11, the debtors can seek to adjust and reorganize debts in order to keep the business alive and 

pay creditors over time. There are several approaches to Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The first is a traditional 

bargaining procedure whereby the debtor proposes a plan of reorganization, the 

creditors vote on it, and if enough creditors support the plan, the debtor can override dissent by showing that 

the plan complies with certain rule. This process can take years to complete. There are also two faster 

approaches to bankruptcy which have become increasingly common: the debtor can sell itself to a buyer during 

bankruptcy, and the cash is distributed in order of priorities to creditors, or the debtor can pre-negotiate a plan 

with creditors before it enters bankruptcy. Several coal companies, such as Patriot Coal and Arch coal, have 

opted to sell all or part of the company during their bankruptcy proceedings. Professor Morrison also highlighted 

several “wrinkles” in the bankruptcy proceedings for coal companies. First, he noted that the automatic stay 

which occurs during bankruptcy proceedings (which stops nearly all creditors from pursuing action against a 

debtor) does not stop the government from obtaining an injunction to enforce clean-up of a mine site. Second, 

he noted that it can be difficult to assign a value to future harms and clean-up costs during the claims valuation 

process, which means that these financial obligations may be undervalued during the process. Third, he noted that 

debtors can typically abandon burdensome properties, and that coal 

mine properties might fall into this category (however, the Supreme Court has held that you cannot abandon 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-310 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

property if it poses an imminent risk of harm to the public). Fourth, he noted that collective bargaining 

agreements and pension and employee benefits can be terminated in bankruptcy proceedings under § 1113 of the 

Bankruptcy Code, if termination is necessary to complete reorganization (2nd Cir.) or liquidation (3rd Cir.). 

Comment Number: 0002158_Burger_SabineCenter_9132016-5 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Arguably, the single best way for Interior and BLM to account for the climate impacts of the federal coal leasing 

program, to protect public lands from climate change impacts and to manage the program in such a way as to 

meet the United States’ domestic and international climate goals is to make permanent the temporary 

moratorium on issuing new leases – to “leave it in the ground.”

Comment Number: 0002158_Kasperik_20160517_StateRep-2 

Organization1:HD 32 Wyoming State Legislature 

Commenter1:Norine Kasperik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This proposal would undo the current valuation of coal and replace it with a complex system designed to punish 

coal producers with higher costs and significant uncertainty. It is not about maximizing revenue for taxpayers; it's 

about cutting off production of federal coal from Wyoming and other states. 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-15

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Sweetwater County strongly believes that the Coal PEIS and its proposed leasing and regulatory modifications 

would make it more costly to mine coal, produce electricity and continue the excellent environmental work 

being implemented by the Jim Bridger and Black Butte Coal Mines and the Jim Bridger Power Plant 

Comment Number: 0002167_Baumgartner_20160629-1 

Commenter1:Laura Baumgartner 

Other Sections: 8.11 8.8 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am writing to oppose further development of coal resources in the US, oppose transport of mined coal through 

western states and especially cities to our ports and oppose export of coal for use in other parts of the world. 

Comment Number: 0002168_Kohler_20160629-1 

Commenter1:Bernard Kohler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I fully support restrictions and disincentives to limit U.S. coal production. 

Comment Number: 0002169_Heiblim_20160624-1 

Commenter1:David Heiblim 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Let's go in the right direction and drastically limit the amount of unnecessary extraction from the ground. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-311

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002173_Quick_20160622-10

Commenter1:Kendra Quick 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Regardless of current market conditions, according to the Energy Information Agency, coal will pay a significant 

role in providing electricity for decades to come. In 2014, coal delivered nearly 40% of our Nations’ electricity. 

There currently is not any other energy source that can replace coal and provide 40% of the Nation’s electricity. 

Comment Number: 0002175_Woodcock_20160627-5 

Organization1:MSU Department of American Studies 

Commenter1:Jennifer Woodcock-Medicine Horse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

it is time to shut down coal production completely in Montana 

Comment Number: 0002178_Reum_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Peter Reum 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please keep coal in the ground in Montana. The use of it only prolongs badly needed change to less climate 

changing energy. 

Comment Number: 0002182_Jenkins_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Helen Pent Jenkins 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I firmly stand and support President Obama's and the EPA's regulations of the coal industry. 

Comment Number: 0002184_Randolph_20160619-1 

Commenter1:Timothy Randolph 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am writing to express the opinion that the Bureau of Land Management's current program for leasing coal 

mining rights on public land is outdated, irresponsible and wastefully unfair to the public. 

Comment Number: 0002184_Randolph_20160619-4 

Commenter1:Timothy Randolph 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Most importantly, the BLM needs to stop the damages being done under the current policy: tax-supported strip 

mining, degraded water and air quality, accelerated climate change and the destruction of profitable recreational 

land. 

Comment Number: 0002185_Leidecker_20160512-1 

Commenter1:Jodie Leidecker 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please stop the mining of coal on federal lands. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-312 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-25

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

HOW DOES FEDERAL COAL SUPPORT FULFILLING THE ENERGY NEEDS OF THE UNITED STATES ¬-

CURRENT PROGRAM HANDLES WELL. PROPOSED CHANGES WILL LEAD TO HIGHER ENERGY COST 

AND LESS RELIABLE. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-26

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

HOW DOES THE ADMINISTRATION, AVAILABILITY, AND PRICING OF FEDERAL COAL IMPACT 

ELECTRICITY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF OTHER 

REGULATORY INFLUENCES – YOU HAVE A WAR ON COAL GOING. IT AFFECTS IT IN A NEGATIVE 

WAY. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-27

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

WHAT OTHER SOURCES OF ENERGY SUPPLY (INCLUDING EFFICIENCY) ARE PROJECTED TO BE 

AVAILABLE – NOTHING WILL MAKE UP FOR REMOVING COAL FROM THE MIX. AS THERE IS LESS 

COAL, GAS PRICES WILL GO UP AND SUPPLY MAY NOT BE THERE. 

> WE NEED TO BE ENERGY INDEPENDENT. WHICH MEANS USING COAL. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-29

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

CURTAILMENT OR ELIMINATION OF FEDERAL COAL WILL SHIFT THE EMPHASIS TO USE PRIVATE 

COAL AND INCREASE ELECTRICITY COSTS. NO BENEFITS FOR FEDERAL COAL, SINCE NONE IS MINED. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-31

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

ANY REGULATIONS TO KEEP COAL IN THE GROUND, IN RELATION TO THIS PROGRAM, ARE 

AGAINST THE LAW. 

Comment Number: 0002191_Boyd_20160621-1 

Commenter1:Marilyn Boyd 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I strongly object to the leasing of our public lands for continuing devastation by coal mining. 

Comment Number: 0002192_Befus_20160518-3 

Organization1:University of Wyoming Foundation 

Commenter1:Brett Befus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please consider implementing processes that allow for future coal leases in a timely and efficient fashion. Simply 

put, open markets work. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-313

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002198_Provost_20160519-2 

Commenter1:Dale Provost 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am strongly against helping this industry produce coal which pollutes our air and our water, affecting the health 

of citizens and the beauty of our National treasures. 

Comment Number: 0002202_Grady_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Kathryn Grady 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am in support of the EPA regulations and support President Obama's actions; e.g. I'm fervently in favor of 

whatever Sen. Daines opposes. :) We need clean energy and we need to end our relationship with coal. 

Comment Number: 0002203_Wilde_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Tomas Wilde 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It's time to phase out coal mining 

Comment Number: 0002204_Trowbridge_20160602-1 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Trowbridge 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I believe coal mining is a bad, bad idea, and should ultimately be phased out, in the United States, and in every 

part of the world. It is clearly one of the worst and most carbon-polluting forms of energy production that exists, 

and it’s already caused irreparable and long­term harm to our planet’s health, to our ecosystems in particular 

areas, and to human health as well, especially in my native region of Southern Appalachia. 

Comment Number: 0002207_Campbell_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Cate Campbell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I support the phasing out of the federal coal leasing program. 

Comment Number: 0002208_Manole_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Bogdana Manole 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am writing to oppose the continuation of leasing public lands to fossil fuel mining. 

Comment Number: 0002209_Williamson_20160627-2 

Commenter1:Kirt Williamson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I support the BLM for putting continued restrictions on the Coal industry and believe that we must leave fossil 

fuels in the ground. 

Comment Number: 0002210_Gabbay_20160621-3 

Commenter1:Deirdre Gabbay 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-314 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We have a choice right now: 

(a) continue subsidies that continue to advantage coal relative to other fuels Or 

(b) to reduce any artificial incentives to burn coal – such as government subsidies – immediately. 

Please do (b). The quicker we move to a clean energy planet, the less devastating the effects will be in the future 

for our children and for the planet’s living systems. 

Comment Number: 0002211_Russell_20160620-1 

Commenter1:Holly Russell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am writing to ask you to NOT increase coal lease payments or to make the leasing process any more 

burdensome. 

Comment Number: 0002213_Tregellas_20160619-1 

Commenter1:Sheryl Tregellas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I support the opinion of Doc Hastings, WA 4th District, House of Reps from 1995--2015, as stated in Seattle 

Times Sunday June 19. Do not kill the coal program. 

Comment Number: 0002214_Hopper_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Carolyn Hooper 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am writing in opposition to Senator Daines beliefs - It is Not absurd that the Obama administration recognizes 

the long term effects of burning coal on the health of the planet , its people and all living beings with which we 

share the planet. While it is true that we will need to burn coal for the foreseeable future, it is NOT true that we 

must live with the unhealthy effects of goal for many generations. 

Therefore I stand WITH the President of the United States in his recognition of what we have done to the our 

(at this point in time) only home. The regulations are not job killing. Coal miners and operators of plants can 

learn new jobs in the industries that are better for all of us. 

Comment Number: 0002216_Bard_20160619-1 

Commenter1:Eric Bard 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Even without considering climate change, strip mining, developing, and burning of coal has a high cost to our 

environment, creates air pollution, and is a detriment to our economy in terms of limiting recreation and tourism 

potential on and around our public lands. We also know that coal use is driving increased global warming/climate 

change as a major contributor of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere. 

Comment Number: 0002216_Bard_20160619-2 

Commenter1:Eric Bard 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I urge you to put a full stop to selling of federal coal leases. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-315

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002217_Maxwell_20160619-2 

Commenter1:Gary Maxwell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The simple fact is that we have to stop burning carbon based fuels and leave natural resources such as coal 

deposits in the ground. 

Comment Number: 0002220_Andersen_20160601-1 

Commenter1:Nicole Andersen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I support leaving coal in the ground. No new mines. 

Comment Number: 0002220_Andersen_20160601-2 

Commenter1:Nicole Andersen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Leave the coal in the ground, no new leases. 

Comment Number: 0002221_Anderson_20160524-1 

Organization1:University of Utah 

Commenter1:Samuel Anderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Given this threat, I believe that the BLM should address the environmental impacts of leasing coal mines first. The 

fossil fuel industry isn't sustainable and tightening environmental regulations on coal leasing would help toward 

the transition to cleaner, renewable energy sources. I'm not saying that we should stop coal leasing entirely, but 

that the BLM should seriously consider the environmental impacts both at the source and where the coal is being 

used. 

Comment Number: 0002225_Wheeler_20160519-7 

Commenter1:Ray Wheeler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I support a total and immediate end to any new coal leases and the fastest possible complete termination of 

existing leases. 

Comment Number: 0002227_Hyche_20160630-1 

Commenter1:Kenneth Hyche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This program needs to end and not be restarted. 

Comment Number: 0002230_Ginn_20160627-1 

Commenter1:Darren Ginn 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We must reinvent and realign the fossil fuel industry putting the health of our planet first. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-316 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002232_Mungai_20160619-1 

Commenter1:Joseph Mungai 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Keep fossil fuels in the ground. 

Comment Number: 0002234_DeWitt_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Ward DeWitt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

in the short-term we need energy and coal can supply that energy. We have the time to further develop alternate 

sources, but we need coal now, not only for the benefit of the energy supplied, but for the jobs provided. 

Comment Number: 0002236_Semple_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Toni Semple 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am writing to support the federal administration's plan to levy a carbon tax and to begin phasing out coal 

production in the U.S., particularly in Montana. 

Comment Number: 0002236_Semple_20160622-2 

Commenter1:Toni Semple 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please do not permit coal extraction on public lands in ANY state, but particularly Montana 

Comment Number: 0002237_Hilden_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Alan Hilden 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I whole heartedly support President Obama's coal initiatives. 

Comment Number: 0002237_Hilden_20160622-4 

Commenter1:Alan Hilden 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need to focus more on environmentally safe and clean ways of producing power as well as conservation to 

reduce energy demand. 

Comment Number: 0002239_Baierlein_20160621-8 

Organization1:Conservation Northwest 

Commenter1:Jeff Baierlein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And so we call on the BLM to modernize the Federal coal program to take powerful and effective measures to 

protect the lands and waters upon which all life depends, to provide taxpayer equity, to support economic 

diversification in coal communities, and to lead a transition to a clean energy economy, which will provide a 

brighter and better future for us all. 

Comment Number: 0002241_Hodgin_20160701-1 

Commenter1:Jeri Hodgin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-317

Scoping Report 

The continued use of coal cannot be condoned in light of the devastating environmental effects of our ongoing 

use of fossil fuels. This is especially true when the advances made in alternative clean forms of energy are so 

great. 

Comment Number: 0002241_Hodgin_20160701-2 

Commenter1:Jeri Hodgin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I do not want our public lands to be leased to any entity that will further the negative effects of climate change. 

Comment Number: 0002253_Fribley_20160719-1 

Commenter1:Stephen Fribley 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am writing to express my full support for the revamping of our federal coal leasing policy. 

Comment Number: 0002254_Simmons_20160707-2 

Commenter1:Patricia Simmons 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Programmatic EIS on federal coal leasing is critical and needs an overhaul. 

Comment Number: 0002258_Smith_20160705-1 

Commenter1:Douglas Smith 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Let's keep all that unburned fossil fuel in the ground, where it belongs, and devote our energies (pardon the pun) 

to going solar. 

Comment Number: 0002262_Merrill_20160709-1 

Commenter1:Laura Merrill 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We ask for a permanent, total end to all new coal on public lands, for a full and just transition to clean energy 

now, for good jobs for all coal workers, and for a way forward that will be lifegiving for all Americans and for 

everyone on the planet. 

Comment Number: 0002266_Simonson_20160711-4 

Commenter1:David Simonson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I oppose the leasing moratorium and new taxes on our electricity and the attack on these high value high quality 

jobs provided by the Powder River Basin mines. 

Comment Number: 0002267_Duncan_20160713_WyBusinessAlliance-2 

Organization1:Wyoming Business Alliance 

Commenter1:Bill Schilling 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When it comes to coal and the leasing program, it appears that the Administration in Washington believes that 

moving away from a carbon economy will be beneficial to the nation. The Wyoming Business Alliance disagrees, 

believing that economic prosperity, and progress, for our nation depend on affordable and reliable energy. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-318 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002268_Hunter_20160713-1 

Commenter1:Rhonda Hunter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am asking for the "no action alternative" to new coal leases on federal lands in the Federal Coal Program. 

Comment Number: 0002268_Hunter_20160713-3 

Commenter1:Rhonda Hunter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Keep it in the Ground! 

Comment Number: 0002270_Gerst_20160715-1 

Commenter1:Gery Gerst 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I support a "no action alternative" to new coal leases on federal lands. 

Comment Number: 0002271_Dafoe_20160714_WAITC-3 

Organization1:Wyoming Agriculture in the Classroom 

Commenter1:Jessie Dafoe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Approximately 35% of electricity generation nationwide comes from coal, and Wyoming provides about 40% of 

that coal. 

Comment Number: 0002272_BURNHAM_20160707-2 

Commenter1:Bruce Burnham 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am writing to urge you and the BLM to honor the U.S. commitment to fight climate change by phasing out the 

federal coal leasing program and keeping public coal in the ground, unburned. 

Comment Number: 0002273_Blagg_20160714-1 

Commenter1:Merna Blagg 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This fossil fuel should now stay in the ground and with our highly technical possibilities for using renewable 

resources there is no excuse except the greed. 

Comment Number: 0002276_Henderson_20160715_350Colorado-9 

Organization1:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We applaud the review of the federal coal program and guidelines governing coal mining on public lands. Many 

important elements, guidelines, and standards are substantially outdated and need major reform to reflect current 

conditions and policies and to align with evolving climate-related policies. 

Our foremost desire is for the coal to stay in the ground. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-319

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002277_Thatcher_20160716-1 

Commenter1:Joan Thacher 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Let's put coal to rest. It needs to die for the sake of our planet and humanity. 

Comment Number: 0002281_Woodcock_20160717-1 

Commenter1:William Woodcock 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The sale of coal leases for outrageously low prices that fail to include the cost of reclamation and the failure of 

the coal companies to develop serious reclamation plans are reason enough to undertake a rigorous reevaluation 

and reform of the US government coal program. We must have a new energy plan for the nation that terminates 

public coal subsidies, is based on public transparency, and acknowledges the actual effects of coal mining, including 

climate change, and holding mining companies to reclaim mined land before receiving any more public coal. 

Comment Number: 0002283_Gorzalski_20160719_GOB-1 

Organization1:Great Old Broads for Wilderness 

Commenter1:Chris Gorzalski 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In light of the overwhelming evidence that climate change is occurring at a dramatic pace, we believe leasing land 

for coal mining is not ethically responsible. Our public lands can be part of the solution to global warming but not 

if they are used for coal extraction. 

President Obama has recognized the need to reassess our policies regarding new coal leases when he placed the 

moratorium currently in effect. The coal industry is in a state of decline, with bankruptcies occurring. We need 

to place our economic resources with the development of clean technologies and the training of coal workers in 

the same. 

Comment Number: 0002300_Csenge_20160710-3 

Commenter1:Rich Csenge 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

halt all further leasing of coal on Federal lands 

Comment Number: 0002303_Steitz_20160705-4 

Commenter1:Jim Steitz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Only a full termination of federal coal leasing will reflect the understanding that no cost--benefit calculation exists, 

by which the Department of Interior may conclude that the sale of these fossil fuels is in the public interest, or 

represents a rational or reasonable allocation of the natural resources under Interior Department management 

Comment Number: 0002315_Stewart_UnitedChurchChirst_20160722-1 

Organization1:Creation Justice Ministries 

Commenter1:Shantha Alonso 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Already, we know that coal extracted from public lands is an important source of energy and revenue for the 

United States. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-320 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002318_Gordon_20160722-5 

Commenter1:Diana L. Gordon 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate change is amply demonstrated by the number of super storms we are now experiencing. Burning coal 

causes illness, scars our landscape, ties up our railroads, and threatens our way of life. 

Comment Number: 0002318_Gordon_20160722-6 

Commenter1:Diana L. Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please cut back and eventually phase out this program. 

Comment Number: 0002318_Gordon_20160722-7 

Commenter1:Diana L. Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

By far the best approach for all concerned is to curtail this leasing program severely. 

Comment Number: 0002322_Gordon_20160722-1 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please severely limit or stop coal leases on federal lands. 

Comment Number: 0002324_Dubbert_20160722_BME-4 

Organization1:Blue Mountain Energy 

Commenter1:Jeffrey C Dubbert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal leasing program works well as currently administered. BME believes the system is as competitive as 

allowed by the free market. 

Comment Number: 0002324_Dubbert_20160722_BME-7 

Organization1:Blue Mountain Energy 

Commenter1:Jeffrey C Dubbert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projections, by the year 2040 the world will 

increase its energy consumption by 48%. While coal is projected to be a slow growth energy source, the EIA is 

still projecting the demand for coal in 2040 will exceed usage in 2016. Coal and other fossil fuels are part of the 

future. It is BME's and the Interior Department's responsibility to future generations to prudently ensure that 

power is available to maintain economic vibrance and a high quality standard of living. 

Comment Number: 0002324_Dubbert_20160722_BME-8 

Organization1:Blue Mountain Energy 

Commenter1:Jeffrey C Dubbert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In closing, BME believes the leasing program currently in place meets the needs of the coal companies extracting 

the coal, the government and people that expect a return on its resource and the end user who depends upon 

the power to be available. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-321

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-37

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

it will weaken the nation’s energy security by providing artificial incentives to sell the nation’s lowest-cost, most 

easily accessed coal overseas 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-6 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Finally, the Powder River Basin must be formally recertified as a Coal Production Region so that market demand 

(particularly the demand from the export market) and the social and environmental impacts of the Federal coal 

leasing program are properly taken into account in decisions to lease this critically important public resource 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-77

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PRB has grown to become the country’s largest coal producing region, and the mining industry is trying to 

build five new deep-water terminals in the Pacific Northwest to export PRB coal to the burgeoning market. No 

one can say with a straight face that the PRB isn’t “producing” coal. This undeniable reality, by itself, requires 

recertifying it as a Coal Production Region 

Comment Number: 0002327_Everdean_20160724-4 

Commenter1:Jo Everdean 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

mountaintop removal as a method of coal mining mechanizes a process that used to provide many jobs. It not 

only has this negative socioeconomic impact but also has a devastating impact on the environment. This method 

of coal mining should be banned from public lands. 

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-18

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I have not analyzed the exist coal leasing program law and regulation to see what steps must be taken to cease all 

further leasing, to terminate existing extraction contracts, consistent with law and due process. An analysis of 

how to end extraction of coal from federal lands should be offered in the draft PEIS and subject to public analysis 

and comment. This is a minimum first step along the path to ending coal extraction from federal lands. 

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-19

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Recognizing and starting the process for ending coal extraction is wholly consistent with the climate change 

response policies of the Department. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-322 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-21

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS must recognize that ending the federal coal leasing program is mandatory for our survival as one of a 

multitude of actions we must take to avoid the worst. I ask you to take this step as one well supported by 

science and necessity. 

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-3 

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We must end the Federal Coal Leasing Program to increase U.S. moral authority while advocating for the U.K.’s 

return to a science based effort to reduce its GHG releases. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/15/decc-abolition-major-setback-for-uk-climate-changeefforts 

Comment Number: 0002332_Ariowitsch _20160725-1 

Commenter1:Monica Ariowitsch 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am writing to urge you to NOT lease out our public lands to any coal interests. 

Environmental, health concerns need to be our priority

Comment Number: 0002335_Webber_20160725_HealthActionNM-3 

Organization1:Health Action New Mexico 

Commenter1:Barbara Webber 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to New Mexico’s Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department (1), over 23 million tons of 

coal were produced from New Mexico coal mines in 2010. As of 2012, four of the nine permitted mines in New 

Mexico were producing and much of that coal is publicly owned and managed by the federal government. 

Comment Number: 0002339_Satterfield_20160726_IECA-3 

Organization1:Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) 

Commenter1:Marnie Satterfield 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In their notice of intent, BLM states that worldwide demand for coal has decreased and will continue to do so. 

They continue, “declining natural gas prices and other factors made coal less competitive as a fuel for generating 

electricity.” (5) Those “other factors” include the continued overregulation of an already struggling coal industry 

by the BLM and other agencies within this Administration. 

Comment Number: 0002339_Satterfield_20160726_IECA-4 

Organization1:Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) 

Commenter1:Marnie Satterfield 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Since 2009, over 100 environmental-related rules were published in the Federal Register. Many of these rules 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-323

Scoping Report 

were directed towards the coal industry. These rules have economic impacts that measure in the billions of 

dollars in new compliance costs. (6) BLM correctly states that “a number of mines in the U.S. have idled 

production, companies have asked the BLM to hold off on processing certain lease tracts for sale, several major 

coal companies have entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy, many coal miners have been laid off, and coal-dependent 

communities have suffered.”

6) Hearing on “A Review of EPA’s Regulatory Activity During the Obama Administration: Energy and Industrial 

Sectors,” U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20160706/105153/HHRG-114-IF03-20160706-SD002.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002342_Etter_20160726-4 

Organization1:Bowie Resources, LLC 

Commenter1:Art Etter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The percentage of our nation’s power generated by both coal and natural gas has changed little over the last ten 

years. In 2006, both coal and gas shared 69% of total generation, with coal at 49% and gas at 20%. In 2015, both 

coal and gas shared 66% of the total, with both coal and gas sharing an even split of 33%, and wind and solar 

sharing 5.3% of the market. 

Comment Number: 0002342_Etter_20160726-7 

Organization1:Bowie Resources, LLC 

Commenter1:Art Etter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I ask that the Department of Interior resist making more restrictive change to the federal coal leasing process. 

The list of perceived environmental issues describing in the Department’s public scoping document are impossible 

to understand by people who have a close relationship with the industry. 

Comment Number: 0002390_Pfister_20160721-12

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the years since the BLM leasing process was last looked at under Reagan, certain changes have taken place in 

the way it has evolved, and I believe that it is now time to do so again 

Comment Number: 0002390_Pfister_20160721-2 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Now is a good time for BLM to stop and take an assessment of its procedures. The coal industry 

is in a great state of flux now, and a re-examination of BLM' s procedures to determine how it 

wants its federal coal reserves handled for future use can help the coal industry determine its 

future. 

Comment Number: 0002391-6 

Commenter1:Tom Tully 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should plan for the orderly decline of coal mining in the U.S. and in the West. Much of the federally 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-324 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

owned coal under control of the BLM is interspersed with privately owned coal, or coal owned by the states, so 

how the BLM manages their coal has a tremendous impact on a contiguous coal field. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-23

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This coal leasing reform process comes at a critical time. The coal industry is rapidly changing, coal use is 

declining, our energy sector is transforming towards cleaner sources of generation, and coal companies are facing 

increasing financial difficulties making ends meet and delivering on required environmental obligations. Between 

2008 and 2013, U.S. coal production fell by 16% and worldwide exports are dropping too, with a 21% decline 

from 2014 to 2015. (1) Secretary of Interior, Order No. 3338 (Jan 15, 2016) at 5. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-25

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The scope of federal coal program is substantial and has wide-ranging impacts. The production of federally 

managed coal accounts for about 41% of all coal produced in the nation and BLM is responsible for coal leasing 

on approximately 570 million acres. (4) According to the Secretary’s Order, federal coal generated about 14% of 

the country’s electricity in 2015 and accounts for about 10% of total U.S. GHG emissions. (5) Federal coal is 

leased from Appalachia to Alaska, but most of the federal coal production (85%) occurs in the arid region of 

Wyoming and Montana known as the Powder River Basin (6). 

(4) Id. 

(5) Id. at 2 and 4. 

(6) Id at 2. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-30

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is also important to detail the rapidly changing coal market. Coal use in the United States has been in a steady 

decline since 2005 and is approaching historic lows. (22) While coal use has risen and fallen over the last 60 

years, shifting market forces such as a burgeoning renewable energy industries like wind and solar, cheaper gas 

along with an evolving regulatory and political landscape that better patrols the harmful effects of coal 

combustion have made it uneconomical to build new coal plants and have worked to take many existing plants 

off-line. 

(22) U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review (June 2016) at Tbl.1 Primary 

EnergyConsumption by Source, available at http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_7.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-31

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As stated above, coal mining on federal public land accounts for 41% of all coal produced in the United States, 

85% of which originates in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana. Three companies in particular 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-325

Scoping Report 

dominate federal coal production: Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, and Cloud Peak Energy. Two of these companies, 

Arch Coal and Peabody Energy, have recently declared bankruptcy. Federal coal accounted for 88% of Cloud 

Peak Energy’s total coal production, 83% of Arch Coal’s, and 68% of Peabody Energy’s total 2014 US coal 

production. (70) 

(70) Greenpeace, Corporate Welfare for Coal: The biggest coal mining companies depend on subsidized federal 

coal, even as they attack federal climate and clean air policies (March 2016) at 3, available at 

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/corporate-welfare-for-coal.pdf?f3025c. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-35

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal industry is in a period of rapid transition as the United States and world energy markets shift speedily 

away from coal due to changing fuel prices, concerns of over carbon pollution, and the development of cleaner, 

often cheaper, fuel and energy sources. Unlike other periods in coal’s history, these changes appear to be long 

term and signal the end of the dominance of coal as a source of electric and power generation. It is important 

DOI and BLM’s reform of the coal program account for this seismic shift in the coal and energy sector. 

Until recently, coal had been by a significant number the primary source of electricity generation at over or about 

40% of all generation, but production and use are falling fast. (78) The numbers paint a clear picture. In 2016, coal 

production is on pace to fall 16.7%, a 25% decrease in coal production since 2014. The largest production cuts to 

come from the Appalachian and western regions, at 15% and 20%, respectively. (79) This falling production comes 

in the face of falling demand. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, domestic coal-fired 

generators burned an average of 948 million tons annually from 1997 through 2015 compared to a projected 682 

million tons for 2016. (80) Last month, the government projected coal would account for roughly 31% of the 

nation’s electricity needs to natural gas’ 33.9% in 2016, but the latest projections have coal providing roughly 

30.5% of generation to natural gas’ 34%. (81)

(78) U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2011 at 185-218 (Sept. 2012), available at 

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf. 

(79) Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, EIA: 2016 Will Mark Biggest U.S. Coal Production 

Decline on Record (May 11, 2016), available at http://ieefa.org/eia-2016-will-mark-biggest-u-s-coal-production 

decline-record/. 

(80) Id. 

(81) Id. 

Comment Number: 0002461_breen_20160728-2 

Organization1:The WIlderness Society 

Commenter1:Katie Breen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reforming our federal coal program represents a solution to coal's decline on the energy market. Its contribution 

to overall electricity dropped to its smallest ever, 29%, in January 2016 and to mine for remaining coal in hard-toreach places is getting more expensive. As alternative forms of energy grow, coal phases out. If the coal program 

is not reformed, then the coal program will continue as a faulty, outdated system. 

Comment Number: 0002462_Compton_20160728_UtahMineAssoc-11

Organization1:Utah Mining Associaton 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-326 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

With respect to the PEIS, UMA believes DOI should elect to continue the current federal coal program without 

any modifications, or better yet, lower the federal royalty rate and improve the efficiency of the program. 

Comment Number: 0002462_Compton_20160728_UtahMineAssoc-6 

Organization1:Utah Mining Associaton 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is a Critical Energy Resource for Utah and the World 

Most of the coal produced in Utah stays in Utah, and almost all of that goes to generate 

electricity. In fact, coal provides roughly 75% of the electricity in the state. It’s no coincidence that states like 

Utah with high levels of coal generation of electricity offer the lowest electricity costs in the country. 

That low cost of electricity is good for Utah families and businesses. Energy costs are rising, in part due to shortsighted regulations that make coal-fired electricity generation costly if not impossible. Families are paying a higher 

and higher percentage of their monthly income towards energy, forcing them to forego other expenses and in 

some cases making it difficult just to pay rent. 

Utah is well-known nationally as a business friendly state, with a low burden of regulation and low cost of doing 

business. One of Utah’s advantages to attracting businesses, manufacturing and high-tech jobs is our low cost of 

electricity. Affordable coal-generated power makes Utah more competitive and a great place to do business and 

raise a family. 

Comment Number: 0002465_Burnham_20160728_BurnhamCoal-1 

Organization1:Burnham Coal, LLC 

Commenter1:Bob Burnham 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal coal leasing program isn’t broken and there is no need to “fix” it.

Comment Number: 0002471_Reed_20160728-8 

Organization1:High Country Conservation Advocates 

Commenter1:Matt Reed 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Gunnison County is home to historic and active coal mining. The northern area of the county includes part of the 

Somerset coal field, where production totals averaged approximately 11.2 million tons per year for the five years 

ending in June 2014.1 Production for the year ending in June 2015 was 8.009 million tons.2 The BLM currently 

manages several active and proposed federal coal leases at the West Elk mine in Gunnison County. The West Elk 

is an actively producing long-wall, underground coal mine, producing approximately 5.2 million tons of coal in 

2015.3 It is owned by St. Louis-based Arch Coal Company, which filed for bankruptcy in January.4 

(1) Bureau of Land Management, Uncompahgre Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement, Volume I (May 2016), at 3-126. 

(2) Id. 

(3) See Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, Monthly Coal Summary Report, Period 1/2015 

through 

12/2015 (Feb. 16, 2016), available at http://mining.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/12Summary15.pdf (last 

viewed July 28, 2016). 

(4) See http://www.wsj.com/articles/arch-coal-files-for-bankruptcy-1452500976 (last viewed July 28, 2016). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-327

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-17

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal is a large share of total U.S. coal production. In 2015, 409 million tons of coal was extracted from 

federal coal leases,13 more than 43 percent of total coal production nationally (943 million tons).14 

Federal coal extraction is located predominantly in the West. In 2014, Wyoming hosted 80 percent of total 

federal coal extraction, and combined with Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Montana, the West hosts over 98 

percent of all federal coal extraction.15 

Coal extraction is highly concentrated geographically. Nationally, the BLM administers 306 coal leases.16 As of 

February 2015, active BLM coal leases were located in 47 individual mines located in 28 counties, including seven 

counties in Colorado, five counties in Wyoming, and four counties in Montana.17 

(13) "Federal Reported Sales Volume, Sales Value, and Royalty Revenue, Fiscal Years 2003 to 2015 by Sales Year," 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Washington, D.C., http://statistics.onrr.gov/. 

(14) U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration. “Employment/Production Data Set 

(Quarterly),” U.S. Department of Labor, Mine 

Safety and Health Administration, Washington, D.C., 

http://arlweb.msha.gov/OpenGovernmentData/OGIMSHA.asp. 

(15) "Federal Reported Sales Volume, Sales Value, and Royalty Revenue, Fiscal Years 2003 to 2015 by Sales Year," 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Washington, D.C., http://statistics.onrr.gov/. 

(16) “Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Federal Coal Program,” U.S. Department of Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/coal_and_nonenergy/details_on_coal_peis.html. 

17 U.S. Bureau of Land Management, “Cross Reference of BLM Coal Lease Serial Numbers and MSHA 

Identification Numbers, February 3, 2015." 1278-FOIA (860), FOIA# 2015-00462. 

[See Figure 1: Federal Coal Production and Production Value by State in 2014] 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-18

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal production has grown significantly in the last 40 years. Federal coal increased from 130 million tons 

in 1982 (15% of total U.S. production) to a high of 507 million tons in 2002 (46% of total U.S. production).24 

Productivity advantages and declining rail shipment costs in the Powder River Basin led to a shift in coal 

extraction from the East to the West.25 

[See Figure 2: Coal Production in the West versus the Non-Western States, 1983-2014] 

(24) "Federal Reported Sales Volume, Sales Value, and Royalty Revenue, Fiscal Years 2003 to 2015 by Sales Year," 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue, 

http://statistics.onrr.gov/; “Employment/Production Data Set (Quarterly),” U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety 

and Health Administration, Washington, D.C., http://arlweb.msha.gov/OpenGovernmentData/OGIMSHA.asp. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-328 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

(25) Shelby Gerking and Stephen F. Hamilton, "What explains the increased utilization of Powder River Basin coal 

in electric power generation?" American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90, no. 4 (2008): 933-950. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-19

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Less coal will be produced in the future. More recently, federal coal production is down from a high of 482 

million tons in 2015. 

Production is expected to remain at lower levels for several reasons: 

-Hundreds of coal-fired power plants have retired since 2010. Retirements tended to be older and smaller plants 

and account for only a small share of total coal generating capacity. Coal-fired retirements in 2015 totaled 4.6 

percent of total coal-fired generating capacity.26 

-New capacity is being added in natural gas and renewable energy. 

-Competition with natural gas has resulted in decreased utilization of existing coal-fired power generation 

capacity. The average capacity factor (the rate at which coal-fired power plants are operated) for coal plants 

declined from nearly 70 percent in 2010 to 55 percent in 2015.27 The reduction in utilization reflects increased 

competition with natural gas which is displacing coal generation. 

(26) “Today in Energy: Coal made up more than 80% of retired electricity generating capacity in 2015,” March 18, 

2016, U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25272. 

(27) “Today in Energy: Average utilization for natural gas combined-cycle plants exceeded coal plants in 2015,” 

April 4, 2016, U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25652. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-3 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Principal Recommendations. 

While we include specific recommendations with each section of these comments, we wanted to highlight some 

of the key recommendations for the preparation of the PEIS and reform of the federal coal program, which 

include: 

· The coal program must be designed and implemented in the “public interest” and must provide a fair return to 

taxpayers. 

· The process for determining lands “acceptable for further consideration for leasing” must be fully complied with 

at the land use planning and leasing stage, including applying and updating the unsuitability criteria, considering 

effects on other multiple uses and developing a reasonably foreseeable development scenario 

· The BLM should “take control” of the federal coal leasing program and develop a multi-year leasing program 

that replaces the current, industry-driven lease by application process, and can incorporate applicable elements 

from the Solar PEIS and oil and gas Master Leasing Plans. 

· BLM must put in place a regional mitigation strategy based on landscape scale analyses to support coal leasing 

decisions, and coal leasing must proceed only if it is shown there will be a “net benefit” to society resulting from 

leasing and development. 

· BLM must address climate change impacts and commitments by tracking emissions, analyzing impacts, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-329

Scoping Report 

developing a carbon budget and applying compensatory mitigation where impacts cannot be avoided or 

sufficiently minimized. 

· The PEIS should include planning for a future with declining coal production, addressing socio-economic impacts 

and considering tools to assist coal-dependent communities. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-58

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Due especially to the time since the last programmatic review, many of the central, underlying elements of the 

federal coal program need to be reviewed and updated in the PEIS. These include the definition of “public 

interest,” fair market value, royalties, rental rates, bonus bids, bonding standards and qualifications to hold a 

federal coal lease. Ensuring these elements are defined and updated in a manner that fulfills the BLM’s 

commitments and obligations as steward of our public lands is a vital part of ensuring the federal coal program is 

operated responsibly. 

Comment Number: 0002482_Jones_20160728_NAM-1 

Organization1:National Association of Manufacturers 

Commenter1:Ross Eisenburg 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is a vital component of the nation’s “all of the above” energy strategy that is fueling a manufacturing 

comeback. The NAM supports policies that promote the leasing, exploration and development of the nation's 

coal resources in an environmentally sound manner. 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-21

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM must consider the cost to the coal industry of making it impossible to develop coal resources, without 

incurring costs that will cripple the industry. The cumulative activities across various Federal agencies and 

departments ranging from this government action, to Planning 2.0, to the ONNR rules, to the OSM rules, must 

be considered before moving forward with the PEIS, because in many cases the concerns raised here have already 

been addressed, or are currently being addressed. These tiered actions not only create redundant compliance 

issues, but will increase timing of permitting instead of simplifying the process. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-38

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Throughout the public listening sessions on changes to the federal coal program, BLM and Department of the 

Interior officials were bombarded with claims about “loopholes” in the royalty valuation system and 

underpayment of royalties by coal producers. These allegations were almost always based on two so-called 

“Headwaters Studies.”7 Headwaters Economics (“Headwaters”) is an environmental advocacy group that falsely 

claims to be independent and non-partisan. Cloud Peak Energy incorporates by reference its comments on BLM’s 

coal listening sessions and the attached peer review on the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-330 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Headwaters Studies that refute its claims to be “an independent, non-partisan organization.” See Attachment 8, 

Energy Ventures Analysis, “A Peer Review of Previous Studies by Headwaters Economics” (Sept. 16, 2015). 

(7) The Headwaters Studies are available at http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp-content/uploads/ReportCoal-Royalty-Reform-Impacts.pdf. 

In two advocacy pieces (January 2015 and May 2015), Headwaters claimed to show that a “loophole” existed in 

current ONRR royalty valuation of non-arms’ length transactions and that coal producers evaded full royalty 

payment even in arms’ length transactions. Despite the fact that ONRR receives the sale contracts and details for 

every sale of federal coal and could readily contradict these unfounded allegations by Headwaters, ONRR has 

chosen not to do so. Cloud Peak Energy therefore contracted Energy Ventures Analysis (“EVA”) to undertake a 

peer review of the Headwaters Studies to determine if their data and methodologies were sound. The EVA peer 

review report categorically demonstrates that Headwaters used faulty data to draw unsupported conclusions and 

that the allegations of “loophole” exploitation to evade full royalty payment, as well as claims of underpayment of 

royalties on arms’ length transactions, are patently false. The EVA peer review arrived at the following 

conclusions: 

· There is no basis for Headwaters’ conclusion that a calculated netback mine price is higher than the FOB mine 

price that producers report to ONRR. 

· Headwaters made significant errors in its estimation of federal coal production, which distorted its results. 

· The “data” relied upon by Headwaters—prepared by a third party service—on coal sales prices FOB mine do 

not constitute data. The information relied upon by Headwaters was merely an estimate, with large errors that 

distorted the analysis. 

· The proposed changes to the methodology for valuing federal coal for royalty purposes suggested by 

Headwaters are neither “transparent” nor “efficient.” 

· Headwaters has no basis to speculate that there is a large “loophole” exploited by affiliates and unnamed 

“brokers” to avoid royalty payments. 

· The current valuation system is already “transparent” to the only entity that matters – ONRR. 

As the peer review conducted by EVA will be filed electronically and made part of the public record, Cloud Peak 

Energy requests that any responses by BLM to stakeholders based upon mention of the Headwaters Studies be 

directed to the EVA peer review so that the public can better understand how they were manipulated by this 

organization. Furthermore, as part of its review of the federal coal program, BLM should reject the Headwaters 

Studies as unsupported and unreliable. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-46

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal coal program plays a critical role in meeting America’s domestic energy needs. According to the U.S. 

Department of Energy, coal is the largest domestically-produced source of energy in the United States.8 Over the 

last few years, approximately 41% of America’s coal production has occurred on federal lands. 81 Fed. Reg. 

17721. In 2015, federal coal generated an estimated 14% of the electricity in the United States. Id. And when 

combined with state and private generation, coal accounted for 33% of the domestic energy portfolio. See 

Attachment 11, U.S. EIA, “What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?” (Apr. 1, 2016). The generation 

of federal coal provides electricity and heat for millions of Americans every year. The significant contribution of 

federal coal to the energy sector and the American public is made possible through BLM’s administration of 306 

federal coal leases, which contain approximately 7.75 billion tons of recoverable coal. 81 Fed. Reg. at 17721. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-331

Scoping Report 

(8) The Department of Energy’s discussion on domestic coal is available at http://energy.gov/coal. 

Federal coal contributes to the domestic energy economy in several significant respects. First, coal provides a 

reliable, abundant, and cost-effective source of electricity compared to other energy sources. Historically, states 

that utilize coal-fired electricity have enjoyed lower electricity costs and less price fluctuation than those with 

little or no coal-fired electricity. Not only has the price of coal generally been more stable than alternative energy 

sources, but coal has also historically benefitted electricity consumers by creating a competitive market with 

natural gas, nuclear, and other electricity fuel sources. 

Second, coal strengthens the domestic energy market by creating independence from foreign energy sources. 

Foreign energy independence protects the United States and the American people from disruptions in global 

energy supply and corresponding price fluctuations. Third, federal coal supports both local and national 

economies by providing an important source of jobs for coal miners and other professionals in industries related 

to coal production, transportation, and combustion. (For a general discussion of the economic benefits of federal 

coal, see Attachment 12, the comprehensive report by University of Wyoming Professor Timothy J. Considine, 

“Powder River Basin Coal: Powering America” (2013)). In short, the shift away from federal coal in America’s 

energy portfolio would have deleterious consequences to the American public by substantially and unnecessarily 

increasing domestic energy costs and increasing price volatility for American electricity consumers. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-47

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 4.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should consider the following facts and specific recommendations during its PEIS review: 

· The current administration has targeted America’s coal industry through a series of unlawful regulatory and 

administrative actions. Given the administration’s unwillingness to conduct a fair and objective review of the 

federal coal program, BLM should lift the federal coal leasing moratorium pending its completion of the PEIS. 

Cloud Peak Energy also requests that BLM disavow the biased White House Coal Report. 

· Although the Secretary has directed BLM to undertake a review of the federal coal program through the PEIS, 

BLM and federal courts have recently and consistently rejected the notion that a significant overhaul of the 

federal coal leasing program is legally warranted. 

· In determining the FMV of federal coal, BLM should consider federal coal lessees’ significant financial 

contributions to the American people, which we believe are unparalleled across any industry in the United States 

and clearly represent more than a “fair share.” 

· BLM should retain the current royalty rate and other leasing costs in order to ensure the continued leasing and 

production of federal coal in accordance with the MLA. Any increase in coal leasing costs would discourage 

federal coal development, while also reducing federal and state revenues from future coal lease payments. 

· BLM should carefully and thoroughly evaluate the impacts of federal coal program reform on state and local 

communities through meaningful collaboration with coal-producing states concerning socioeconomic impacts 

related to federal coal mining. 

· BLM should implement the recommendations in the IG Report and GAO Report and evaluate their 

effectiveness prior to undertaking an unnecessary overhaul of the entire federal coal program. In addition, BLM 

should reconvene the Royalty Policy Committee to undertake a detailed review of the complex royalty and 

revenue changes contemplated by BLM in its review of the federal coal program. 

· BLM should retain the existing LBA framework, while considering ways to streamline the permitting process 

and reduce the economic burdens on federal coal lessees. 

· BLM should not raise the royalty rate on federal coal production. Any increase in the royalty rate would result 

in the decreased FMV for federal coal leases and decreased lease bonus payments to federal and state 

governments. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-332 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

· BLM should acknowledge, as it did in 2011, that it may not legally impose climate change fees or other climaterelated fees under the MLA or any other federal statute. Any increase in coal leasing or production costs to 

advance the administration's political climate objectives would be unlawful. 

· BLM should consider the adverse socio-economic impacts that would result from increased costs on federal 

coal production. Any increase in coal leasing costs would discourage the production of federal coal and thereby 

diminish the significant benefits to state and local communities dependent on federal coal production. 

· BLM should consider the important role of federal coal in meeting America's domestic energy needs, including 

the benefits of low-cost, reliable electricity, independence from foreign energy sources, and jobs for workers in 

coal and coal-related industries. 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-30

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM manages federal lands under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”) of 1976. This Act 

requires federal lands to be managed on the basis of multiple use in a combination “that will best meet the 

present and future needs of the American people.”33 The multiple use definition also articulates that BLM should 

manage federal lands to account for “the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable 

resources, including, but not limited to, recreation . . . natural scenic, scientific, and historical values.”34 BLM’s 

interpretation of the multiple-use mandate through the federal coal program has historically been narrowly 

tailored around maximizing coal recovery through lease by application, which nominally aligns with the multiple 

use mandate because other federal lands are set aside for other uses such as recreation or conservation. 

[33 43 U.S.C. § 1702] 

[34 Id.] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-39

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Leasing programs should recognize the permanent downward trend in the coal market and the likelihood that 

coal’s share will continue to shrink as the U.S. and the rest of the world pursue climate goals. This decline may 

outpace the reductions envisioned in the Clean Power Plan as domestic and international climate action 

accelerates, and as the costs of renewable energy continue to decline. Ultimately, coal production must virtually 

come to an end altogether if we are to have any hope of maintaining a relatively stable climate.41 The date for 

the eventual end of the coal program is within sight, potentially within 20 years, and almost certainly by no later 

than 2050. This necessary phase-down should be a prominent consideration as Interior undertakes this 

programmatic review, in order to ensure both climate consistency and an orderly transition to a post-coal 

economy nationally and in areas currently dependent on coal mining for vital revenue streams. 

[41 In 2015, the United States added more wind (8.6GW) and solar (7.3GW) capacity than natural gas (6GW). 

Already competitive with fossil fuel generation, additional cost declines in renewable energy demonstrate why 

these technologies are a more effective tool for carbon pollution mitigation. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 

"Sustainable Energy in America: Factbook." February 2016. Available at www.bcse.org/wp-content/uploads/BCSE2016-Sustainable-Energy-in-America-Factbook_Executive-Summary.pdf] 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-333 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-78

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to examining the degree to which federal coal supports, or should support, fulfilling the energy needs 

of the U.S., the DOI should also examine the ways in which federal coal supports, or could support, the overall 

economic health of the U.S. and in tum socio-economic wellbeing of the American public. In addition, the DOI 

should not solely focus on the role of federal coal for energy, but should also examine the role of federal coal for 

non-energy uses such as manufacture of numerous materials and products. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-85

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The inter-relationships between net national environmental, economic, security and social impact and benefit 

factors linked within a comprehensive and accurate fair market analysis are numerous, complex and continually 

evolving, including competing energy resources, and hard to forecast externality factors such as geopolitical 

changes and large influential events. See University of Wyoming Center for Energy Economics and Public PolicyMay 2015- The Impact of the Coal Economy on Wyoming, (WY0-00922 to 00931). For example, the Oil 

Embargo and Energy Crisis of the 1970s contributed to adverse economic conditions in the U.S. for 

approximately a decade and motivated use of domestic coal to strengthen energy and economic security and 

social wellbeing of American citizens. Therefore, an effective federal coal program must be designed to be highly 

agile to be continually competitive within global market and geopolitical dynamics and to thereby provide the best 

possible fair return to the American public over multiple decades. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-4 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 4.5 2 8.7 8.5 7.1 8.9 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

2. Just Transition Alternative 

The “Just Transition Alternative” is meant to both wind down the federal coal program in order to keep fossil 

fuels in the ground and to ensure an orderly, effective, and fair transition of workers and communities away from 

coal to more prosperous and sustainable economies. The “Just Transition Alternative” is defined by the following 

key components: 

1. An end to federal coal leasing: Consistent with authorities and discretion under the Mineral Leasing Act, the 

Just Transition Alternative imposes a permanent pause on the leasing of federal coal. The primary basis for 

adopting this permanent pause would be to ensure the protection of the public interest and the interests of the 

United States. Such justification for an end to leasing is clearly supported by the Mineral Leasing Act. 

This pause would apply to all competitive leases (including all leases by application, including emergency leases, as 

defined by 43 C.F.R. § 3425.1-4) and lease modifications. We further believe there is ample justification for 

applying a permanent pause to other forms of non-competitive leasing, such as preference right lease applications 

and lease exchanges. With regards to lease exchanges, the BLM has clear authority to reject exchanges that are 

not in the “public interest.” 43 C.F.R. § 3435.4(a); see also 43 C.F.R. § 3436.0-2(b) (related to alluvial valley floor 

exchanges) and 43 C.F.R. § 2200.0-6 (generally related to exchanges). With regards to preference right lease 

applications, the BLM has the authority to reject such applications where there does not exist “commercial 

quantities” of coal. 43 C.F.R. § 3430.5¬1(a)(1). Given the dismal state of the coal industry and the overwhelming 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-334 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

climate costs that coal imposes on society, it would be dubious at best to claim that any commercial quantities of 

coal exist where there are preference right lease applications. Accordingly, the BLM has the authority to reject 

such applications. (20) 

Furthermore, to ensure an orderly end to federal coal leasing, the BLM and the Department of the Interior 

should issue a rule or guidance requiring that as land management planning is undertaken pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 

1610, et seq., that all lands within a resource management area that are not currently leased for coal, be made 

unavailable for leasing. The authority to impose such direction is set forth at 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e), which gives 

the BLM broad discretion to “eliminate additional coal deposits from consideration to protect other resource 

values.” 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e)(3). 

(20) The only preference right lease applications that exist are in northwestern New Mexico, where Arch Coal, 

which is currently bankrupt, has the rights to acquire 21,000 acres of leases. Legislation was introduced in the 

U.S. House of Representatives that would allow the Secretary to retire these preference right lease applications. 

See HR-1820, available online at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1820/text. If this 

legislation is passed, there would be no additional preference right lease applications requiring action. We 

support this legislation and urge the Secretary of the Interior to encourage its passage in the U.S. Senate and 

adoption into law. 

Putting a permanent pause on leasing will not destroy the U.S. economy or otherwise endanger our energy 

security. As a recent report looking at leasing in the Powder River Basin found, existing leased reserves in the 

Powder River Basin are sufficient to meet demand and effectively contribute to limiting temperature increases. 

(21) This report is instructive as the Powder River Basin is the largest coal producing region in the United States 

and imposes the greatest influence on energy supply and demand in the nation. If an end to federal leasing can be 

justified in the Powder River Basin, it can be justified for federal leasing elsewhere in the U.S. 

21 See Exhibit 11, Fulton, M., D. Koplow, R. Capalino, and A. Grant, “Enough Already: Meeting 2oC PRB Coal 

Demand Without Lifting the Federal Moratorium,” Report Prepared for Energy Transition Advisors, Earth Track, 

and Carbon Tracker Initiative (July 2016), available online at http://www.carbontracker.org/report/enoughalready-2c-powder-river-basin-coal-demand-federal-moratorium/. 

2. Increased royalty rates and rentals: Coal is exacting a tremendous toll on our nation, costing our society 

billions in climate damages, adverse health impacts from air pollution, and water contamination. Royalty rates 

from production on existing coal leases and rentals on existing leases must be increased to begin to recoup the 

costs of these externalities, which are currently shouldered by the public. 

Although royalty rates are normally imposed through new leasing, we recommend that the Interior Department 

and BLM incorporate higher royalty rates into existing leases as existing leases are readjusted pursuant to 43 

C.F.R. § 3451.1. To accomplish this, we urge the amendment of 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-2(a)(1) and (2) to incorporate 

increased royalty rates for both surface and underground mining. As leases are readjusted, these royalty rates 

must be applied to existing leases pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3451.1(a)(2). 

Increasing royalty rates has been recommended by the White House as both a means to generate revenue and 

address the costs of environmental externalities, including carbon costs. (22) 

(22) See Exhibit 12, Executive Office of the President of the United States, “The Economics of Coal Leasing on 

Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers” (June 2016), available online at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160622_cea_coal_leasing.pdf. 

Furthermore, royalty rate reductions should not be approved. Currently, royalty rate reductions are routinely 

granted as companies claim poverty or difficulty in mining with little apparent scrutiny as to whether the 

reductions are justified. In Colorado, for example, BLM officials have approved royalty rate reductions to facilitate 

methane venting and most recently proposed to approve a retroactive royalty rate reduction for a mine that was 

not even producing coal. (23) See Exhibits 13 and 14. 

Similarly, we urge Interior and BLM to amend 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-1(a) to raise rental rates for federal coal leases. 

Currently, rental rates are set at $3.00 per acre, a figure that has not been adjusted since 1979, if not earlier. This 

rental rate not only has failed to be adjusted to account for inflation, but fails to account for the fact that some 

leases may be of small acreage, yet yield significant amounts of coal. Rentals should reflect the value of the lease, 

which depends on the amount of coal a lease contains. In accordance with 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-1(a), any increased 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-335

Scoping Report 

rental rate must be applied to any readjusted coal lease. 

3. Existing leases that are not producing must be canceled: Where a lease is not meeting continued operation 

requirements under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.1(a)(2), it is subject to cancellation pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3452.2. Where a 

lease is not meeting continued operation requirements, BLM and the Interior Department should make clear that 

cancellation of the lease must be pursued. To this end, discretionary avenues for avoiding cancellation should be 

prohibited. Thus, lease suspensions under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.3 and payment of advanced royalties in lieu of 

continued operation under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.4 should be barred. 

The justification for imposing such direction is very clear. Currently, BLM regularly grants lease suspensions and 

allows payment of royalties in lieu of continued operation with no assessment of whether such actions are 

appropriate or in the public interest. BLM appears to be under the impression that lease suspensions or advanced 

royalties are somehow mandated, and that the agency has no choice but to approve company requests. An 

egregious example of this is with regards to Arch Coal’s Carbon Basin Lease in southern Wyoming (No. WYW139975). Arch acquired this lease with the aim of developing a mine to fuel a proposed coal to liquids facility. 

However, this coal to liquids facility has never materialized or even shown any promise of materializing. Most 

recently, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality terminated the permit for the proposed facility. 

(24) Nevertheless, since 2010, Arch has failed to meet continued operation requirements. The BLM has allowed 

Arch to maintain its lease, however, by routinely allowing the company to pay advanced royalties in lieu of 

continued operation. (25) These decisions appear to be pro forma in nature, and do not reflect any consideration 

as to whether it is appropriate or remotely in the public interest to accept advance royalties in lieu of continued 

operation. 

(24) See Exhibit 15, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, “Permit Termination, Medicine Bow Fuel 

and Power Coal to Liquid Project” (June 27, 2016).

(25) See Exhibit 16. 

Furthermore, where an existing lease is not producing, yet is part of a producing logical mining unit, BLM and the 

Interior Department should use their discretion to modify the boundaries of logical mining units to eliminate the 

non-producing lease and facilitate its cancellation. BLM has such discretion under 43 C.F.R. § 3478.1. 

Cancelling leases that are not producing will serve the goal of preventing any potential future development of 

existing leases and contribute to an orderly end to the federal coal program. 

4. Accounting for carbon costs in coal management: It should be made clear, whether through new rules or 

guidance, that carbon costs must be analyzed, assessed and disclosed as federal coal management decisions are 

made. Such decisions are most likely to include mining plan modifications issued pursuant to the Mineral Leasing 

Act, 30 U.S.C. § 207(c), and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (“SMCRA”), 30 C.F.R. § 746, and 

lease readjustments. It is imperative that the BLM and Interior maintain close accounting of the carbon emissions 

and costs resulting from its coal management actions, to ensure full transparency around these emissions and 

costs, and to meaningfully act to address these emissions and costs. Particularly given that, pursuant to authorities 

under the Mineral Leasing Act and SMCRA, the Secretary of the Interior has full discretion to disapprove mining 

plans authorizing the development of leased federal coal, it is imperative that carbon emissions and costs factor 

into and influence such decisionmaking. 

5. Reclamation must be guaranteed: To ensure an orderly end to the federal coal program, full and final 

reclamation must be guaranteed within a reasonable timeframe. We urge two regulatory changes to ensure this 

occurs. 

First, Interior should amend regulations at 30 C.F.R. §§ 816.100 and 817.100 to provide clarification and 

specificity around contemporaneous reclamation. Current rules are vague and fail to ensure that reclamation 

proceeds in a manner that is as “contemporaneously as possible” with mining in accordance with 30 U.S.C. § 

1202(e). These regulations should be amended to make clear that the success of contemporaneous reclamation 

must be measured based on a comparison of Phase III bond release acres, as defined under 30 C.F.R. 

§ 800.40(c)(3), with disturbed acres and ensure that reclamation proceeds at a 1:1 rate, in other words for every 

acre disturbed, one acre should be fully reclaimed to meet Phase III bond release standards. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-336 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Second, just as current BLM rules require diligent development of federal coal, these rules should also require 

diligent reclamation. To this end, Interior and BLM should consider rule changes to ensure that nonproducing 

coal leases are fully reclaimed within two years of failing to meet continued operation requirements and set 

deadlines for the full reclamation of federal coal leases that are no later than 2035. This reclamation deadline 

should be established by rule and incorporated into lease terms as leases are readjusted. 

Finally, Interior should amend self-bonding regulations at 30 C.F.R. § 800.23, and any other regulations, as 

appropriate, to prohibit self-bonding whenever publicly owned coal is permitted to be mined. This will ensure 

that, as coal companies continue their decline, that American public resources are fully protected and fully 

guaranteed to be cleaned up. 

6. Prioritizing transition: Above all, the BLM and Interior must make transition away from coal a foremost goal as 

the federal coal program comes to an end. To do this, the agencies should not only explicitly commit, to the 

extent possible, their leadership, resources, and expertise to ensure that workers and communities receive the 

support and assistance they need to transition to more sustainable and prosperous economies. Among the 

actions that Interior and BLM can and should undertake to ensure transition: 

-Work to secure Congressional authorization to direct increased royalty and rental payments toward worker 

and community support. Under NEPA, agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate 

reasonable alternatives “not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(c). Here, although 

BLM and Interior may not be able to direct royalties toward transition support, they can recommend that 

Congress pass legislation that provides such authorization. 

-Establishing an Economic Transition Fund, which would be sustained by an increase in reimbursement fees 

charged by the Interior Department when processing coal-related applications. Under the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (“FLPMA”), Interior has authority to recover reasonable costs associated with its coal 

management program and to appropriate and spend such monies. Specifically, FLPMA provides the Secretary of 

the Interior with authority to “require a deposit of any payments intended to reimburse the United States for 

reasonable costs with respect to applications,” including coal lease application. See 43 U.S.C. § 1734(b). Such 

payments are “authorized to be appropriated and made available until expended” by FLPMA. Id. Funds from the 

Economic Transition Fund should be directed toward transition-oriented initiatives. 

-Prioritizing support and assistance to help communities transition. In addition to securing funds and making them 

available, the Department of the Interior can play a key role in helping direct communities to support, steering 

resources to support conservation and research projects in or near communities, encouraging renewable energy 

development on public lands. Such leadership could be conveyed through a Secretarial Order that simply makes it 

an overarching priority of the Interior Department to advance transition 

Overall, the Interior Department and BLM must move to keep our publicly owned coal in the ground. However, 

keeping coal in the ground should not mean that we turn our backs on the workers and communities that have 

been dependent on coal for so long. Embracing an alternative that ensures “Just Transition,” in other a fair, 

compassionate, and orderly transition away from coal, is the most effective way to both protect our climate and 

help our nation effectively move to more sustainable economies and reliable and affordable means of energy 

production. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-7 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

c. The PEIS Must Thoroughly Analyze and Assess All Reasonably Foreseeable Impacts 

As the PEIS is drafted, BLM and Interior must ensure that all reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with any 

action alternatives, including the No Action alternative, are fully analyzed and assessed. To this end, we request 

the agency ensure that, as a minimum, the following reasonably foreseeable impacts are addressed in the PEIS: 

i. Impacts of coal mining 

The PEIS must obviously analyze and assess the impacts that any proposed alternative will have on the mining of 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-337

Scoping Report 

federal and the impacts that will flow from that mining. Similar to other EISs prepared by the BLM for coal leasing, 

we expect the PEIS to fully analyze and assess the program-wide impacts to public lands, air quality, water quality, 

and fish and wildlife (in particular threatened and endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act, 16 

U.S.C. § 1531, et seq.). (45) Such an analysis must address total greenhouse gas emissions, including methane 

emissions, associated with mining operations. 

(45) An example of an EIS where the BLM fully analyzed and assessed the impacts of mining to myriad resources 

is the Wright Area coal leasing FEIS, which is available on the BLM’s website here, 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/hpd/Wright-Coal.html. Although we disagree that this FEIS 

was fully compliant with NEPA, it nevertheless addressed many important reasonably foreseeable impacts and 

stands for the proposition that federal coal management decisions can have far-reaching consequences that 

warrant detailed review under NEPA. 

Comment Number: 0002503_Hamman_20160729-3 

Organization1:Lignite Energy Council 

Commenter1:Tyler Hamman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

2) “Reflect its impacts on the environment”

The inability to lease federal coal tracts is not accounted for in North Dakota coal companies’ contractual 

obligation to supply fuel for power generation and gasification. If a federal coal tract is bypassed, mining 

companies will have to pursue additional coal resources to make up for lost federal coal. As a result, there will be 

more disturbance, less efficiency, more fuel expended, etc. simply to provide the same amount of coal while 

increasing production costs that are ultimately borne by the consumer. Further, since mining companies hold the 

surface rights over federal coal tracts, the area will likely be disturbed to support mining activities regardless of 

whether the federal coal is retrieved or not. Finally, the rest of the world, particularly developing nations, is 

turning to coal to provide affordable and reliable electricity. A policy decision to restrict development of our coal 

resources will have no bearing on the decision of other nations to strive for the same standard of living coal has 

brought to the U.S., and as a result will have no meaningful impact on global emissions. 

Comment Number: 0002503_Hamman_20160729-5 

Organization1:Lignite Energy Council 

Commenter1:Tyler Hamman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Each source of energy has its advantages and disadvantages. Coal is a strategic resource that provides long-term 

cost certainty and availability for affordable power generation while being environmentally responsible. It must be 

the continued policy of the federal government to incentivize the use of coal to help meet our energy needs. 

Comment Number: 0002505_Brooke_20160729-6 

Organization1:Black Warrior River Keeper 

Commenter1:Nelson Brooke 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please discontinue the Federal Coal Leasing Program, which operates at a loss for the American taxpayer, our 

collective health, and our natural heritage – which we would rather pass on to future generations intact. 

Comment Number: 0002506_Nichols_20160729-1 

Organization1:Wild Earth Guardians 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-338 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal coal program must end: It is undeniable that we cannot continue to burn coal and have any chance of 

combating climate change. Your Interior Department must be upfront with the American public that there are no 

fixes to the federal coal program except to end it. We do not suggest that all publicly owned coal mining must 

stop immediately. There must be an orderly, yet expeditious, end to the program. With estimates indicating the 

mining and burning of publicly owned coal stands to saddle society with more than $7 trillion in climate damages, 

we cannot delay action. 

Comment Number: 0002506_Nichols_20160729-2 

Organization1:Wild Earth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Leasing must stop: The temporary pause on coal leasing must be made permanent as a means to ensure the 

federal coal program ends and that future carbon emissions are appropriately limited. Reports indicate current 

leased reserves are more than sufficient to meet any near-term needs that may exist. More leasing only 

incentivizes more production and ore consumption. Your Interior Department must be upfront with the nation 

that future coal sales are off the table for good. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-3 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Market Conditions - Excessive regulation, discriminatory government policies, artificially low natural gas prices 

resulting from over-supply, and export barriers have resulted in very weak coal markets. Decreases in coal 

production, extensive layoffs, coal company bankruptcies, and significant adverse economic and social impacts on 

affected communities and regions have been the direct consequence of these conditions. These are very real and 

immediate impacts of the current policies and proposed changes which deserve to, and should be considered in 

any objective analysis. The current coal program includes provisions (royalty rate reduction) which can be used 

to reflect and adjust for adverse geologic, mining, and other conditions. The potential exists to also include 

market conditions as an adjustment factor. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-4 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal Leasing and Climate Considerations - Coal built our country and is a key foundation for our success and 

prosperity. A rational energy policy should be based on a true, "all of the above" approach. In fact, this approach 

is essential if we are to meet our projected future energy needs. Much of the current focus is on addressing 

climate considerations, but this must be balanced with the critical need to maintain reliable energy generation and 

distribution systems and provide affordable power for our households and businesses. Any impact analysis should 

include an alternative which takes this critical balance into consideration. 

Comment Number: 0002511_Krieger_20160727-2 

Organization1:Washington Environmental Council 

Commenter1:Emily Krieger 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-339

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The phasing out of coal leasing on federal land should be explored. This must be done in a just way, but with coal 

stocks dropping, coal companies declaring bankruptcy, and our climate and communities suffering, we must 

prepare for the inevitable. 

Comment Number: 0002513_Lish_20160707-1 

Commenter1:Christopher Lish 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Selling many leases to mine coal at 

below-market rates artificially lowers prices, thereby encouraging more consumption of a fuel that 

is the nation’s top source of carbon pollution. That’s precisely the opposite of what we should be 

doing at a time when the future of our environment and our climate is threatened. 

Comment Number: 0002513_Quinlan_20160707-2 

Commenter1:Alby Quinlan 

Other Sections: 7.3 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At his time, there is abundant evidence that the burning of coal is hugely detrimental to the accumulation of 

carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. It is time to stop mining and 

burning coal completely. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-12

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM must comprehensively evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of federal coal leasing, including 

impacts from coal production, transportation, and combustion. These include climate disruption spurred by coal 

burning; impacts to public lands, water, and wildlife; impacts on communities beyond the coal fields; economic 

consequences, including the harmful effects of boom and bust natural resource extraction; impairment to land 

from unfulfilled reclamation obligations backed by unsecured promises from bankrupt coal companies; impacts of 

transporting and exporting coal for energy production abroad; and the failure of coal producers to pay American 

taxpayers a fair return for exploiting a public resource, including the environmental and costs of climate 

disruption perpetuated and enhanced by burning fossil fuels. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-43

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS Should Examine Significant Non-climate Impacts Associated With Coal Mining, Transport, and 

Combustion. BLM’s scoping notice acknowledges that “[t]he Federal coal program has other potential impacts on 

public health and the environment, beyond climate impacts, that will also be assessed in the Programmatic 

EIS.”170 However, the notice states that the EIS’s analysis will “include the effects of coal production” without 

explicitly addressing the impacts of coal transport and combustion. 171 The scoping notice also commits to a 

broad analysis of the federal coal program’s socioeconomic impacts. 172 Because NEPA requires agencies to 

evaluate the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of a proposed action, and coal combustion is a foreseeable 

result 169 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental Health and Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland Bulk and 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-340 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 19. 170 81 Fed. Reg. at 17,725-26. 171 Id. at 17,726 (emphasis 

added) 172 Id. 50 of coal mining on federal lands, the PEIS must disclose the non-carbon environmental and 

socio-economic impacts of coal combustion. 173 It is particularly crucial that the PEIS address these impacts 

because they are likely significant. The that mining, transportation, and especially combustion of federally owned 

coal causes to life expectancy and health may be much larger than the current estimates and are tied to 

greenhouse gas emissions. In June 2016, a White House Council of Economic Advisors report on the economic 

impacts of the federal coal leasing program explicitly recognized that significant health-based costs are associated 

with the continued mining and burning of federal coal. 174 Specifically: On the production side, coal mining 

involves emissions of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. Coal extraction and processing also may lead to 

external costs from water pollution and land degradation. Transportation of coal is often energy and emissions 

intensive. Coal combustion releases carbon dioxide, mercury, and other harmful air pollutants. Impoundments 

and coal combustion waste can also lead to severe water . 175 All of these social and environmental costs must 

be disclosed in the PEIS. Numerous environmental reviews from the past several years support the White House 

Report findings concerning harms from the non-carbon emissions of coal-fired electric generators: sulfur and 

nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, ammonia, and mercury. These environmental 

reviews reveal damage from coal burning to health, 173 In addition, this letter speaks at length about the need to 

analyze the impacts of the federal coal program’s climate-related impacts. The program drives the continued 

production of coal and reliance on coal for energy generation, frustrating state, national, and international climate 

goals. In addition the federal coal program perpetuates and increases exposure by downstream communities to 

climate disruption. While this section focuses on non-climate impacts, the downstream climate impacts due to 

the federal coal program also should be analyzed in the PEIS. 174 White House Fair Return Report, at 28 175 Id. 

51 longevity, quality of life, and property. 176 As discussed below, these are all environmental and health impacts 

that NEPA mandates that the PEIS address 

Comment Number: 0003004_MasterFormD_TheSierraClub-1 

Organization1:The Sierra Club 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM’s review of the federal coal leasing program must at least evaluate the following:

- Phasing out coal leasing on publicly-owned lands to better protect our climate and public health 

Comment Number: 0003007_MasterFormF_WEG-1 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Keeping coal in the ground: The ultimate goal of reforms needs to be to prevent remaining coal reserves in the 

United States from being mined and burned. This is necessary if we have any hope of avoiding the devastating and 

costly impacts of global warming. Reforms must ensure an end to new leasing of publicly owned coal and an end 

to future permitting of mining operations. 

Comment Number: 0003007_MasterFormF_WEG-4 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Rather than let the coal industry collapse and cause even more damage, it's time to embrace transition and steer 

it in the most effective direction possible. 

Comment Number: 0003012_MasterFormK-3 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-341

Scoping Report 

Coal companies across the country have demonstrated excellent environmental stewardship, responsibly utilizing 

public resources while simultaneously protecting and improving our beautiful country for future generations. 

Comment Number: 0003013_MasterFormL-1 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And the PEIS should consider alternatives -- including the rapid phase-out of federal coal leasing, extraction and 

burning -- that advance U.S. climate policy objectives while protecting public health, welfare and biodiversity. 

Specifically, I urge the BLM to consider and adopt an alternative that ends new coal leasing in order to keep 

unburnable coal in the ground and signal U.S. commitment to clean energy. 

Comment Number: 0003013_MasterFormL-3 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Given that federal coal makes up approximately 40 percent of the entire domestic coal supply, the PEIS must give 

rigorous and systematic consideration to the consequences of coal leasing policy on coal markets and prices, 

energy infrastructure and supply, and greenhouse gas emissions 

Comment Number: 0003014_MasterFormN2_NorthernPlains-1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The program is due for major reforms. I urge you to include the following changes to modernize the program 

and move forward on a new energy plan for the nation by ending public coal subsidies, creating more public 

transparency, accounting for all of the effects of coal mining, including climate change, and holding mining 

companies to reclaim mined land before receiving any more public coal 

Comment Number: 0003015_MasterFormN2_WORC-1 

Organization1:Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I urge you to include the following reforms that will bring the program into the present day and position us to 

move forward in the rapidly changing landscape for energy in the United States: 

* Ending subsidies for public coal, 

Comment Number: 0003016_MasterFormO_EarthJustice-1 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Bureau of Land Management's review of the federal coal leasing 

program must at least evaluate the following actions: 

* Promptly phasing out coal leasing on public lands to better protect 

our climate, environment and public health 

Comment Number: 0003017_MasterFormP-1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Thank you for temporarily halting new coal mining leases on federal lands while the Department of Interior 

considers reforms to the federal coal program. It’s time to make this permanent. 

There is no need to put even more of our coal in the hands of big polluters who profit off of the destruction to 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-342 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

our land, our air and our water. That’s why we demand an orderly phase out of this program and a just transition 

for coal communities and workers. 

Our nation must transition to a clean energy economy that is prosperous for all Americans and protects our 

climate. We can’t do this unless we put a stop to coal mining on federal lands once and for all, starting with 

making the lease moratorium permanent. 

Comment Number: 0003029_Arrington_J_06032016-2 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Patrick Arrington 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Changes in the federal coal program could threaten the reliability and affordability of electricity. 

Comment Number: 0003031_Benett_J_06042016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Mark Benett 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Government has been able to attack coal relentlessly for the past 7 years only because power plants have 

been able to convert to cheap natural gas which is available because of fracking. If Saudi Arabia is successful in 

severely reducing American oil production, this alternate cheap source of fuel is going to dry up and we will be 

facing a desperate energy crisis reminiscent of the 1970s. This is a dangerous game to play. Solar and wind cannot 

come close to meeting our electric needs. 

Comment Number: 0003063_Clawsey_G_06132016-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Mary Clawsey 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The danger to the miners themselves, to the environment even before coal is burned, and to threatened wildlife 

should be reason enough, and the damage to the environment from coal burning intensifies the case against it 

Comment Number: 0003065_selvaggio_G_06132016-1 

Commenter1:Diane Selvaggio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There are things more important than short-term gains for a few. there are things more important than taking 

our coal, which we may need some day, and exporting it overseas. there are things more important than 

supporting fossil fuels at a time when out national interests are best served by investing in renewable, sustainable 

energy sources. 

Comment Number: 0020003_Zepeda_20160712-1 

Organization1:Citizens for Overt Action 

Commenter1:Barbara Zepeda 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is a necessary part of the steel manufacturing process. Its totally wasteful to burn it for fuel or mine it in the 

destructive way it is being done now in the USA. High quality steel is needed to repair our infrastructure. 

Comment Number: 0020008_Hoem_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Harold Hoem 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-343

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Far from being an important domestic energy source in the years ahead, coal is now seen as a liability and major 

C02 pollution source. Domestically, coal's role in energy is rapidly diminishing as natural gas, increased efficiencies 

and renewables are winning in the energy marketplace. 

Comment Number: 0020009_Shurgot_20160712-2 

Commenter1:Michael Shurgot 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The issue here today is not how much money the federal government should demand for extracting coal on 

federal lands, but whether the feds should allow any coal to be mined anywhere on federal land. And the answer 

is NO! We must move away from the mining and burning of fossil fuels, and ending federal coal leases on public 

land now would be an excellent step toward that mandatory environmental goal. 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-11

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should examine whether federal coal lease royalty payments shared with the various states are used in 

ways that either serve national energy policy goals or undermine those efforts. 

Comment Number: 0020034_Koontz_TownofHotchkiss_20160729-3 

Organization1:Town of Hotchkiss 

Commenter1:Wendell Koontz 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The United States Energy Information Administration projects coal will continue to be utilized as a primary fuel 

accounting for 34% of US electricity generation through 2040.[1] World energy consumption is projected to 

grow by 56% between 2010 and 2040 with fossil fuels, including coal, providing 80% of that energy, again 

according the United States Energy Information Administration.[2] 

[1] U.S. EIA; Annual Energy Outlook 2015 with Projections to 2040; pg. 24; DOE/EIA-0383(2015) 

[2] http://www.cia.gov/todayinen ergy/deta i l.cfin?idI225I 

Comment Number: 0020052-1 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Commenter1:Barbara A. Walz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As BLM notes in the NOI, "On average, over the last few years, about 41 percent of the Nation 's annual coal 

production came from Federal land. " Nearly all federal coal production is done in rural areas across the West. 

Production plays a vital role in supporting rural communities and their ability to maintain key governmental 

services. Additionally, the coal produced on federal land is used to generate reliable and affordable electricity, 

which is important to both rural and urban areas. Lastly, the development and production of federal coal must 

comply with strict environmental regulations and is historically more regulated than other sources of coal. 

Given the many benefits of the federal coal program, the BLM should be looking at ways to increase- not 

decrease - production levels. Any proposal to increase federal royalty payments will increase the cost of doing 

business, resulting in a decrease in production and the benefits noted above. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-344 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0020052-3 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.

Commenter1:Barbara A. Walz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal coal leasing program is appropriately accounting for the potential impacts it may be having on the 

environment and society as a whole. 

Comment Number: 002501_Ring_20160728-1 

Organization1:Climate911 

Commenter1:Wendy Ring 

Other Sections: 4.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

From our perspective as guardians of the nation's health, the glaring deficit in the BLM's proposal is the failure to 

consider ending coal leasing on public lands as a legitimate alternative. Greenhouse gas emissions from coal 

combustion undermine US climate commitments and threaten the world's ability to stay within a 2C carbon 

budget. There is no reason to subject public lands and the US population to further risk when we have enough 

coal through existing leases to meet our needs as we transition to clean sources of energy. 

Comment Number: 003063_Wingard_1072016 -1 

Commenter1:Greg Wingard 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Though there have been some technological improvements, coal is still the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. It is also no 

longer cost effective in comparison with natural gas, or more importantly with increasingly cost effective green 

energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal. There is also little danger in the transition of losing 

generation capacity due to increases in efficiency, which can be rapidly implemented, and increases in storage 

capacity which can be used to make intermittent sources more closely mimic, and even be an improvement over 

dependence on base load capacity 

Comment Number: 003064_Merrill_1772016-1 

Commenter1: Benjamin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The amounts of monies collected for these leases is dwarfed by the major amounts of liability and losses incurred 

through environmental degradation, negative medical impacts, and the opportunity costs lost by the use of this 

land for a destructive industry. Even good mine land reclamation cannot stop the impacts to economies and 

environments by an unsustainable economic force such as mining. Public Land Leases to extractive industries have 

been a major destructive habit in the US economy costing generations of all Americans and the US environment 

an ever increasing fortune. Our government's bad business habits and lack of foresight have made our economy 

sick. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_00000201_ REILLY_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Katie Reilly 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I ask that BLM take full advantage of this review process to protect coal impacted communities, our public lands, 

and our climate for generations to come, not just for the next few years. This PEIS must look at stopping coal 

production on taxpayer land, incorporating the cost of carbon into royalty rates, evaluating how federal coal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-345

Scoping Report 

impacts production of clean energy, re-evaluating self-bonding, which unfairly places a burden of reclamation on 

taxpayers, evaluating BLM's authority to ensure a just transition for coal-impacted communities. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-17

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Leasing does not disturb the ground, does not remove the coal, does not transport the coal and most certainly 

does not burn the coal. The Department of Interior spends a lot of time evaluating the impacts of all of these 

activities, and very little time evaluating the cost of the leasing process. This is the opportunity to evaluate the 

process by asking some of the following questions. During the five to seven years of leasing, how many employees 

with BLM get involved, and at what cost, on a per ton basis? What are the secondary and tertiary costs of the 

program? For example, what other Department of Interior employees, lawyers and multitudes of people in 

administrative and management positions become involved in the program. The American taxpayer pays for them 

either directly in the form of taxes or indirectly in the form of user fees passed onto the consumer. 

Comment Number: 000001241_ HATCH_Rio Blanch County Commisioners _20160623-1 

Organization1:County Commissioners of Rio Blanco County 

Commenter1:Lisa Hatch 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Pretty obvious coal does affect our economies and that, you know, we want to keep coal going. 

Comment Number: 000001241_ HATCH_Rio Blanch County Commisioners _20160623-3 

Organization1:County Commissioners of Rio Blanco County 

Commenter1:Lisa Hatch 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

coal could be used for a variety of high-tech uses. The group successfully created a simple electrical heating 

device with potential applications in window defrosting, which could be used to defrost wings of an airplane. 

Their research is focused on four different film of coal. Grossman told MIT News that when the group decided 

to explore coal as a material, rather than just something that could be burned, the chemical properties of the 

material were surprising quite rich and that coal -- I lost my place. This discovery sparked an interesting question. 

Could the unique chemical properties of coal be used to make electronic devices with useful functionality? 

Despite coal being widely used for centuries, it had optical and also electronic-type properties that could be used 

for other things. So, may electronic devices are made from chip-grade silicone or grapheme, both of which are 

very costly when it comes to the purification materials to create them. But, powdered coal could not only prove 

to be a cheap substitute, but could also offer chemical property advantages. Plus there's this high conductivity in 

its thermal [indiscernible]. As this report continued, it talks about using it in solar panels and all types of 

electronic devices with more sustainable success than some of the things we use today for those things. So, my 

testimony today is that coal is not something we should be keeping in the ground. It is something we should be 

putting money forward and exploring what else can we use coal for? It has some very unique properties that 

could be used in medical devices. They talk even a little bit about they're doing some research at Stanford on 

how we can stimulate dead muscles on people that have been paralyzed. And maybe we can use it [indiscernible]. 

Comment Number: 000001242_ SANDERSON_Colorado Mining Association _2016062-3 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-346 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Government agencies, including the Inspector General's Office within Interior, and the Government 

Accountability Office, have already found that there are not major fixes needed in the Federal Coal Leasing 

Program. 

Comment Number: 000001249_ WILSON_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Ryan Wilson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I encourage the BLM to stop following political motives, and instead take this opportunity to step back, review 

the regulations already in place 

Comment Number: 000001262_Eaton_20160623-3 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Pam Eaton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I have a 17-year-old son, who's born and raised here in Colorado. And I use his years to mark time. And over his 

young life, we have seen Colorado's coal production peak and, and decline. 

Comment Number: 000001297_Slabakov_20160623-1 

Organization1:Climate Reality Project 

Commenter1:Yana Slabakov 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

That being said, the coal industry faces a bleak and inevitable future. The energy sector is slowly, but surly, 

making the transition from carbon intensive extractions to cleaner energy, which is, in turn, becoming less 

expensive to produce and implement. In January burning coal for electricity hit an all- time low, counting for only 

27 percent of U.S. electricity production. Many regions have begun responding to the impacts of the declining 

opportunities in the coal industry. 

Comment Number: 00001268_Ortiz_20160623-1 

Organization1:Western Slope Conservation Center 

Commenter1:Karen Ortiz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I believe it's imperative that the Federal Government updates the coal leasing system to address the impacts that 

coalmining activities have on local communities and mitigate the challenges our communities face in indiscernible] 

cycles of mining. This includes requiring the highest degree of reclamation standards, [indiscernible] bonding for 

future reclamation activity, conducting a thorough analysis of all impacts to air, water, and wildlife, prior to issuing 

new leases and ensuring a fair return from coal leasing. 

Comment Number: 00001272_Armstrong_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Jeremiah Armstrong 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

according to the Energy Information Agency, coal will play a significant role in providing electricity for decades to 

come. In 2014, coal delivered nearly 40 percent of our nation's electricity. It makes no sense to sit here and 

complain that the taxpayers are not getting a fair share -- a fair return on Federal leasing of coal. But, the 

Government can then take the taxpayers' money and waste billions and billions of dollars on intermittent energy 

sources, such as solar farms and wind farms, that are not reliable, not efficient, and very expensive. How about 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-347

Scoping Report 

we spend some of the government's money, or the taxpayer's money, on the already clean, cheap, and reliable 

coal industry to help make it better? 

Comment Number: 00001274_Chower_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Carole Chower 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

So, we need to be prepared because coal is not the answer for the long term. It's on the wane. The market 

forces are driving it out. And please, please consider first of all, health. 

Comment Number: 00001275_Earl_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Taylor Earl 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If they actually cared about the environment, they would see that coal has come further than any other energy 

producer in the America at reducing its CO emissions -- CO2 emissions. 

According to the EIA, the total U.S. CO2 emissions went down 504 million metric tons from 2006 to 2014. 

Clean coal technologies alone account for 86 percent of that reduction. A pretty impressive number considering 

coal- powered energy is only credited for 30 percent of our country's CO2 emissions. So, to say that again, coal 

powered energy accounts for only 30 percent of the country's CO2 emissions. [indiscernible] 86 percent of the 

[indiscernible] reduction. 

Comment Number: 00001275_Earl_20160623-4 

Commenter1:Taylor Earl 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Every major advancement that our country has had in the last two decades has on thing in common. It took 

electricity. In this day and age electricity is the lifeblood of our country. It affects every part of life as we know it, 

whether directly or indirectly. And it will never go away. We are passing the point of being able to decrease our 

energy consumption. In fact, worldwide energy consumption is projected by the EPA to grow 48 percent by 

2040. Solar, wind and other renewable sources will not keep up with that growth. Energy prices will skyrocket. 

And energy availability will plummet without coal as a large player in our energy production 

Comment Number: 00001279_Phillips_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Tom Phillips 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal can no longer compete with natural gas, wind, and solar. The era, the era of coal is coming to a close. This 

is happening, not just in the U.S., but also around the world. It is a global movement. Both India and China are 

moving away from coal. This means they're not only is the domestic market shrinking, but also the export 

market. The economics of coal are further threatened by probable carbon taxes around the world. Here in the 

U.S.A., massive amounts of natural gas will result in the long term, low prices for natural gas, making coal 

permanently uneconomical. Pure, nonpartisan economics dictate the end of the coal era. Unsubsidized gas, wind, 

and solar are now – or soon will be cheaper than coal-fired power generation. Wind and solar will continue to 

fall in price over time, putting even more pressure on coal 

Comment Number: 00001284_Sager_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Jennifer Sager 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-348 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

From my perspective, we need to transition away from fossil fuels. And I believe that reforming our coal leases is 

a good step in that direction 

Comment Number: 00001285_Abshire_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Jim Abshire 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Fossil fuel energy production has been and needs to remain at the forefront of our energy's -- energy portfolio 

Comment Number: 0001266_Reed_20160623-1 

Organization1:High County Conservation Advocates 

Commenter1:Matt Reed 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Under the current Federal Coal Leasing Program,Gunnison County taxpayers are being shortchanged to line the 

pockets of coal executives. This exemplifies the need for Federal coal leasing reform to address and correct 

abuses of the system. 

Comment Number: 0003063_Clawsey_G_06132016-1 

Commenter1:Mary Clawsey 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The danger to the miners themselves, to the environment even before coal is burned, and to threatened wildlife 

should be reason enough, and the damage to the environment from coal burning intensifies the case against it 

Comment Number: 0003065_selvaggio_G_06132016-1 

Commenter1:Diane Selvaggio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There are things more important than short-term gains for a few. there are things more important than taking 

our coal, which we may need some day, and exporting it overseas. there are things more important than 

supporting fossil fuels at a time when out national interests are best served by investing in renewable, sustainable 

energy sources. 

Comment Number: 0000730_Rothfus_USRep_20160628-3 

Commenter1:Keith Ross 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Though Pennsylvania's 12th district does not contain large federal land tracts, it is home to many miners, 

equipment suppliers, and other firms that depend on a healthy coal industry for their livelihoods. Accordingly, we 

are concerned about any additional regulations from federal agencies that seem designed to keep coal in the 

ground 

Comment Number: 0000737_noname_20160628-1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We must harness this opportunity to assist coal communities in moving forward. Funds currently used by the 

U.S. government to manage the federal coal leasing program could be used to enhance this transition or to 

restore legacy mine sites .The federal coal leasing program should be ended in order to save taxpayers money, 

protect public lands, and begin a meaningful transition for coal communities here in Appalachia and beyond. 

Please end taxpayer-funded coal extraction on public lands, and instead 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-349

Scoping Report 

invest in helping coalfield communities make an import ant and historic transition toward a clean energy 

economy. 

Comment Number: 0000741_Perry_NWF-1 

Commenter1:Edward Perry 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The monetary benefits of coal are well known, but what I hope you evaluate is the considerable cost to human 

health, our economy, and our Nation's wildlife by our government's support for coal mining on public lands and 

the substantial break in royalty payments coal companies receive. 

Comment Number: 0000843_Seltweiger_PennFuture-2 

Organization1:Penn Future 

Commenter1:Larry Seltweiger

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reforms of the leasing and production of coal on our national public lands and tribal lands are long overdue. They 

have not been updated for 30 years and they reflect an urgent priority for any carbon 

emissions 

Comment Number: 0000845_Lyon_NWF-1 

Organization1:Naitonal Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Federal Coal Program is broken from soup to nuts, and we encourage you as you approach this to look at it 

comprehensively and cohesively. Please look at the program from cradle to grave; lease 

site, bid applications, royalty, mine plan adequacy, reclamation bonding, reclamation integrity, post mining 

productivity, bond release and of course carbon reduction. 

Comment Number: 0000865_Wasser-2 

Commenter1:Justin Wasser 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I think it is time that the BLM review the scientific consensus on the effects of mining and burning what's 

extracted out of federal lands, and those externalities far into the future of the time, energy and finances we are 

going to have to put in to clean up the mess from today 

Comment Number: 0000866_Leers-1 

Commenter1:Ben Leers 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

it is necessary that federal land leases for coal needs to be stopped, but not only that but begin to impose 

recommendations to phase out the federal leasing of land for coal all together. 

ISSUE 5.2 - COAL LAND USE PLANNING DECISIONS (E.G., UNSUITABILITY CRITERIA)

Total Number of Submissions: 18 

Total Number of Comments: 33 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-350 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000355 _ Thomas _20160519-3 

Commenter1:Ann Thomas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Intact wildland are a unique resource in and of themselves and should continue to be for generations to come. As 

the BLM considers how to move forward with coal leasing on public lands, I urge them to take into account the 

value of these lands beyond only the monetary. 

Comment Number: 0000582-1 

Commenter1:Robert Meyer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Public lands have better long-term use for wildlife protection, tourism, and outdoor recreation than being 

damaged by strip mining for coal. 

Comment Number: 0001191-2 

Commenter1:A.R. Morris 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM leasing program needs to be transformed into a clean energy program. BLM land can be the site of solar 

farms, wind farms, and updating the grid. BLM must use its taxpayer money it could get money from -- I know it 

has other programs besides coal leasing -- and then it could get new revenue from renewable energy and then 

they could use that money to fast track even more renewable energy programs that meet the needs of the 21st 

century planet. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-6 

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

DO THE BLM’S UNSUITABILITY SCREENING CRITERIA ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS OF 

WHERE AND/OR WHERE NOT TO LEASE – YES, UNDER THE CURRENT SCREENING CRITERIA. 

Comment Number: 0002296_Regan_20160720-1 

Commenter1:David Regan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Environmental considerations should also play a greater role in what land gets leases or not. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-32

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Even though RMPs show millions of acres of federal coal available for leasing, the vast majority of lease 

applications BLM receives are proposed by coal companies adjacent to companies’ existing coal mines, allowing 

current mining operations to continue. Despite having “suitability” criteria that should guide whether BLM 

actually makes lands available for coal leasing and a broad multiple use mandate that requires the agency to 

consider how to protect other uses and values, BLM has failed to take lands off the table – neither finding lands 

“unsuitable” nor determining other resources should be protected.

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-49

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-351

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Mining should not occur in unsuitable lands or environmentally sensitive lands. BLM should work with sister 

agencies to more appropriately determine areas that are unsuitable for mining and prohibit leases for mining in 

unsuitable areas, particularly those that cannot be reclaimed and those that are especially environmentally 

sensitive or have special habitat value. This includes areas where the hydrological balance cannot be restored to 

pre-mining conditions. BLM should also identify areas where coal development should be avoided due to high 

conflicts with wildlife and fisheries, water, air and protected lands, and amend resource management plans to 

exclude them from future leasing. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-30

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While, in theory, Land Use Plans, such as RMPs, provide BLM with an opportunity to evaluate suitable areas with 

mining potential, in practice they have not provided a framework for BLM to make affirmative and informed 

decisions about where, and on what terms, coal leasing may be appropriate as BLM defers all coal leasing screens 

to the time of a LBA. The Buffalo (WY) Field Office, for example, did not apply any leasing screens limiting where 

coal could be leased when revising its Resource Management Plan in 2015. BLM, Proposed Resource Management 

Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Buffalo Field Office Planning Area (May 2015) at 29 (“[N]o 

coal leasing allocation decisions are being made through the RMP revision process. . . . Prior to offering a coal 

tract for sale, the unsuitability criteria will be reviewed, a tract specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

analysis will be completed, and there will be opportunity for public comment”). See also, Miles City Field Office 

Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (June 2015) at 2-10 (“At the 

time an application for a new coal lease or lease modification is submitted to the BLM, the BLM will determine 

whether the lease application area is “unsuitable” for all or certain coal mining methods pursuant to 43 CFR

3461.5.”). BLM’s Buffalo (WY) and Miles City (MT) Field Offices cover federal coal in the Powder River Basin.

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-64

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Although, as noted, BLM’s regulations specify some areas as unsuitable for mining, 43 C.F.R. § 3461.5, under this 

alternative BLM would more expansively identify specific areas where coal development should be avoided due to 

high conflicts with wildlife and fisheries, water, air and protected lands, and set a schedule for amending Resource 

Management Plans to exclude them from future leasing. 

Comment Number: 0002468-1 

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Commenter1:Shannon Anderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our organizations strongly believe that any reform measures must achieve the following objectives: 

-Ensuring a fair return to the American public for the leasing and mining of our publicly owned mineral resources 

by increasing royalty rates and closing loopholes in coal valuation processes; 

-Increasing transparency of and public oversight around the federal coal program; 

-Preventing impacts of coal leasing, mining, and burning on the global climate; 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-352 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

-Better protecting our air, land, water, and wildlife resources; and 

-Addressing the legacy issues of decades of federal coal mining, including ensuring reclamation of currently leased 

areas before new leasing can proceed. 

To meet these shared economic and environmental goals, as part of its coal reform efforts, the Department 

should propose to replace Coal Production Regions and Leasing by Application with a new model of leasing that 

balances the nation’s energy needs with the effects of coal mining, transportation and burning on air, land, water, 

wildlife resources and the global climate. The new leasing model must take into account the latest information on 

the availability of coal reserves, coal demand, and replacement energy sources. The Department must re-assert 

itself as the driver of the leasing process and acknowledge that leasing should only be carried out if it can protect 

our public land resources and is consistent with the public interest objectives of the Mineral Leasing Act. 

Comment Number: 0002470-11

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Programmatic EIS should consider a regulatory framework that gives the BLM and ONRR a more proactive 

role in determining the value of federal coal for the purpose of royalty calculation and the value of applicable 

deductions, rather than relying so heavily on industry reported data. Transparency should be a priority in this 

process. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-27

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

However, it is not only that the criteria themselves that are inadequate to prevent coal mining from unduly 

harming our communities and habitats ? the implementation of the screening criteria is likewise inadequate. For 

example, several exemptions allow the criteria to be bypassed. Pursuant to 43 C.F.R § 3461.2-1(a)(1), “each of 

the unsuitability criteria shall be applied to all coal lands with development potential identified in the 

comprehensive land use plan or land use analysis;” however, that section adds that “for areas where 1 or more 

unsuitability conditions are found and for which the authorized officer of the surface management agency could 

otherwise regard coal mining as a likely use, the exceptions and exemptions for each criterion may be applied.” 

This broad grant of authority to disregard the applicability of the unsuitability criteria in cases where coal mining 

is somehow still considered a “likely use” is dangerous, especially without any indication of the factors that would 

be used to determine its applicability. Allowing lands to be mined even when the unsuitability criteria suggest it 

should not be, simply because some “authorized officer” thinks that coal mining is a “likely use,” provides nothing 

other than a means for mining companies to exert influence on the agency in an attempt to disregard the criteria 

intended to protect sensitive areas from harm. This provision must be changed such that no mining is allowed on 

lands that have been shown to be unsuitable. 

Furthermore, 43 C.F.R § 3461.2-1(b)(1) allows the “authorized officer” to make that assessment “on the best 

available data that can be obtained given the time and resources available to prepare the plan.” This standard falls 

well short of what is normally used to ensure that environmental resources are not unduly adversely impacted. 

Under both the ESA and NEPA, the standard is to use the “best available science.”243 The limitation provided in 

43 C.F.R § 3461.2-1(b)(1) regarding time and resources, however, is a slippery slope that would allow decisions 

to be made based on incomplete and unreliable information - especially given the fact that resources at both the 

state and federal level for gathering data to support studies regarding the impacts of coal mining on the 

environment are entirely lacking. The regulations also do not require that all relevant information be used in 

BLM’s analysis. 43 C.F.R § 3461.2-1 states that “land use analysis shall include an indication of the adequacy and 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-353 

Scoping Report 

reliability of the data involved;” however, the regulation does not prohibit BLM from making a determination if 

the information is incomplete, but rather allows BLM to determine that a criterion “cannot be applied” due to 

“inadequate or unreliable data,” and then merely requires that the “analysis [] discuss the reasons therefor and 

disclose when the data needed to make an assessment with reasonable certainty would be generated.” This 

provision allows decisions to be made without sufficient information or regard for environmental impacts, and is 

therefore precarious when we must be precautionary. 

(243) See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-28

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A provision that states emphatically that decisions must be based on the best available science, and that no mining 

may be allowed absent sufficient information on the potential impacts on human health and the environment, is 

necessary to prevent the devastating harm that coal mining has already caused and will continue to cause if more 

enforceable restrictions are not employed. NEPA, for example, requires agencies to gather information where 

there is incomplete information essential to making a determination of impacts.244 If that information cannot be 

obtained, then BLM should not merely have to disclose the reasons why the data is unavailable and when it could 

be obtained, but should have to assess the relevance of that information, as required under NEPA,245 and no 

determination must be made until such information is available. 

(244) 43 C.F.R. § 1502.22(a) (“If the incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse 

impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not 

exorbitant, 

the agency shall include the information in the environmental impact statement.”). 

(245) Id. at § 1536(b). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-30

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

1. The Unsuitability Screening Criteria 

i. Criterion 1 

Criterion 1 prevents coal mining on “all Federal lands” including not only obvious areas such as National Parks 

and wilderness areas, but on all National Forests. This is a reasonable limitation, especially given the fact that 

sufficient private land exists for coal exploitation, and public lands must be managed under public trust principles, 

which are inconsistent with the harms to both the local and global environment caused by coal mining. The only 

way to protect public lands and the species that rely on them from undue harm from coal mining is to prevent 

these activities on our public lands. 

However, there is an exception that swallows this rule. It states that a lease may be issued for mining on National 

Forest lands if there are “no significant recreational, timber, economic or other values which may be incompatible 

with the lease, and [] surface operations and impacts are incident to an underground coal mine.” First, that 

surface impacts are incident to underground mining is meaningless, and does not prevent undue harm to our 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-354 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

National Forests. The fact that there is no language about minimizing these incidental impacts to the surface 

resources is totally unreasonable, given that minimization of impacts is essential to protecting resources. While 

the regulations provide for BLM to place “particular emphasis” on protecting certain environmental 

resources,247 a more specific requirement that harm be minimized should be included at the very least. 

Second, this exception provides too much leeway for the decision to allow mining on National Forest lands. 

Whether there are “values” that are inconsistent or incompatible with the lease is a very broad, undefined 

inquiry. As discussed above, the “value” attributable to preventing further climate harm should outweigh all 

economic basis for allowing further coal mining; however, apparently this provision has not been properly 

employed, since coal mining continues to occur, regardless of the impacts. Further, this provision ignores impacts 

to habitats and species, focusing instead on the economic values associated with National Forests, such as timber 

and recreation. This provision should be broadened to include habitat, such that mining on National Forest lands 

may not be allowed if such activities are incompatible with the habitat needs of species that rely on those areas? 

particularly species protected under state and/or federal law, or that have been otherwise identified as imperiled. 

ii. Criterion 3 

Criterion 3 provides that lands within 100 feet of the outside line of the right-of-way of a public road or within 

100 feet of a cemetery, or within 300 feet of any public building, school, church, community or institutional 

building or public park or within 300 feet of an occupied dwelling are unsuitable. While providing strict buffers for 

these sensitive areas is warranted (and the same must be done for environmental resources as well, such as 

streams), the distances provided here are insufficient to protect our communities. This provision allows coal 

mining within 300 feet (just one football field) of a school or home. Based on what we now know about the 

harmful effects of mining on local communities, including both water impacts from the release of pollutants and 

air impacts from toxic coal dust, a much larger buffer (i.e. 500 feet or more) should be employed.248 

iii. Criterion 4 

Criterion 4 states that “Federal lands designated as wilderness study areas shall be considered unsuitable while 

under review by the Administration and the Congress for possible wilderness designation. For any Federal land 

which is to be leased or mined prior to completion of the wilderness inventory by the surface management 

agency, the environmental assessment or impact statement on the lease sale or mine plan shall consider whether 

the land possesses the characteristics of a wilderness study area. If the finding is affirmative, the land shall be 

considered unsuitable....”

This provision, while protecting areas that have been designated for potential inclusion into wilderness areas, 

leaves too many sensitive areas open to coal mining activities. The provision should apply not only to wilderness 

study areas and those areas with wilderness characteristics, it should also include all inventoried roadless areas, 

as well as other large habitat blocks that are vital to species that rely on intact habitat. 

Habitat fragmentation is one of the biggest threats to biodiversity.249 Maintaining large habitat blocks is not only 

essential for the species that rely on them, but for all species to adapt and adjust to climate change. Given that 

coal is rapidly becoming an obsolete source of energy mostly because we now know that exploiting coal 

resources is horrible for the environment? there is absolutely no reason to continue to allow mining activities in 

areas that would cause greater habitat fragmentation or otherwise adversely affect large habitat blocks. The 

revamped program should therefore provide that intact habitat blocks (i.e. greater than __ acres) must be 

protected, and any lands where mining activities would contribute to fragmentation are unsuitable. 

iv. Criterion 6 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-355

Scoping Report 

Pursuant to criterion 6, “Federal lands under permit by the surface management agency, and being used for 

scientific studies involving food or fiber production, natural resources, or technology demonstrations and 

experiments shall be considered unsuitable for the duration of the study, demonstration or experiment....” It is 

not clear whether “natural resources” is intended to cover studies regarding habitat or species, but it should be 

made clear that such studies ? especially those involving habitat needs and the impacts of mining on species or 

waterways ? would also render lands unsuitable. 

v. Criterion 9 

Criterion 9 states that designated or proposed critical habitat for listed species, and habitat for such species 

which is determined to be of essential value and where the presence of threatened or endangered species has 

been scientifically documented, shall be considered unsuitable. While this should be the end of it, and no coal 

mining activities should ever be allowed to take listed species or adversely modify essential or critical habitat, 

there is an exception in Criterion 9 that not only swallows the rule, it chews it up and spits it out. 

The exception states that a “lease may be issued and mining operations approved if, after consultation with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the Service determines that the proposed activity is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the listed species and/or its critical habitat.”

There are several problems with this exception. The first is that while site-specific consultation may result in 

measures to reduce or avoid harm to species, that process fails to provide a holistic analysis of the cumulative 

impacts caused by coal mining activities. 

The second is that consultation often does not take place on specific mining projects regulated under SMCRA, 

due to a 1996 Biological Opinion, which covers all take of all listed species, for all time (including future listed 

species) from impacts associated with coal mining.250 The Service relies on this BiOp to find that individual mines 

will not jeopardize listed species absent site-specific analysis, yet mining activities continue to drive species to the 

brink of extinction. This is due, in part, to the reliance on Protection and Enhancement Plans (PEPs), which are 

intended to implement measures to mitigate take, such that mining activities will not jeopardize species in 

violation of Section 7 of the ESA. However, FWS has only provided PEP Guidance for some listed species, such as 

the Indiana bat and blackside dace, but not for all species that may be directly and indirectly impacted by surface 

and/or underground coal mining of federal coal. Endangered or threatened species directly affected by existing or 

proposed mines on federal coal leases include but not limited to:251 

Ute ladies’-tresses blowout penstemon 

Gunnison sage-grouse Mexican spotted owl 

Southwestern willow flycatcher Yellow-billed cuckoo 

Greenback cutthroat trout Pawnee montane skipper 

Canada lynx Preble’s meadow jumping mouse

DeBeque phacelia Penland alpine fen mustard 

Colorado hookless cactus bonytail chub 

humpback chub razorback sucker 

Colorado pikeminnow Utah prairie dog 

gray bat Virginia Big-eared bat 

dusktail darter palezone shiner 

Cumberland darter Cumberland elktoe 

Fanshell Cumberlandian combshell 

oyster mussel tan riffleshell 

snuffbox pink mucket 

little-wing pearlymussel Cumberland bean pearlymussel 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-356 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Cumberland sandwort Cumberland Rosemary 

American chaffseed white-haired goldenrod 

Virginia spiraea running Buffalo clover 

Absent site-specific consultation and PEPs that actually implement protections for species, it is impossible for 

mine operators to “minimize disturbances and adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and related environmental 

values, including compliance with the Endangered Species Act....”252 Further, even where the agencies do not 

rely on the 1996 BiOp and do conduct consultations, history has shown that this has not worked to protect 

imperiled species. Data published since 1996 document increasingly significant declines in numerous imperiled and 

federally protected taxa, and degradation of their habitats, as the result of surface coal mining.253 

Recent scientific and policy documents further show that surface mining is increasingly imperiling numerous 

species of many taxa, contrary to the conclusions of the 1996 Biological Opinion, and perhaps specifically because 

OSM and FWS have failed to properly implement and oversee the implementation of the requirements of the 

1996 Biological Opinion.254 It is therefore clear that this criterion is failing to ensure the protection of listed 

species. 

As discussed above, there is no reason to allow coal mining generally, and even less to allow these activities in 

areas that support listed or proposed species. This dying industry should not be allowed to drag down with it the 

imperiled species that rely on lands that coal companies want to exploit for profit. Rather, the standard should be 

that any land with suitable habitat for listed or proposed species is unsuitable for coal mining, and if an exception 

must be provided (and there really is no good reason to do so), then the exception should be allowed only if 

after surveys and studies it has been shown that no habitat for listed or proposed species would be negatively 

impacted, and a concurrence letter from FWS stating that no take is expected to occur. 

vi. Criterion 10 

Criterion 10 states that Federal lands containing critical habitat for state listed plant or animal species shall be 

considered unsuitable. While in theory this is protective of species, it suffers from some of the same issues as 

discussed above regarding federally-listed species. In short, this is not being enforced correctly, and the results 

speak for themselves. Too many species have suffered from coal mining over the past few decades ? with many 

driven to the brink of extinction or extirpated entirely ? for anyone to argue that this criterion (or Criterion 9) is 

doing what it intended. A new rule that does not allow any adverse modification of habitat for any listed species, 

state or federal, is warranted to ensure that species do not continue to be harmed by a process that allows for 

wanton destruction of habitat. 

It is, in fact, readily apparent that state programs are not being properly enforced. In West Virginia Highlands 

Conservancy, for example, the court detailed the damage done by OSM’s refusal to properly oversee the 

inadequate West Virginia program. It noted many direct impacts and wide ranging indirect impacts, finding: 

“a climate of lawlessness, which creates a pervasive impression that continued disregard for federal law and 

statutory requirements goes unpunished, or possibly unnoticed. Agency warnings have no more effect than a 

wink and a nod, a deadline is just an arbitrary date on the calendar and, once passed, not to be mentioned again. 

Financial benefits accrue to the owners and operators who were not required to incur the statutory burden and 

costs attendant to surface mining; political benefits accrue to the state executive and legislators who escape 

accountability while the mining industry gets a free pass. Why should the state actors do otherwise when the 

federal regulatory enforcers’ findings, requirements, and warnings remain toothless and without effect?255 

The Federal coal program is therefore not being properly implemented, which has resulted in undue adverse 

impacts to habitats and the species that rely on them. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-357

Scoping Report 

vii. Criteria 12, 14 and 15 

Criterion 12 protects bald and golden eagle roost and concentration area used during migration and wintering, 

and Criterion 14 protects high priority habitat for migratory bird species. While these protective measures are 

vitally important to these species, it is not clear that they are being properly implemented. As set forth herein, 

recent history has shown that coal mining has had severe adverse impacts on habitats. It is not clear whether the 

process that has been put in place to determine those areas that are vital to eagles and other migratory birds is 

being properly followed. 

In order to be sufficiently protective, all concentration areas for eagles and migratory birds used for migration 

and wintering should be considered unsuitable. Moreover, there should be no exceptions to this rule. As 

discussed above, sacrificing any of these essential habitat areas in order to exploit coal resources is illogical and 

unconscionable. We must move beyond coal now, and cannot allow this dying industry to continue to cause 

undue adverse harm. 

However, we do note that these criteria contain important protections that should apply likewise to other 

species. Areas where species congregate or that contain high biodiversity and unique habitats must be protected, 

for current and future generations. Furthermore, the notion that we must protect roost and concentration areas 

for migration and wintering should be applied to ESA species as well. Criterion 9 protects critical habitat; 

however, not all listed species have designated critical habitat. Therefore, we urge that these protections be 

extended, such that all lands that are relied on by listed species, as well as those that contain important habitat 

areas for other species, are not despoiled by mining activities. This should include not just those areas that 

species currently rely on, but also those areas that are important for habitat connectivity, which is essential for 

climate resilience (i.e. species must be able to adapt to climate change, which in many cases requires north/south 

movement to maintain habitat niches as areas are altered by climate change). 

Furthermore, the focus must be not only on the immediate area, but on the entire area impacted by coal mining 

activities. This is especially important for impacts to sensitive river systems and the species that rely on them, 

such as freshwater mussel, many of which are critically imperiled. Studies and analysis indicate that threatened 

and endangered species that rely on the waterways impacted by surface coal mining, such as fish and freshwater 

mussels, are most susceptible when they are within ten river miles of mining projects.256 The sediments and 

pollutants that harm these species are most prevalent within this ten mile area; therefore, we urge BLM to 

protect our rivers and streams, and to fulfill its ESA obligations, by ensuring that mining activities do not result in 

the introduction of sediment or other pollutants, such that no harm will occur to species within at least ten river 

miles of a mining project. We also emphasize that only considering pollution impacts ten river miles downstream 

may not adequately address comprehensive downstream water quality impacts such as cumulative sedimentation 

or biomagnification of contaminants. For this reason, we ask BLM to consult with the Services on this issue (see 

below). 

We do note that Criterion 15 has the potential to provide a means for the protection of these essential habitat 

areas, and therefore it would seem that BLM understands ? at least in theory ? the prudence of habitat 

protection; however, the issue seems to be one of enforcement and accountability, and it is readily apparent that 

many such areas are not being protected from coal mining. As discussed above, even with these unsuitability 

criteria in place, data published since 1996 document increasingly significant declines in numerous imperiled and 

federally protected taxa, and degradation of their habitats, as the result of surface coal mining. Recent scientific 

and policy documents further show that surface mining is increasingly imperiling numerous species of many 

taxa.257 Clearly, more must be done to protect essential habitats and the species that rely on them from coal 

mining. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-358 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

(247) See 43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(3) (“In making these multiple use decisions, the Bureau of Land Management or the 

surface management agency conducting the land use planning shall place particular emphasis on protecting the 

following: Air and water quality; wetlands, riparian areas and sole-source aquifers; the Federal lands which, if 

leased, would adversely impact units of the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, the 

National System of Trails, and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.”). 

(248) The public health issues raised by coal extraction, transportation and use include increased air pollution 

from coal dust (mercury, arsenic, lead, uranium), soil contamination by coal dust, and increased noise. The EIS 

should include a specific focus on children, the elderly, and other vulnerable members of the community. Air 

quality impacts and pollution from nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter, and coal dust must be analyzed. 

NO2 exposure can have a wide range of health impacts depending on the length of exposure and various other 

factors. Epidemiologic research establishes a plausible relationship between NO2 exposures and adverse health 

effects ranging from the onset of respiratory symptoms to hospital admission. Particulate matter (PM) refers to a 

broad class of diverse substances that exist as discrete particles of varying size. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter, 4-2. EPA/600/R-08/139F, December 2009, 76 Fed. Reg. 

57105 at 57302; Exh. 147, Health Effects and Economic Impacts of Fine Particle Pollution in Washington, 

Washington Dep’t of Ecology (Dec. 15, 2009).

(249) See e.g. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, DRAFT STREAM PROTECTION RULE 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT 4-95 (2015) (stating that the removal of trees and habitat fragmentation associated with coal mining 

“may cause species to become threatened or endangered, and can contribute to species extinction”); Id. at 4-113 

(“The negative effects of mining on specific features of habitats (soils, topography, water quality, and vegetation) 

may make it more difficult for wildlife species to reestablish after a mining disturbance and may increase the 

proliferation of non-native species on reclaimed landscapes.”); Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. Jewell, 62 F. 

Supp. 3d 7, 16 (D.D.C. 2014) (noting that “[d]irect effects of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on 

threatened, endangered, or proposed species or critical habitat consists [sic] primarily of habitat alteration by 

land clearing and earthmoving operations.... If a species of concern lacks individual mobility, land clearing and 

excavation activities may result in a direct take”). 

(250) 1996 Biological Opinion and Conference Report on Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations under 

SMCRA (hereafter “1996 Biological Opinion”). 

(251) See BLM, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications 3-188 (July 

2010); USDA Forest Service, Rulemaking for Colorado Roadless Areas, Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement 21 (Sept. 2015); BLM, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Alton Coal Tract Lease By Application at 

3-83 (Nov. 2011); BLM and USFS, Environmental Assessment, Bledsoe Coal Lease, KYES-53865 (Oct. 2012), 

available at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/es/minerals/coal/coal_lease_sales_nepa.Par.46357.File.dat/BledsoeCoalLea 

se.EA.12Oct2012.LowResolu.pdf. 

(252) 30 C.F.R. § 780.16(b). 

(253 )Melvin Warren & Wendell Haag, Spatio-temporal patterns of the decline of freshwater mussels in the Little 

South Fork Cumberland River, USA, Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 1383–1400 (2005); James Wickham et al., 

The effect of Appalachian mountaintop mining on interior forest, Landscape Ecology 22: 179-187 (2007); Douglas 

Becker, D.A. et al., Impacts of mountaintop mining on terrestrial ecosystem integrity: identifying landscape 

thresholds for avian species in the central Appalachians, United States, Landscape Ecology 30: 339- 356 (2015); 

Emily Bernhardt & Margaret Palmer, The environmental costs of mountaintop mining valley fill operations for 

aquatic ecosystems of the Central Appalachians, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1223: 39–57 

(2011); Emily Bernhardt et al., How many mountains can we mine? Assessing the regional degradation of Central 

Appalachian rivers by surface coal mining, Environmental Science and Technology 46: 8115-8122 (2012). 

(254) STEVEN AHLSTEDT ET AL., LONG-TERM TREND INFORMATION FOR FRESHWATER MUSSEL 

POPULATIONS AT TWELVE FIXED-STATION MONITORING SITES IN THE CLINCH AND POWELL RIVERS 

OF EASTERN TENNESSEE AND SOUTHWESTERN VIRGINIA 1979-2004(2005); Nathaniel Hitt & Douglas 

Chambers, Temporal changes in taxonomic and functional diversity of fish assemblages downstream from 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-359

Scoping Report 

mountaintop mining, Freshwater Science 33(3): 915- 926 (2014); Brenee Muncy et al., Mountaintop removal 

mining reduces stream salamander occupancy and richness in southeastern Kentucky (USA), Biological 

Conservation 180: 115-121 (2014); U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THE EFFECTS OF 

MOUNTAINTOP MINES AND VALLEY FILLS ON AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS OF THE CENTRAL 

APPALACHIAN COALFIELDS, EPA/600/R-09/138F (2011); Gregory Pond, Patterns of Ephemeroptera taxa loss 

in Appalachian headwater streams (Kentucky, USA), Hydrobiologia 641:185–201 (2010); Todd Petty et al., 

Landscape indicators and thresholds of stream ecological impairment in an intensively mined Appalachian 

watershed, Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29(4):1292-1309 (2010); Endangered status for 

the Cumberland 

Darter, Rush Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, and Laurel Dace, Final Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 48,722 

(Aug. 9, 2011); Endangered species status for the Big Sandy Crayfish and the Guyandotte River Crayfish, 

Proposed Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 18,710 (Apr. 7, 2015). 

(255) West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. Norton, 161 F. Supp. 2d 676, 684 (S.D. W.V. 2001). 

(256) Anderson, R. M., Layzer, J. B., & Gordon, M. E. (1991). Recent catastrophic decline of mussels (Bivalvia, 

Unionidae) in the Little South Fork Cumberland River, Kentucky. Brimleyana, (17), 1-8.; Layzer, J. B., & Anderson, 

R. M. (1992). Impacts of the coal industry on rare and endangered aquatic organisms of the upper Cumberland 

River Basin. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources; Warren Jr, M. L., & Haag, W. R. 

(2005). Spatio-temporal patterns of the decline of freshwater mussels in the Little South Fork Cumberland River, 

USA. Biodiversity & Conservation, 14(6), 1383-1400; Houp, R. E. (1993). Observations of long-term effects of 

sedimentation on freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) in the North Fork of Red River, Kentucky. 

Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science, 54(3-4), 93-97; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). 

Clinch and 

Powell Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/600/R-01/050; Newton, T. J., & Bartsch, M. R. (2007). 

Lethal and sublethal effects of ammonia to juvenile Lampsilis mussels (unionidae) in sediment and water-only 

exposures. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 26(10), 2057-2065; Vannote, R. L., & Minshall, G. W. 

(1982). Fluvial processes and local lithology controlling abundance, structure, and composition of mussel beds. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 79(13), 4103-4107; Pond, G. J., Passmore, M. E., Borsuk, F. A., 

Reynolds, L., & Rose, C. J. (2008). Downstream effects of mountaintop coal mining: comparing biological 

conditions using family-and genus-level macroinvertebrate bioassessment tools. Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society, 27(3), 717-737; Jenkinson, J. J. (2005). Specific gravity and freshwater mussels. Ellipsaria, 

7, 12-13; McCann, M.T. & Neves, R.J.( 1992). Toxicity of coal-related contaminants to early life stages of 

freshwater mussels in the Powell River, Virginia. Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Dept. of 

Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences. Research Work Order No. 23 for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Field 

Office. August 1992; Kitchel, H. E., Widlak, J. C., & Neves, R. J. (1981). The impact of coal-mining waste on 

endangered mussel populations in the Powell River, Lee County, Virginia. Report to the Virginia State Water 

Control Board, Richmond; Ahlstedt, S. A., & Tuberville, J. D. (1997). Quantitative reassessment of the freshwater 

mussel fauna in the Clinch and Powell Rivers, Tennessee and Virginia. Conservation and management of 

freshwater mussels II. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois, 72-97; Burkhead, N. 

M., & Jelks, H. L. (2001). Effects of suspended sediment on the reproductive success of the tricolor shiner, a 

crevicespawning minnow. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 130(5), 959-968; Sutherland, A. B., & 

Meyer, J. L. (2007). Effects of increased suspended sediment on growth rate and gill condition of two southern 

Appalachian 

minnows. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 80(4), 389-403; Jones, E. B., Helfman, G. S., Harper, J. O., & Bolstad, P. 

V. (1999). Effects of riparian forest removal on fish assemblages in southern Appalachian streams. Conservation 

biology, 13(6), 1454-1465; Sutherland, A. B., Maki, J., & Vaughan, V. (2008). Effects of suspended sediment on 

whole-body cortisol stress response of two southern Appalachian minnows, Erimonax monachus and Cyprinella 

galactura. Copeia, 2008(1), 234-244; Zamor, R. M., & Grossman, G. D. (2007). Turbidity affects foraging success 

of drift-feeding rosyside dace. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 136(1), 167-176; Newcombe, C. P., 

& Jensen, J. O. (1996). Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk 

and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16(4), 693-727; Newcombe, C. P., & MacDonald, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-360 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

D. D. (1991). Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management, 11(1), 72-82.

(257) See Notes 13 and 14. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-10

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Under BLM’s coal mining regulations, coal cannot be leased competitively until it has been evaluated in a 

comprehensive land use plan or land use analysis. 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(a). This analysis must be conducted 

pursuant to BLM’s planning regulations at 43 C.F.R. Part 1600, which requires development of an EIS to support 

the RMP. Id. § 3420.1-4(b)(1). In making the “major land use planning decision” concerning the coal resource 

resulting from this planning, which is “the identification of areas acceptable for further consideration for leasing,” 

four screening procedures that must be complied with are specified. Id. § 3420.1-4(e). The four screening criteria 

are: 

1. Only areas that have “development potential” can be deemed acceptable for further consideration for leasing.

2. The BLM must assess whether the areas being considered for possible leasing are unsuitable for all or certain 

stipulated methods of mining, as provided for in the BLM’s unsuitability regulations. 43 C.F.R. Part 3460.

3. After application of the unsuitability criteria the BLM is to make further multiple-use decisions which “may 

eliminate additional coal deposits from further consideration for leasing” so as to protect other resource values 

and uses that are important or unique but not included in the unsuitability criteria. These multiple use 

considerations include those specified in section 522(a)(3) of SMCRA and the OSMRE regulations at 30 C.F.R. § 

762.5. “[P]articular emphasis” is to be placed on protecting air and water quality, wetlands, riparian areas, and 

sole source aquifers, as well as Federal lands in the following systems: National Park System, National Wildlife 

Refuge System, National System of Trails, and the National Wild and Scenic River System. 

4. In preparing the land use plan analysis, the BLM is to consult with surface owners who meet certain criteria “to 

determine preference for or against mining by other than underground mining techniques.”

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-11

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should adopt a new policy that would require the BLM to complete and document all 4 steps of the 

screening process as part of the land use planning process. Emphasis should be placed on ensuring there is full 

consideration of the specified multiple-use values rather than defaulting to leaving the vast majority of areas 

available for coal leasing. There is also a need for full compliance with and application of the unsuitability criteria 

at the land use planning stage. The new policy could also note the types of “land uses” to be protected by 

application of the multiple-use principles, including preference for renewable energy development and other uses 

that would have the effect of reducing the climate change contribution of coal from the federal lands. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-12

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should reiterate and require that when the BLM makes the “acceptable for further consideration for 

leasing” determination in its land use plans that it fully applies the four specified screening factors specified in its 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-361

Scoping Report 

regulations at the planning stage, although additional information can certainly be considered at the time of 

leasing. In particular, the unsuitability criteria and consideration of additional multiple use values which “may 

eliminate additional coal deposits from further consideration for leasing” and which should be given “particular 

emphasis” should be fully applied at the planning stage such that the agency does not continue to default to 

keeping all lands available for coal leasing. As part of this planning, the BLM should also emphasize the potential 

impacts from precluding development of renewable sources of energy on the federal estate, which could assist in 

our transition away from fossil fuels. The PEIS should ensure that new leasing does not occur without further 

evaluation of the unsuitability criteria and multiple use considerations. Further, the PEIS should update the 

decisions in priority RMPs where ongoing leasing and development are most likely to address potential conflicts, 

as set out above. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-13

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Meeting the existing unsuitability criteria specified in the BLM’s regulations so as to determine areas that should 

not be available for coal mining is one of the most important environmental protection mechanisms that is 

available to the BLM. BLM’s regulations call for the application of these criteria when RMPs are developed. 

Unfortunately, however, the BLM has all too often deferred application of the unsuitability criteria at the planning 

stage. The PEIS should direct that the unsuitability criteria must be faithfully, and fully, applied when the BLM 

develops an RMP. Loopholes in the unsuitability criteria should also be scrutinized and narrowed as appropriate. 

In addition, the BLM should also consider whether the existing criteria are sufficient and develop new criteria as 

needed, such as to deal with climate change issues. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-56

Organization1:The Wilderness Society

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Interim guidance should also be issued to: 

1. Define the “public interest” that governs decisions in the coal program and elaborate on how this can and 

should be taken into account in evaluating leasing proposals. 

2. Require tracking and quarterly reporting of climate emissions; 

3. Require development and application of a climate budget, as well as quarterly reporting on actions taken 

toward achieving the budget; 

4. Reiterate the intent and application of the unsuitability criteria and multiple-use considerations and require 

evaluation of whether proposed leases meet these criteria in the context of the planning area prior to any new 

leasing; 

5. Require that BLM complete and document all 4 steps of the screening process as part of the land use planning 

process, with an emphasis on ensuring that BLM evaluates the “multiple use considerations” carefully, looking at 

impacts on land health, species, water, air and protected lands, to determine if conflicts would support making 

land unavailable and/or specifying required mitigation practices. The policy would also note that the types of “land 

uses” to be protected by application of the multiple use consideration include the preemption of renewable 

energy development and other uses that would have the effect of reducing the climate change contribution of the 

federal lands. 

6. Require an enhanced showing of technical and financial capability to qualify for leasing. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-362 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-61

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

For plans that were completed without making these determinations, the BLM would ensure that a more 

rigorous application of the criteria would be made prior to new leasing and commit to a schedule for updating 

those determinations and plans. For areas that currently have ongoing coal leasing and development, BLM should 

complete these updated analyses and amendments as part of the PEIS. We recommend the BLM address needed 

updates to the following RMPs in the PEIS: 

· Miles City RMP, Montana, 

· Buffalo RMP, Wyoming, 

· Bighorn Basin RMP, Wyoming 

· Kanab RMP, Utah, 

· Uncompahgre RMP, Colorado (a Draft RMP was recently issued without a sufficient analysis; a supplement 

could efficiently incorporate appropriate analyses and updated decisions into the range of alternatives). 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-62

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Currently there are 20 criteria listed in the regulations that define areas as unsuitable for surface mining. 43 

C.F.R. §§ 3461.5(a)(1) to (t)(1). In the PEIS the BLM should carefully review these criteria and determine whether 

new criteria should be added to the regulations. It seems apparent the current regulations are not 

comprehensive enough—there are many conditions that should make an area unsuitable for surface mining that 

are not recognized in the current regulations. For example, areas with important bat roosts and colonies should 

probably be made unsuitable. Important Greater sage-grouse habitats—priority habitat management areas 

(PHMA) and sagebrush focal areas (SFA)—should clearly be made unsuitable for coal mining. This change will 

likely also require amendments to the recent land use plan revisions the BLM put in to place for sage-grouse 

conservation, and this issue will be discussed further below. (6) And perhaps most importantly, the BLM should 

consider designating areas unsuitable for surface mining where the coal mining would have significant climate 

change impacts. In particular, if an area can serve as important carbon sink it should not be available for coal 

mining. There are likely many other additions to the unsuitability criteria that should be made in the PEIS and 

related rulemaking. 

(6) See http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse.html (presenting the BLM sage-grouse RMP revisions 

and amendments). 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-69

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should determine where additional leasing should be given “particular emphasis” and “eliminate additional 

coal deposits from further consideration for leasing” within RMPs, or for areas where such determinations have 

not been made, as part of the 5-year plans. Within the Western Coal Production Region, BLM should prioritize 

revising land use plans in areas where there are active coal mines. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-363

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-17

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In response to climate related concerns raised by stakeholders, BLM will also be considering through the PEIS the 

methodology for determining which, or how much, Federal coal and/or acreage is made available for leasing; and 

whether to develop a landscape-level approach to identify geographic areas for potential leasing to identify and 

address potential conflicts (81 FR 17727). BLM must ensure that the future DEIS documents comply with 

FLPMA’s multiple use and sustained yield mandate under § 102(a)(7), and in the land use planning title of FLPMA 

at § 202(c)(1), and the directive under § 102(a)(12), to recognize the Nation’s need for domestic sources of 

minerals. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-26

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM’s proposed changes to the federal coal program threaten to discourage the development of federal coal 

resources. BLM’s consideration of increased costs on federal coal leasing and production will make the business 

of coal mining uneconomic and will deter future coal development on public lands. BLM’s discouragement of 

federal coal production will harm state and local economies, which rely heavily on the royalties and taxes 

generated from coal mining operations. State and local governments have a direct and substantial economic 

interest in the continued production of federal coal. For instance, in Wyoming coal mining provides the second 

largest source of tax revenue for state and local governments, generating more than $1 billion in annual revenue 

from royalties and taxes. See Attachment 6, Wyoming Mining Association, “Coal’s Economic Impact.” 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-35

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should review its unsuitability screening criteria, which is used to identify geographic areas suitable for 

federal coal leasing. Under the existing regulatory scheme, many of the criterion are arbitrary, impractical, and 

prevent BLM from maximizing the full economic recovery of federal coal. The application of the existing 

unsuitability screening criterion at the land use planning stage often results in a premature determination 

regarding the appropriateness of leasing coal in a given area. Often, geographic areas are excluded from coal 

leasing before a determination can be made as to whether there is any concern that legitimately prevents coal 

mining or whether those concerns could be avoided through stipulations or other measures. Many of the existing 

criteria cannot be properly evaluated during the land use planning stage, which involves a high-level view of the 

geographic landscape to determine available uses on public lands. 

For example, Criterion Number 3 requires an unsuitability finding for lands located within 100 feet of public 

roads. Yet, BLM regularly and consistently uses exemptions as a tool to maximize the economic recovery of 

federal coal. Criteria Numbers 2 and 6 should also be reviewed at the time BLM considers specific leasing actions. 

Moreover, Criteria Numbers 9 through 15 relate to the exclusion of certain habitats from coal leasing before the 

potential impacts from a specific coal leasing action can be assessed. The evaluation of potential impacts to 

threatened or endangered species and critical habitats could be conducted more effectively and more efficiently 

at the time BLM considers a specific leasing action. For these reasons, the regulations should be modified to allow 

BLM to make a determination as to whether leasing in the area is appropriate at the time an applicant submits an 

application for leasing. BLM’s standard practice of granting exemptions for the above-listed criteria is evidence 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-364 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

that the consideration of geographic areas for leasing and development is best addressed in the context of 

specific leasing applications, not in the broader context of land use planning. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-4 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Even before the conclusion of the public scoping process for the current PEIS, the administration offered answers 

to some of the very questions for which it ostensibly seeks the public’s input. On June 22, 2016, the White 

House Council of Economic Advisors issued a report (the “White House Coal Report”) setting forth several 

conclusions and recommendations related to key questions at issue in BLM’s PEIS. The administration’s 

predetermination on these important issues has fundamentally undermined the integrity and objectivity of the 

NEPA process. See Attachment 1, Letter from Senator Barrasso and 8 Other Senators to Secretary of the 

Interior Sally Jewell (July 14, 2016). BLM must disavow the White House Coal Report if it intends to retain any 

semblance of objectivity in the ongoing PEIS process. 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-17

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 4.6 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Mineral Leasing Act requires BLM to modify its coal leasing program to serve the public interest, which 

includes climate consistency 

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (“MLA”) states that the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to divide any 

lands for coal leasing if found in the public interest.16 Interior has capacious legal authority to interpret this term. 

“The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe necessary and proper rules and regulations and to do 

any and all things necessary to carry out and accomplish the purposes of this chapter.”17 This authority extends 

to Interior’s discretion to reject individual leases or to end the practice of offering new leases and lease 

extensions altogether if the department determines that these practices are not in the public interest, on the 

basis of a broad array of factors. 

[16 30 U.S.C § 201] 

[17 30 U.S.C § 189] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-35

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 2 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Executive Order 13653 directs agencies to “identify opportunities to support and encourage smarter, more 

climate-resilient investments by States . . . including by providing incentives through agency guidance.”38 

Executive Order 13693 also directs agencies to improve their environmental performance and pursue renewable 

or alternative energy solutions. President Obama’s Climate Action Plan establishes a suite of obligations using 

executive power to address climate change, affirming the strong policy direction to act on climate.39 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-365

Scoping Report 

[38 Exec. Order No. 13653, Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change, 78 Fed. Reg. (Nov. 1 

2013).] 

[39 See White House Executive Office of the President, ‘The President’s Climate Action Plan’ (2013). Available at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf accessed 13 June 2016.] 

Comment Number: 0002500_Sweeney_20160728-6 

Organization1:National Mining Association 

Commenter1:Katie Sweeney 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Land Use Planning (FLPMA, FCLAA and SMCRA) 

o BLM conducts, in cooperation with other federal agencies and states, a rigorous land use planning process to 

review the public lands for potential coal leasing incorporating the considerations set forth by statute in the 

Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), the Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments (FCLAA) and the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). These considerations include multiple use, sustained 

yield, protection of critical environmental areas and the application of specific unsuitability criteria. The purpose 

of the coal screening stage of the land use planning process is to identify those federal lands that are acceptable 

for further consideration for coal leasing and development. No other resource on federal lands is subjected to 

such a far ranging and in depth assessment for determining what lands should remain open for use or leasing. 

* NEPA Analysis Prior to Coal Lease Sale 

o When DOI accepts an application to lease a tract of federal lands for coal leasing, it begins an analysis under the 

National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) of potential environmental impacts of the proposed leasing action, 

including “reasonably foreseeable” direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of leasing coal. Over the past several 

years, DOI has prepared multiple Environmental Impact Statements evaluating all of the issues raised in the 

Scoping Notice.See e.g., Final EIS for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications (July 2010). Final EIS for the South 

Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications (Aug. 2009); Final EIS for the West Antelope II Coal Lease Application 

(Dec. 2008). Each EIS evaluates issues mentioned in the Scoping Notice, and more, including: quantity and quality 

of water resources; aquifer drawdown; impacts on streams and alluvial valley floors, air quality and associated 

effects on health and visibility; wildlife; endangered species; other land uses; effects of coal combustion on 

greenhouse gas emissions and associated climate change-related effects. Notably, the Scoping Notice is devoid of 

any discussion about these comprehensive reviews or the serial and unsuccessful attempts by certain so-called 

“stakeholders” to have them set aside in court as inadequate.

* Mine Plan Review (MLA and SMCRA) 

o Any lessee must receive approval of a Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) mining plan by DOI that ensures the 

maximum economic recovery of the coal resource. 

* Mining Permits (SMCRA and other laws) 

o A state SMCRA permit application must be submitted and approved which includes a detailed operation and 

reclamation plan, monitoring, mitigation and reclamation requirements. Mining operations must also receive 

permits related to air and water quality under state corollaries to the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. Much 

of the analysis is redundant among these applications as well as with the NEPA analysis already performed prior 

to the lease sale. 

Several organizations that the Scoping Notice refers to as “stakeholders” have also advanced a wholly uninformed 

critique of the coal industry’s environmental performance. To the extent they take issue with the percentage of 

mined lands reaching phase III bond release, their complaint goes to the applicable law—the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act—which precludes even applying for final release until at least 10 years after a mined 

area has been reclaimed. A substantial amount of the mine permit areas include long-term facilities (e.g., buildings, 

roads, stockpiles and ancillary support areas) that are intended to serve the life of the mine. When long term 

facilities are excluded to evaluate the pace of reclamation with mining, well over half--61 percent---of the lands 

disturbed by mining in Wyoming and Montana have already been restored (backfilled, graded and revegetated) 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-366 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

according to the Office of Surface Mining (OSM). Moreover, OSM reports that the mines in those states were 

free of any off-site impacts. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-52

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

B. The PEIS Should Evaluate the Impacts of Federal Coal Leasing on Public Lands, Water, and Wildlife The PEIS 

also must evaluate whether mining federal coal is consistent with responsible stewardship of our public lands, 

water, and wildlifeThis stewardship is both a policy priority for the nation and an imperative under the statutes 

that govern BLM’s management of public resources. In a November 3, 2015 Memorandum, President Obama 

established a policy for the Department of the Interior and other federal agencies that mining and other 

development projects on America’s public lands should result in a net benefit—or at a minimum no net loss—for 

the nation’s public lands, public waters, and wildlife resources. 113 The memorandum recognizes that “[w]e all 

have a moral obligation to the next generation to leave America’s natural resources in better condition than 

when we inherited them. ... It is this same obligation that contributes to the strength of our economy and quality 

of life today.”114 This policy echoes BLM’s statutory obligations under the Federal Lands Management Policy Act 

(“FLPMA”), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1785, which directs that: public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the 

quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and 

archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural 

condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and 111 State of Colorado, Coal Mine Methane in Colorado, 

at 14, attached as Ex. 29. 112 See 2010 Conservation Scoping Letter (Ex. 30) at 88-89. 113 See Presidential 

Memorandum: Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private 

Investment (Nov. 3, 2015), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/03/mitigatingimpacts-natural-resources-development- and-encouraging-related, published at 80 Fed. Reg. 68,743 (Nov. 6, 

2015). 114 Id. 40 wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human 

occupancy and use. Id. § 1701(a)(8). Under FLPMA’s “multiple use and sustained yield” management directive, id. 

§ 1701(a)(7), the federal government must manage public lands and resources in a manner that “takes into 

account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not 

limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and 

historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent 

impairment of the productivity of the land[,]” id. § 1702(3). Further, “[i]n managing the public lands the Secretary 

shall ... take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.” Id. § 1732(b). 

Under these authorities, BLM is required not only to evaluate the impacts of federal coal leasing to public lands, 

water, and wildlife resources, but to avoid harm to those resources whenever possible. As described below, 

thorough analysis of these impacts at the programmatic scale should lead BLM to conclude that the irreversible 

harmful consequences to these resources due to mining and burning coal irreconcilably conflict with BLM’s 

stewardship obligations and can be avoided only be ending the federal coal leasing program 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-15

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Finally, the federal coal leasing process is inherently risky even without the long-term investment. At any time in 

the process, the BLM can conclude on the basis of public comment or information collected that some or all of 

the projected lease area is unsuitable for mining. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-367

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-24

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

WMA believes Federal coal should continue to be leased and produced to meet thermal coal electric generation 

needs. Arbitrary “budgets” to restrict access to the resource should be avoided. 

Comment Number: 0000741_Perry_NWF-4 

Commenter1:Edward Perry 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Finally, I hope you will closely consider the impacts on our public lands. Unlike other uses of public lands, there 

isn't any multiple use when a coal mine is in operation 

ISSUE 5.3 - COAL LEASING PAUSE 

Total Number of Submissions: 82 

Total Number of Comments: 104 

Comment Number: 00000120_Wasserburger_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Jeff Wasserburger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The moratorium on coal leasing also decreases the amount of money that the federal government receives in 

royalty payments. For the Powder River Basin in Wyoming, which produces over 80 percent of coal reserves on 

federal land, the federal government receives 40 cents on every dollar of coal sold. The question is with the 

national debt of $18 trillion, you would think the federal government would be seeking to increase revenues off 

of coal. The federal coal program provides substantial revenues to the federal and state government totaling 

$13.8 billion since 2013. To Wyoming in the last fiscal year, coal supplied just over $1 billion in revenue to our 

state. Keeping federal coal in the ground results in no return to the taxpayers here in Wyoming or in 

Washington, D.C. 

Comment Number: 00000166_ MCKELVY_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Erin McKelvy 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I'm also appreciative of the pause on new coal leases during this review process. I would love to see that 

expanded, and encourage you all emphatically to terminate all coal leases on federal lands. 

Comment Number: 00000188_ LAINE_20160517-1 

Organization1:Tennessee Mining Association 

Commenter1:Chuck Laine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am opposed to the moratorium that will be on the federal lands while you are doing the study. And I have a 

reason for that. Here's what happens when that happens. If you decide to do that, the taxes that are provided for 

the rural schools and infrastructure will disappear. 

Comment Number: 00000282_Heaps_20160519-1 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Parters Skyline Mine 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-368 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Corey Heaps 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I recommend the BLM remove the three- year moratorium. The coal program can be analyzed without delaying 

three years. The federal government makes important decisions every day without taking a three-year sabbatical. 

The existing federal leasing program is much less complex and can be done without delaying future leasing 

actions. Placing a moratorium on federal coal leasing only adds more uncertainty to the future of acquiring coal 

mines. This detracts future investments and increases the likelihood of shutting down more coal mines. I 

Comment Number: 00000305_ HOPES _ CarbonCounty_20160519-1 

Organization1:Carbon County 

Commenter1:Casey Hopes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I would respectfully request that the moratorium on coal leasing be lifted, and if there is a need for further 

evaluation on coal leasing, that it be done without harming the communities that they impact. 

Comment Number: 00000306_ OGDEN _ SevierCounty_20160519-2 

Organization1:Sevier County 

Commenter1:Garth Ogden 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I oppose the moratorium on coal. I had a business, and I couldn't shut my business down to study it for three 

years. It would be devastating 

Comment Number: 00000311_ SMALDON _FriendsCoalWest_20160519-1 

Organization1:Friends of Coal West 

Commenter1:David Smaldone 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The moratorium is shortsighted and dangerous to our nation's economy and national security. It is imperative 

that the backbone of our electric grid be allowed to continue, and coal is the answer. Finally, I request that the 

BLM discontinue the current coal leasing moratorium immediately 

Comment Number: 00000313_ DIMMICK_20160519-1 

Organization1:Skyline Mine 

Commenter1:Kelly Dimmick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I'm here to ask to stop the current moratorium on coal leases. 

Comment Number: 00000319 _ BARTHOLOMEW_20160519-1 

Organization1:Sanpete County 

Commenter1:Scott Bartholomew 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We would strongly suggest that you lift the moratorium to keep the cheap reliable power flowing to us. 

Comment Number: 00000336 _ May _ 20160519-1 

Organization1:SUFCO Mine 

Commenter1:Kenneth May 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-369

Scoping Report 

Nationwide, coal mines on federal leases account for 42 -- I think somebody said 43, I've got 42 percent of all the 

US production. This moratorium could eliminate a major portion of domestic coal supplies, create less fuel 

diversity and seriously -- with serious consequences for power generation, both terms of affordability and 

reliability. 

Comment Number: 00000347 _ Johnson _20160519-2 

Organization1:Alton Coal Development 

Commenter1:Larry Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM director, Neil Kornze, has to confirm that the moratorium will last at least three years and impact 

some 50 pending lease applications, including applications submitted by Alton Coal Development back in 2004. 

2004! This has a significant economic impact on Alton Coal, and I am sure on other operations, by bearing the 

cost of environmental analysis, but now can't proceed to a record of decision or final lease. It's hard to 

understand how the department is harmed by completing these pending leases. The leasing process includes 

NEPA, public comment, competitive bidding, confirmation that the bid meets fair market value and is not anticompetitive. Our pending lease applications have already met this ability for criteria of leasing under the Federal 

Mineral Leasing Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act. 

Comment Number: 00000347 _ Johnson _20160519-4 

Organization1:Alton Coal Development 

Commenter1:Larry Johnson 

Other Sections: 8.4 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Alton Coal requests that the secretary consider suspending the moratorium and allowing existing leases to be 

completed and awarded. Alton's LBA has been pending for more than 12 years and the environmental analysis is 

nearly complete. Allowing to complete and award these pending leases would allow those coal companies to 

meet their coal supply agreements and will return bonus bid and lease payment revenues to both the state and 

the Federal Government. 

Comment Number: 00000366 _ Brady _20160519-1 

Organization1:Emery County 

Commenter1:Keith Brady 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And while I do not object to the programmatic EIS, I do object to the three-year moratorium on new coal leases 

on federal land 

Comment Number: 00000375 _ Watson _20160519-1 

Organization1:Ziegler Sales 

Commenter1:Larry Watson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To go on, you understand, if we shut this thing down too quickly, the rolling blackouts that we're going to have 

across this country, we cannot do this moratorium that you're talking about here. We've got to ease into this 

more slowly 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-370 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000072_Tully_20160517-3 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Tom Tully 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Furthermore, because there's already more coal leased than can be mined in the next 20 years, there should be a 

moratorium on coal leasing when BLM takes time to revamp the federal coal program. 

Comment Number: 0000084_Christopherson_EngyCapEconDev_20160517-1 

Organization1:Energy Capital Economic Development 

Commenter1:Phil Christopherson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Number one, how are we going to use our natural resources to provide affordable energy to continue to provide 

our nation with the lifestyle, the technology that we have? That's where your focus should be, not on all these 

other peripheral things. The current coal moratorium that's on, the coal lease moratorium is purely a political 

move. It doesn't help anybody. It has not been reviewed because it brings a lot of attention to it. I think the 

review needs to continue, but the focus needs to shift to how are we going to continue to provide our citizens 

with the lifestyle that we enjoy? If you have a smart phone or a tablet or a car or a home and the home is heated 

in the winter and cool in the summer, you should be very thankful because a large majority of the citizens of this 

world do not have that. We have things like that because of affordable energy, and the focus needs to be how do 

we continue to provide that energy that's affordable to our people? 

Comment Number: 0000095_Mead_GovWy_20160517-1 

Organization1:State of Wyoming 

Commenter1:Matt Mead 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I commented on the federal coal lease moratorium announced in January. Then, I said this moratorium will hurt 

miners. It will hurt all businesses that support coal mining. It will take away the competitive advantage coal 

provides for every U.S. citizen. 

Comment Number: 0000279_Nelson_20160519-4 

Commenter1:Laura Nelson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Utah disagrees strongly with BLM's unjustified moratorium on coal leasing and is exploring its legal options. Utah 

and the BLM have worked together for decades enjoying a successful federal leasing program that produces 

numerous benefits to Utah and to the U.S. 83 percent of Utah coal is produced from federal land. In 2014 Utah 

coal produced from federal lands had a total sales value of $570.8 million and generated royalty revenues in 

excess of $41.1 million. Without consultation with Utah and other impacted states, BLM has unilaterally 

announced a review of its coal leasing program and three-year moratorium on coal leasing. The BLM's decision to 

halt leasing while they review the program is really, we feel, a violation of its fiduciary duties to its beneficiaries. 

Comment Number: 0000280_TATTEN_20160519-1 

Commenter1:Kurt Tatten 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please see if we can get rid of the moratorium and open it up. It takes a long time to get mines running coal. It's 

not unusual from the time of thinking about trying to get some type of a lease to be 15 years down the road and 

you're still not mining that coal, so three years is a major hiccup to our mine plans. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-371

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000573-2 

Commenter1:Keith Ervin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please make permanent the current pause in new leases. 

Comment Number: 0000753_Smaldone_FriendsCoal_20160623-2 

Organization1:Friends of Coal West 

Commenter1:David Smaldone 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The moratorium is short-sighted and dangerous to our nation's economy and national security. It is imperative 

that the backbone of our electric grid be allowed to continue, and coal IS the answer. 

Comment Number: 0000756_Reece_Club 20_20160623-2 

Organization1:CLUB 20 

Commenter1:Christian Reece 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The moratorium and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement will put nearly 65,000 direct and indirect 

jobs at risk as well as impact billions of dollars in revenues to these states which are used for basic infrastructure 

such as education, public safety, and reclamation. 

Comment Number: 0000772_Nielsen_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Nicholas Nielsen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the recent 2013 audit of the BLM's coal management program 6 of the 13 recommendations for corrective 

actions were directed toward improving the work done on fair market valuations. Has the BLM not acted on or 

done a good enough job adjusting to these recommendations? If I worked on a project and within a short time 

frame, I had to reevaluate the project, I would expect my boss would ask about the quality and diligence of my 

work. Is the BLM not adjusting to the recommendations of the 2013 audit? Is a complete moratorium necessary 

to evaluate work that has already been done? 

Comment Number: 0000778-2 

Organization1:Bowie Resources 

Commenter1:Jeff Erickson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I recommend not placing a 3 year coal moratorium on coal leases. A review process and decision should not take 

3 years. 

Comment Number: 0000796-1 

Commenter1:Craig Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I ask to stop the moritorium go ahead on your review but look at the mines you're involving you will see how 

responsive they are. 

Comment Number: 0000826-1 

Organization1:Wyoming State Senate 

Commenter1:Stan Cooper 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-372 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Because of the Stack Emission (Green House Gases) rules recently imposed by the EPA, the coal industry has 

pretty much stopped bidding on coal leases which makes Federal coal deposits about worthless at his time. 

Comment Number: 0000828-3 

Organization1:Friends of Coal West 

Commenter1:David Smaldone 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The moratorium is short-sighted and dangerous to our nation's economy and national security. It is imperative 

that the backbone of our electric grid be allowed to continue, and coal IS the answer. 

Comment Number: 0001114_CATER-KING_GilleteWY mayor_20160621-1 

Organization1:Gillete, WY 

Commenter1:Louise Carter-King 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At any point in time the BLM can choose to study this data to determine if the American taxpayer is being 

compensated fairly for coal mined on federal property. Given these facts, this moratorium can only be viewed as 

another attempt by this administration to stop the mining of coal. There can be no other explanation. 

Comment Number: 0001119_BROWN_20160621-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Elizabeth Brown 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The pause is on the wrong side of the economic cycle. You can lift it because it's really not necessary to the 

scope of the PEIS 

Comment Number: 0001184-1 

Commenter1:Carol Dansereau 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

You need to establish a permanent moratorium on all new coal leases. You don't need to go to the existing coal 

leases and cancel them. Fossil fuels that you control need to stay in the ground, period. 

Comment Number: 0001197_Carlton_20160621-1 

Commenter1:Lee Carlton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I understand that you're looking at a three-year process, but I would urge you to immediately cease the 

extraction of coal from public lands, extend the moratorium on leases indefinitely, and look at rescinding the 

existing leases. 

Comment Number: 0002009_CenterBioDiversity_20160329-2 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

You have already committed to a pause on most coal leasing and you have signaled that the Bureau of Land 

Management will issue guidance related to additional interim reforms. These interim reforms are critical to 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-373

Scoping Report 

ensure that options for long-term reform are not foreclosed, that the American public interest is fully protected. 

and that publicly owned resources are not unduly squandered. 

Comment Number: 0002026_Willett_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Kayla and Bruce Willett 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the government were to shut down our coal production, it should have another source to fulfill the vital needs 

that coal presently meets in our state and throughout our nation. 

Comment Number: 0002045_Johnson_20160620-3 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Gabriel Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Additionally, it makes no sense why the federal coal leasing program must be stopped in order to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the process. Why is it necessary to stop the coal leasing process for this evaluation? The 

evaluation could simply continue congruent with ongoing coal leases. 

Comment Number: 0002110_Reagor_20160626_att-1 

Commenter1:Paul Reagor 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The pause in leasing, while slightly reasonable, does not fall within the authorizations of the enabling law. The 

objective of the leasing program is to maximize revenue from the coal deposits. 

If there are lessees waiting to lease, then the failure get any return, by your failure to issue a lease, constitutes a 

dereliction of duty. 

Pausing because of misguided comments from the EPA, is an insufficient reason to halt leasing.You do not answer 

to the EPA, you answer to the people, according to the rules set forth in the law setting up the leasing program. 

Comment Number: 0002110_Reagor_20160626_att-5 

Commenter1:Paul Reagor 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

You have no authority to pause leasing, even if the EPA is correct. And you have no reason to pause leasing if the 

EPA is wrong. 

Comment Number: 0002112_Sanderson_20160624_CoMineAssoc-2 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There is no basis for the moratorium, which will in fact halt development within a short time of the King II mine 

in Colorado, and could potentially impact all mines producing federal coal because of its vague language. In fact, 

the Bureau has qualified its listing of mines subject or not to the “pause” as “potential,” leaving the door open for 

further mischief. The moratorium is a draconian measure that is not needed to address any concerns about 

royalties, due to the amount of time it takes to obtain a lease and actually obtain the permits needed to begin 

production. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-4 

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-374 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As the largest owner of coal in the U.S., DOI must address the reality that the current coal lease moratorium will 

not be followed by robust expansion of coal markets, but instead by a period in which the coal industry and the 

Powder River Basin will face a declining market. 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-13

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Given the serious concerns that have been raised about the federal coal program, and the enormous reserves of 

coal already under lease, the BlueGreen Alliance agrees with the BLM’s decision to institute a pause on new coal 

leasing on public lands while this review is taking place. Future coal leases should benefit from all of the lessons 

learned and public comment gathered during the course of this programmatic review process. 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-6 

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Key to our support for this pause is the fact that companies that are already producing coal from existing federal 

leases have enough coal leased to be able to continue mining operations without interruption during the span of 

this program review and beyond. A comprehensive review of this broken system is needed. Nevertheless, as part 

of that review, the BLM should consider provisions to protect communities supported by existing mines. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-18

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The pause on new coal leasing is not needed and market conditions will dictate a company’s need.

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-7 

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A three year moratorium on coal leasing and a PEIS review adds undue costs to the mining company, and is 

frankly a HUGE waste of taxpayer money. Market conditions will dictate the need for additional coal reserves on 

a company by company basis, as currently being seen in today’s market. Low demand means less need and less 

capital for the purchase of a new coal lease. If the demand is not there, coal companies will not bid on the lease. 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-16

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Sweetwater County strongly believes that the current moratorium on coal leasing and the Coal PEIS process 

should be halted and the existing federal coal leasing and regulatory programs should remain in place. If the 

moratorium remains in place and the PETS goes forward, we strongly believe that these federal actions will make 

it more costly to mine coal and produce electricity which, in turn, may cost employees their jobs and homes, 

drive up the cost of living and destroy our local communities. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-375

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-2 

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Existing three year moratorium on federal coal leasing: Sweetwater County strongly opposes the Obama three 

year moratorium on federal coal leasing. Sweetwater County believes that the three year moratorium, when 

added to the seven years necessary to obtain required mining permits, will disrupt coal mining plans within our 

county and Wyoming for up to 10 years. If a coal mining company survives this 10 year period, and it successfully 

complies with all permitting requirements, mining still may not occur due to the increased mining costs caused by 

this Coal PEIS. 

If this scenario occurs, coal mining may largely stop, federal coal resources would be left in the ground and the 

revenues generated by these resources would cease to flow to area residents, businesses and to all levels of 

government. This would be devastating to the economy of Sweetwater County and the State of Wyoming. Our 

position is supported by Senator Barrasso, who in recent comments regarding the coal leasing moratorium, 

stated: 

"There seems to be no limit to the number ofjob-crushing regulations, executive orders and insults Secretary 

Jewell and President Obama will throw at America's middle class. This administration is in a full-scale war with 

coal communities and families. When rural America says President Obama has contempt for their lives and 

livelihoods, they mean decisions like today's announcement. A moratorium on federal coal leasing effectively 

hands a pink slip to the thousands of people in Wyoming and across the West employed in coal production." 

Comment Number: 0002163_McFarlane_20160626-1 

Commenter1:Kurt McFarlane 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Do not put a moratorium on coal leases. 

Comment Number: 0002231_Schwend_20160620-5 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:David Schwend 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Or is the moratorium on coal a plan to hurt coal companies by taking time away from permitting of new leases to 

slow the process down even further and see what companies cannot make it through the leasing drought? 

Comment Number: 0002231_Schwend_20160620-7 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:David Schwend 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The moratorium on coal will affect communities, families, and create an economic slowdown. 

Comment Number: 0002284_Madsen_20160719-2 

Commenter1:Travis Madsen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I want to see the moratorium on new coal leases become permanent. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-376 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002309_Monseu_20160721_AmericanCoalCouncil-15

Organization1:American Coal Council 

Commenter1:Betsy Monseu 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The step taken by the Secretary of the Interior in January 2016 to impose a moratorium on new federal coal 

leases is incongruent with the status of the federal coal leasing program. This program is not broken, and no 

pause is needed. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-70

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Selling Federal coal below market also encourages the domestic American economy to delay its urgently-needed 

transition from polluting, climate-disrupting fossil fuels to clean sources of electric power.(3) These economicallyand socially-damaging effects of selling Federal coal below its market value have revived the need for a fourth 

moratorium on the leasing of Federal coal. During that moratorium, another high-level review and overhaul of 

the Federal coal-leasing program should be conducted 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-71

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Federal court ruling halting the leasing of Federal coal in Colorado in June of this year rests, in part, on a 

finding that increasing the quantity of cheap Federal coal available to the energy market shifts domestic demand 

away from low-carbon sources of energy. See Restraining Order issued June 27, 2014, in High Country 

Conservation Advocates vs. U.S. Forest Service, Civil Action No. 13-cv-01723-RBJ (Federal District Court, 

Colorado) at 30. 

Comment Number: 0002360_Saulsbury_20160721-1 

Commenter1:David Saulsbury 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am against the BLM putting a moratorium on coal leasing 

Comment Number: 0002389_Schwend_20160721-1 

Organization1:Spring Creek Mine 

Commenter1:David Schwend 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The DOl's recent moratorium on federal coal leases will negatively impact funding for local schools, 

governments, and communities. When industry is regulated into bankruptcy or near bankruptcy it has a 

ripple effect into every part of the state's economy. Not only are coal miners, power plant workers and 

coal industry companies affected; equipment and part suppliers, manufacturers, railroads, truckers, steel 

manufacturers and a long list of service jobs are all greatly affected. 

Comment Number: 0002389_Schwend_20160721-3 

Organization1:Spring Creek Mine 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-377

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:David Schwend 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2015 Spring Creek Coal Mine paid $52Million to the State of Montana for taxes and royalties and 

approximately $20Million to the federal government. We exported 3.6 Million tons of coal to Asia in 2015 and 

lost money. Cloud Peak Energy (CPE) as a whole lost $204.9Million and paid $303Million in taxes and royalties. 

CPE pays approximately $0.39 for every dollar on taxes and royalties. How much more taxes does the 

government want coal companies to pay? 39% isn't enough? Or is the moratorium on coal a plan to hurt coal 

companies by taking time away from permitting of new leases to slow the process down even further and see 

what companies cannot make it through the leasing drought? Is adding to the taxes and export royalties an 

additional measure to ensure coal companies are not successful and the Federal Government's portion of the 

"keep it in the ground" campaign is? Isn't the moratorium (which is very unclear that it will be resolved in three 

(3) years), the longer permitting timelines advocated by the government, higher tax rate for exports, numerous 

new legislation backed by the current Administration, and potential change to the bonus bid process just the 

Federal Governments way to stop coal mining and coal electrical generation. 

Comment Number: 0002391-1 

Commenter1:Tom Tully 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

1) Coal leasing should be based on what's good for the public, not coal companies. This requires that the BLM 

decide where, when, and how much coal is leased, rather than allowing coal companies to dictate the terms. 

Because there is already more coal leased than can be mined in the near future, the moratorium on coal leasing 

recently enacted while the BLM takes time to revamp the federal coal program was a smart move by our federal 

government. 

Comment Number: 0002439_Horian_20160721-1 

Commenter1:Rose Haroian 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

First and foremost, the moratorium should be lifted during the evaluation of EIS comments. 

Comment Number: 0002443_Koontz_20160727_BowieResources-2 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Bowie is especially concerned about the statement in Order 3338 and in separate commentary to the press by 

the Secretary's Office that the expected duration of the leasing moratorium is not of concern, because "20 years 

supply" of coal is already under lease. Bowie is unsure of the data the Secretary's Office relied upon for this 

assertion, and it is a material oversimplification of the actual nature and state of the coal market. First, it is 

problematic to aggregate all federally leased coal together, because not all federal coal is the same. Federal coal 

varies widely in BTU, sulfur, ash, moisture, and similar characteristics, as well as geography. Critically, state-ofthe-art coal-fired generating units are "tuned" to specific range of coal characteristics, and either cannot efficiently 

consume coal outside that range, or cannot do so without expensive retrofitting. As a result, as a practical matter 

there is not a single unified "coal market", but rather a wide array of sub-markets, each with its own, sometimes 

narrow, range of sources. Some of these sub-markets may have a fairly significant amount of coal already under 

lease, but others are much more supply constrained, and the length of the proposed moratorium may cause 

significant supply disruptions, particularly given the presently litigious and politicized state of federal coal leasing 

and permitting. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-378 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-26

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This is not the first time a pause has been imposed on new federal coal leasing to allow for thoughtful reforms to 

modernize the program. As the Secretary points out, two other comprehensive reform reviews and new leasing 

moratoriums of the coal program resulting in reforms have occurred: one in the late-1960s and the second in the 

early 1980s. (7) The Secretary’s current halt on new coal leasing is a prudent measure that will allow for 

comprehensive reforms to be considered before placing new land under risk. The halt will have virtually no 

impact on coal mining or coal supply as there is a 20 year supply of coal already under lease. (8) 

(7) Id. at 5-6.

(8) Id. at 2. 

Comment Number: 0002462_Compton_20160728_UtahMineAssoc-1 

Organization1:Utah Mining Associaton 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In moving forward with the moratorium and preparation of the PEIS, DOT is feigning concern about issues that 

just a few years earlier it had rejected out of hand. In the PEIS scoping meetings and in the media, various antidevelopment organizations have resurrected these claims by deploying a combination of incomplete and 

misinformation to produce a fictional narrative about the revenue and other economic returns to the public 

through bonus bids, royalties and surface rental fees. 

Comment Number: 0002462_Compton_20160728_UtahMineAssoc-10

Organization1:Utah Mining Associaton 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Utah Mining Association opposes the unjustified moratorium on federal coal leasing and therefore 

recommends the Department of the Interior lift the moratorium immediately. 

Comment Number: 0002462_Compton_20160728_UtahMineAssoc-15

Organization1:Utah Mining Associaton 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The moratorium and the policies under consideration in the PEIS are short-sighted and dangerous. Coal is still 

the backbone of our nation’s and the world’s energy supply, and restricting access to this affordable and abundant 

resource will destroy jobs and lead to higher and higher electric bills for every American. 

Comment Number: 0002462_Compton_20160728_UtahMineAssoc-3 

Organization1:Utah Mining Associaton 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Reasons Underlying the Moratorium and PEIS Rely on Market Distortions and Mischaracterizations of the 

Coal Leasing Process Which Would Decrease Coal Production and Return for Taxpayers 

Many of the potential policy options listed in BLM’s PEIS Scoping Notice disguised as measures for ensuring fair 

return are actually market distorting policies designed to make federal coal uneconomic to mine which will result 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-379

Scoping Report 

in denying communities, states and all Americans the twin-benefits of coal revenues and access to lower cost and 

reliable electricity 

Comment Number: 0002462_Compton_20160728_UtahMineAssoc-8 

Organization1:Utah Mining Associaton 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should lift the moratorium on federal coal leasing and consider lowering federal coal royalty rates, thereby 

lowering energy bills for homes and businesses 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-1 

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Coalition opposes the indefinite leasing moratorium issued on January 15, 2016, by the Secretary of the 

Interior, Secretarial Order No. 3338. This moratorium has no definite end date but is expected to last until this 

federal coal program review is complete, which the BLM expects will take about three years. However, based on 

the already divergent views on the issues identified in the NOI, it is very unlikely that this review and any 

proposed changes will be finalized within three years. 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-2 

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A new lease was last issued in the State of Wyoming in 2012, and it took about six years to finalize. See BLM 

Wyoming, Powder River Basin Coal Leases by Application, http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/ 

Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/lba_title.html (last updated Feb. 11, 2016). There are also at least six lease sale 

applications currently pending that will not have final decisions issued nor result in a lease sale because of 

Secretarial Order No. 3338's lease moratorium. See id. This moratorium, therefore, will disrupt the coal mining 

plans within the state of Wyoming for an indefinite amount of time. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-11

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

B. The Moratorium On Additional Coal Leasing Must Remain In Effect Until Implementation Of The New Leasing 

Framework 

The moratorium on continued coal leasing, which should continue until a new regulatory system goes into effect, 

is also necessary and appropriate. Indeed, as the Secretary explained in Order 3338, because lease terms are for 

twenty years or longer, allowing new leases during this process “risks locking in for decades the future 

development of large quantities of coal under current rates and terms that the PEIS may ultimately determine to 

be less than optimal.” Order at 8. It is well-established that BLM is not required to lease public lands for energy 

development. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414 (1931) (upholding President Hoover’s oil 

leasing moratorium under the Mineral Leasing Act). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-380 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

It is also evident that additional coal leasing is entirely unnecessary to meet domestic energy needs while this 

process is under way, as the Secretarial Order identifies that, on average, mines have 20 years of federal coal 

supplies (see chart below showing reserves for major coal producing companies at the time of the Order). 

Additionally, for mines that have fewer reserves on hand, the Secretarial Order provides for exceptions to the 

moratorium. In this context, it makes little sense to allow any new twenty-year leases at antiquated lease prices, 

with no consideration of the myriad issues that will be explored in the PEIS and addressed in the agency’s coming 

revised regulations. A moratorium pending completion of a new leasing framework is entirely consistent with the 

approach taken by the Reagan Administration, which similarly halted issuance of new leases while the program 

underwent extensive review. 

See Attached for Table 2 - Coal reserves of major western US producers 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-45

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the Secretarial Order and Scoping Notice the Secretary and BLM explain the need for a new PEIS, and why it is 

appropriate to impose a leasing moratorium until the process is completed. 

Comment Number: 0002476_Bullock_20160728_GovMt-1 

Organization1:Montana Governor 

Commenter1:Steve Bullock 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While I believe it is appropriate to review the federal coal leasing program and bring it up to date, I oppose the 

moratorium as ill-timed and ill-conceived. The timing couldn't be worse for the coal industry, and the effect of 

the blanket moratorium is to deprive the industry of the certainty it needs to make sound business choices about 

future development. 

Comment Number: 0002482_Jones_20160728_NAM-2 

Organization1:National Association of Manufacturers 

Commenter1:Ross Eisenburg 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Manufacturers oppose the introduction of market-distorting barriers to production or energy exports. The NAM 

recommends the withdrawal of the moratorium during the review of the leasing program and a full examination 

into the true impact on the manufacturing community and the supply chain supporting the coal sector. 

Comment Number: 0002487_Clarke_20160728_UtahGovOffice-1 

Organization1:Utah Office of the Governor 

Commenter1:Kathleen Clarke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM's decision to halt leasing while it reviews the program is an egregious violation of the agency's fiduciary 

duties to its beneficiaries, the citizens of the United States. On January 15, 2016, without consulting any western 

states to be impacted, the BLM unilaterally announced a review of its coal leasing program and a three year 

moratorium on federal coal leasing. The moratorium undermines a long-standing partnership between Utah and 

the BLM, who have worked together for decades on developing a successful coal leasing on federal land in the 

state. 

BLM's coal leasing program should be reviewed without unjustifiably freezing new leasing and causing undue harm 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-381

Scoping Report 

and uncertainty to the industry. Under the Mineral Leasing Act, BLM is charged with maximizing economic 

recovery for coal mined on federal lands.1 The moratorium violates this fiduciary duty since the BLM does not 

demonstrate any reason it cannot review an ongoing program. The BLM itself calculates that the program has 

produced $12 billion dollars of royalties, rents, bonuses and other payments over the last decade. This flow of 

crucial revenues will be interrupted unnecessarily by the moratorium. The BLM also fails to present any evidence 

that anything has changed related to the program to justify an unprecedented one-size-fits-all national 

moratorium. 

Violating public process under the Administrative Procedures Act2 and other applicable law, the BLM's action 

also denied states and local governments the ability to provide meaningful data and input on the merits of the 

moratorium. The BLM failed to support the national moratorium with its own data or consultation with in-thefield experts. 

130 U.S.C. §201(a)(3)(C). 

2 5 U.S.C. §500. 

Comment Number: 0002487_Clarke_20160728_UtahGovOffice-5 

Organization1:Utah Office of the Governor 

Commenter1:Kathleen Clarke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Withdrawal or suspension of the leasing of federal coal acreage adjacent to a school section containing coal 

resources, therefore, has the unintended effect of sterilizing the coal resources within the school section. Loss of 

trust land coal resources harms public education and frustrates the intent and purposes of Congress in granting 

trust lands to the state. The current moratorium on federal coal leasing should immediately be lifted to facilitate 

the leasing and development of trust land and federal coal resources. Additionally, the BLM should coordinate 

with the SITLA to exchange BLM land for school sections so that school sections can be "blocked up" into 

mineable land blocks. 

Comment Number: 0002487_Clarke_20160728_UtahGovOffice-6 

Organization1:Utah Office of the Governor 

Commenter1:Kathleen Clarke 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is crucial that the BLM's coal leasing program review be appropriately limited. The BLM's proposal to impose 

climate-change mitigation costs on the coal industry is in direct conflict with the Mineral Leasing Act, which 

obligates the BLM to maximize the economic recovery for coal mined on federal lands.10 Along with not being 

authorized, the BLM's proposed approach would unfairly burden coal as opposed to other sources of carbon, and 

would likely be counterproductive to the BLM's stated goal of reducing global carbon emissions. In fact, the BLM's 

moratorium and proposed carbon penalty may actually increase global carbon emissions by decreasing the 

production and utilization of Utah's high-energy, lower carbon emitting coal, which would likely be replaced in 

domestic and global markets by inferior sources of coal. Reducing carbon emissions would be more effectively 

and appropriately pursued by increasing federal investment in cleaner coal technologies, and encouraging the 

production and export of Utah's superior coal into foreign markets. 

(10) 30 U .S.C. §20 I (a)(3)(C). 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-7 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Other Sections: 1 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-382 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

However, as revealed in a white paper (1) prepared for National Mining Association (hereinafter NMA) DOI had 

already considered the arguments of anti-coal groups and rejected the underlying rationale for the imposition of 

the moratorium and programmatic review in 2011. The same groups, here, are simply repackaging issues that 

have already been settled. 

(1) Norwest Corporation, Federal Coal Leasing Moratorium: An Examination of the Reasons Driving Disruptive 

Policy, National Mining Association (2016) hereinafter NMA White Paper. 

The moratorium is based upon flawed assumptions, misrepresentation of the current management situation, 

cherry-picked datasets and metrics, and twisted facts, which were used to suit pre¬conceived theories about fair 

return, market conditions, and externalities. As such, CMA opposes the moratorium, and cautions both BLM and 

DOI, that information relied upon and disseminated by the Federal government must be in compliance with the 

DQA. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-5 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Because the executive branch has tainted the ongoing NEPA review through its impermissible predetermination 

of the outcome of key policy objectives at the heart of that public review, BLM should lift the current leasing 

moratorium during the pendency of the federal coal program PEIS review. The Department of the Interior has 

offered no coherent reason why coal producers should be punished by an arbitrary leasing moratorium during 

BLM’s review of the coal program. Similarly, BLM should complete its PEIS process as quickly as possible to avoid 

lingering uncertainty about the future of the coal leasing program. 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-57

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 4.5 2 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Alternative B: Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) Permanently Extending Lease Moratorium 

Under this alternative BLM would permanently implement the coal leasing moratorium, allowing all existing leases 

to naturally sunset without extension. Under this alternative, assuming deployment from CCS, as noted by 

Carbon Tracker, “the potential production from existing leases is sufficient to meet projected demand in every 

year through 2040.”65 In this scenario, the number of leases are sufficient to meet demand for a range of 

plausible and high levels of CCS deployment: 450 with CCS deployment in 2020, 450 with widespread CCS 

deployment in 2030, and 450 with no CCS deployment through 2040.66 

[65 Carbon Tracker Report, supra note 3 at 12.] 

[66 Resources for the Future, “Putting a Carbon Charge on Federal Coal: Legal and Economic Issues.” Available 

at http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-15-13.pdf; Carbon Tracker Report, supra 

note 3 at 10.] 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-18

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 8.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

DOI's estimate appears to be a nationwide figure which amalgamates all federal coal leases. However, the mines 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-383

Scoping Report 

in Wyoming account for 80% of all federal coal being produced today and BLM Wyoming figures show the 

average mine life for Wyoming coal mines is 16.4 years. See Wyoming Coal Mines- Estimated Mine Life (WY0-

00914). Even this number is skewed by one mine, the Caballo mine, which is projected to last for 80 years. (Id.). 

And the 80 year projection cannot be relied upon because the Caballo mine is known to contain significant 

amounts of uneconomically mineable reserves. (Id.). Thus, DOI is overestimating the remaining life of existing 

mines, including those in Wyoming. 

DOI has used its 20-year estimate to downplay the impact that the moratorium will have on coal production. 

Again, DOI is not telling the whole story. Assuming no legal challenges, the best timeline estimate for a new lease 

approval will likely require 13 to 15 years (3 year PEIS process; 2 years for rule/Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) revisions; 5 years for EIS development of same; 2 years for Record of Decision and lease sale; 3 years for 

state/federal OSMRE permitting). A 15 year time lag for post-moratorium new coal production cuts dangerously 

close to BLM's estimate that the mines in Wyoming that produce 80% of federal coal will continue for 16.4 years. 

But this best case scenario is not the most likely scenario because litigation is likely to occur. Unfortunately, the 

moratorium and PEIS process has created an uncertainty in the nation's thermal coal baseload fuel supply. 

Because the moratorium has stopped the coal leasing process while existing leases continue to produce, DOI has 

creating a time lag in production that is not likely to be overcome once leasing resumes. Therefore, the BLM 

must consider ways to significantly expedite coal leasing once the moratorium is lifted. 

1.5.2- Concerns with Order No. 3338- Sec. 6, Exclusions 

The exclusions identified in Order No. 3338 appear designed to mitigate potential mine life conflicts; however, 

the emergency lease and lease modification provisions may be insufficient to sustain some mining operations. 

The DOI's calculation of tons of reserves in Wyoming is inaccurate. It is apparently based on total tons of coal 

leased nationwide. The more appropriate calculation of tons of coal reserves should be on the basis of minable 

tons within approved lease tracts. The DOI evaluation does not take into account the balancing of strip ratios 

across the mining reserve base (field average) and actions taken by BLM in the leasing process that impact those 

reserves ultimately leased. The BLM is required to lease in accordance with the public interest. Therefore, lease 

tracts include unrecoverable tons that lie under rail lines and extend to the 40 acre subdivision. The 

unrecoverable tons within these lease units include tons that are not economically recoverable, but have been 

added into the lease tract total tonnage evaluation and sale to prevent reserve sterilization. 

Order No. 3338 also does not account for strip ratio variability (overburden thickness/coal thickness) and how 

strip ratio factors into lease modification requests and actions. As stated previously, a lease action often includes 

areas of high strip ratio and marginal coal in order to prevent sterilization of reserves. LBA and Lease by 

Modification (LBM) actions include both lower cover reserves in conjunction with marginal high cover reserves in 

an attempt to balance the strip ratio and recover the maximum coal tons from the reserve base. This action 

facilitated by the LBA/LBM process provides for maximum recovery and public benefit from the leased coal. In 

contrast, Order No. 3338, as established, will force operations into marginal reserves early in the mine life and 

create economic winners and losers based on policy rather than coal recovery and market conditions. 

Additionally, coal companies may choose to pay a penalty and bypass marginal reserves as they are simply too 

costly to mine without lower stripping ratio reserves available to offset the respective increased cost of mining. 

The public benefit from these reserves is compromised and is in contrast to BLM's public benefit mandate. The 

increase in the cost of coal will be passed onto the end consumer resulting in higher utility rates. The BLM must 

consider these factors now, as it relates to Order No. 3338, and in its PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-2 

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

From a nationwide perspective, the OIG report did NOT conclude that the program has resulted in loss of 

revenue. Instead, it found that updating certain agency policies would minimize certain hypothetical risks for the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-384 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

undervaluation of the resource. The policy changes to guidance proposed by the GAO and OIG reviews are 

administrative, offering guidance to the BLM to assure the program's continued effectiveness and transparency. 

They do not call for this PEIS with its monumental and expensive consequences. The vast majority of federal coal 

leased and mined in the U.S. (80 percent in Wyoming) is being managed in an exemplary manner. The 

moratorium on new coal leases and lease modifications on these facts alone is unwarranted and should be lifted 

immediately. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-3 

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 4.6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS process is having a disproportionate impact on Wyoming and time is of the essence for Wyoming and 

Wyoming mine workers. DOI has suggested that this review is temporary and time limited- three years. 

However, there is no written commitment by the DOI or the BLM to a three-year schedule. It regularly takes a 

minimum of seven to ten years to complete an Environmental Impact Statement in Wyoming. Interestingly the 

BLM's Solar Energy Development PEIS- considered a priority of the Obama administration- took more than four 

years to complete and the BLM is only now proceeding with updating its rules and regulations. The BLM needs to 

stop the PEIS, but at a minimum it needs to commit in writing what it has promised repeatedly, that the PEIS will 

be completed by January 15,2019 and, completed or not, that the moratorium will expire on that date.

Comment Number: 0002495_Bucks_20160728-6 

Commenter1:Dan Bucks 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Secretarial Order 3338 contains all the reasons why the current systems are deficient and need to be replaced. 

The programmatic reviews in the 1970s and 80s set precedents for using the PEIS process to develop new 

practices and procedures. Interior’s pause in leasing while the coal review is completed implicitly confirmed that 

the leasing process was flawed and could not be continued. Indeed, if the scope of the PEIS does not include 

work on improved administrative systems, Interior will undermine the credibility of the leasing pause. Critics will 

ask, “If the PEIS is simply an academic, analytical exercise of no consequence to operational policy and practice, 

why then was the pause imposed on leases? Surely, analysis can proceed while we get on with the real business of 

leasing and producing coal.” The rationale for the leasing pause is reinforced if the scoping document makes an 

explicit commitment to develop through the PEIS a new leasing system to replace lease by application. 

By ceding substantial control of the pace and degree of coal leasing to coal producers and allowing them to selfassess royalties, Interior has denied itself the ability to guarantee a fair return to the public, to minimize and 

mitigate the external cost of coal production, or to fulfill other public purposes. The existing administrative 

systems are obstacles standing in the way of the goals of the PEIS. They are too infected by private control 

serving private interests to yield results that serve the public interest. These systems need to be replaced, and 

that vital work should be accomplished through the PEIS, with new systems ready to be implemented at its 

completion. 

Comment Number: 0002500_Sweeney_20160728-1 

Organization1:National Mining Association 

Commenter1:Katie Sweeney 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the BLM is sincere in its goal to achieve a fair return for taxpayers, the BLM should lift the moratorium on 

federal coal leasing and abandon those proposals which would short change American taxpayers and raise energy 

costs across the nation. Instead of pursuing these destructive policies, the BLM should recommit itself to ensuring 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-385

Scoping Report 

the proper and expedient function of the federal coal leasing program on behalf of the public that it serves. 

Attached and incorporated in these comments is a report on the “Federal Coal Leasing Moratorium: An 

Examination of the Reasons Driving a Disruptive Policy” which analyzes the misguided rationales for the 

moratorium and policy proposals included in the PEIS that are designed to make federal coal uneconomic. 

Comment Number: 0002500_Sweeney_20160728-3 

Organization1:National Mining Association 

Commenter1:Katie Sweeney 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

II. The Reasons Underlying the Moratorium and PEIS Rely on Market Distortions and Mischaracterizations of the 

Coal Leasing Process Which Would Decrease Coal Production and Return for Taxpayers 

Many of the potential policy options listed in BLM’s PEIS Scoping Notice disguised as measures for ensuring fair 

return are actually market distorting policies designed to make federal coal uneconomic to mine which will result 

in denying communities, states and all Americans the twin-benefits of coal revenues and access to lower cost and 

reliable electricity. 

Comment Number: 0002503_Hamman_20160729-1 

Organization1:Lignite Energy Council 

Commenter1:Tyler Hamman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Given the mine-mouth nature of lignite coal mines and electric generating facilities, mining companies in North 

Dakota have secured long-term supply contracts with their utility customers. As a result, mining companies 

secure the majority of leases needed to satisfy decades-long fuel supply contracts, as well as the surface area they 

intend to mine, before submitting an application for a mine permit from the North Dakota Public Service 

Commission (PSC). After these pieces have fallen into place, coal producers can begin mining activity and have 

developed the practice of pursuing a federal coal lease by accounting for an appropriate amount of lead time in 

their mine plan. In announcing the three-year moratorium on federal coal leasing, the Department indicated that 

it would not impact existing operations since there is enough coal already leased to maintain current production 

levels for 20 years[2]. Despite the relatively small amount of federal coal in North Dakota, the three-year 

moratorium can actually be more damaging since coal producers do not secure federal coal decades from 

production as is standard practice in areas of the West with significant federal coal reserves. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Other Sections: 4.6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Along with preparation of the EIS, the Secretary of Interior has imposed a de-facto moratorium on coal leasing 

pending completion of this review. 

Part of the stated justification for these actions is reports resulting from review by the Government Accounting 

Office (GAO) and the DOI-Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the current coal program. Given, however, that 

the referenced reports stated that the current leasing program is sound and contributes significant benefits to the 

taxpayers, that the reports offered only modest recommendations for program improvements, and that in 2014 

the BLM already developed new protocols, policy guidance, and a manual and handbook to implement the 

GAO/OIG recommendations, there is a reasonable basis to question the need and motivation for both the EIS 

and the leasing moratorium. It must also be noted that the proposed regulatory changes illegally conflict with and 

attempt to supercede existing law and regulation under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 25), FLPMA (30 U.S.C. 1701), MLA 

(30 Us.S.C. 181), MMPA (30 U.S.C. 21a), NEPA (40 U.S.C. 4321, and DQA (Pub. L. No. 106-554, 515).
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-386 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0003001_MasterFormA_Care2Petitions-1 

Organization1:Care2 Petitions 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As a person who is concerned with climate change I urge you to maintain the moratorium on new coal leases on 

public land for the next three years. 

This moratorium is an important step to transitioning the American economy away from fossil fuels and showing 

that the United States can become a leader in the fight against climate change. 

Comment Number: 0003012_MasterFormK-1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The moratorium placed on new federal coal leases will cause undue harm to a vital source of electricity for 

millions of Americans. If the Administration chooses to conduct a Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement, 

then it should do so without halting new leases. We can continue our country’s track record of environmental 

stewardship without destroying the coal industry and driving up electricity prices. 

I believe the coal moratorium is a damaging policy with grave ramifications. I urge the Secretary to reconsider this 

policy and end the moratorium today. 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-1 

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

UCARE members support continuation of the current Department of Interior (DOI) moratorium on federal 

lands coal leasing until a comprehensive assessment of coal's costs to American citizens has been conducted by 

the DOI, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other 

relevant agencies of the federal government. 

Comment Number: 0020028_Brady_EmeryCounty_20160722-1 

Organization1:Emery County Commission 

Commenter1:Keith Brady 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

"Coal has been an important domestic energy source for decades and that will continue in the years ahead. The 

federal government plays a major role in facilitating and regulating U.S. coal production; taxpayer-owned federal 

lands supply roughly 40 percent of all U.S. coal production." 

This opening statement in Department of Interior's (DOI) Coal Reform Fact Sheet should be seen as perhaps the 

best reason to not impose the moratorium on coal leasing as the DOI evaluates the federal coal program. Coal 

will continue to dominate the energy production field in the year's ahead. Coal from federal leases provide nearly 

half of the nation's power. To throw on the brakes on the leasing process while it is being re-evaluated makes 

absolutely no sense. 

Comment Number: 0020028_Brady_EmeryCounty_20160722-2 

Organization1:Emery County Commission 

Commenter1:Keith Brady 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The likely result of the moratorium will be a lag in leasing, resulting in unavailable resources in the future as 

bureaucracy tries to catch up to demand. Secretary Jewell should scrap the moratorium and allow leasing and 

production to proceed while DOI slogs through the evaluation process. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-387

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-19

Commenter1:438596 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the moratorium on coal leasing should be lifted and we should get back to the important work of providing 

energy to the nation. There is no benefit in disrupting the supply of coal from BLM lands for the period of the 

moratorium. 

Comment Number: 0020034_Koontz_TownofHotchkiss_20160729-5 

Organization1:Town of Hotchkiss 

Commenter1:Wendell Koontz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A three year moratorium on leasing to study the issue is illogical given the known demands for coal and power 

generation and the impacts on employment, royalties paid, and lives affected. 

Comment Number: 0020056-1 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Bowie is especially concerned about the statement in Order 3338 and in separate commentary to the press by 

the Secretary’s Office that the expected duration of the leasing moratorium is not of concern, because “ 20 years 

supply of coal is already under lease. Bowie is unsure of the data the Secretary s Office relied upon for this 

assertion, and it is a material oversimplification of the actual nature and state of the coal market. First, it is 

problematic to aggregate all federally leased coal together, because not all federal coal is the same. Federal coal 

varies widely in BTU, sulfur, ash, moisture, and similar characteristics, as well as geography. Critically, state-ofthe-art coal-fired generating units are tuned to specific range of coal characteristics, and either cannot efficiently 

consume coal outside that range, or cannot do so without expensive retro¬ fitting. As a result, as a practical 

matter there is not a single unified coal market, but rather a wide array of sub-markets, each with its own, 

sometimes narrow, range of sources. Some of these sub-markets may have a fairly significant amount of coal 

already under lease, but others are much more supply constrained, and the length of the proposed moratorium 

may cause significant supply disruptions, particularly given the presently litigious and politicized state of federal 

coal leasing and permitting. 

Comment Number: 000001242_ SANDERSON_Colorado Mining Association _2016062-1 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I'm also appearing today as part of a coalition of 17 organizations of local governments and other groups 

throughout Colorado, which are really concerned and are in opposition to the Department of the Interior's 

efforts to impose a leasing moratorium, as well as to hike royalty rates. This is not only not in the interests of 

Colorado, or in the interest of the economy. But, it will jeopardize our nation's long-term interest in securing an 

affordable, reliable, and yes clean, source of energy. 

Comment Number: 000001242_ SANDERSON_Colorado Mining Association _2016062-4 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-388 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The leasing moratorium pause that has been imposed, not only threatens operations in this State and threatens 

their cessation within three years, it is clearly an over-reaction. 

Comment Number: 000001243_ COMPTON _Utah Mining Association _20160623-1 

Organization1:Utah Mining Association 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I believe this coal moratorium -- well, maybe not surprising coming from the current administration, is 

nevertheless shortsighted and dangerous. 

Comment Number: 000001243_ COMPTON _Utah Mining Association _20160623-3 

Organization1:Utah Mining Association 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to removing Federal coal reserves, the moratorium will reduce the lease revenues of Western States. 

Comment Number: 000001245_ COFIELD_20160623-1 

Organization1:Wagner Equipment Company 

Commenter1:Brad Cofield 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

moratorium on Federal coal leases is the latest attempt to shut down a vital fuel source at a time when our 

worldwide energy demands continue to increase. 

Comment Number: 000001250_ SEGO_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Jeff Sego 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I would urge Secretary Jewell to immediately end the moratorium on the Federal Coal Leasing Program. 

Comment Number: 000001288_Stein_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Joe Stein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the wake of a global climate crisis, we as Americans must maintain our current moratorium on Federal coal 

leases in order to meet our intended goals and prevent environmental disaster, paired with wise policy, 

emphasizing green subsidies. The extension of the current moratorium on coal will create jobs, lower 

greenhouse gas emissions, and show the world that America is once again a global energy leader. According to 

Sally Jewell, the current Secretary of the Interior, we already have 20 years' worth of coal supply at current 

production levels, at least for extraction. Because production levels are dropping, that stock will last longer and 

longer. We simply have no need for new coal plants. Removing the moratorium on Federal coal leases after 

signing on to the Paris Agreement, would be a step in the wrong direction at the most pivotal point in American 

energy history. 

Comment Number: 000001295_Malzbender_20160623-1 

Organization1:Climate Reality Project 

Commenter1:Katie Malzbender 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-389

Scoping Report 

The moratorium on new coal leases must be made permanent as the United States transitions from the dirty 

energy sources of the past to clean, healthy, and renewable sources of energy. 

Comment Number: 000001300_Cowen_20160623-1 

Organization1:West Elk Mine 

Commenter1:Vince Cowen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I'd ask you to reconsider the moratorium. Try to end it as soon as possible. It's going to help all of us. 

Comment Number: 000001301_Permut_20160623-2 

Organization1:Climate Reality Project 

Commenter1:Susan Permut 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

But, to ensure the health and wellbeing of our children, we need to make this ban permanent. So, please, make 

the temporary ban on new Federal coal lease -- coal leases permanent. 

Comment Number: 00001273_Grange_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Jordan Grange 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This moratorium is a huge waste of time. I support stopping this moratorium immediately and streamlining, 

streamlining the Federal lease -- the Federal Coal Leasing Program 

ISSUE 5.4 - SPECIFIC COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS 

Total Number of Submissions: 12 

Total Number of Comments: 17 

Comment Number: 00000347 _ Johnson _20160519-4 

Organization1:Alton Coal Development 

Commenter1:Larry Johnson 

Other Sections: 8.3 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Alton Coal requests that the secretary consider suspending the moratorium and allowing existing leases to be 

completed and awarded. Alton's LBA has been pending for more than 12 years and the environmental analysis is 

nearly complete. Allowing to complete and award these pending leases would allow those coal companies to 

meet their coal supply agreements and will return bonus bid and lease payment revenues to both the state and 

the Federal Government. 

Comment Number: 0000376-1 

Commenter1:Melinda McIlwaine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In lieu of having the sage grouse listed on the endangered species list, Utah agreed to ramp up its efforts to 

protect this bird and its habitat. The Alton Coal Mine will impact where these birds accomplish their annual 

mating rituals, which are quite amazing to see. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-390 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000377-1 

Organization1:Utah's Second Congressional District 

Commenter1:Chris Stewart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

"I ask the Bureau to pay particular attention to the permits and proposals for the Greens Hollow Tract and the 

Alton Coal Tract. 

Comment Number: 0000834-1 

Commenter1:Bobbi Bryant-Salvato 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Alton Coal Mine, if permitted by BLM, will be a strip coal mine on 3,500 acres of public lands. Highway 89 

will be the haul route of this coal. Highway 89, the Mormon Heritage Highway, is a small two lane highway that 

goes through the towns of Hatch and Panguitch. In the latest SEIS by BLM I quote, "adverse impacts of 

community and social well-being and tourism related business, population, housing and public safety and health" 

will result from permitting this mine. BLM has heard from more than 200,000 members of the public asking they 

not approve this mine. Truck traffic through these small towns will be estimated at up to 300 double tandem 

truck trips operating 24 hours a day 6 days a week. You can imagine the noise and road hazards. 

Comment Number: 0002390_Pfister_20160721-8 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Bull Mountain mine 

has been permitted in fits and starts by both the State and BLM. The logical mining unit here is 

the whole coal reserve. The Billings Federal Judge told us that it was speculation that the other 

half of the coal reserve might be leased. Signal Peak has filed a prospecting permit for that half 

as of April 15, 2016. The Judge issued her ruling on March 31, 2016. The company has been 

talking about this for 15 years, and neither the Helena DEQ nor the MT BLM has wanted to 

believe that it could be serious. They have used checklist Environmental Assessments when full 

blown EISes were warranted. There has been desire to minimize the damage that can and will 

occur. 

Comment Number: 0002436-1 

Commenter1:Sharon St Joan 

Other Sections: 16 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A tributary of Kanab Creek has already been relocated by the mine and has been polluted with coal dust. Kanab 

Creek provides the drinking water for the city of Kanab. New expansion of coal on to public lands would further 

contaminate Kanab Creek, which is also the main source of water for wildlife. 

Comment Number: 0002436-2 

Commenter1:Sharon St Joan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Alton Coal Mine – other impacts 

About an hour north of where I live, in Kanab, Utah, is the Alton Coal Mine, built years ago on private land. For 

the past nine years, the BLM has been working on a proposal to lease 3,000 acres of adjacent public land to be 

used for open pit coal mining. While there is nothing we can do about coal mining on private land, we who live in 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-391

Scoping Report 

this area have watched for years the destruction that has already taken place to the surrounding ecosystem, and 

we fear the threat of far greater and more devastating damage to nearby public lands if they were to be opened 

up to coal mining, as is being proposed. 

Comment Number: 0002436-3 

Commenter1:Sharon St Joan 

Other Sections: 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A “lek,” or breeding ground, of the severely threatened sage grouse lies at the exact location of planned new coal 

expansion onto BLM land.Although the sage grouse species should have been listed for protection under the 

Endangered Species Act, it was not. Instead, an impractical plan has been agreed to by eleven western states to 

“manage” sage grouse habitat. This plan involves allowing key, essential sage grouse habitat to be taken over by 

coal strip--mining and other industrialization, while at the same time attempting to design new habitat, which, it is 

hoped, any sage grouse that survive may move on to. 

This new habitat is being created by having machines crunch up miles and miles of beautiful native pinion and 

juniper trees, leaving the dead remains of the trees littering the ground, so that it is impossible even for a human 

to walk over them. It is hard to imagine the sage grouse doing their beautiful mating dance on top of broken, 

splintered trees. In some cases, nonnative grasses have been planted at these sites, which is ecologically 

inappropriate. 

There is no proof that the sage grouse will move onto these miles and miles of destroyed trees, which do not in 

any way resemble sage grouse habitat. In the meantime, the habitat of all the native species who used to live 

there – the coyotes, the deer, the elk, the rabbits, the beavers, foxes, cougars, bobcats, and the many small 

mammal and avian species -- has been eradicated. 

Comment Number: 0002436-5 

Commenter1:Sharon St Joan 

Other Sections: 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

these public lands being considered for new coal expansion are right on a wildlife corridor that runs up through 

the Grand Canyon, through the Kaibab forest, through Kane County, Utah, and farther north on up to Canada. 

This is a key wildlife corridor for the annual mule deer migration, along with the animals that travel with them –

including cougars and coyotes. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-53

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2014, the National Wildlife Federation estimated that the CO2 emissions from burning the coal leased under 

nine leases in the Powder River Basin would be equivalent to about 250 coal fired power plants working non-stop 

for ten years. Additional proposals on public lands in Colorado, Utah, West Virginia, and Alaska would add an 

additional one billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, equivalent to bringing 31 coal-fired power plants online. 

This would make the total impact of burning leased coal would be the addition of over 10.5 billion tons of CO2 

released. (125) 

(125) National Wildlife Federation, Issue Brief: Accounting for Carbon Pollution from Coal Mining on Federal 

Lands (2014) at 3-4, available at http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Policy 

Solutions/2014/nwf_issue_briefs_layout_web.pdf. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-392 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002460_Berry_20160728-1 

Organization1:Town of Paonia 

Commenter1:Jane Berrry 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Not all coal is created equal. The coal that comes out of the North Fork Valley is high heat and low sulfur. I have 

been advised by members of the environmental community that they believe that North Fork coal is cleaner than 

natural gas. They see North Fork coal as a bridge to alternative forms of energy. If the country is to have energy 

at a reasonable cost, coal will continue to be used to generate electricity for years to come. Why not burn clean 

coal mined by responsible companies? North Fork coal should be part of our energy future. 

Comment Number: 0002485_Brooke_20160728-1 

Organization1:Black Warrior River 

Commenter1:Nelson Brooke 

Other Sections: 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A recent lease of 160 acres was awarded to Narley Mine No. 3, operated by Best Coal, Inc. That surface mine 

has discharges through six sediment basins to an unnamed tributary to Trouble Creek, which flows into Trouble 

Creek, and then into the Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River in Jefferson County, AL. This stretch of the 

Locust Fork is federal ESA Critical Habitat for six species of freshwater mussels, and is also home to the 

Endangered Cahaba Shiner, the Endangered plicate rocksnail, the Threatened flattened musk turtle, and the 

Candidate Black Warrior Waterdog, among other rare aquatic species. Alabama is number one in the U.S. for 

aquatic biodiversity, and the Locust Fork is a key priority watershed for rare species habitat, reintroductions, and 

recovery. 

Comment Number: 0002487_Clarke_20160728_UtahGovOffice-2 

Organization1:Utah Office of the Governor 

Commenter1:Kathleen Clarke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM's actions threaten several major coal mine expansion projects in Utah including the Alton Coal Mine 

expansion application to lease 2,683 acres of Federal coal and recover approximately 49 million tons, the Sufco 

Mine expansion application to the 6,175-acre Green Hollow coal tract, and the Lila Canyon Mine application to 

lease the 4,200-acre Williams Draw Tract. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-15

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Cloud Peak Energy is one of the safest producers of low sulfur, high quality subbituminous coal in the United 

States. Cloud Peak Energy wholly owns and operates three coal mines on federal leases located in the Montana 

and Wyoming portions of the Powder River Basin. Cloud Peak Energy operates the Spring Creek Mine in 

southeastern Montana and the Cordero Rojo Mine and the Antelope Mine in northeastern Wyoming. Cloud Peak 

Energy’s coal mines have been mining and shipping coal since the mid-1970s. Cloud Peak Energy also has two 

major development projects, the Youngs Creek project and the Big Metal project with the Crow Tribe in the 

northern Powder River Basin. In 2015, the coal that Cloud Peak Energy produced generated approximately 3% of 

the electricity produced in the United States. See Cloud Peak Annual Report, at 2 (2015). Cloud Peak Energy is 

the only Wyoming-headquartered company listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: CLD). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-393 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002505_Brooke_20160729-1 

Organization1:Black Warrior River Keeper 

Commenter1:Nelson Brooke 

Other Sections: 16 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A recent BLM lease (ALES-055199) of 160 acres was awarded to Narley Mine No. 3 utilizing the “emergency 

lease” qualification, under the premise that the 868,423 tons of recoverable federal coal were needed within a 

three-year timeframe to maintain an existing mining operation – the adjacent Narley Mine. Operated by Best 

Coal, Inc., Narley Mine No. 3 (surface mine) is permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (NWP 21: SAM2012-00615-CMS), the Alabama Surface Mining Commission (P-3954) and the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management (NPDES: AL0075752). NPDES AL0075752 allows discharges through six sediment 

basins to an unnamed tributary to Trouble Creek, which flows into Trouble Creek, and then into the Locust Fork 

of the Black Warrior River in Jefferson County, AL. Sediment basins are allowed to be placed within streams in 

Alabama by utilizing a grandfather provision to exercise use of the old Nationwide Permit 21. This Corps 

permitting system is outdated and destructive – its use was discontinued in all other Appalachian coal mining 

states years ago. Sadly, its use has been allowed to continue in Alabama. It is stated that fill impacts would not be 

had by this operation on Trouble Creek, but there will be fill impacts to Trouble Creek’s tributaries. For this 

mine, SAM-2012-00615-CMS allows for the destruction and fill of 4,080 linear feet of intermittent streams and 

7,106 linear feet of ephemeral streams. Headwater tributaries and their critical ecosystem functions should not 

and cannot be overlooked when considering the cumulative impacts of an operation within a watershed. 

Placement of fill and sediment ponds in drainages and tributaries is a key concern of Black Warrior Riverkeeper, 

and we believe this is a practice allowed by NWP 21 that should be expressly banned. These streams are 

headwater tributaries, and any impacts to them eventually have a downstream cumulative impact on the Locust 

Fork. A 100 foot Stream Buffer Zone cannot and should not be touted as a sufficient measure to protect water 

quality and aquatic species, as it is in the EA on page 46. 

Comment Number: 0002505_Brooke_20160729-2 

Organization1:Black Warrior River Keeper 

Commenter1:Nelson Brooke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The June 2, 2014 EA (DOI-BLM-ES-0020-2012-0039-EA) performed by engineering firms PERC & MEC for this 

lease was inadequate for multiple reasons. Consultation with multiple state and federal regulatory agencies failed 

to adequately consider water quality and wildlife habitat impacts to the Locust Fork of the Black Warrior – both 

individually from this mine and cumulatively with numerous other active, reclaimed, and abandoned coal mines 

along this stretch of the river. Neither ADEM nor AMSC – the two state agencies with regulatory authority over 

coal mining in Alabama – perform cumulative impacts analyses when making permitting decisions. Their 

permitting systems do not adequately take into consideration downstream impacts of surface coal mines on 

receiving river basins, their habitat, their intended uses, or their actual uses. 

Comment Number: 0002505_Brooke_20160729-3 

Organization1:Black Warrior River Keeper 

Commenter1:Nelson Brooke 

Other Sections: 4.6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While the applicant states in the EA on page 48 that the ADEM NPDES permit “provides strict water quality 

restrictions that control the quality of water that will be allowed to be discharged into the nearby streams,” 

ADEM’s NPDES permits actually allow for rain event exemptions on pollutant limitations, essentially permitting 

coal mines to discharge sediment and heavy metals-laden water over spillways or through pipes into receiving 

streams during rain events. These unfortunate exemptions circumvent the intent of the Clean Water Act, and 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-394 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

place downstream waters and species in harm’s way at times when pollutant limitations are needed most. 

ADEM’s coal mining NPDES permits are designed to allow massive quantities of sediment to discharge into 

receiving waters during rain events. The idea touted on page 48 that sediment basins are adequate to trap 

sediment in runoff from coal mines cannot be trusted. There is a lot of talk in the EA about all the regulations and 

plans in place to protect the environment, but the reality on the ground is: strip mines in Alabama are overseen 

by lax regulations and minimal regulatory oversight. 

A misleading representation of the NPDES compliance history of the applicant at its Narley Mine was provided as 

a justification for the lease in this EA. Such misinformation should not be taken lightly, and should be ample 

fodder for revocation of this lease. The EA states on page 48: “Best Coal, Inc. has not experienced a noncompliance discharge from any of its basins associated with the NPDES Permit AL0075752 since March 15, 

2011.” Upon a quick Black Warrior Riverkeeper review of NPDES Permit AL0075752 monthly discharge 

monitoring reports publicly available on ADEM”s eFile database, we found this statement to be patently false. 

From March 15, 2011 to January 2012, Narley Mine had 217 violations of its NPDES permit – by exceeding 

limitations for toxicity and selenium.

On page 48 the following was stated: “In addition, there are no issues or concerns brought forth relating to the 

past mining operations in the area according to their past compliance records.” Additionally on page 35 the 

following was stated: “Best Coal had tested the Narley Mine overburden and interburden to determine whether 

acid or other toxic-forming substances were present in amounts that might pollute water resources. The results 

indicated that toxicity issues with respect to the materials tested were minimal. The three overburden cores 

contained small amounts of acid-forming shale zones near one or more of the coal beds to be mined. The volume 

of this toxic material was small compared to the total volume of overburden. Excavation of the overburden 

would not necessarily mix the spoil thoroughly. Therefore, there is a possibility that pods of toxic shale might be 

positioned within the backfill where they could have some localized environmental effect. However, considering 

the volumes involved, that effect would be limited to a few patches of sparse vegetation, which could be mitigated 

with an application of agricultural lime.” Taking these two items into consideration, it is of note that some of the 

NPDES permit violations at the Narley Mine were with respect to toxicity failures in their discharges. It is clear 

that the applicant’s representation of operations at Narley Mine differ from the facts on the ground. 

The stretch of the Locust Fork near Narley Mine No. 3 is classified as federal Critical Habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act for six species of freshwater mussels: Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus) 

[Threatened], Dark pigtoe (Pleurobema furvum) [Endangered], Orange-nacre mucket (Hamiota perovalis) 

[Threatened], Ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) [Endangered], Triangular kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus 

greenii) [Endangered], and Upland combshell (Epioblasma metastriata) [Endangered]. It is also known habitat for 

the following rare species: Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis) [Candidate], Cahaba shiner (Notropis 

cahabae) [Endangered], Flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus) [Threatened], and Plicate rocksnail 

(Leptoxis plicata) [Endangered]. Amazingly, Table 4 in the EA erroneously states about the Cahaba Shiner: “this 

species is only found in the main channel of the Cahaba River.” Actually, the most robust population of the 

Cahaba shiner lives within the Locust Fork near this mine site. With such a clear mistake, it is hard to imagine 

that a Section 7 Consultation meaningfully took place, even though the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service informed the 

BLM on 6/27/13 that Best Coal’s contractor met consultation requirements. Unfortunately, without a serious 

cumulative impacts review, these species well-being and the habitat and water quality impacts from coal mining 

were not seriously considered through this process. The habitat assessment performed by MEC simply focused 

on the immediate area of the mine – an area already impacted by multiple activities over the years, but failed to 

survey areas immediately downstream that will be impacted by polluted runoff from the mine during operation, 

during reclamation activities, and well into the future beyond post-reclamation closure. Alabama is the number 

one state in the U.S. for aquatic biodiversity, and the Locust Fork is a key priority watershed for rare species 

habitat, reintroductions, and recovery. If the BLM’s federal coal EA process were adequate, the importance of the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-395

Scoping Report 

Locust Fork, its water quality, its aquatic habitat, and its inhabitants would not have been glossed over as it was 

here. 

Comment Number: 0000730_Rothfus_USRep_20160628-2 

Commenter1:Keith Ross 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As you know, under Secretarial Order 3338, the federal government has imposed a moratorium on further coal 

lease sales pending completion of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PElS). In doing so, BLM is 

putting 65,000 jobs at risk and threatening further hardship in coal communities. As the representative from a 

district with a long history of mining - and one that has suffered as a result of Washington's job killing policies - 

Congressman Rothfus cannot sit silent as regulators threaten to impose further hardships on the American 

people. 

Comment Number: 0000731_Ranii_20160628-1 

Commenter1:Mary Ranii 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I support this pause on new coal leases on public lands. These lands should be for recreational and educational 

use and purposes. Mining projects pose undue threats to the health of nearby communities not to mention the 

health of waterways, air and wildlife. As we also see, the impacts of climate change more and more we need to 

make decisions that protect our future. 

ISSUE 5.5 - COAL LEASING PROCESS (WHERE, WHEN, HOW, WHO)

Total Number of Submissions: 111 

Total Number of Comments: 205 

Comment Number: 00000122_Kirkbride_Wyoming_State_House-1 

Organization1:Wyoming State House 

Commenter1:Dan Kirkbride 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining companies pay some of the highest taxes on any commodity in the world. They in turn gave us jobs 

for working families, electricity for the populous on a national scale, and taxes for county, state, and federal 

governments, and in the process reclaiming the land oftentimes to better than original condition. That is win-win 

and a whole lot more. As you review the leasing program, please consider continuing full utilization of Wyoming's 

reserves by the coal industry with the added possibility of providing for an even more streamlined and 

transparent permitting process. 

Comment Number: 00000128_Schladweiler_BTS_Environmenta-1 

Organization1:BTS Environmental Associates 

Commenter1:Brenda Schladweiler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Number one, after 30-plus years of interpreting natural resources data or collecting that data for purposes of 

submittal to federal and state regulators, I have felt that the leasing process for coal as well as the state's 

permitting process is a slow methodical process that takes, quote, time, unquote. That time frame has increased 

significantly since I began work in this area, a testimony to the complexity of the issues and the regulators' 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-396 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

attempts to address those issues. Because of these safeguards, I do not see the need to revamp the coal leasing 

process. 

Comment Number: 00000138_Simonson_20160517-2 

Organization1:Wyoming Machinery Company 

Commenter1:David Simonson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The lease-buy application process is effective at seeing that a fair value is received on federal leases. If the amount 

of the bid is too low, it's simply rejected and re-auctioned. 

Comment Number: 00000139_Craft_20160517-1 

Organization1:Wyoming Coal Company 

Commenter1:Lecia Craft 

Comment Excerpt Text:

The entire permitting process extends well beyond ten years and needs to be streamlined, not lengthened. 

Implementation of the coal leasing moratorium only adds further uncertainty to an already cumbersome 

permitting process. 

Comment Number: 00000141_Kline_20160517-2 

Commenter1:David Kline 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need to get rid of the redundancy. It took ten years is what it will take to roughly get a permit before you 

turn the first shovel of dirt. 

Comment Number: 00000143_ Short_20160517-4 

Commenter1:Robert Short 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Any change to current leasing rules which will result in longer permitting processes will all but sanction the 

eradication of an entire industry 

Comment Number: 00000145_Butler_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Michelle Butler

Comment Excerpt Text: 

finish this PEIS in a timely manner, and if anything, only simplify the leasing process and let us go back to work 

providing affordable, reliable electricity for millions of families across the country. 

Comment Number: 00000146_Cady_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Kelli Cady 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I encourage you to simplify the leasing process and do not increase taxes. 

Comment Number: 00000293_ ETTER _20160519-1 

Commenter1:Art Etter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-397

Scoping Report 

If changes must be made to the federal leasing process, let's make these positive changes by simplifying and 

streamlining the leasing process 

Comment Number: 00000297_ PAGE _20160519-1 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council in Mountana 

Commenter1:Julia Page 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need much more transparency in this program. We need to close loopholes and get a fair return for 

taxpayer-owned coal. 

Comment Number: 00000321 _ MASON _20160519-1 

Organization1:Sevier County 

Commenter1:Gary Mason 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

One of the big problems that I think you need to address as you study your new program, your new 

requirements, you've got to shorten the time frame to get a lease. These guys have been working on it for 12 

years and they still don't have it, and its costing our county bigtime. We need that lease so bad. There's no 

reason it should take 12 years to get a lease through. I mean that's just ridiculous. 

Comment Number: 00000334 _ Potter _ Carbon County _ 20160519-2 

Organization1:County Commissioner 

Commenter1:Jay Potter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The second thing is that the coal should be leased in its entirety. You should open up those lands where coal is 

available and let those leases go forward. 

Comment Number: 00000361 _ Akers _20160519-3 

Organization1:Norwest Corporation 

Commenter1:Pat Akers 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I wanted to hit on one particular issue, the comment in order No. 3338 that notes that about 90 percent of 

federal coal lease sales receive only one bid and that's typically from the operator of a mine adjacent to the new 

lease given to a large investment required to open a new mine. Commenters have questioned whether an 

accurate fair market value can be identified in the absence of a truly competitive marketplace. I will say that based 

on economics, the owner of the adjacent mine will always have an advantage over other bidders. This is due to 

the investment the operator has made in infrastructure and equipment that can be used to produce the efficient 

coal. His cost will be lower than the other bidder because of this investment. Other bidders will need to include 

this capital, which is hundreds of millions of dollars in their cost, and will need a return on that capital, which will 

reduce the amount they can afford to pay for the lease. To ensure that the adjacent operator does not take 

advantage of the Federal Government, the BLM handbook has a special set of valuation rules to determine the 

minimum bid for these situations. The BLM sets the minimum value in these situations by calculating the value of 

the mine without the adjacent lease and the value of the mine with the adjacent lease. And the difference 

between these two values is set as the minimum. This has the effect of transferring all of the profit above the 10 

percent discount rate to the Federal Government. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-398 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000067_Laresche_20160517-2 

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Commenter1:Bob Laresche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Second, the leasing system must be modernized and simplified to fit new market realities. Interior must take 

control of the leasing program that reflects markets, both supply and demand, and must retire the present lesseedriven system. 

Comment Number: 0000072_Tully_20160517-2 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Tom Tully

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal leasing should be based on what is good for the public, not coal companies. This requires that the BLM 

decide where, when, and how much coal is leased rather than allowing coal companies to dictate the terms. 

Comment Number: 0000072_Tully_20160517-5 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Tom Tully 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ensure competitive and transparent leasing so that the public knows exactly who is bidding on coal and the terms 

of the lease. 

Comment Number: 0000074_Alexander_TaxpyrComnSense_ 20160517-1 

Organization1:Taxpayers For Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

For the last 25 years coal companies have proposed tracts of land put up for sale by BLM through a leaseapplication process. Close to 90 percent of these sales have only a single bidder. The lack of competition for 

federal coal leases makes the process of determining fair market value for coal controversial. There are legitimate 

problems in continuing to value lease tracts that lack competitive appeal because it's to maximize profits for the 

bidder and not the taxpayer. Because of the lack of competition, comparisons for the purpose of appraisal are 

difficult. 

Comment Number: 0000075_Anderson_20160517-2 

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Commenter1:Shannon Anderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Revenue losses also occur from loopholes in the coal royalty valuation, loopholes that the department is 

currently working to close. 

Comment Number: 0000075_Anderson_20160517-3 

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Commenter1:Shannon Anderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The department must also look critically at the leasing process and consider reforms that will create better 

planning and review systems to take into account the coal program's role in our nation's energy mix and the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-399

Scoping Report 

impact of leasing on our environment and our communities. Today, lease tracts, as applied for by the coal 

companies, are designed to benefit that company, not the public. The department must get back into the driver's 

seat to decide when, where, and how much of the public coal to sell. 

Comment Number: 0000082_Marshal_20160517-5 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Colin Marshall 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As the DOI knows, the auditing process is exhaustive, open, and transparent. The basis of accusations from 

opponents of coal that there are loopholes in the current system do not stand up to informed examination and 

can't stand up to the DOI's constance. 

Comment Number: 0000093_Barteaux_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Wendy Barteaux 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If it hasn't been done already, get rid of the loophole called lease by application and any other loopholes that 

allow a lease of land with boundaries designed by the coal companies, talking gross under-valuation of the lease 

and the lack of competition. Or make it so that lands that produce the majority of this nation's coal like the 

Powder River Basin, make it so they have to be considered coal production regions. They have to be given that 

designation so that the BLM and the coal companies have to follow the rules of coal leasing that are already in 

place. 

Comment Number: 0000099_Wilbert_ 20160517-4 

Commenter1:Kim Wilbert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Lastly, the new coal leasing program must create transparency, eliminate tax loopholes, and allow the owners of 

these public resources full access to public -- to coal leasing processes and transactions. 

Comment Number: 0000511_Pfister_WesternOrg of Resource Councils_20160517-6 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should look at how much area will be drawn into a mining area. The old rules talk about logical mining units, 

but actually doing that has been short changed. The Bull Mountain mine has been permitted in fits and starts by 

both the State and BLM. The logical mining unit here is the whole coal reserve 

Comment Number: 0000511_Pfister_WesternOrg of Resource Councils_20160517-9 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This whole process from beginning to end is opaque financially, beginning with the financial viability of the 

proposed operation, At no point is the financial viability of the lessee's proposed operation seriously examined—

not at leasing and not at permitting under OSM. How much of the federal coal will be mined and sold, and how 

much will be mined and put in a waste heap? When will the price be determined on the coal sold, and when will 

the arm's length buyer be found? 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-400 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000542-3 

Organization1:Vulcan Inc. 

Commenter1:Dave Stewart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Second, since 1990 BLM has operated under a passive lease-by-application process, in which BLM reviews 

industry-nominated parcels for potential lease sales. As a result, the General Accounting Office found in 2013 

that approximately 90 percent of all federal coal lease sales since 1990 had attracted only a single bidder, 

notwithstanding Congress’ statutory directive that federal coal be leased through competitive bidding. 

Noncompetitive sales breed bad results and bad deals for American taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0000547-1 

Organization1:Vet Voice Foundation 

Commenter1: Hegdahl 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Experts say uncompetitive leasing 

practices have cost taxpayers $1 billion per year for 30 years, revenue that might have reduced deficits 

or kept our roads and schools in better shape. 

Comment Number: 0000552-1 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the Powder River Basin, in the last twenty years, the majority of leases received only one bid. If the bid does 

not reflect fair market value, the sale should be denied. Royalties are 12.5% of the fair market value and are the 

way our country receives money for its natural resource. Also, a common practice is for the coal company to 

buy coal through a subsidiary at the domestic rate and then sell overseas for a higher rate, cheating our country 

out of the additional royalties. Reuters found that two companies, Arch Coal and Peabody Energy, sold coal to 

India, South Korea, and Japan and have not paid their full royalties. Now these companies have shaky financial 

ground under them and have filed for bankruptcy. Also, there is currently a process for the coal company to 

request a royalty rate reduction. If the coal company can't pay the royalty, then it can't afford the lease 

Comment Number: 0000552-3 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And to ensure the whole process is fair, no former coal company executives in the BLM or Department of the 

Interior should be allowed to be involved in the sales, processing, and oversight of leases. 

Comment Number: 0000555-1 

Organization1:US Senate 

Commenter1: Cantwell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The fact that 90 percent of federal lease sales since 1990 had single bidders suggests that western coal markets 

are structurally non-competitive. The federal government readily leases tracts nominated by the mining company 

that submits the only bid. Confidential appraisals and sealed bids introduce an imperfect proxy for competition, 

but the government has too often been a passive auctioneer rather than a steward. No law requires the BLM to 

sell coal as requested and nearly at cost, turning the government into the supplier of first resort. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-401

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000556-2 

Organization1:Conservation Northwest 

Commenter1:Jeff Baierlein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Federal leasing structure should be transparent and truly competitive to ensure that the American taxpayer 

receives a fair return from Federal coal resources. 

Comment Number: 0000565-2 

Organization1:Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Commenter1:Bob LeResche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

THE LEASING SYSTEM MUST BE MODERNIZED AND SIMPLIFIED TO FIT NEW MARKET REALITIES. 

INTERIOR MUST RE-TAKE CONTROL OF THE LEASING PROGRAM, REFLECT MARKETS -- BOTH SUPPLY 

AND DEMAND - AND ABOLISH WHAT HAS BECOME A NON-COMPETITIVE LESSEE DRIVEN SYSTEM 

Comment Number: 0000567-3 

Organization1:Conservation Committee of Tahoma Audubon 

Commenter1:Bruce Hoeft 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We ask that the BLM quantify: 

-how much the extraction, processing, transport, and use of coal mined from federal property contributes to 

climate change 

-how the BLM can ensure that the royalties charged for coal mining on federal property reflect the costs imposed 

on taxpayers to mediate the impacts of the mining, processing, transport, and burning of that coal; those impacts 

should include climate change, from the desiccation of California, to the flooding of the Mississippi basin, to the 

impact of sea level rise on Florida 

Comment Number: 0000762_CSUMountaineeringClubetal_20160623-2 

Organization1:Mountaineering Club 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal operations cost taxpayers, states and local communities millions in lost revenue. Loopholes in policy 

allow coal companies to get by without paying their full royalties to the government for their use of public lands 

and federal coal. Royalties were set at 12.5 percent, yet companies often get away with paying as little as 4.9 

percent. Loopholes in the government's coal program cost taxpayers and state governments more than $1 billion 

a year in lost royalties—money that could be used for local schools and roads. As of 2012, loopholes in our 

guidelines had cost taxpayers over $30b. Federal coal reform improves our air quality. During blasting operations, 

coal mines release significant amounts of air pollution, and make our air hazier, not to mention contributing to 

ozone levels. 

Comment Number: 0000765_Jahshan_NRDC_20160623-1 

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Amanda Jahshan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reforms are needed to create better planning and review mechanisms to account for the impacts of coal mining 

on our communities, wildlife, and environment. Improvements to the program should close existing loopholes in 

coal royalty valuation and weight environmental and social impacts of coal mining appropriately. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-402 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000812-1 

Organization1:National Parks Conservation Association 

Commenter1:Cory MacNulty 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A plan first, lease later process that includes greater coordination with adjacent federal land managers, similar to 

Master Lease Planning for oil and gas development, would minimize potential user conflicts and protect sensitive 

lands such as national parks, wilderness and critical wildlife habitat. 

Comment Number: 0000822-1 

Commenter1:Nicholas Nielsen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Changing the mechanism to decide which coal leases and how it is leased would be detrimental. If the goal of this 

EIS is to better the coal program, it will find that leases should be available as mining companies find them 

economically viable. The leasing process is already lengthy and time sensitive if limited further coal companies will 

financially not be able to withstand outage or be willing to invest the capital for leases. Is this the ultimate goal of 

this EIS? This will result in no royalty payments and no return to the taxpayers. On the other hand, if companies 

were incentivized and a royalty reduction was applied, mining companies could further maximize reserves by 

mining challenging areas and provide more return for taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0000824-1 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current leasing process is too lengthy and burdensome and should be streamlined and simplified to enable 

easier leasing of coal. 

Comment Number: 0000828-1 

Organization1:Friends of Coal West 

Commenter1:David Smaldone 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Obama administration's ongoing regulatory efforts have sent coal prices into a tailspin, but now Secretary 

Jewell's push to hike the cost of coal leasing royalties is set to deliver another punch, making it more expensive to 

operate a coal mine and subsequently raise the price of electricity for all consumers. 

Comment Number: 0001115-2 

Organization1:Wyoming Infrastructure Authority 

Commenter1:Jason Begger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Also, I would like the BLM and Department of Interior to look at possible overpayments. There isn't one bidder 

on these leases. The BLM sets the floor. If a company does not meet that floor price, the bid isn't awarded. So 

you're always bidding against the government automatically. So more likely than not, if it is a winning bid, it didn't 

hit that floor exactly. It was probably over. 

So if the BLM sets their own disclosed price at 90 cents a ton and a bid comes in at 95 cents a ton, the 

government accepts the 95 cents. This is a premium of 5 cents a ton over the asking price. I would ask the BLM 

to go back and look at the overpayments that it made over the own valuation price that they set years and years 

ago.
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-403

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0001119_BROWN_20160621-1 

Commenter1:Elizabeth Brown 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal coal leasing program operates within the context of a free-market economy and therefore, the scope 

of the PEIS must also be designed in that context. For supporting evidence, please review the PRB applications 

from 2007 to June 2011 and the BLM WYW180384 nominated shortly thereafter. 

Comment Number: 0001119_BROWN_20160621-3 

Commenter1:Elizabeth Brown 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the Powder River, the coal fields, BLM averages five and a half years to process applications, not including the 

exploration that precedes it or the mine plan approvals that follow it. The PEIS must seek out duplicated efforts 

and potentially budget-protecting make work. The inordinate time the BLM takes to process an application to 

final sale has to be addressed. Please consider YW -- WYW172684 as a case study. There are over a billion 

people on this planet who would sacrifice a lot for a small bit of the energy equity and the energy security that 

we take for granted here in the U.S. And coal is a very common rock. It's found everywhere and it's going to be 

mined. U.S. coal, the federal coal, is at least accountable to the U.S. people, to Americans. We do operate under 

economic and environmental regulations 

Comment Number: 0001148-2 

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Commenter1:Bob LeResche 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Interior must regain control of the leasing program to reflect markets, both supply and demand, and abolish what 

has become a noncompetitive lessee-driven system. 

Comment Number: 0002009_CenterBioDiversity_20160329-3 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

On transparency, Bureau of Land Management state and field offices must be directed to immediately post online 

pending requests to lease coal, pending applications to reduce royalties, pending lease readjustments, pending 

lease suspensions and pending proposals to accept advance royalties in lieu of continued operation, and any and 

all findings that operators are not diligently developing or meeting continued operation requirements. Ensuring 

that these proposals and findings are made public will be critical for buttressing the integrity that Interior expects 

to bring to its reform efforts. 

Comment Number: 0002045_Johnson_20160620-2 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Gabriel Johnson 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Under the current system, coal producers bid for leases without knowing the federal government’s 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-404 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

predetermined fair market value, so it is worth asking how much coal producers have paid beyond the federal 

valuation when reviewing the lease process. 

Comment Number: 0002079_Horwitz_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Christopher Horwitz 

Other Sections: 8.13 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

landholders should be paid up front for their land, including the remediation charges; the coal production should 

only then proceed. 

Comment Number: 0002081_Inouye_20160626-1 

Organization1:University of Maryland 

Commenter1:David Inouye 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We are approaching a tipping point where renewable energy resources are supplanting fossil fuels. The BLM 

should acknowledge this and consider being very restrictive in the issuing of future coal leases. 

Comment Number: 0002100_OHair_20160613-4 

Commenter1:Todd O'Hair 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS scope should also include examination of the ever growing length of time it takes to permit federal 

leases. The scope should review how long on average it took to permit a federal coal lease 20 years ago 

compared to the average length it takes to permit a federal lease today. And the increased cost to the producer 

due to that lengthening permit process. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-19

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Establish a True, Balanced Public Private Partnership (9) 

A public private partnership is generally understood as a business venture between government and business 

designed to provide a service or good. The private vendor and the government enter into a contract in which the 

private sector accepts technical, financial and operational risks. Financing can be either wholly the responsibility of 

the private sector or supported by some combination of public and private resources. Government contribution 

to financing typically flows from in-kind contributions such as the transfer of assets, capital subsidies, revenue 

guarantees, tax breaks, regulatory streamlining or quasi-monopolistic markets. The private sector usually 

contributes its value with production efficiencies the government could not achieve. The combined package 

draws investment capital based upon a holistic evaluation of the quality of the partnership. The borrowing and the 

financial life of the investment is considered an off-balance-sheet activity for government, allowing it to use its 

balance-sheet resources for other public needs. 

The adoption of an alternative model for the federal coal leasing system would rebalance the current partnership 

and allow it to address the conditions of a declining market. The product to be produced from the partnership 

would be coal, mined for the purpose of domestic consumption principally in the electricity sector. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-405

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-6 

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal industry proposals identified in the Notice of Intent (Page 26) would either: 1) speed up the lease 

process to allow more coal to be mined with less oversight, or 2) reduce revenues from coal sales to state and 

federal governments. (6) 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-9 

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The actual relationship between the coal industry and the federal government under the current system is not a 

functioning lessee/lessor relationship. It is instead an unbalanced public private partnership—one in which the 

private sector has the upper hand, determining where, when and how coal is mined, who it is sold to and at what 

price. Consequently, as the PEIS indicates, the government now support a lease payment system based on a 

fundamentally flawed valuation process, a royalty payment system in search of a rationale, and an antiquated 

annual rent payment. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-11

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Yes the current leasing process is broken, but not because it is not fair to the public, it is broken because it takes 

too long, making long range planning difficult for coal companies. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-12

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In general, and since the process to lease and mine coal is long, coal companies must nominate an approximate 10 

year reserve thru the LBA process, well before they are down to 10 years of existing reserves. So when the LBA 

coal is finally available for mining, the mining company’s machinery can seamlessly mine into the newly acquired 

coal lease. Mining occurs in long strips (hence the term strip mining) and the equipment must have this room in 

order to operate efficiently. If the reserves are dwindling and the dragline must continue to mine smaller strips, it 

is not efficient or cost effective. Continued Washington DC oversight, ensuing red tape and NGO lawsuits have 

the potential to unreasonably add years to this process. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-13

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should not be deciding the tract size or configuration, as they do not have the best details of geology, 

geotechnical, environmental and land related impacts that the company will be facing when deciding the best tract 

option or configuration. The mining company literally can spend a year comparing all of the impacts that 

alternative lease tract configurations can have on each configurations value, when determining the optimum tract 

configuration to nominate. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-406 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-16

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Market conditions will dictate the need for additional leasing and the coal companies should be making the 

decision of when to nominate and where based on a long process that most companies already go thru in order 

to identify the optimum tract configuration and maximize their return on investment. There is also already 

enough oversight by federal state and local agencies to manage temporary impacts to water, soil, vegetation and 

wildlife, and a review of impacts during the PEIS is not necessary. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-5 

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current leasing process has historically taken a minimum of 8 years from Lease by Application (LBA) 

submittal for additional reserves until the company has the ability to mine the coal reserves. The current 

environment, in which Washington has taken away the regional BLM offices ability to make decisions without 

significant oversight, has not only added red tape, it has added more time to the already cumbersome and long 

process. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-6 

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There may be 20 years of coal currently available under lease, but mining companies must have this cushion, 

because the leasing process is getting more convoluted. The mining companies have no idea how long a lease, 

nominated today, will take to get thru the EIS and permitting process. Streamlining the Lease by Application 

process (the HOW) should be the priority for the BLM, not making it more cumbersome. The When and Where 

to lease should be up to the mining company making the decision based on their needs, estimated timing to get 

the lease thru the EIS and permitting process, and what works for their current pit configuration. 

Comment Number: 0002154_ Riordan_20160627-2 

Commenter1:Michael Riordan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As I noted in my article and elsewhere, there was an inherent subsidy built into the previous coal-leasing policies, 

to encourage utilities' burning of low-sulfur thermal coal from western US mines, particularly in the Powder River 

Basin of Wyoming and Montana, to help reduce acid rain. That need is no longer evident, as the problem it 

attempted to address has been ameliorated and will eventually disappear as thermal coal use in the United States 

continues to decline. 

Comment Number: 0002154_ Riordan_20160627-4 

Commenter1:Michael Riordan 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Specifically, the coal-leasing program should set a floor on the per-acre costs of coal leases that reflects the added 

profits that can be generated from export sales. And whenever possible, these leases should be subject to 

competitive bidding by the coal companies. Finally, as Clark Williams-Derry noted in a recent Sightline Institute 

paper, the lease prices should also reflect the opportunity value involved in purchasing an option to mine this 

public resource in the future, when coal prices may recover from current lows. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-407

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002155_Krupnick_20160622-3 

Organization1:Center for Energy and Climate Economics Resources for the Future 

Commenter1:Alan Krupnick 

Other Sections: 7.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The lack of competitiveness in the federal coal leasing market may limit the effectiveness of any carbon charge. 

Since most leases are granted in bids with only one bidder, bidders may simply reduce their bid by some amount 

of the carbon charge. Protections against such actions may be gained through evaluation of BLM’s internal fair 

market valuation processes to ensure that climate costs are considered in those processes. 

· The Administration’s Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon has released estimates for the 

social cost of carbon for agencies to consider in their programs. 

· At the midrange SCC estimate ($46/ton CO2), the corresponding carbon charge would be over $90/ton of 

coal, which far exceeds the average mine-mouth price of coal from the Powder River Basin (recently selling at 

around $9.35/ton. 

Comment Number: 0002159_smallfry_20160521-2 

Commenter1:Smallfry 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Stop delaying lease permitting! 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

THE CURRENT LEASE BY APPLICATION WORKS WELL. NO MONEY IS BEING SPENT ON RESERVES 

THAT NO ONE WANTS TO MINE. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-3 

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

SHOULD SCHEDULED SALES BE USED (E.G., LIKE ONSHORE OIL & GAS) – NO, WASTE TIME AND TIME 

AND MONEY ON RESERVES THAT NO ONE WANTS TO MINE. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-4 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

SHOULD MARKET CONDITIONS AFFECT THE TIMING OF LEASE SALES, SUCH THAT SALES WOULD 

OCCUR WHEN COAL VALUES ARE HIGHER RATHER THAN DURING DOWNTURNS – NO. LEASES ARE 

MADE AS NEED BE AND ARE ONLY MADE DURING GOOD MARKET CONDITIONS, SO BEST VALUES 

ARE OBTAINED. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-5 

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

WHERE, AND WHERE NOT, SHOULD THE BLM LEASE CONSISTENT WITH TAKING A LANDSCAPE 

LEVEL VIEW – NO AREAS. NONE OF THE MAJOR COAL BASINS FALL INTO THIS. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-408 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002197_Wise_20160519-1 

Organization1:Kiewit Mining Group Inc. 

Commenter1:Dirk Wise 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Concerns over lack of bidders(currently 90% of LBA’s only have a single bidder)In my opinion I believe that if 

there is only a single bidder that would be fine as long as the fair market value was met in the bid. 

b. When to lease-Bidding should be within each fiscal year, the mines as well as the BLM can determine if more 

land is needed for expansion. 

Comment Number: 0002221_Anderson_20160524-3 

Organization1:University of Utah 

Commenter1:Samuel Anderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I strongly support the BLM's decision to reevaluate the leasing process. Environmental impacts should be the 

greatest priority when deciding to lease federal lands. 

Comment Number: 0002239_Baierlein_20160621-3 

Organization1:Conservation Northwest 

Commenter1:Jeff Baierlein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The leasing program should restrict supply, diminish extraction, and institute requirements in recognition of 

coal’s significant environmental and health impacts, and the increasing availability of other sources of energy 

supply including efficiency. 

Comment Number: 0002269_Holubec_20160715-1 

Commenter1:Allen Holubec 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Streamline the leasing process 

a. Takes too long to get a lease 

i. Mine permitting – a company can only start the permitting process when the lease has been issued. Sometimes, 

the state, OSM, other various agencies throw up road blocks that takes time to sort out 

ii. Leasing to companies with 10 years of reserves, it takes too long to get a lease, maybe 20 years of reserves at 

that location 

iii. The delays in leasing are generally from the state office, not working on the application. The companies are 

paying cost recovery and a priority should be placed with the state office to get these done. 

b. Shorten timeframes to get things listed in the Federal Register 

i. The state office should be able to submit things to the general register to get published, leave it to the state 

office to check for proper format, content, etc. 

Comment Number: 0002269_Holubec_20160715-3 

Commenter1:Allen Holubec 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Cost recovery – 

i. Change this in its entirety, charge a set amount depending on type of mine and application does not matter if a 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-409

Scoping Report 

new lease application or a lease modification. 

ii. Again, it takes three or four months to get a cost recovery number, we need to streamline so a company know 

what it is going to cost for their own budgeting. 

iii. This type of collecting cost recovery has been asked about. This is a cheaper, quicker method to do it, it is 

simpler. 

iv. For Example; 

1. Set amount - $50k 

2. Adder – underground - $10k 

a. Possibly add another $5k for each new surface disturbance 

3. Adder – Surface - $20k 

4. Adder – Acreage (TOTAL surface disturbance of a mine) 

a. Up to 50 acres - $5k 

b. 50 to 100 acres - $10k 

c. 100 to 250 acres - $15k 

d. Add $5k per each additional 150 acres 

5. Adder – possibly an adder for leased tonnage or recoverable tonnage 

6. Some cost recovery examples 

a. New Lease Application (LBA) - Surface mine 1400 acres total disturbance 

i. They would Pay 

1. Set Amount - $50K 

2. Adder for Surface - $20k 

3. Adder for Acreage 

a. First 250 acres - $15k 

b. Each additional 150 acres x8 or $40k 

c. Acres total - $55k 

4. Total amount for cost recovery - $125,000 

b. New Lease Application (LBA) – Underground mine with 75 Acres surface disturbance 

i. They would pay 

1. Set Amount - $50k 

2. Adder for underground - $10K 

3. Adder for surface disturbance - $10K 

4. Total amount for cost recovery - $70K 

c. Lease Modification (LM) – Underground with no new surface disturbance 

i. They would pay 

1. Set Amount - $50K 

2. Adder for underground - $10K 

3. No adder for Acres (no new surface disturbance) 

4. Total amount for cost recovery - $60K 

7. Another method would be to have a different type of adder for tons in reserve, the bigger surface mines would 

end up paying more than a small underground mine. 

8. Cost would be charged and processed against the accounts set up for the cost recovery as they are now. If the 

cost exceeds the listed amounts, the extra cost would be charged to the applicant at the time of the lease sale. 

The applicant must have a separate check to pay the overages to the BLM before the lease sale and paid to the 

lease sale team. Any amount of the cost recovery dollars paid and not used would be refunded to the applicant at 

the time of the lease sale, before the lease sale by the lease sale team. If the company does not pay, they would 

be exempt from the leasing the parcel. Any company that bids on the lease parcel and wins would be required to 

reimburse the original applicant for the cost recovery, including any overage amount. 

a. Invoicing to cost recovery account will be sent to the applicant quarterly for their information. 

b. Work on the lease application cannot be stopped due to a deficiency of funds in the cost recovery accounts 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-410 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002269_Holubec_20160715-4 

Commenter1:Allen Holubec 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Keep the industry nominated process, 

i. This is much cheaper 

ii. The BLM doesn’t know what industry wants or needs 

b. The Government needs to stay out of oversupply or market processes as the government cannot know what 

the industry needs or anticipate for the future 

c. Bidding 

i. Highest bid should exceed the estimated fair market value not just meet it 

ii. Based upon recoverable coal not total coal reserves 

d. Lease prohibitions 

i. Not leasing to violators on OSM list 

1. This list is supplied to the BLM at the time of the lease sale and taken into account at the lease sale not before 

and not after 

ii. Not leasing to companies that have not met present or past reclamation requirements whether private or 

federal leases 

iii. The violator list has to be updated not only by company but by personnel of that company. 

1. For example; ABC Company (John Doe as president) gets put on the violator list. John Doe cannot start DEF 

Company to get a lease. Also John Doe’s daughter cannot start DEF Company to get a lease for her father. (This 

is happening!) 

e. Lease modification 

i. the price paid for the bonus bid should be based upon the main lease bonus bid, adjusted for inflation plus 10% 

Comment Number: 0002276_Henderson_20160715_350Colorado-13

Organization1:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Commenter1:Gina Hardin 

Organization2:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Leasing of Coal 

Coal producers enjoy an overly comfortable relationship with local BLM offices in many areas. This can result in 

excessively favorable treatment in terms of royalty reductions (see above); in the requirements for actual 

reclamation bonds; in arrangements for leasing when companies want to lease, rather than when there is 

maximum competition; by not recognizing the cost to the U.S. of holding the land for mining; by handing the 

federal administration of coal leases over to the states or counties; and by not holding companies accountable for 

infractions. Financial losses to the U.S. taxpayer add up. The overly comfortable relationship between BLM and 

coal producers also contributes to public perception of BLM complicity in 'crony capitalism' favoring large 

corporations; and lack of enforcement dramatically diminishes the public’s perception of BLM’s ability to 

professionally and competently manage these areas. BLM’s reputation as a land manager will always be second or 

third rate as a result. Reforms should look at these cozy relations and bring BLM’s management up to par. 

Comment Number: 0002276_Henderson_20160715_350Colorado-3 

Organization1:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Commenter1:Gina Hardin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Specific comments regarding the leasing of coal: 

• How much coal leasing is required for U.S. energy requirements? Have those needs been met, except for mine 

extension requests? What criteria for leasing should be revised in relation to these questions? 

• Reinstate “Coal Producing Areas” status on areas such as the Power River Basin, to ensure a larger view of coal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-411

Scoping Report 

production, competition, environmental impact, as well as reassertion of federal government control 

• Require the use of the NEPA process, with public comment, as part of the “Coal Producing Area” 

decertification process 

o Given the significant impact of methane on the environment, a Categorical Exclusion is not appropriate 

• To encourage competition, change the timing of lease auctions to a regular schedule such that companies may 

anticipate leasing and plan ahead 

o Recognize that there is a cost to industry for the U.S. to hold off mining and integrate this cost into planning 

and bonus bids 

• Prohibit companies that have failed to perform in any manner in the past from obtaining leases, including mine 

extension leases 

• Provide detailed direction on the new rules, via Manual and Handbook (not Informational Bulletins nor 

Instructional Memoranda) to ensure that there is consistent implementation across the agency 

o Provide monitoring and mentoring of those offices that may have been too close to industry in the past 

o Clarify that BLM’s mission is to obtain fair market value and not subsidize the coal industry 

• Do not leave direction in a “draft” state for political expediency 

• Prohibit leasing or extensions to any entity related to entities that have not fully complied with science-based 

reclamation requirements on prior leases, including those who have negotiated diminished requirements through 

bankruptcy proceedings. 

Comment Number: 0002282_Bradford_20160719-1 

Commenter1:David Bradford 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I believe the issue of how and when to lease is appropriate for a Programmatic EIS. However the issue of where 

to lease seems well beyond the scope of what can be considered in a national programmatic EIS. The level of 

detail that must be considered in determining where to lease is well in excess of what can be reasonably 

considered at the national level. The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests have completed 

analyses on where to lease on those three individual national forests. I believe that is the appropriate level for 

where this determination should be made, not a national PEIS completed in Washington, D.C. 

The issues of how to lease and when to lease could reasonably be considered at the national level. I believe both 

issues should be accomplished as simply as possible. The current procedures seem more than adequate to me 

and if anything should be made simpler. Any changes in the current procedures should only be considered if they 

simplify and expedite the process. 

Comment Number: 0002286_Watts_20160719-3 

Commenter1:Howard Watts 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM has the a framework to deny leases in areas if it believes that such a decision is, on balance, better for the 

other multiple uses the agency must manage for. 

Comment Number: 0002295_Stewart_20160719-3 

Commenter1:Dan Stewart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should process process new coal lease applications in a timely, neutral manner. 

Comment Number: 0002309_Monseu_20160721_AmericanCoalCouncil-8 

Organization1:American Coal Council 

Commenter1:Betsy Monseu 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-412 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Delays related to the mine permitting process mean that permitting can take seven to ten years in the United 

States, far longer than other advanced economies with similar environmental standards. Permitting is facilitated by 

efficient, timely review and effective coordination between federal and state agencies. Delays add barriers and 

costs to mining, and are increasingly a disincentive to coal production. Some organizations and individuals have 

suggested the federal coal leasing program should be changed to address environmental concerns and climate 

impacts, but such reform is unnecessary. Leases already undergo multi-layered reviews prior to 

approval, and climate effects are already subject to review under the NEPA process. 

Comment Number: 0002310_Payne_20160721-6 

Commenter1:Steven Payne 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal executives are exploiting loopholes in our broken guidelines, leaving taxpayers to shoulder their tax burden 

Comment Number: 0002324_Dubbert_20160722_BME-5 

Organization1:Blue Mountain Energy 

Commenter1:Jeffrey C Dubbert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Each and every coal lease is auctioned to the highest bidder. How can a system that has a public bidding process 

not be competitive? Coal leases and mining is extremely expensive and complex, just open any trade journal 

today as there will be an article about a coal company facing financial crisis. Increasing taxes or royalties will only 

increase the number of coal companies going bankrupt. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-10

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The evidence, however, shows that instead of deciding whether there is sufficient demand for coal and designing 

tracts to maximize competition, the BLM defers to the mining companies, who—not surprisingly--design tracts to 

avoid competition. A report by mining consultant John T. Boyd Company that was prepared for XCEL Energy 

describes the current system this way:(5) Cited in Taxpayers for Common Sense, referenced above. 

As a practical matter, most companies will attempt to define LBA tracts that, because of location or geometry, 

are of interest only to the nominating company. This minimizes competitive bidding on the tract, and may result 

in a lower cost lease. Where competition has existed for coal (mostly in the southern Gillette area but recently 

in the central portion of the coalfield) relatively high bonus bids in the range of $0.90 –$1.10/ton have resulted. 

BLM has, even in non-competitive cases, required “Fair Market Value” bids in this range, particularly in the 

Southern PRB 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-11

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Decertification sidesteps the competitive system mandated by the FCLAA by eliminating the first step on which 

all the other procedures depend—drawing up a regional leasing plan. This makes the ad hoc LBA system the only 

system. Under the LBA system, the BLM does not set the level of coal that it leases by taking into account 

changes in the market, such as the recent decline in domestic demand for coal brought about by the dramatic 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-413

Scoping Report 

decline in the price of domestic natural gas, and the increase in the profitability of coal exports. Instead, it 

receives a request for a lease tract containing the amount of coal desired by the requester. It determines a fair 

market value floor for the tract currently being requested by identifying the most recent comparable lease and 

treating the sale price of that lease as a proxy. 

The problem with this approach is that the most recent comparable tract that was leased is typically one that was 

tailored by the bidder to suit its own interests. That sale price, therefore, typically reflects the unsuitability of that 

tract for any other buyer. The fair market value of a lease determined in this artificial manner is typically a 

fraction of what the same coal would be worth if it were mined outside of the Powder River Basin. “Fair market 

value” determined with this downward bias sets the floor for evaluating the acceptability of bids. It therefore 

imparts a downward bias to the price ultimately paid for leases. The artificially-reduced lease price, in turn, 

lowers the price that the mining company charges to sell its leased coal to a broker. This reduces the amount of 

royalties collected, because royalties are calculated as a percentage of the price at which the mining company 

sells its coal to a broker. Using the price of a lease designed to be non-competitive as a proxy for the fair market 

value of the subsequent lease results in a rolling sequence of under-market valuations that shortchanges Federal 

and state governments and the public that they represent 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-12

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

UPHE agrees with Taxpayers for Common Sense that a resource as important as the PRB should not continue to 

be disposed of through sequential, single-bid, limited-interest tracks at far below their fair market value. Instead, 

the BLM should wait for times of adequate market demand to offer new leases and then aggregate a sufficient 

number of adjacent tracts to attract multiple bids from the incumbent mining companies, or even bids by new 

entrants to the PRB market. To encourage aggressive bidding, the BLM should experiment with specifying in the 

lease offer that only a certain percentage of tracts attracting the highest bids above the fair market value of the 

coal will be sold. Of course, these specific reforms should be instituted in the context of recertifying the Powder 

River Basin (and other Federal coal leasing areas, where justified) as an official Coal Producing Region in which 

regional planning that takes market conditions and environmental impacts into account is the first step in the 

leasing process. 

Comment Number: 0002333_Magagna _20160725_WyStockgrowers-6 

Organization1:Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Commenter1:Jim Magagna 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At a time when coal prices and production are declining, WSGA urges your Department to take actions that will 

expedite the leasing of coal in areas such as the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. Now is not the time for 

punitive changes to the coal leasing program. 

Comment Number: 0002336_Cole_20160725_MesaCntyCO-3 

Organization1:Mesa County Colorado, Board of County Commissioners 

Commenter1:Kristen Cole 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Revisions to the existing coal leasing program should focus on streamlining and expediting the coal leasing 

process. The current system is too lengthy and cumbersome. Expediting the leasing process will allow for the 

responsible development of our natural resources, provide additional revenue to the public through royalties and 

other taxes and allow job creating companies to continue to prosper 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-414 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002342_Etter_20160726-1 

Organization1:Bowie Resources, LLC 

Commenter1:Art Etter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Department must streamline the existing permitting process, so federal coal can be more competitive with 

state and privately owned coal reserves, that don’t require such extensive permitting processes.

Comment Number: 0002342_Etter_20160726-2 

Organization1:Bowie Resources, LLC 

Commenter1:Art Etter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

•Bid payments should be postponed until mining has commenced in the newly leased tracts. This is how most 

state owned reverses are bid, and the process serves the states well. It allows companies Internal Rate of Return 

to be substantially improved.

Comment Number: 0002390_Pfister_20160721-1 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current coal leasing procedures were established under the Nixon administration, revised 

somewhat under Reagan, and have not been seriously examined since then. Time, expediency, 

and bureaucratic passivity have undermined whatever protections of the public interest that 

existed in those procedures. The largest bulk of leases in recent years have been let with no 

competitive bids with mines stocking up on mining stocks suffIcient to last for several years in 

advance. 

Comment Number: 0002391-3 

Commenter1:Tom Tully 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

3) The public deserves transparency! Ensure competitive and transparent leasing so that the public knows exactly 

who is bidding on coal and the terms of the lease. 

Comment Number: 0002393-1 

Commenter1:Mike Penfold 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

All aspects of the coal program need transparency, planning, mining, reclamation and pricing of leases. We should 

not be subsidizing any aspect of the coal development 

and loopholes should be closed. 

Comment Number: 0002443_Koontz_20160727_BowieResources-10

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal leasing takes too long, and is taking ever longer. For example, the applications for the proposed 

federal coal leases examined Wright Area Environmental Impact Statement were submitted in the years 2005-

2006. The first lease sale of the leases did not occur until 2011. Leasing takes even longer under lands 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-415

Scoping Report 

administered by the United States Forest Service. For example, Bowie submitted the application for the Greens 

Hollow lease tract in 2005. As of this writing, a BLM Record of Decision for the Green Hollow tract has not yet 

issued, much less a lease sale. 

Long leasing times have significant environmental and economic consequences. On the economic side, lengthy 

leasing processes increase administrative costs and require applicants to propose larger leases so as to ensure 

that leased reserves are not exhausted by the time the next round of leasing, permitting, and mine planning can 

be completed. This requires greater up-front bonus bid submissions, and longer times before that capital can be 

recovered. Economic pressure from large capital overhangs is one significant factor in the distress currently 

experienced by the coal industry. Quicker leasing would allow the issuance of smaller, more efficient lease tracts, 

allowing the industry to be nimbler in responding to economic trends and the needs of their utility and industrial 

customers. 

Comment Number: 0002443_Koontz_20160727_BowieResources-4 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Although it is pure window-dressing when cited by environmental activists, competition does play a key role in 

ensuring efficient energy markets and value to the nation's industrial coal consumers, electricity users, and 

ratepayers. Adequate supply means not only that there is adequate supply in each of the coal sub-markets, but 

also adequate supply to a reasonable range of coal mining companies. A coal sub-market cannot be competitive if 

all the coal of a particular type is in the hands of one or two suppliers. Thus, blanket statements about the 

aggregate amount of coal under lease are misleading if they do not account for how leasing is distributed among 

coal types, regions, and suppliers. 

Comment Number: 0002443_Koontz_20160727_BowieResources-8 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As suggested in Order 3338, one of the drivers for re-consideration of lease sale scheduling appears to the 

leasing model employed for oil and gas leases. However, coal leasing is fundamentally different from oil and gas 

leasing. Oil and gas leasing is inherently about exploration, with wide lease-to-lease variation in whether 

significant exploitable reserves will be discovered, when they can be brought to market, and the rates that will 

make sense under current market conditions. In that environment, regular, systematic lease sales are an efficient 

development mechanism. In contrast, federal coal leasing typically occurs with relatively better quality information 

about he coal reserve, in the context of maintenance tracts intended to sustain production at an existing mine. 

Moreover, coal mines are far more capital-intensive than oil and gas drill rigs. An oil and gas lease is essentially 

about the location and development of a petroleum reserve; a coal lease is typically about the continued 

operation of an entire coal mine. It is thus that mine's specific status and needs that determine the appropriate 

timing and size of coal leasing, and there is no evidence that such assessment can be performed as well by federal 

committee as by the mining industry. 

Comment Number: 0002448_FoleyHein_20160727-8 

Organization1:Institute for Policy Integrity 

Commenter1:Jayni Foley Hein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Bidding and Leasing Reform 

The final panel focused on bidding and leasing reform. 

Mary Ellen Kustin (Policy Director, Public Lands Project, Center for American Progress) discussed bid reform 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-416 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

recommendations, recognizing that reassessing the federal coal program will be difficult, but that change is 

necessary. From 1990 to now, about 90 percent of all coal lease sales had only one bidder. Kustin reviewed the 

three main objectives of the PEIS as described by BLM: (i) the appropriate lasting mechanism to determine how, 

when, and where to lease; (ii) how to account for the environmental and public health impacts of the coal 

program; and (iii) how to make sure tax payers are getting their fair share. Kustin detailed the Linowes 

Commission’s investigation and focus on inter-tract bidding as a potential method to increase competition and 

allow for a better return for taxpayers. Inter-tract bidding introduces more competition into the process by 

having a ranking system for leases, in which not every lease makes the cut. The Linowes Commission said tracts 

could be limited for environmental or social reasons, as well. Kustin closed with some remaining questions: (i) is 

it preferable to auction coal amounts, as opposed to tracts; (ii) what administrative hurdles stand in the way of 

inter-tract bidding; and (iii) what is the best way to factor in a carbon budget into this process? 

Dan Bucks (former Montana Director of Revenue) discussed the importance of developing a new leasing process 

to serve the public interest. Bucks noted that many of the ideas and solutions discussed at this workshop—which 

are generally related to integrating into federal coal decisions the consideration of external costs to society of 

coal production—cannot fit into Interior’s existing leasing and royalty systems. For example, changing the amount 

of coal leased to account for climate change cannot occur in the lease by application system where coal 

companies decide what, when and where coal will be produced. Increasing royalties to price in external costs of 

coal can be undermined by corporate self-reporting of coal values through creative accounting. Thus, Interior 

should incorporate the development of new systems of leasing and royalty administration into its coal PEIS. 

Bucks said it is time for Interior to take control of the leasing and royalty processes and move toward a more 

open and transparent process for managing federal coal. The secrecy of the current system, Bucks explained, 

undermines its integrity and effectiveness, so Interior should reassess its system to include more public 

participation. The fundamental flaw in the current coal leasing system, in his view, is that it is secret. Leasing by 

application allows coal company to drive leasing decisions; and minimum bids are set and not disclosed before 

bidding occurs, denying the ability of the public to participate in the process. Bucks also said that the royalty 

process is secret because of corporate self-reporting. Royalties should be viewed like a property tax, whereby 

Interior is the property assessor. Instead, Interior has delegated this authority to corporate self-reporting 

systems of self-assessment of the value of the coal. This breaks from the best reading of the relevant statutes. 

Interior should implement energy supply and regional landscape planning to decide when, where, and what coal 

to lease in order to maximize public value. Leasing by application should not be reinstated. 

Bucks stated that Interior should also consider adopting an entirely open process modeled after Montana’s Otter 

Creek coal tract sale. For example, proposed minimum bids can be made public and submitted for public 

comment, and Interior should be prepared to withdraw tracts from sale if minimum bids or environmental or 

social standards are not fulfilled by bids. Finally, Bucks warned that if royalty rates are raised without eliminating 

the self-assessment done by coal companies of the base valuation on which royalties are assessed, companies will 

find ways to lower the base valuation, hindering the efficacy of royalty rate reform. So, Interior must control the 

base valuation by assessing the value of coal based upon final delivered prices adjusted for heat content, quality of 

coal, and the location of the coal. This is a recommendation in the new CEA report. If Interior directly values the 

coal, it can control the base and make other effective changes, like increasing royalty rates to account for 

environmental and social costs. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-36

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

• Ensure an open and transparent leasing process and end lease-by-application. Lease decisions must be open, 

transparent and competitive. The practice of LBA must be ended, and leases must occur pursuant to five years 

plans that are consistent with the goals of protecting wildlife, natural resources, achieving successful reclamation 

and meeting carbon reduction goals. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-417

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-47

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 8.6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Fix coal reclamation before opening up more land to coal mining. For decades, the federal coal program has 

opened up large areas of the arid west for mining. The requirements of existing law promise and require that 

land, water, and habitat be protected in the siting and operation of the mines, and fully reclaimed to 

demonstration standards after mining concludes. While it is primarily the job of the OSM and the states to 

regulate how coal mining and reclamation occur on federal lands, BLM should work with these sister agencies to 

ensure lands and waters are properly protected. As such, before BLM opens up more new coal leases for 

development, it should require that it be demonstrated by that reclamation is occurring contemporaneously and 

providing land reclaimed at a higher and better use and that water quality and water resources are protected, 

even if this means that new rules are promulgated under SMCRA to provide more assurances that reclamation 

and reclamation enforcement occur. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-5 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Additionally, 90% of all coal lease sales only have a single bidder, and the formula DOI uses to estimate fair 

market value is kept confidential along with the rates applied to each leased and the cost deductions given to the 

coal companies. (73) 

(71) Greg Zimmerman, Claire Moser, Jessica Goad, and Matt Lee-Ashley, Fair Share Scorecard: Ensuring 

Taxpayers Receive a Fair Share (Fair Share) (Center for American Progress and Center for Western Priorities 

Aug. 2015) at 7, available at https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/08/14133642/FairShareScorecard-report- 817.pdf, citing Matt Lee-Ashley and Nidhi Thakar, 

Cutting Subsidies and Closing Loopholes in the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Coal Program (Washington: 

Center for American Progress, 2015), available at https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/01/CoalSubs-brief2.pdf.; Mark Haggerty, HEADWATERS ECONOMICS, AN ASSESSMENT 

OF U.S. FEDERAL COAL ROYALTIES: CURRENT ROYALTY STRUCTURE, EFFECTIVE ROYALTY RATES, 

AND REFORM OPTIONS (2015) at 1, available at http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp 

content/uploads/Report-Coal-Royalty-Valuation.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-52

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The basic structure for the federal coal leasing program established under FCLAA was set out in the 1979 and 

1982 regulations, which are now outdated. (49) The process begins with the establishment of “coal production 

regions.” (50) In designated federal coal production regions, the BLM carries out a four-stage leasing process: (1) 

land use planning; (2) regional leasing level planning; (3) coal lease activity planning; and (4) lease sale. (51) In areas 

outside coal production regions, the coal leasing process is simplified to expedite leasing, often with competition 

cut out of the process. As a practical matter this means that, contrary to the plain language of FCLAA and BLM 

rules, the coal industry – not the government – drives the coal leasing process. (52) In 1990, the PRB – despite 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-418 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

the fact that vast majority of federal coal leased comes from that region – was decertified as a coal production 

region. (53) 

(49) 43 C.F.R. §§ 3400-3487. 

(50) The rules do not define the term “coal production regions,” but the words seem self-explanatory. The 

meaning of the phrase “coal production region” is critical to the operation of the leasing program because the 

rules make clear that “[c]oal production regions shall be used for establishing regional leasing levels... .” 43 C.F.R. 

§ 3400.5 (2011). 

(51) For a more detailed description of the coal leasing process and the requirements of the MLA and FCLAA, 

see Mark Squillace, The Tragic Story of the Federal Coal Leasing Program, 27 NAT. RESOURCES J. 3, AT 29 

(Winter 2013); see also U.S. Bureau of Land Managment, Federal Coal Leasing, available at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/coal_and_non-energy.print.html; U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 

Coal Operations, available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/coal_and_non-energy.print.html.

(52) Mark Squillace, The Tragic Story of the Federal Coal Leasing Program at 29, 27 NAT. RESOURCES J. 3 

(Winter 2013). 

(53) 55 Fed. Reg. 784-85 (Jan. 9, 1990). 

Comment Number: 0002458_Friez_20160728-2 

Organization1:North American Coal Corporation 

Commenter1:Christopher Friez 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Currently, the federal coal leasing process takes far too long and is far too costly to companies trying to obtain 

leases. The process must be streamlined where possible. A process that used to take less than two years is now 

taking seven to ten years. In addition to the unbelievable length of time it takes to process an application and 

grant a lease, the costs a company incurs to obtain a lease is exorbitant and uncometitive in the market. The 

federal appropriations process should allocate funding for staff to review lease applications and administer our 

public lands. Instead, the coal companies are expected to pay up front for all expenses of staff time and consulting 

fees required to process and obtain a federal coal lease. 

Comment Number: 0002462_Compton_20160728_UtahMineAssoc-12

Organization1:Utah Mining Associaton 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

DOT seems to now blithely accept the characterization of two key government reports by anti-leasing groups 

and rely on that in prominently highlighting the reports in the rationale for the moratorium. These two reports 

on coal leasing, one conducted by the DOT Inspector General (IG) and the other by General Accountability 

Office (GAO) however, did not identify systemic weaknesses in the current leasing system. Specifically, GAO did 

not repudiate its 2010 finding that the LBA method can achieve the objectives of ensuring fair return to the 

public. When the IG testified before Congress on her report, she confirmed that taxpayers are receiving a fair 

return from the federal coal program, and in many cases receiving more than fair market value. In fact, in the 

months after the reports were released, DOT informed members of the U.S. Senate that neither report 

identified concerns meriting a moratorium on federal coal leasing. While each report identified some 

inconsistencies in the application of guidance or documentation for decisions, BLM has since addressed those 

concerns. To date, the agency has published an Updated Coal Evaluation manual and handbook as well as seven 

instruction memoranda to its field offices in response to the modest suggestions by the IG and GAO. 

Comment Number: 0002462_Compton_20160728_UtahMineAssoc-13

Organization1:Utah Mining Associaton 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-419 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

abandoning the LBA method of leasing and returning to centralized or regional lease sales is unlikely to attract 

more bidders or yield higher bids. The earlier system of scheduling lease sales based upon national and regional 

demand forecasts failed with many tracts receiving one or no bids. 

Comment Number: 0002462_Compton_20160728_UtahMineAssoc-5 

Organization1:Utah Mining Associaton 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

With the advanced development of the coal regions, coal companies have sought new leases at roughly the rate 

of depletion of coal at existing operations as predicted by BLM when it shifted to the LBA leasing method. This 

reflects the reality that market changes and depletion drive the number of bidders for a lease, not the LBA 

process itself. Also, since 2003, total revenues from federal coal leases (bonus bids, royalties and surface rentals) 

amount to $13.8 billion; lease revenues in 2014 were twice the amount in 2003; bonus bids have increased 

substantially; coal royalty revenue is 88 percent higher despite coal production increasing by only 2 percent; 

revenue per acre under lease has increased 40% despite lower coal prices recently. The facts dispose of any 

notion that the program is not continuing to ensure a fair return for taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0002462_Compton_20160728_UtahMineAssoc-7 

Organization1:Utah Mining Associaton 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Furthermore, we should improve the efficiency of the federal coal leasing program. Unnecessary delays in the 

leasing process certainly do not result in a fair return to the taxpayer. 

Comment Number: 0002465_Burnham_20160728_BurnhamCoal-4 

Organization1:Burnham Coal, LLC 

Commenter1:Bob Burnham 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As far as single bids for most leases, there have been cases where multiple bids have been made resulting in 

higher prices at the sale and in bids at future sales. The issue is identifying coal resources that are accessible from 

more than one mine. This is usually not possible. Coal mines cannot be relocated to fit the resources being 

offered. 

Comment Number: 0002466_Smith_20160728_SELA-5 

Organization1:Safe Energy Leadership Alliance 

Commenter1:Rachel Smith 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The DOI should establish minimum bids for each coal region, as required by current regulations, taking into 

account geologic conditions, coal quality and supply, and demand for federal coal (including exports), and increase 

the royalty rate for surface--mined coal in all new leases and lease renewals to ensure fair return. BLM’s review 

of policies, pricing, and royalty rates for public coal should factor in the market reality that much of the coal 

mined from public lands today and planned in the future is destined for export to other countries. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-420 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-22

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Alternatives To Address Direct Environmental Impacts 

Once the PEIS properly characterizes the impacts of coal leasing in the areas where it occurs, BLM should 

consider and present an analysis of alternatives that will address those impacts, including: 

a. New leasing framework 

As noted, the Powder River Basin was “decertified” as a coal production region in 1990, and all other coal 

regions have been likewise “decertified.” This decision turned leasing into a non-competitive framework through 

the “Lease by Application” process. Rather than a process in which BLM acts proactively and leads decision 

making with respect to federal coal mining, mining companies apply for parcels to be leased and BLM responds to 

such applications. Under the Mineral Leasing Act regulatory framework, the “Lease by Application” (LBA) 

process was an exception to the rule of competitive, BLM-driven leasing, but it has now become the norm. 

As a policy matter, the current company-driven LBA system must be replaced with a new national programmatic 

approach and this PEIS analysis should commence that work. A new leasing framework should be presented and 

fully analyzed that provides a basis to determine when, where, and how much federal coal, if any, might be 

considered for lease in leasing plans. The alternatives analysis of leasing plans should specify the amount, timing, 

and location of potential leasing activity, if any, that the Secretary of the Interior determines will best meet 

national energy needs, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, protect other uses and resources, and ensure a 

fair return to taxpayers over a five year period. 

A useful model for this analysis and for when to lease can be found in the outer continental shelf (OCS) leasing 

framework. See 43 U.S.C. § 1344. That program consists of a national schedule of proposed lease sales indicating 

the size, timing and location of leasing activity that best meets national energy needs for the five-year period 

following plan approval. The plans also dictate tailored leasing strategies instead of defaulting to industry 

proposals as done with the current LBA approach BLM follows. A PEIS is completed for the five-year leasing 

schedule to gather public input and ensure proper environmental analysis and mitigation. The five-year lease 

schedule, which is reviewed by the Secretary annually, examines environmental and socio¬economic 

considerations, landscape-scale approaches to mitigation, national energy markets and needs, production 

substitutes for the energy resources, and assurances for fair market value. 

A useful model for this analysis and for where to lease can be found in the Western Solar Program, where BLM 

prepared a PEIS to identify the preferred locations for development and excluded development from high conflict 

and/or low potential areas. That PEIS also set out required design features to be incorporated where 

development is permitted, and a commitment to mitigating impacts that could not be adequately avoided or 

minimized. Parameters to guide the management of solar resources were also shaped by a robust economic and 

technical analysis, further ensuring that leasing contemplation would be in balance with market conditions. 

BLM should also analyze what the elimination or retention of the Coal Teams would mean in terms of 

environmental impacts. The Coal Teams, while advisory in nature, have had substantial power in determining 

whether lease applications should move forward. Members of the Coal Teams, notably Governors of coaldependent states, have inherent conflicts of interest, making them unable to balance the desire for more leasing 

and revenue from leasing with other considerations. 

Under any approach, BLM must also incorporate expanded unsuitability criteria, including protecting 

environmentally sensitive areas and areas that may be suitable for renewable energy development. Through this 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-421

Scoping Report 

new leasing framework, regardless of whether it follows the OCS approach, BLM can protect local environmental 

conditions by making affirmative decisions about whether, where, and under what conditions mining may occur. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-29

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The statute directs the agency to “award [coal] leases . . . by competitive bidding,” id. § 201 (emphasis added), as 

a theoretical means to insure that the American people “receive fair market value of the use of the public lands 

and their resources . . . .” 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(9). Under BLM’s regulations, the agency is supposed to determine 

the “fair market value” [FMV] for the coal, and then consider various bids, accepting the highest bid above FMV 

from a qualified mining company. 43 C.F.R. § 3400.05 (defining Fair Market Value to mean “that amount in cash, 

or on terms reasonably equivalent to cash, for which in all probability the coal deposit would be sold or leased by 

a knowledgeable owner willing but not obligated to sell or lease to a knowledgeable purchaser who desires but is 

not obligated to buy or lease”); see also id. Part 3422. The regulations include a bid floor of “$100 per acre or its 

equivalent in cents per ton.” Id. § 3422.1(b)(2).

In practice, however, there is typically only one bidder. For example, between 1990 and 2013 96 of 107 tracts 

leased (about 90 percent) involved only a single bidder in the bonus bid leasing auction. See GAO, Coal Leasing: 

BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, an Provide More Public 

Information (GAO 14-140) (Dec. 2013) at 16. (4) As a result of this and other factors, the agency has often failed 

to obtain FMV, and has sold federal coal for much less than a dollar a ton. 

(4) This is largely due to the fact that most lease applications come from existing operators seeking to expand 

their existing mining operations, rather than new companies competing for new mines. 

(SEE TABLE 1 in the Attached Comment) 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-65

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Restricting leasing eligibility 

The Department of the Interior has significant discretion to reject a coal lease if, based on the Secretary’s 

assessment, it is not in the “public interest.” 30 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1) (authorizing coal leasing by the Secretary for 

lease tracts “he finds appropriate and in the public interest.”). BLM’s rules require that, “[a]n application for a 

lease shall be rejected in total or in part if the authorized officer determines that ... leasing of the lands covered 

by the application, for environmental or other sufficient reasons, would be contrary to the public interest.” 43 

CFR § 3425.1-8. This provision is distinct from the screens BLM must apply to identify lands that are unsuitable 

or unacceptable for coal development, and is also distinct from BLM’s requirements to obtain “fair market value” 

for a lease. 

Under this alternative BLM would establish additional criteria for determining the fitness of a coal operator as a 

buyer to ensure leasing is in “the public interest.” One principal restriction would be that an operator cannot 

obtain a new or modified lease where it owns a current mine – or combination of mines – that has more than 10 

years of reserves. According to GAO, “[o]fficials from coal companies told us they typically submit new 

applications for federal coal leases to maintain a 10-year coal supply at their existing mining operations.” Yet, BLM 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-422 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

documents suggest that mines with pending lease applications in Wyoming have from 10.6 – 19 years of 

remaining recoverable reserves, based on the most recent annual production numbers available and, until BLM’s 

rejection of the West Jacobs Ranch LBA, the agency continued to make coal available for lease whenever coal 

companies apply. BLM must consider a reserve limit to ensure leasing is in the public interest. 

Other criteria would preclude any new leases to any company that is out-of-compliance with SMCRA, Clean 

Water Act, Clean Air Act, or any other environmental requirements at any mine site they operate, particularly in 

regards to their reclamation and contemporaneous reclamation requirements. BLM should also assess whether 

the buying company has any history of environmental violations related to reclaiming current or past mines at any 

of its facilities. 

Finally, eligibility requirements might include whether the company is operating an existing and viable coal facility, 

whether the company is financially healthy, and whether the operator is being diligent in developing existing 

leases. 

Comment Number: 0002470-1 

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM must use the Programmatic EIS process to design a system of coal leasing that promotes competition 

among coal companies for federal coal leases. Competition is an essential part of any functioning market; without 

it, the program must compensate in various ways to achieve fair coal pricing. The lack of competition also leads 

to public skepticism that the federal coal program is not ensuring a fair return for these resources. 

Comment Number: 0002470-2 

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM asserts that it does not simply accept a tract for leasing as described in an application, but rather uses: 

“... a wide variety of information, including geologic data that delineates the location, quality, and quantity of coal 

within a given area, to determine the most appropriate tract configuration that would encourage competition and 

help achieve maximum economic recovery of the resource.”5 Yet, most lease sales in the Powder River Basin 

(PRB) are for tracts adjacent to deposits already leased by a company.6 Moreover, the tracts are often of a size 

or design that precludes another company from economically mining them and bidding on them. The evidence is 

clear: The BLM, instead of deciding whether there is sufficient demand for coal and designing tracts to maximize 

competition and economic value, defers to industry, which, in turn, avoids competition and designs tracts to 

maximize company share value and strategic positioning in the market. This assessment is confirmed in a market 

analysis report prepared for XCEL Energy by the John T. Boyd Company, a mining and geological consultant: 

-As a practical matter, most companies will attempt to define LBA tracts that, because of location or geometry, 

are of interest only to the nominating company. This minimizes competitive bidding on the tract, and may result 

in a lower cost lease. Where competition has existed for coal leases (mostly in the southern Gillette area but 

recently in the central portion of the coalfield) relatively high bonus bids in the range of $0.90 – $1.10/ton have 

resulted. BLM has, even in noncompetitive cases, required “Fair Market Value” bids in this range, particularly in 

the Southern PRB.7 

5 Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, “General Comments and Requests for 

Clarification,” in response to U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Report No. CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012.,“Coal Management 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-423

Scoping Report 

Program,” June 2013 

6 Government Accountability Office, Report: GAO-14-140, “COAL LEASING: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal 

Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal 

Exports, and Provide More Public Information,” December 18, 2013 

7 John T. Boyd Company. Report No. 3155.001. “Powder River Basin Coal Resource and Cost Study.” Prepared 

for XCEL Energy, Sept. 2011. 

Available at: http://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe/Regulatory/Regulatory%20PDFs/PSCo-ERP-2011/8-RobertsExhibit-No-MWR-1.pdf 

Comment Number: 0002475_Kustin_20160728_CAP-3 

Organization1:Center for American Progress 

Commenter1:Mary Ellen Kustin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the discussions of the past month and a half, the Center has suggested that a public process that sets a cap on 

either coal tonnage or British thermal units (BTUs) and accepts bids only until that cap is met would better 

address the PEIS concerns. 

Comment Number: 0002475_Kustin_20160728_CAP-4 

Organization1:Center for American Progress

Commenter1:Mary Ellen Kustin 

Other Sections: 4.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We suggest considering a modified version of intertract bidding. Rather than hosting a lease sale with multiple 

tracts up for simultaneous bid, BLM could allow companies to bid on a fixed amount of mining credits. The 

winning bidders would gain the right to mine a certain amount of coal, as measured in dollars per BTU or dollars 

per ton. These bidders would then submit applications for the specific tracts of land on which they would like to 

mine the coal for which they have rights. This process would allow the BLM to better prioritize the fairest return 

available to taxpayers while allocating credits up to a pre-set carbon, BTU, or tonnage cap. The allocation of 

credits could also be weighted based on the companies’ proven track records of reclamation, financial stability, 

and worker safety and compensation. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-11

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 8.7 1 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Several recent reports from the Government Accountability Office and the Inspector General of the Interior 

Department raised concerns about the leasing process, including the social and environmental impacts of the 

federal coal program, and whether the program was receiving a fair return for taxpayers.4 Importantly, the 

federal coal leasing and royalty program has not been reviewed for 30 years.5 

(4) "Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide 

More Public Information, February 2014" U.S. Government Accountability Office 

http://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-140; "Coal Management Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, Report 

No. CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012, June 2013" Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

https://www.doioig.gov/reports/coal-management-program-us-departmentinterior. 

(5) The Secretary of the Interior, Order No 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

to Modernize the Federal Coal Program 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-424 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

(Washington, D.C., 2016) 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/news_release_attachment

s.Par.4909.File.dat/SO%203338%20Coal.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-17

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should look to its Solar PEIS and Oil and Gas Master Leasing Plan policy as Models for Landscape-scale 

Guided Development and Avoidance that could be Incorporated into the Coal PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-19

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should carefully analyze the current coal leasing system in the PEIS and develop new regulations to 

modernize the process, incorporating elements from the Solar PEIS and oil and gas Master Leasing Plans 

discussed above. The agency should terminate the LBA leasing system and replace it with a Western Regional 

Coal Leasing Program that incorporates some of the principles from the current regulations but is updated to 

reflect current knowledge and policy. This regional system should evaluate bidding on individual tracts with 

bidding on an amount of coal that the BLM has determined should be available for development. This leasing 

system should be consistent with the carbon budget recommendations we make elsewhere in these comments. 

This new system could be put in place based on five-year plans of development similar to the system used in 

Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing. These plans of development should be designed to meet national 

program objectives and done from a Western Regional perspective, not a local one. The BLM should also 

abandon the use of Regional Coal Teams and instead determine regional leasing needs based on the BLM’s expert 

analysis. The provisions for NEPA compliance should be maintained in the regional coal leasing program. In all 

cases this leasing system must ensure the federal government achieves a fair market value for the federal coal it 

leases. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-22

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While the BLM is required to consider MER in the federal coal program, achieving MER should not be treated as 

a unilateral, unvarying command. It should be achieved in recognition and in compliance with the BLM’s broad 

multiple-use mission, which is also mandatory. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-67

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should use the PEIS to develop a new, multi-year approach for the leasing and development of federal coal in 

the West. This will likely require some new regulations but can be developed and subjected to NEPA analysis in 

the PEIS. Under a new approach, BLM would initiate new leasing activity based on market circumstances, 

progress on climate objectives and other considerations; determine where coal leases will be considered and 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-425

Scoping Report 

screen for potential conflicts; develop new methods for selling coal resources in collaboration with the industry 

and leading economic experts; enhance the assurances that potential lessees have the financial and technical 

capabilities to viably operate the lease in question for its anticipated duration; and issue leases for specific tracts. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-68

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In order to create a unified approach to coal leasing and to allow the BLM to manage the amount and timing of 

coal lease sales, the BLM should create a Western Coal Production Region based on the region as defined by the 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). EIA defines the Western coal region to include Alaska, Arizona, 

Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. (11) According to the latest 

state-specific data from EIA’s Annual Coal Report, of the coal produced in the United States in 2014, 54 percent 

was produced in the Western coal region, with Wyoming producing the lion’s share: 73% of the coal mined in 

the Western coal region. (12) This region also encompasses 94 percent of the leases BLM had on record in 2015. 

(13) 

(11) See U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/?id=coal. 

(12) See Table 1 in U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Coal Report 2014, March 2016. Available at 

http://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/pdf/acr.pdf . (Accessed July 26, 2016.) 

(13) Cross Reference of BLM Coal Lease Serial Numbers and MSHA Identification Numbers, Feb. 3, 2015. BLM 

FOIA# 2015-00462. Mark Haggerty, Headwaters Economics, pers. comm. 

Given significant differences in the geology, coal rank and quality, and mining conditions within the Western Coal 

Production Region, the BLM could consider special circumstances faced by mine-mouth power plant situations, 

where coal rank and value may be low, but the lack of transportation costs creates unique captive markets. Any 

exception process for mine-mouth plant situations would have to consider the climate change implications of 

extending leasing and operations of the plant and the socio-economic dislocations associated with continuing or 

restricting coal availability for the local community (as discussed in Section VIII). 

For coal resources outside the western region, BLM should consider whether to create an eastern coal leasing 

region and apply new leasing approaches to those areas as well. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-70

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should significantly modify the orientation of the agency to the industry in reforming the federal coal 

program. As the dramatic, rapid changes in the coal industry over the past two years have shown, federal lands 

deserve a more objective arbiter of whether, where and when additional coal resources should be put on the 

block for development. To accomplish this, the BLM should assume a greater role in specifying the size and timing 

of potential leasing activity that the Secretary of the Interior determines will best meet national energy needs, 

achieve U.S. carbon emission reduction goals, and ensure a fair return to taxpayers. 

Under this approach, BLM would set the total amount of coal resource available for sale by auction each year 

consistent with a 5-year plan. There is precedent within BLM and elsewhere with the Interior Department for 

such a program: the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has a Five-Year Program for oil and gas 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-426 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

development. It establishes a schedule of oil and gas lease sales proposed for planning areas of the U.S. Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS). The Program specifies the size, timing, and location of potential leasing activity that the 

Secretary of the Interior determines will best meet national energy needs. BOEM also has a leasing program for 

its off-shore renewable energy that incorporates a multi-phase leasing process. We recommend the BLM 

seriously consider the five-year planning process for use in determining how much and which coal resources 

should be made available on a shorter time horizon than afforded by the PEIS. 

In these five year plans, the BLM could set production targets for the total amount of coal resource sales that 

would be needed to meet declining coal production demand from public lands. The BLM should also consider 

carbon performance for coal’s allocated share of all federal lands energy under a “carbon budget” calibrated to 

leading domestic and international climate goals. Our views on the need for a carbon budget are discussed in 

section VI.E. of these comments. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-71

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To overcome the problems related to assuring a fair return for coal in a declining market dominated by 

incumbent mines leasing coal adjacent to their existing mines, BLM should develop an alternative bidding program 

for allocating federal coal in the Western Coal Production Region. BOEM has studied different auction systems 

for issuing renewable energy leases, easements, and rights-of-way on the OCS that may provide models for BLM 

to look at as it modernizes its coal leasing program. (14) 

(14) BOEM issued a contract to Power Auctions, LLC to study different types of auctions for wind rights. The 

study has been published in three parts, and is available at the links below: 

· Auction Design for Wind Rights 

· Multiple Factor Auction Design for Wind Rights 

· Comparison of Auction Formats for Auctioning Wind Rights 

One approach to selling coal rights would have BLM auction coal resource allocations (or lease credits) rather 

than specific tracts for lease. BLM could specify the amount of coal made available for lease in terms of a total 

British thermal units (Btu) value, to establish basic parity among different areas within the leasing region. Because 

the quality of coal resource varies tremendously from one location to another, using a more static unit of 

measurement such as acres of land or tons of coal as the limit on the amount available for lease would 

disproportionately affect and disadvantage mines or companies producing lower quality coal. Btu content 

measures the heating value of the resource and therefore reflects the need for a larger amount of acreage or 

tons of coal to be developed to reach that limit in poorer quality areas. Additionally, leasing based on total Btu 

allows the BLM to easily track and measure potential GHG emissions from approved leases and compare that to 

the agency’s climate targets or goals under the carbon budget discussed in section VI.E. 

During this phase of the program, the sale of coal resource allocations (or lease credits) gives the successful 

bidder the right to subsequently seek BLM approval for the development of a leasehold. The lease credit does 

not grant the holder the right to construct any facilities; rather, the lease credit grants the right to develop a 

lease application and plan of development, which must be approved by BLM before the project can move on to 

the next stage of the process. 

A coal resource allocation auction system would help to convey coal resource allocations (credits) to entities 

most likely to successfully develop the resources and to meet the statutory requirement to obtain a fair return 

on coal sales. It could also provide a mechanism for reducing the carbon consequences of the federal coal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-427

Scoping Report 

program by putting BLM in charge of the pace and scale of coal allocation sales. 

BLM should develop new auction formats to implement the new program and address important program 

performance goals. Performance measures developed by BOEM for its auction process for Wind Energy Areas 

(15) could be applied to BLM’s approach:

15 http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Regulatory-Information/RenewableEnergy-AuctionFormats.aspx 

· Economic Efficiency: The auction process should try to ensure that future federal coal sales are awarded to 

those who value the coal resource the most because these entities would likely be the most efficient at using the 

resource; 

· Fair Return: BLM is statutorily required to obtain a “fair return” for coal resources.

· Program Efficiency: The coal auction process must be manageable for BLM to administer; 

· Lease Boundary Flexibility: Within constraints fixed by BLM, the auction should allow bidders to apply coal 

allocations to the optimal lease areas; 

· Competition: The auction process must be fair, and encourage participation from all interested bidders while 

minimizing the opportunity for collusion among bidders; 

· Transparency: The auction process must be an open one in which bids are comparable and the reason why the 

winners won is clear; 

· Neutrality: The auction process must ensure that all bidders are treated equally; 

· Simplicity: The auction process must be easily understood and implemented, for both the bidders and BLM; and 

· Consistency: The auction process should be applicable to the issuance of leases in a variety of contexts. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-72

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Issuing specific leases to exercise coal credits. 

Once sold, the credits could then be applied to specific lease tracts in the Western Coal Production Area 

identified by the successful bidders from within lands made available to leasing by the BLM. Though the selection 

of tracts would look similar to what those companies would propose under the lease by application system, 

allocations would have to be within areas pre¬screened by BLM and BLM would not have to determine the fair 

market value at this stage—it will have been determined at the auction stage. BLM would still have to determine 

the Btus contained within a specific tract, but the agency could do that in a public and transparent way since 

there would not be bidding on the specific lease tract. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-9 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In deciding how, when and where to lease, BLM decision-making should: 

· Ensure that the screening criteria outlined in its regulations are fully applied when the BLM evaluates whether 

areas might be “acceptable for further consideration for leasing” as part of its development of resource 

management plans (RMP); these criteria can also be applied at the leasing stage to address current conditions and 

new information. 

· Ensure the BLM’s unsuitability criteria are fully applied at the leasing stage.

· Provide protections for lands with wilderness characteristics and Greater sage-grouse. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-428 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

· Prepare a reasonably foreseeable development analysis of coal resources. 

· Establish a regional leasing program that incorporates landscape level planning and more active BLM 

management, looking at examples such as the Solar PEIS and master leasing plans. 

· Comply with NEPA and mitigation obligations to protect other resources and address other impacts, such as 

contributions to and effects of climate change. 

· Address new and existing leases. 

· Ensure that, in fulfilling these recommendations, the statutory and regulatory requirements that there will be 

“maximum economic recovery” from coal leasing and development need to be understood properly in the 

multiple-use context. 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-10

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Notice also indicates that BLM will examine whether the current regulatory framework (lease by application, 

LBA) should be changed to provide a better mechanism or mechanisms to decide which coal resources should be 

made available and how the leasing process should work, based upon concerns that the current LBA method 

lacks competition. 

However, the belief that competition among multiple bidders is the only way to produce a fair market value 

return is flawed. The facts are that mineral asset and lease sales do occur for fair market value with a single 

bidder. In determining fair market value under the existing lease process, BLM relies upon peer-reviewed analyses 

that include comparable sales. Any criticism regarding fair market value and the valuation process has to do with 

internal BLM valuation metrics and formulas, not the lack of bidders. All that said, BLM has already begun 

implementing a number of reforms designed to improve and standardize the valuation process, including the 

establishment of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department's Office of Valuation Services. 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-11

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM is requesting comment on whether timing of lease sales should be revised, presumably in an effort to create 

more competition, and whether market factors should impact lease timing. However, the proposal to conduct 

lease sales at only set times, for example quarterly, has not worked in the past which is demonstrated by the 

failure of the regional lease sales method. Historically, scheduled lease sales were established based upon demand 

forecasts both nationally and regionally. However, under this framework uncertainties impacting supply and 

demand were not adequately addressed, and operator interest in leases were not accounted for, resulting in 

many tracts receiving little to no interest. 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-12

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

CMA contends that the current state of the coal industry, uncertainties in the regulation of the Coal Program, 

and the nature of how the coal regions are developed does not lend itself to a regional leasing method, or a 

method that only allows lease sales at set times. In general, coal operators apply for new leases at roughly their 

depletion rate. What this means is, they bid or lease only when they need to. Further, frequently there may only 

be one interested bidder, the company that has invested in the infrastructure to develop the mine, and is now 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-429

Scoping Report 

seeking to lease adjacent reserves; which is why LBA is the optimal method for leasing coal resources. Creating 

arbitrary demand through lease timing restrictions, or regional lease planning, fails to address operator interest in 

certain leases, and blindly assumes that regional planning and timing restrictions will result in increased 

competition and “fair return.” For the reasons discussed above, LBA must be carried forward.

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-15

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The proposal to evaluate increasing the minimum bid allowed is out of touch in light of the “fair market value” 

requirements. CMA opposes any increase or change in minimum bid, and suggests BLM eliminate this proposed 

approach from detailed analysis because this provision does not apply. 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-3 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Critics of the program point to rental and royalty rates, ignoring the substantial bonus bids paid by companies to 

acquire the lease. They also criticize the fact that leases may have a single bidder from an adjacent lease. Rather 

than presenting some problem with the process, or lack of competition, it should be expected that an operator 

already familiar with the lease area who has already invested significant infrastructure costs would be the bidder. 

The criticism also ignores the cumulative fees and taxes paid to federal, state and local governments to mine the 

coal. These cumulative fees, taxes, royalties, etc. have been estimated to consume 40 cents of every dollar 

received from the sale of the coal. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-28

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should continue with an applicant-driven application process for federal coal leasing. First, mine operators 

are in the best position to determine when the next tract of federal coal is needed to ensure its future mining 

operations. For example, Cloud Peak Energy has a unique understanding regarding its own business operations 

and is best positioned to determine the timeframe for acquiring additional coal leases. As it currently stands, 

Cloud Peak Energy determines the timing for obtaining additional coal leases based upon careful consideration of 

existing coal reserves, the nature and length of the comprehensive permitting process, and market conditions. 

Any other framework for issuing federal coal leases would fail to address the individual needs of each lessee and 

the optimal timeframe for acquiring additional coal leases. BLM should defer to each mining company’s knowledge 

and expertise concerning its own business operations, including the need for, and timing of, acquiring additional 

tracts of federal coal. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-29

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should retain the existing LBA process because its proposal to hold scheduled coal lease sales will not result 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-430 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

in increased competition for federal coal leases. The substantial up-front costs necessary to commence mining 

operations make the creation of competitive leasing conditions nearly impossible for periodic scheduled lease 

sales. See above at 7-8. Unless BLM identifies a lease parcel that is directly adjacent to an existing mining 

operation, it is unlikely that any coal company (let alone more than one company) would bid on the offered tract. 

See Attachment 5, BLM Petition Denial, at 4 (Jan. 28, 2011) (“Regional leasing is difficult where existing mines are 

competing in an open coal market, depleting their existing leases at market rates, and needing to replace reserves 

throughout a continuum of time”). And if BLM fails to offer parcels adjacent to an existing coal mine at a time 

that meets the economic and operational needs of the mine, that mine could be forced to prematurely close. Due 

to the substantial economic costs and additional regulatory burdens associated with closing and then restarting a 

coal mine, any premature mine closure would likely preclude the leasing and development of coal reserves 

adjacent to that mine in the future, thereby effectively wasting those federal coal reserves and denying the 

American taxpayers any revenue on the wasted federal coal. Finally, the use of scheduled lease sales would result 

in increased environmental impacts. BLM recently explained how the use of scheduled lease sales would result in 

greater environmental disturbance than allowing the expansion of existing mine operations. Id. (“leaving tracts unleased and undeveloped in between the existing Federal coal lease and the proposed production maintenance 

tract . . . would require significant additional disturbance and cost to mine independently” (emphasis added)). 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-30

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should, as part of its general review of the federal coal program, implement specific measures to streamline 

the federal coal leasing and permitting processes. A number of steps could be taken to adapt BLM’s program to 

the current economic realities facing the domestic coal industry, address the need for increased domestic energy 

security, and help level the playing field among domestic energy sources. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-31

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should reduce the exceedingly long delays associated with coal leasing and permitting. BLM should establish 

specific timelines and procedures for expeditious completion of the federal leasing and permitting processes. The 

reduction in the time necessary for processing federal coal leases and permit approvals would allow leasing of 

smaller lease tracts. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-32

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should consider how the efficient leasing of smaller tracts might better ensure the maximum economic 

recovery of coal and deliver value to the American people. Smaller coal leases reduce the risk of market 

uncertainties associated with larger lease tracts. In addition, smaller tracts provide incrementally larger bonus 

payments to the federal government due to the higher FMV valuations associated with the substantially shortened 

duration of mining operations. 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-19

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-431

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Interior regulations establish the public interest basis for coal leasing: “[an] application for a lease shall be rejected 

in total or in part if the authorized officer determines that . . . leasing of the lands covered by the application, for 

environmental or other sufficient reasons, would be contrary to the public interest” (emphasis added).18Up until 

now, BLM’s decisions to approve lease applications have been justified as serving the public interest because they 

offer competitive sales for meeting national coal demand,19 provide a reliable and continuous “supply of stable 

and affordable energy for consumers,”20 and reduce U.S. “dependence on foreign energy supplies and [provide] 

significant socioeconomic benefits.”21 These interpretations of the public interest ignore two key aspects of the 

coal program: near-term health burdens imposed on American communities and long-term climate burdens on 

BLM land as well as all areas of the United States. Moreover, the BLM Records of Decision do not consider the 

Carbon Tracker finding that reserves from existing mines are sufficient to supply the transitional period for coal 

plants – thus, even the overly narrow public interpretation is deficient on its own terms. BLM should expressly 

consider health and climate change in the public interest as it undertakes the programmatic review, and it should 

reform the coal program to bring leasing decisions into alignment with these considerations. 

[18 43 C.F.R § 3425.1-8] 

[19 Record of Decision, Environmental Impact Statement, Belle Ayr North – WYW161248 – July 2010; Record 

of Decision, Environmental Impact Statement, South Hilight Field – WYW174596 – March 2011.] 

[20 Record of Decision, Environmental Impact Statement, North Porcupine LBA – WYW173408 – October 

2011; Record of Decision, Environmental Impact Statement, South Porcupine LBA – WYW176095 – August 

2011.] 

[21 Id.] 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-32

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The third statute enabling Interior to apply a carbon budget to its programmatic review is the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005, which establishes a basis for BLM to account for coal reserves in alignment with climate objectives.35 

The Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to “review coal assessments and other available data to identify... 

the extent and nature of any restrictions on the development of coal resources on Federal lands” (emphasis 

added).36 Given the Carbon Tracker conclusion that BLM has leased more coal than it can afford to burn in a 

carbon consistent scenario, the large volume of non-combustible reserves should factor into Interior’s review of 

restrictions on coal resources. This mandate is also relevant for the U.S. Geological Survey, which is in the 

process of developing a national inventory of carbon in federal lands. As part of its inventory, the USGS “will 

establish a baseline and public database that accounts for carbon emitted from fossil fuels produced on public 

lands.”37 

[35 U.S. Department of the Interior, Question and Answer, Department of the Interior Federal Coal Reforms, 

Available at 

www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/news_release_attachments.Par.9

8 291.File.dat/Questions%20and%20Answers%20Coal.pdf] 

[36 42 U.S.C § 15991] 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-432 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

[37 Supra, note 35.] 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-11

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM must properly evaluate why the regional leasing system was abandoned in the 1980s in favor of the 

lease by application (LBA) process. To properly do this, it is important to evaluate the fiscal, technical, business 

and administrative advantages of the LBA process. 

In 1979, the DOI promulgated new regulations significantly revising the coal management program. 43 C.F.R. Part 

3400. The new regulations established two leasing mechanisms, regional leasing in coal production regions, which 

is agency-driven, 43 C.F.R. Part 3420; and LBA, which is industry driven, 43 C.F.R. Part 3425. Regional leasing 

intended to make government planning the primary emphasis in leasing decisions within defined coal productions 

regions. The interest in regional leasing was nominal at best, and by 1990, the BLM decertified the nation's eight 

coal production regions and abandoned regional leasing in favor of LBA with support centered largely on 

"programmatic efficiencies associated with leasing by application, especially in a reduced regional coal market." 

See Decertification of the Powder River Coal Production Region, 55 Fed. Reg. 784 (Jan. 9, 1990); (WY0-00133 to 

00134). BLM determined that LBA was the most efficient method to lease coal as that method is market driven 

and removes the need for predictive guesswork. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-13

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Furthermore, as noted above, the existing regulations have been set in place to clearly establish the LBA process 

as a competitive form of leasing, even if only one company offers a bid. The BLM sets an undisclosed FMV floor 

price and a company must meet or exceed BLM's valuation in order to receive the lease. Even if only one 

company submits a bid, they do not automatically receive the lease. There have been several instances that BLM's 

floor price was not met and a lease was not awarded. Since companies do not know the BLM floor price, it is fair 

to assume that acceptable bids exceed the BLM price. In those instances, the American public receives a premium 

- or more than FMV. As part of this scoping process, the BLM should consider this information and review prior 

LBA sales to better understand the amount of additional money paid over the years because the accepted bid 

price exceeded FMV. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-14

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM must also consider the infrastructure costs and the minimum necessary investment to construct a new 

mine which would likely be required under a regional or scheduled lease scenario. Huge investments in property, 

plant, equipment and coal reserves ranging anywhere from $500 million to more than $3 billion are required to 

mine in Wyoming. Federal coal leases require extensive capital investments before an ounce of coal is mined and 

a relatively high level of financial risk in a volatile commodity-type market. Therefore, the successful bidders in the 

past consisted of major coal operators who could finance such ventures and have the technical and marketing 

expertise to be successful. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-433

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-15

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Table 1.3.2.1 below provides more complete and correct information as compared to Table 4 in the WEG report 

because it highlights the tracts for which more than one sale was held as well as sales for which there was more 

than one bidder. Table 1.3.2.1 illustrates that BLM held more than one sale and therefore, received more than 

one bid on 11 of the 27 tracts that have been leased since decertification of the PRB in 1990. Of these 11 tracts, 

4 (36%) have had more than one bidder on the second sale. One tract had two bidders on the first sale. 

Therefore, only one bid has been received on 16 of the 27 tracts, or 59% of the tracts offered since 

decertification as compared to 81.5% of the tracts that received only one or no bid during the period of regional 

leasing between 1975 and decertification of the PRB in 1990. Further, all bids accepted by the BLM exceeded the 

FMV determined by the BLM. Clearly, the LBA process has not "severely diminished" competition for federal coal 

in the PRB. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-16

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The 1984 Linowes Commission report identified the complex property ownership patterns in the western U.S. 

as a major deterrent to having multiple competitors bid on a federal lease tract. (WY0-00258 to 00912). 

Specifically, the report states that "Due to ownership patterns... the Government seldom reaps the benefit of 

being able to offer all the mineral and surface rights needed for an entire economic mining unit. Were the 

Government to do so, it could guarantee to each potential bidder an opportunity to invest in a lease without 

uncertainty about whether additional private rights could be acquired, and at what cost, after the lease sale. 

Typically, however, economic mining units consist of private, State or previously leased federal coal interspersed 

with or adjacent to the federal lease tract. In other instances, the Government may own the coal mineral rights 

while a private party owns the surface." Linowes Commission 1984 - p. 155; (WY0-00428). Nowhere is this 

situation more evident than Wyoming's Powder River Basin. The Linowes Commission Report compares regional 

differences in federal coal and lists the Wyoming PRB as having only 11 percent of its acreage under a federal 

surface/federal coal ownership pattern. Linowes Commission 1984- p. 158 (Table 3); (WY0-00431). Conversely, 

72 percent of the property ownership is non-federal surface/federal coal and 17 percent is non-federal or federal 

surface/non-federal coal. (See Map 1.3.3.1) 

The Green River/Hams Fork Coal Region in southwestern Wyoming has a different surface/mineral ownership 

pattern with a much larger percentage (52 percent) in federal surface/federal coal ownership pattern with very 

little (3.5 percent) in non-federal surface/federal coal. According to the Linowes Commission Report, coal tracts 

offered in the Green River/Hams Fork and Uinta-Southwestern Utah regions had achieved the most bidding 

competition. See Linowes Commission Report 1984- p. 159; (WY0-00432) and (see also Maps 1.3.3.2 and 

1.3.3.3). 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-17

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 19 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Order No. 3338 suggests that the BLM's PEIS should examine where to lease federal coal and proposes as an 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-434 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

example the BLM's Solar PEIS (Western Solar Plan) which "amended land use plans across six southwestern 

states and established preferred locations for solar development." Order, p. 7. The BLM must consider its 

current and adequate regulatory process to examine preferred locations for coal development, including coal 

planning completed as part of the Resource Management Plan (RMP) process. The BLM's coal planning process 

includes, but is not limited to, a screen for coal development potential, unsuitability, multiple use and surface 

ownership consultation. In Wyoming, this was recently completed as part of the revision to the BLM's Buffalo 

RMP. 

The use of twenty unsuitability criteria at 43 C.F.R § 3461.5 represent only one of five screens employed by BLM 

to determine "where and where not" to lease coal. The other four found at 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e)(1) through 

(4) are the principal decisions used to determine which lands are suitable for further consideration. These 

screening criteria have been and continue to be more than adequate to identify the most appropriate locations 

for federal coal leasing.If the BLM is intent on considering the Western Solar Plan, the BLM must consider that 

coal resource development is confined to the location of commercial quantities and qualities of coal. Solar 

resources are presumably more widespread across the landscape, which allows a greater degree of flexibility in 

establishing preferred locations for development. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-18

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 8.3 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

DOI's estimate appears to be a nationwide figure which amalgamates all federal coal leases. However, the mines 

in Wyoming account for 80% of all federal coal being produced today and BLM Wyoming figures show the 

average mine life for Wyoming coal mines is 16.4 years. See Wyoming Coal Mines- Estimated Mine Life (WY0-

00914). Even this number is skewed by one mine, the Caballo mine, which is projected to last for 80 years. (Id.). 

And the 80 year projection cannot be relied upon because the Caballo mine is known to contain significant 

amounts of uneconomically mineable reserves. (Id.). Thus, DOI is overestimating the remaining life of existing 

mines, including those in Wyoming. 

DOI has used its 20-year estimate to downplay the impact that the moratorium will have on coal production. 

Again, DOI is not telling the whole story. Assuming no legal challenges, the best timeline estimate for a new lease 

approval will likely require 13 to 15 years (3 year PEIS process; 2 years for rule/Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) revisions; 5 years for EIS development of same; 2 years for Record of Decision and lease sale; 3 years for 

state/federal OSMRE permitting). A 15 year time lag for post-moratorium new coal production cuts dangerously 

close to BLM's estimate that the mines in Wyoming that produce 80% of federal coal will continue for 16.4 years. 

But this best case scenario is not the most likely scenario because litigation is likely to occur. Unfortunately, the 

moratorium and PEIS process has created an uncertainty in the nation's thermal coal baseload fuel supply. 

Because the moratorium has stopped the coal leasing process while existing leases continue to produce, DOI has 

creating a time lag in production that is not likely to be overcome once leasing resumes. Therefore, the BLM 

must consider ways to significantly expedite coal leasing once the moratorium is lifted. 

1.5.2- Concerns with Order No. 3338- Sec. 6, Exclusions 

The exclusions identified in Order No. 3338 appear designed to mitigate potential mine life conflicts; however, 

the emergency lease and lease modification provisions may be insufficient to sustain some mining operations. 

The DOI's calculation of tons of reserves in Wyoming is inaccurate. It is apparently based on total tons of coal 

leased nationwide. The more appropriate calculation of tons of coal reserves should be on the basis of minable 

tons within approved lease tracts. The DOI evaluation does not take into account the balancing of strip ratios 

across the mining reserve base (field average) and actions taken by BLM in the leasing process that impact those 

reserves ultimately leased. The BLM is required to lease in accordance with the public interest. Therefore, lease 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-435

Scoping Report 

tracts include unrecoverable tons that lie under rail lines and extend to the 40 acre subdivision. The 

unrecoverable tons within these lease units include tons that are not economically recoverable, but have been 

added into the lease tract total tonnage evaluation and sale to prevent reserve sterilization. 

Order No. 3338 also does not account for strip ratio variability (overburden thickness/coal thickness) and how 

strip ratio factors into lease modification requests and actions. As stated previously, a lease action often includes 

areas of high strip ratio and marginal coal in order to prevent sterilization of reserves. LBA and Lease by 

Modification (LBM) actions include both lower cover reserves in conjunction with marginal high cover reserves in 

an attempt to balance the strip ratio and recover the maximum coal tons from the reserve base. This action 

facilitated by the LBA/LBM process provides for maximum recovery and public benefit from the leased coal. In 

contrast, Order No. 3338, as established, will force operations into marginal reserves early in the mine life and 

create economic winners and losers based on policy rather than coal recovery and market conditions. 

Additionally, coal companies may choose to pay a penalty and bypass marginal reserves as they are simply too 

costly to mine without lower stripping ratio reserves available to offset the respective increased cost of mining. 

The public benefit from these reserves is compromised and is in contrast to BLM's public benefit mandate. The 

increase in the cost of coal will be passed onto the end consumer resulting in higher utility rates. The BLM must 

consider these factors now, as it relates to Order No. 3338, and in its PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-19

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The LMU has been used to manage coal production from multiple federal, private and state lease tracts and to 

ensure timely development, continuous operation and diligent coal recovery. The LMU requires a coal operator 

to mine the diligent development tonnage (1% of the LMU reserve) from the defined reserve based on an average 

one in three year test. The coal operator must meet the continued operation requirement in an annual average 

amount of 1% of all the LMU reserves associated with the lease for all following years. The annual average 

amount will be calculated on a 3-year basis with the 2 preceding years. The coal operator is also required to post 

a bond to cover the LMU. When the LMU process was established, it was not envisioned to encompass the scale 

of the coal reserves of the PRB. The LMU process only has a mechanism to add new reserves into the LMU until 

a maximum of25,000 acres/LMU is reached. There is currently no mechanism to remove leases (tonnage) that 

have been completed and released by the BLM from the LMU. This has resulted in LMU diligent development 

tonnage requirements only increasing. Under current regulation, any change to the LMU diligent development 

tonnage requirement is at the discretion of the authorized officer. Moving forward, this process would benefit 

from a formal and defined method for removing tons from the LMU. As part of the PEIS, consideration should be 

given to revising the LMU process to provide for reduction of the diligent development tonnage requirements 

associated with completed leases. See 30 U.S.C. § 202a and 43 C.P.R.§ 3487.1. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-67

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The following points must be adequately considered in the event that BLM is still compelled to evaluate various 

leasing alternatives. As indicated in the BLM's own findings, the regional leasing process requires the agency to 

have adequate resources available in order to undertake and fund the required activities to bring federal coal 

leases to sale. This same situation is expected to be the case when considering scheduled lease sales as suggested 

in Order No. 3338 (p.7). By comparison, the LBA process requires the company nominating the lease to pay all 

costs associated with the federal coal leasing process including cost recovery fees for the time that BLM 

employees spend on the processing of the proposed lease. The BLM must calculate costs and consider the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-436 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

availability of agency resources when determining which leasing alternative would provide the American public 

the greatest return. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-68

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

1.2 Lease-by-Application Process -Wyoming Powder River Basin 

In its December 2013 coal leasing evaluation, the GAO stated: "The Powder River Basin is the largest coalproducing region in the U.S., and all10 of the top-producing U.S. coal mines are in the Powder River Basin, with 9 

of these located in the Wyoming portion of the basin, according to [U.S. Energy Information Administration 

(EIA)] data. Coal in the Powder River Basin has less sulfur than eastern coals, making it attractive to utilities for 

meeting Clean Air Act requirements." U.S. GAO, Report to Congressional Requesters, Coal Leasing, BLM Could 

Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information, p. 10 

(Dec. 2013) (GAO Report); (WY0-03626). Considering the critical role played by the abundant supply of federal 

coal mined in Wyoming to meet national energy needs and environmental requirements, BLM must properly 

evaluate the LBA process as it is implemented by BLM Wyoming. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-69

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Order No. 3.338 notes "concerns about lack of competition in the lease-by-application process." BLM must 

properly consider and evaluate the competitive process which is inherent within the LBA system. Information and 

examples of competition under the LBA process conducted by BLM in Wyoming are provided below 

Comment Number: 0002494_Smyth_20160728-6 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Joe Smyth 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to coal quality and economic viability, the Interior Department should consider additional factors 

when deciding which already leased coal should be taken back, including the lease holder’s record and ability to 

meet its mine reclamation obligations, whether the lease holder plans to export the federal coal, and other 

actions of the lease holder. 

(8) http://ieefa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/08/FederalCoalLeaseProgramDOIcommentsIEEFAAug2015final1.pdf 

Companies that have leased the most federal coal do not support US climate goals Federal coal production is 

dominated by three companies: Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, and Cloud Peak Energy. Although the Interior 

Department does not publicly report how much federal coal is extracted by each company, or from each mine, I 

submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Interior Department for this data. The results of 

that FOIA show that in 2014, Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, and Cloud Peak Energy together mined 407,914,000 

tons of federal coal, accounting for 77% of the total federal coal production from all companies and subsidiaries 

that were reported in the FOIA results. (9) 

(9) http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/corporatewelfareforcoal/ 

In addition, the FOIA data shows that federal coal accounted for the vast majority of each of those three 

companies US coal production in 2014: 88% of Cloud Peak Energy’s total coal production, 83% of Arch Coal’s, 

and 68% of Peabody Energy’s total 2014 US coal production. In effect, the federal coal program has amounted to 

a major corporate welfare program for these three companies. This domination of federal coal production by a 

few coal mining companies reflects the Interior Department’s past decisions that have allowed allowed the coal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-437

Scoping Report 

mining industry itself to largely manage the development of federal coal. 

As the Interior Department pursues reforms of the federal coal program in order to support US climate 

commitments, it is abundantly clear that these coal mining companies are not partners in this reform effort. 

Bankruptcy filings reveal that the two largest producers of federal coal, Peabody Energy and Arch Coal, have 

secretly funded organizations that seek to confuse the public about the threat of climate change. (10) (11) 

(10) 

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/02/13049/bankruptcydocumentsindicatearchcoalfundingclimatedeniallegalgrou

p 

(11) 

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/06/13114/peabodycoalbankruptcyrevealsextensivefundingclimatedenialnetwor

k 

In order to help meet US climate commitments, the Interior Department will need to take active control of the 

management of our federal coal, including federal coal that has already been leased, instead of allowing coal 

mining companies to continue extracting federal coal without regard for the impacts on the climate of the mining 

and burning of federal coal. 

Comment Number: 0002495_Bucks_20160728-1 

Commenter1:Dan Bucks 

Comment Excerpt Text:

Recommendation 1. Through the PEIS, Interior should develop new public management systems to replace the 

coal lease by application and royalty self-assessment systems. 

Secretarial Order 3338 raises a number of vital issues affecting the public that can be successfully resolved only 

within a framework where decisions are based on maximizing the welfare of society overall. Whether it be 

ensuring a fair return to the public for the coal they own, harmonizing coal production with climate change, 

reclaiming mined lands, preventing adverse effects on public health or helping coal communities and workers 

adapt to changing energy markets or other issues—their effective resolution requires public action in the public 

interest. 

In analytical terms, the purposes of the coal PEIS as described in Secretarial Order 3338 fall into three categories: 

1. Ensuring a fair return to the public on federal coal as required by law, 

2. Reducing the external costs and impacts of coal production, including climate change, but also a host of other 

environmental and socio-economic concerns, and 

3. Determining the future role of federal coal in relation to the nation’s energy supply.

None of these purposes can be achieved through the existing structures for administering the coal program: the 

coal lease by application (LBA) process and the coal producer self-assessment method of collecting royalties. 

Both these systems are the source of the problem of the American people being denied the fair return on coal 

required bylaw. The sources of the problem will not be its solution. 

The LBA system allows companies to determine when, where and in what amounts federal coal can be leased. 

The companies propose small tracts adjacent to existing operations, resulting in more than 90% of leases having 

only one bidder. These non-competitive bids combined with company control of the timing of the leases, and the 

completely closed nature of the bid process produce lease payments consistently below fair market value, 

shortchanging the public by tens of billions of dollars over several decades. (1) 

(1) Tom Sanzillo, “The Great Giveaway: An Analysis of the United States’ Long-Term Trend of Selling Federally 

Owned Coal ro Less Than Fair Market Value, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, 20, (June 

2012). 

The long-term failure of the LBA system to achieve the fair return required by law is sufficient by itself to justify 

including in the scope of the PEIS the development of a new leasing process to replace it. However, it becomes 

absurd to leave in question the need to terminate and replace the LBA process given that it is incompatible with 

the full and effective consideration and mitigation of the public costs of coal production. 

The LBA process allows coal companies to drive the leasing process based upon their own narrow calculus of 

private costs and private benefits—effectively disregarding public costs or benefits. Further, despite court orders 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-438 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

directing broad NEPA analysis of LBA tracts, the company-nominated tracts are simply too small to evaluate 

properly the cumulative external effects of coal mining on the broader environmental, social and economic 

landscape. Thus, in both conceptual and practical terms, lease by application excludes the proper consideration of 

large-scale issues of climate change, public health and other external costs of coal production imposed on society. 

Taking external costs into account adequately will require a new and fundamentally different system of lease 

decision-making, controlled by Interior but informed by active public participation and designed from the outset 

to weigh fully the public costs and benefits of coal production. 

Comment Number: 0002495_Bucks_20160728-3 

Commenter1:Dan Bucks 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Recommendation 2. Interior’s development work on new management systems should place a priority on (a) 

public control of public resources and (b) transparency and public participation. 

The discussion above noted how current systems delegate decision-making to coal producers in ways that 

conflict with achieving the public interest in the management of federal coal. So one principle that Interior should 

apply in designing new management systems is to insure public control of public resources. That means that 

Interior, not the coal producers, should determine when, where and in what amounts coal leasing will occur. It 

also means that Interior, as the Mineral Leasing Act plainly authorizes, should assess directly the value of coal for 

royalty purposes, like a property tax, instead of allowing producers to self-assess the values, like an income tax. 

Compounding the problem of public decisions being over-delegated to private interests is the fact that much of 

this decision-making is secret and hidden from the public. So the public often knows only well after problems 

have occurred the price they paid for the shortcomings of these systems. 

Throughout the history of federal minerals management, secrecy has been the common factor contributing to 

various scandals, crises or chronic failures to fulfill the law. Secrecy facilitated the Teapot Dome bribery scandal 

in the 1920s and the oil royalty in-kind debacle eight decades later. Secrecy, in the form of private recordkeeping 

of production, enabled producers to steal oil from federal lands and Indian reservations in the decades following 

WWII. Keeping minimum coal lease bids secret, combined with the alleged leaking of a minimum bid to some 

producer interests, contributed to the notorious 1982 sale of 1.6 billion tons of Powder River Basin coal at a 

price the GAO determined was 60% below fair market value. To this day, secret minimum bids for coal leases 

continue to facilitate leasing at amounts below market value. Secret royalty returns by coal producers hide from 

the public the royalty values and payments on the coal they own and enables persistent underreporting. 

Another principle Interior should apply in the design of new management systems is to maximize transparency 

and public participation—ending the secrecy that plagues the current system. In general, Interior should allow 

access to information and secure public comment on pending decisions whenever feasible. In particular, that 

means setting minimum bids and lease boundaries in public, taking comment on proposals for both before 

soliciting proposals from the coal producers. It also means establishing the values of coal of different quality, heat 

content and distance for market for royalty purposes based on valid samples of market price data (both public 

and private), with the resulting composite values posted publicly for producers to use in calculating royalty 

payments and for the public to know what they are being paid. In this process, proprietary market price data is 

not released, as will be explained in greater detail later in the report. However, the value that is derived from a 

sample of proprietary data points would be released because that value cannot, in the normal course, be traced 

back to individual sales or producers. The value is a composite number that would be developed by Interior. 

Based on the maxim “sunshine is the best disinfectant,” transparency and public participation obviously improves 

the integrity of and accountability for coal decisions. Further, it enhances public understanding of those decisions. 

There are other benefits as well. The diverse issues Interior considers in coal decision-making involves complex 

information of diverse types, ranging from scientific and financial information to knowledge by citizens of a 

particular landscape or impacts that are occurring. Interior cannot capture through its own resources all of the 

reasonably relevant information that bears on particular decisions. Open processes that solicit ideas, information 

and expertise from the public can be of great aid to decision-making. The United States is an advanced capitalist 

society overflowing with financial expertise and information, including expertise and information about coal. If 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-439

Scoping Report 

Interior established minimum bids for leases through a public process, it would garner the benefit of this 

expertise and knowledge in its decision-making. 

Comment Number: 0002495_Bucks_20160728-5 

Commenter1:Dan Bucks 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

For similar reasons, lease by application is also an obstacle to determining on a public policy basis the extent to 

which federal coal should be supplied in response to the nation’s energy requirements. The Secretarial Order 

suggests the PEIS should examine the role of coal in the nation’s energy supply. (2) It is difficult to see how that 

task could be accomplished if the current system were left in place because LBA effectively allows coal companies 

to answer energy supply issues on their own terms separate from public policy considerations. 

Comment Number: 0002495_Bucks_20160728-7 

Commenter1:Dan Bucks 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Transparency and open participation would also connect Interior with the public they are to serve. Coal 

decisions are made privately with interaction at key points with coal producers whose interest is to minimize 

payments for the coal itself or for mitigating the external impacts of coal production. The current systems cut off 

Interior from the public that wants to help secure a fair return from coal and properly mitigate the public costs of 

its production. These systems are illogical. Privileged access is provided to parties whose interests often conflict 

with the public interest, while those who want to see the public interest served are kept out of the loop at key 

stages of decision-making. Adopting open, public processes of decision-making will logically align decision-making 

with the goals and interests that, under the law, ought be served. 

Finally, the public simply has a right to know about the issues and decisions that affect them. Resource 

management decisions often have major impacts and typically involve choices among public values. The public 

should have access to such decisions as they are being made and not after the fact, when the impacts may not be 

mitigated or their values preserved. 

Comment Number: 0002495_Bucks_20160728-8 

Commenter1:Dan Bucks 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Recommendation 3. Through the PEIS, Interior should develop a transparent and participatory coal planning and 

leasing process that (a) integrates and reconciles energy supply, environmental, social and long-term economic 

issues, (b) mitigates or reduces the public costs of coal production, and (c) secures a fair return for the public in 

lease payments. 

This section and the following one outlines some working ideas for a new public management system that would 

be a focus of consideration during the PEIS. The PEIS could well discover and refine even better ways of applying 

the principles advocated in the prior section. The purpose is certainly not to suggest that these particular ideas 

must be implemented for they are the best of all available options. Rather their purpose is to provide helpful 

starting points for further analysis in the PEIS and to illustrate that it is feasible to adopt systems that conform to 

the principles of “public management in the public interest.”

A new system of coal planning and leasing might well begin with a national analysis of energy supply and demand 

and the largest scale of external effects of coal use and production, especially climate change. The analysis would 

be updated periodically such as every 5 to 7 years and would be subject to public comments as it is conducted. It 

would be relevant to and used to support both the leasing and, as explained in the next section, the royalty 

system. For leasing purposes, this analysis would seek to answer the question, “How much federal coal should be 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-440 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

leased in the foreseeable future?” Answering that question would require addressing subsidiary questions related 

to estimates of the range of coal needed to supply energy demand, methods of minimizing the harmful effects of 

coal through substitution of other fuels or changes in technology for using coal, and other relevant issues. For 

adverse effects of coal production that cannot be eliminated through other means, the analysis could produce 

estimates of changes in royalties to compensate society for the social costs of carbon. 

Once completed, the national analysis would yield a target level of coal to be leased broken down by coal 

production regions along with an accompanying target level of alternative, renewable energy that might be 

developed on federal land. Because the level of future coal production is likely to be less than in the past, Interior 

could also work with other federal agencies and state and local governments to develop strategies to assist coal 

dependent communities and workers in adjusting to changing energy circumstances. The thread of activity related 

to coal communities and workers would also be carried through to the regional and community level as a part of 

mitigating the socioeconomic impacts of the life cycle of federal coal production. 

With the targets for both coal and alternative energy production from federal lands, a public planning process 

could then proceed within each coal production region. The end results of the regional planning process would 

be to prepare plans and boundaries for broad tracts for coal leasing, tracts of federal land for renewable energy 

development and mitigation strategies associated with both. Particular attention could be paid to develop tracts 

for future coal leasing large enough to meet two criteria. The tracts should be large enough to have the potential 

for attracting competitive bids to help attain a fair return for the public. They should also be of sufficient size to 

effectively evaluate the environmental and socioeconomic effects of additional development and develop 

associated mitigation strategies to minimize costs and maximize benefits associated with future development. 

In terms of methodologies, the regional planning process could draw on the policies, strategies and practices 

called for in Secretarial Order 3330, “Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of Interior,” 

issued by Secretary Jewell in October 2013, and in the report of Interior’s Energy and Climate Change Task 

Force of April 2014, “A Strategy for Improving the Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of 

Interior.” Landscape-scale approaches to the development and conservation of resources could be applied as 

much as possible throughout the regional planning process. In addition, strategies that focus on natural resources 

should be supplemented by methods of evaluating how socioeconomic conditions and energy infrastructure in 

the region are affected by coal and alternative energy development. Addressing the needs of coal communities 

and workers and encouraging the efficient common use of energy transmission facilities by multiple sources of 

energy are among the topics that could be addressed in this process. The regional planning would be transparent 

and be assisted by active public participation throughout. 

Interior would need to develop policies and practices around the timing of decisions to offer for leasing planned 

tracts for energy development. Timing decisions are significant for securing a fair return for the public as well as 

effectively implementing mitigation strategies for development. 

Once offered for leasing, Interior should adapt for its use the transparent process used by Montana to lease its 

Otter Creek coal tracts. An appraisal process would yield a proposed minimum bid that would be subject to 

public hearings and comment. After the public process, Interior would decide and announce the minimum bid it 

had set for the tract and would proceed to solicit proposals for leasing. Although bids would be submitted in a 

sealed process, they would be opened and announced publicly. Decisions by Interior to accept bids, along with 

their terms and amounts, would likewise be released publicly. 

This broad outline of public leasing process should be evaluated and refined through the PEIS. The development 

of a public coal planning and leasing process of this type should include: 

· an evaluation of gaps in information sources, 

· the need for new analytical tools to support the process, 

· methods of coordinating the process with other public agencies and levels of government, 

· procedures for effectively securing public participation in the process, and 

· consideration of other tools and practices needed to enable the process to work effectively. 

While the details need to be expanded and improved, this type of planning and leasing process should significantly 

enhance Interior’s ability to secure a fair return on lease sales for the public and minimize external costs on

society from coal development. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-441

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-4 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 4.5 2 8.1 8.7 7.1 8.9 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

2. Just Transition Alternative 

The “Just Transition Alternative” is meant to both wind down the federal coal program in order to keep fossil 

fuels in the ground and to ensure an orderly, effective, and fair transition of workers and communities away from 

coal to more prosperous and sustainable economies. The “Just Transition Alternative” is defined by the following 

key components: 

1. An end to federal coal leasing: Consistent with authorities and discretion under the Mineral Leasing Act, the 

Just Transition Alternative imposes a permanent pause on the leasing of federal coal. The primary basis for 

adopting this permanent pause would be to ensure the protection of the public interest and the interests of the 

United States. Such justification for an end to leasing is clearly supported by the Mineral Leasing Act. 

This pause would apply to all competitive leases (including all leases by application, including emergency leases, as 

defined by 43 C.F.R. § 3425.1-4) and lease modifications. We further believe there is ample justification for 

applying a permanent pause to other forms of non-competitive leasing, such as preference right lease applications 

and lease exchanges. With regards to lease exchanges, the BLM has clear authority to reject exchanges that are 

not in the “public interest.” 43 C.F.R. § 3435.4(a); see also 43 C.F.R. § 3436.0-2(b) (related to alluvial valley floor 

exchanges) and 43 C.F.R. § 2200.0-6 (generally related to exchanges). With regards to preference right lease 

applications, the BLM has the authority to reject such applications where there does not exist “commercial 

quantities” of coal. 43 C.F.R. § 3430.5¬1(a)(1). Given the dismal state of the coal industry and the overwhelming 

climate costs that coal imposes on society, it would be dubious at best to claim that any commercial quantities of 

coal exist where there are preference right lease applications. Accordingly, the BLM has the authority to reject 

such applications. (20) 

Furthermore, to ensure an orderly end to federal coal leasing, the BLM and the Department of the Interior 

should issue a rule or guidance requiring that as land management planning is undertaken pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 

1610, et seq., that all lands within a resource management area that are not currently leased for coal, be made 

unavailable for leasing. The authority to impose such direction is set forth at 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e), which gives 

the BLM broad discretion to “eliminate additional coal deposits from consideration to protect other resource 

values.” 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e)(3). 

(20) The only preference right lease applications that exist are in northwestern New Mexico, where Arch Coal, 

which is currently bankrupt, has the rights to acquire 21,000 acres of leases. Legislation was introduced in the 

U.S. House of Representatives that would allow the Secretary to retire these preference right lease applications. 

See HR-1820, available online at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1820/text. If this 

legislation is passed, there would be no additional preference right lease applications requiring action. We 

support this legislation and urge the Secretary of the Interior to encourage its passage in the U.S. Senate and 

adoption into law. 

Putting a permanent pause on leasing will not destroy the U.S. economy or otherwise endanger our energy 

security. As a recent report looking at leasing in the Powder River Basin found, existing leased reserves in the 

Powder River Basin are sufficient to meet demand and effectively contribute to limiting temperature increases. 

(21) This report is instructive as the Powder River Basin is the largest coal producing region in the United States 

and imposes the greatest influence on energy supply and demand in the nation. If an end to federal leasing can be 

justified in the Powder River Basin, it can be justified for federal leasing elsewhere in the U.S. 

21 See Exhibit 11, Fulton, M., D. Koplow, R. Capalino, and A. Grant, “Enough Already: Meeting 2oC PRB Coal 

Demand Without Lifting the Federal Moratorium,” Report Prepared for Energy Transition Advisors, Earth Track, 

and Carbon Tracker Initiative (July 2016), available online at http://www.carbontracker.org/report/enoughalready-2c-powder-river-basin-coal-demand-federal-moratorium/. 

2. Increased royalty rates and rentals: Coal is exacting a tremendous toll on our nation, costing our society 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-442 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

billions in climate damages, adverse health impacts from air pollution, and water contamination. Royalty rates 

from production on existing coal leases and rentals on existing leases must be increased to begin to recoup the 

costs of these externalities, which are currently shouldered by the public. 

Although royalty rates are normally imposed through new leasing, we recommend that the Interior Department 

and BLM incorporate higher royalty rates into existing leases as existing leases are readjusted pursuant to 43 

C.F.R. § 3451.1. To accomplish this, we urge the amendment of 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-2(a)(1) and (2) to incorporate 

increased royalty rates for both surface and underground mining. As leases are readjusted, these royalty rates 

must be applied to existing leases pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3451.1(a)(2). 

Increasing royalty rates has been recommended by the White House as both a means to generate revenue and 

address the costs of environmental externalities, including carbon costs. (22) 

(22) See Exhibit 12, Executive Office of the President of the United States, “The Economics of Coal Leasing on 

Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers” (June 2016), available online at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160622_cea_coal_leasing.pdf. 

Furthermore, royalty rate reductions should not be approved. Currently, royalty rate reductions are routinely 

granted as companies claim poverty or difficulty in mining with little apparent scrutiny as to whether the 

reductions are justified. In Colorado, for example, BLM officials have approved royalty rate reductions to facilitate 

methane venting and most recently proposed to approve a retroactive royalty rate reduction for a mine that was 

not even producing coal. (23) See Exhibits 13 and 14. 

Similarly, we urge Interior and BLM to amend 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-1(a) to raise rental rates for federal coal leases. 

Currently, rental rates are set at $3.00 per acre, a figure that has not been adjusted since 1979, if not earlier. This 

rental rate not only has failed to be adjusted to account for inflation, but fails to account for the fact that some 

leases may be of small acreage, yet yield significant amounts of coal. Rentals should reflect the value of the lease, 

which depends on the amount of coal a lease contains. In accordance with 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-1(a), any increased 

rental rate must be applied to any readjusted coal lease. 

3. Existing leases that are not producing must be canceled: Where a lease is not meeting continued operation 

requirements under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.1(a)(2), it is subject to cancellation pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3452.2. Where a 

lease is not meeting continued operation requirements, BLM and the Interior Department should make clear that 

cancellation of the lease must be pursued. To this end, discretionary avenues for avoiding cancellation should be 

prohibited. Thus, lease suspensions under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.3 and payment of advanced royalties in lieu of 

continued operation under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.4 should be barred. 

The justification for imposing such direction is very clear. Currently, BLM regularly grants lease suspensions and 

allows payment of royalties in lieu of continued operation with no assessment of whether such actions are 

appropriate or in the public interest. BLM appears to be under the impression that lease suspensions or advanced 

royalties are somehow mandated, and that the agency has no choice but to approve company requests. An 

egregious example of this is with regards to Arch Coal’s Carbon Basin Lease in southern Wyoming (No. WYW139975). Arch acquired this lease with the aim of developing a mine to fuel a proposed coal to liquids facility. 

However, this coal to liquids facility has never materialized or even shown any promise of materializing. Most 

recently, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality terminated the permit for the proposed facility. 

(24) Nevertheless, since 2010, Arch has failed to meet continued operation requirements. The BLM has allowed 

Arch to maintain its lease, however, by routinely allowing the company to pay advanced royalties in lieu of 

continued operation. (25) These decisions appear to be pro forma in nature, and do not reflect any consideration 

as to whether it is appropriate or remotely in the public interest to accept advance royalties in lieu of continued 

operation. 

(24) See Exhibit 15, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, “Permit Termination, Medicine Bow Fuel 

and Power Coal to Liquid Project” (June 27, 2016).

(25) See Exhibit 16. 

Furthermore, where an existing lease is not producing, yet is part of a producing logical mining unit, BLM and the 

Interior Department should use their discretion to modify the boundaries of logical mining units to eliminate the 

non-producing lease and facilitate its cancellation. BLM has such discretion under 43 C.F.R. § 3478.1. 

Cancelling leases that are not producing will serve the goal of preventing any potential future development of 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-443

Scoping Report 

existing leases and contribute to an orderly end to the federal coal program. 

4. Accounting for carbon costs in coal management: It should be made clear, whether through new rules or 

guidance, that carbon costs must be analyzed, assessed and disclosed as federal coal management decisions are 

made. Such decisions are most likely to include mining plan modifications issued pursuant to the Mineral Leasing 

Act, 30 U.S.C. § 207(c), and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (“SMCRA”), 30 C.F.R. § 746, and 

lease readjustments. It is imperative that the BLM and Interior maintain close accounting of the carbon emissions 

and costs resulting from its coal management actions, to ensure full transparency around these emissions and 

costs, and to meaningfully act to address these emissions and costs. Particularly given that, pursuant to authorities 

under the Mineral Leasing Act and SMCRA, the Secretary of the Interior has full discretion to disapprove mining 

plans authorizing the development of leased federal coal, it is imperative that carbon emissions and costs factor 

into and influence such decisionmaking. 

5. Reclamation must be guaranteed: To ensure an orderly end to the federal coal program, full and final 

reclamation must be guaranteed within a reasonable timeframe. We urge two regulatory changes to ensure this 

occurs. 

First, Interior should amend regulations at 30 C.F.R. §§ 816.100 and 817.100 to provide clarification and 

specificity around contemporaneous reclamation. Current rules are vague and fail to ensure that reclamation 

proceeds in a manner that is as “contemporaneously as possible” with mining in accordance with 30 U.S.C. § 

1202(e). These regulations should be amended to make clear that the success of contemporaneous reclamation 

must be measured based on a comparison of Phase III bond release acres, as defined under 30 C.F.R. 

§ 800.40(c)(3), with disturbed acres and ensure that reclamation proceeds at a 1:1 rate, in other words for every 

acre disturbed, one acre should be fully reclaimed to meet Phase III bond release standards. 

Second, just as current BLM rules require diligent development of federal coal, these rules should also require 

diligent reclamation. To this end, Interior and BLM should consider rule changes to ensure that nonproducing 

coal leases are fully reclaimed within two years of failing to meet continued operation requirements and set 

deadlines for the full reclamation of federal coal leases that are no later than 2035. This reclamation deadline 

should be established by rule and incorporated into lease terms as leases are readjusted. 

Finally, Interior should amend self-bonding regulations at 30 C.F.R. § 800.23, and any other regulations, as 

appropriate, to prohibit self-bonding whenever publicly owned coal is permitted to be mined. This will ensure 

that, as coal companies continue their decline, that American public resources are fully protected and fully 

guaranteed to be cleaned up. 

6. Prioritizing transition: Above all, the BLM and Interior must make transition away from coal a foremost goal as 

the federal coal program comes to an end. To do this, the agencies should not only explicitly commit, to the 

extent possible, their leadership, resources, and expertise to ensure that workers and communities receive the 

support and assistance they need to transition to more sustainable and prosperous economies. Among the 

actions that Interior and BLM can and should undertake to ensure transition: 

-Work to secure Congressional authorization to direct increased royalty and rental payments toward worker 

and community support. Under NEPA, agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate 

reasonable alternatives “not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(c). Here, although 

BLM and Interior may not be able to direct royalties toward transition support, they can recommend that 

Congress pass legislation that provides such authorization. 

-Establishing an Economic Transition Fund, which would be sustained by an increase in reimbursement fees 

charged by the Interior Department when processing coal-related applications. Under the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (“FLPMA”), Interior has authority to recover reasonable costs associated with its coal 

management program and to appropriate and spend such monies. Specifically, FLPMA provides the Secretary of 

the Interior with authority to “require a deposit of any payments intended to reimburse the United States for 

reasonable costs with respect to applications,” including coal lease application. See 43 U.S.C. § 1734(b). Such 

payments are “authorized to be appropriated and made available until expended” by FLPMA. Id. Funds from the 

Economic Transition Fund should be directed toward transition-oriented initiatives. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-444 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

-Prioritizing support and assistance to help communities transition. In addition to securing funds and making them 

available, the Department of the Interior can play a key role in helping direct communities to support, steering 

resources to support conservation and research projects in or near communities, encouraging renewable energy 

development on public lands. Such leadership could be conveyed through a Secretarial Order that simply makes it 

an overarching priority of the Interior Department to advance transition 

Overall, the Interior Department and BLM must move to keep our publicly owned coal in the ground. However, 

keeping coal in the ground should not mean that we turn our backs on the workers and communities that have 

been dependent on coal for so long. Embracing an alternative that ensures “Just Transition,” in other a fair, 

compassionate, and orderly transition away from coal, is the most effective way to both protect our climate and 

help our nation effectively move to more sustainable economies and reliable and affordable means of energy 

production. 

Comment Number: 0002503_Hamman_20160729-6 

Organization1:Lignite Energy Council 

Commenter1:Tyler Hamman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The LEC believes that in order to ensure the best return to the taxpayer, the Department needs to analyze the 

leasing program to find ways to streamline leasing and uphold its statutory mandate to manage public resources 

for the greater good. The subtitle of the Mineral Leasing Act explicitly states that it is “an act to promote the 

mining of coal...” and mandates that “no mining operating plan shall be approved which is not found to achieve 

the maximum economic recovery of the coal within the tract[3]” (emphasis added). While the Department might 

maintain that it is adhering to the letter of this and other federal laws to promote federal mineral development, 

the status quo is certainly a gross violation of the spirit of these statutes. 

Coal producers in North Dakota are faced with a years-long and costly analysis process, with little guarantee of 

success or return on investment in pursuing federal coal leases. In addition, with respect to the lignite industry, 

the federal government has limited options to lease coal due to the small number of producers who are able to 

mine the lease. Therefore, the lease-by-application process should run in parallel with resource recovery and 

protection plans, mine plan reviews, and other analysis to expedite the leasing process. Similarly, the federal 

leasing process must work in concert with state permitting agencies to ensure that a mine plan can be 

implemented without years-long delays to lease federal coal parcels within the mine area. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-10

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Timing and size of lease offerings must take into account the need for existing or proposed operations to have an 

adequate reserve base, and the time requirements for leasing and permitting. The ongoing support and funding of 

community, economic, and environmental benefits and programs from existing operations must be considered as 

offsetting positive impacts. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-11

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The leasing process should be streamlined to eliminate the multiple layers of review and approval (resource 

area/state/federal) by establishing mechanisms and systems for internal consultation and cooperation within the 

BLM. This administration has created a streamlined process for review and approval of renewable project 

applications, so it certainly is possible. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-445

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-12

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Other Sections: 4.6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Multiple levels of broad-scope National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review should also be eliminated 

(currently required at the leasing stage - BLM, mine permitting stage - OSMRE, an dthe utility permitting stage - 

Various agencies). Separate analyses of the impacts of each action would be more realistic and appropriate (limit 

"related and connected" actions). 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-9 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Focus lease offerings on tracts adjacent to existing viable operations and potential new operations which are 

positioned to take advantage of existing or proposed transportation and generation infra-structure. 

Comment Number: 0002508_Fields_20160728-2 

Commenter1:Marjorie Fields 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Although leasing was set up for bidding, there is often just one company bidding so it is more of a give-away. 

Comment Number: 0003015_MasterFormN2_WORC-4 

Organization1:Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Creating more transparency, 

Comment Number: 000761_Bucks_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Dan Bucks 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The leasing process itself should be thoroughly transparent. When Montana openly leased its Otter Creek coal 

tracts, it received lease payments more than twice the amount estimated by experts using the BLM valuation 

methodology. The BLM should adopt Montana's open process and should structure the PEIS around its 

anticipated use. 

Comment Number: 0020001_Murnion_20160712-3 

Commenter1:David Murnion 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There needs to be a competitive bidding process on Federal Coal Leases so that the coal is sold for real dollars 

per ton instead of pennies. 

Comment Number: 0020008_Hoem_20160712-5 

Commenter1:Harold Hoem 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Any new coal leases should only be let out if the company can show a demonstrable record of past practices 

conforming to clean air, land and water standards. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-446 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-16

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While the PEIS evaluates the merits of regional leasing versus leasing by individual application, UCARE suggests 

that the BLM act systemically to adjust royalty rates to reflect the per-unit costs of harm to the public from the 

negative externalities resulting from coal development. Alternatively, damage-specific "adder" fees might be 

exacted for individual externality costs. 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-1 

Excerpt Text: 

First, I'd like to state that the current Lease by Application process works very well and is an efficient way for the 

BLM to determine which tracts to delineate for leasing. In the past the BLM attempted to identify tracts they felt 

were good candidates for leasing nominations and wasted time, effort and money to develop interest in tracts 

that mining companies were not interested in mining. Many of these tracts were identified twenty-five (25) years 

ago or more and have lain dormant since then waiting for interest. With the current Lease by Application 

program, only those tracts that have a proponent will undergo the expense to move them forward and there is a 

good history of these tracts moving to leases. 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-14

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is important for the BLM as part of their strategic planning process to determine the nation's needs on BLM 

coal lands and to incent mining companies to mine BLM coal lands so that taxpayers receive income on these 

assets. The BLM or the Department of the Interior should have an obligation to review the expected depletion of 

coal resources in the United States and understand how this might change the need to lease BLM coal lands. 

Minimum levels of leasing activity should be set as guidelines to ensure that there are adequate coal resources 

under lease and actively being mined to keep the nation properly supplied with this key strategic resource and to 

lessen the possibility of damaging energy price spikes such as occurred in the 1970's, 1980, and to some degree in 

the first decade of this new millennium. 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reforms that should be implemented are required time lines for action by the BLM to move the leases forward in 

a timely fashion. If the allotted time passes the process should move forward with the assumption that no further 

input is needed. 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-4 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM's core mission is to maximize returns to taxpayers. In line with this mission, the BLM should be charged 

with ensuring that adequate coal lands have been leased to maintain a reliable supply of this low cost energy for 

the nation's coal fired power plants and future energy needs. This requires a review of the coal under lease to 

active operations and the likelihood that additional economic reserves will be available to these active operations 

to prevent an interruption to this important fuel for the nation's energy security. Should shortfalls which might 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-447

Scoping Report 

potentially interrupt a mine's operations or cause a mining operation to bypass BLM coal lands, an expedited 

process for leasing should be developed to ensure coal lands are not lost due to bureaucratic delays. 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-5 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In my opinion the best way to increase competition for BLM coal leases is to provide a reliable process by which 

proponents can obtain BLM coal. Leasing BLM coal is a very lengthy process without a reliable outcome. This 

adds risks and cost to any mining company that may be interested in the coal lands and will at some point lower 

the value to the BLM 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-6 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reducing up-front costs to those parties interested in leasing coal lands from the BLM might also be a way to 

increase competition. At the moment few companies can afford to acquire BLM coal lands unless there is already 

an active operation adjacent to these lands because of the high cost of entry to develop a new mining operation. 

BLM could consider delaying collection of Bonus Bids until mining is initiated on the leases and allow a royalty 

credit for the capital cost to establish a mining operation on BLM grounds as a means to incent more parties to 

express interest. They could also increase the period of time over which a Bonus Bid must be paid from the 

current 5 years to a greater period such as 7 years or 10 years, or the ability to suspend payments in the event of 

a delay in receiving permits to mine or operate. Additionally, if the Operator is unable to recover the tons 

advertised by the BLM when the tract is bid a refund of the appropriate Bonus Bid amount when the resource is 

better defined and permitted would reduce the risks to the Operator which would incent higher bids. 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-7 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Another means to increase competition might be to open up the lease rate amount as part of the bidding 

process. Currently lease rates are fixed. 

Comment Number: 0020052-11

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Commenter1:Barbara A. Walz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Seeking new ways to simplify the reporting, recordkeeping and administrative burdens for all parties involved; the 

public, the state and federal agencies that implement the program, and the regulated community. 

Comment Number: 0020056_DiClaudio_Bowie-19

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

there are a variety of legislative reforms that should further be analyzed. These include: 

Bonus Bid Reform for Maintenance Tracts 

Bonus bids under competitive leasing are required under the FCLAA, and are intended to: (a) provide a 

mechanism for choosing among qualified bidders, (b) incentivize diligence in production, and (c) compensate 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-448 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

taxpayers for the disposition of federal natural resources. Diligence is independently achieved by the federal 

diligence regulations and requirements, and taxpayers can be equally or more effectively compensated by 

payment of federal royalties. Bonus bids were also an effective tool in the 1970s when there were more frequent 

greenfield coal mine starts, and remain useful for any future greenfield proposals. 

Comment Number: 0020056-10

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Third, the PEIS should examine more express and firm deadlines for the various steps in lease processing, 

including NEPA proceedings. Presently, the only deadlines are various statutory and regulatory minimums. There 

are very few maximums. Consequently leasing processes can drift for months or years, only coming to a head 

when the applicant is approaching a supply crisis. Firmer regulatory timelines will not only greatly facilitate 

planning by the mine operators, they will assist the Department of Interior ( Department ) in securing necessary 

appropriations to adequately staff the BLM and other offices to meet those deadlines. At this stage of scoping 

Bowie will not propose any specific timelines for any particular steps in leasing, but simply requests that this be an 

express subject of analysis, discussion, and recommendation in the PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0020056-14

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Moreover, bonus bids serve no selection function when there is only one bidder, which is the norm for 

maintenance tracts. Consequently, the Secretary should evaluate abandoning bonus bids for maintenance tracts, 

and instead employ an adjusted revenue-neutral royalty schedule for those tracts. Shifting taxpayer compensation 

to royalties would significantly streamline the leasing process, ensure that taxpayers are more attuned to market 

conditions, and reduce the administrative burden on the BLM and Office of Natural Resources Revenue. 

Comment Number: 0020056-18

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal leasing takes too long, and is taking ever longer. For example, the applications for the proposed 

federal coal leases examined Wright Area Environmental Impact Statement were submitted in the years 2005-

2006. The first lease sale of the leases did not occur until 2011. Leasing takes even longer under lands 

administered by the United States Forest Service. For example, Bowie submitted the application for the Greens 

Hollow lease tract in 2005. As of this writing, a BLM Record of Decision for the Greens Hollow tract has not yet 

issued, much less a lease sale. 

Comment Number: 0020056-20

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the Secretary should request more precise guidance from Congress on general leasing targets within the proven 

Lease-by-Application system. In that way the legislative and executive policies toward federal coal leasing can be 

better harmonized 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-449

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0020056-4 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

NMA accurately describes the problems associated with rigid, centralized coal leasing. As suggested in Order 

3338, one of the drivers for re-consideration of lease sale scheduling appears to the leasing model employed for 

oil and gas leases. However, coal leasing is fundamentally different from oil and gas leasing. Oil and gas leasing is 

inherently about exploration, with wide lease-to-lease variation in whether significant exploitable reserves will be 

discovered, when they can be brought to market, and the rates that will make sense under current market 

conditions. In that environment, regular, systematic lease sales are an efficient development mechanism. In 

contrast, federal coal leasing typically occurs with relatively better quality information about the coal reserve, in 

the context of maintenance tracts intended to sustain production at an existing mine. Moreover, coal mines are 

far more capital-intensive than oil and gas drill rigs. An oil and gas lease is essentially about the location and 

development of a petroleum reserve; a coal lease is typically about the continued operation of an entire coal 

mine. It is thus that mine s specific status and needs that determine the appropriate timing and size of coal leasing, 

and there is no evidence that such assessment can be performed as well by federal committee as by the mining 

industry. 

Comment Number: 0020056-6 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Long leasing times have significant environmental and economic consequences. On the economic side, lengthy 

leasing processes increase administrative costs and require applicants to propose larger leases so as to ensure 

that leased reserves are not exhausted by the lime the next round of leasing, permitting, and mine planning can 

be completed. This requires greater up-front bonus bid submissions, and longer times before that capital can be 

recovered. Economic pressure from large capital overhangs is one significant factor in the distress currently 

experienced by the coal industry. Quicker leasing would allow the issuance of smaller, more efficient lease tracts, 

allowing the industry to be nimbler in responding to economic trends and the needs of their utility and industrial 

customers. 

Comment Number: 0020056-7 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Slow leasing and large leases also have environmental consequences. The greater the gap between lease 

application and lease issuance, the more likely that environmental analyses will require updating by both BLM and 

later OSMRE in mine planning, causing further delays. Similarly, large leases inhibit the ability of the mining 

companies and regulators to respond to developing environmental information. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-10

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM must disclose the absurdity of the belief that they can guarantee competition in the leasing process through 

rulemaking. Instead BLM must assure that the current rules do not discourage competition. In fact, BLM must 

reach the conclusion that their determination of an undisclosed fair market value actually works as competition, 

driving bids up to ensure this threshold is met or exceeded. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-450 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-11

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM must consult their files for compliance with the regulatory citations above to reveal that any attempts to 

engage in speculation have been properly dealt with. BLM also needs to review their lease records regarding 

diligent development to conclude that diligence has occurred in the vast majority of leases, and where it has not, 

the proper remedies were applied. In short, the BLM needs to conclude and to publish the findings that the 1976 

statutory fixes to speculation were successful. Further fixes are unnecessary. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-12

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

1. The federal coal leasing program is a rigorous, cumbersome, very lengthy, and therefore a very costly program 

that sets a high bar for those who would choose to participate. 

The federal coal leasing program requires considerable capital to participate thereby discouraging some 

otherwise interested and qualified companies from participating. Participation requires up-front investments of 

millions-to-over a billion dollars for significant periods of time before a return is ever realized. This severely limits 

the number of entities interested in or even capable of participating in the program. 

Leasing federal coal is only one piece of a much larger program that is designed to provide a financial return on 

the coal to the American taxpayer. For the American taxpayer to realize the full value of the coal, it must be not 

only leased, but also mined and sold. In Wyoming, for example, it can typically take five to seven years to 

successfully acquire a lease for federal coal. At the point of being identified as the successful lessee, a bidder on 

federal coal will have invested millions of dollars with no return on the investment. At least another three-to-five 

years are still required to obtain permits and other authorizations before the coal can actually be mined and sold. 

During those “permitting” years the mining company will invest many millions more, with no return.

By the time the first ton of coal is authorized to be mined, at least ten years will have typically passed. The coal 

lessee will have invested a staggering sum of money including the bonus bid on the lease. So the American 

taxpayer will have begun to realize a return on the resource, but the coal lessee will not have realized any return 

on the enormous investment. 

The size of this investment is critical. On a lease of 500 million tons of coal (for example), the investment when 

the final permit is issued could be in excess of $650 million. Most of that is in the form of the lease bonus bid 

which gets distributed to the federal government and the affected state. There are not too many companies that 

are willing to risk an investment of that magnitude for at least ten years, with no near-term return on the 

investment. 

Moreover, the size of the lease, and therefore the size of the investment, is a function of the time it takes to 

acquire the next lease. If it takes 10 years to navigate through the leasing/permitting process, a company must 

always ensure it has more than 10 years of reserves in order to survive the uncertainties of the program. In other 

words, because of the length of time it takes to negotiate the process, few entities can afford to participate. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-451

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-13

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If, the BLM concludes that the foregoing explanation requires fixing, then the BLM must also conclude that 

increasing royalties or fair market value of the coal will not be the fix to the absence of competitiveness. In fact, 

the BLM should conclude that increasing royalties or fair market value will further exacerbate the perceived 

problem. Instead the agency needs to evaluate ways to dramatically cut the elapsed time between applying for a 

lease and obtaining all authorizations to mine the coal. This will have the added benefit of accelerating the full 

return on the resource to the American taxpayer. 

To reduce the elapsed time, BLM must consider the consolidation of leasing and permitting processes into the 

hands of fewer agencies. They must evaluate means for eliminating the overlapping requirements and redundant 

processes. And finally they must consider revising processes that have become attractive as delay tactics by those 

opposed to coal leasing and mining. Too much of the process today serves not to enhance the leasing process, 

but instead to facilitate unending delay to the process at increasing cost to the American taxpayer. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-14

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The cost of obtaining a federal coal lease represents only a portion of the investment required to mine coal. In 

order to mine coal for commercial purposes, an operator needs access to mining, processing, maintenance and 

transportation facilities, equipment and personnel. This means hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in 

facilities, equipment and employees. 

Taken in combination with the cost of the coal, these up-front investments represent the billion-dollar ante 

required to participate in the federal coal leasing process. 

The majority of this ante occurs prior to mining a single ton of the coal in a new proposed lease tract. The 

significance of this is not only the sheer magnitude of the investment, but also the risk associated with the 

investment. This may be the greatest fact that limits the number of entities who may have the desire to 

participate in the process. It also discourages speculation in federal coal leases, contrary to claims in recent 

articles on this subject. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-3 

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current leasing model accomplishes what it set out to do. While there may be other ideas that will be 

considered, BLM needs to first evaluate the efficacy of the charges and allegations that have led to this 

moratorium and programmatic evaluation. WMA contends that the current model is suitable and flexible enough 

to address any legitimate concerns that have been voiced, but that most of the issues and concerns are not 

legitimate with regard to leasing. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-4 

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-452 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The fact is that no protections were lost and no opportunities or control were given away by the Department of 

Interior when they transitioned from the regional leasing process to the lease by application process. Critics who 

make this claim today cannot cite any facts to support their position. In this scoping process, BLM should evaluate 

and confirm that the two processes have very similar requirements. Moreover, BLM should evaluate the 

Wyoming State BLM Office coal leasing program. You will find that this state office has configured their coal 

leasing program precisely as the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 and subsequent rulemakings 

intended. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-6 

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Competition in the leasing process is a function of many factors that fall completely outside the purview of the 

BLM. To believe that BLM can guarantee competition through rule-making is absurd, suggesting the BLM 

somehow controls or has sufficient influence over the national and international coal markets, coal 

transportation, coal sales and so forth. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-7 

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

By definition and rule, the American taxpayer receives a fair return (fair market value or above) on the resource 

whether there is one bid or many bids. What the BLM can do in their rules is to assure that the rules governing 

the U.S. federal coal leasing process do not discourage competition or coal production. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-8 

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Current BLM rules have requirements which were designed to prohibit speculation in the federal coal leasing 

process. This is seen in the rules at 43 CFR Subpart 3483 which require and quantify diligent lease development. 

Claims that the United States coal industry speculates with federal coal leases have no factual basis, and the BLM 

does not need a moratorium or a 3-year evaluation to reach that conclusion. The BLM’s scoping report should 

confirm this fact. 

Comment Number: 000001239_ RECKLE_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Eric Reckle 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I think that the auctioning off of leases should be that. It should be an auction with two or more people doing it --

companies doing it. But, somehow we have to get that out there. We can't just let one company -- because then, 

it's not an auction. See, it's just one company giving you some money - - the BLM some money. I think there has 

to be some way -- I don't know how -- to make it a legal auction so we get the most money out of it for the 

communities that will be affected. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-453

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 000001243_ COMPTON _Utah Mining Association _20160623-5 

Organization1:Utah Mining Association 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Commenter Type: Trade Group 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It's difficult to see how the Interior Department or the American taxpayer is harmed by at least proceeding with 

pending lease applications. The leasing process involves public comment. Environmental stipulations can and are 

added to lease terms and conditions. And the process includes competitive bidding and confirmation that the bid 

accepted meets fair market value. 

Comment Number: 000001243_ COMPTON _Utah Mining Association _20160623-7 

Organization1:Utah Mining Association 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Unnecessary delays in the leasing process certainly do not result in a fair return to the taxpayer.I believe that 

public interest is served by policies that keep Federal coal available and competitive in the marketplace. The 

results of doing so: More revenues,high rates job creation in communities through the supply chain, and low-cost 

reliable electricity for everyone. 

Comment Number: 000001249_ WILSON_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Ryan Wilson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the BLM is truly working for ways to improve their leasing program, then approve the timeliness of this 

process. 

Comment Number: 000001249_ WILSON_20160623-4 

Commenter1:Ryan Wilson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I propose that the leasing process be based on time limitations. There should be a set number of days for each 

step in the process. To start with -- losing my spot. To start with, the recent process from the time the tract is 

nominated to the time the lease sell is held should take no longer than three years. The NEPA process from the 

Notice of Intent to the final EIS should take at a maximum a year and a half. The fair market value needs to be 

completed within a month's time. All notices required to be published in the Federal Register cannot be bounced 

from desk to desk. Instead, notices should be published within a week of any decision being made. These 

timelines are not unreasonable. 

Comment Number: 000001250_ SEGO_20160623-4 

Commenter1:Jeff Sego 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It currently takes eight to nine years to get a lease approved. Secretary Jewell's poor decision could easily put 

that out 10 to 12 years. If you want to review and legitimate fix a problem in the Coal Leasing Program, fix that. 

The timeframe to get a lease and the cost incurred is shameful. 

Comment Number: 000001257_Petersen_20160623-4 

Organization1:Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado 

Commenter1:Bonnie Petersen 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-454 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

[Indiscernible] concerns rates regarding lack of competitors for Federal lease bids. That's a function of pricing on 

private land leases. Those leases are less expensive than Federal land leases. That impacts the number of 

companies willing to bid on Federal leases. 

Comment Number: 000001290_Bruckner_20160623-2 

Organization1:Sustainable Business Development Strategies 

Commenter1:Kristi Disney Bruckner 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

My testimony will focus on one aspect of this report -- the need to involve local community stakeholders in longterm planning structures, particularly in planning strategies to manage economic transition at the end of the life of 

a mine. And all mines do, at some point, come to an end. SDSG is an accredited validator for the extractive 

industry's transparency initiative and also conducts assessments for governments under the intergovernmental 

forum on mining minerals, metals, and sustainable developments. These initiatives work toward greater 

transparency of revenue in the mineral sector, but also work to maximize social and economic benefits that may 

result from the wealth created by the sector. We've learned many lessons through this and other work. But, 

some of the key themes include the following. First, social and economic planning must be integrated into the 

mine permitting process and should include ongoing consultation with local community stakeholders. Social and 

economic impacts must be addressed on the same level as environmental impacts and should be part of an 

integrated environmental and social impact assessment and management plan. Second, community stakeholders 

must be consulted in the development of mine closure plans and activities. Mine closure planning should begin 

early in the life of the mine and should include plans for post-closure economic transition for mining 

communities. Third, government revenue for mining is optimized when managed at the local level by multistakeholder Boards with expenditures based on long-term objectives and ongoing consultation with local 

communities. 

Comment Number: 000001293_Porter_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Aaron Porter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The other thing is that's been brought up is that sometimes you'll only have one bid on a piece of -- on a lease 

that's right next to an existing coal mine. Well, the fact is is that it costs something like $450 million dollars to 

start a new mine. So, if you're going to lease it right next to an existing mine, most operators aren't going to be 

able to start up a new mine. So, you've already got a mine right next door. They're the ones that bid on it. And 

that's the way it goes. 

Comment Number: 000001294_Peterson_20160623-5 

Organization1:GCC Energy 

Commenter1:Trent Peterson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

there really needs to be 

something done with leasing reform to streamline the leasing process and NEPA requirements. And as was said 

earlier, impose strict time limits to the stages of the application process. Right now the company I work for is 

looking at a, a [indiscernible] that's been in process for five and a half years. And now it's on hold for three more 

because of the coal moratorium. If it doesn't meet the exemption qualifications, it's going to cost real 

[indiscernible] before the Programmatic EIS is done. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-455

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00001276_Bear_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Bill Bear 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I would specifically like to see the PEIS address the cumulative impacts of the Coal Leasing Program. Specifically, 

the impacts of lack of leasing and restricting to -- restrictions of leasing. 

Comment Number: 0000731_Ranii_20160628-2 

Commenter1:Mary Ranii 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I'm encouraging the BLM to make this pause on new leases on public lands permanent and to consider revoking 

leases on existing coal projects on public lands that do not meet strict land health, environmental and safety 

standards. 

Comment Number: 0000733_Szybist_NRDC_20160628-1 

Organization1: natural resources defense council 

Commenter1:Mark Szybist 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

NRDC believes that America's federal lands and waters are a nation's commons to be managed 

for the common good of all Americans. In the 21st century that does' not include coal leasing 

that scars our landscapes and hinders the crucial shift to clean energy. We support a phase out 

of fossil fuel leases on federal lands starting with a phase out of new leases and no renewal of 

non-producing leases. 

Comment Number: 0000733_Szybist_NRDC_20160628-2 

Organization1: natural resources defense council 

Commenter1:Mark Szybist 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BlM should be in firm control of when, where and how coal federal coal is leased, not coal companies as is 

currently the case. The agency should only lease when: 

• It can ensure areas for lease are low conflict and away from important wildlife, water, air, and protected lands. 

Also that coal mine methane is captured. 

• Coal companies have demonstrated less than l0-years of reserves available 

• Coal Companies meet measurable and enforceable standards for reclaiming mined lands. The scope of the 

review should be expanded to include OSM 

• Taxpayers will get a fair return for coal sold. That means cutting out captive transactions, substantially raising 

minimum bids, and eliminating royalty rate reductions. 

Comment Number: 0000842_Mantell_WildernessSociety-1 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Joshua Mantell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Number one, we are currently leasing coal at the behest of companies and the coal industry. We need federal 

land managers and experts to be in charge of where, when and how we lease coal 

Comment Number: 0000842_Mantell_WildernessSociety-3 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-456 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Joshua Mantell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Three, the impacts of coal on the land, water, local communities and our climate are not being accounted for at 

any point during the leasing process. These impacts should be accounted for and mitigated before a lease is 

approved. 

Comment Number: 0000845_Lyon_NWF-2 

Organization1:Naitonal Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the leasing application process is neither competitive nor strategic, and as we know the 12 and a half percent 

royalty is woefully below fair market. The study found that coal leases have attracted only one bidder at rocks 

bottom prices. Recently the Council of Economic Advisors reported that companies used questionable loophole. 

As Larry just pointed out, we just lost $30 billion in royalty rates. So a future program must ensure that these 

sites are competitive bids, royalties must be at fair market and close loopholes. 

Comment Number: 0000854_Doyon_20160628-4 

Commenter1:MIchelle Doyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Finally, BLM has a choice in whether or not to approve proposed coal leases and should base their decisions on 

the public interests, the administration's climate objectives and how severe the project's environmental and 

climate consequences are. 

ISSUE 5.6 - COAL BONDING 

Total Number of Submissions: 64 

Total Number of Comments: 75 

Comment Number: 0000010_Swingle_20160526_Oral-4 

Commenter1:Rocky Swingle 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reevaluating whether the practice of "self-bonding" adequately protects taxpayers. When companies like Peabody 

declare bankruptcy, self-bonding funds are put in jeopardy and ultimately the public will fund what the companies 

should be paying for. 

Comment Number: 0000012_Morales_20160526_Oral-2 

Commenter1:Patrick Morales 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

End self-bonding and require a deposit equal to 2x expected income by coal company. 

Comment Number: 0000014_Bicknese_20160526-1 

Commenter1:Erin Bicknese 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I'd also like to ask BLM to review bonding regulations and eliminate the use of self bonding by coal companies. As 

these companies go bankrupt, they are leaving us, the American people, to pay for the damage done 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-457

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000157_ PRATT _20160517-1 

Commenter1:Jack Pratt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And, finally, because coal companies had the ability to selfbond or self-insure, the government and taxpayers will 

be left with the bill. If all of the four U.S. coal companies go under, taxpayers will be left with a $2 billion to $3 

billion -- that's with a "B" -- price tag to clean up the reclamation and the abandoned mines. How would this fare 

to taxpayers? Every American has to have car insurance to drive a car. Why shouldn't the coal companies have to 

be insured the same way? 

Comment Number: 00000158_ FRENCH_20160517-3 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Kate French 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

All over the West, the dismal rate of reclamation takes its toll on state and local coffers as well. In Wyoming, 

where self-bonding is allowed, known to recently bankrupt coal companies seem to be able to pay it for the 

cleanup that was basically insured by the self-bonding process. And taxpayers are the ones who are forced to pay 

for this burden. 

Comment Number: 00000163_ MORALES_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Patrick Morales 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And in self-bonding of coal facilities and require a cash bond based on an injective cost analysis of cleanup and 

reclamation of each individual mine, with the primary signature from those mining companies being the -- coming 

from the CFO and CEO regarding that contract to hold them legally liable if they fail to meet their requirements. 

Comment Number: 00000171_ BLANTON_20160517-3 

Commenter1:Teri Blanton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The review should also reexamine the practice of self-bonding as well as under-bonding in light of recent 

bankruptcies of "too big to fail" corporations walking away from responsibilities of reclamation. And the practice 

of bond forfeitures where bonds do not adequately reflect cleanup. Full-cost bonding is desperately needed. 

Comment Number: 00000176_ TORP_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Christian Torp 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Furthermore, there is an estimated $3.6 billion, that is billion with a "b," in outstanding self-bonded reclamation 

liability in the U.S. 

Comment Number: 00000185_ BICKNESE_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Erin Bicknese 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I would also like to ask BLM to review the bonding regulations and eliminate the use of self-bonding by coal 

companies. When these companies go bankrupt, which they do, they are leaving us, the American people, to pay 

for the damage 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-458 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000186_ GELLERT_20160517-3 

Commenter1:Paul Gellert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I think we need to consider the risks of the bankruptcy and self-bonding issues. It poses a severe risk to 

reclamation efforts, and it may cost the U.S. taxpayer more than we gain through the leasing program. 

Comment Number: 0000067_Laresche_20160517-3 

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Commenter1:Bob Laresche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Third, reclamation requirements must be completely revised and rigidly enforced so that water and land quickly 

are returned to their original best uses truly contemporaneously with mining. Self-bonding, which removes all 

incentive for timely reclamation and puts taxpayers at risk when corporations file bankruptcy, must be totally 

eliminated. 

Comment Number: 0000072_Tully_20160517-6 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Tom Tully 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Because the rate of reclamation of the coal mines in the West lags behind the rate of mining, ensure first the 

bonding is adequate for reclamation and the successful reclamation is completed or well under way before leasing 

more coal 

Comment Number: 0000076_Pfister_20160517-2 

Organization1:Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The easy profitable coal has been mined in the last 40 years at a much faster rate than was initially anticipated 

when leasing began in earnest. The funds to reclaim the mines should be available, but apparently they are not. I 

could foresee something happening under OSM's aegis where the self-bonded material is sold to satisfy the 

debtors. The State of Wyoming may decide that the debt for reclamation is too big for it to handle, and then 

BLM would could wind up with their leases with just a big hole in the ground. And there's no way you're going to 

multiple-use those holes. BLM should not grant any more coal leases until reclamation is caught up with on the 

leases.

Comment Number: 0000077_Penfold_20160517-2 

Organization1:BLM 

Commenter1:Mike Penfold 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need to have stronger bonding. We need to have reclamation. Only 14 percent of the land we lease coal for 

has been reclaimed that's been mined. Strengthen bonding, you just have to get that. 

Comment Number: 0000085_Kresich_ 20160517-2 

Organization1:Yellowstone Bend Citizens Council 

Commenter1:Joan Kresich 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-459

Scoping Report 

For fairness to American citizens and taxpayers for creating revenue for coal communities to make the transition 

for reclamation for addressing climate change, I hope you'll consider making coal companies pay fair market value 

for our public coal. 

Comment Number: 0000086_Bean_ 20160517-2 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Larry Bean 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The bonding requirements should be reviewed to ensure there's adequate funds. The very concept of selfbonding provides absolutely no confidence to the public that the reclamation will actually be completed. Schedule 

bond releases to be set up so that there's always plenty of financial incentive to pursue reclamation to the very 

end. 

Comment Number: 0000093_Barteaux_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Wendy Barteaux 

Other Sections: 8.9 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Institute a minimum bid. Don't allow self-bonding and require coal companies to reclaim old and current leases 

before buying new leases. Promising to pay for reclamation currently disturbed lands with future supposed profits 

constitutes a Ponzi scheme. 

Comment Number: 0000099_Wilbert_ 20160517-2 

Commenter1:Kim Wilbert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Second, the rule has to be written to not allow coal corporations to self-bond their future mine reclamation 

costs. 

Comment Number: 0000565-3 

Organization1:Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Commenter1:Bob LeResche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

RECLAMATION REOUIREMENTS MUST BE COMPLETELY REVISED AND RIGIDLY ENFORCED, SO THAT 

WATER AND LAND ARE QUICKLY RETURNED TO THEIR ORIGINAL BEST USES-TRULY 

CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH MINING. "SELF-BONDING," HAS REMOVED ALL INCENTIVE FOR TIMELY 

RECLAMATION AND PUT TAXPAYERS AT RISK WHEN CORPORATIONS HIDE BEHIND BANKRUPTCY 

LAWS. SELF-BONDING MUST BE TOTALLY ELIMINATED, AS PROPOSED IN SEN. CANTWELL'S BILL 

Comment Number: 0000621-1 

Commenter1:Marc Thomas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Mining companies have an obligation to buy insurance to cover the cost of cleanups. But Congress has allowed 

some of the supposedly more financially secure coal producers to "self bond", meaning they promise to pay for 

cleanups themselves. But "self-bonding" failures can hurt taxpayers and cleanup site residents for years, just like in 

Moab, as mining companies file for bankruptcy or spend their dwindling dollars elsewhere trying to stay afloat. 

No wonder a recent congressional estimate puts the nation's unattended cleanup liabilities at $3.6 billion. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-460 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000769_Cascade_Great Old Broads_20160623-2 

Organization1:Great Old Boards for Wilderness 

Commenter1:Robyn Cascase 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

3. Reform self-bonding and reclamation requirements on leases to ensure money will be available to properly 

close sites. The current system has resulted in over 3.6 billion dollars of outstanding reclamation costs that will 

fall to taxpayers, and 

Comment Number: 0000827-2 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Sarah Bates 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

No new leases until self-bonding is banned and surety bonds are in place to ensure complete reclamation. 

Comment Number: 0001102_CONSTANTINE_KingCnty_20160621-2 

Organization1:King County 

Commenter1:Dow Constantine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At the same time, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement estimates that there is an over $3.6 

billion outstanding self-bonded reclamation liability in the United States. 

Comment Number: 0001148-3 

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Commenter1:Bob LeResche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

reclamation requirements must be completely revised and rigidly enforced so that water and land are quickly 

returned to their original best uses truly contemporaneously with mining. Self-bonding has removed all incentive 

for timely reclamation and put taxpayers at risk when corporations hide behind the bankruptcy laws. Self-bonding 

must be totally eliminated as proposed in Senator Cantwell's recent bill. 

Comment Number: 0001170-2 

Organization1:Earth Ministry 

Commenter1:Jessie Dye 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

think the self-insurance system of coal companies for restoration and reclamation is sinful. I would use that word 

because it's vague, it's manipulative. They do not actually have the money to restore the land after they bankrupt 

out of it. So I ask you to change that. 

Comment Number: 0002009_CenterBioDiversity_20160329-7 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We also urge you to undertake additional near-term reforms to ensure the integrity of long-term federal coal 

reform efforts and to demonstrate to the American public the Administration's commitment to success. These 

near-term reforms must, at a minimum, include: A suspension of all self-bonding under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act where mines are extracting coal from federal leases pending the completion of the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-461

Scoping Report 

programmatic environmental impact statement. With large coal companies either filing for bankruptcy or nearing 

bankruptcy, it is critical that Interior take immediate steps to protect the American taxpayer and suspend its 

approval of any self-bonding involving the mining of federal coal4 The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement is empowered to exercise oversight with regards to the mining of federal coal, even where states 

have delegated authority. This oversight authority must be exercised to secure actual surety bonds or other real 

reclamation guarantees during the pendency of the programmatic environmental impact statement. 

Comment Number: 0002081_Inouye_20160626-5 

Organization1:University of Maryland 

Commenter1:David Inouye 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Although restoration of abandoned coal mines is possible, please keep in mind that taxpayers are being forced to 

assume financial responsibility of many of these efforts as owners of existing coal leases declare bankruptcy or go 

out of business. BLM needs to assure that funding of restoration efforts will be guaranteed by future lessors of 

coal resources. 

Comment Number: 0002099_Notkin_20160611-3 

Organization1:KnowWho Services 

Commenter1:Debbie Notkin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

whether “self-bonding” is a gift to coal companies at taxpayers; expense

Comment Number: 0002103_Phillips_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Thomas Phillips 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ensures that when the existing coal mines close, the coal companies pay for the cleanup and not the US taxpayers 

Comment Number: 0002116_Sharp_20160626-2 

Commenter1:Margaret Sharp 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Self bonding isn’t working as a way to guarantee that coal companies are held responsible for repairs made to the 

damage cause by coal mining 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-11

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Professor Mark Squillace started the panel with a presentation about reclamation liabilities under the Surface 

Mining Control & Reclamation Act (SMCRA). SMCRA requires companies to restore the area (including soils, 

hydrologic conditions, and all other resource values) to pre-mining conditions, which is a very costly endeavor. 

SMCRA also requires performance bonds to ensure the clean-up will take place, but it allows companies to selfbond. Regulatory criteria for self-bonding are relatively stringent, but still not enough to provide a real financial 

assurance that 

the companies will be able to reclaim the land. One key problem is that the the Office of Surface Mining, 

Reclamation & Enforcement (OSMRE) has allowed parent companies that aren’t eligible for self-bonding to meet 

SCRMA requirements by creating a subsidiary company that is eligible for self-bonding. When the parent 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-462 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

company goes bankrupt, the subsidiary does as well. Professor Squillace concluded by noting that there are some 

enforcement activities going on right now: compelled by complaints by WildEarth Guardians, OSMRE has issued 

notices to states re: violations of SMCRA, but the states have responded alleging that there is no violation, 

and OSMRE has not yet taken further action. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-13

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

During the discussion, the panelists agreed that OSMRE’s decision to strengthen the self-bonding regulations 

might help address some of these problems – particularly if OSMRE required regulators to act more like private 

financial institutions when deciding whether companies should be eligible to self-bond. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-9 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

He also discussed how the problems with self-bonding became apparent in bankruptcy proceedings, citing the 

Alpha Natural bankruptcy as an example. Regulators had allowed Alpha to self-bond over $650 million of its 

reclamation obligations in West Virginia and Wyoming. The same regulators eventually agreed to a bankruptcy 

reorganization plan in which Alpha was allowed to split into two companies, one with its most valuable assets and 

other with remaining high liability assets and no clear plan as to how it will satisfy its reclamation obligations 

(some money was set aside for reclamation, but not enough to cover all of the costs). Morgan said that the 

regulators reached this agreement because they were “negotiating with a gun to their head” – that is, the threat 

of Alpha filing for Chapter 7 liquidation and all of the costs going to the public. 

Comment Number: 0002269_Holubec_20160715-9 

Commenter1:Allen Holubec 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Bonding 

i. Self-bond – do away with this, this enables the companies not to have a pot in the game using “funny 

accounting” 

ii. Use outside bonding company only 

e. Require concurrent reclamation 

f. Operator may get bond money back for achieving stages of reclamation 

1. 50% of bond returned for final grading (including topsoil) 

2. 25% of bond back for planting 

3. 25% of bond held for the mine until 5 planting seasons have been achieved AND positive vegetation growth 

has been achieved 

Comment Number: 0002276_Henderson_20160715_350Colorado-4 

Organization1:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Commenter1:Gina Hardin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal producers must be required to post real bonds as insurance guarantees to cover real anticipated costs of 

land reclamation, cleanup, and environmental remediation. The practice of "self-bonding" by companies must be 

ended. Self-bonding assumes that coal companies will act in good faith to fulfill promises and obligations to clean 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-463

Scoping Report 

up. However, with recent trends and bankruptcies in the coal industry, coal companies cannot be relied on to 

fulfill promises and obligations; either clean-up will not happen, or taxpayers will bear billions of dollars in toxic 

and contaminated mine cleanup costs. Self-bonding has continued even when coal companies lack the assets to 

cover anticipated cleanup costs. For example, shortly before Peabody Energy filed bankruptcy, Wyoming reduced 

Peabody’s cleanup obligation by $138 million, thus ensuring that taxpayers will bear cleanup costs. Reforms need 

to end this flagrant subsidy to coal producers and its consequences. 

Comment Number: 0002276_Henderson_20160715_350Colorado-7 

Organization1:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Commenter1:Gina Hardin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

• Reform the bonding process to ensure bonds are adequate to cover the remediation necessary, and fully up-todate 

o Self-bonding should be prohibited as this practice has been and is being abused by companies 

o No leniency on reclamation bonds should be allowed due to bankruptcy or poor market conditions; the public 

should not take on the risks a company takes in the course of business 

• Use the BLM National Operations Center to assist BLM Offices and local communities in understanding the 

transition away from coal based economies, in finding grants and other resources that can help to mitigate 

economic/social impacts, and dealing with negative or hostile reactions 

• Place a “community reclamation” bond or a trust fund for community redevelopment to be used after a mine 

closes 

• In creating this bond, the company should consider ways to ensure communities do not rely solely on the mine 

for economic stability (contrary to historical coal mining practices) 

Comment Number: 0002278_Wynn_20160717-3 

Commenter1:Ralph Wynn 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The holding of bonds by the coal companies for reclaiming mined lands, "selfbonding", is not a satisfactory means 

of assuring compliance with adequate reclamation of the devastation done to the land and the surrounding 

communities. It is too easy for any company to simply walk away from such an obligation as part of a declared 

bankruptcy. A better, externally monitored and assured, method of adequate amounts of money being set aside 

should be included in future lease agreements. 

Comment Number: 0002298_Gordon_20160720-1 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

One report has the “self­bonding” deficit at $3.6 billion. In the PEIS, make a scope that includes a requirement 

that the coal company have the funds for reclamation set aside in an account that can not be touched by the coal 

company before the lease is given out. 

Comment Number: 0002304_McIntosh_20160720-2 

Commenter1:Tom McIntosh 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

proper and sufficient bonds/guarantees for reclamation of mines 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-464 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002330_Hartman_20160726-1 

Commenter1:John Hartman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I think it is criminal that the coal companies have been allowed to self bond their mines, and have been allowed to 

self report their production for decades. 

Comment Number: 0002391-4 

Commenter1:Tom Tully 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

4) Ensure that bonding is adequate for reclamation, and that successful reclamation is completed or well under 

way before leasing more coal. 

Comment Number: 0002392-2 

Commenter1:Mary Fitzpatrick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

All over the west, the dismal rate of reclamation takes a toll on state and local coffers, as well as land health and 

wildlife. In Wyoming, where self-bonding is allowed, none of the recently bankrupt coal companies seem able to 

pay for the reclamation that is required by law and that was supposedly ensured by the self-bonding process. 

These strip-mined lands need to be reclaimed and the taxpayers are forced to pay the debt of coal companies 

who walk away. In Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming, only 10% of strip-mined lands have been able to 

reestablish native species and achieve phase III bond release. Taxpayers are on the hook when coal companies 

walk away from their obligations. 

Comment Number: 0002393-2 

Commenter1:Mike Penfold 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Do not allow self bonding. That is probably the reason that 14% of the reclamation has not been completed and 

will likely leave the public tax payers with the future bill of cleaning up the messes. We have a history of this 

mine, leave a mess and leave. 

Comment Number: 0002394-3 

Commenter1:Barbara Archer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Adequate bonding for reclamation should be required. The public shouldn't be left holding the bag for 

reclamation and all other externalized costs, such as climate change, and the de facto subsidization of the export 

market while Billings and other cities absorb safety costs and traffic delays. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-16

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reclamation has been a failure under SMCRA and bonding is not adequate to protect the public from companies 

non-compliance with reclamation requirements. This is especially true where self-bonding is at issue and 

financially broke coal operators can not make good on their bonding obligations. 

(158) Montana Rule 17.24.1116, available at http://www.mtrules.org/gateway/ruleno.asp?RN=17.24.1116. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-465

Scoping Report 

(159) Western Organization of Resource Councils, Coal Mine Reclamation and Bonding Fact Sheet (May 2011), 

available at http://www.worc.org/userfiles/file/Coal/Coal_Mine_Reclamation_&_Bonding.pdf. 

According to a report by NWF and partners, of 450 square miles of disturbed land in Montana, Wyoming and 

North Dakota, only 46 square miles have achieve Phase III bond release demonstrating successful establishment 

of vegetation and soils to satisfy permit requirements for post mining land uses. (160) Broken down by state, only 

6% of disturbed acres in Wyoming have achieved Phase III bond release, just under 10% in Montana, and slightly 

over 20% in North Dakota. Wyoming has almost five times the amount of disturbed lands as Montana, and well 

over twice the amount of disturbed land as North Dakota. (161) 

(160) Bonogofsky, et al., Undermined Promise II, supra at 4. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-18

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Again, these failures are exacerbated and made more urgent by the precarious position self bonding has put the 

public in, with underwater companies no longer likely good for their bonds. According to a recent survey, more 

than $3.6 billion in self-bonding obligations were reported by states. (167) The state with by far the highest 

amount of reclamation obligations backed by self bonded was Wyoming (63% of bonds for a total of 

$2,138,201,079), where a vast amount of federal coal resides. Other states with federal coal, like Colorado (57% 

of bonds for a total of $117,000,000 in obligations), have a substantial amount of reclamation obligations backed 

by self-bonding. 

(167) Interstate Mining Compact Commission, Self-bonding Survey, available at 

http://imcc.isa.us/Self%20Bonding%20Survey.pdf. 

It is important to note that many of these self-bonds are held by subsidiaries of companies, like Arch Coal and 

Peabody Energy Company, that do not themselves even qualify for self-bonding by virtue of their current 

insolvency and financial woes. (168) While these subsidiaries are technically structured in a manner that does 

qualify them for self-bonding, the fact they are backed by insolvent parents demonstrates how tenuous this 

bonding structure is. With parent companies in bankruptcy, it is highly unlikely the subsidiary companies will be 

able to fulfill the obligations of their self-bonds, as has been indicated in recent bankruptcy filings. In essence, 

assets – which have likely proved overvalued particularly as companies’ worth has crashed – are obligated first to 

creditors, with little to none left over to satisfy bonding obligations. This means that the taxpayers are at extreme 

risk of being left holding the bag for high reclamation and clean-up costs. 

(168) For examples, at the end of 2014 before declaring bankruptcy, Arch Coal had a ratio of total liabilities to 

net worth of 4.05 and Peabody had a ratio of total liabilities of net worth of 3.84, both well in excess of the 

permitted equal to or less than 2.5. Similarly, Peabody’s reported self-bonding has exceeded 25% of its net worth 

repeatedly since at 2003 (e.g., 37.9% in 2003, 37.9% in 2004, 30.8% in 2005, 26.4% in 2006, 25.8% in 2012, 34.6% 

in 2013, and 49.9% in 2014. Bonogofsky, Undermined Promise II, supra at 15 & 17 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-47

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 8.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Fix coal reclamation before opening up more land to coal mining. For decades, the federal coal program has 

opened up large areas of the arid west for mining. The requirements of existing law promise and require that 

land, water, and habitat be protected in the siting and operation of the mines, and fully reclaimed to 

demonstration standards after mining concludes. While it is primarily the job of the OSM and the states to 

regulate how coal mining and reclamation occur on federal lands, BLM should work with these sister agencies to 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-466 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

ensure lands and waters are properly protected. As such, before BLM opens up more new coal leases for 

development, it should require that it be demonstrated by that reclamation is occurring contemporaneously and 

providing land reclaimed at a higher and better use and that water quality and water resources are protected, 

even if this means that new rules are promulgated under SMCRA to provide more assurances that reclamation 

and reclamation enforcement occur. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-48

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

End the practice of leasing to companies that are self-bonded. While allowed in some states, the financial woes of 

the coal industry make the practice of self-bonding extremely risky and greatly increase the likelihood that the 

public will be left holding substantial mine clean-up costs. It is critical that the public not be left responsible for 

these costs. As such, BLM should not allow leases for companies that are not adequately bonded by a third party 

surety, even if relevant states allow for such bonding. However, it is important that bonding reforms that can be 

made now to better protect the public from the liabilities of failed reclamation move forward now and not wait 

for or depend upon the PEIS or reform process. 

Comment Number: 0002466_Smith_20160728_SELA-6 

Organization1:Safe Energy Leadership Alliance 

Commenter1:Rachel Smith 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement estimates that there is more than $3.6 billion in 

outstanding self-bonded reclamation liability in the United States. 

Our concern is that U.S. taxpayers will be left with the bill for restoring public lands and waters damaged by 

mining. Updates to the federal coal leasing program should provide certainty that the private corporations that 

profited from public coal will repair damages to public lands and waters, and that the burden would not be shifted 

to taxpayers. The DOI’s Inspector General should conduct an audit of the self­bonding program and its use to 

ensure companies have adequate funds or assets to cover the full cost of reclaiming lands and waters after 

mining. In doing so, the DOI should also seek independent review of bond amounts by hiring a consultant familiar 

with mine reclamation costs. This review is especially important for bonds held by the federal government for 

federal lands and minerals. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-59

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Many coal companies “self-bond” to meet reclamation bonding requirements, meaning the company’s reclamation 

commitment is backed only by the company’s name and overall financial health, not by sureties or specific pledges 

of collateral. While it is technically allowed under federal and some state laws, self-bonding is an option, not a 

requirement. With declining coal company revenues and increasingly decreasing demand for coal, self-bonding 

practices are becoming more and more risky for State and Federal governments, and concerns will only grow. 

See, e.g., Can Coal Companies Afford To Cleanup Coal Country?, Washington Post, Apr. 1, 2016 (discussing 

concerns). Across the nation, $3.5 billion in reclamation liabilities are covered only by self-bonds. Thus, as noted 

in the Scoping Notice, in recent years some companies mining federal coal resources have sought to shed their 

reclamation obligations in bankruptcy proceedings. See, e.g., In re Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., No. 15–33896 

(KRH) United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division (Aug. 3, 2015). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-467

Scoping Report 

The PEIS should disclose the amount of reclamation liability for federal coal leases that are covered only by selfbonds, disclose the status of those bonds and the financial health of the companies, and disclose any reasonably 

foreseeable impacts and risks associated with self-bonding practices. This analysis is necessary for all lands 

overlying leased federal coal, regardless of ownership status, but it is especially important for federal public lands, 

as self-bonding presents additional risks to the Federal government as the owner and manager of those lands. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-61

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While BLM regulations require that operators be adequately bonded to fund eventual reclamation activities, see 

43 C.F.R. Part 3474, as noted, BLM does not independently evaluate the sufficiency of bonding and leaves such 

analysis for post-leasing permitting from state environmental agencies and OSMRE. 

While determination of the amount and type of reclamation bonding may ultimately come from another agency, 

as part of its leasing decision, BLM should consider the current bonding status of a mine. As discussed above, one 

of the bonding methods often allowed is “self-bonding,” which poses the risk of making taxpayers subsidize 

reclamation obligations should a company financially fail. See, e.g., Patrick Rucker, Arch Coal asks U.S. Bankruptcy 

Court To Ease Its Cleanup, Reuters, Jan 11, 2016 (reporting that the company asked the Judge to set aside 75 

million for cleanup that is estimated to cost more than $450 million). 

To address this concern, under this alternative BLM should consider no longer awarding leases to any company 

that is self-bonded, regardless of the current financial condition of the company. BLM has this discretion –

irrespective of federal and state reclamation bonding requirements – to ensure leasing is in the public interest. 

BLM should also consider raising its own bond amounts, to insure adequate coverage of bonus bids, royalties, and 

other payments. This is especially important given the risk of frequently idled mines and current trends of mines 

laying off workers and decreasing production. In today’s market conditions, no mine is “too big to fail” and BLM 

must insure protection of taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-62

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Organization2:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Requiring bond release for previously mined lands 

Under this alternative BLM would consider management options for new leases – or modification or renewal of 

existing leases – that incorporate bond release requirements. For example, BLM might require that a company 

may not obtain a new or modified lease until at least 50% of its current leased acreage has been released from 

bond. BLM might also not permit additional leasing for mines where reclamation has not been completed after 

waiting for the required 10 year period, meaning reclamation at that site cannot be demonstrated. Undermined 

Promise II at 42. These requirements should be accompanied with measurable and enforceable objectives to 

ensure contemporaneous reclamation standards are met. 

While reclamation of mining operations is regulated by OSMRE under SMCRA, BLM can also play a role in 

helping to meet SMCRA’s commitment to ensure coal mines are reclaimed in a complete and timely fashion that 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-468 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

restores disturbed land, water and habitat features to their pre-mining integrity and productivity. This is especially 

important in the context of acreage of federal surface lands, including National Grasslands, occupied by mines, as 

BLM has a regulatory obligation to meet a “multiple use” mandate for federal lands and prevent “undue and

unnecessary degradation of the lands.” 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701(a)(7), 1732(b).

Comment Number: 0002470-16

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In recent years, coal companies have qualified for self-bonding in ways that were not anticipated by the original 

self-bonding rules promulgated in 1983,18 by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSMRE), the regulatory authority created by SMCRA. Specifically, large coal companies have used the financial 

statements of subsidiaries to prove they have the assets available to cover reclamation costs.19 The practice 

evolved from a provision in the original rule that allowed operators to post self-bonds using the financial 

statements of their parent companies. The idea was that a parent company’s financials would support any 

reclamation liabilities if a producer abandoned a mine. But the same analysis cannot be applied to subsidiaries. 

(18) 30 C.F.R 700-999 

(19) Benjamin Storrow, Casper Star Tribune, “Feds Say Peabody Energy may be violating mining law,” February 

17, 2016. Available at: 

http://trib.com/business/energy/feds-say-peabody-energy-may-be-violating-mining-law/article_9f9ff61c-a338-5433-

b77a-36ccab78b628.html 

Comment Number: 0002470-8 

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

SMCRA’s self-bonding option has proven inadequate to protect taxpayers for three reasons: 

1. When a reclamation liability is bonded – whether by surety, collateral bond or self-bond -- Generally Accepted 

Accounting Principles allow the related liability to be carried “off balance sheet.” The reclamation liability is not 

shown on the balance sheet and does not increase total liabilities and the debt-to-equity ratio of the company. As 

a result, the company appears financially stronger than if these reclamation liabilities were carried on the balance 

sheet. Off-balance sheet accounting is not a great concern when an independent surety company has analyzed the 

permittee’s ability to pay and put its own assets at risk or when the permittee has pledged specific, identifiable 

assets to secure its performance. In both cases, the liability can be satisfied even if other assets carried on the 

balance sheet become unavailable. When a self-bond is used, the permittee avoids recording a balance sheet 

liability simply by making a self-serving promise and nothing more. In effect, the permittee distorts the reporting 

of its financial position by eliminating a liability without affecting the asset side of its balance sheet or shifting 

potential liability to an unrelated third party. 

2. The value on which regulators rely when companies self-bond is always subject to the volatility of the coal 

market. The circumstances most likely to lead to an inability of the permittee to pay reclamation cost – a drop in 

the value of mining properties and assets and a drop in profitability – generally render a self-bond inadequate. In 

addition, current regulatory requirements depend on financial statements to assess the financial health of 

companies. The assets are not market-to-market, which means that the balance sheet may reflect value that does 

not exist under prevailing market conditions. 

3. Regulators, in theory, can require surety or collateral when a company’s financial performance

deteriorates. But that remedy often is not practical because the company’s ability to secure third-party surety 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-469

Scoping Report 

bonds or letters of credit evaporates rapidly. Similarly, liquid assets that might be pledged as collateral can be 

exhausted as the company experiences negative cash flow. Moreover, the value of illiquid mining assets (the 

mineral properties and mining equipment) also declines. In effect, in a coal market collapse, regulators depending 

on self-bonding will be unable to force a substitution of third-party guarantees or rely on company-owned assets 

to meet the liability. Taxpayers are left to pay for the reclamation costs. 

Finally, in the event of a bankruptcy, there is no requirement that a company’s promise to pay for

reclamation costs through a self-bond will get any higher priority than other creditor claims. Frequently, the same 

assets used to signify the health of a subsidiary for self-bonding purposes are also posted as collateral to cover 

debt carried by its parent company. They are, in a sense, “double-pledged.” The difference between the pledges, 

however, is that the parent company’s creditors have claim to the assets in a bankruptcy while the regulatory 

agency does not. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-5 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

One issue that has become increasingly significant relative to bonding is the question of “self-bonding.” While this 

issue apparently applies to the OSMRE reclamation bonds, particularly as administered by the states, the BLM 

should consider this bonding issue in the PEIS. Self-bonding allows companies to avoid posting sureties as bonds 

and to instead rely on their company’s paper net worth to provide assurance of reclamation capabilities. But this 

has become increasingly problematic as the average share value for publicly traded coal companies has 

plummeted more than 80 percent in the past two years (4) and as more than half the nation’s production 

capacity is now in bankruptcy proceedings (5), leaving significant question as to whether self-bonded companies 

will have the capability to meet their reclamation obligations leaving taxpayers exposed to significant financial 

liability. This must not be allowed to happen. A promise to pay should not be allowed to substitute for a bond. 

Self-bonds are reported to now cover about $3.75 billion in reclamation obligations in nine states. 

(4) Based on performance of Dow Jones U.S. Coal Index as of July 28, 2016, available at 

https://www.google.com/finance?cid=4931635. 

(5) Kuykendall, Taylor and Ashleigh Cotting. “Companies recently filing bankruptcy produce more than 2/3 of 

PRB Coal.” SNL https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-36118340-12086. 

This is a highly risky approach to ensuring reclamation obligations are met and it should not be allowed to 

continue. Under BLM’s bonding regulations the BLM is allowed to set bonding levels sufficient to “assure that the 

lease bond covers reclamation within a permit area” where the OSMRE tells the BLM that reclamation costs 

need to be covered because of the lack of a state program. 43 C.F.R. § 3474.3(b)(1). Given the failure of selfbonding, the BLM should strongly consider modifying this regulation to allow it to put in place reclamation bonds 

where self-bonding has previously been used to guarantee reclamation. The BLM should fully consider in the PEIS 

whether self-bonding should be permitted on federal lands, and in our view it should not be permitted. The PEIS 

should provide that the BLM will not lease to self-bonded companies, and if rulemaking is needed to implement 

this decision it should be initiated. This is the best way to ensure federal lands are reclaimed, as required by 

SMCRA. 

Recommendations: The BLM should carefully consider needed bonding levels in the PEIS, both bonds to ensure 

compliance with lease terms and conditions, and bonding to ensure reclamation. If needed, bonding amounts 

should be increased. Assuring environmental protection objectives are achieved and that the companies faithfully 

meet their lease obligations should be guiding themes. The BLM should put in place a prohibition on the use of 

self-bonding to meet reclamation bonding requirements on the federal mineral estate. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-470 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-22

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While the Notice only discusses the issue of self-bonding in terms of concerns raised by stakeholders (81 FR 

17724), and does not specifically identify proposed approaches or modifications to self-bonding, CMA believes it 

is inappropriate to consider the issue of self-bonding under the PEIS due to the recent proposed rule, by the 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (hereinafter OSMRE). 

The current economic challenges facing some companies have led to the speculative conclusion that companies 

will not reclaim their operations in the face of financial difficulties, an assumption that is not borne out by the 

facts. In fact, as our comments on the OSM Stream Protection Rule demonstrate, mining operations in the West 

continue to reclaim lands in accordance with statute and have an outstanding record in avoiding off site impacts. 

Even companies seeking the protection of the bankruptcy laws have continued to mine and reclaim in accordance 

with the laws. Moreover, only companies that meet the stringent criteria for self-bonding may qualify. 

CMA contends that changes to the reclamation bonding program conflict with the statutory language of SMCRA 

that specifically provided for self-bonding, and gives States primacy over reclamation bonding. As such, States are 

responsible for ensuring adequate financial assurances cover reclamation costs. To that end, States are highly 

invested in adequate implementation of a self-bonding program. BLM should not interfere with the States’ ability 

to regulate coal resources or to apply their discretionary authority over the bonding of such operations. 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-23

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

SMCRA authorizes several methods for ensuring reclamation through bonding. SMCRA section 509(c) specifically 

provides for self-bonding: 

“The regulatory authority may accept the bond of the applicant itself without separate surety when the applicant 

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority the existence of a suitable agent to receive service of 

process and a history of financial solvency and continuous operation sufficient for authorization to self-insure or 

bond such amount or in lieu of the establishment of a bonding program, as set forth in this section, the Secretary 

may approve as part of a State or Federal program an alternative system that will achieve the objectives and 

purposes of the bonding program pursuant to this section.” 

Any changes to self-bonding must be in compliance SMCRA. Because SMCRA expressly provides for self-bonding, 

it is outside BLM, and DOI’s authority to eliminate or even revise self-bonding as it would take an act of 

Congress to amend the explicit self-bonding provisions under SMCRA. 

Further, the issue of self-bonding is already being considered by OSMRE under the proposed rule issued in May 

of 2016 (See 81 FR 31880). As such, revisiting the issue of self-bonding under the PEIS is again duplicative, unless 

the analysis is limited to cumulative effects to the Coal Program. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-44

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-471

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The leasing moratorium as proposed will adversely impact the bonding of reclamation liability. Surety company 

third party bond instruments and banking institution letters of credit are largely dependent on a company's ability 

to produce product and secure revenue. Capital requirements for surety bonds or letters of credit are ranging 

from 22% to 50% of the face value of the bond instrument in the present marketplace for a company with a life of 

mine greater than 10 years. 

The moratorium as proposed will have a negative impact on these types of financial instruments and the ability 

for an operator to obtain them. When a company's reserves are limited (<10 years), the ability of the company 

to generate revenue is also compromised. The ability to secure reasonable and affordable financial assurance 

instruments will become increasingly difficult. 

Comment Number: 0002511_Krieger_20160727-1 

Organization1:Washington Environmental Council 

Commenter1:Emily Krieger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The practice of self-bonding and the burden to taxpayers must be thoroughly examined. The bankruptcies of 

Peabody Energy and Arch Coal have showed that we need to ensure taxpayers are properly protected in the 

case that the company cannot pay for the cleanup they are responsible for. 

Comment Number: 0002513_Lish_20160707-7 

Commenter1:Christopher Lish 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Eliminating the practice of "self-bonding" where it allows financially insecure coal companies 

to escape their obligations to reclaim public lands damaged by coal mining, especially given 

the recent high-profile coal company bankruptcies and the $3.6 billion in self-bonds held by 

coal companies in the U.S.; 

Comment Number: 0003004_MasterFormD_TheSierraClub-5 

Organization1:The Sierra Club 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reevaluating whether the practice of "self-bonding" adequately protects taxpayers given recent high-profile coal 

company bankruptcies and the $3.6 billion in self-bonds held by coal companies in the U.S.; 

Comment Number: 0003016_MasterFormO_EarthJustice-5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Eliminating the practice of "selfbonding" where it allows financially insecure coal companies to escape their 

obligations to reclaim public lands damaged by coal mining 

Comment Number: 0003063_Clawsey_G_06132016-2 

Commenter1:Mary Clawsey 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At the very least, companies should be required to make monetary deposits before mining to cover the cost of 

damage. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-472 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0020014_Coppager_20160712-2 

Commenter1:R. Coppager 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

neither are the required bonds being posted 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-13

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Bonds held as part of the existing mining permit process are the best means to ensure reclamation occurs at 

mine sites after mining has been completed. 

Comment Number: 0020033_Werny_20160722-2 

Commenter1:Isa Werny 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

money set aside for mitigation 

Comment Number: 0020043-3 

Organization1:Unitarian Church 

Commenter1:Barbara Davenport 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal companies should be required to carry insurance 

Comment Number: Dvorak_DvorakRaftingFishing_20160623-2 

Organization1:Dvorak Rafting and Fishing Expeditions 

Commenter1:Bill Dvorak 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Self-bonding for coal companies does not work, 26 companies have declared bankruptcy over the past few years 

leaving roughly 3.6 billion dollars in selfbonding liability that American taxpayers will have to fund. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0003061_Post_N_20160707-1 

Commenter1:Charlie Post 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ending the practices of self-bonding, 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0003061_Post_N_20160707-2 

Commenter1:Charlie Post 

Other Sections: 8.9 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Requiring adequate bonding to FULLY cover the costs of remediation, 

Comment Number: 000001226_ TYSON_20160623-2 

Organization1:Colorado Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:James Tyson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Self-bonding has allowed some of the country's largest coal companies to avoid putting aside cash, bonds, or 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-473

Scoping Report 

other securities to cover future mine cleanup costs. Instead, self-bonding allows the company to use its own 

assets as collateral. Being that 26 coal companies have declared bankruptcy over the past few years, and over half 

of Colorado coal companies are self-bonded. This presents major concerns when considering the future of the 

lands on which they operate and the communities supported by their jobs. 

Comment Number: 000001239_ RECKLE_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Eric Reckle 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I think it's called self-bonding issue. And that's where -- yeah. So, it me, I'd like to do away with that. So, bonding 

that these companies do, we call a bust bond. Okay. And so, they put the money in this account. So, when the --

when they leave for whatever the reason is, there's a bust bond to help the community survive. 

Comment Number: 00001269_Post_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Charlie Post 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The self-bonding issue, I, I can't believe that that's a no-brainer for anybody else but me. I mean when you have a 

group of companies that are going bankrupt, you expect them to self-bond. So, that has to come off the table 

Comment Number: 00001279_Phillips_20160623-5 

Commenter1:Tom Phillips 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition, the BLM must ensure that when existing coal mines inevitably close, the coal companies pay for the 

cleanup and not be on the taxpayer 

Comment Number: 0003063_Clawsey_G_06132016-2 

Commenter1:Mary Clawsey 

Commenter Type: Individual 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At the very least, companies should be required to make monetary deposits before mining to cover the cost of 

damage. 

Comment Number: 0000846_Hescox_EvengelicalNetwork-1 

Organization1:Evengelical Environmental Network 

Commenter1:Mitchell Hescox 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

we can no longer afford or allow self-bonding by any coal company. The amount of bankruptcies are there, are 

witnessed around the country. It is that lack of bonding and the externalities that affect, has to be a way to 

accumulate those external costs. 

ISSUE 5.7 - FAIR RETURN/COAL REVENUES 

Total Number of Submissions: 282 

Total Number of Comments: 466 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-474 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000010_Swingle_20160526_Oral-2 

Commenter1:Rocky Swingle 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Including the total, true cost of coal into on the royalty rates that coal companies pay for the right to mine 

publicly owned coal. The true cost should include the entire cycle of coal use: mining coal, burning coal, and 

disposing of coal waste, all of which have a negative impact on people and the environment. 

Comment Number: 00000103_Williams_Arch Coal_ 20160517-3 

Organization1:Arch Coal 

Commenter1:Keith Williams 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Mineral Leasing Act is subtitled an act to promote the mining of coal and requires the department to achieve 

the maximum economic recovery of coal on federal lands. As you know, the single biggest source of federal coal 

is the Powder River Basin in Wyoming where Thunder Basin's mines are located. The PRB royalties, taxes, and 

fees approach 40 percent of the selling price of the product. Few industries anywhere generate such a high 

percentage of value. It's hard to see how anyone could argue that 40 percent is not an exceptional return for the 

American public, and arguments to the contrary are disingenuous 

Comment Number: 00000108_Opfer_ 20160517-2 

Organization1:Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Commenter1:James Opfer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At a time when our overall economy is still struggling to return to more robust growth, it would seem 

imprudent, irresponsible and to a point reckless to further increase taxes on coal in the form of higher royalty 

rates. 

Comment Number: 00000108_Opfer_ 20160517-4 

Organization1:Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Commenter1:James Opfer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the need to increase the royalties from the federal leasing program is the real issue, then steps should be taken 

to improve the return to the American public while making coal on federally controlled lands more competitive 

in the current marketplace, not less 

Comment Number: 00000110_Goran_ 20160517-1 

Commenter1:Sarah Goran 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

But increasing the royalty rate definitely will affect the revenues available to federal and state governments and 

consequently their capacity to deal with the coal industry's economic and environmental legacies, including the 

need for unemployment benefits, job retraining, and economic diversification. "Once again, I would like to call 

your attention to a study called 'Mineral Tax Incentives, Mineral Production and the Wyoming Economy' by 

Shelby Gerking, William Morgan, and Mitch Kunce dated December 2000, University of Wyoming. "This study as 

well as subsequent work by some of the same authors considers the interrelationships between coal producers, 

railroads, and the electric utilities. Although the study is approaching 20 years old, its conclusions regarding the 

market power of railroads, the goal of facility regulation and the negligible effect of taxes is still relevant when 

considering coal valuation, royalty rates, and lease rates. "The interrelationships between coal mining, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-475

Scoping Report 

transportation and utility regulation mean that lower mining costs don't necessarily translate into cheaper power 

costs for the ultimate consumer 

Comment Number: 00000112_Lundvall_ 20160517-1 

Commenter1:Shilo Lundvall 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Rates paid on federal coal leases are extensive. Over the last ten years, coal companies in the state have paid in 

excess of $3 billion in funds that directly impact schools with $2 billion of that coming from lease bonus 

payments. 

Comment Number: 00000115_Chafee_20160517-1 

Organization1:Jack's Truck & Equipment 

Commenter1:Richard Chafee 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It's my understanding that the taxes being paid by the mine companies to mine and sell coal add up to a rate of 39 

percent. That leaves the remaining 61 percent to be used to cover business expenses, which would hopefully be 

under that amount. If so, there would be a profit to the company for doing the mining which would be subjected 

to another 39 percent income tax. Then all the mining employees who are paid income out of the company 

expenses would also pay their respective income taxes, their Social Security tax, and their Medicare tax. 

Additionally, if you consider the sales tax that's paid on goods purchased by the mines' employees and the fuel 

taxes paid on the fuel they purchase, it makes a person wonder how much of every dollar actually does not end 

up being a tax. As a U.S. citizen, I do not think this is fair. I think we the people are being grossly overtaxed and 

so are these mines. 

Comment Number: 0000012_Morales_20160526_Oral-1 

Commenter1:Patrick Morales 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Raise royalty fees to cover the true cost of coal - triple the fees. 

Comment Number: 0000012_Morales_20160526_Oral-3 

Commenter1:Patrick Morales 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Talk further actions to end "captive transactions" 

Comment Number: 0000013_Weaver_20160526-1 

Organization1:Appalachian Citizens' Law Center 

Commenter1:Robert Henry Weaver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Any industry-wide subsidy should be carefully structured to further the interest of the public as a whole. Coal 

royalty rates constitute an implicit subsidy that has not be reconsidered in 30 years. This subsidy masks the brutal 

effects of coal mining on Appalachian communities, from health impacts to social dislocation. 

Comment Number: 00000142_ Deti_20160517-1 

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Travis Deti 

Other Sections: 11 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-476 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Attempts to artificially increase the fair market value and raise costs of leases on leased grounds appear political 

with the intent of making the resource uneconomical to develop. If the agency does choose to pursue this, we 

surely recommend the inclusion of a much more empirical social benefit standard to include not only the positive 

economic realities of vital jobs and revenues, schools, and infrastructure but the measurable positive contribution 

and reliable low cost electricity for our country and the world. 

Comment Number: 00000155_ Paad_20160517-3 

Commenter1:Paul Paad 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

talking about the royalties being paid, 12-and-a-half percent royalty paid on coal, on coal leased on federal lands 

are approximately 40 percent higher than rates paid by coal mined on private land in the Midwest and in the 

Appalachians. You know, companies also paid an additional fee on coal under these leases 

Comment Number: 00000156_ Dargon_ Congressman Phil Rowe _20160517-1 

Organization1:United States Congress 

Commenter1:Bill Dardon 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I want to begin by saying that Congressman Rowe believes that the review is unnecessary because the program is 

working well and providing a fair return to the taxpayers, both at the state and federal levels. To give you a sense 

of whether the program is giving a fair return, all you need to do is look at what has happened in the 

communities where coal producers have pulled out and stopped mining. There is widespread economic 

devastation, and federal agencies crafting these policies don't seem to care. 

Comment Number: 00000158_ FRENCH_20160517-4 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Kate French 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The leasing, bonding, and bid rates set for federal coal mining is intended to count for all these externalities. 

However, in the West, these costs are far from sufficient. Half the funds collected through federal coal mining in 

Montana goes back to the state and to our local budgets and this pays for schools and roads. So, when the 

externalities are not taken into account, this severely affects what we can fund in our state 

Comment Number: 00000163_ MORALES_20160517-3 

Commenter1:Patrick Morales 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And take further steps to end captive transactions, the captive transactions process for the Powder River Basin. 

Comment Number: 00000163_ MORALES_20160517-5 

Commenter1:Patrick Morales 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

if we must continue to honor these leases which have already been issued, make those royalty fees cover the full 

cost of those extraction processes 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-477

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000164_ LEVENSHUS_20160517-1 

Organization1:Sierra Club 

Commenter1:Jonathan Levenshus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal companies are taking advantage of these outdated federal rules to mine taxpayer-owned coal at cut-rate 

prices. This corporate giveaway costs taxpayers and state governments more than a billion dollars a year in lost 

revenues, money that could be used for local schools, roads, and infrastructure. 

Comment Number: 00000168_ MOTT_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Barbara Mott 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And, first of all, we haven't changed our tax rate in thirty years on the royalty rate from these minerals, from our 

resources. 

Comment Number: 00000171_ BLANTON_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Teri Blanton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Also, the low royalty payments paid do not accurately the true cost of coal when we examine the amounts of 

carbon released, the destruction of the forest land, lowering the cost of electricity production while not allowing 

a level playing field to develop more sustainable energy choices. A fair review of the Federal Coal Leasing 

Program will uncover the true cost of coal mining on public lands and in our communities, our health, our 

wallets, and our planet. 

Comment Number: 00000176_ TORP_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Christian Torp 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal royalties have not changed in thirty years and are far below the royalty rates on natural oil and gas 

Comment Number: 00000183_ MCKAY_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Don McKay 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

One, set the royalty rate at least equal to those of off-shore oil, which is 18 1/2 percent. 

Comment Number: 00000185_ BICKNESE_20160517-1 

Organization1:

Commenter1:Erin Bicknese 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Also, the coal royalty rates are absurdly low, and it's wrong to give away something that belongs to all of us. 

Comment Number: 00000194_ ROLING_20160517-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Dan Roling 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

. I would just sum this up by saying the royalty rates are way too high. They are not flexible. They don't reflect 

real current economic conditions. The inability of the coal companies to producing coal relative to the market is 

governed by regulations instead of by demand. And I think that the federal government should become a lot 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-478 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

more flexible on allowing coal companies to produce coal when it is needed by the market at a price that is 

respective of the market, and the royalties should be reduced. 

Comment Number: 00000285_ Alexander_TaxCommonSense_20160519-2 

Organization1:Taxpayers for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Just because the coal industry pay taxes like every other industry and small business does not mean it should not 

have to pay fair market value for federal coal. Private landowners charge royalties on the market value of private 

coal so too should taxpayers, the owners of federal resources. 

Comment Number: 00000290_ BUNNELL _20160519-1 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners 

Commenter1:Mark Bunnell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

My point here is that as federal coal reserves become geologically more difficult and costly to mine, coal mining 

companies are incurring greater costs and bear all the financial risk involved. Our federal coal resources are 

important to our state and country, both of which benefit from royalty payments. Mines in federal coal already 

pay bonus bids and taxes in addition to the royalty. I feel currently royalty rates and rules are adequate and 

should be maintained as they are. 

Comment Number: 00000306_ OGDEN _ SevierCounty_20160519-1 

Organization1:Sevier County 

Commenter1:Garth Ogden 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Federal Coal Program sustained revenues to the federal and state governments totaling about $13.8 million 

since 2003. Keeping the coal in the ground taxpayers lose. I think we are getting a great return from our 

investment from our coal leasing as it is now. 

Comment Number: 00000322 _ BRISCOE_ UtahRep_20160519-1 

Organization1:Utah House of Representatives 

Commenter1:Joel Briscow 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The report, looking at coal royalty payments across the United States on federally leased lands from 2008 to 

2012, suggests that the Federal Government is not receiving a fair return for taxpayers. They calculated the 

average, current effective rate of royalty payments of 4.9 percent, but that's without bonus payments. This is 

short of the statutory 12.3 percent and lower than the effective rates paid by oil and natural gas. As we look at 

how to structure or restructure these payments in a time of great change, I think it's unfortunate that we're 

sending inaccurate price signals to the market, even though it's been very disruptive for the lives of many of the 

people and the families sitting behind me. It's not good for us or for anyone to be sending false signals and 

encouraging things that are not being appropriately paid for. The estimate of this report estimates that taxpayers 

lost $850 million in royalty payments between 2008 and 2012. There are several things we could do. We could 

do the valuation at the point of sale rather than the mine. We could reduce the amount of deduction for 

transportation. Research they've done suggested that money they might -- small amounts of money that might be 

used could be made up for and federal taxes back -- Utah, they estimate, would be -- in state taxes would gain 

over $920,000. And the effects on coal production would be minimal, 0 to 1 percent. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-479

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000332 _ Collinson _ 20160519-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Angel Collinson 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Winter is shorter, warmer, we're receiving less snowfall. And it's having a real impact on skiers like me and our 

communities here depend on our winter sports economy. The outdoor recreation industry in Utah alone 

generates 12 billion annually and supports 122,000 jobs, which is one in every ten jobs. So our public lands are 

really important to us. And I'm speaking at this hearing to ask that the coal industry pays the fair market rate for 

these lands and not at a discounted rate as it currently can. 

Comment Number: 00000347 _ Johnson _20160519-1 

Organization1:Alton Coal Development 

Commenter1:Larry Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Two contentions are brought forward by the secretary for raising royalty rates. One, these rates do not 

compensate the public for the removal of coal and externalities associated with its use. And, two, the federal coal 

sales representing nearly 41 percent of the total domestic production artificially lowers market prices, further 

reducing the amount of royalties received. On the contrary, this is significant evidence that the current royalty 

rates do provide a return on American public, around $1.2 billion in 2012 alone. And reports from the Inspector 

General's office and government accounting office investigating the Federal Coal Program do not propose an 

increase in America. 

Comment Number: 00000356 _ Provost _20160519-5 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Craig Provost 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal coal leasing program has allowed our public lands to be used for commercial profit at historically low 

prices that have not kept up with the actual value of our land and our resources. 

Comment Number: 00000361 _ Akers _20160519-1 

Organization1:Norwest Corporation 

Commenter1:Pat Akers 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM coal valuation handbook is a comprehensive set of rules directed towards establishing the fair market 

value of any federal coal lease offered for sale. It includes provisions for the qualifications of an evaluation team, a 

geologic review, a determination of (reporter unable to hear), a mine plan, operating of capital cost estimates, 

analysis of coal markets and the selling prices, and three different methods of determining fair market value. 

Comment Number: 00000361 _ Akers _20160519-2 

Organization1:Norwest Corporation 

Commenter1:Pat Akers 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

My comments today focus on concerns about the fair return and market conditions specific to the GAOIG 

reports, lease sales from one bidder, the discount rate used in the fair market value analysis, the impact of high 

royalty rates on coal production, lease modifications and the royalty rate reductions, the impact of federal coal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-480 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

sales on coal prices, higher electricity cost if coal is increased. And the lost revenue for Federal Government 

would be made up by increasing taxes to all Americans. 

Comment Number: 00000361 _ Akers _20160519-3 

Organization1:Norwest Corporation 

Commenter1:Pat Akers 

Other Sections: 8.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I wanted to hit on one particular issue, the comment in order No. 3338 that notes that about 90 percent of 

federal coal lease sales receive only one bid and that's typically from the operator of a mine adjacent to the new 

lease given to a large investment required to open a new mine. Commenters have questioned whether an 

accurate fair market value can be identified in the absence of a truly competitive marketplace. I will say that based 

on economics, the owner of the adjacent mine will always have an advantage over other bidders. This is due to 

the investment the operator has made in infrastructure and equipment that can be used to produce the efficient 

coal. His cost will be lower than the other bidder because of this investment. Other bidders will need to include 

this capital, which is hundreds of millions of dollars in their cost, and will need a return on that capital, which will 

reduce the amount they can afford to pay for the lease. To ensure that the adjacent operator does not take 

advantage of the Federal Government, the BLM handbook has a special set of valuation rules to determine the 

minimum bid for these situations. The BLM sets the minimum value in these situations by calculating the value of 

the mine without the adjacent lease and the value of the mine with the adjacent lease. And the difference 

between these two values is set as the minimum. This has the effect of transferring all of the profit above the 10 

percent discount rate to the Federal Government. 

Comment Number: 0000067_Laresche_20160517-4 

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Commenter1:Bob Laresche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Finally, Interior must reassess the fair return on the nation coal. What is the fair return to the miners, to the 

communities and states? What is the fair return to the American citizens who own the coal? And what is the fair 

return to the corporations who lease the right to extract and sell it? There must be new means of assuring 

competition in bidding, transparent lease valuation, transparent royalty collections stripped of loopholes and 

unaudited selfreporting, and rational sharing of revenues with the States. The new program must treat fairly the 

whole broad range of stakeholders. 

Comment Number: 0000068_Smitherman_20160517-4 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Dan Smitherman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our public lands contain real value that we need to ensure that, when they are used for extraction, we are seeing 

the full value and our state and the American people are getting a fair share from their resources. 

Comment Number: 0000072_Tully_20160517-4 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Tom Tully 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Tighten up loopholes that allow coal companies to underpay royalties in particular by bookkeeping tricks that 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-481

Scoping Report 

allow a company to pay royalties on the price of coal at the mine mouth at a much lower rate than when it is 

shipped even when owned by the same parent company. 

Comment Number: 0000072_Tully_20160517-9 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Tom Tully 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should be working to maximize the return to the public rather than giving what is essentially a subsidy 

to the coal industry, even though it could be used to help the communities affected most by the decline in the 

coal mining industry 

Comment Number: 0000073_Reavey_20160517-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Richard Reavey 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Furthermore, with federal coal selling at historic lows, miners being forced out of their jobs, coal producers in 

bankruptcy, and PRB coal delivering 40 percent of the selling price in taxes, fees, and royalties, there is no 

economic justification for an increase in royalty or leasing rates. Instead Secretary Jewell has repeatedly stated 

that royalty and leasing rates should reflect the administration's climate objectives. If so, she should seek 

amendment of the Mineral Leasing Act in Congress because Congress has the authority to impose new taxes, not 

the Secretary. There's no economic justification for royalty and leasing rate increases. So any attempt to impose 

new increases on the basis of the administration's climate objectives is a social cost, a carbon tax, a climate tax, 

or whatever else she would like to call it, is illegal. Attempting to keep it in the ground by imposing taxes and fees 

that discourage the maximum economic recovery of coal is illegal. 

Comment Number: 0000074_Alexander_TaxpyrComnSense_ 20160517-2 

Organization1:Taxpayers For Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Interior also undervalues federal coal when it is sold. The coal companies often sell coal to assist (unintelligible) 

and then turns around and sells it for a much higher price. Interior collects royalties on the lower price. 

According to the Energy Information Administration, these captive sales accounted for more than 30 percent of 

coal sales in Wyoming and Montana in 2013. 

Comment Number: 0000074_Alexander_TaxpyrComnSense_ 20160517-3 

Organization1:Taxpayers For Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Then there's the shroud of secrecy that surrounds BLM's work. BLM does not disclose how it estimates fair 

market value and defines it by its own rules. The bids for leases are sealed. BLM cannot provide an accounting of 

the number of leases with reduced royalty rates. The process BLM uses to make sure taxpayers get fairly 

compensated is wiped out, also important to federal taxpayers especially those who live in states with significant 

coal production from federal land. As we've seen in Inspector General and Government Accountability Office 

reports have documented, even an undervaluation by a single penny per ton would result in a multi-million-dollar 

revenue loss. Undervaluation and problems with the coal program have already cost taxpayers billions of dollars. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-482 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000075_Anderson_20160517-1 

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Commenter1:Shannon Anderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Unfortunately, significant public revenue has been lost because of chronic under-valuation of coal-lease bonus 

bids and resulting subsequent losses from underpaid royalties. Recent government reports have shown that 

raising bid amounts a mere penny could bring up to $7 million of additional revenue. 

Comment Number: 0000077_Penfold_20160517-1 

Organization1:BLM 

Commenter1:Mike Penfold 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We're in a transition period of time, and there's no question that we're going to be leasing and mining coal for a 

long time. So let's get the pricing right. We heard how important the price is for the schools here in Wyoming. 

Let's not subsidize anything. The communities need the funds. 

Comment Number: 0000081_Lempke_20160517-2 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association 

Commenter1:Doug Lempke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Consider the true cost to mine federal coal including state and federal royalty payments, all bonus bids, ad 

valorem property taxes, ad valorem production taxes, sales and use taxes, severance taxes, and abandoned mine 

land fees, new ways to simplify reporting and administrative burdens for all parties involved. 

Comment Number: 0000081_Lempke_20160517-4 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association 

Commenter1:Doug Lempke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Curtailment or elimination of federal coal will simply shift the emphasis to use of private coal and eliminate any 

royalty payments and increase electricity costs. 

Comment Number: 0000082_Marshal_20160517-3 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Colin Marshall 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Further, with domestic federal coal producers bankrupt, coal prices at historic lows, and taxes and fees on 

Powder River Basin coal alone at over 40 percent of the selling price, there is no economic justification 

whatsoever to increase royalties or lease rates. 

Comment Number: 0000083_Shober_ 20160517-1 

Organization1:Campbell County Commissioner 

Commenter1:Mickey Shober 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

People are not spending their money. They're hanging on to it. So if we took coal that's $11 a ton, the taxes at 

12-and-a-half percent royalty would be a buck 30. The average bonus on that coal is a dollar per ton. The AML 

money that is assessed on a ton of the coal is $0.28, black lung is $0.55, state severance is 5.3 percent, county tax 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-483

Scoping Report 

is 4.5 percent -- which adds another $1.08 to that value. So in total on an $11 ton of coal, there's $4.28 in taxes, 

which is probably one of the highest tax rates of the minerals industry in the United States. 

Comment Number: 0000088_Kasperik_ Heart of Coal _20160517-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Norine Kasperik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current system provides stable and very significant tax and royalty revenue 

Comment Number: 0000088_Kasperik_ Heart of Coal _20160517-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Norine Kasperik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There is no evidence whatsoever to support claims that the current rules for royalty valuation don't work or that 

the American people are not getting their fair value. There is a great deal of evidence that the extremists are 

prepared to hoodwink the American people, manipulate the media, subvert the law to keep coal in the ground. 

Comment Number: 0000089_Anderson _WySenate_20160517-1 

Organization1:Wyoming Senate 

Commenter1:Jim Anderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Currently, royalty rates are above market, and an increase will only result in decreased production, decreased 

return on investment for taxpayers. That hurts schools, roads, infrastructure, hurts everybody in this state and 

the nation. 

Comment Number: 0000091_Stubson_ WyLSO_20160517-2 

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature 

Commenter1:Tim Stubson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I want you to keep in mind that, as you look at royalty rates, it's not just royalty rates. It's royalty rates combined 

with the bonus money, combined with the black lung excise tax, combined with AML, combined with severance, 

combined with county ad valorem. When you look at those together -- and you've heard this figure before -- 39 

cents of every dollar of coal produced in the State of Wyoming goes to government. You cannot look at that 

figure and conclude that coal does not pay its fair share. 

Comment Number: 0000092_Bradley_MtWildFed_20160517-3 

Organization1:Montana Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:John Bradley 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Montana Wildlife Federation believes that updating the royalty payment system is the best way to minimize 

further destruction of wildlife habitat and ensure the coal companies pay their fair share for mining our land 

Comment Number: 0000093_Barteaux_20160517-4 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Wendy Barteaux 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-484 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

When considering the market value, consider all the taxes that are placed on coal, but also determine and add in 

the cost associated with burning that coal, the cost of climate, cost of health, the cost of other industries such as 

agriculture and tourism. 

Comment Number: 0000279_Nelson_20160519-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Laura Nelson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Utah's coal economy is especially important to rural Utah, and I want to join also in thanking all of those from 

our rural communities that are here today. It provides roughly 2000 direct, high-paying jobs, and a significant 

portion of several rural counties' tax base. 

Comment Number: 0000283_ King_20160519-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Bill King 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

They should be asking for economically and environmentally safe ways to obtaining maximum coal extraction 

rates which would in turn provide an increased return of revenue while protecting the environment. If the BLM 

and other government agencies believe that increasing royalties causing coal to stay in the ground will benefit the 

environment, they are honestly mistaken. The cost of reducing emissions are enormous. 

Comment Number: 0000363 _HEIN_20160519-3 

Organization1:Institute for Policy Integrity 

Commenter1:Jayni Hein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Interior should evaluate whether the current coal program earns fair market value for taxpayers by 

reexamining its statutory mandate and conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the program. This analysis should take 

into account current royalty rates, bids, rental rates, jobs, and other economic benefits, as well as social and 

environmental costs. 

Comment Number: 0000511_Pfister_WesternOrg of Resource Councils_20160517-4 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM also has a responsibility to obtain the best price possible for the coal belonging to the public. It will need to 

look beyond the various flimsy corporate veils until it finds the first arm's length transaction between the mine 

operator and the coal buyer. When the coal was being set up for leasing here in the Bulls, the mine president 

came to the hearing and handed over an armload of financial records to BLM. I wondered which set of books 

they were. The justification for the lease price was kept totally secret, as were the means by which BLM 

determined if the price was adequate. Somehow, that did not seem like the way for the public's business to be 

conducted. 

Comment Number: 0000516_Whyde_20160517-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Don Whyde 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-485

Scoping Report 

The 2nd is rock bottom natural gas prices prompting electric utilities to close older coal fired plants. This in the 

short term and maybe long term is the biggest problem facing the industry according to platts coal trader. When 

gas prices climb certain varieties of coal will be cost competitive. For example: Platts coal trader estimates that 

P.R. Basin coal is cost competitive when Nat. gas reaches $2.50MMbtu or above 

Comment Number: 0000518_Madden_20160517-1 

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature 

Commenter1:Michael Madden 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Before the BLM contemplates rasing coal taxes this should be considered: In the Powder River basin, Federal, 

state and local taxes right now absorb about 40% of the market value of coal. This industry is already the highest 

taxed and highest regulated industry in the state of Wyoming - an industry that is already losing hundreds of 

millions annually and incurring bankruptcies. 

Even the GAO and Interior Inspector general have separately found that the current coal lease program is sound 

and generates billions to the United State taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0000520_Barrasso_US Senate_20160517-2 

Organization1:United States Senate 

Commenter1:John Barrasso 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the last decade, ninety-five percent of bonus bid payments paid on federal coal were used to fund the 

construction of public schools. Thirty percent of royalties paid on federal coal were used to fund the operations 

of public schools and pay teacher salaries. Fifty percent of royalties paid on federal coal go toward general 

government operations, including environmental protection, health, justice, public safety, and higher education 

Comment Number: 0000520_Barrasso_US Senate_20160517-3 

Organization1:United States Senate 

Commenter1:John Barrasso 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the Administration really wants to get a greater return on federal coal, it should reverse course immediately. It 

should scrap its new regulations on the production and consumption of coal. It should stop artificially suppressing 

demand for coal in the United States and around the world. 

Comment Number: 0000520_Barrasso_US Senate_20160517-5 

Organization1:United States Senate 

Commenter1:John Barrasso 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Given these numbers and the fact that BLM is having trouble selling federal coal now, it's inconceivable to me that 

BLM is considering raising the price on federal coal or restricting exports of federal coal. If anything, BLM should 

consider lowering prices on federal coal and promote exports of federal coal. 

Comment Number: 0000542-2 

Organization1:Vulcan Inc. 

Commenter1:Dave Stewart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-486 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Here, BLM sells federal coal from Montana, for example, at an average price of 12 cents per ton, while the full 

cost to the public of burning that coal is over $70 per ton. 

Comment Number: 0000543-3 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Dianna Moesh 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The low royalty rate and lack of competition in bidding “value coal” from end use rather than value at mine

Comment Number: 0000544-1 

Organization1:Climate Solutions 

Commenter1:Kimberley Larson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM and Department of Interior needs to fully account for the cost of coal sold from public lands. Taxpayers 

are not setting a fair share of the coal leased from public lands. The fact that at least 10% of carbon emissions 

comes from coal mined on federal lands acts against our U.S. climate reduction goals. And the cost is $70/ton but 

sold for $.12/ton. 

Comment Number: 0000556-1 

Organization1:Conservation Northwest 

Commenter1:Jeff Baierlein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal industry royalty rates are dramatically below standards in the oil and gas industry, and should be increased 

to at least the offshore Federal lease rate to reflect the full environmental and social costs of coal extraction. 

Comment Number: 0000565-4 

Organization1:Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Commenter1:Bob LeResche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

INTERIOR MUST REASSESS "FAIR RETURN" ON THE NATION'S COAL. FAIR RETURN TO AMERICAN 

CITIZENS WHO OWN THE COAL OF COURSE. BUT ALSO FAIR RETURN TO THOSE ONTO WHOSE 

BACKS MASSIVE COSTS ARE NOW EXTERNALIZED - WE WHO BREATHE THE AIR, WE WHOSE 

GRANDPARENTS RAISED CATTLE ON GRASSLANDS AND AQUIFERS MINED FORTY YEARS AGO AND 

NOT YET RECLAIMED, WE WHO WAIT INTERMINABLY AT RAIL CROSSINGS IN OUR SMALL TOWNS 

AND LARGE CITIES. THERE MUST BE NEW MEANS OF ASSURING COMPETITION IN BIDDING; 

TRANSPARENT LEASE VALUATION; TRANSPARENT ROYALTY COLLECTION STRIPPED OF LOOPHOLES

AND UNAUDITED SELF-REPORTING 

Comment Number: 0000606-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Kristin Winn 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The leasing rates do not take into account the true costs to the environment and the surrounding communities 

when coal is developed on federal lands 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-487

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000608-1 

Organization1:JE Stoer & Associates 

Commenter1:Tamme Bishop 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The GAO recently concluded that 12.5% is already a "fair return". 

Comment Number: 0000608-2 

Organization1:JE Stoer & Associates 

Commenter1:Tamme Bishop 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Increasing royalty rates will affect, increase the cost/ton of mining coal. Will that cost be accounted for? It will be 

passed on to the consumer, so cost of electricity will increase. 

Comment Number: 0000608-6 

Organization1:JE Stoer & Associates 

Commenter1:Tamme Bishop 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

How is "fair return" on leasing defined? 

Comment Number: 0000610-1 

Organization1:City of Craig 

Commenter1:Ray Beck 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current program also provides a more than fair return for taxpayers as current royalty rates are above 

market value and have contributed $13.8 billion in revenue to federal and state governments since 2003. Coal 

producers currently pay the public almost 40% of every dollar they collect from the production of federal coal. If 

the BLM is truly concerned about maximizing a strong return on investment for taxpayers, it will consider 

decreasing royalty rates, streamlining the leasing process and making the permitting process more efficient. 

Comment Number: 0000614-1 

Organization1:Bowie Resources 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The fair market valuation process is currently using a 10% discount rate. Given current market conditions, this 

discount rate is too low and doesn't properly account for the high cost of capitol expended by coal mining 

companies today nor does this rate properly account for the roles the proponent assumes when actually mining 

the resource. This rate should be changed to +20%. 

Comment Number: 0000618-3 

Organization1:Citizens for Clean Air 

Commenter1:Karen Sjoberg 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We realize you are also required to review royalty rates, and we urge you to raise rates and remove loopholes in 

order to ensure Americans a fair return for our resources. The federal royalty rate should account for the 

environmental costs of coal production. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-488 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000624-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1: 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current effective tax rate on each ton of federal coal mined is 39%, including royalties, bonus bids, AML tax 

and black lung tax. 

Comment Number: 0000628-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Elizabeth Lindren 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I don't see how increasing royalties would increase the taxpayers return on the resource. It seems to me that the 

result would be the opposite. Increasing royalties would make many marginal reserves uneconomical to mine and 

therefore there would be no revenue return from those reserves. 

Comment Number: 0000631-1 

Organization1:Taxpayers for Common Sense Making Government Work 

Commenter1:Jill Lancelot 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the current structure lacks transparency and competition, making it difficult to assess the fair market value of 

federal leases. Between 1990 and 2012, 90 percent of leased tracts received only a single bid, usually from the 

company that proposed the tract. The public has no idea how much its coal is actually worth or how much 

revenue it might be losing. 

Comment Number: 0000632-1 

Organization1:Bowie Resources 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Royalty rates on federal coal and bonus bid payments should be significantly reduced in light of declining coal 

market conditions 

Comment Number: 0000634_Veuzke_20160623-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Ryan Veuzke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current federal coal leasing program pays extraordinary dividends to the American people. Further, the value 

of coal to the American people isn't just royalty revenue - the value of high paying jobs and reliable, affordable 

energy has to be taken into account as well. 

Comment Number: 0000634_Veuzke_20160623-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Ryan Veuzke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Increases in coal prices induced by higher royalty rates will flow through to the electricity market due to reduced 

production on federal lands. The states that rely on coal for the bulk of electric generation consistently enjoy 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-489

Scoping Report 

lower electricity rates. Whatever incremental revenue the Department believes it will obtain from increasing the 

coal royalty rate will be at the expense of American businesses and families paying higher utility bills. 

Comment Number: 0000749_Doddings_20160623-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:G Doddings 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Fair Return - In evaluating "fair return" the analysis must consider all components of return and economic 

benefits from leasing and production of the resource including bonus bid payments, rents, royalties, AML feed, 

Black-lung taxes, state and local property taxes, sales taxes, employment taxes, local/regional/state/national 

benefits of low-cost reliable power from coal for businesses and utility rate-payers. Advocates of increasing coal 

royalties point to the Headwaters Economics Report as support for their contentions, however, information 

compiled from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) indicates that 

coal operators have paid much higher royalties (does not take into account bonus bid and rental payments) than 

indicated by the Headwaters work. It must be noted that BLM policy includes setting "fair market value" for 

proposed lease sales. 

Comment Number: 0000749_Doddings_20160623-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:G Doddings 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Market Conditions - Excessive regulation, discriminatory government policies, artificially low natural gas prices 

resulting from over-supply, and export barriers have resulted in very weak coal markets. Decreases in coal 

production, extensive layoffs, coal company bankruptcies, and significant adverse economic and social impacts on 

affected communities and regions have been the direct consequence of these conditions. These are very real and 

immediate impacts which must be considered in any objective analysis. The current coal program includes 

provisions (royalty rate reduction) which can be used to reflect and adjust for adverse geologic, mining, and other 

conditions. The potential exists to also include market conditions as an adjustment factor. 

Comment Number: 0000750_Atwood_20160623-8 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If this Programmatic EIS review intends to try to ascribe a per ton "adder" to be paid to reflect a perceived cost 

of harm to the public from the negative externalities from coal development than an equal effort should be made 

to acknowledge and assess the benefits afforded to the public from the positive externalities of coal development 

and use. I believe that the benefits of reliable and affordable energy far outweigh the associated risks and, if 

anything, trying to value externalities of coal mining should result in a reduction in the cost of leases and royalties. 

Comment Number: 0000753_Smaldone_FriendsCoal_20160623-1 

Organization1:Friends of Coal West 

Commenter1:David Smaldone 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Rates paid on federal coal are excessive. Coal producers pay 40% of the selling price of coal in taxes, fees and 

royalties, and there is no justification to increase royalty or leasing rates. To increase these rates will leave less 

revenue for states and communities, fewer jobs, higher energy prices and will hit all Americans in the checkbook. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-490 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Education programs, road and public safety will suffer as well. 

If the federal government is interested in maximizing the return on investment for taxpayers, it would incentivize 

development of federal coal by reducing royalties and other fees, making permitting processes more efficient and 

basing bonus bids on the amount of coal that is actually recoverable. 

Comment Number: 0000755_Luke_20160623-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Forrest Luke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When bonus bids, severance taxes and other fees are factored in with the existing 12.5% royalty rate, coal 

removed from federal lands is already taxed at a staggering effective rate of 39%. 

Comment Number: 0000755_Luke_20160623-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Forrest Luke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Raising royalty rates to the point that the economic playing field is tilted against coal will not increase revenues 

available to assist Colorado communities or our school children. Quite to the contrary, the revenue stream will 

dry up as coal operations cease and Colorado coal field communities are forced to suffer the associated 

devastation. 

Comment Number: 0000756_Reece_Club 20_20160623-3 

Organization1:CLUB 20 

Commenter1:Christian Reece 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The proposed coal valuation rulemaking would upend the current valuations regulations that have proven to be 

effective and have provided stable and significant tax and royalty revenue to both state and federal governments. 

Royalty rate increases are wholly unnecessary as the existing burdens on federal lessees amount to 39% effective 

tax rate which is significantly higher than what would be seen from private coal production. This royalty rate 

increase would actually disincentivize federal coal production and cause revenues to decrease. 

Comment Number: 0000769_Cascade_Great Old Broads_20160623-1 

Organization1:Great Old Boards for Wilderness 

Commenter1:Robyn Cascase 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Increase 30-year-old royalty rates and close loopholes so corporations that profit from coal pay the full costs of 

its impact, rather than taxpayers footing the bill. These costs include the scientifically-proven negative impacts of 

coal on public health, land, air, water and species. 

Comment Number: 0000770_Clarke et al (PETITION)_20160623-5 

Organization1: 

Commenter1: Petition 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Close loopholes, including ending royalty rate reductions, and ensure prices paid to use federal coal are fair and 

reflect climate, environmental and social costs. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-491

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000771_NoName_20160621-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Paul Allen 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/stop-selling-off-federal -coal-at-taxpayer-expense/ 

• Opinion Stop selling off federal coal at taxpayer expense 

By Paul G. Allen and Maria Cantwell 

Special to The Times 

Comment Number: 0000772_Nielsen_20160623-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Nicholas Nielsen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

By restricting the availability of a lease, mining companies will financially not be able to withstand outages or 

invest the capital to mine available leases. An increase in royalty rate will force mining companies out of the 

picture and this will result in no royalty payments, costing return to taxpayers and jobs. On the other hand, if 

companies were incentivized and a royalty reductions were put in place, mining companies could further 

maximize reserves by mining challenging areas and provide more return for taxpayers. Is the EIS considering that 

discounts or reductions would increase the Maximum economic recovery of the coal? 

Comment Number: 0000772_Nielsen_20160623-5 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Nicholas Nielsen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Is the EIS going to take into consideration the programs, plans, and costs that mining companies have in place to 

help eliminate environmental concerns or are they just looking to justify an added cost? 

Comment Number: 0000778-1 

Organization1:Bowie Resources 

Commenter1:Jeff Erickson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I recommend that bonus bids, royalty, state and federal taxes, black lung taxes, etc not be increased. These taxes 

are already higher/above market level. 

Comment Number: 0000803-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Jeb Himsl 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Any sale of the nations coal reserves must be considerate of the "fair market" value of the resource. 

Unfortunately the "market value" of coal does not account for the cost of pollution. This pollution, in terms of 

local source environments climate change or degradation of wildlife, carries a real cost. But without including this 

cost the "fair market" cannot be determined, therefore, no sale! 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-492 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000809-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Beth Blattenberger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal royalties are not high enough and there are loopholes. If public lands are to become inaccessible to the 

general public for recreation, the public needs better compensation. 

Comment Number: 0000813-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1: 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Without funding from BLM royalties these project would either not exist or would be funded personally by each 

of us. I would like you to consider the social economic impacts of your decision and the true impact it will make. 

Comment Number: 0000820-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Jeremiah Armstrong 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current effective tax rate on each ton of federal coal mined is 39% of gross, including royalties, bonus bids, 

AML tax and black lung tax. In a time when we've seen nearly all of the publicly traded coal companies file for 

bankruptcy in the face of an onslaught of onerous environmental litigation and regulation from the federal 

bureaucratic leviathan, which has driven up costs and driven down demand for coal, it is absolutely deceitful for 

the Interior Department to suggest that coal companies are not paying enough, or that the taxpayers are not 

receiving a return on their resources. Even without the nearly 40% tax rate, the affordable energy that the 

poorest among us enjoys is a tremendous benefit to our local, state and national economy. I would suggest that 

along with the impacts of burning coal on the environment, the positive cumulative impacts for all who utilize 

electricity for work and leisure be analyzed. Affordable energy is the backbone of our economy, but our current 

president, does not seem concerned about the citizens of this nation. 

Comment Number: 0000824-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I believe that current royalty rates are excessive and should be reduced in light of current market conditions. 

Comment Number: 0000827-3 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Sarah Bates 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

No new leases until we are assured of a fair return to taxpayers for the lease of federal coal, transparency in the 

leasing process, and royalties commensurate with the true costs of leasing federal coal-including mitigating the 

impacts of mining on wildlife and their habitat. 

Comment Number: 0000828-2 

Organization1:Friends of Coal West 

Commenter1:David Smaldone 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-493

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Rates paid on federal coal are excessive. Coal producers pay 40% of the selling price of coal in taxes, fees and 

royalties, and there is no justification to increase royalty or leasing rates. To increase these rates will leave less 

revenue for states and communities, fewer jobs, higher energy prices and will hit all Americans in the checkbook. 

Education programs, road and public safety will suffer as well. 

If the federal government is interested in maximizing the return on investment for taxpayers, it would incentivize 

development of federal coal by reducing royalties and other fees, making permitting processes more efficient and 

basing bonus bids on the amount of coal that is actually recoverable. 

Comment Number: 0000829-1 

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy (UCARE) 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This PElS should develop a comprehensive, coal-specific "costs test" analysis tool that would quantify and 

monetize the full range of damages caused by coal as well as the true "avoided costs" value of renewables when 

used to replace coal. National coal valuation metrics could be used by state regulators. 

Comment Number: 0000829-3 

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy (UCARE) 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal leasing program does not yield a fair return to Americans. It allows the coal industry to shift societal and 

environmental costs onto the public. It conflicts with program fails to adequately monetize the damages caused by 

coal taken from federal lands. These externalized expenses should be incorporated into what companies pay for 

coal.

Comment Number: 0000832-1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Higher royalties will only dampen production, keeping affordable energy off the market and revenue away from 

taxpayers. So much for taxpayers getting a "fair return." 

Comment Number: 0000840-2 

Commenter1:Craig J. Provost 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Federal Coal Leasing Program has allowed our public lands to be used for commercial profit at horrendously 

low prices that have not kept up with the actual value of our land and resources. More importantly the federal 

lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management should not be used for the benefit of commercial enterprises 

at the expense of our environment and our health.

Comment Number: 0001102_CONSTANTINE_KingCnty_20160621-3 

Organization1:King County 

Commenter1:Dow Constantine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The historically low royalty rates are effectively a public subsidy that has widespread negative impacts on our 

health, air and water quality, traffic, and our economic development. As we've seen from coal export facility 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-494 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

proposals across the Pacific Northwest, the impacts of coal extraction in places like Powder River Basin do not 

stop at a county or a state line. 

Comment Number: 0001104_SLADE_CongMcDermott_20160621-1 

Organization1:48 Democratic House Members 

Commenter1:Lee Slade 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The first, the low royalty rate and minimum bid for surface mine coal as well as the lack of competition during 

the bidding process. The way that the Department of the Interior determines the value of federal coal and the 

mine, rather than at the point of end use, which shortchanges taxpayers and effectively subsidizes coal production 

Comment Number: 0001106_CORNELISON_20160621-1 

Organization1:Cityof Hood River, OR

Commenter1:Peter Cornelison 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The City of Hood River urges the Department of Interior to do three things: Update the coal royalty rate for 

fossil fuels extracted on public lands; number two, help diversify those rural economies and create new jobs and 

investments where the coal miners will be displaced; and number three, tighten the bonding requirements for 

coal. As we've heard, there's huge scars on the land. We're not sure the coal companies have the wherewithal 

financially to recover that. That needs to be inspected. 

Comment Number: 0001111_VON FLATERN_WY state senate_20160621-1 

Organization1:Wyoming State Senate 

Commenter1:Michael Von Flatern 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Federal Coal Program provides revenues to federal and state governments totalling $13.8 billion since 

2003. So for an example, the Powder River Basin in Wyoming, which produces over 80 percent of the coal 

reserves on federal lands, local governments and the federal government receive almost 40 cents on every dollar, 

12 and a half percent royalty to the federal government, that's 12 and a half percent. That's not 12 and a half 

cents on a ton. 

So the current price is approximately $11 for a ton of coal. So you take the $11 and you look at the 40 -- almost 

40 percent, and you get $4.28 of every ton of coal that they produce goes to the government, either the local 

government or the federal government. The federal government is getting 12 and a half percent or roughly $1.75 

or $1.50 of that ton, not 12 and a half cents a ton. 12 and a half percent. 

Comment Number: 0001115-1 

Organization1:Wyoming Infrastructure Authority 

Commenter1:Jason Begger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

So I'm going to talk specifically about all the taxes that are paid on a ton of coal. You've got the 12 percent 

federal royalty, you have 7 percent Wyoming state severance tax, the LBA payments, which somebody said 

earlier was 12 cents. Well, if you look at the BLM website, they were 1.35 for the Belle Ayr lease a couple years 

ago, which is ten times the 12 cents that was stated, but at current spot prices last week it was at $8.80 per ton. 

That was about a 15 percent tax for the OBA. You got 4.4 percent gross proceeds tax, you got 28 cents per ton 

abandoned lineman -- abandoned mine lands funds, you also have your property taxes on your equipment, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-495

Scoping Report 

buildings, facilities, property taxes on production, sales tax on all the equipment and materials, and you know, a 6 

percent sales tax on a $3 million haul truck is a significant amount of sales tax. 

Altogether coal pays an effective tax rate of over 40 percent. To put that in perspective, when we filed our taxes, 

look at our own individual effective tax rates, usually it's about 15 percent. So the coal industry pays two and a 

half to three times more taxes than individuals do. I think that's a pretty good rate of return for the government 

and taxpayers as a whole throughout all those. 

Comment Number: 0001117_LANDEN_WY state senate_20160621-1 

Organization1:Wyoming State Senate 

Commenter1:Bill Landen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We have chosen to invest those funds in our future, specifically the future of our kids. Payments -- coal lease 

bonus payments and all the subsequent tax revenues generated by the coal program are used almost exclusively 

in my state to help us fund the K through 12 education system. Over the past 15 years Wyoming has invested 

more than $3.5 billion in school facilities. As chairman of our school facilities committee, I am proud to say that 

coal lease bonuses have paid for more than 70 new schools across our state and have assisted in modernizing an 

additional 35 while maintaining the rest. More than $815 million in coal lease money has been spent on major 

maintenance alone over that same time period. Beyond those lease payments the coal industry provides mineral 

royalty payments and severance and ad valorem taxes, much of which goes to pay the teachers in the operation 

of those schools. Roughly 16 percent of our K through 12 funding in Wyoming can be attributed to tax revenue 

derived from the coal program. And of course, the industry provides jobs for moms and dads of the kids who are 

in those schools. Not just jobs in the mines, but in all the support industries throughout the four-state region. I'm 

not certain how the federal government spends the revenue derived from coal, but I do know that in Wyoming 

we have used that money to invest in our future. The school facilities we put on the ground will last for 

generations to come. I would argue today that we are receiving a fair return for this resource as evidenced by the 

state of Wyoming. We hope you will reinstate the leasing program 

Comment Number: 0001121-1 

Commenter1:Larry Gussin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

So the issue for Americans is less fair return on coal and much more developing policies that enhance, not block, 

U.S. opportunity. Making coal pay its way levels the playing field for energy IT, for solar, even for nuclear. Doing 

the opposite by continuing to subsidize coal leases will help send this opportunity to other countries. 

Comment Number: 0001129-1 

Organization1:Climate Solutions 

Commenter1:Beth Doglio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And so the federal government needs to consider coal exports when setting the fair market value of federal coal. 

Comment Number: 0001132-1 

Organization1:Sierra Club 

Commenter1:Mike O'Brien 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When we price this land, we need to account for the habitat, ecological benefit that we lose when we give that 

over to coal companies. In addition, the cleanup of these lands needs to be borne by the coal companies, and that 

price needs to be embedded in the price of land. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-496 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0001140-1 

Commenter1:Cheri Cornell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal industry by paying below-market rates which in no way account for the incredible social costs of burning 

coal is engaging in the opposite of intergenerational equity. The coal industry is engaged in wholesale generational 

theft. My federal government should not be complicit in this crime. 

Comment Number: 0001142-1 

Organization1:United Steelworkers 

Commenter1:Steve Garey 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current coal leasing program is broken and it needs updating. The current program does not reflect modern 

markets or environmental realities. It is not fair for taxpayers, nor does it account properly for environmental 

impacts. For these and other reasons I support the decision to pause leasing until a new program is in place. 

Comment Number: 0001148-4 

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Commenter1:Bob LeResche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Interior must reassess fair return. Fair return to all American citizens who own the coal, of course, but also fair 

return to those on whose back massive costs are now externalized. We who breathe the air, we who as 

grandparents raise cattle on grasslands and aquifers mined 40 years ago and not yet reclaimed, we who wait 

interminably at rail crossings in our small towns and large cities. There must be a new means of assuring 

competition in bidding, transparent lease valuation, transparent royalty collection stripped of loopholes and 

unaudited self-reporting.

Comment Number: 0001160-1 

Organization1:Climate Reality Project 

Commenter1:Brian Gunn 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Now, are we getting a fair price for that coal? Well, Taxpayers for Common Sense says no. The National 

Resource Defense Council estimates that we may have been cheated by as much as $30 billion over the last 30 

years. You bring in the social cost of burning fossil fuels anywhere in the world and the damage to human health, 

rising food costs from unproductive fields and property damage from extreme weather events, and the evidence 

is clear. The American people are getting a raw deal for allowing coal companies to extract our natural 

resources. 

Comment Number: 0001190-1 

Commenter1:Deborah Woolley 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I want to raise this matter of fair return. You are charged with ensuring that the coal leasing program provides a, 

quote, "fair return to taxpayers." I want to plead with you to take that charge very seriously, but more seriously, 

in fact. I realize, of course, that the phrase "fair return" is commonly understood as a financial return -- a financial 

term, market value and return on investment. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-497

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002009_CenterBioDiversity_20160329-4 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols

Comment Excerpt Text: 

With regards to royalty rate reductions, the Bureau of Land Management must be directed to pause 

consideration of any pending or new royalty rate reduction requests until completion of the programmatic 

environmental impact statement. With recent media reports indicating royalty rate reductions are enriching coal 

companies at the expense of the public, these reductions are uncalled for in the near-term 

Comment Number: 0002020_Enk_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Michael Enk 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Taxpayers deserve fair leasing regulations that recognize the true externalized costs of coal extraction and 

combustion. 

Comment Number: 0002048_King_20160620-1 

Commenter1:Matt King 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Costs to fight fires that result from climate change, as well as other direct and indirect costs incurred by 

taxpayers and private citizens, should be factored into the cost of coal leases. The BLM should then pass revenue 

from leasing fees along to public agencies to reimburse them for their costs, and to private citizens who are 

directly affected. 

Comment Number: 0002059_Rofcar_20160619-1 

Commenter1:George and Barbara Rofkar 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Essentially giving rights away to extract and market coal; so that private companies can unfairly compete with 

renewable energy is bad public policy in the extreme. 

If coal is to be mined at all it must be priced to pay for the massive health and environmental damage being done! 

Comment Number: 0002103_Phillips_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Thomas Phillips 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Raises royalties for coal to a level equal to those collected on federal oil and gas. 

Comment Number: 0002106_Ramsey_20160623-1 

Commenter1:David Ramsay 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please price coal on public lands at its true value. Climate change is a very real and serious issue. 

Comment Number: 0002106_Ramsey_20160623-2 

Commenter1:David Ramsay 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-498 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Continuing to subsidize coal is based on past policies and practices and has no rational or responsible place in our 

future. 

Comment Number: 0002112_Sanderson_20160624_CoMineAssoc-1 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current program provides an exceptional return to taxpayers. In fact, the 12.5 percent royalty paid on coal 

leased from federal land is approximately 40 percent higher than royalty rates paid by coal mined on private land 

in coal states. Recent investigations by the Government Accountability Office and the Department of the 

Interior’s Inspector General confirm that the public is getting a fair return and often above fair market value for 

federal coal leases.”

Comment Number: 0002112_Sanderson_20160624_CoMineAssoc-10

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current lease moratorium and proposals to raise royalty rates will have a chilling effect on rural Colorado 

and the western United States. 

Comment Number: 0002112_Sanderson_20160624_CoMineAssoc-5 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Through a series of politically orchestrated “listening sessions” throughout different regions, the Department of 

the Interior seeks to justify its heavy handed moratorium on federal coal leasing applications and seeks, without 

sufficient justification, to hike royalty payments by coal producers, which pay among the highest rates in the 

country. 

Comment Number: 0002112_Sanderson_20160624_CoMineAssoc-6 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I appear today to oppose the moratorium and the royalty rate increase. 

Comment Number: 0002112_Sanderson_20160624_CoMineAssoc-9 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Royalties paid by coal producers are returned to the state to support the public school system. 

Comment Number: 0002136_Hooley_20160525-2 

Commenter1:Kevin Hooley 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am asking for you to please lift the coal lease moratorium and to not raise the royalty rates. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-499

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002141_Squires_20160627-1 

Commenter1:Storey Squires 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

mining corporations are greatly underpaying for mining rights on federal lands 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-1 

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

IEEFA recommends that DOI eliminate the current fair market value criteria and replace it with a new 

partnership model between government agencies and private industry, operating under new rules to protect the 

interest of U.S. taxpayers. The product to be produced from the partnership would be coal, mined for the 

purpose of domestic consumption principally in the electricity sector. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-2 

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Other Sections: 2 8.9 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our proposal for how this program would work is outlined in detail below and contains the following major 

elements: 

· Planning for new coal offerings set by DOI based on accurate analysis of coal reserves and demand. 

· Financing for the coal industry provided by a combination of private sector borrowing, and public sector asset 

transfers of coal, revenue and market guarantees, and regulatory streamlining. 

· Coal prices set by a committee made by a federal-state coal price Commission, with a pricing structure that 

takes into account the need to maintain affordable and reliable electricity and to adjust to changing market 

conditions. 

· Eliminating the self-bonding system for coal mine reclamation, replacing it with a program in which coal 

producers and the federal government share responsibility for clean-up and in which royalty payments are set 

aside to cover liabilities (and to provide for pensions for coal miners). 

· Regular bi-annual external audits of the program by the inspector generals of the Department of Energy and the 

Department of the Interior. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-20

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The “fair market value” design used by the federal government has run its course. And although the type of 

public-private partnership we recommend here may be controversial, the federal coal lease program is clearly in 

need of a new paradigm. Proponents and opponents of the public-private model, as well as neutral third parties 

(16) all agree that sound planning, a skilled public sector negotiating team, good financial advice and openness will 

be critical elements of success. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-24

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-500 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The program design in place to insure that taxpayers received a fair market value of federal coal on federal land 

has been weak decades. The program assumed that private sector competition would create a fair price. 

However, there has been no competition. The program had no oversight for 30 years. Recent reviews found that 

U.S. taxpayers have lost millions, if not billions, of dollars as a result of low valuations for the leases. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-25

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current fair market value system places control of the mine selection, timing, extraction process, 

distribution, sales and price in the hands of coal producers rather than in the hands of the federal owners of the 

land. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-26

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Despite the substantial findings of the weaknesses in this fair market value process, the coal industry has adopted 

a position that there are no problems. The PEIS also accurately describes the current state of the nation’s coal 

market and the PRB’s role in it. Looking ahead, there will be a declining demand for coal for America’s domestic 

electricity needs. The PRB will nevertheless play an important role in coal production as part of an uncertain, new 

norm for coal use in the U.S. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-29

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When the current fair market leasing program was first envisioned, policy-makers may have had an honest 

aspiration that the system would foster a competitive coal market in the West. Public officials essentially turned 

over the program to the coal industry as a way to address many of the perceived and real complications of more 

regulated decision-making. 

It is time to abandon the pretense that the rules of the fair market lease program are designed to create a fair 

market return for the taxpayer. Program implementation over the last 30-plus years has resulted in a steady 

supply of low cost coal provided by relatively healthy coal companies. But the situation has now changed 

dramatically and the objectives of the program are no longer being achieved. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-8 

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Phase Out the Fair Market Leasing Program 

Although the fair market value program was supposed to encourage competition, in fact quite the opposite has 

occurred. (8) In fact, leases under the BLM’s program typically have only one bidder. This lack of competitive 

bidding is evidence that the federal government may not be receiving a fair market value for its coal. In addition, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-501

Scoping Report 

the fair market equivalent pricing used by BLM is suspect because the price-setting mechanism was not 

independently reviewed for 30 years. The lack of internal controls is pervasive. When external reviews have 

finally taken place over the last few years, BLM has adopted a position of “evasive cooperation,” that is, avoiding 

transparency while appearing to cooperate. The DOI Inspector General concluded in 2013 that the Secretary of 

the Interior had such limited control over the operations that it was unlikely that needed reforms could be 

implemented. 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-14

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Regulatory gaps that allow coal companies to effectively sell coal to themselves for below market values to avoid 

paying full royalties, allow massive deductions for the processing and transportation of coal, and create effective 

royalty rate reductions, amount to a form of federally subsidized corporate welfare benefiting a select few 

companies to the detriment of American taxpayers who must carry this expense. 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-15

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

revenue rightly due from the extraction of public resources must not be left unclaimed. Taxpayers deserve their 

fair share from any development of coal on public lands. 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-5 

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

it has become clear that the decades-old regulations governing the federal coal program have become outdated 

and do not necessarily reflect modern day market and environmental realities. It is imperative that taxpayers and 

local communities receive a fair return from any extraction of these publicly owned resources, through a 

program that is transparent, competitive, and designed to serve the public interest, rather than that of a narrow 

sub-set of the energy extraction industry. 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-7 

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal companies that sell coal to themselves at intentionally depressed prices in order to mathematically reduce 

the royalties that would otherwise be payable to the federal government are, in effect, receiving a subsidy by 

having their production costs lowered and simultaneously depriving the public of a source of useful revenue. 

Comment Number: 0002148_OLaughlin_20160621_K2-3 

Organization1:K2 Sports 

Commenter1:Matt O'Laughlin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-502 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

There is no “fair price” to pay for this natural resource considering the climate & health impacts it has on our 

global communities. 

Comment Number: 0002149_Hewitt_20160519_WyLSO-11

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature's Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee 

Commenter1:Ted Hewitt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

by simply announcing that the federal government is considering increasing the royalty rate on coal, the federal 

government has added volatility to the coal market. This threatens the livelihoods of many workers in our state. 

Maintaining a consistent royalty rate will help return stability to the coal markets and make planning for the 

future easier for Wyoming families and the state and local governments that serve them. 

Comment Number: 0002149_Hewitt_20160519_WyLSO-3 

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature's Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee 

Commenter1:Ted Hewitt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the federally--mandated 12.5% mineral royalty on surface coal provides a fair rate of return to the American 

taxpayer. Increasing this rate would reduce demand for coal and harm our economy. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-1 

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The idea that coal companies are not paying their fair share of taxes, royalties and rentals is simply not true as 

evidenced by the number of persons citing the myriad of ways that the government (and taxpayers) receive their 

fair share. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-15

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current coal lease bidding process has 3 outcomes. 

Either the bid is rejected because it does not meet fair market value, the bid exactly meets fair market value or 

the bid exceeds fair market value. Since a coal lease bid has never been spot on fair market value, then the 

taxpayers are receiving greater than fair market value. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-8 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In summary, the currently broken part of the coal leasing process is that Washington has inserted itself into the 

process instead of allowing its regional staff to do their jobs. As thoroughly identified during the Casper, WY 

scoping meeting, royalty rates do not need to be increased on federal coal, and coal lease sales already result in a 

fair return to taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-9 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-503

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Royalty rates do not need to be increased on federal coal, and coal lease sales already result in a fair return to 

taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0002155_Krupnick_20160622-5 

Organization1:Center for Energy and Climate Economics Resources for the Future 

Commenter1:Alan Krupnick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Since the publication of our original report, a number of studies have further explored the issues raised in our 

research. These include a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper on upstream and 

downstream policy interactions between the Clean Power Plan and a federal coal royalty increase, and modelling 

on leakage potential from federal coal production to increased coal production on other lands.(2,3) 

(2) Gerarden et al. 2016. Federal Coal Program Reform, the Clean Power Plan, and the Interaction of Upstream 

and Downstream Climate Policies. NBER Working Paper No. 22214. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of 

Economic Research. 

(3) ICF International. 2016. Federal Coal Leasing Reform Options: Effects on CO2 Emissions and Energy Markets. 

Prepared for Vulcan Philanthropy | Vulcan, Inc. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-4 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Other Sections: 7.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ken Gillingham discussed coal mined from federal lands and the royalties charged for that extraction. He noted 

that 42% of thermal coal sold in the U.S. is “federal coal” and that such coal had out-competed other sources on 

price for decades. Gillingham then explained several of the reasons that the Department of Interior is reviewing 

its coal leasing program and planning to issue a programmatic environmental impact statement to update that 

program: royalties charged for coal are 1/6th its market price and many times below the Social Cost of Carbon 

(in contrast to other fossil fuels, for which royalties are closer to what charging the SCC would yield); 90% of 

auctions have a single bidder because they are generally for continuations rather than new leases; and most bids 

for those leases are near the (confidential) minimum bid. Gillingham then noted that charging royalties equal to 

the SCC would effectively keep federal coal in the ground and suggested that charging 20% of the SCC—because 

royalties are split with states—could provide a revenue stream for programs that ease the pain of a transition 

away from coal. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Madder_20160517_EnergyPolicyNetwork-3 

Organization1:Energy Policy Network

Commenter1:Kelly Mader 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the BLM looks to climate change considerations as a basis for determining that taxpayers are not receiving fair 

market value from the sale of coal, it ignores the regulation of coal combustion as stationary sources under the 

Clean Air Act. This approach – if taken by the BLM - serves to subject coal as a resource to (1) ever increasing 

financial requirements upon extraction and (2) ever more stringent air quality regulation upon combustion. The 

ultimate result is the elimination of coal from the resource mix altogether. No other resource faces the 

combination of regulatory burdens upon both extraction and combustion in the way that coal does, and thus coal 

cannot economically compete in resource planning processes or in the organized electricity markets. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-504 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002158_Kasperik_20160517_StateRep-1 

Organization1:HD 32 Wyoming State Legislature 

Commenter1:Norine Kasperik 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Wyoming produces approximately 40 percent of America's coal, much of which is federally leased. Producers 

operating in the state have been good corporate citizens, and Wyoming's share of money from coal goes directly 

toward building schools, as well as other essential services. All counties in the state are beneficiaries, and the 

claim that taxpayers are in any way short-changed is misleading at best. Please remember that coal currently 

generates 35% of US electricity production. It provides a stable, reliable mix of electricity sources nationwide. A 

study by HIS Energy found that coal saves roughly $93 billion in annual electric bills. 

Comment Number: 0002158_Kasperik_20160517_StateRep-3 

Organization1:HD 32 Wyoming State Legislature 

Commenter1:Norine Kasperik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current system provides stable and very significant tax and royalty revenue. In Wyoming, companies pay to 

lease federal coal, pay royalties on that coal when it is produced, federal income taxes on any profit, as well as 

severance taxes, ad valorem taxes, sales taxes, and other fees. Federal, state and local governments receive over 

$1.2 billion a year from coal production in Wyoming alone. 

Comment Number: 0002159_smallfry_20160521-1 

Commenter1:Smallfry 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Stop government imposed royalty costs! 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-13

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

coal is a vital economic driver for the economy of Sweetwater County, and because of this, Sweetwater County 

strongly opposes the Coal PEIS and its proposals to place economic hardships on our coal industry. These 

hardships include adding external costs into the fair market value of coal, increasing royalty and bonus payments 

and increasing the layers of regulations. 

Comment Number: 0002161_Goode_20160517-1 

Commenter1:RD Goode 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The American public gets far more than their fare share when it comes to coal taxes. 

Comment Number: 0002163_McFarlane_20160626-2 

Commenter1:Kurt McFarlane 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And do not raise the royalties. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-505

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002171_Becker_20160619-1 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Rose Becker 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It would seem that the coal industry is already paying more than their fair share of taxes at 39%, no other 

industry pays this high of a rate. Matter of fact wind and solar are subsidized by the government, how many years 

have we been subsidizing solar and it still can’t reliably provide our electricity. I have to feel that this moratorium 

is nothing but another way to stop coal production by closed minded people that fail to see the good things that 

are being done and realizing that there are good people that will be destroyed if the naive “Leave it in the 

ground” mentality wins. The taxes from coal supports our schools, roads and communities. 

Comment Number: 0002173_Quick_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Kendra Quick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There have been some comments that “Taxpayers are not receiving a fair return from the leasing of federal 

coal”. This statement is far from the truth. Rates paid on federal coal are excessive and further increasing taxes 

and royalties will reduce investment, lower government (federal and state) revenues, and will result in a 

decreased return on investment for taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0002173_Quick_20160622-2 

Commenter1:Kendra Quick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Federal coal program provides revenues to federal and state governments, totaling $13.8 billion since 

2003. An example of this is in the Powder River Basin (PRB) of Wyoming wherein the BLM controls over 80% of 

the coal reserves on federal lands. In the PRB the government receives almost $0.40 on every dollar of coal sold. 

This represents a tax of approximately 40%. 

Comment Number: 0002173_Quick_20160622-5 

Commenter1:Kendra Quick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the Federal government is interested in maximizing the return on investment for taxpayers, it would incentivize 

development of federal coal by reducing royalties and other fees, improve the permitting processes to be more 

efficient and base the bonus bid on the amount of coal that is actually recoverable. 

Comment Number: 0002173_Quick_20160622-6 

Commenter1:Kendra Quick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We have heard many comments that the 12.5% royalty on coal mined is not high enough. Federal coal lessees 

effectively pay a considerably higher royalty rate than paid on state or private lands because coal companies are 

required to pay bonus bids. The paying of bonus bids rarely occurs for private coal. When you combine the 

majority of bonus bids with the royalty rate, the effective rate is 22%. 

Comment Number: 0002183_Jarstad_20160619-2 

Commenter1:Gene Jarstad 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal leases should not be sold at below market prices -- period! 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-506 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002184_Randolph_20160619-2 

Commenter1:Timothy Randolph 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The sweet deals, at taxpayer expense, that provide coal on public lands to private companies at pennies per ton 

with no accountability for environmental stewardship must end now. 

Comment Number: 0002184_Randolph_20160619-3 

Commenter1:Timothy Randolph 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This taxpayer subsidy (giveaway) is based on outdated economics, it ignores science, and it makes a farce out of 

the pretext of responsible land and resource management. The BLM must stop these corporate giveaways and 

revise the coal program to reflect modern energy policy. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-10

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN A MUCH LARGER RETURN FROM OUR MINING TO THE FEDERAL AND STATE 

GOVERNMENTS THAN TO OURSELFS AND OUR STOCKHOLDERS. 

> THE TAX AND ROYALTY BURDEN PAID BY US COAL MINES, IS THE HIGHEST OF ANY INDUSTRY I 

HAVE COME ACROSS BY A LARGE MARGIN. 

> OUR COAL INDUSTRY PAYS THE HIGHEST COMBINED TAXES AND ROYALTY OF ANY FEDERALLY 

MINERAL MINED NOT ONLY IN WYOMING, BUT EVERYWHERE. 

> THE COMPANIES PAY MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE OF GOVERNMENT IMPOSED TAXES, FEES, 

AND ROYALTIES. 

> ROYALTIES AND TAXES PAID ON EACH TON OF POWDER RIVER BASIN COAL APPROACHES 40% OF 

THE SELLING PRICE WHICH INCLUDE THE FEDERAL ROYALTY PAYMENT, ABANDONED MINE LAND 

FEE, AND ETC. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-33

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

WITH COAL PRICES AT HISTORIC LOWS, TAXES AND FEES ALONE AT OVER 40% OF THE SELLING 

PRICE, THERE'S NO ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION TO INCREASE ROYALTIES OR LEASE RATES. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-34

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INCREASING ROYALTIES AND LEASING RATES. 

> NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE NOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S 

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR REPORTS ON COAL LEASING, MADE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT 

MERIT THE LEASING MORATORIUM OR ANY CHANGES TO THE PROGRAM. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-7 

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-507

Scoping Report 

ARE THE BONUS BIDS, RENTS, AND ROYALTIES RECEIVED UNDER THE FEDERAL COAL PROGRAM 

SUCCESSFULLY SECURING A FAIR RETURN TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC – YES. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-8 

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

HOW SHOULD EACH OF THESE COMPONENTS OF FAIR RETURN BE CALCULATED – CURRENT 

CALCULATIONS WORK WELL. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-9 

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

SHOULD EXTERNALITIES BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE FAIR RETURN CALCULATION? IF SO, 

WHAT SPECIFICALLY AND HOW – CURRENT SYSTEM WORKS WELL 

> I BELIEVE THE U.S. IS GETTING A VERY FAIR RETURN FOR ITS COAL. 

Comment Number: 0002192_Befus_20160518-2 

Organization1:University of Wyoming Foundation 

Commenter1:Brett Befus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We oppose changes to the current federal coal program, including increased royalty and tax payments. 

Comment Number: 0002193_Mead_20160518-1 

Organization1:Brake Supply 

Commenter1:Scott Mead 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to my research man made CO2 output is 4% of the global total, in other words 96% is naturally 

occurring from sources such as volcanos, forest fires, decay of organic material, and breathing. The coal burned in 

the US is 2/1000 of the global total CO2 output. 

Given the above, increasing the tax on coal or royalty or whatever term you choose for the the price mining 

companies pay for what they extract, it is basically punitive and evidence of the so called war on coal especially 

since many leases only have one bidder-there is a reason for that, something about supply and demand I believe. 

Comment Number: 0002197_Wise_20160519-2 

Organization1:Kiewit Mining Group Inc. 

Commenter1:Dirk Wise 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Consumers not getting their fair share in royalty payments- I believe that 40% is more than enough in royalty 

payments, in no other industry is such a high percentage paid. 

Comment Number: 0002199_Gyncild_20160626-2 

Commenter1:Brie Gyncild 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Second, the PEIS must consider the real value of the resources on federal lands, which far exceed the ridiculously 

low prices federally owned coal has been sold for in recent years. These low prices not only cheat the taxpayer 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-508 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

of a fair profit (and funds that could be used for global warming mitigation), but also distort the energy market as 

a whole, reducing the cost of the most polluting energy source and thereby making cleaner energy sources less 

attractive. 

Comment Number: 0002211_Russell_20160620-2 

Commenter1:Holly Russell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Proposed increases to coal lease payments will only create a high electricity tax making coal less competitive in 

the energy market. This tax is ultimately paid by the average citizen. The government already gets its fair share. 

The BLM’s Federal Coal Leasing Program has been very successful. 

Comment Number: 0002211_Russell_20160620-4 

Commenter1:Holly Russell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The government is getting its fair share. The idea that the taxpayer is being “shortchanged” by the coal leasing 

program is obviously false. The federal coal lease program creates great value for not only taxpayers who directly 

benefit from royalties and bonus bids, but for those across America who rely on affordable electricity. 

Comment Number: 0002211_Russell_20160620-5 

Commenter1:Holly Russell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please DO NOT increase coal lease payments. 

Comment Number: 0002224_Miller_20160511-1 

Commenter1:Jacqueline Miller 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I want to ensure all leases of public resources to private companies are for full market value, including the cost of 

environmental degradation. 

Comment Number: 0002228_Graves_20160627-1 

Commenter1:Royal Graves 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal leasing program should be changed to better benefit taxpayers and state governments. The royalties 

paid should be much greater to compensate for the damage done to our personal health and our climate. 

Comment Number: 0002231_Schwend_20160620-4 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:David Schwend 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2015 Spring Creek Coal Mine paid $52Million to the State of Montana for taxes and royalties and 

approximately $20Million to the federal government. We exported 3.6 Million tons of coal to Asia in 2015 and 

lost money. Between Spring Creek Mine and Cloud Peak Energy Logistics, $82Million were lost in 2015. Cloud 

Peak Energy CPE) as a whole lost $204.9Million. CPE pays approximately $0.39 for every dollar on taxes and 

royalties. How much more taxes does the government want coal companies to pay? 39% isn't enough? 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-509

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002231_Schwend_20160620-6 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:David Schwend 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Is adding to the taxes and export royalties an additional measure to ensure coal companies are not successful and 

the Federal Government's portion of the "keep it in the ground" campaign is? 

Comment Number: 0002235_ Russell_20160619-1 

Commenter1:Dave Russell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please price coal on public lands at its true value. Climate change is real, and continuing to subsidize coal has no 

rational place in our future! 

Comment Number: 0002237_Hilden_20160622-3 

Commenter1:Alan Hilden 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Extraction industries fail to pay the United States adequate royalties utilizing out moded payment models not 

updated for decades. 

Comment Number: 0002239_Baierlein_20160621-4 

Organization1:Conservation Northwest

Commenter1:Jeff Baierlein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We ask the BLM to ensure taxpayers receive fair market value from the sale of coal. 

Coal industry royalty rates are dramatically below standards in the oil and gas industry, and should be increased 

to at least the offshore Federal lease rate and to reflect the full environmental and social costs of coal extraction. 

Comment Number: 0002239_Baierlein_20160621-5 

Organization1:Conservation Northwest 

Commenter1:Jeff Baierlein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Federal leasing structure should be transparent and truly competitive to ensure that the American taxpayer 

receives a fair return from Federal coal resources. This will also support the transition to a clean energy 

economy and opportunities for economic diversification in coal communities. 

Comment Number: 0002257_Lowande_20160707-1 

Commenter1:Al Lowande 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It's long overdue that the coalleasing system represents the public interest rather than those of the coal 

companies. Lease prices need to reflect the actual value of the coal and must include the environmental costs of 

extracting and burning it. The huge subsidies the BLM has been providing coal companies have produced untold 

permanent environmental damage and padded the obscene compensation of coal company executives at the 

expense of taxpayers. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-510 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002260_Gleich_20160707-1 

Commenter1:Caroline Gleich 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining on public lands is threatening clean air and water, endangering wilderness areas and putting our 

climate at risk. The lease system fails to look at the many threats coal mining poses. Right now, we’re allowing 

coal companies to mine on our public lands for pennies on the dollar. It’s beyond justification to think that coal 

companies are allowed access to the land that’s set aside for you and me – to destroy the land and the 

surrounding ecosystem, for profit, only to pay a fraction of market value back to the public for it. 

Comment Number: 0002261_GT_20160707-1 

Commenter1:GT 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It's time to stop the subsidies and REVERSE the past free loading. 

Comment Number: 0002263_Davidheiser_20160710-3 

Organization1:German House 

Commenter1:James Davidheiser 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

3) increase outdated royalty rates 

Comment Number: 0002265_Sexton_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Sue Sexton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Any lease access and royalty increase at this time or in the future would have relevance if the Colowyo Coal 

Company and the other Northwest Colorado Coal Companies have been negligent in their responsibility to 

reclamation, BLM and State regulations, but they have not; as a matter of fact they make the environmental and 

compliance regulations their number one priority. The additional cost to their operating costs would definitely 

result in the consumer paying higher utilities. 

Comment Number: 0002265_Sexton_20160712-2 

Commenter1:Sue Sexton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I ask that the royalty increase be removed, it has been a proven fact that the increase of royalties is passed onto 

the consumers; such as the natural gas powered generation plants, their operating costs have passed onto the 

consumer and now senior citizens are having difficulty paying their utility bills. Especially since the increase has 

more than doubled in areas, which is leading the AARP organization to get involved to help pursue funds to assist 

the seniors to keep their power on, and considering the environmental conditions across the United States, that 

increase isn’t helping anyone on a fixed/limited income. 

Comment Number: 0002265_Sexton_20160712-3 

Commenter1:Sue Sexton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I ask that the proposal for the royalty increase be removed, keep electricity affordable for all users. 

Comment Number: 0002266_Simonson_20160711-1 

Organization1: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-511

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:David Simonson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Sec. Jewel is seeking to hike coal royalty rates, despite the fact that current royalty rates are above market, and if 

increased will only result in decreased production and return on investment for taxpayers. Local Coal Miners pay 

approximately 40% tax rates when all taxes are considered. I think that is adequate if not excessive. 

Comment Number: 0002266_Simonson_20160711-2 

Commenter1:David Simonson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Increased rates will saddle the taxpayer with higher electricity prices and lower return from reduced coal 

production also, the value of reliable affordable energy has to be taken into account, because if production on 

federal lands is decreased due to increased royalty rates, consumers will be forced to pay for more expensive 

forms of power generation such as new wind and solar installations that more than triple the cost of electricity. 

Comment Number: 0002266_Simonson_20160711-3 

Commenter1:David Simonson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Increased energy taxes will kill jobs and state revenues, while everincreasing electricity rates will hit all Americans 

in the checkbook. The lower fixed income elderly that live in our region can not afford to have their electrical 

bills triple over the next 5 – 10 years due to regulatory attack and increased taxation on the lowest domestically 

provided power, existing low Sulphur thermal coal. 

Comment Number: 0002269_Holubec_20160715-5 

Commenter1:Allen Holubec 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Rental Rates - 

a. Raise the yearly rental rates - $10 per acre minimum; 1⁄4 to the government general fund, 1⁄4 to the BLM Coal 

Program, and 1⁄2 to the National Abandoned Mine Reclamation program 

Comment Number: 0002269_Holubec_20160715-7 

Commenter1:Allen Holubec 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Royalty Rate Reduction (RRR) – 

a. Export coal 

i. This is the main direction of coal sold. Not to a holding company elsewhere in the U.S. but where the coal is 

actually used. 

1. Montana coal is sold to a holding company in Ohio; the coal is put on a train in Montana to a port on the west 

coast for further resale to China. 

ii. A Company is not eligible for the RRR if they export more than 25% coal sales yearly 

b. Not available if you are or have been habitually late in reporting and paying royalties 

c. Not available to companies that have not met present or past reclamation requirements whether private or 

federal leases 

d. Use mainly to allow for Bypass Situations (category 1) and Area Wide (category 5) 

i. Allow limited - Extension of Mine Life (category 2) use only in dire emergencies and this goes away year by year 

until they are at the original rate (max 5 years) 

ii. Remove - Financial Test, Unsuccessful Operations (category 3) not because they have acidic water which 

causes them to use Stainless steel fittings, which has been successfully used to get a royalty deduction. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-512 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

iii. Remove - Financial Test, Unsuccessful Operations (category 4) maybe they should not be mining 

6. Royalties - 

a. How can the royalty rates be equal to offshore Oil & Gas royalty rates, you are comparing apples to oranges 

(Oil & Gas to Coal) 

b. Raising the rates will shut down mines 

i. Basic economics - cost jobs and hurt communities 

c. Royalties charged only when leaving the company as a whole. 

i. Require the mine to supply a company Table of Organization that shows all relationships between the mine, the 

parent company and any subsidiary/sister companies. If coal is sold to a sister company within the parent 

company, that coal must have royalties based upon coal sold outside of the parent company as a whole. 

1. Montana coal is sold to a holding company in Ohio; the coal is put on a train in Montana to a port on the west 

coast for further resale to China. 

2. This is the oldest game in the book. 

3. A company owns a mine under a separate name / holding company. This mine only sells the coal to a subsidiary 

of the parent company and pays the royalties on the coal sold. This other company then sells the coal to outside 

buyers at a higher (normal price) and then saves the difference in royalty payments. 

4. This is happening all over. 

a. I have personal experience of this, As a Plant Engineer at a private company, we sent out request for bids for 

coal to burn. One company sent the bid back saying they don’t do outside sales. The company only sells to a 

holding company which handles all coal sales, which is the only company willing to purchase this coal. This holding 

company pays rock bottom prices for the coal and then resells the coal again overseas for a substantial gain in 

profits. This Holding company is owned by the same parent company that owns the mine. The company I worked 

for was offering prices higher than what the holding company was paying the mine for the coal. 

b. Secondly, the same mine, since they could only sell the coal at or near a loss, they applied for and received 

Royalty Rate Reductions because of pricing concerns. 

5. The Engineers performing the Inspections and Product Verification will be able to do this work as part of their 

normal duties and forward the Information to the ONRR. 

a. The Coal Inspectors can get and verify bills of Lading for the coal being shipped and compare to corporate 

structure. 

Comment Number: 0002270_Gerst_20160715-2 

Commenter1:Gery Gerst 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I support a stop to subsidies that allow coal companies to profit from climate destroying coal under our federal 

lands. 

Comment Number: 0002276_Henderson_20160715_350Colorado-1 

Organization1:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Commenter1:Gina Hardin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal coal program currently subsidizes the coal industry and production by not including externalities 

when considering fair market value, by inconsistently appraising coal, and by reductions in minimum bids, bonus 

bids and royalties. These subsidies to coal producers need to end, to ensure that coal producers and not 

taxpayers bear the true external costs of mine development and production. The price of coal should reflect its 

actual costs in the broader energy marketplace, so that renewable energy can compete fairly. The program needs 

to adopt policies and practices that incorporate and internalize the full, real costs of mining and production and 

require coal producers to bear costs, without subsidies and externalizing costs to taxpayers, to local 

communities, and to future generations. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-513

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002276_Henderson_20160715_350Colorado-14

Organization1:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Commenter1:Gina Hardin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal industry will be increasingly hard pressed if and when a carbon tax is passed; BLM should help to 

encourage the industry to be more innovative and forward looking to deal with such as scenario, but BLM should 

not subsidize coal in any way. 

Comment Number: 0002276_Henderson_20160715_350Colorado-2 

Organization1:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Commenter1:Gina Hardin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Specific comments on fair market return 

• Raise the royalty percentages to reflect environmental costs, particularly the cost of methane emissions, 

including reparations following extreme weather events due to climate change, using modern economic tools 

such as the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Carbon 

• The minimum bid or bonus bids should not be lowered to offset royalty increases as these recompense the U.S. 

for different components of federal land ownership and leasing 

• Royalties should be based on an index pricing system for coal, like the ones for oil and gas, that reflect the 

market price of coal 

o Regulations should have: 

• A built-in mean of adjusting royalty rates at regular intervals to avoid the perception that the adjustments are 

excessive when, in fact, they are appropriate 

• A built-in means of adjusting the minimum bid, the bonus bid, and royalties for inflation 

• BLM should work closely with the Office of Natural Resources Revenue and Office of Valuation to ensure Fair 

Market Value and execute systematic, regular, vigorous reviews of valuation 

• Regulation reforms need to stop coal companies from cheating on royalties by gaming the system through 

“captive” sales to subsidiaries in order to lower the sale price and the amount of royalties owed 

• Reforms should encourage innovation in the capture of methane through significant royalty rebates or 

reductions based upon the amount of methane captured (The coal industry needs incentives to step up 

innovation of new technologies to remain competitive) 

• Regulations must place greater scrutiny on any reductions in minimum bids, bonus bids, or royalties 

o Provide public notification of such reductions and rationale for the reduction 

o Provide an avenue for public comment on these reductions or create a review process outside BLM, such as 

with the Office of Valuation 

o If a reduction is performance related, such as for methane capture, provide documentation of actual plan and 

accomplishment 

Comment Number: 0002278_Wynn_20160717-2 

Commenter1:Ralph Wynn 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Royalties paid by the coal companies are at most twothirds what are being paid by offshore oil companies and 

well below that paid for gas and oil leases on federal lands. This royalty practice has been unchanged in 30 years! 

The impacts of using coal from public lands on our health and our environment should be calculated into the 

royalty rates. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-514 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002282_Bradford_20160719-2 

Commenter1:David Bradford 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It seems to me that there is already a fair return on the coal mined on federal lands. As stated in the Notice in 

the Federal Register, the 4.3 billion tons of coal mined on federal land, from 2006 to 2015 resulted in $9.55 

billion in revenue to the United States. These revenues are also shared with the states and provide significant 

revenues to those states, the counties and the municipalities in those states. In addition, the coal mines generate 

significant revenues through property taxes and payroll taxes. These revenues should also be considered in the 

PEIS. Any decision to increase the cost of operations of the coal mines needs to evaluate the potential loss of 

revenues to the U.S., affected states, counties and municipalities due to the loss of jobs and property taxes. This 

is an absolutely critical issue. Here in Delta County, Colorado, the policies that the Obama Administration have 

implemented for coal mining have caused two of the three coal mines to close with the loss of over 1,000 jobs to 

our community. This is causing a multiplier effect of reduced economic activity and job losses throughout our 

community. Any decision to increase the royalty rate needs to analyze the potential impact of decreased 

revenues to all affected government entities. 

Comment Number: 0002286_Watts_20160719-1 

Commenter1:Howard Watts 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I would simply like to ask that the coal program be restructured to ensure that lease prices are competitive with 

the market 

Comment Number: 0002287_Whittemore_20160714-2 

Commenter1:Judy Whitmore 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Raising royalty rates also would reduce coal production which means less revenue for pressing public needs. As a 

country that is in trillions of dollars debt, why would you consider doing something that reduces income to the 

government and places a larger burden on the people. 

Comment Number: 0002288_Wallace_20160712-1 

Commenter1:John Wallace 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

My household relies on affordable, coal generated electricity. By keeping royalty rates affordable to coal 

producers, you help me keep my rural household affordable. 

Comment Number: 0002293_Niemi_20160606-4 

Commenter1:Sharman Niemi 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I do not support proposed changes to the federal coal royalty rates. 

Comment Number: 0002294_Lowe_20160606-1 

Commenter1:Wendy Lowe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Studies that purportedly show that an increase in the coal royalty rate and increase in minimum bid requirements 

would only result in a slight reduction in coal mined and an actual increase in revenues is laughable. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-515

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002294_Lowe_20160606-3 

Commenter1:Wendy Lowe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Royalty rates are already high compared to private reserves and are comparable to other onshore fossil fuel 

resources. Forty percent of every dollar is paid to a level 9f government for every ton of coal mined. 

Comment Number: 0002295_Stewart_20160719-1 

Commenter1:Dan Stewart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should not increase coal lease royalties beyond their fair market value 

Comment Number: 0002295_Stewart_20160719-4 

Commenter1:Dan Stewart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Increasing royalties and adding a so-called social cost of carbon actions would increase the cost of electricity to 

business and consumers. 

Comment Number: 0002296_Regan_20160720-3 

Commenter1:David Regan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I support the Department of the Interior taking a much more robust role in the coal leasing process and return 

to the taxpayer a much higher price, not a giveaway. 

Comment Number: 0002297_Gordon_20160720-1 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please evaluate royalties closely in the PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002304_McIntosh_20160720-1 

Commenter1:Tom McIntosh 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Federal Gov. needs to get fair royalties for the coal it sells 

Comment Number: 0002309_Monseu_20160721_AmericanCoalCouncil-4 

Organization1:American Coal Council 

Commenter1:Betsy Monseu 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

changing the royalty rate structure and terms to make it more onerous for coal mining companies will not 

generate increased revenue for states. The economics are clear. Coal investment would be reduced and the 

amount of coal mined on federal lands would (Department of , Energy Information Administration, “Today in 

Energy”, March 10, 2015. Available at http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20292) decrease. That 

means fewer federal and state revenue dollars and a lower, not higher, return for taxpayers. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-516 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002309_Monseu_20160721_AmericanCoalCouncil-5 

Organization1:American Coal Council 

Commenter1:Betsy Monseu 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

raising the coal royalty rate or otherwise increasing the cost of coal production would be a poor policy choice on 

the part of BLM 

Comment Number: 0002309_Monseu_20160721_AmericanCoalCouncil-7 

Organization1:American Coal Council 

Commenter1:Betsy Monseu 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In consideration of other economic provisions that would be both beneficial and more equitable to coal 

producers, BLM should consider basing bonus bids on the amount of recoverable coal rather than the amount of 

coal reserves, and changing the revenue collection for bonus bids from collecting up-front payments associated 

with 

bonus bids over five years to pay-as-you-go bonuses as coal is produced from the reserve. 

Comment Number: 0002309_Monseu_20160721_AmericanCoalCouncil-9 

Organization1:American Coal Council 

Commenter1:Betsy Monseu 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

DOI should promptly reinstate the Royalty Policy Committee, engaging a variety of appropriate stakeholders to 

provide advice and counsel to the Secretary of the Interior. 

Comment Number: 0002315_Stewart_UnitedChurchChirst_20160722-6 

Organization1:Creation Justice Ministries 

Commenter1:Shantha Alonso 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Yet, estimates show that from 2008-2012, coal companies underpaid royalties to the federal government by 

more than $620 million.(1) In 2013, the Department of Interior Office of the Inspector General found the Bureau 

of Land Management was not receiving a fair return for coal,(2) and the Government Accountability Office 

discovered a lack of uniformity in how states price coal.(3) 

Comment Number: 0002316_Boeschenstein_CoGovernments_20160722-2 

Organization1:City of Grand Junction 

Commenter1:Bennett Boeschenstein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As a part of the review, we suggest the Department of the Interior (DOI) outline robust guidelines that will make 

sure taxpayers and communities are getting a fair deal. Right now, coal is being sold well under market value, 

denying Coloradans billions of dollars in royalties. 

Comment Number: 0002323_Gordon_20160722-4 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Other Sections: 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-517

Scoping Report 

Another man from Conservation Northwest said the royalties for coal should be the same as for oil. He also 

mentioned that lynx, wolverine, and caribou need snow. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-1 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal is being leased in non-competitive auctions far below its true market value. This results in drastic 

subsidies of the price of Federal coal. These subsidies distort U.S. energy markets, over-incentivize the domestic 

consumption of coal, over-incentivize U.S. coal exports by subsidizing transportation costs, and delay the shift to 

cleaner sources of energy 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-100

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The program must be reformed to eliminate a mining company’s self-dealing with its affiliates and use final sale 

prices to assess royalties. This would help ensure that taxpayers are receiving a fair return on their publiclyowned resources. The royalty rate for coal leases should be increased to match the 18.75% that is paid by 

owners of off¬shore oil leases. Such reforms would go a long way toward ending the artificial advantage that 

holders of Federal coal leases have over their private competitors in Appalachia. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-11

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 8.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Decertification sidesteps the competitive system mandated by the FCLAA by eliminating the first step on which 

all the other procedures depend—drawing up a regional leasing plan. This makes the ad hoc LBA system the only 

system. Under the LBA system, the BLM does not set the level of coal that it leases by taking into account 

changes in the market, such as the recent decline in domestic demand for coal brought about by the dramatic 

decline in the price of domestic natural gas, and the increase in the profitability of coal exports. Instead, it 

receives a request for a lease tract containing the amount of coal desired by the requester. It determines a fair 

market value floor for the tract currently being requested by identifying the most recent comparable lease and 

treating the sale price of that lease as a proxy. 

The problem with this approach is that the most recent comparable tract that was leased is typically one that was 

tailored by the bidder to suit its own interests. That sale price, therefore, typically reflects the unsuitability of that 

tract for any other buyer. The fair market value of a lease determined in this artificial manner is typically a 

fraction of what the same coal would be worth if it were mined outside of the Powder River Basin. “Fair market 

value” determined with this downward bias sets the floor for evaluating the acceptability of bids. It therefore 

imparts a downward bias to the price ultimately paid for leases. The artificially-reduced lease price, in turn, 

lowers the price that the mining company charges to sell its leased coal to a broker. This reduces the amount of 

royalties collected, because royalties are calculated as a percentage of the price at which the mining company 

sells its coal to a broker. Using the price of a lease designed to be non-competitive as a proxy for the fair market 

value of the subsequent lease results in a rolling sequence of under-market valuations that shortchanges Federal 

and state governments and the public that they represent 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-518 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-14

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Selling coal to captive affiliates has not changed how PRB coal is mined or the markets into which it is sold. It has 

simply reduced royalties below what the mining company would pay if its first “sale” were a true sale, rather than 

a shell transaction between the mining company and itself. The shell game has this effect on coal royalties because 

the ONRR personnel tasked with determining whether a captive transaction was based on an arm’s-length price 

must make that determination based on complex formulas employing an array of alternative benchmarks, each of 

which is an imperfect market proxy that is subjectively chosen and is easily manipulated.(9) As a result, in 

captivetransactions, ONRR often ends up basing royalties on prices that are well below the true market price of 

the coal 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-15

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In determining the value of the coal to which royalties will be applied, the ONRR’s analyst chooses from five 

alternative benchmarks. These include using comparable sales, the income approach, and “netback pricing.” 

Netback pricing starts with a price charged downstream (typically the sale by the marketing affiliate) and deducts 

eligible costs. The ONRR’s process of determining if a sale is an arm’s-length sale or not, and determining 

whether the contract price reported to the agency is fair when no market transactions exist, is unwieldy and 

costly to administer, and provides a loophole that can be used to minimize the amount of royalties owed. 

(Headwaters Economics, 2015, at 9.) 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-16

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If the federal government were to materially alter the method for valuing royalty payments for our non-arms’ 

length sales, our profitability and cash flows could be materially adversely affected. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-17

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Extensive reliance on shell transactions with affiliates, and allowing transportation, washing, and similar 

preparation costs to be deducted from sale prices before calculating royalties are at odds with international 

commercial norms. Pacific markets, such as Indonesia and Australia, do not allow many of the subsidies currently 

in place under the U.S. system. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-18

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The ONRR has proposed reforms that consist of closing the captive transaction loophole. In making this change, 

ONRR would treat the price of the first arm’s length sale as the true market price of coal, but after 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-519

Scoping Report 

transportation and other eligible costs are deducted. However, that partial reform would still allow non-affiliated 

brokers to an important role in the PRB coal market. In those instances, the rulemaking would do little to bring 

royalties up to 12.5% of the true (gross) market price required by the Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments. To 

the extent that severed coal needs to be washed and transported to the end-user, these disadvantageous 

economic characteristics are reflected in the price of the lease by which the mining company obtains the coal in 

the first place. To use those very same factors to artificially deflate the market value of that severed coal (the 

value that the end user places on it) before applying the royalty is to credit the mining company twice for the 

same disadvantageous economic characteristics of the leased coal. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-19

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The role of brokers must change. As Headwaters Economics notes in its whitepaper, the rise of the Powder 

River Basin (PRB) as the largest supplier of the nation’s coal has dramatically increased the role of affiliate and 

non-affiliate brokers. Its mines are huge and are far from most energy markets so that most of the coal must be 

shipped by rail to end users. This creates an opportunity for midstream exchanges through brokers. PRB coal is 

typically sold (and valued) when it is loaded into trains at the mine. Brokers buy coal from these massive mines, 

and seek out the highest market price. The current regulatory structure bases royalties on the price of the first 

sale, whether it occurs at the mine mouth or at the doorstep of a distant end user. If the first sale occurs at the 

mine mouth, the sale price can be far below the price at which coal is sold to end users, such as power plants on 

the East Coast or in South Asia. If the first sale occurs at the mine mouth, the lease yields much lower royalty 

collections than if it occurs at the doorstep of a distant end user. (Headwaters Economics, at 10.) 

This approach to royalty valuation does not provide a fair return on Federal coal. This approach results in large 

Federal subsidies of coal lease holders and their customers because it yields royalty collections that are far below 

the 12.5% of true market value that is required by statute. To end the subsidies that have evolved under the 

BLM’s current leasing approach, it is essential to apply the Federal royalty at the final point of sale to an end user 

for both domestic and export sales. Otherwise, non-affiliated brokers in the PRB market will still be able to buy 

coal at the mine mouth at a discounted price that reflects the low royalty payment made by the mining company. 

Such brokers would still enjoy a cost advantage over a mine that sells its coal directly to an end user and pays 

royalties on the full price of the sale to the end user. Federal and state royalties avoided are the primary source 

of the broker’s profit and is the broker’s primary reason for being. To capture these profits, mining companies in 

the PRB have established elaborate networks of affiliated brokers. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-20

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Transparency would end the need to rely on proxies and benchmarks to calculate “fair market value.” Currently, 

the Energy Information Agency publicly provides information showing the final sales price for Federal coal. ONRR 

auditors could use this information to calculate and verify royalty obligations. This would eliminate the need for 

ONRR analysts to estimate a true market price through subjective analysis of proxies and benchmarks that are 

inherently inaccurate. Relying on the price of the final sale is the only straightforward and transparent way to 

determine the true market price at which mining companies sell their coal. This straightforward reform would 

make the administratively burdensome and inherently unreliable royalty assessments that ONRR currently makes 

unnecessary. It would also make it more likely that DOI will actually collect the 12.5% royalty on the true market 

value of coal that the law requires. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-520 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-27

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It should be noted that $15.59 is less than half of the average end-user price of Federally-leased coal ($34.43). 

Consequently, the average effective royalty rate for Federally-leased coal (4.9%) is less than half of the rate 

required by statute (12.5%). The low “sale” price, and low effective royalty rate that is currently collected for 

Federal coal generally, reflects the fact that most Federal coal revenue is from PRB coal that is “sold” at the mine 

mouth. PRB coal sells for an average of $13 a ton. This is one-fifth to one-fourth of the price of privately-sourced 

Appalachian coal, which is the next largest source of coal in the United States. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-28

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The DOI should level the playing field between mining companies that exploit public coal reserves and those who 

exploit private coal reserves, and ensure that taxpayers are receiving a fair return on their publicly- owned 

resources by applying the Federal royalty rate to the true market value of coal at its final point of sale. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-29

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Under the current leasing process, the direct economic costs and benefits of leasing Federal coal are obscured 

behind a cloak of confidential data and analysis in which ONRR personnel use subjective judgment to select from 

a set of imperfect proxies or benchmarks for true market value. The necessary first step in estimating the direct 

economic costs and benefits of leasing Federal coal is to base the estimate on transparent, objective data. Once 

the direct effects are estimated, they can be balanced with the wider social objectives that the statutory 

framework says are supposed to guide the use of this public resource. Ironically, the procedural framework for 

taking this approach is already in place--it just isn’t used. The nation’s Federal coal leasing laws (MLA and FCLAA) 

require the BLM to conduct coal leasing within a framework of regional planning. The purpose of that planning is 

to balance a wide range of social objectives that are affected by the way that the public’s mineral resources are 

used. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-5 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It must also assess royalties based on final sale prices to end-users. The current 12.5% royalty rate for coal is the 

lowest royalty rate allowed under current law. It is lower than the 18.75% charged for offshore oil and gas 

production, and lower than the rates charged by many key Western states, including Wyoming, New Mexico, 

Colorado, and Utah. Although the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has the statutory authority to increase the 

royalty rate, it has not done so. It should exercise its authority to bring the royalty rate for coal up to the rate 

paid by owners of offshore oil leases. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-74

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-521

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM officials reduce effective royalties below the statutory rate in three ways: 

1) The BLM applies royalties to the price that the mining company receives from the first sale of its coal to 

another entity. It calls this the “first arms-length transaction” and presumes that it is the true market price. If the 

first sale is to the mining company’s own affiliate/subsidiary, the BLM still treats such a “sale” as having occurred 

at the true market price if its Office of Natural Resource Revenue (ONNR) finds that the price is the same as it 

would have been if the sale had been at arm’s length. The first “sale” is often made at the mine-mouth to the 

mining company’s own affiliate, rather to a power plant or other end user, such as a broker that exports the coal. 

In most cases, there is no economic or business reason to record a sale before the coal reaches the power plant, 

except to reduce the nominal price of first “sale” in order to avoid paying the full royalty amount that would have 

been owed if the sale had been recorded when it was delivered to the end user (the power plant). 

2) The BLM can reduce the royalty rate to as low as 2 percent of the sale price if a mine becomes unprofitable 

due to unfavorable conditions—such as limited access to coal or a decrease in its quality. 

3) Mining companies can deduct transportation and washing costs from the sale price before applying the royalty. 

This translates into an allowance for the full cost of transporting federal coal from the mine mouth to a remote 

point of sale or to transport the coal to a distant wash plant. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-75

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Shell transactions with affiliates are also used by PRB coal companies when selling coal to foreign buyers. A 

Reuters investigation in 2012 noted that PRB coal sells for an average of $13 per ton domestically, but sells for up 

to 10 times that price in Asian markets. Because royalties currently are applied to “sales” to captive affiliates at 

$13 a ton at the mine mouth, and later sold to Asian customers at up to 10 times that price, some PRB coal 

companies can make four times as much profit when they sell to Asian markets than if they sell the same coal 

domestically, despite the high cost of transporting coal to Asia. See .nbcnews.com/ news/2012/12/04/15676862-

asia-coal-export-boom-brings-no-bonus-for-taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-76

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This estimate of the size of the annual Federal subsidy of leased coal is corroborated by a study done in 2012 for 

the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. That study estimated that the Federal coal leasing 

program has collected $28.9 billion less in royalties than the law requires over the period 1982-2012 (roughly $1 

billion per year) due to flaws in the current leasing system. (Sanzillo, T., 2013). 

Comment Number: 0002327_Everdean_20160724-1 

Commenter1:Jo Everdean 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

please take into consideration how unfair laws like the Baseload Act are. It is unfair and does not guarantee 

taxpayers receive fair compensation. Additionally, it places a burden on taxpayers that should be absorbed 

instead by the company that is involved in the energy development. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-522 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002333_Magagna _20160725_WyStockgrowers-1 

Organization1:Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Commenter1:Jim Magagna 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal coal leasing program has a track record of providing a fair return to the taxpayer through requiring 

that no tracts be leased at less than fair market value. At the same time the program has facilitated cost effective 

mining by allowing mining companies to nominate tracts for bidding that are adjacent to existing mines. In 

addition, this approach allows mining to be concentrated thereby reducing patchwork surface impacts and 

facilitating reclamation. Our members derive significant benefits from this approach. 

Comment Number: 0002336_Cole_20160725_MesaCntyCO-1 

Organization1:Mesa County Colorado, Board of County Commissioners 

Commenter1:Kristen Cole 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal Leasing Program Revisions: The federal coal leasing program provides for an adequate return to the public 

on coal that is mined on public lands. Given the current state of the coal industry, increases in lease payments 

and royalties would ultimately result in more mine closures and less revenue to the public. 

Comment Number: 0002339_Satterfield_20160726_IECA-1 

Organization1:Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) 

Commenter1:Marnie Satterfield 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Existing rates paid on federal coal are excessive and further increases in taxes and royalties will reduce 

investment, lower government (federal and state) revenues, and result in a decreased return on investment for 

taxpayers. Given current market conditions of coal, and as a direct and indirect consumer of coal, we do not 

support increasing the royalty rate. 

Comment Number: 0002339_Satterfield_20160726_IECA-11

Organization1:Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) 

Commenter1:Marnie Satterfield 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Given current market conditions of coal, IECA does not support an increase in the royalty rate for coal. The coal 

industry is paying more than its fair share and existing Federal rates are too high given the market conditions. 

Comment Number: 0002348_Thompson _20160607-1 

Commenter1:bret thompson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Obama administration placed a temporary moratorium on new federal coal leases and Sec. Jewel is seeking 

to hike coal royalty rates, despite the fact that current royalty rates are at 34% (Wyoming coal mines currently 

pay over one billion dollars a year in taxes and revenue). This rate is far above the tax rate of any other mineral 

and far above the rate of other countries, and if increased will result in an increase in electric rates and a 

decreased in production and a decrease on returns to our state governments, federal government and taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0002354_Chermi_20160721-1 

Commenter1:Tio Winter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-523

Scoping Report 

There has been a 

complaint with the coal leasing program that we don’t pay our fair share for federal leased coal. So what 

does that mean? In Powder River Basin, we will take an average coal mining sale price of about 11 

bucks. So, the lease acquisition tax which we have to bid on for fair market value is usually about a dollar 

and the federal royalty we pay on top of that after we have already mined it which most of the mines 

around powder basin pay the full amount of the leased royalty. The federal royalty is about a $1.38 of 

that 11 bucks. On top of that, we also have state severance taxes for 58 cents, a county tax for 50 cents, 

a black lung tax for 55 cents and an AML tax for 28 cents. That AML tax is abandoned mine land tax we 

have been banking into a fund since 1977 to make sure that tax payers aren’t left with the responsibility 

of the claiming this mining and this is in addition to our own federal lease obligations that we pay each 

year. So altogether that is about $4.28 of the $11, or 39% and I think if you have seen the news lately, 

you have seen that companies that are going bankrupt and I think that that’s enough. We are paying 

more than our fair share. You can have 10% of something or 20% of nothing if you don’t want to let us 

to mine federal coal anymore. 

Comment Number: 0002364_Morris_20160721-1 

Commenter1:Eileen Morris 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining will continue for a long time, but the question is, 

will we the public get a fair share of its value to build better schools and update infrastructure, or will we 

let the publics fair share go to corporate pockets? Many reputable economists have shown coal mining 

companies can afford to pay higher amounts in royalties without affecting production or employment. 

Comment Number: 0002380_O'Hair_20160721-1 

Commenter1:Todd O'Hair 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There’s actually been a study done on the 

Headwaters Organization and there’s two points that are important. One being is that the individual 

who wrote these articles on coal saying that the coal companies aren’t paying their fair share of 

revenues, he’s not even an economist. He has a Master’s in Geography, so he might be able to tell you 

where the state capitol is of New Hampshire, but he doesn’t know anything about coal economics. And 

so he’s been the author of all 4 of these reports. The second thing is Headwaters has been funded in the 

years 2012 and 2013 by between 87% and 93% comes from major environmental organizations. So 

Headwaters is not a bipartisan, not a non-biased organization that’s done these sorts of studies. So I just 

wanted to give that study upon the organizations that’re funding Headwaters so that you’ve got that 

front and center 

Comment Number: 0002382_Ankney_20160721-1 

Organization1:State of Montana 

Commenter1:Duane Ankney 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Now this is all about the moratorium on leases because the opposition to these leases says we are giving 

them away. When you look at coal, it’s one of the most taxed minerals in the United States. We have the 

royalties, we have the gross proceeds, and we have the severance tax on it. In Montana it pays a lot of 

money. Just the coal going to [Colstrip units] 1 & 2, should 1 & 2 go down, that’s a $3 million drop to 

revenue. That’s huge. Because that $3 million means that you leverage that $3 million as actual cash 

into about $15 million of federal money that actually goes to pay for mandated federal planning. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-524 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002390_Pfister_20160721-7 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM also has a responsibility to obtain the best price possible for the coal belonging to the 

public. It will need to look beyond the various flimsy corporate veils until it finds the first arm's 

length transaction between the mine operator and the coal buyer. When the coal was being set 

up for leasing here in the Bulls, the mine president came to the hearing and handed over an 

armload of financial records to BLM. I wondered which set of books they were. The 

justification for the lease price was kept totally secret, as were the means by which BLM 

determined if the price was adequate. Somehow, that did not seem like the way for the public's 

business to be conducted. 

Comment Number: 0002390_Pfister_20160721-9 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If it were not for the very low Montana severance tax on underground coal, Musselshell County, 

where most of the coal for Signal Peak is located, would receive nothing back from the Federal 

coal leasing, since Great Northern Properties, LLC and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe have 

latched onto the money produced from the federal coal in this area. Under ordinary 

circumstances, half the lease money would have been paid to the State of Montana, and half of 

that would have gone to Musselshell County. Today all of it goes to Houston and Lame Deer. 

Comment Number: 0002391-2 

Commenter1:Tom Tully 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

2) Tighten up loopholes that allow coal companies to underpay royalties, in particular, by bookkeeping tricks that 

allow a company to pay royalties on the price of coal at the mine mouth at a much lower rate than when it is 

shipped, even when owned by the same parent company. 

Comment Number: 0002391-7 

Commenter1:Tom Tully 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should be working to maximize the return to the public rather than giving what is essentially a subsidy 

to the coal industry. 

Comment Number: 0002392-3 

Commenter1:Mary Fitzpatrick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A more transparent and competitive process that adequately assesses the true value and costs of coal, from mine 

to power plant, is a critical necessity. 

Comment Number: 0002393-3 

Commenter1:Mike Penfold 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-525

Scoping Report 

GAO studies indicate federal coal is sold 

below market values and the public is getting short changed. 

Comment Number: 0002394-1 

Commenter1:Barbara Archer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Accounting loopholes need to end. The public has a right to know the true costs vs. benefits of coal. The days of 

companies using accounting loopholes that allow them to pay royalties for coal at one price to a subsidiary and 

then sell the same coal into the export market at a much higher rate should be over. The common good should 

not be forfeited for private gain. 

Comment Number: 0002394-4 

Commenter1:Barbara Archer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Fairness to taxpayers and the public in general needs to be considered. It is estimated the 

public has lost billions over the past 3+ decades that could in part be used to help affected 

communities to deal with downturns and inevitable transitions and to become more economically 

diverse. 

Comment Number: 0002395-1 

Commenter1:Thomas E. Towe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am very concerned that the coal companies not be allowed to take advantage of the 

system. Generally royalties of 12 1/2 % of the mine mouth value of the coal is considered a 

reasonable royalty, although there are times when a bonus can be added by proper bidding 

procedures. My concern is that the coal companies should not be allowed to avoid the full 

payment of the expected royalty by selling to a subsidiary at below market value at the mine site 

and letting the subsidiary make the profit when the coal is sold later in the process of delivering 

the coal to the ultimate utility company. As a result some coal companies do not pay anywhere 

near 12.5% royalty; some have placed the true payment closer to 4%. I call that cheating the 

system and I say that needs to end. 

Comment Number: 0002395-2 

Commenter1:Thomas E. Towe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Third, there is nothing wrong with giving the agency in charge the right to reset the fair 

market value. The Internal Revenue Service and the State Departments of Revenue do this all 

the time. In other words, when a taxpayer sells or purchases products from itself, i.e., a 

subsidiary, it is not an arms' length transaction. If it is not an arm's length transaction, it very 

likely will not reflect the fair market value. In the tax world, the Internal Revenue Service or the 

tax agency has full authority to reassess the number when it is not a full arms' length transaction. 

This same thing must be authorized in the determination of royalty payments. 

Comment Number: 0002405-1 

Commenter1:Sandra J. Speerstra 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-526 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Increased rates will saddle the taxpayer with higher electricity prices and lower return from reduced coal 

production - also, the value of reliable affordable energy has to be taken into 

account, because if production on federal lands is decreased due to increased royalty rates, 

consumers will be forced to pay for more expensive forms of power generation. 

Comment Number: 0002409-1 

Commenter1:Greg Gianforte 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Half of the federal coal royalties are returned to Montana for our general fund. If the intent 

of the DOI leasing moratorium is to stop coal production on federal land for an extended 

time, or even permanently, how do you propose that Montana backfill the revenue we'd 

be losing? 

Comment Number: 0002409-2 

Commenter1:Greg Gianforte 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

What is the objective of increasing the federal coal royalty rate? It plainly appears the 

objective is to reduce the amount of federal coal mined in Montana. 

Hiking the royalty rate on federal coal will mean that we have less federal coal mined in 

Montana. Montanans own half a share of that federal coal, so DOI would effectively be 

stopping Montanans from mining the coal that they own. That has real impacts on our 

state budget, not to mention jobs. How can you justify stopping mining federal coal when 

it would have such negative impacts on Montana? 

Comment Number: 0002436-8 

Commenter1:Sharon St Joan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

there can be no fair return for the destruction of the natural world. The earth, the forests, the rivers, the wildlife 

corridors, the canyon lands, and especially this incredibly magnificent area in southern Utah are priceless, 

invaluable treasures. No level of destruction of them should be allowed now or ever in the future, and no 

compensation could ever possibly be adequate. 

Comment Number: 0002440_Zwigart_20160721-2 

Commenter1:Donna Zwigart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Tax payers need to get a “fair shake”. I found it disturbing that federal coal royalties have not changed in the past 

30 years! 

Comment Number: 0002445_Madson_20160727-1 

Organization1:Mountain Pact 

Commenter1:Diana Madson 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As western mountain communities, we represent nearly 200,000 permanent residents and millions of annual 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-527

Scoping Report 

visitors. Coal extraction and use as a fuel source poses a number of costs currently unaccounted for in federal 

coal program. Onsite, these costs include air pollution from exploration, development, and transportation to and 

from the mine site; fugitive methane emissions; habitat disruption; noise pollution; and water contamination. 

From the perspective of our mountain communities, the coal’s contribution to climate changes poses the greatest 

cost. Economic, public health, and environmental damages from catastrophic wildfire, floods and reduced 

snowpack are some of the threats we face. 

Failing to account for coal’s contribution to these costs in federal coal leases shifts them onto taxpayers -- and in 

our case, at a time when our towns are shouldering the financial burden of climate impacts and proactive 

adaptation. In the face of climate change, it is time to modernize the federal coal program to accurately account 

for its costs to communities, taxpayers and the environment while supporting a transition to a more sustainable 

and resilient economy. 

Comment Number: 0002446_Ballck_20160727-2 

Organization1:Craig/Moffat Economic Development Partnership

Commenter1:Michelle Balleck 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Increased royalty rates will only result in depressed revenue for our schools and roads with little, if any, positive 

impact on the environment. Increased rates would also have a detrimental effect on our local economy, which 

would be seen in decreased state revenue, lost jobs and increased electricity prices for consumers. 

Comment Number: 0002448_FoleyHein_20160727-1 

Organization1:Institute for Policy Integrity 

Commenter1:Jayni Foley Hein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current coal leasing system does not foster the competition needed to earn fair market value. In the Powder 

River Basin, for example, coal companies minimize competition by nominating coal tracts adjacent to their 

existing mines. This is why the vast majority of recent coal lease bids have only one bidder. Multiple bids, Huber 

explained, arise only when two mines expand towards the same tract and both have an economic interest in 

developing that tract. Huber concluded by explaining that the coal leasing program is susceptible to two 

problems: (1) incumbency, since the repeat players are often able to engineer the process to their own benefit, 

and (2) information asymmetry, since coal producers understand prevailing coal market conditions better than 

federal land and resource appraisers. 

Jayni Hein (Policy Director, Institute for Policy Integrity) discussed how fair market value should be understood 

from a social welfare maximizing perspective, including accounting for the climate, environmental and social costs 

of coal production. Hein recently published the report Priorities for Federal Coal Reform, which highlights 

recommendations intended to help modernize the program so that it can provide maximum net benefits to 

American taxpayers. The report details how the programmatic review should identify opportunities to increase 

revenue, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and align federal land management with U.S. climate change goals. In 

effect, the current program subsidizes coal production, as the public bears the burden of mitigating and adapting 

to many externality costs, including greenhouse gas emissions—the effects of which will continue to be felt 

decades from now. Given its capacious statutory 

mandates, including its duty to manage federal resources “in the public interest” and for the 

benefit of future generations, Interior should conduct a regular strategic planning process every 

five to eight years, and as a threshold inquiry, do a “net social value” calculation to determine 

whether leasing any coal tracts would be net socially beneficial. This is akin to how Interior’s 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) conducts its five-year program analysis and 

makes a threshold “net social value” inquiry. Interior should lease coal only when doing so 

provides net benefits to the public, and ideally, leasing decisions should be calibrated to 

maximize net benefits. If net social value is positive, leasing may be desirable, but Interior 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-528 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

should set an appropriate royalty rate and use an appropriate base valuation to calculate royalties 

owed. It should seek to calibrate the royalty rate in order to maximize social welfare. A social 

welfare-maximizing framework is consistent with 30 years’ worth of presidential directives to 

agencies to maximize the net social benefits of their policy choices. Hein also discussed how the 

legislative history of the relevant statutes (the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act, and Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act) are consistent with a social 

welfare-maximizing framework, and that it would be reasonable to raise royalty rates to recoup 

at least some of the externality costs of coal production, transportation, and consumption. 

Otherwise, the government prioritizes short-term revenue and coal company profits over long-term public value 

and welfare. 

Nathan Richardson (Assistant Professor of Law, University of South Carolina School of 

Law; Visiting Fellow, Resources for the Future) concluded the fair market value discussion, 

focusing on BLM’s authority and broad discretion to regulate and govern the leasing process, 

including its charge to manage resources for “multiple use.” Richardson stated that no new 

legislation is required for most of the reforms that have been suggested, including the ability to 

use environmental charges (using the Social Cost of Carbon) and/or increasing royalty rates to 

account for market failures. This authority is strengthened because the federal government is a 

landowner in the coal leasing process—not simply a regulator. 

Comment Number: 0002448_FoleyHein_20160727-2 

Organization1:Institute for Policy Integrity 

Commenter1:Jayni Foley Hein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Royalty Rate Scenarios and Effects on Production, Revenue, and Emissions 

The second panel focused on analyzing royalty rate scenarios and the effects on 

production, revenue, and emissions. 

Mark Haggerty (Headwaters Economics) began by saying that the focus ought to be on 

the community perspective—how the royalty program affects what happens in coal-producing 

states and communities. Using a partial equilibrium model, Haggerty and Headwaters Economics 

found that there is a gap between the net delivered price of cost (the market price minus 

allowable transportation and washing costs) and the mine mouth price of coal, and if the federal 

government captured that lost value, it would modestly increase the cost of the coal royalty 

program to the coal lessee (by about $0.28 per ton of coal, on average, across the coal program). 

This would result in revenue gains, but very little increased cost to the producer, and very little 

impact on federal coal production. Headwaters also analyzed the effect of increasing royalty 

rates to 16.67% or 18.75%, to make the program consistent with rates used by states and for 

federal offshore oil and gas leasing. It found that royalty rates could be increased and still have 

only a small impact on production, and a small impact on substitution between federal and non-federal coal. 

Finally, Haggerty noted that it would be useful to have more analysis on state 

utilization of coal revenue; there may be benefits to creating a natural resources trust rather than 

having annual distributions. In the question and answer session, Haggerty stated that the natural 

resources trust concept may require legislative action. In prior work, Headwaters also modeled 

the effect of a royalty rate increase on state severance tax revenue. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-14

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-529

Scoping Report 

A recent study has concluded that introduction of higher royalty rates would reduce carbon dioxide emissions of 

coal even with demand side policies, like the Clean Power Plan, in place. (127) This would be in part due to the 

induction of substitution of lower carbon emitting fuel and energy sources for coal. (128) The study finds 

significant reductions in CO2 emissions with the imposition of royalty rates that internalized carbon pollution 

costs by reflecting the social cost of carbon in the royalty rate. (129) While scenarios vary depending on demand 

side policy, with strong CPP implementation a carbon adder to royalty rates as low as 20% of the SCC could 

further lower carbon emissions by between 59 and 25 million metric tons in 2020 and by 39 and 10 million 

metric tons in 2030 depending on CPP implementation schemes. (130) The reason for the larger near term 

increase in emissions reductions is that the increased costs of coal will speed near term investment in lower 

carbon fuel sources including renewables. (131) The effects of a royalty rate increase without the CPP is also 

quite substantial. If the CPP is not implemented, a royalty rate at or equal to 100% of the SCC would result in 

carbon emission reduction equal to 70% of those that would have been achieved by the CPP as currently 

designed. (132) 

(127) Spencer Reed and James H. Stock, Federal Coal Leasing Reform Options: Effects on CO2 Emissions and 

Energy Markets, Executive Summary (Feb 2016) at 1, available at 

http://www.vulcan.com/MediaLibraries/Vulcan/Documents/FedCoalLeaseModelResults_ExecutiveSummary_Vulca

n_FINAL_16Feb2016.pdf 

(128) Id. 

(129) Id. at 4. 

(130) Id. at 4 and 6. 

(131) Id. at 6. 

(132) Id. at 8. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-21

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Modernize the federal coal royalty system and increase rates to ensure a fair public return for the publicly held 

resource. The mineral royalties system is out of date, out of touch, and inequitable. The current rate of 12.5% 

serves as a below market subsidy that must be ended. It is also inconsistent with what federal offshore mineral 

royalty rates are set at, 18.75%. In many of the western states that BLM assesses the rate of 12.5% for oil, gas and 

coal produced on federal land parcels, the states themselves charge significantly higher rates ranging from 16-19% 

for the energy resources on state parcels. Moreover, due to manipulations of the system, many coal companies 

are paying effective rates that far below 12.5%. This structure must be modernized and adjusted to match 

comparative fair market rates and ensure a maximum return of revenue to the taxpayers for the value of their 

resources. It must also be adjusted to internalize significant costs being borne by the public-at-large. Loopholes 

allowing companies to escape high royalty rates by manipulating the sale price through less than arms’ length 

transactions need to be closed, as reflected by the recent rule change by the Office of Natural Resources 

Revenue. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-24

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to likely having to assume high clean-up costs, the public is not getting a fair return for the leasing of 

this coal, with royalty rates too low and companies able to manipulate the system to get real royalty rates that 

are even lower. In fact, about 90% of coal lease sales only receive bids for a single bidder and lease modifications 

and royalty rate reductions can result in effective royalty rates as low as 2%, well below what is required by law. 

(2) Also, as wildfires increase; drought, flood, warming temperatures and decreased snow pack rapidly alter our 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-530 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

water systems; sea levels rise and begin to inundate coastal habitats; and other impacts of climate change take 

hold, the high costs of carbon pollution are becoming real. Wildlife suffering from these costs, from declining 

moose populations in northern states to trout and salmon that are finding it harder to survive in streams to sea 

turtles that are seeing beeches needed for reproduction wash away. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-27

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Meanwhile, the costs of business-as-usual is high and well documented. Numerous reports and audits have found 

that the revenue system of bonus bids, annual rents, and royalties is not securing a fair return to the taxpayer. 

Indeed, the American people have been shortchanged by nearly $30 billion over the past three decades. (9) 

Current policies are thus depriving the states and taxpayers of much needed revenue to account for these costs 

and pay for other services, such as the maintenance of our public lands. 

(9) Tom Sanzillo, The Great Giveaway: An analysis of the costly failure of federal coal leasing in the Powder 

RiverBasin (June 2012) at 4, available at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_qWeYLAqoq1V2YyX3hnR25lcXM/edit. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-33

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The effect of DOI’s insufficient fair market value appraisal process has resulted in a loss of nearly $30 billion in 

revenue to the U.S. Treasury from the federal coal program during the preceding 30 years. Outdated federal coal 

revenue policies also distort U.S. energy markets. In particular, the federal coal leasing program provides an unfair 

advantage to companies mining Powder River Basin coal resulting in Powder River Basin coal being significantly 

undervalued. It sells for less than one-third of the price of Appalachian coal, even when accounting for 

Appalachian coal’s higher heat content. (75)

(75) Nidhi Thakar and Michael Madowitz, Federal Coal Leasing in the Powder River Basin: A Bad Deal for 

Taxpayers (Center for American Progress July 29, 2014), available at 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2014/07/29/94204/federal-coal-leasing-in-the-powderriverbasin/. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-4 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Due to subsidies and loopholes, coal companies currently pay effective royalty rates of 4.9% (and, as the 

Secretary’s Order notes, as low as 2%), which is well below the 12.5% required by law. (71) This is costing 

taxpayers about one billion dollars every year in lost revenues.(72) 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-57

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Underfunded needs can be helped by adjusting the federal coal royalty rate. The proceeds of royalty rates should 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-531 

Scoping Report 

be used to enhance the public lands assets we all value. These include hunting, fishing, recreation and maintenance 

of our public lands. There are more than 37 million hunters and anglers in America who spend nearly $50 billion 

a year in these activities. More broadly, the Outdoor Industry Association reports that the broader outdoor 

recreation economy generates more than $600 billion in direct consumer spending and supports more than 6 

million jobs. Public lands are treasured and heavily used by hunters, anglers, wildlife watchers, outdoor 

enthusiasts. Given their importance to national and regional economies, these uses deserve to have their public 

lands – Americas’ public lands – adequately managed, maintained, and funded. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-6 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The FCLAA specifically provides that surface mine leases will be charged a minimum royalty of 12.5% and that the 

secretary of the interior sets by regulation the royalty rate for underground mine leases. “A lease shall require 

payment of a royalty in such amount as the Secretary shall determine of not less than 12 1/2 per centum of the 

value of coal as defined by regulation, except the Secretary may determine a lesser amount in the case of coal 

recovered by underground mining operations.” 30 U.S.C. § 207(a).

(72) Zimmerman et al., Fair Share at 7, citing Headwaters Economics, An Assessment of U.S. Federal Coal 

Royalties: Current Royalty Structure, Effective Royalty Rates, and Reform Options (2015), available at 

http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp-content/uploads/Report-Coal-Royalty-Valuation.pdf 

(73) Zimmerman, et al., Fair Share, at 7-8, citing Bureau of Land Management, “Coal Operations,” available at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/coal_and_non-energy.print.html (last accessed August 2015); 

Headwaters Economics, An Assessment of U.S. Federal Coal Royalties: Current Royalty Structure, Effective 

Royalty Rates, and Reform Options; Claire Moser and others, “Cutting Greenhouse Gas from Fossil-Fuel 

Extraction on Federal Lands and Waters” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2015), available at 

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/PublicLandsEmissions-brief.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002451_Hibbs_20160727-1 

Organization1:Utah American Energy 

Commenter1:David Hibbs 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Proposed Royalty Rate Increases Will Reduce Public Returns on Federal Coal Development 

Proponents of a royalty rate increase point to reports prepared by the Inspector General’s Office (“IG Report”) 

and Government Accountability Office (“GAO Report”) examining fair market value returns under the existing 

Federal Coal Program. They claim that increasing royalty rates will provide state and federal government with 

additional revenue. To be clear, however, neither report proposes any increase in the current royalty rates. To 

the contrary, the IG Report confirms that royalties collected at current rates provide “substantial net benefits” to 

American taxpayers. Neither report suggested that adjusting current royalty rates will further BLM goals of 

increasing returns or fair market value to the public. 

Comment Number: 0002451_Hibbs_20160727-2 

Organization1:Utah American Energy 

Commenter1:David Hibbs 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

(a) Reduced Coal Revenues from Decreased Production 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-532 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

There is no empirical evidence to support the notion that increasing federal coal royalty rates will increase 

federal coal revenues. Further, proponents of a royalty rate increase fail to consider the impact a royalty rate 

increase will have on other public benefits derived from the federal coal program. 

Proponents of a royalty rate increase make the simplistic assumption that federal coal revenues will increase with 

a royalty rate increase. They assume that coal demand and production will remain constant notwithstanding 

increasing production costs and greater regulatory burdens. Even if coal demand declines, proponents of a royalty 

increase claim that higher rates will make up for decreased sales volume. First, this position makes unfounded 

economic assumptions. In actuality, increasing federal royalty rates will reduce federal coal production. Secondly, 

this position disregards broader economic and social impacts of federal coal development. Public benefits of 

federal coal development are not limited to royalty revenues. 

Coal production on public lands under existing conditions is experiencing an unprecedented decline. Burdens of 

increasing royalty rates will deter investment in federal coal reserves by increasing costs of production, further 

depressing demand, and very likely increasing the price per ton. Without factoring in proposed royalty increases, 

the Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) projects coal production to decline to levels last seen in the late 

1970s, with production in the West hardest hit. Last year coal production fell 22.7%. An estimated 18 GW of 

electric generating capacity was retired in 2015, more than 80% of the retired capacity was conventional steam 

coal.” Since reaching a high point in 2008, coal production in the United States has continued to decline. Coal 

production in 2015 is expected to be 10% lower than 2014, the lowest level since 1986. 

Coal production in Utah experienced similar impacts on a statewide basis. In 2015, 78% of Utah’s electric 

generation was fueled by coal. A large share of Utah’s coal is mined from federal lands. Eighty percent of coal 

mined in Utah is extracted on public lands under federal leases. Moreover, three-fourths of all coal mined in Utah 

is consumed in-state primarily for electric power generation. However, recently, Utah has experienced declines 

in the local market for steam coal due to the impacts of federal environmental regulation. Utah coal producers 

have already experienced decreased demand due to the early retirement of coal-fired electric generation 

facilities. EPA’s air quality restrictions on existing coal-fired power plants forced the early closure of the Carbon 

Plant and the Regional Haze federal implementation plan could retire additional units of coal-fired generation 

owned by PacifiCorp. 

While the market is constrained, mining costs are increasing at underground operations in Central Utah. Several 

mines in the Carbon/Emery County area are encountering difficult mining conditions and have had to go deeper 

to recover federal coal reserves. The easy to reach reserves have been exhausted. In this regard, PacifiCorp’s 

Deer Creek Mine which operated on federal coal leases in Emery County was shut down last year due to 

geologic and safety conditions. The Deer Creek underground operation provided the mine-mouth supply for 

Huntington Power Plant. Other mining companies, including UEI have re-evaluated geologic and economic 

conditions with respect to operations on federal lands. In some cases, reserves of poor quality or those 

presenting difficult underground mining conditions or safety concerns have caused operators to seek federal lease 

royalty readjustments below 8%. In other circumstances, UEI and other Utah mining operations are considering 

relinquishment of federal coal leases due to geologic, safety and poor market conditions. 

Given current market conditions, and challenging geologic conditions in the Central Utah coal fields, any increase 

in federal royalty rates for coal could trigger lease relinquishments or further disinvestment. Increasing the 

royalty rate will increase the costs of production which may well reduce the development of coal reserves on 

federal land. As evidenced by a spate of bankruptcies and reorganizations during the past two years, many coal 

companies are already operating on razor thin margins, walking a fine line between continuing existing operations 

and shuttering entire mining operations. 

Contrary to BLM’s proposal, there is no evidence to suggest that increasing federal royalty rates will not reduce 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-533

Scoping Report 

Utah’s coal production. Based on the impacts of current market conditions, it is virtually guaranteed that demand 

for federal coal reserves will decline if royalty rates are dramatically increased. Moreover, given current price 

sensitivities in the market, it is likely that increased royalty rates will not make up for lower federal coal 

production in the future. It is therefore, likely, that royalties generated from federal coal in Utah will actually 

decrease despite a higher royalty rate. 

Comment Number: 0002451_Hibbs_20160727-3 

Organization1:Utah American Energy 

Commenter1:David Hibbs 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Beyond employment, federal coal production gives rise to additional benefits in rural economies. Coal revenues 

generated by federal royalty payments are split evenly between the state and federal governments. In Utah, 

federal lease royalty revenues are allocated to infrastructure maintenance and development in rural Utah 

communities under the Community Impact Fund. Revenues are also allocated to education, rural economic 

development, and rural community building projects. Reduced federal coal production would reduce the State’s 

share of these funds. Rural communities would not only be forced to confront increasing unemployment, but 

would also have to find a new source of revenue to fund public works and community development programs. 

Comment Number: 0002451_Hibbs_20160727-5 

Organization1:Utah American Energy 

Commenter1:David Hibbs 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

2. There is No Rational Basis to Justify Raising the Coal Royalty Rates to the Federal 

Offshore Oil and Gas Royalty Rate 

BLM states that raising federal coal royalty rate to 18.75% would “be consistent with the royalty rate for Federal 

offshore oil and gas.” BLM does not, however, state why consistency is required, or even desired, between two 

different commodities, produced in different geographic regions, using different technologies, that are sold in two 

different markets. Moreover, the BLM does not explain how consistency between two divergent commodities 

promotes coal development consistent with the mandate of the MLA. Moreover, BLM does not indicate how or 

to what extent 18.75% royalty rate will impact coal production, and by extension, revenues generated by coal 

royalties allocated to states. 

Comment Number: 0002451_Hibbs_20160727-6 

Organization1:Utah American Energy 

Commenter1:David Hibbs 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

3. Royalty Rate Reductions are Critical to Federal Coal Development 

BLM suggests that royalty reductions may not be necessary, or that royalty reductions, somehow, deprive the 

American public of a fair rate of return on the federal coal program. BLM points to reduced royalty rates below 

8% as evidence of a failure in the Federal Coal Program. UEI contends, however, that royalty rates below 8% are 

evidence that current royalty rates are too high. 

Notwithstanding proposals to increase federal royalty rates, existing royalty rates can render federal coal 

development uneconomic. As stated above, in the Central Utah coal field, easy to reach coal reserves have been 

exhausted. Many mining companies, including UEI, are now forced to reevaluate geologic and economic 

conditions on federal leases. In some circumstances, continuing operations are dependent on reducing the royalty 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-534 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

rate below 8%. In other circumstances, however, mining companies including UEI are forced to consider 

relinquishment of deferral coal leases due to geologic issues, safety concerns, and poor market conditions. 

BLM’s decision to allow for royalty rate reductions is critical to ongoing federal coal production. Under 30 U.S.C. 

§209 the Secretary may reduce royalty fees “whenever in his judgment it is necessary to do so in order to 

promote development, or whenever in his judgement the lease cannot be successfully operated under the terms 

provided therein.” In this way Congress allowed the Secretary discretion to set reasonable royalty rates that 

account for specific mine conditions, coal quality, and general market trends to maximize federal coal recovery. 

The decision to reduce royalty rates is made on a case by case basis after careful examination of a number of 

factors including geologic and engineering conditions beyond a federal lessee’s control. The lessee is required to 

demonstrate that a royalty reduction is necessary, and that recovery without a royalty reduction is uneconomic. 

More importantly, however, the Secretary must determine that a royalty reduction promotes federal coal 

development or maximum coal recovery. Eliminating royalty reductions in the name of increasing overall coal 

lease revenues may have the opposite effect. Without royalty reductions a lessee may have no option but to 

relinquish a federal lease rather than to expand uneconomic operations. 

Comment Number: 0002451_Hibbs_20160727-7 

Organization1:Utah American Energy 

Commenter1:David Hibbs 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In sum, there is no justification for royalty rate increases for underground mining operations on federal coal 

leases. Empirical evidence demonstrates that increasing federal royalty rates will render many underground coal 

operations uneconomic. Coal producers may be forced to halt production and to relinquish federal leases rather 

than continue to operate on public lands at a loss. Proposed increases in federal coal royalty rates will have 

significant impacts on rural communities that have come to depend on jobs and revenue generated by federal coal 

leases. UEI requests that the BLM consider these impacts and ensure that its assessment is based on objective 

economic considerations and its mandate to promote federal coal development under the MLA. In this regard, 

royalties should remain at 8% or less for coal produced by underground mining methods. 

Comment Number: 0002457_Johnson_20160728-5 

Organization1:Western Slope Conservation Center 

Commenter1:Alex Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

- Ensure a fair return to the American public for the leasing and mining of our publicly owned mineral resources 

by evaluating royalty rates and closing loopholes in coal valuation processes. 

Comment Number: 0002458_Friez_20160728-4 

Organization1:North American Coal Corporation 

Commenter1:Christopher Friez 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is very likely in today's marketplace that an increase in federal coal royalty rates could lead to a significant 

curtailment in federal coal sales and consumption - a net lose-lose scenario, especially in North Dakota where 

the federal coal tracts will be bypassed and left in the ground forever. In a bypass situation, there are no winners. 

A valuable resource gets left behind and the impacts to the area are greater because of the added activity to mine 

around the pocket of federal coal. Where both volumes and the future right-to-mine royalties are lost, both 

federal and state receipts associated with the leasing program could diminish appreciably. In addition, energy 

costs would increase in areas where coal remains the dominant fuel source for power generation - particularly 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-535

Scoping Report 

the industrial heartland. It seems imprudent and unwise to saddle American manufacturers with higher energy 

costs at a time when the economy is still struggling to return to more robust growth. Since it is highly unlikely 

other nations will adopt policies discouraging the use of their most affordable, reliable, and abundant natural 

resources, and policy which discourages the use of federal coal reserves will put American citizens and industry 

at an immediate disadvantage with their competitors around the world. 

Comment Number: 0002458_Friez_20160728-6 

Organization1:North American Coal Corporation

Commenter1:Christopher Friez 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Should the Department decide to reform the federal coal program, we strongly encourage DOI to take steps to 

make coal leasing and production on public lands more competitive, not less. We encourage the DOI to focus on 

a Fair Market Value ("FMV") approach to achieve the maximum value for these public resources. Unless 

abandoning the principles in a free market economy, by focusing on FMV, the BLM will avoid strange results that 

come from extremes such as extremely high or extremely low value. This value also flows with the coal via the 

reliable and low cost electricity available to all its businesses, farmers, citizens and visitors. 

Comment Number: 0002461_breen_20160728-1 

Organization1:The WIlderness Society 

Commenter1:Katie Breen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal operations cost taxpayers, states and local communities millions in lost revenue. Loopholes in policy 

allow coal companies to get by without paying their full royalties to the government for their use of public lands 

and federal coal. Royalties were set at 12.5 percent, yet companies often get away with paying as little as 4.9 

percent. Loopholes in the government's coal program cost taxpayers and state governments more than $1 billion 

a year in lost royalties - money that could be used for local schools and roads. As of 2012, loopholes in our 

guidelines had cost taxpayers over $30b. 

Comment Number: 0002462_Compton_20160728_UtahMineAssoc-14

Organization1:Utah Mining Associaton 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the current price per ton of coal in PRB is approximately $11.00. The 12.5% federal royalty results in a tax on 

this price at $1.38. The average price of the lease acquisition fee (bonus bid) adds another $1.00. Two more 

federal taxes are levied on this ton of coal, the AML tax of $0.28 per ton and the Black Lung Excise Tax of $0.55 

per ton. Finally, this ton of coal is also taxed through the state severance tax and the county tax applicable in the 

PRB, at a rate of 5.3% and 4.5% respectively, adding another $1.08 in taxes. In total, this amounts to $4.28 in 

taxes on every $11.00 worth of coal sold, an effective tax rate of 39% 

Comment Number: 0002462_Compton_20160728_UtahMineAssoc-4 

Organization1:Utah Mining Associaton 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The absence of more bidders for federal coal leases does not reflect that leases are being offered at less than fair 

market value, but instead reflects the restructuring of the industry and the advanced development of the coal 

regions within federal lands. There are fewer mines and fewer coal companies today then during the period when 

the regional leasing process commenced in the 1980s. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-536 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002462_Compton_20160728_UtahMineAssoc-9 

Organization1:Utah Mining Associaton 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Claims that federal royalty rates (12.5% surface mines; 8% underground mines) do not provide a fair return are 

equally inaccurate, and fail to consider that federal rates are substantially (30%-65%) higher than the prevailing 

rates for private coal in the East. 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-8 

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2014, Wyoming’s mines produced over 392 million tons of coal that contributed about $1.14 billion in state 

and local government revenues. Wyoming Mining Association, The 2015-16 Concise Guide to Wyoming Coal, at 

2, 4-5, available at http://www.wyomingmining.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-16-Concise-Guide-toWyoming-Coal.pdf. See also Robert Godby et al., University of Wyoming, Center for Energy Economics and 

Public Policy, The Impact of the Coal Economy on Wyoming, at 21-22 (Feb. 2015), available at 

http://www.uwyo.edu/cee/_files/docs/wia_coal_ full-report.pdf (Reporting about $1.26 billion in 2012 revenues 

for Wyoming state and local governments). A large portion of this revenue funds programs, such as water 

development, highways, and protection of wildlife and natural resources. Godby at 22. A significant share of the 

coal revenues, about 38 percent, also supports education and the remaining nine percent of the revenue goes to 

local governments. Id. The largest sources of coal revenue for local governments is ad valorem taxes on 

production and sales and use tax revenues. Id. at 22-23.

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-9 

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The revenues brought in from coal production have also fluctuated over time due in large part to changes in 

abandoned mine lands distributions and coal lease bonus revenues. Id. at 23-24. However, declines in coal lease 

sale in 2009 and 2010, plus the lack of coal lease sales in 2013 and 2014, the low inventory of federal lands 

available for leasing, and the recent moratorium on leasing will considerably decline these revenue sources. See 

id. at 24. 

Comment Number: 0002465_Burnham_20160728_BurnhamCoal-2 

Organization1:Burnham Coal, LLC 

Commenter1:Bob Burnham 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the federal government is well paid for its coal resources. To come to this conclusion one only has to look at the 

Powder River Basin (PRB) where the vast majority of the coal leasing takes place. Lease bonus payments at the 

most recent sales amount to ~10% of the sales value of the coal. Royalty payments and other fees paid at the 

time of mining and sale account for ~20% of the sales price at current market prices. State and county taxes 

account for 1015% of the price. All told, federal, state and county governments receive ~40% of the value of the 

coal.
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-537

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002465_Burnham_20160728_BurnhamCoal-3 

Organization1:Burnham Coal, LLC 

Commenter1:Bob Burnham 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Additional comments refer to more transparency in how the BLM determines fair market value for the coal being 

leased. Keeping current policy is a no brainer. If the companies bidding on the coal knew how the fairmarketvalue 

is determined, they could submit a minimum bid every time. 

Comment Number: 0002466_Smith_20160728_SELA-4 

Organization1:Safe Energy Leadership Alliance 

Commenter1:Rachel Smith 

Organization2:City of Hood River 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We support the assessment of whether American taxpayers are receiving a fair return from these publicly owned 

resources. In doing so, BLM should take a big ­picture view of “fair return,” and factor in the full range of risks 

and costs borne by the public. This includes externalities such as the health, traffic, economic, and air and water 

quality impacts and risks from both rail and barge transport and the end use of coal. 

Comment Number: 0002466_Smith_20160728_SELA-9 

Organization1:Safe Energy Leadership Alliance 

Commenter1:Rachel Smith 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ensuring that American taxpayers are earning a fair return for the use of their public resources while protecting 

public safety and the environment is of the utmost importance. Under your leadership, the Department of the 

Interior (DOI) has taken bold steps in a neffort to address climate change, while also working to bring federal 

regulations into the 21st Century. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-23

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Economics Of Federal Coal Leasing 

1. Competition, Fair Market Value, And Fair Return Issues 

The final major impact issue that must be addressed in the PEIS is restructuring the lease payment system to 

more accurately compensate the American taxpayer for the value – and cost – of the coal resources being leased. 

While it can be accomplished in several ways, as discussed below, in our view the most important element to be 

added to these payments is incorporating environmental harms caused by the full life-cycle of the GHG emissions 

associated with leasing. By taking those costs into account, along with other changes, the PEIS provides an 

opportunity to explore appropriate reforms in the leasing system. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-28

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As discussed below, the agency’s failure to actually obtain fair market value, combined with reliance on fee 

reductions, have cost taxpayers billions in revenue. These problems are further exacerbated by the fact that a 

federal coal lease has an initial term of twenty years, and may be extended for an additional ten years – allowing 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-538 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

up to thirty years of mining based on fee schedules and conditions set decades earlier. See 43 C.F.R. §§ 3475.2, 

3425.5. 

Moreover, the agency also has not at all endeavored – in the bidding process or the other junctures where the 

government is compensated for access to federally-owned coal – to account for the numerous external costs 

associated with coal, such as the cost of carbon emissions associated with coal mining, transportation and 

combustion. As we will discuss, this is one of the central tasks now faced by the agency. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-35

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Rental rates may be as low as $3/acre. 43 C.F.R. § 3473.31. Royalties may be as low as 12.5 % for a surface mine, 

and 8% for a subsurface mine. Id. § 3473.32; 30 U.S.C. § 207(a). In addition, as permitted by the statute, BLM’s 

regulations authorize the agency to “waive, suspend or reduce the rental, or reduce the royalty but not advance 

royalty on an entire leasehold, or on any deposit, tract or portion thereof,” as long as the royalty is not reduced 

to “zero percent.” Id. § 3473.32(e); see 30 U.S.C. § 209 (authorizing rate reductions where the Secretary 

determines “it is necessary to do so in order to promote development, or whenever in his judgment the lease 

cannot be successfully operated under the terms provided therein.”). As a result of these reductions and other 

factors, such as the use of subsidiary companies to pay royalties on non-arms-length prices, from 2008-2012 the 

effective royalty rate was only 4.9 percent. Executive Office of the President, The Economics of Coal Leasing On 

Federal Lands: Ensuring A Fair Return To Taxpayers (2016) (Hereafter “White House Report”) at 8 (emphasis 

added); see also Headwaters Economics, An Assessment of U.S. Federal Coal Royalties, Jan. 2015. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-41

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The final principal problem that must be addressed in the PEIS is the amounts charged for access to exploit 

federally leased coal. As the CEQ regulations provide, where – as here – a federal agency action has important 

economic effects, those issues must be thoroughly addressed. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.8; 1508.14; 43 C.F.R. § 

146.420(d); BLM NEPA Handbook at 54. 

Outdated federal coal revenue policies distort U.S. energy markets and undermine the Nation’s climate change 

goals. They do so because the federal coal leasing program provides an unfair advantage to companies mining PRB 

coal, where more than 85% of all federal coal comes from. Coal from the PRB is significantly undervalued and 

sells for less than one-third of the price of Appalachian coal, even when accounting for Appalachian coal’s higher 

Btu content. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-42

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Numerous reports and audits have found that the revenue system of bonus bids, annual rents, and royalties is not 

securing a fair return to the taxpayer; in fact the American people have been shortchanged by nearly $30 billion 

over the past three decades. As noted in the Secretarial Order and Scoping Notice, in 2013 both GAO and OIG 

issued reports raising important concerns about fair return and FMV. 81 Fed. Reg. at 17,723. Numerous other 

reports have reached similar conclusions, and the PEIS therefore provides a much needed opportunity to 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-539

Scoping Report 

consider and address these issues. (9) 

(9) See GAO, Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly 

Consider Coal Exports, an Provide More Public Information (GAO 14-140) (Dec. 2013); OIG, Coal Management 

Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, Report No.: CR–EV–BLM–0001– 2012 (June 2013); see also Taxpayers 

for Common Sense, Federal Coal Leasing: Fair Market Value and a Fair Return for the American Taxpayer (Sept. 

2013); Center for American Progress, Modernizing the Federal Coal Program (Dec. 2014); Headwaters 

Economics, An Assessment of U.S. Federal Coal Royalties (2015); Center for American Progress, Cutting 

Subsidies and Closing Loopholes in the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Coal Program (Jan. 6, 2015); Institute 

for Policy Integrity, Harmonizing Preservation and Production (June 2015); Institute for Policy Integrity, 

Illuminating the Hidden Costs of Coal (Dec. 2015). 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-43

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To date, BLM has relied on an initial bonus bid, lease rentals, and royalties to comprise what little return on the 

value of the coal accrues to the taxpayer. The PEIS must explore not only readjusting the amount of 

compensation for each of these aspects of leasing, but also additional compensation approaches that will not only 

insure a fair return for federally leased coal, but will also address the environmental externalities – and 

particularly GHG emissions. Coal lease pricing can also be utilized to properly incentivize the use of coal 

resources in our Nation’s fuel mix, allowing for appropriate levels of coal while insuring that coal emissions do 

not hinder the Nation’s ability to meet its GHG emission reduction goals.

One principal issue the PEIS must address is the fact that, in practice, there is very little competition for coal 

leases, with almost 90% of lease sales involving only a single bidder – often the operator of the adjacent (or 

expanding) mine. This lack of competition poses significant challenges to accurately setting FMV and therefore the 

initial bid cost. However, even in the absence of a competitive market, BLM can create policies and procedures 

that will return a fairer amount of revenue for the public. Because of the amount of federal coal that is leased, 

recent government reports have shown that raising bid amounts a mere penny can bring in up to $7 million of 

additional revenue in the average Wyoming PRB lease sale. In short, every penny counts. 

A second issue concerns the royalty rates for coal production, which do not currently either provide a fair return 

or cover the myriad externalities of coal production – including GHG emissions. Under existing royalty policies, 

coal companies also exploit loopholes, and subsidies, deductions, and royalty rate reductions lower the effective 

royalty rate to approximately 5% overall. In addition, companies are sometimes selling coal to their own 

subsidiaries, paying a royalty based on this depressed price, and then reselling the coal on the market at higher 

prices. (10) Moreover, since this coal represents more than 40% of domestic coal production, artificially low 

royalty rates bring artificially low market prices. 

(10) Although the Office of Natural Resources Revenue recently issued new regulations that touch on some of 

these issues, 81 Fed. Reg. 43,338 (July 1, 2016), the PEIS should explore the extent to which companies can 

continue to exploit these loopholes. Among other concerns, sales may still be structured to avoid royalty 

payments. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-44

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-540 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the PEIS must address the transparency issues that have repeatedly arisen in the coal leasing context, where the 

leasing process, including the determination of Fair Market Value, is all conducted behind closed doors without 

public input or access. Insuring an open and fair leasing process is a critical step necessary to provide the 

American people with the necessary confidence that they are being fairly compensated for this public resource. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-66

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As noted, many concerns have been raised about whether BLM is obtaining accurate FMV in leasing federal coal. 

(28) Although BLM endeavors to determine FMV, numerous reports have demonstrated that the fact that there 

is often only one bidder for a lease, along with other limiting factors, result in billions of dollars in losses to 

taxpayers. See, e.g., Tom Sanzillo, The Great Giveaway: An analysis of the costly failure of federal coal leasing in 

the Powder River Basin at 9 (stating the U.S. Treasury has lost roughly $28.9 billion in revenue from coal leasing 

below FMV). 

(28) BLM determines FMV with one of two methods: the comparable sales approach (in which sale prices from 

similar properties in prior transactions are used to determine value) and the income approach (in which an 

estimate of annual costs and revenues is used to determine value). 

BLM has a statutory mandate to “award leases [through] competitive bidding.” 30 U.S.C. § 201 (emphasis added). 

The regulatory framework must be modified to achieve this statutory directive. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-67

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As noted, there are several problems with the current royalty rate structure that must be addressed in the PEIS 

to provide taxpayers with a fair return and to address the economic externalities of federal coal leasing. The PEIS 

must also explore eliminating the royalty rate reductions, and deductions for transportation and coal washing, 

that has even further reduced the return on federal coal leases. 

As discussed above, royalties may be the most appropriate place to couple leasing prices to the social cost of 

carbon, since an operator only pays royalties for the coal extracted. As the recent White House Report 

explained, “royalty reform [can] provide a fair return to taxpayers while simultaneously reducing the 

environmental effects of coal extraction and combustion.” White House Report at 3.

Because the environmental and social externalities from coal production vary with the amount of coal produced, 

one sensible approach would be to recoup those costs through royalties that cover: (1) the cost of productionrelated environmental externalities; (2) the cost of transportation-related externalities, including CO2 emissions; 

(3) uncompensated infrastructure demand (e.g., water, power, processing facilities); and (4) any foreseeable 

“waste” of the resource, such as vented or flared methane associated with coal production. See Hein and 

Howard at 20. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-68

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 2 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-541

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Alternatives To Address Fair Return For American Taxpayers 

The alternatives necessary to address fair return overlap with those considered to address climate change 

impacts, since – particularly in the context of a royalty “adder” – the fees collected will principally compensate 

the taxpayer for the climate change impact associated with the coal produced. However, additional alternatives 

to consider include: 

a. Basing lease sales on actual FMV 

As noted, numerous investigations have documented how BLM fails to obtain FMV for coal leases or otherwise 

collect coal leasing income commensurate with the value of the coal and its myriad externality costs. Leases with 

a single bidder, market manipulations, unreasonable deductions, royalty and rent reductions, and other factors 

have led hundreds of millions, or more, in lost income. For example, one Report found that, had coal valuation 

actually been based on market value, the royalty collections for just the five year period from 2008 – 2012 would 

have been $850 million higher, an average of $170 million per year. 

Under this alternative, to address this concern BLM would make fair return a threshold criterion for when and 

whether to offer new leases and accept bids. New leases would be offered only when FMV can be achieved and 

royalty and rent reduction are not required to make the lease economical or commercially viable. Leasing would 

also only be permitted when the federal coal brought to market will not reduce the price of coal on the national 

market, will not contribute to overproduction, and will not lead to resource hoarding or speculation. Approaches 

to consider include: 

· Establishing minimum bids for each coal region that take into account regional economic, geologic and 

engineering variables, and assessing the projected income from each individual lease to be offered based on 

unique variables. 

· Raising the minimum bid to $1 per ton, the average market price of coal during the Obama Administration. (29) 

· Considering the market value for coal based on sale prices of coal with similar characteristics, from both 

Federal lands and non-Federal lands. White House Report at 18. Where it is difficult to find such comparative 

prices, prices could alternatively be calculated on an energy-equivalent basis to reflect the fact that the heat rate 

of the coal is a determinant of its value in the coal power plant. Pricing this way would permit comparisons to the 

payments collected from Federal leases for natural gas and oil on public lands. (30) 

(29) Nidhi Thakar, Modernizing the Federal Coal Program, Center for American Progress 5 

(December 9, 2014), available at https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/FederalCoal.pdf . 

(30) As the recent White House Report on these issues explains: 

After adjusting for the heat content of coal, the royalty rate being paid by surface PRB coal is roughly one third of 

the royalty rate paid for natural gas on Federal lands (on an energy-equivalent basis), even though they are both 

subject to a 12.5 percent royalty rate on their respective reported sales prices (before deductions). It could be 

appropriate to adjust the royalty rate directly to reflect an adjustment for heat content, or to include a Btuadjusted royalty “adder” on top of the base royalty rate. In other words, the royalty owed would be 12.5 percent 

of the revenues plus an additional payment in dollars per Btu. Similar adjustments would be possible for sulfur 

content and other characteristics, but the heat content adjustment is likely to be among the most important. 

White House Report at 19; see also id. at 4 (“If royalty payments are based on the price of nearby regional coal 

on a per-Btu basis, after it is fully phased-in, this would add up to $290 million more to State and Federal coffers 

annually. Maximizing royalty payments would bring in as much as $3 billion more to State and Federal coffers 

annually once fully phased-in”).

· Creating an inter-lease bidding process in which BLM makes multiple sites available for bidding simultaneously, 

and then subsequently decides which bids to accept based on site location and the amounts bid. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-542 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

· Incorporating “option value” into the bid amounts – i.e., the informational value of delay associated with federal 

leasing. As the D.C. Circuit recently explained in considering option value in another context, “[t]here is 

therefore a tangible present economic benefit to delaying the decision to drill for fossil fuels to preserve the 

opportunity to see what new technologies develop and what new information comes to light.” Center for 

Sustainable Economy v. Jewell, 779 F.3d 588 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

As outlined in Hein and Howard, under this approach, at the bidding stage, BLM would be compensated for both 

the estimated market price of the coal to be leased, as well as the option value of mining coal, as both of these 

are fixed costs. 

The option value of coal leasing includes not only the uncertainties associated with future coal prices, but 

numerous other factors about which BLM may obtain additional information. As outlined by Hein and Howard, 

these include: 

o uncertainty about the magnitude of risk from externalities, such as methane emissions, particulate matter 

emissions, and potential aquifer overdraft; as a recent example, methane leakage from natural gas gathering 

facilities was recently found to be 8 times higher than prior EPA estimates; 

o uncertainty about the development rate of pollution-prevention technologies, as well as technologies that may 

better protect worker safety; 

o uncertainty with respect to the cost of externalities, including the social cost of carbon and the social cost of 

methane; 

o uncertainty about competing uses of federally-owned lands, such as the potential and need for renewable 

energy siting; 

o uncertainty with respect to coal reserve estimates, which may affect the long-term availability and price of 

accessible coal; and 

o uncertainty with respect to climate sensitivities, such as climate conditions that may exacerbate the damaging 

effects of air or water pollution, or consequences for land values near production sites Hein and Howard at 18. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-69

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Setting royalties based on price comparisons 

Under this alternative royalty payments would be based on nearby regional coal prices, nationwide coal prices, 

and the price of natural gas, which is a close substitute for coal in the electricity market. All three prices would 

be expressed in terms of dollars per one million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) to account for differences in heat 

rates of different types of coal (and natural gas). See White House Report at 3. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-70

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Setting royalties to maximize revenue 

Under BLM’s current scheme the agency charges low royalty rates, and then further reduces royalties as 

necessary to encourage development. See, e.g. 43 C.F.R. § 3485.2(c)(1)(“The authorized officer may waive, 

suspend, or reduce the rental on a Federal lease, or reduce the Federal royalty,” where doing so serves “the 

purpose of encouraging the greatest ultimate recovery of Federal coal . . . .”). This approach served an earlier era 

where the agency’s objective was to maximize the production of federal coal as an energy source.

As the foregoing discussion of climate change impacts demonstrates, this should no longer be an aim of BLM’s 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-543

Scoping Report 

approach to federal coal leasing. To the contrary, royalty rates should be used to both generate maximum 

income and help align coal development with GHG emissions reduction goals. 

Accordingly, under this alternative BLM would explore the maximum royalty rates it could charge in order to 

obtain the most revenue for taxpayers, and consider the extent to which those rates would reduce GHG 

emissions. It would also consider eliminating royalty rate reductions. Given that there may be a royalty rate too 

high to attract coal companies, the rates charged under this alternative are likely to differ from the rates that 

would apply by simply incorporating all GHG externality costs into a royalty adder. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-71

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Increasing leasing transparency and public disclosure 

As noted, multiple reviews over the years have shown BLM officials leasing federal coal for less than FMV, 

improperly reducing royalties, and otherwise allowing access to federal coal without full return to taxpayers. 

Among the structural flaws that allow these problems to occur is the secrecy surrounding these decisions. 

BLM should amend its regulations to provide for transparency and public disclosure throughout the leasing 

process. This would include determining FMV, the bid process itself, and the establishment of rent and royalty 

rates. By forcing BLM officials to “show their work,” the public will be in a position to both monitor BLM 

decision-making and insure that the public receives a fair return for coal resources. 

e. Changing lease terms 

Under this alternative, BLM would consider changing lease terms to control the amount of coal produced, by 

putting annual coal production limits in coal leasing contracts. Like the Carbon Budget alternative, this would 

allow BLM to control the upper limit of federally leased coal, and therefore to begin to address the GHG 

emissions associated with the federally leased coal fuel cycle. 

BLM would also consider incorporating into coal leases the authority to adjust rental and royalty fees over time, 

particularly if leases are going to continue to be given for decades-long periods. Providing additional flexibility in 

pricing would allow BLM to insure that coal leases continue to advance national objectives in the future based on 

new information that might not be available at the time of the original lease. 

Comment Number: 0002470-1 

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Other Sections: 8.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM must use the Programmatic EIS process to design a system of coal leasing that promotes competition 

among coal companies for federal coal leases. Competition is an essential part of any functioning market; without 

it, the program must compensate in various ways to achieve fair coal pricing. The lack of competition also leads 

to public skepticism that the federal coal program is not ensuring a fair return for these resources.

Comment Number: 0002470-10

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-544 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At a minimum, the BLM could improve transparency by collecting data from the field on a monthly basis. Each 

month, each state office should report the number of royalty rate reduction requests it has received, the number 

of requests granted and the justifications, and the volume anticipated to be valued at the reduced rate. In the 

past, the BLM has been reluctant to disclose any data because of lessees' concerns about trade secrets. But these 

aggregate numbers would not disclose any confidential data about individual mines and should be made publicly 

available on BLM’s website. The data would provide an essential baseline for understanding the impact of royalty 

rate reductions upon taxpayer revenue, and would be consistent with the Department of the Interior’s Extractive 

Industries Transparency Initiative. The impact of policy decisions regarding rate reductions could then be 

evaluated based on publicly available data. 

Comment Number: 0002470-12

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In its report, the CEA suggests coal valuation could be considered ‘’under a framework analogous to property 

taxes,’’ in which “the market value for coal should be based on sale prices of coal with similar characteristics, 

from both Federal lands and non-Federal lands.”13 This concept was proposed at a congressional hearing by Dan 

Bucks, the former Director of the Montana Department of Revenue: “Interior can address these root causes if it 

returns to the plain language of the federal Mineral Leasing Act that calls upon Interior to directly value coal—just 

as a property tax assessor directly values homes and businesses. Instead of following the property tax model 

called for in the law, Interior has instead delegated initial valuation to companies through an income tax approach 

that opens the door to abuse and underreporting.”14

(13) CEA at 18. 

(14) Dan R. Bucks, Testimony at the House Committee on Natural Resources - Oversight Hearing "Ensuring 

Certainty for Royalty Payments on Federal Resource Production," December 8, 2015. Available 

at:http://democratsnaturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/testimony_bucks.pdf 

Comment Number: 0002470-13

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The leasing process generally used by the BLM does not obtain fair market value for taxpayers. Competitive bids 

are seldom generated, and studies indicate that the resulting losses for taxpayers are substantial. Congress 

enacted the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (FCLAA)1 to require competitive bids and to specify 

that no bid may be accepted that does not represent fair market value. The act also established diligent 

development requirements to reduce speculation and to institute minimum royalty rates. BLM’s FCLAA 

implementing regulations2 require the Secretary to delineate tracts for leasing from among those lands classified 

for coal leasing. Tracts are to be of a size the Secretary “finds appropriate and in the public interest and which 

will permit the mining of all coal which can be economically extracted...”3 Tracts are then offered for lease at 

sales held either on the motion of the Secretary or upon the request of any qualified applicant. The Secretary 

must award leases by competitive bidding, except for certain sales expressly authorized to be negotiated sales. 

(1) P.L. 94-377 – August 4, 1976 

(2) Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Final Rulemaking: “Coal Management; Federally 

Owned Coal,” 42 FR 42584 – 

July 19, 1979; and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Final Rulemaking: “Coal 

Management; Federally Owned 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-545

Scoping Report 

Coal; Amendments to Coal Management Program Regulations,” 47 FR 33114 – July 30, 1982 

(3)30 U.S.C. §201(a)(1) – emphasis added 

Comment Number: 0002470-14

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Inspector General (IG) examined 45 lease sale modifications since 2000 and concluded that $60 million had 

been lost by those adjustments.8 The BLM faulted that conclusion because the IG had valued the coal in the 

additional lease areas at the same rate as the main leases to which additional deposits were added. This conflict 

highlights the need for further review and guidance on valuing coal deposits, both for lease modifications and for 

maintenance tracts. The BLM argued that the coal should be valued at a lower rate because there was no 

competitive interest – one choice for valuation. If coal is being added to an existing lease because it is by 

definition coal for which there is no competitive interest, determining its value to the company requesting it 

might be appropriate – a second valuation alternative. The IG proposed yet a third alternative-- valuing the coal 

at the same rate as the lease being modified. 

(8) Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior, Report No. CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012,“Coal 

Management Program,” June 2013

Comment Number: 0002470-18

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Headwaters Economics estimated that royalty rate reductions have reduced total royalty payments by roughly 

$294 million on all leases sold between 1990 and 2013. Their report notes that these leases only accounted for 

roughly one-third of the amount of coal produced during this period, and that the remainder is from leases sold 

prior to 1990. If losses from royalty rate reductions are consistent with older leases, the total cost of reduced 

royalty rates is “closer to $860 million from 1990 to 2013, or about $37 million annually (in 2013 dollars).”26

(26) Headwaters Economics, “An Assessment of U.S. Federal Coal Royalties,” January 2015. Available at: 

http://headwaterseconomics.org/energy/coal/coal-royalty-valuation/ 

Comment Number: 0002470-3 

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

During the Programmatic EIS, the BLM should look for mechanisms that will introduce more transparency into 

the process of determining FMV for lease sales. The BLM should review the process in the State of Montana, 

which releases its FMV calculations for public review and comment before lease sales. 

Because lease modifications and most LBA lease sales are not competitive, it is imperative that the BLM establish 

the correct Fair Market Value (“FMV”) for federal coal. The process of determining the FMV for a lease tract is 

shrouded in secrecy. The data and methodology the BLM uses to determine FMV are not publicly available. Bids 

are sealed. The public has no idea what the coal is worth or how it was valued. 

In the absence of a competitive system, accurate determinations of coal values are critical to the revenues 

realized by the government. “Value” or “fair market value” enters into the lease sale and management processes 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-546 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

at several points, and serves as the basis for evaluating lease sale bids and lease prices paid, which, in turn, 

influence coal prices and calculations of royalty revenues. Final lease sale values can then be used as comparable 

for estimating values of new tracts. Thus, when value estimates are low, it is possible to lock in a system of 

continuing undervalued leases. 

The process of developing fair valuations for tracts, especially in a noncompetitive system, can be both difficult 

and controversial. Regulations, agency guidance, and state office practices affect how value and FMV are 

determined. Appraisals involve subjective valuations of the elements that comprise the value of a property. There 

are legitimate problems with attempting to apply the same valuation processes used for competitively bid leases 

to lease tracts that genuinely lack competitive appeal. 

Comment Number: 0002470-4 

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the case of Montana’s 2010 lease sale of the state-owned Otter Creek tracts, the Montana Department of 

Natural Resource Conservation (DNRC) contracted with Norwest Corporation to prepare an appraisal of the 

FMV of the tracts.9 Norwest used BLM’s Handbook H-3070-1, Economic Evaluation of Coal Properties, to 

calculate the value of the coal as $0.0539 per ton, or $30.8, million using the Comparable Lease Sales Approach. 

Using the Income Approach, Norwest placed the value at $0.0652 per ton, or $37.3 million. Norwest noted that 

these values were lower than similar federal lease sales because of the lack of existing mining equipment and rail 

service at Otter Creek. The DNRC released the Norwest valuation to the public and requested public comment 

in advance of the lease sale. The DNRC then used the appraisal and public comments to design a minimum bid 

package to secure fair market value for the coal leases. The winning bid by Ark Land Company, a subsidiary of 

Arch Coal, approved on March 18, 2010, was $85,845,110 – significantly higher than the initial appraised FMV. 10 

Exposing all of this information to public review contributed to the higher bid the state received and certainly 

provided a more transparent process that could be used as a model for federal lease sales. 

(9) Norwest Corporation, “Montana Otter Creek State Coal Valuation,” January 30, 2009. Available at: 

http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/trust/docs/minerals-management/otter-creek/3823mtottercreekvaluationreport.pdf 

(10) Montana Department of Natural Resource Conservation, “Otter Creek Coal Mine Proposal,” 

http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/trust/mineralsmanagement/ 

otter-creek-coal-mine-proposal 

Comment Number: 0002470-5 

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

During the Programmatic EIS, the BLM should consider increasing the royalty rate to 18.75 percent for federal 

coal production, as this royalty rate would ensure that the taxpayers are recovering a fair share of the market 

value of the resource and not favor one energy source over another. The federal government currently charges a 

royalty rate of 18.75 percent for offshore oil and gas production, and many states charge similar or higher rates 

for state-owned oil and gas. 

The industry has argued at times that the taxes that coal companies pay to local, state, and federal 

governments should offset the royalties they pay for the right to mine and sell federal coal. Just because the coal 

industry pays taxes, like every other industry, does not mean it should not pay fair market value for federal coal. 

Private landowners charge royalties on the market value of private coal, in addition to whatever taxes the 

companies might pay. Taxpayers, the owners of federal resources, should also charge market-based royalties. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-547

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002470-6 

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The process used to determine the value of federal coal for calculating a royalty is also done in secret, and is 

largely controlled by industry. The Office of Natural Resource Revenue (ONRR) released its final rule governing 

the valuation of federal coal on June 30.11 The updated rule is certainly an improvement, but TCS is disappointed 

that well documented problems with coal valuation were not eliminated. Numerous studies, including a recent 

report by the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA),12 have demonstrated how coal companies manipulate the 

current valuation system to reduce royalty payments. Valuation of the minerals is a key component of the leasing 

process. 

(11) Office of Natural Resource Revenue, Final Rulemaking: “Consolidated Federal Oil & Gas and Federal & 

Indian Coal Valuation Reform,” 81 FR 

43338 – July 1, 2016 

(12) White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), “The Economics of Coal Leasing on Federal Lands: 

Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers,” 

June 2016 

Comment Number: 0002470-7 

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Here again, more transparency is the answer. TCS recommended ONRR consider an index price system for coal 

similar to the one used for oil and gas valuation.15 The CEA suggested possible models using average coal prices, 

regionally or nationally, to set the value of federal coal. Similarly, transportation deductions, “can be based on 

easily observable indices of coal transportation costs per rail mile, rather than on self-reported cost numbers 

according to the CEA report.”16 TCS also believes the deduction for washing coal should be eliminated. The 

deduction has proven susceptible to abuse and is generally a cost of doing business that should be borne by 

industry. 

(15) Taxpayers for Common Sense, “Comments to the Office of Natural Resource Revenue (ONRR) on the 

Consolidated Federal Oil and Gas and 

Federal and Indian Coal Valuation Reform, Proposed Rule,” May 8, 2015. Available at: 

http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/tcs-submitscommentson-onrrs-proposed-coal-valuation-reform-rule 

(16) CEA at 19 

Comment Number: 0002470-9 

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In practice, the BLM often grants royalty rate reductions. According to data obtained from ONRR, the BLM has 

often reduced the royalty rates on federal coal leases during the last 25 years. Of 80 federal leases in 9 states, 35 

of them (44 percent) recorded royalty rates less than the minimum of 12.5 percent for surface mines and 8 

percent for underground mines. More than half (16 of 28) of the royalty rate reductions occurred between 2001 

and 2007. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-548 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002471_Reed_20160728-5 

Organization1:High Country Conservation Advocates 

Commenter1:Matt Reed 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to analysis of phasing out coal leasing on public lands, HCCA encourages the BLM to carefully 

consider royalty rate structures, abuses and potential adjustments as part of the development of the PEIS. The 

BLM’s PEIS website states that “[t]he review . . . will take a careful look at issues such as . . . how to ensure 

American taxpayers are earning a fair return for the use of their public resources.” Royalty rate abuse at the 

West Elk Mine in Gunnison County exemplifies the need to examine this issue. The West Elk mine is operated by 

Mountain Coal Company (MCC), which is a subsidiary of Arch Coal. For years MCC has been the beneficiary of 

reduced royalty rates for two coal leases at the West Elk mine. MCC is currently seeking the renewal of its 

royalty reduction from the BLM, a request that would cut by 37.5% the royalties that would otherwise go to 

federal, state and local taxpayers.24 This reduction would continue to deprive Gunnison County of money that it 

would otherwise receive. 

24 Letter of W. Koontz, Mountain Coal Co. to R. Welch, BLM (Sep. 4, 2014). 

Despite this request for continued royalty payment reduction, Arch Coal paid its executives $8 million in 

bonuses in January, 2016, one business day before Arch declared bankruptcy.25 That’s approximately the same 

amount that the State estimated in 2012 that Colorado taxpayers would lose under Arch’s previous royalty relief 

request for the same leases.26 The hypocrisy is staggering: Arch Coal’s executives received bonuses one day 

before bankruptcy that equal the amount of royalty payments that did not remit to taxpayers for the use of a 

public resource. Arch has the wherewithal to mine these leases without reducing the payments that Gunnison 

County taxpayers deserve under law. In fact, it’s doing so right now.

(25) See B. Hulac & D. Brown, ClimateWire, Arch Coal paid execs $8M in bonuses on eve of bankruptcy (Mar. 

16, 

2016). See also J. Panank, Wall St. Jl., Arch Coal Paid $29M to Insiders in Year Before Bankruptcy (Mar. 11, 2016), 

available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/arch-coal-paid-29m-to-insiders-in-year-before-bankruptcy-1457721786 

(last viewed July 28, 2016). 

(26) Letter of Gov. J. Hickenlooper to L. Bagley, Colorado BLM (Aug. 10, 2012) (“The estimated loss in revenues 

to the 

State of Colorado would be $1,575,000 each year over the term of this reduction”).

Under the current federal coal program, Gunnison County taxpayers were shortchanged to line the pockets of 

coal executives. This exemplifies the need for federal coal leasing reform, to address and correct abuses of the 

system. If we are to continue mining coal in Colorado, communities must get their fair share of royalties. 

Otherwise, mining executives will continue to shortchange our communities and leave us with the difficulties of 

transition. 

Comment Number: 0002473_Hornback_20160728_WCC-2 

Organization1:Western Colorado Congress 

Commenter1:Emily Hornback 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Mountain Pact has compiled data from various reports that show small changes to the leasing program, such 

as increasing royalties by $2.50/ton, can create $910 million in additional revenue by 2020 from federal coal 

resources. In Colorado alone, revenues could rise by $20 million, half of which can go back to the states where 

the mining took place to be reinvested in communities, supporting programs such as the Delta County Economic 

Development group. To the degree possible PEIS must then look for ways to ensure this revenue is reinvested in 

communities to help us break from the boom and bust cycles of fossil fuel extraction. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-549

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002475_Kustin_20160728_CAP-1 

Organization1:Center for American Progress 

Commenter1:Mary Ellen Kustin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While this rule was a good first step, more needs to be done. We urge the Department to assess and respond to 

the many ways the coal industry can use loopholes in existing regulations and laws to avoid paying taxpayers a fair 

return on federally-owned coal. Several of these loopholes and subsidies are described in the White House’s 

Council of Economic Advisers’ June 2016 paper.

Comment Number: 0002475_Kustin_20160728_CAP-2 

Organization1:Center for American Progress

Commenter1:Mary Ellen Kustin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Center for American Progress offered recommendations to modernize how the royalty rates are assessed in 

a May 2015 paper. We call your attention, in particular, to our recommendation that royalties be assessed on the 

net delivery price of coal, rather than the so-called mine mouth price. The delivery price of coal more accurately 

reflects coal’s true market value and is easier to independently verify than the mine mouth price. We further 

recommend that coal companies’ transportation deductions be capped at 50 percent of the value of the resource, 

as is the practice when assessing royalties on oil and gas extracted on federal lands and waters. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-65

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM considers coal exports to a limited extent when developing an estimate of fair market value and generally 

does not explicitly consider estimates of the total amount of coal in the United States that can be mined 

economically, known as domestic reserve estimates. In the few state offices that did consider exports, we 

generally found the same generic statements in appraisal and economic reports that stated in general terms the 

possibility of future growth in coal exports, and there was limited tracking of exports from specific mines. As a 

result, BLM may not be factoring specific export information into appraisals or keeping up-to-date with emerging 

trends.145 

(145) Government Accountability Office, Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly 

Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information 36 (Dec. 2013), GAO-14-140.

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-11

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 8.5 1 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Several recent reports from the Government Accountability Office and the Inspector General of the Interior 

Department raised concerns about the leasing process, including the social and environmental impacts of the 

federal coal program, and whether the program was receiving a fair return for taxpayers.4 Importantly, the 

federal coal leasing and royalty program has not been reviewed for 30 years.5 

(4) "Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-550 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

More Public Information, February 2014" U.S. Government Accountability Office 

http://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-140; "Coal Management Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, Report 

No. CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012, June 2013" Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

https://www.doioig.gov/reports/coal-management-program-us-departmentinterior. 

(5) The Secretary of the Interior, Order No 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

to Modernize the Federal Coal Program 

(Washington, D.C., 2016) 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/news_release_attachment

s.Par.4909.File.dat/SO%203338%20Coal.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-2 

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal is lower value on average compared to non-federal coal. Federal coal makes up more than 43 

percent of total U.S. production, but only 20 percent of total coal production value nationally in 2014. The 

average price of all U.S. coal valued at the mine was $34.83 per ton in 2014.18 The average price of federal coal 

at the mine was only $17.40 in the same year.19 Federal coal production value is a relatively smaller share of 

total U.S. coal production value for several reasons: 

-Federal coal on average is of relatively low value (in terms of heat content), sub-bituminous coal, resulting in a 

lower average price per ton. 

-Because of its relatively low heat content, federal coal is disproportionately utilized in domestic electricity 

generation markets where delivered prices are lower compared to other markets. Of total U.S. coal production, 

81 percent is utilized for domestic electricity generation, about 12 percent is exported, and the rest, about 8 

percent, is used in a variety of commercial and industrial uses, including steel production. About 98 percent of 

coal produced in Wyoming, which accounts for the large majority of federal coal, is used in the domestic 

electricity generation sector.20 

-The large majority of federal coal mined in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana is more remote 

from markets and has higher transportation costs resulting in a discount at the mine and restricted access to 

higher value markets. For example, international exports of coal used for electricity generation declined between 

2002 and 2012 in Wyoming, but increased for the U.S. as a whole from about 10 million tons to more than 50 

million tons annually.21 

-Federal coal mining is relatively efficient compared to non-federal coal resulting in lower mining costs. Lower 

mining costs have allowed Western coal producers to gain market share by selling coal at lower costs. Montana 

and Wyoming rank second and first, respectively, in average coal production per employee hour (28 and 17 tons 

per employee per hour, respectively compared to fewer than 3 tons per hour in Kentucky and West Virinia).22 

-Federal leasing and royalty policy are also responsible for lower production value. Federal lease sales are 

uncompetitive, potentially limiting bonus bids received for federal coal and allowing companies to sell coal at 

lower prices. Through captive transactions at the mine and through "take-or-pay" contracts, companies may be 

able to further lower the gross value of coal upon which they pay royalties.23 

(18) "Annual Coal Report, March 23, 2013 - Table 31. Average Sales Price of Coal by State and Coal Rank," U.S. 

Energy Information Administration, 

http://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-551

Scoping Report 

(19) "Federal Reported Sales Volume, Sales Value, and Royalty Revenue, Fiscal Years 2003 to 2015 by Sales Year," 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Washington, D.C., 

http://statistics.onrr.gov/. 

(20) "Annual Coal Distribution Report, April 8, 2016," Domestic distribution of U.S. coal by origin State, 

consumer, destination and method of transportation, (thousand short tons), U.S. Energy Information 

Administration, Washington, D.C., http://www.eia.gov/coal/distribution/annual/archive.cfm. 

(21) Robert Godby, Roger Coupal, David Taylor, and Tim Considine. The Impact of the Coal Economy on 

Wyoming (Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy, 2015), 

http://www.uwyo.edu/cee/_files/docs/wia_coal_full-report.pdf. 

(22) “Employment/Production Data Set (Quarterly),” U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Washington, D.C., 

http://arlweb.msha.gov/OpenGovernmentData/OGIMSHA.asp. 

(23) U.S. Council of Economic Advisors, The Economics of Coal Leasing on Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return 

to Taxpayers (Washington, D.C., 2016), 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160622_cea_coal_leasing.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-25

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Policy decisions made by states can increase or decrease dependence on coal tax and royalty revenue. State and 

local governments often utilize fossil fuel revenue, including from coal, to offset (or lower) taxes on individuals 

and other economic sectors, which has the effect of increasing dependence on fossil fuel revenues. Different 

policy choices, including investing fossil fuel revenue in permanent funds and limiting the use of volatile fossil fuel 

revenue on annual governmental operating budgets, can create greater resilience to changes in coal revenue 

streams.41 

41 Haggerty, Mark N., and Julia H. Haggerty, “Energy Development Opportunities and Challenges in the Rural 

West,” in Bridging the Distance: Common Issues of the Rural West, ed. David B. Danbom (Salt Lake City: The 

University of Utah Press, 2015), 161. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-3 

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Demand for coal in domestic electricity generation markets depends on the relative price of coal, natural gas, and 

renewable energy sources over time. With increased price competition from these other sources, coal utilization 

has become less predictable from year to year. For example, coal accounted for 33 percent of total generation in 

2015, but EIA projects coal could supply between 28 and 40 percent of electricity generation in 2040.28 

Uncertainty about how much coal will be burned in the future-whether more or less than current levels-stems 

from price competition between coal and natural gas, and the relative volatility of natural gas prices compared to 

coal.

(28) “Today in Energy: Future power market shares of coal, natural gas generators depend on relative fuel 

prices,” April 23, 2013, U.S. Energy Information 

Administration, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10951. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-552 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-1 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Recommendations: The BLM should raise royalty rates on federal coal production to ensure the public receives 

fair market value from its coal. An “adder” could be placed on royalties that applies to externalities from coal 

production, such as emissions of the GHG methane. The PEIS should fully analyze mechanisms for increasing the 

royalty rate, such that any subsequent rulemakings to change the rates can rely on this analysis. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-2 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should highlight the need for the coal program to provide a fair return to taxpayers and use it as an 

overarching consideration in the PEIS. BLM should adopt changes that will ensure this goal is met in analyzing 

each aspect of the program, including as recommended in further detail below. At a minimum, this includes 

showing fair market value is being achieved for each element of the program. However, since fair market value is 

a technical standard, we recommend that, overall, the program should ensure there is a fair return to taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-4 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should carefully analyze bonus bids that are being paid for coal leases and rental rates that are paid on 

leases in the PEIS and determine how those should be increased to ensure that the government receives fair 

market value from federal coal production. Bonus bids that have been paid by sole bidders in LBA sales should 

receive special attention. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-60

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Royalties must be paid on coal that is produced from federal coal leases. 30 U.S.C. § 207(a). Royalty rates are 

nominally 12.5 percent on coal mined from surface mines and 8 percent from underground mines. Unfortunately, 

however, the current effective rate of royalty payments is only 4.9 percent of the value of the coal that is 

mined—just $ 1.70 per ton. (3) It has been estimated that taxpayers have been shortchanged by nearly $ 30 

billion over the last three decades due to limited royalty, bonus bid, and rental payments from the federal coal 

program. Part of the reason for these low royalty payments is the availability of subsidies and deductions that 

lower the royalty rate. In total, because of these problems, Americans are not receiving the fair market value of 

their coal. 

(3) An Assessment of U.S. Federal Coal Royalties. Current Royalty Structure, Effective Royalty Rates, and Reform 

Options. Headwaters Economics. Jan. 2015. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-66

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-553

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The consequences of letting industry set the pace, scale and location of lease sales have been well documented. 

Numerous independent audits and third party reviews from 1980 to 2014 have found that the program does not 

provide a fair return to taxpayers, concluding that “There is no evidence that the BLM receives a market price 

for the coal,” (7) “weaknesses in the current sale process . . . could put the Government at risk of not receiving 

the full value for the leases,” (8) and the BLM “does not obtain fair market value for taxpayers. It seldom 

generates competitive bids, and studies indicate that the resulting losses are substantial.” (9)

BLM does not adequately limit lands open to development to appropriate lands. As we outlined in Section IV. B., 

BLM does not fully consider the full range of multiple-use values during land use planning. An example of this 

problem in practice is the Buffalo RMP under which “All coal lands are open to exploration, subject to multiple 

use constraints, resulting in zero acres closed to coal exploration and 4,775,136 acres open to coal leasing. . . .” 

(10) 

(7) Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, “The Great Giveaway: An analysis of the costly failure 

of federal coal leasing in the Powder River Basin,” June 2012. 

(8) U.S. Department of the Interior Inspector General’s Report, “Coal Management Program, U.S. Department of 

the Interior,” June 2013.

(9) Taxpayers for Common Sense, “Federal Coal Leasing: Fair Market Value and a Fair Return for the American 

Taxpayer,” September 2013.

(10) Buffalo Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2015, p. 123. 

To address these problems, BLM should consider replacing the existing LBA leasing system with a modern 

approach that creates mechanisms to ensure a fair return, ensures any new leasing is based on a full 

consideration of other resources, and provides BLM with tools to achieve national policy priorities such as 

combating climate change. 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-1 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our members will be impacted both directly and indirectly by any changes made to the federal leasing program. 

These changes will also threaten the royalty and other tax revenues that local and state governments receive to 

support important functions, including funding of the public school system in Colorado. In 2015, these producers 

paid more than $40 million in federal and state royalties, much of which is returned to the state. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-1 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There is no economic justification for raising royalty rates, lease payments, or any of the other costs or fees 

related to leasing and developing coal on federal lands. The domestic coal industry is suffering relentless 

regulatory and administrative attacks from the current administration and fierce competition from other 

domestic fuel sources coupled with depressed international prices. These regulatory and economic challenges 

have led to an unprecedented number of coal company bankruptcies. In 2015, Cloud Peak Energy paid over 33% 

of its gross annual revenue to federal, state, and local governments in royalties, production-related taxes, rents, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-554 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

and lease payments. At current market prices, these governmental payments on coal production comprise 

approximately 41% of the sales price for a ton of federal coal. This economic burden is substantially higher than 

what companies pay to develop non-federal coal in the United States or to develop coal in other countries such 

as Canada, Australia, India, and China. Under any reasonable metric, coal producers pay much more than their 

fair share when developing coal from federal lands in the United States. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-10

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Increasing the royalty rate will lead to a decrease in the FMV for lease bonus payments. Although the bonus bid 

and royalty rate are derived from distinct statutory mandates, each cost directly influences the other. BLM’s Coal 

Evaluation Handbook acknowledges that: (1) the royalty rate of the lease influences the amount of economically 

recoverable coal within a lease tract; and (2) the amount of economically recoverable coal within a lease tract 

influences the FMV of the lease. Any increase in the royalty rate will decrease the amount of coal that may be 

recovered economically and depress the FMV of the proposed lease tract. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-12

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Discouraging coal development is clearly the goal of anti-coal activists. However, this objective is contrary to 100 

years of federal mineral policy and there is no statutory support for such a radical change. Any attempt by BLM 

to increase royalty rates or other leasing costs to further the anti-coal agenda would be a clear violation of 

federal law and policy. The Department of the Interior is not authorized to impose any new or additional taxes, 

fees, or penalties on coal production. Any effort to raise the royalty rate with the intention of lowering federal 

coal production volumes to achieve the administration's climate objectives, or promote renewable energy 

growth, would violate the law. Such efforts would constitute a new revenue measure, which can only be 

established by Congress. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-2 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There is no legal support for making federal coal leasing more difficult and costly. The statute that governs federal 

coal leasing on federal lands—the Mineral Leasing Act (“MLA”)— encourages federal coal leasing and requires 

BLM and coal producers with federal leases to achieve maximum economic recovery of the underlying coal 

estate. Any proposal that makes development of federal coal prohibitively expensive, or which limits coal 

production to advance other non-statutory goals, is unlawful. The current administration’s anti-fossil fuel agenda 

violates the MLA and 100 years of law and policy encouraging a robust federal coal leasing program as a 

fundamental means of providing inexpensive and reliable energy to Americans. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-21

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-555

Scoping Report 

The Secretary’s determination of whether maximum economic recovery will be achieved is based on the 

economics of developing the particular coal reserve. See 43 C.F.R. §§ 3480.0-5(21), and 3484.1(b). The Secretary 

must consider the direct costs the lessee incurs in mining the reserve, with consideration given to “existing 

proven technology; commercially available and economically feasible equipment; coal quality, quantity, and 

marketability; safety, exploration, operating, processing, and transportation costs.” Id. § 3480.0-5(21); see also id. 

§§ 3482.1(c) and 3487.1(c) (listing the information informing the Secretary’s maximum economic recovery 

determination). 

With regard to royalties, the royalty rate of a federal lease is a direct cost the Secretary must consider in making 

a maximum economic recovery determination. Current regulations governing maximum economic recovery 

provide that “profitable portions of a leased Federal coal deposit must be mined.” Id. § 3480.0-5(21) (emphasis 

added). The royalty rate on the federal coal directly influences the coal’s profitability. BLM’s revised Coal 

Evaluation Handbook recognizes the connection between the royalty rate and maximum economic recovery: 

[Maximum economic recovery] is an economic test based on when the direct mining, beneficiation, and royalty 

and tax costs for producing the next unit of coal into a marketable condition, are equal to the value derived from 

the sale of the same unit of coal. Said another way, the revenue from the sale of each incremental ton of coal 

must meet or exceed the direct costs to mine, transport, beneficiate, and pay royalty and taxes incurred to 

produce the next incremental ton of coal mined. [Maximum economic recovery] is achieved at the point where 

economically recoverable reserves become uneconomical. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-36

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Neither BLM nor any other entity has provided any factual support for the contention that the federal coal 

program fails to provide a fair return to the American people. Instead, BLM’s review of the federal coal program 

is driven by the current administration’s energy policies and the clamoring of various environmental activists. To 

be sure, the depressed market conditions and recent bankruptcies filed by coal producers are due in part to the 

deliberate efforts of the current administration and environmental organizations to shut down the U.S. coal 

industry. These anti-fossil fuel agendas provide no basis for arbitrarily increasing costs to coal producers under 

the MLA or any other federal statute. 

BLM’s programmatic review of the federal coal program should not be used as another weapon in the ongoing 

assault on the U.S. coal industry. Such an approach does not provide a legally-supported or rational basis for 

BLM’s contemplated increase of costs associated with coal leasing, including bonus payments or royalties. Cloud 

Peak Energy urges BLM to review the federal coal program and its fair return to the American public based upon 

objective, reliable data and factual information, not the current agenda to shut down the domestic coal industry. 

A fair review of BLM’s own FMV analyses for recent lease sales in the Southern Powder River Basin will reveal 

that bonus and royalty payments provide a fair return to the American people. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-37

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Moreover, attempting to determine the FMV of coal reserves that are not economically recoverable leads to 

unreliable value estimates. According to BLM’s Coal Evaluation Handbook, “[a]n income approach analysis 

predicated on the recovery of coal reserves that are not economically recoverable will yield unreliable estimates 

of value.” Id. BLM must understand that the contemplated changes to the federal coal program (i.e., increased 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-556 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

royalties or other leasing costs) would perpetuate the very problem identified by BLM; accurately determining 

the FMV of federal coal leases. 

Before considering any changes to the federal royalty rate, BLM should first assess whether the newly revised 

Coal Evaluation Handbook has increased, or at least, more accurately represented the FMV, for federal coal 

reserves at the leasing stage. The Coal Evaluation Handbook has already implemented new guidance to ensure 

BLM’s receipt of FMV for federal coal leases, including the requirement that BLM take into account current 

market factors such as “Economic and Domestic Coal Market Data” (i.e., supply and demand, coal prices, market 

expectations) and “Specific Lease Tract Economic Data” (i.e., markets for specific coal, quality of coal – btu 

content, sulfur, ash). Id. at 3-6 – 3-9. These newly informed FMV analyses may fairly resolve any issues BLM or 

the auditors found with BLM’s FMV determinations and make clear that any increase in the royalty rate or other 

leasing costs is unwarranted. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-6 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2015, Cloud Peak Energy paid over 33% of its total revenue to federal and state governments in the form of 

bonus payments, production-related taxes, and royalties. Put another way, approximately 41% of the current 

sales price of each ton of federal coal goes to federal, state, and local governments. This is more than a “fair 

share” of the coal’s economic value; especially when all risks associated with production, marketing, and 

reclamation are taken by the producer. Any increase in the royalty rate would substantially burden U.S. coal 

companies and frustrate their ability to develop federal coal reserves. 

Not only do coal companies need to manage increased costs of labor, increased costs of regulatory compliance, 

and increased production costs, but they must constantly use current cash flow to invest in lease bonus payments 

and mining equipment and facilities to ensure the continuation of their business. In an environment where 

companies such as Cloud Peak Energy must spend such a high percentage of their total revenue on mandatory 

payments to the federal, state, and local governments, it is no surprise that there has been a significant number of 

recent U.S. coal company bankruptcies. Cloud Peak Energy is unaware of any other industry in the United States 

that is forced to operate under such an economic burden. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-7 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Under the current regulatory regime, BLM always receives FMV for federal coal leases. The existing coal leasing 

program requires that BLM carefully and confidentially determine the FMV of federal coal leases in advance of 

each lease sale. Pursuant to federal law, BLM must issue the lease to the highest bidder, as long as the bid meets 

or exceeds the FMV as established by BLM and the bidder satisfies the other legal criteria for holding a federal 

coal lease. BLM cannot accept any bid unless it meets or exceeds the predetermined FMV. The current bidding 

process ensures that BLM will always receive at least FMV for each and every federal coal lease, and the strong 

probability is that BLM will receive more than FMV for each lease. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-9 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Raising the federal coal royalty rate above 12 1/2 % will discourage leasing and development of federal coal in 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-557

Scoping Report 

favor of state or private coal available at a lower royalty rate. Congress has consistently declared that America’s 

energy policy includes the significant development of domestic coal reserves. Congress sought to “encourage the 

maximum ultimate recovery of the coal deposits in the leasable lands of the United States,” by imposing diligent 

development and maximum economic recovery requirements. Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Mines and 

Mining, 94th Cong. 133 (1975). The current royalty rates have been established to encourage greater production 

volume. Raising the royalty rate to discourage federal coal development directly contravenes the congressional 

mandate to encourage the maximum economic recovery of federal coal. BLM has no legal authority to consider 

extraneous issues, such as the social cost of carbon, in its maximum economic recovery determination. If the 

costs of mining federal coal deposits (including royalty rates, lease payments, etc.) become so high that mining the 

federal coal reserves becomes uneconomical altogether, federal coal will simply not be mined. Raising the federal 

coal royalty rate to a level that renders the mining of federal coal uneconomical is wholly inconsistent with 

Congress’ directive to the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to manage the federal 

leasing process in order to achieve maximum economic recovery of federal coal. 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-59

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 2 4.5 7.1 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Alternative C and D: Social Cost of Carbon and Royalty Rate Increases 

This alternative would internalize the cost of carbon based on federal social cost of carbon estimates reflecting 

the “worldwide incremental damage from climatic change brought about by an additional metric ton of CO2 

emissions.”67 This price is sensitive to discount rates. A midrange price for the year 2020 is $46 per ton of 

CO2.68 Similarly, BLM may consider royalty rates as a means to reform the federal coal program. Increased 

royalty rates can also include royalty carbon adders, which “directly incorporates a carbon price into the royalty 

paid on federal coal sales, reflecting its climate costs.”69 Interior should analyze these decision alternatives and 

compare them against the criterion of budget compatibility – whether the reformed alternatives are consistent 

with federal climate change targets, as illustrated by the 450 Scenario. 

[67 Id. at 29.] 

[68 Alan Krupnick et al., Putting a Carbon Charge on Federal Coal: Legal and Economic Issues, Resources for the 

Future Discussion Paper at 10574; See U.S. GAO, GAO-14-663, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Development of 

Social Cost of Carbon Estimates (July 2014).] 

[69 Spencer Reed and James H. Stock., Federal Coal Leasing Reform Options: Effects on CO2 Emissions and 

Energy Markets – Executive Summary, February 2016 at 2-3.] 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-13

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 8.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Furthermore, as noted above, the existing regulations have been set in place to clearly establish the LBA process 

as a competitive form of leasing, even if only one company offers a bid. The BLM sets an undisclosed FMV floor 

price and a company must meet or exceed BLM's valuation in order to receive the lease. Even if only one 

company submits a bid, they do not automatically receive the lease. There have been several instances that BLM's 

floor price was not met and a lease was not awarded. Since companies do not know the BLM floor price, it is fair 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-558 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

to assume that acceptable bids exceed the BLM price. In those instances, the American public receives a premium 

- or more than FMV. As part of this scoping process, the BLM should consider this information and review prior 

LBA sales to better understand the amount of additional money paid over the years because the accepted bid 

price exceeded FMV. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-15

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 8.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Table 1.3.2.1 below provides more complete and correct information as compared to Table 4 in the WEG report 

because it highlights the tracts for which more than one sale was held as well as sales for which there was more 

than one bidder. Table 1.3.2.1 illustrates that BLM held more than one sale and therefore, received more than 

one bid on 11 of the 27 tracts that have been leased since decertification of the PRB in 1990. Of these 11 tracts, 

4 (36%) have had more than one bidder on the second sale. One tract had two bidders on the first sale. 

Therefore, only one bid has been received on 16 of the 27 tracts, or 59% of the tracts offered since 

decertification as compared to 81.5% of the tracts that received only one or no bid during the period of regional 

leasing between 1975 and decertification of the PRB in 1990. Further, all bids accepted by the BLM exceeded the 

FMV determined by the BLM. Clearly, the LBA process has not "severely diminished" competition for federal coal 

in the PRB. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-16

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 8.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The 1984 Linowes Commission report identified the complex property ownership patterns in the western U.S. 

as a major deterrent to having multiple competitors bid on a federal lease tract. (WY0-00258 to 00912). 

Specifically, the report states that "Due to ownership patterns... the Government seldom reaps the benefit of 

being able to offer all the mineral and surface rights needed for an entire economic mining unit. Were the 

Government to do so, it could guarantee to each potential bidder an opportunity to invest in a lease without 

uncertainty about whether additional private rights could be acquired, and at what cost, after the lease sale. 

Typically, however, economic mining units consist of private, State or previously leased federal coal interspersed 

with or adjacent to the federal lease tract. In other instances, the Government may own the coal mineral rights 

while a private party owns the surface." Linowes Commission 1984 - p. 155; (WY0-00428). Nowhere is this 

situation more evident than Wyoming's Powder River Basin. The Linowes Commission Report compares regional 

differences in federal coal and lists the Wyoming PRB as having only 11 percent of its acreage under a federal 

surface/federal coal ownership pattern. Linowes Commission 1984- p. 158 (Table 3); (WY0-00431). Conversely, 

72 percent of the property ownership is non-federal surface/federal coal and 17 percent is non-federal or federal 

surface/non-federal coal. (See Map 1.3.3.1) 

The Green River/Hams Fork Coal Region in southwestern Wyoming has a different surface/mineral ownership 

pattern with a much larger percentage (52 percent) in federal surface/federal coal ownership pattern with very 

little (3.5 percent) in non-federal surface/federal coal. According to the Linowes Commission Report, coal tracts 

offered in the Green River/Hams Fork and Uinta-Southwestern Utah regions had achieved the most bidding 

competition. See Linowes Commission Report 1984- p. 159; (WY0-00432) and (see also Maps 1.3.3.2 and 

1.3.3.3). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-559

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-22

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The GAO also expressed concern about some BLM offices not utilizing comparable value valuation 

methodologies in conjunction with the income approach to estimate FMV of the leases offered. They did 

however point to the fact that the BLM Wyoming office utilizes both approaches and actually goes a step further 

to numerically adjust its comparable sales using the results of the income approach. GAO Report, p. 30; (WY0-

03646). Wyoming coal mines produce over 80 percent of the federal coal reserves mined in the U.S. Therefore, 

in the PEIS analysis, BLM must consider that 80 percent of the federal coal being mined in the U.S. is already being 

valued by BLM Wyoming based on something better than the GAOs recommended valuation methodology. 

The PEIS reviewing the federal coal program must consider that, upon completion of the GAO and OIG reviews, 

the BLM took action to resolve the identified concerns. The changes in guidance and policy that were the 

outcome of the GAO and OIG reviews (listed below) are basically administrative in scope, offering guidance to 

the BLM for assuring the program's continued effectiveness. The OIG report did NOT conclude the program has 

resulted in loss of revenue. Instead, it found that updating certain agency policies would minimize certain 

hypothetical risks for the undervaluation of the resource. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-23

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Council also refer to "asymmetric information" such as transportation and washing expenses that the 

Council claims may be inflated because the expenses are self-reported by the coal company. Please note that the 

federal government, specifically Office of Natural Resources Revenue, contracts with the Wyoming Department 

of Audit to perform FMR audits of mineral companies including coal companies. These audits verify not only the 

production volume and sales price of the mineral but also the allowable expenses claimed by the producer for 

both federal royalties and state severance taxes. Since these asymmetric charges are verified under audit, it is 

highly unlikely that they could be inflated. Once again, we note that Wyoming produces 80 percent of the coal 

produced under federal lease. Therefore, a vast majority of the asymmetric costs in the federal coal program are 

verified under audit. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-24

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Council recommends assessing royalties based on the "true observable market value" of coal. This sounds 

like an easily defensible change to valuation of the product, however it ignores the sales of the product that are 

conducted at the mine mouth such as captive mines where the consumer of the coal (a power plant) is located at 

the mine mouth. There are no transportation or washing costs at these mines so royalty charges would be 

significantly less than transported coal. This would provide a competitive advantage for having the power plant 

adjacent to the mine. Basing royalties on the heat value of coal is not a viable concept as BTU value is already 

priced by the market. The BLM must consider these facts in its PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-25

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-560 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

It can take years from the point a particular tract is nominated for lease to the point where a lease is awarded 

during the LBA process. For example, the North and South Porcupine LBAs in the Wyoming PRB were 

nominated for lease in 2006. Despite the fact that these two tracts were simple maintenance tracts designed to 

extend the life of existing mines-as opposed to being used to start up new mines-the leases were not awarded 

until six years later in 2012. See Notice of Competitive Coal Lease Sale, Wyoming, 77 Fed. Reg. 22607 (April16, 

2012) (South Porcupine); (WY0-00916 to 00917); Notice of Competitive Coal Lease Sale, Wyoming, 77 Fed. Reg. 

31385 (May 25, 2012) (North Porcupine); (WY0-00919 to 00920). Once a lease is awarded, companies must 

acquire the necessary permits to actually mine the lease in accordance with OSMRE and Wyoming regulations. 

This process can take an additional four to five years. It is common for a decade to pass from the time in which a 

lease is nominated until it is permitted and approved to be mined. It is critical for the BLM to consider the impact 

of changing market prices and environmental regulations and timelines from the time coal is leased until it is 

actually mined. BLM should also conduct time value of money analyses to determine the true value of the LBA 

since the money is paid many years prior to actual production, which is when a company would actually receive 

the first returns on its investments. 

Using the Porcupine LBAs as an example, the total cost for lease application processing and the NEPA evaluation 

was more than $1.4 million and paid over the years 2007 - 2010. The total bonus bid for the Porcupine South and 

North federal coal lease tracts was $1,239,302,175. Of the total, $744,000,000, or 60 percent had been paid 

prior to the date the mine received final federal mine plan approval in 2012 and could begin removing coal from 

the tract, thus generating revenue. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-26

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Figures 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 below compare Wyoming coal prices (nominal) versus Wyoming PRB bonus bids for the 

period of January 1991 through December 2012. Since the inception of the LBA process in Wyoming in 1991, 

annual average coal bonus bids have risen from $0.1364/ton to $1.19/ton- an increase of 872 percent. During this 

same period (Jan. 1991 -Dec. 2012) coal market prices increased from $8.06/ton to $14.15/ton (8800 BTU 

product)- an increase of 175 percent. Coal prices dipped to a low point of $5.40/ton in 1999. The percent 

increase from this low point to the price for 8800 BTU product as of Dec. 2012 ($14.15/ton) was 262 percent. 

This information illustrates the fact that the bonus bids have substantially outpaced the price of coal over the past 

20 years. The American public has received substantial value from bonus bids, taxes, royalties and fees from its 

federal coal and affordable, reliable energy as well. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-59

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In developing estimates for FMV for the federal coal program, it is necessary for the BLM to incorporate into its 

analysis methods the inescapable fact that international trade does not always operate under free market 

principles. Market supply and pricing manipulations, as well as currency manipulation; by sovereign governments 

and sovereign owned/controlled companies, such as current and past actions of the Organization of the 

Petroleum Exporting Countries and recent dumping of steel by China, exemplify the inability of global markets to 

be relied upon to operate under free market principles. This reality, over lengthy periods of time during which 

numerous non-free market manipulations are highly reasonable to be expected, must be incorporated into the 

BLM's review and consideration of any FMV methodology changes, especially those that diminish national 

security, economic stability and social wellbeing 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-561

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-71

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

"The BLM receives revenue from coal leasing in three ways: (1) a bonus that is paid at the time BLM issues a 

lease; (2) rental fees; and (2) production royalties. The royalty rates are set by regulation at a fixed 8 percent for 

underground mines and not less than 12.5 percent for surface mines. All receipts from a lease are shared equally 

with the state in which the lease is located." 

Since 1992, the State of Wyoming and the federal government have been the recipients of substantial revenues 

due to federal coal bonus bids alone. During the 20 year period from 1992 to the last lease sale in 2012, bonus 

bids from federal coal leased in Wyoming have totaled more than $5.4 billion. 

Order No. 3338 completely ignores that federal coal bonuses, royalties and rentals are but a portion of the 

federal, state and local payments by coal companies to the significant benefit of the American public. The BLM 

must evaluate the total of bonus bids, rents, royalties and taxes imposed regardless of who is collecting those fees 

in determining whether the American public is receiving a fair return from coal leasing and production. Not only 

do companies pay federal mineral royalties (FMR), bonus bids and rents to the federal government, they also pay 

corporate income taxes, state sales and use taxes, ad valorem taxes, Abandoned Mined Land fees and black lung 

excise taxes. Table 2.1 provides a detailed listing of all federal, state and local taxes, fees and royalties paid by coal 

operators in Wyoming for 2014 and 2015. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-74

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Current royalty rates are above market, and if increased will only result in decreased production and return on 

investment for the American public. For example, in the Wyoming PRB which produces 80 percent of federal 

coal in the U.S., the government (local, state, federal) receives almost $0.40 for every $1.00 of coal sold. The 

following illustration is based on the current price per ton of coal in the PRB which is approximately $11.00 per 

ton. 

* 12.5% Federal Mineral Royalty- $1.38 

* Lease Acquisition Fee (bonus bid)- $1.00 

* Abandoned Mine Land - $0.28/ton 

* Black Lung Excise Tax- $0.55/ton 

* State Severance and Local Ad Valorem Production/Property Taxes (5.3% and 4.5% respectively) - $1.08 

total, this amounts to $4.29 in royalties, taxes and fees on every ton of coal sold at current rates- an effective 

rate of 39%. 

Further, federal coal leases pay considerably higher royalty rates than paid on private coal. Private royalty rates 

on coal produced in the Midwestern and Eastern U.S. generally range from 3 to 8 percent and in limited cases 

may reach 10 percent. Royalties paid for private coal leases in Wyoming are also less than the federal coal royalty 

rates. Additionally, bonus bids are unique to federal coal leases and are rarely if ever paid on private leases. When 

the federal bonus bid is combined with the federal royalty rate, the effective royalty rate is 22 percent. BLM must 

consider the full extent of taxes, royalties and fees levied on federal coal mined in Wyoming. Further, the BLM 

needs to analyze how royalties, combined with other taxes and fees levied on coal production, have an impact on 

the profitability of the resource. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-79

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-562 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

The federal government sets "fair market value" and is guided by the following definition: "Fair market value 

means that amount in cash, or on terms reasonably equivalent to cash, for which in all probability the coal deposit 

would be sold or leased by a knowledgeable owner willing but not obligated to sell or lease to a knowledgeable 

purchaser who desires but is not obligated to buy or lease." 

43 C.P.R. § 3400.0-S(n 

The FMV is an undisclosed lease price set by BLM. Both the price and the exact process used to set the price are 

secret to protect the integrity of the process to ensure the greatest return for the American public. Consider the 

following comparison which is relevant regardless of whether there is only one bidder or multiple bidders for a 

federal coal lease tract. If this were Las Vegas, BLM would be the house. BLM has never accepted a bid at or 

below FMV. That means the American public consistently receives more than FMV. Some are calling for the BLM 

to give away the house advantage. That is akin to robbing the house, and therefore robbing the American public 

of fair market returns. Furthermore, if those advocating keeping coal in the ground are successful, the American 

public receives no return, let alone a FMV. The BLM must consider this in its PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-86

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In considering what factors to include when evaluating the fair return to the American public, and to include 

when developing estimates of FMV, it is incumbent upon the BLM as responsible stewards of the American 

public's assets, to pursue a holistic approach that includes much more than the question, "Are the bonus bids, 

rents, and royalties received under the Federal coal program successfully securing a fair return to the American 

public for Federal Coal, and if not what adjustments could be made to provide such compensation?" The BLM has 

the obligatory responsibility to thoroughly evaluate and consider the net national environmental, economic, 

security and social impacts and benefits for the numerous ramification outcomes for changes to the federal coal 

program. 

It is therefore essential that the BLM consider all coal-related benefits received by the American public when 

determining fair return to the American public in its evaluation of the federal coal programIt is also essential for 

BLM to provide a fair and balanced review of impacts associated with all forms of energy, not just coal. 

Comment Number: 0002495_Bucks_20160728-10

Commenter1:Dan Bucks 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS is also an opportunity for Interior to reevaluate the washing deduction in a larger economic and policy 

context. Washing activities are, in fact, simply the last step in extracting coal and placing the commodity in a 

marketable condition. There is no clear justification for allowing this deduction. It is a potential source of 

producer abuses that the CEA report notes is a “poorly observable cost.” More importantly, it is inconsistent 

with valuing coal as a commodity in the marketplace because it takes the point of valuation back to a stage where 

coal is not yet a commodity. 

Once gathered, market price data for different types and quality of coal would be validated to ensure the data 

reflects arm’s length sales and is otherwise reliable. The validated data would then be placed into statistical 

models used in property valuation contexts to produce market values for coal. Such models applied well are 

administratively efficient and produce values at a high level of accuracy and reliability. The models also can be 

used to produce values for coal of a type and quality for which market data is not readily available through 

adjustments from the value of coal of different type and quality, for which data is available. If necessary, such 

values can be further tested using other financial and economic analytical methods. Transportation deduction 

allowances are more likely to be established based on traditional accounting analysis, but statistical techniques 

may also be applicable in some instances. Interior should test statistical modeling and other analytical techniques 

using market price data during the PEIS. Ideally, by the latter stages of this process, Interior would have sufficient 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-563

Scoping Report 

tested a direct valuation system to implement it soon after the completion of the PEIS. 

The market values for coal and transportation deductions generated under a direct valuation system would be 

posted publicly as would the lease by lease payments of royalties based on those values, achieving openness and 

transparency for the royalty process. This is possible, in part, because, as in property tax valuation systems, these 

publicly established values and payments cannot be considered proprietary. Underlying market price data used in 

the modeling may, in many cases, be proprietary and would continue to be fully protected from disclosure. Again, 

this occurs in property tax administration. Confidential data used to value property is protected, but the publicly 

established values and payments based thereon are fully public. The methods of generating the values of coal do 

not allow tracing back from the public values to producer financial records. If rare and unique circumstances exist 

where such might occur, the values in those case could be protected. However, that would be a rare exception 

and not a general rule. 

Direct valuation would equitably and reliably achieve a fair return for the taxpayers based on the true market 

value of coal adjusted for heat content, quality and location of coal. For the first time ever, the standard of value 

laid out by (?) the Mineral Leasing Act would be attainable. Undue producer influence over royalty values and 

payments and distortions of royalties caused by producer inefficiencies and managerial shortcomings would end. 

Direct valuations would finally enable the public to know what they are being paid in royalties they own. 

Transparency would operate over time to help ensure the integrity of the royalty process in ways entirely 

unattainable at present in a system where royalty values and payments are kept secret. Public trust and 

confidence in the coal royalty system would increase. 

Comment Number: 0002495_Bucks_20160728-11

Commenter1:Dan Bucks 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should consider whether discretionary royalty rate reductions, which subsidize the production of 

marginal coal that impose external costs on society, is justified. Further, if discretionary rate reductions are 

allowed, the decision-making surrounding such reductions should be made fully public. The PEIS should be used 

to evaluate the details of transparency for selective rate reductions if such reductions are not eliminated entirely. 

There is, as has been noted, a substantial body of work and discussion of increasing royalty rates or adding fees 

per ton of coal to compensate society for the climate change impacts of coal and potential other public health 

and environmental effects of coal. The recommendations for a new public coal planning and leasing system and 

public royalty system establish an infrastructure within which Interior can secure public and expert participation 

in decision-making processes to adopt and adjust over time royalty rates and fees. Further, the extensive 

information generated out of the public planning and leasing and public royalty systems will greatly enhance the 

ability of the public and experts in civil society to engage these issues at a higher level than is possible under the 

closed systems of administration that need to be replaced. Finally, robust public leasing and royalty systems would 

prevent the intent of any potential increases in royalty rates or fees to be undermined by greater efforts by 

producers to reduce standard lease and royalty payments further below fair market value levels to help offset the 

costs of the higher rates or additional fees. 

Comment Number: 0002495_Bucks_20160728-2 

Commenter1:Dan Bucks 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the same vein, the PEIS should also prepare for a fundamental change in the royalty system. The current 

system, administered like an income tax, allows coal producers to self-assess the value of coal for royalty 

purposes. Historically, some producers have used sophisticated methods to underreport coal values. Recent 

rules adopted by the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) requiring valuation of coal at the first armslength sale will help reduce producer underreporting of coal values arising from below market sales to captive 

affiliates. There is no doubt that these new rules represent a major step forward in improving the current royalty 

process, and Interior is to be commended for making these changes. However, despite those improvements, the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-564 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

royalty system still does not reliably guarantee a full and fair return to the public. Substantial loopholes remain 

that allow coal producers to underpay royalties through inflated deductions or exclusions.3 As long as coal 

producers are allowed to self-assess coal values, they have a financial incentive to understate those values. 

(3) Isaiah Peterson, “Devaluing Coal: Reasons for Restructuring How Federal Coal is Valued,” Georgetown 

Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2015, 13(1): pp 165-180.

The companies will find ready assistance in these efforts from the large industry of experts who help 

corporations avoid income taxes by shifting profits among national and state taxing jurisdictions through complex 

transactions and legal structures. Accountants and attorneys well-versed in profit shifting readily translate those 

methods into royalty avoidance techniques. Indeed, the royalty avoidance through below market coal sales of coal 

to captive affiliates is a simplified version of methods corporations have long used to shift profits earned in the 

United States to tax havens overseas—a problem the IRS has failed to solve after 50 years of trying. As long as 

companies self-assess values for royalties, Interior will never catch up to the ever more creative royalty 

avoidance strategies that spread from the world of taxation to infect royalty administration. No amount of 

selective loophole closing will ever overcome the incentives for and ingenuity of companies to avoid full and fair 

royalty payments. Thus, royalty self-assessment is inherently incapable of guaranteeing the public the fair return 

on coal required by law. Certainly, audits of royalty returns can correct a number underreporting problems. But 

audit resources are often always too scarce and even under the best of circumstances will not correct all the 

shortcomings in the original reports. Further, audits may come several years after returns are filed, leaving some 

facts difficult to determine, producing conflicts with producers over ambiguities and resulting in partial 

settlements. Self-assessment combined with return auditing is “a second best solution” compared to the system 

recommended in this report. 

As long as companies can undercut the proper valuation of coal for royalty purposes, the self-assessment system 

will prove ill-suited to the goal of adjusting coal production to the realities of climate change. Several experts 

have proposed raising royalty rates or adding per ton royalty amounts to compensate the public for the cost of 

climate change and other environmental effects. (5) However, increases in royalty rates will also increase the 

incentive for coal companies to undervalue coal. Unless the system of self-assessment is replaced with a system 

that ensures the integrity of the royalty base, the objectives to be served by higher royalty rates or added royalty 

fees will only be undermined by more aggressive efforts to underreport coal values in the calculation of the 

royalties. That is true even if higher royalties take the form of physical fees per ton. While these fees might not 

be avoided directly, they will be undercut indirectly by companies “compensating” themselves for the higher fees 

through increased underreporting of the “percentage of value” portion of royalties. Any effort to compensate or 

protect the public for the impacts of climate change or other environmental factors with higher royalties will only 

be significantly undermined by the system of corporate self-assessment of royalties. 

(5) U.S. Council of Economic Advisors, “The Economics of Coal Leasing on Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return 

to Taxpayers,” Executive Office of the President, June 2016. (Reeder & Stock) (Vulcan Philanthropy) (Hein and 

Howard) more? 

Comment Number: 0002495_Bucks_20160728-7 

Commenter1:Dan Bucks 

Other Sections: 8.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Transparency and open participation would also connect Interior with the public they are to serve. Coal 

decisions are made privately with interaction at key points with coal producers whose interest is to minimize 

payments for the coal itself or for mitigating the external impacts of coal production. The current systems cut off 

Interior from the public that wants to help secure a fair return from coal and properly mitigate the public costs of 

its production. These systems are illogical. Privileged access is provided to parties whose interests often conflict 

with the public interest, while those who want to see the public interest served are kept out of the loop at key 

stages of decision-making. Adopting open, public processes of decision-making will logically align decision-making 

with the goals and interests that, under the law, ought be served. 

Finally, the public simply has a right to know about the issues and decisions that affect them. Resource 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-565

Scoping Report 

management decisions often have major impacts and typically involve choices among public values. The public 

should have access to such decisions as they are being made and not after the fact, when the impacts may not be 

mitigated or their values preserved. 

Comment Number: 0002495_Bucks_20160728-9 

Commenter1:Dan Bucks 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Recommendation 4: Through the PEIS, Interior should adopt a transparent process of setting royalty rates, 

directly valuing and collecting royalties on coal production, and regular reporting to the public royalty payment by 

lease in order to achieve a fair return for the public and ensure the integrity and accountability of the royalty 

process. Further, the PEIS should reevaluate the deduction for coal washing. 

As noted earlier, Interior is to be commended for its recent strengthening of coal royalty rules to eliminate some 

sources of producer underreporting of coal values. However, those rules do not eliminate other sources of 

underreporting associated with inflated deductions and exclusions from coal value. More importantly the entire 

structure of the self-assessment system used for royalties—patterned after income taxes—is vulnerable because 

it encourages companies to underreport royalties and invites continuing efforts to import income tax avoidance 

strategies into the royalty arena. In addition, the system of self-assessment is secret, so the public is denied 

knowledge of what it is paid for coal in royalties on each lease and is unable to assist with ensuring that it 

receives a fair return on federal coal. 

All of these problems could be remedied by Interior directly valuing the coal for royalty purposes as the Mineral 

Leasing Act clearly authorizes. (8) Such a system would be modeled after property tax administration and would 

not be subject to the kind of defects inherent in the income tax-style, self-assessment system. Moreover, the final 

values, as established by Interior based on statistical analysis of market price data, would be public, even while 

proprietary data received from companies would remain confidential. 

The Mineral Leasing Act specifies that “a lease shall require payment of a royalty in such amount as the Secretary 

shall determine of not less than 12 1/2 per centum of the value of coal as defined by regulation.. .” A plain reading 

of the law is the it charges Interior with the duty and responsibility of determining the value of coal. 

A recent report by the Council of Economic Advisors recommends adopting this approach of direct valuation 

based on market prices and approach and outlines how it would work: 

Under a framework analogous to property taxes, the market value for coal should be based on sales prices of 

coal with similar characteristics, from both Federal lands and non-Federal lands. Under such a framework, the 

most appropriate price to use would be the market price for coal with similar characteristic in the region of coal 

extraction. (9) Council of Economic Advisors, June 2016, p 8. 

The report further stated: There is strong economic support for setting coal lease royalty terms based on the 

final delivered price of coal, less adjustments for the heat content, quality, and location of coal. These adjustments 

are crucial to make sure coal is assessed on its true economic value. 

Similarly, establishing lease royalty terms based on relevant (adjusted) market prices for comparable coal or coal 

substitutes is important to ensure a fair return to the taxpayer. The relevant market price could be the average 

price of nearby regional coal, the price of nationwide coal, or the price of a substitute in the electricity dispatch 

orders: natural gas. Id., p 4. 

Direct valuation makes it possible to eliminate all underreporting associated with creative accounting by 

producers—including inflated deductions and exclusions that are not remedied by even the newly adopted 

ONRR rules. Further, it removes all incentives for producers to continuously explore and employ new 

accounting methods and legal structures for royalty avoidance purposes. It contains the additional benefit to the 

coal companies, Interior and the public of not delaying disputes over royalty payments up to eight years down the 

road long after production occurs. Disputes will be minimized and addressed upfront, soon after the time of 

production for which current payments are made. That enhances the certainty of the royalty for all parties and 

yields substantial administrative efficiencies. 

David Hayes, former Deputy Secretary of Interior, speaking at the recent New York University Institute for 

Policy Integrity Federal Coal Workshop on June 29, 2016, expressed support for Interior directly valuing coal, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-566 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

noting that coal is a commodity and, as such, it should be feasible to determine its value. This idea that the value 

of coal for royalty purposes should be based on the value of the commodity in the marketplace also reveals a 

further difference between the direct valuation approach vs. producer self-assessment. Direct valuation yields a 

value for coal in the market (adjusted to the mine via the transportation deduction). Producer self-assessment 

yields a value for coal to the producer. As such producer self-assessment, besides all the other problems already 

cited, makes the royalty values and payments dependent on the managerial performance, market acumen and 

operational efficiency of the producer. The public should not be shortchanged because producers fail to secure 

the full value of its coal in the marketplace or use inefficient transportation methods, yet the self-assessment 

system. From an economic perspective, as reflected in CEA report, direct valuation yields royalty payments that 

reflect the true value of coal as a commodity in the marketplace—which is the standard of the Mineral Leasing 

Act.

In terms of securing adequate data for the periodic modeling of market price data, Interior should continue 

requiring information reporting on coal sales from producers of federal coal. Interior could also gather market 

data from the Energy Information System and from state sources. In his NYU workshop remarks, Hayes noted 

state electrical utility commission records contain a wealth data on coal purchase prices that Interior could use in 

the valuation process. The same is true of state coal severance tax records, especially for non-federal coal. 

Interior should systematically identify, test and develop key sources of market price data for use in direct 

valuation during the PEIS. Interior should also create the administrative systems to collecting and validating the 

data during the PEIS 

In a direct valuation system, Interior would also develop the cost of the allowable transportation deductions 

based on the most efficient means of transport. Again, the PEIS process should be used to identify public and 

private sources of data, starting with the Surface Transportation and continuing producer reports, for 

accomplishing this task. Transportation deductions are retained to adjust the value of coal back to the mine and 

take the location of coal out of the valuation equation as noted by the CEA report. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-4 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 4.5 2 8.1 8.5 7.1 8.9 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

2. Just Transition Alternative 

The “Just Transition Alternative” is meant to both wind down the federal coal program in order to keep fossil 

fuels in the ground and to ensure an orderly, effective, and fair transition of workers and communities away from 

coal to more prosperous and sustainable economies. The “Just Transition Alternative” is defined by the following 

key components: 

1. An end to federal coal leasing: Consistent with authorities and discretion under the Mineral Leasing Act, the 

Just Transition Alternative imposes a permanent pause on the leasing of federal coal. The primary basis for 

adopting this permanent pause would be to ensure the protection of the public interest and the interests of the 

United States. Such justification for an end to leasing is clearly supported by the Mineral Leasing Act. 

This pause would apply to all competitive leases (including all leases by application, including emergency leases, as 

defined by 43 C.F.R. § 3425.1-4) and lease modifications. We further believe there is ample justification for 

applying a permanent pause to other forms of non-competitive leasing, such as preference right lease applications 

and lease exchanges. With regards to lease exchanges, the BLM has clear authority to reject exchanges that are 

not in the “public interest.” 43 C.F.R. § 3435.4(a); see also 43 C.F.R. § 3436.0-2(b) (related to alluvial valley floor 

exchanges) and 43 C.F.R. § 2200.0-6 (generally related to exchanges). With regards to preference right lease 

applications, the BLM has the authority to reject such applications where there does not exist “commercial 

quantities” of coal. 43 C.F.R. § 3430.5¬1(a)(1). Given the dismal state of the coal industry and the overwhelming 

climate costs that coal imposes on society, it would be dubious at best to claim that any commercial quantities of 

coal exist where there are preference right lease applications. Accordingly, the BLM has the authority to reject 

such applications. (20) 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-567

Scoping Report 

Furthermore, to ensure an orderly end to federal coal leasing, the BLM and the Department of the Interior 

should issue a rule or guidance requiring that as land management planning is undertaken pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 

1610, et seq., that all lands within a resource management area that are not currently leased for coal, be made 

unavailable for leasing. The authority to impose such direction is set forth at 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e), which gives 

the BLM broad discretion to “eliminate additional coal deposits from consideration to protect other resource 

values.” 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e)(3). 

(20) The only preference right lease applications that exist are in northwestern New Mexico, where Arch Coal, 

which is currently bankrupt, has the rights to acquire 21,000 acres of leases. Legislation was introduced in the 

U.S. House of Representatives that would allow the Secretary to retire these preference right lease applications. 

See HR-1820, available online at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1820/text. If this 

legislation is passed, there would be no additional preference right lease applications requiring action. We 

support this legislation and urge the Secretary of the Interior to encourage its passage in the U.S. Senate and 

adoption into law. 

Putting a permanent pause on leasing will not destroy the U.S. economy or otherwise endanger our energy 

security. As a recent report looking at leasing in the Powder River Basin found, existing leased reserves in the 

Powder River Basin are sufficient to meet demand and effectively contribute to limiting temperature increases. 

(21) This report is instructive as the Powder River Basin is the largest coal producing region in the United States 

and imposes the greatest influence on energy supply and demand in the nation. If an end to federal leasing can be 

justified in the Powder River Basin, it can be justified for federal leasing elsewhere in the U.S. 

21 See Exhibit 11, Fulton, M., D. Koplow, R. Capalino, and A. Grant, “Enough Already: Meeting 2oC PRB Coal 

Demand Without Lifting the Federal Moratorium,” Report Prepared for Energy Transition Advisors, Earth Track, 

and Carbon Tracker Initiative (July 2016), available online at http://www.carbontracker.org/report/enoughalready-2c-powder-river-basin-coal-demand-federal-moratorium/. 

2. Increased royalty rates and rentals: Coal is exacting a tremendous toll on our nation, costing our society 

billions in climate damages, adverse health impacts from air pollution, and water contamination. Royalty rates 

from production on existing coal leases and rentals on existing leases must be increased to begin to recoup the 

costs of these externalities, which are currently shouldered by the public. 

Although royalty rates are normally imposed through new leasing, we recommend that the Interior Department 

and BLM incorporate higher royalty rates into existing leases as existing leases are readjusted pursuant to 43 

C.F.R. § 3451.1. To accomplish this, we urge the amendment of 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-2(a)(1) and (2) to incorporate 

increased royalty rates for both surface and underground mining. As leases are readjusted, these royalty rates 

must be applied to existing leases pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3451.1(a)(2). 

Increasing royalty rates has been recommended by the White House as both a means to generate revenue and 

address the costs of environmental externalities, including carbon costs. (22) 

(22) See Exhibit 12, Executive Office of the President of the United States, “The Economics of Coal Leasing on 

Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers” (June 2016), available online at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160622_cea_coal_leasing.pdf. 

Furthermore, royalty rate reductions should not be approved. Currently, royalty rate reductions are routinely 

granted as companies claim poverty or difficulty in mining with little apparent scrutiny as to whether the 

reductions are justified. In Colorado, for example, BLM officials have approved royalty rate reductions to facilitate 

methane venting and most recently proposed to approve a retroactive royalty rate reduction for a mine that was 

not even producing coal. (23) See Exhibits 13 and 14. 

Similarly, we urge Interior and BLM to amend 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-1(a) to raise rental rates for federal coal leases. 

Currently, rental rates are set at $3.00 per acre, a figure that has not been adjusted since 1979, if not earlier. This 

rental rate not only has failed to be adjusted to account for inflation, but fails to account for the fact that some 

leases may be of small acreage, yet yield significant amounts of coal. Rentals should reflect the value of the lease, 

which depends on the amount of coal a lease contains. In accordance with 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-1(a), any increased 

rental rate must be applied to any readjusted coal lease. 

3. Existing leases that are not producing must be canceled: Where a lease is not meeting continued operation 

requirements under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.1(a)(2), it is subject to cancellation pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3452.2. Where a 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-568 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

lease is not meeting continued operation requirements, BLM and the Interior Department should make clear that 

cancellation of the lease must be pursued. To this end, discretionary avenues for avoiding cancellation should be 

prohibited. Thus, lease suspensions under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.3 and payment of advanced royalties in lieu of 

continued operation under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.4 should be barred. 

The justification for imposing such direction is very clear. Currently, BLM regularly grants lease suspensions and 

allows payment of royalties in lieu of continued operation with no assessment of whether such actions are 

appropriate or in the public interest. BLM appears to be under the impression that lease suspensions or advanced 

royalties are somehow mandated, and that the agency has no choice but to approve company requests. An 

egregious example of this is with regards to Arch Coal’s Carbon Basin Lease in southern Wyoming (No. WYW139975). Arch acquired this lease with the aim of developing a mine to fuel a proposed coal to liquids facility. 

However, this coal to liquids facility has never materialized or even shown any promise of materializing. Most 

recently, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality terminated the permit for the proposed facility. 

(24) Nevertheless, since 2010, Arch has failed to meet continued operation requirements. The BLM has allowed 

Arch to maintain its lease, however, by routinely allowing the company to pay advanced royalties in lieu of 

continued operation. (25) These decisions appear to be pro forma in nature, and do not reflect any consideration 

as to whether it is appropriate or remotely in the public interest to accept advance royalties in lieu of continued 

operation. 

(24) See Exhibit 15, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, “Permit Termination, Medicine Bow Fuel 

and Power Coal to Liquid Project” (June 27, 2016).

(25) See Exhibit 16. 

Furthermore, where an existing lease is not producing, yet is part of a producing logical mining unit, BLM and the 

Interior Department should use their discretion to modify the boundaries of logical mining units to eliminate the 

non-producing lease and facilitate its cancellation. BLM has such discretion under 43 C.F.R. § 3478.1. 

Cancelling leases that are not producing will serve the goal of preventing any potential future development of 

existing leases and contribute to an orderly end to the federal coal program. 

4. Accounting for carbon costs in coal management: It should be made clear, whether through new rules or 

guidance, that carbon costs must be analyzed, assessed and disclosed as federal coal management decisions are 

made. Such decisions are most likely to include mining plan modifications issued pursuant to the Mineral Leasing 

Act, 30 U.S.C. § 207(c), and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (“SMCRA”), 30 C.F.R. § 746, and 

lease readjustments. It is imperative that the BLM and Interior maintain close accounting of the carbon emissions 

and costs resulting from its coal management actions, to ensure full transparency around these emissions and 

costs, and to meaningfully act to address these emissions and costs. Particularly given that, pursuant to authorities 

under the Mineral Leasing Act and SMCRA, the Secretary of the Interior has full discretion to disapprove mining 

plans authorizing the development of leased federal coal, it is imperative that carbon emissions and costs factor 

into and influence such decisionmaking. 

5. Reclamation must be guaranteed: To ensure an orderly end to the federal coal program, full and final 

reclamation must be guaranteed within a reasonable timeframe. We urge two regulatory changes to ensure this 

occurs. 

First, Interior should amend regulations at 30 C.F.R. §§ 816.100 and 817.100 to provide clarification and 

specificity around contemporaneous reclamation. Current rules are vague and fail to ensure that reclamation 

proceeds in a manner that is as “contemporaneously as possible” with mining in accordance with 30 U.S.C. § 

1202(e). These regulations should be amended to make clear that the success of contemporaneous reclamation 

must be measured based on a comparison of Phase III bond release acres, as defined under 30 C.F.R. 

§ 800.40(c)(3), with disturbed acres and ensure that reclamation proceeds at a 1:1 rate, in other words for every 

acre disturbed, one acre should be fully reclaimed to meet Phase III bond release standards. 

Second, just as current BLM rules require diligent development of federal coal, these rules should also require 

diligent reclamation. To this end, Interior and BLM should consider rule changes to ensure that nonproducing 

coal leases are fully reclaimed within two years of failing to meet continued operation requirements and set 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-569

Scoping Report 

deadlines for the full reclamation of federal coal leases that are no later than 2035. This reclamation deadline 

should be established by rule and incorporated into lease terms as leases are readjusted. 

Finally, Interior should amend self-bonding regulations at 30 C.F.R. § 800.23, and any other regulations, as 

appropriate, to prohibit self-bonding whenever publicly owned coal is permitted to be mined. This will ensure 

that, as coal companies continue their decline, that American public resources are fully protected and fully 

guaranteed to be cleaned up. 

6. Prioritizing transition: Above all, the BLM and Interior must make transition away from coal a foremost goal as 

the federal coal program comes to an end. To do this, the agencies should not only explicitly commit, to the 

extent possible, their leadership, resources, and expertise to ensure that workers and communities receive the 

support and assistance they need to transition to more sustainable and prosperous economies. Among the 

actions that Interior and BLM can and should undertake to ensure transition: 

-Work to secure Congressional authorization to direct increased royalty and rental payments toward worker 

and community support. Under NEPA, agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate 

reasonable alternatives “not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(c). Here, although 

BLM and Interior may not be able to direct royalties toward transition support, they can recommend that 

Congress pass legislation that provides such authorization. 

-Establishing an Economic Transition Fund, which would be sustained by an increase in reimbursement fees 

charged by the Interior Department when processing coal-related applications. Under the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (“FLPMA”), Interior has authority to recover reasonable costs associated with its coal 

management program and to appropriate and spend such monies. Specifically, FLPMA provides the Secretary of 

the Interior with authority to “require a deposit of any payments intended to reimburse the United States for 

reasonable costs with respect to applications,” including coal lease application. See 43 U.S.C. § 1734(b). Such 

payments are “authorized to be appropriated and made available until expended” by FLPMA. Id. Funds from the 

Economic Transition Fund should be directed toward transition-oriented initiatives. 

-Prioritizing support and assistance to help communities transition. In addition to securing funds and making them 

available, the Department of the Interior can play a key role in helping direct communities to support, steering 

resources to support conservation and research projects in or near communities, encouraging renewable energy 

development on public lands. Such leadership could be conveyed through a Secretarial Order that simply makes it 

an overarching priority of the Interior Department to advance transition 

Overall, the Interior Department and BLM must move to keep our publicly owned coal in the ground. However, 

keeping coal in the ground should not mean that we turn our backs on the workers and communities that have 

been dependent on coal for so long. Embracing an alternative that ensures “Just Transition,” in other a fair, 

compassionate, and orderly transition away from coal, is the most effective way to both protect our climate and 

help our nation effectively move to more sustainable economies and reliable and affordable means of energy 

production. 

Comment Number: 0002500_Sweeney_20160728-4 

Organization1:National Mining Association 

Commenter1:Katie Sweeney 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A. The LBA Method Achieves the Sale of Coal at Fair Market Value 

Critics of the LBA method assume, without any explanation, that in the absence of multiple bidders, lease sales 

are not capable of producing bonus bids at fair market value. Their premise presumably is that competition 

among more bidders will bid the transaction value up to what economists may refer to as the fundamental value. 

This might be true in theory, but in reality many mineral asset and lease sales are successfully transacted for fair 

market value with a single buyer. 

The absence of more bidders for federal coal leases does not reflect that leases are being offered at less than fair 

market value, but instead reflects the restructuring of the industry and the advanced development of the coal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-570 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

regions within federal lands. There are fewer mines and fewer coal companies today than during the period when 

the regional leasing process commenced in the 1980s. As one would expect, interest in leasing now arises 

primarily from companies with nearby existing operations seeking to replace coal reserves at roughly their 

depletion rate. The prohibitively high cost of developing new open-pit mines of the scale necessary to be 

profitable in the Powder River Basin (PRB), where the vast majority of leased federal coal is produced, creates a 

barrier to market entry that will be unaffected by any change away from the LBA 

system. 

However, this thinner pool of potential bidders has not prevented BLM from identifying accurately the fair 

market value of coal for a lease sale. The aim of fair market value is finding the transaction price that would most 

likely be negotiated between a typical buyer and seller each having reasonable but not absolute knowledge of the 

reserve. Comparable sales produce fair market valuations because they measure transaction values. The 

comparable sales method is the preferred method of valuation by professionals when reliable market and sales 

data are available. BLM relies upon peer- reviewed analysis that uses comparative sales. The successful bonus bids 

under the LBA leasing method have increased at a rate outpacing the increase in coal prices. The most recent 

bonus bids for coal leases in the Powder River Basin (PRB) are 700 percent higher than those in 1990. 

Furthermore, abandoning the LBA method of leasing and returning to centralized or regional lease sales is 

unlikely to attract more bidders or yield higher bids. The earlier system of scheduling lease sales based upon 

national and regional demand forecasts failed with many tracts receiving one or no bids. The Department’s earlier 

leasing framework was built around centralized planning whereby leasing targets and schedules were established 

to match the forecasted demand and production estimates by the Department of Energy. The purpose of the 

centralized process was to meet the nation’s energy needs and foster competition in lease sales.

However, the regional coal leasing experience using an established schedule limiting when coal will be leased 

depended on perfect foresight in anticipating coal demand and leasing interest and produced dismal results. 

Because of the great uncertainties surrounding a wide range of factors affecting demand and supply—nationally 

and regionally—the exercise produced rapidly changing targets year over year. The current structure of the coal 

industry and advanced development of the coal regions suggests an even lower probability that centralized or 

regional leasing will yield better results than the LBA method. 

Comment Number: 0002500_Sweeney_20160728-5 

Organization1:National Mining Association 

Commenter1:Katie Sweeney 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

B. The Effective Royalty Rate for Federal Coal is Above Market and Should Be Retained or Reduced to Maximize 

Return for Taxpayers 

Claims that federal royalty rates (12.5% surface mines; 8% underground mines) do not provide a fair return are 

equally inaccurate, and fail to consider that federal rates are substantially (30%-65%) higher than the prevailing 

rates for private coal in the East. Moreover, private coal lessees rarely, if ever, pay bonus bids or surface 

rentals— a fact completely ignored by the groups on whose information DOI relied in imposing for the leasing 

moratorium. As an example, for the Powder River Basin (PRB) in Wyoming which produces 80% of the coal on 

federal lands, the government receives almost 40 cents on every dollar of coal sold. To illustrate the above 

market rate; the current price per ton of coal in PRB is approximately $11.00. The 12.5% federal royalty results 

in a tax on this price at $1.38. The average price of the lease acquisition fee (bonus bid) adds another $1.00. Two 

more federal taxes are levied on this ton of coal, the AML tax of $0.28 per ton and the Black Lung Excise Tax of 

$0.55 per ton. Finally, this ton of coal is also taxed through the state severance tax and the county tax applicable 

in the PRB, at a rate of 5.3% and 4.5% respectively, adding another $1.08 in taxes. In total, this amounts to $4.28 

in taxes on every $11.00 worth of coal sold, an effective tax rate of 39%. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-571

Scoping Report 

Despite this reality, organizations providing the supporting rationale for the coal leasing moratorium misuse data 

and create deceptive metrics for their claim that coal producers do not pay the royalty on the market value of 

the coal. The Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) imposes a production royalty on coal, oil, and gas based upon the value 

as reflected by the sales price of the commodity at the mine or well. Opponents of federal coal leasing use 

artificial constructs such as “gross market price” or “full value” by adding to the commodity price the 

transportation costs incurred by buyers. They advocate moving the point of valuation for calculating the royalty 

from the sales price received by the coal producer to the point of its use by the buyer. The result is not a 

production royalty on the market price of the commodity, but rather a federal tax on two separate transactions: 

coal sales by the coal producer and transportation services provided by the railroads to the coal buyer. This 

artificial construct fundamentally misconstrues what a royalty is in the first place, and if adopted as the metric 

would only serve to drive down production and deny taxpayers a fair return for the development of public 

resources. 

In the same vein, a royalty rate that would include a so-called “externality adder” for the consideration of 

nebulous climate change impacts could no longer be considered a royalty. By changing the rate to include a “cost” 

derived for purported externalities the royalty would no longer reflect a share of a portion of either the minerals 

or their value which is the very purpose and meaning of a royalty. Oddly, an externality-based adder would 

decrease the value of the minerals by making them less economic to mine and sell (i.e., less valuable). DOI 

previously rejected a similar concept when it denied a 2011 petition by WildEarth Guardians to include an illconceived externality adder. 

C. Coal Exports Are Not a Valid Basis for Reevaluating Valuation Regulations or Royalty Rates 

As part of the PEIS process, BLM appears to be considering arguments raised by the Center for American 

Progress (CAP) that current leasing and royalty valuation regulations do not capture the true value of coal 

exports. This argument suffers from the same fundamental error as its arguments for using the total delivered 

cost to domestic consumers as the market price of the commodity. CAP asserts that PRB coal sold in the export 

market sells for five times more than it does domestically. This distortion is premised on ignoring the substantial 

costs of transporting coal to the terminal, having it loaded on a vessel and shipped overseas, which can be more 

than six times the mining cost for PRB coal. 

Coal exports have never comprised a significant share of coal production from western states with federal coal 

lands. During the zenith of U.S. coal exports, exports from Colorado, Montana, Utah and Wyoming were 4 

percent of the total production in those states. In general, Western U.S. coal is at a significant disadvantage in the 

seaborne steam coal market. The four largest importers of coal, China, Japan, India, and Korea are substantially 

closer to the two largest exporters of coal, Australia and Indonesia, both of which enjoy low mining costs. 

Currently, the vast majority of exports of Western coal must go through Canadian, U.S. Gulf Coast or Great 

Lakes ports which represent significant transportation and logistics costs, placing the Western mines at a 

competitive disadvantage. Future Western coal exports are dependent on the development of port capacity on 

the U.S. West Coast. The development of port capacity on the West Coast would be beneficial to Western coal 

exports by increasing market access. However, this really is of no moment to the proponents of the moratorium 

who are actively lobbying against such development efforts because they would prefer to see the coal remain in 

the ground. 

The relatively small portion of western coal exported precludes potential exports from serving as a basis to value 

new coal leases. The value of increased coal exports would be captured in the royalty which is based upon the 

price of the coal sold at the mine. Charging federal royalties on the total cost of exporting coal as CAP and 

others advocate will shift exports to private coal where royalties are paid on the basis of F.O.B. mine price and 

decrease return for taxpayers on the development of federal coal. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-572 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

III. DOI Data Exposes the Contrived Nature of the Reasons Underlying the Moratorium and Show that the 

Federal Coal Program is Working 

The performance of the federal coal leasing program as reflected in DOI’s own data exposes the contrived nature 

of the reasons offered for the leasing moratorium and programmatic review. Previous concerns about speculative 

holding of leases without production resulting in the enactment of the Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments 

(FCLAA) in 1976 have been addressed successfully—the number of leases decreased and coal production 

increased. Since 1990, both the number of leases and the amount of acreage under lease have decreased 

substantially (35%). 

With the advanced development of the coal regions, coal companies have sought new leases at roughly the rate 

of depletion of coal at existing operations as predicted by BLM when it shifted to the LBA leasing method. This 

reflects the reality that market changes and depletion drive the number of bidders for a lease, not the LBA 

process itself. Also, since 2003, total revenues from federal coal leases (bonus bids, royalties and surface rentals) 

amount to $13.8 billion; lease revenues in 2014 were twice the amount in 2003; bonus bids have increased 

substantially (700 percent in the PRB); coal royalty revenue is 88 percent higher despite coal production 

increasing by only 2 percent; revenue per acre under lease has increased 40% despite lower coal prices recently. 

These facts dispose of any notion that the program is not continuing to ensure a fair return for taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0002503_Hamman_20160729-2 

Organization1:Lignite Energy Council 

Commenter1:Tyler Hamman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

1) “Fair return to taxpayers”

As described above, federal coal represents a relatively small proportion of a mine area in North Dakota. While 

pursuing these comingled parcels is the most efficient way to mine, coal producers do have the option in many 

cases to simply bypass a federal coal tract if a lease cannot be obtained in a timely manner. The practical effect of 

bypassing a tract essentially sterilizes that reserve – it would never be feasible to go back and mine. The rate of 

return to American taxpayers if their resource is left in the ground is and will always remain zero. According to 

the most recent figures from the State Auditor, North Dakota received over $1 million in federal coal royalties in 

2013. Half of these funds are shared with the three coal-producing counties, all of which have populations under 

10,000. In another scenario where it might be difficult to isolate a federally-owned coal tract and an entire area 

needs to be mined around, the inability to secure a federal coal lease could represent a takings of comingled nonfederal coal reserves. 

Comment Number: 0002506_Nichols_20160729-3 

Organization1:Wild Earth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Royalty rates must increase: Coal is exacting a tremendous toll on our nation, costing our society billions in 

climate damages, adverse health impacts from air pollution, and water contamination. Royalty rates from 

production on existing coal leases must be increased to begin to recoup the costs of these externalities, which 

are currently shouldered by the public. Your Interior Department should do everything possible to ensure 

increased royalty revenue is directed toward helping coal-dependent communities transition from coal. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-13

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-573

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Retain royalty adjustment provisions, with modifications to include market considerations and adequate 

provisions for objective evaluation and transparency. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-14

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Base bonus bids on recoverable reserves rather than total reserves. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-15

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Review and revise approach for determining fair market value to include consideration of mining, regulatory, and 

market conditions, and to improve transparency. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-2 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Fair Return - in evaluating "fair return", the objective discussion or analysis must consider all components of 

return and economic benefits from leasing and production of the resource including bonus bid payments, rents, 

royalties, AML fees, Black-lung taxes, state and local property taxes, sales taxes, employment taxes, 

local/regional/state/national benefits from mine employment and employee benefits, and the economic benefits of 

low-cost reliable power from coal for businesses and utility rate-payers. Advocates of increasing coal royalties 

point to the Headwaters Economics Report as support for their contentions, however, information compiled 

from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) indicates that coal 

operators have paid much higher royalties (does not take into account bonus bid and rental payments) than 

indicated by the Headwaters work. It must be noted that BLM policy includes setting "fair market value" for 

proposed lease sales. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-6 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Fair Return - Coal royalty rates and their basis are established by statute, are not subject to BLM discretion, and 

can be changed only by Congress. The inaccurate assertion by some opponents of coal that current rates do not 

provide a fair return is based on a very narrow and selective interpretation of "return", and does not take into 

account the full scope of the economic revenues and benefits generated by coal leasing and production. These 

include; lease bonus bid payments, production royalties, severance taxes, abandoned mine reclamation funding, 

property taxes, sales taxes, long-term employee wages and benefits, puchases of goods and services, the 

associated economic multiplier in coal communities and regions, charitable contributions, and very important but 

often overlooked, the significant benefits of low-cost, reliable electric power provided by coal for all business and 

residential utility ratepayers. The suggestion that lease payments should include an "add-on" levy to address 

related externalities, is disingenuous, ignores the significant and widespread benefits already provided, would 

increase costs and decrease returns to the government and public, and would potentially drive operations out of 

business, eliminating ongoing sources of funding for both social and environmental programs. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-574 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002508_Fields_20160728-1 

Commenter1:Marjorie Fields 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I stongly object to the fact that federal lands are leased to corporations for coal mining at considerably less than 

market value, a subsidy to them at tax payers expense and a factor that makes continuing to mine still profitable. 

Comment Number: 0002509_Iverson_20160728-2 

Commenter1:Kathryn Iverson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is a program that does not fully compensate taxpayers, as the federal coal program is severely underpriced. 

Comment Number: 0002513_Lish_20160707-6 

Commenter1:Christopher Lish 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Exposing practices by the agency and coal companies that undervalue the cost of coal, 

which deprive taxpayers of a fair return on public resources; 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-26

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

3. The PEIS Should Examine the Environmental and Economic Impacts of Failing to Require Coal Producers to Pay 

for Coal’s True Costs. Structural failures of the federal coal leasing program that undervalue coal and fail to 

recognize its costs not only are inconsistent with the statutory requirement to garner a fair return for U.S. 

taxpayers, they unreasonably catalyze the environmental impacts of mining and burning coal where otherwise it 

may be uneconomic to do so. While BLM should identify a preferred alternative that ends federal coal leasing 

altogether, the PEIS also should examine opportunities to ensure that coal producers pay adequate royalties and 

also internalize the environmental consequences of their activities. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-27

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS Should Evaluate Options for Ensuring that Royalties are Paid on Coal’s Full ValueAlthough ONRR 

enacted needed reforms to federal coal valuation for purposes of collecting royalties, additional reforms are 

essential to ensure royalties are paid on coal’s full value. Sierra Club and Earthjustice previously urged such 

changes in comments on ONRR’s proposed rule, which are incorporated here by reference. 278 In further 

reforms applicable to existing coal leases (and to the extent BLM continues leasing, to future coal leases), ONRR 

should eliminate the royalty distinction between arm’s-length and non-arm’s-length transactions and instead 

calculate royalties for all federal coal based either on the final sale price to a power plant or other end user, or 

applicable market prices. Indeed, the White House acknowledged that it would be appropriate to base the 

market value of coal on market prices for coal with similar characteristics. 279 This would eliminate disputes 

over whether initial sales are in fact arm’s-length transactions, eliminate the current benchmark approach, and 

provide industry, ONRR, and the public with greater certainty and clarity around the amount of royalties owed. 

More fundamentally, basing the valuation on final market prices would ensure that royalties are paid on the full 

value of all federal coal. By additionally eliminating or limiting transportation deductions and doing away with 

allowances for coal washing, ONRR can ensure that American taxpayers obtain a fair return on a public resource. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-575 

Scoping Report 

277 Id. at 43,338. 278 See Sierra Club & Earthjustice, Comments on Proposed ONRR Rule: Consolidated Federal 

Oil and Gas and Federal and Indian Coal Valuation Reform, Docket No. ONRR-2012-0004 (May 8, 2015), 

attached as Ex. 51. 279 White House Fair Return Report, at 18. 73 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-28

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS Should Evaluate Options for Internalizing the Social and Environmental Costs of Coal Mining By 

Increasing Royalty Payments on Federal Coal. An essential component of ensuring a fair return to American 

taxpayers for public resources is ensuring that the full social and environmental costs of mining federal coal—

currently borne by impacted communities—are paid by coal producers. The June 2016 White House report also 

recognized the important objective of “addressing unpriced environmental externalities” in generating revenue 

from the coal leasing program. 280 Such externalities include water pollution, land degradation, and climateforcing methane pollution from coal mining; emissions from transportation to coal markets; emissions of harmful 

air pollutants and greenhouse gases from coal combustion; and “severe water pollution” from disposal of coal 

combustion waste. 281 Incorporating the costs of these externalities in the price of coal not only maximizes 

public revenues, it discourages the imposition of these unacceptable environmental and social harms by reducing 

the volume of coal that may be economically mined. The PEIS should evaluate these options. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-61

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

c. The PEIS Should Evaluate Options to Eliminate Royalty Rate Reductions. As discussed, the Secretary of the 

Interior “may” reduce the royalty for coal leases for the purpose of encouraging the greatest ultimate recovery of 

federal coal, and in the interest of conservation of federal coal and other resources, whenever it is necessary to 

promote development, or when the lease cannot be successfully operated under its terms. 43 C.F.R. §§ 3473.3-

2(e), 3485.2(c)(1). Because such royalty relief encourages the production of coal that would otherwise not be 

economic, and thus results in more coal production that would otherwise occur, royalty rate reductions are 

generally not in the public interest, and we therefore recommend that BLM adopt policy that will eliminate the 

granting of royalty rate reductions. At a minimum, it is reasonable for BLM to evaluate an alternative that 

eliminates royalty rate reductions because the Secretary has the discretion under the law to deny every request 

for such reductions. The Interior Department and BLM have made clear that the agencies intend to address 

royalty rates through, and even before the completion of, the PEIS process. The PEIS scoping notice recognized 

that royalty rate reductions were controversial. 283 The notice further directs 280 Id. at 3. 281 Id. at 28. 282 See 

infra Section III.B. 283 Notice of Intent, 81 Fed. Reg. 17,720, 17,724 (Mar. 30, 2016) (“Stakeholders also criticize 

the Federal coal program for obtaining even lower returns through certain types of leasing actions, such as lease 

modifications, and through royalty rate reductions, which may result in royalty rates as low as 2 percent.”); see 

also Secretarial Order 3338, at 4 (Jan. 15, 2016) (making same observation). 74 that the PEIS “will address 

whether the bonus bids, rents, and royalties received under the Federal coal program are successfully securing a 

fair return to the American public for Federal coal, and, if not, what adjustments could be made to provide such 

compensation.”284 “To address concerns about fair returns to taxpayers, the BLM is considering evaluating the 

following approaches: ... [including] Limit the use of royalty rate reductions.”285 A fact sheet issued 

contemporaneously with the Secretarial Order directed that BLM would act on royalty reductions before the 

PEIS was complete: “in the near term, the BLM will issue guidance that ... [c]larifies the process through which 

the BLM may consider requests for royalty rate reductions.”286 Royalty relief is controversial because it is 

common, because it has deprived taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars, and because its very purpose is to 

encourage coal mining that might not otherwise occur. Figures from 2014 indicated that BLM had granted royalty 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-576 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

rate reductions on more than one-third of all federal coal leases sold since 1990.287 A recent report estimated 

that royalty rate reductions permitted coal companies to retain nearly $288 million that otherwise taxpayers 

would have received. 288 The widespread use of royalty rate reduction is in large part responsible for the 

effective royalty rate in many states being far below the statutory minimum of 12.5% for surface mines and 8% for 

underground mines. As noted above, the General Accounting Office concluded in 2013 that the effective royalty 

was 6.9% in Utah and 5.6% in Colorado. 289 “The lower reported rates are largely a function of the rate 

reductions offered for coal extracted from federal leases in these states.”290 284 81 Fed. Reg. at 17,725; 

Secretarial Order 3338, at 7 (Jan. 15, 2016) (directing that PEIS will address royalties). 285 81 Fed. Reg. at 17,726. 

286 Department of the Interior, Fact Sheet: Modernizing The Federal Coal Program (Jan 16, 2016) at 3, available 

at http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/news_re 

lease_attachments.Par.47489.File.dat/Coal%20Reform%20Fact%20Sheet%20Final.pdf (last visited July 28, 2016). 

287 M. Haggerty & J. Haggerty, An Assessment of U.S. Federal Coal Royalties, HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 

(Jan. 2015) at 8 (“Royalty rate reductions occurred on at least 30 out of 83 leases (36 percent of leases) offered 

for sale since 1990.” (emphasis added)), attached as Ex. 52, and available at 

http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp-content/uploads/Report-Coal-Royalty- Valuation.pdf (last visited July 

28, 2016). 288 See id. at 14 (Figure 4, showing loss of value due to royalty rate reductions); id. at 15, Table 3 

(Estimated Value of Royalty Rate Reductions, Federal Coal Leased Since 1990) (estimating nearly $288 million 

total in royalties lost due to royalty rate reductions since 1990). 289 General Accounting Office, Coal Leasing: 

BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public 

Information, GAO-12-140 (Dec. 2013) at 24-25 (Ex. 48). 290 M. Haggerty & J. Haggerty, An Assessment of U.S. 

Federal Coal Royalties (Ex. 52), at 8. 75 Other experts, using a modified definition, concluded that the effective 

royalty rate was no greater than 8% in some states and may be less than 1% in others, apparently in part due to 

royalty rate reductions. 291 Analysts have criticized the impacts of royalty rate reductions, alleging that they 

“distort the energy market by subsidizing coal production, even when it is uneconomical. It is not rational for the 

federal government to support uneconomical coal production; this runs counter to its ‘fair market value’ 

mandate.”292 Others have stated that the “need for royalty reduction is no longer justified” because the original 

intent of such reductions was to cushion the blow of the 12.5% royalty rate set by Congress in 1976.293 Two 

examples from Colorado illustrate how rate reductions can be subject to abuse, reinforcing that BLM must 

consider eliminating royalty rate reductions in its PEIS. First, in late 2015, BLM’s Colorado State Office proposed 

approving a royalty rate reduction for a lease on the Oxbow mine. However, the mine was idled and being 

demolished, so the reduction would be retroactive for coal already mined, and could in no way encourage future 

mining. It would simply result in a check to Oxbow for coal already mined. The proposed decision was close to 

final; a draft was forwarded to Colorado’s governor for review. 294 When media reported on the proposed 

decision, which would have resulted in a significant payout to billionaire mine owner Bill Koch while encouraging 

no new mining, BLM ultimately (and belatedly) denied Oxbow’s request. 295 Because the royalty rate reduction 

could not possibly have impacted Oxbow’s then-terminated operations, any award of royalty relief would have 

violated the law, regulations and policy governing rate reductions. The fact that BLM even considered this request 

demonstrates how prone to abuse rate reduction requests can be. Second, Colorado BLM is currently weighing 

and may shortly approve a proposal to reduce the royalty paid by Arch Coal’s West Elk mine on two leases the 

company is already mining. There is little evidence that Arch cannot operate the mine without the subsidy of a 

rate 291 Id. at 17, Figure 6 (concluding effective royalty rate for federal coal leases for the years 2008-2012 at 

between 0.7% and 7.8% depending on the state). 292 J. Hein & P. Howard, Illuminating the Hidden Costs of Coal: 

How the Interior Department Can Use Economic Tools to Modernize the Federal Coal Program, Institute for 

Policy Integrity (Dec. 14, 2015) at 8-9, attached as Ex. 53, and available at 

http://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/hidden-costs-of-coal (last visited July 28, 2016). 293 Taxpayers for 

Common Sense, Federal Coal Leasing, Fair Market Value and a Fair Return for the American Taxpayer (Sep. 

2013) at 16, attached as Ex. 54, and available online at 

http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/downloads/TCS_Federal_Coal_Leasing_Report_- _Final_-

_Updated_10.4.13.pdf (last visited July 28, 2016). 294 See letter from R. Welch, Colorado State Director, BLM to 

Gov. J. Hickenlooper (Dec. 4, 2015), and enclosed Draft Decision, attached as Ex. 55. 295 See P. Rucker, U.S. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-577 

Scoping Report 

taxpayer due to subsidize Koch-controlled mine, Reuters (Jan. 2016), attached as Ex. 56, and available at 

http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-koch-coal-idUSL2N14W1JJ20160112 (last visited July 28, 2016). reduction. In 

fact, Arch has operated the mine for the last 19 months without royalty relief while the request has been 

pending. 296 Further, Arch Coal has told its shareholders that West Elk is a “lower cost” mine, and the 

company’s reports indicate that West Elk is among Arch’s most profitable mines when comparing the operating 

margin per ton of coal mined. 297 Arch also continues to pay its executives millions every year, far in excess of 

what it is likely to save from gaining a royalty rate reduction, casting further doubt on whether the rate reduction 

is necessary. 298 All of these are factors that BLM should weigh in evaluating the application for a royalty rate 

reduction. But there is no evidence that the agency has considered anything other than Arch’s representations 

that mining in the area is made more difficult by adverse geologic and engineering conditions – conditions that 

have not, apparently, cut into Arch’s ability to profit from the coal at issue or to pay its executives huge salaries. 

Colorado BLM’s willingness to entertain such a royalty rate reduction request, apparently without investigating 

the mine’s or the company’s financial status, further demonstrates that such reductions are prone to abuse and 

may be awarded even when they are unlikely to not meet the criteria established by law. BLM should address 

such issues in the PEIS by evaluating whether eliminating royalty rate reductions is appropriate to ensure a fair 

return on coal mined and that coal is not mined if it is not economic to do so. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-63

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS Should Evaluate the Program’s Structural Flaws that Fail to Generate a Fair Economic Return The 

Mineral Leasing Act authorizes leasing of mineral resources on public lands only where the federal government 

recovers, at a minimum, the “fair market value” of coal. 30 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1); see also FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 

1701(a)(9) (requiring that “the United States receive fair market value of the use of the public lands and their 

resources unless otherwise provided for by statute”). The Department of the Interior and the state where the 

coal was mined share the revenues from federal coal leasing. 246 These revenues come from two primary 

sources: a one-time “bonus bid” payment based on the “fair market value” of the coal, and royalties on the sale 

of coal that is mined. 247 As discussed below, structural flaws in the existing federal coal leasing program with 

respect to both bonus bids and royalties currently prevent BLM from satisfying its statutory obligation to garner a 

fair return for American taxpayers. This is particularly true when the full costs, including social and environmental 

costs, of mining and burning federal coal are properly taken into account. The PEIS must evaluate the 

environmental impact of current bonus bid and royalty rate structures that fail to internalize social and 

environmental costs, and, in any alternative BLM studies that allow for future leasing, examine options to meet 

and exceed the “fair market value” requirement, considering the true costs of coal. 248 1. Bonus Bids Do Not 

Reflect the True Value or Costs of Federal Coal. 245 Sophia Yan, China plants to cut 1.8 coal and steel jobs supra 

note 238. In 2013, more than 25 percent of all federal coal produced in Montana and Wyoming was shipped 

overseas. In 2014, nearly 30 percent of all Montana coal sales were for export; Thomas Power, Comments on 

the Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Modeling of Coal Flows in the Millennium Bulk Terminals Longview SEPA Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, June 2016 (Ex. 46). Increasing the price to reflect its true value in the 

international marketplace would be an important step toward ensuring that coal companies do not reap windfall 

profits while preventing the country from meeting its urgent goals. 246 See Bureau of Land Management, Coal 

Operations, available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/coal_and_non-energy.print.html (last visited 

July 28, 2016). 247 Annual rent of $3 per acre makes up a negligible portion of federal coal-leasing revenue. See 

43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-1. 248 As recognized in the White House in June 2016 report on potential coal royalty reform 

options, the NEPA “environmental review process can also provide for the consideration of environmental 

externalities” not currently captured by royalty rates on federal coal. White House Fair Return Report, at 28 n. 

16. 67 The first source of revenue from federal coal is a one-time “bonus bid” payment, which as discussed, must 

equal or exceed the “fair market value” of the coal tract (in dollars per ton), at the time the coal is leased. 43 

C.F.R. § 3422.1; see also 30 U.S.C. § 201(a) (“No bid shall be accepted which is less than the fair market value, as 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-578 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

determined by the Secretary, of the coal subject to the lease. Prior to his determination of the fair market value 

of the coal subject to the lease, the Secretary shall give opportunity for and consideration to public comments on 

the fair market value.”). BLM uses an appraisal to determine fair market value, which may be based either on an 

assessment of comparable leases with appropriate adjustments, or financial modeling that accounts for estimated 

annual revenues and expenses (the so-called “income approach”). 249 In a competitive lease sale, BLM does not 

disclose the fair market value to bidders. (In fact, BLM has refused to publically disclose the fair market value 

amounts and supporting analyses even after coal sales, citing FOIA exceptions for trade secrets and deliberative 

process materials.) Bids below the appraised value must be rejected. In Wyoming, bonus bid payments have 

ranged in recent years from $0.85-1.35/ton. 250 Bonus bid payments have been lower in Montana, between 

$0.18 and $0.30/ton. 251 Numerous scholars and critics have observed that BLM has failed to obtain the full 

measure of revenue required by law by undervaluing the fair market value of the coal at the bonus bid stage. In a 

2012 report, Tom Sanzillo argued that BLM’s “fair market value” assessments systematically ignore market forces 

that should drive a higher price for Powder River Basin coal, including depletion of central Appalachian coal 

reserves, diminishing accessibility of Powder River Basin coal, and expanded coal export opportunities. 252 This 

undervaluation of coal resources is perpetuated by over-reliance on the “comparable sales” approach in BLM 

appraisals. Sanzillo concluded that BLM’s undervaluation of fair market value has translated into below-market 

bonus bid payments. Further, undervaluing fair market value has the indirect effect of depressing market prices 

for Powder River Basin coal, which translates into artificially low royalty payments. 249 See Bureau of Land 

Management, Economic Evaluation of Coal Properties (H-3070-1), available at 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/bl 

m_handbook.Par.29194.File.dat/h3070-1.pdf (last visited July 11, 2014). 250 See Bureau of Land Management, 

Successful Competitive Lease Sales Since 1990, Wyoming, at 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/coaltables.html (last visited July 7, 2014). 251 See 

Bureau of Land Management, Successful Competitive Lease Sales Since 1990, Montana , available at 

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/prog/energy/coal/tables.html (last visited July 28, 2016). The lower market value of 

Montana coal may reflect longer distances to domestic coal plants, higher production costs (i.e. higher strip 

rations), and the lower quality of some Montana coal. The upper end of this range was a 2012 bonus bid payment 

for the Signal Peak Mine near Roundup, Montana, which is an underground mine that is outside of the Powder 

River Basin. 252 See Tom Sanzillo, THE GREAT GIVEAWAY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE UNITED STATES’ LONGTERM TREND OF SELLING FEDERALLY-OWNED COAL FOR LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE (June 

2012), attached as Ex. 47. 68 Many of Sanzillo’s conclusions were repeated and amplified in subsequent reports by 

GAO. First, GAO noted in a December 2013 report that about 90 percent of coal-lease auctions in recent years 

involved only a single bidder, thus failing to generate competition that could yield higher bonus bids. 253 In a 

separate report from June 2013, GAO found that in determining the minimum bid amount that is supposed to 

reflect the fair market value of leases, “BLM does not fully account for export potential.”254 The report further 

cited troubling inconsistencies in BLM’s “fair market value” determinations and recommended that BLM seek an 

independent peer review of its coal valuation practices. 255 In addition, the report observed that BLM often fails 

to prepare an appraisal or otherwise document “fair market value” for lease modifications, potentially resulting in 

a below-market return for this coal. 256 Similarly, GAO criticized the practice of some state BLM offices (not 

including the Wyoming office) of relying exclusively on comparable lease evaluations in determining fair market 

value, thereby ignoring market trends. GAO recommended that fair market value estimates account for “small 

but growing” export activity. Finally, GAO criticized lack of transparency in appraisal process. 257 The Center for 

American Progress (“CAP”) also has critiqued the lack of competitive leasing practices resulting from the 

decertification of the Powder River Basin as a coal producing region. 258 CAP argued that “[d]ecertification has 

effectively given coal companies control over the federal leasing process, allowing them to select which tracts to 

lease, rather than having to follow a regional leasing plan where the secretary of the interior controls the process 

... result[ing] in diminished competition, reduced environmental review of proposed coal leases, and lax 

oversight.”259 Undervaluation of federal coal resources is a particularly acute problem in the context of lease 

modifications. Since 2005, BLM has been authorized to expand coal lease tracts by up to 253 Government 

Accountability Office, Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-579 

Scoping Report 

Exports, and Provide More Public Information, GAO-14-140 (Dec. 2013), attached as Ex. 48. 254 Office of the 

Inspector General, U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Coal Management Program, Report No. CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012, at 

7 (June 2013), attached as Ex. 49. 255 Id. at 9. 256 Id. at 14. 257 Government Accountability Office, Coal Leasing: 

BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process (Ex. 48). 258 Center for American Progress, Federal Coal Leasing in the 

Powder River Basin: A Bad Deal for Taxpayers (July 29, 2014), attached as Ex. 50. 259 Id. at 2. 69 960 acres 

without a competitive bidding process. See 30 U.S.C. § 203(a)(3)(A). 260 And although regulations direct BLM to 

lease these tracts for fair market value, 43 C.F.R. § 3432.2(c), coal sold through lease modifications is generally 

much cheaper than coal sold through competitive bids. For example, BLM’s most recent lease sales were sold in 

2012 for approximately $1.10 per ton, and over the past six years, the sale price of competitive coal leases has 

ranged between $0.71-1.35 per ton. 261 By contrast, the sale price of Powder River Basin coal lease 

modifications issued between 2006 and 2012 has ranged between $0.06-0.10 per ton. 262 The Inspector General 

has criticized these sales, finding that “BLM might not be obtaining a fair return for lease modifications,” and that 

the 45 lease modifications issued since 2000 may have resulted in as much as $60 million in lost revenues. 263 

For all of these reasons, the Obama administration has conceded that the federal coal leasing program “ha[s] not 

fostered an efficient, competitive system that provides a fair return to the taxpayers.”264 And these problems 

are not new. Congress adopted the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 in part to address concerns 

at the time that, “[r]ather than initiating a leasing program based on knowledge of existing Federal coal reserves, 

national energy needs and environmental considerations, the Department normally leased those portions of 

Federal coal lands for which industry interest was expressed.”265 This resulted in a situation in which “72 

percent of these ‘competitive’ sales had less than two bidders, not really reflective of a competitive environment” 

and “the public [wa]s being paid a pittance for its coal resources.”266 That underpayment of bonus bids is such 

an enduring problem likely reflects problems inherent in the coal leasing structure—including “asymmetric 

information” and a “thin bidding 260 Coal lease modifications can be even larger if the original coal mine is 

encompasses multiple lease tracts. This was the case in High Country Conservation Advocates, where BLM 

sought to expand the West Elk coal mine through two separate lease modifications that totaled approximately 

1701 acres. 2014 WL 2922751 at *4; see also Environmental Assessment for the West Elk Coal Lease 

Modifications Application at 3 (June 2012), available at 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/information/nepa/uncompahgre_field/ufo_nepa 

_documents0.Par.96415.File.dat/12-13 (last visited July 28, 2016). 261 Bureau of Land Management, Successful 

Competitive Lease Sales Since 1990, Powder River Basin, Wyoming (updated Aug. 2013) available at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/programs/energy/coal/comp_lease-1990. 

Par.55365.File.dat/SuccSales080813.pdf (last visited July 28, 2016). 262 See Letter from Deputy Inspector General 

M.L. Kendall to U.S. Senator Ron Wyden at 7-9 (Nov. 15, 2013). 263 Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Dep’t 

of the Interior, Coal Management Program, Report No. CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012, at 13 (Ex. 49). 264 White House 

Fair Return Report, at 2 (emphasis added). 265 H.R. REP. 94-681, 11, 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1943, 1947. 266 H.R. 

REP. 94-681, 17, 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1943, 1953. 70 pool”—that are not easily overcome. 267 For this reason, as 

described below, reforms to the manner in which the government collects royalties on coal production, including 

increasing royalty rates, may be the most appropriate way to garner a fair return to taxpayers and ensure that 

the federal coal leasing program reflects this Nation’s policies demanding decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, 

particularly coal, for domestic energy production. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-8 

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

2. Royalties on Coal Production Fail to Generate a Fair Return to Taxpayers. Other than bonus bid payments, the 

second primary source of federal income from coal leasing is royalties paid on the revenue generated from the 

sale of the coal, based on the price obtained at the first point of sale. 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-2.269 Royalties comprise 

the majority of the revenue from federal coal leases—nearly two-thirds of the total revenue over the period 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-580 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

from fiscal years 2003 to 2012.270 Minimum royalty payments are 12.5% of the coal value for surface mines and 

8% of the coal value for underground mines. 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-2(a). However, the Secretary of the Interior may 

reduce the royalty for any given mine “whenever he/she determines it necessary to promote development or 

finds that the lease cannot be successfully operated under its terms.” Id. § 3473.3-2(e); see also id. § 3485.2(c)(1) 

(same). 271 In addition, the Secretary may establish a different royalty rate—including a higher rate—at the time 

a lease is readjusted, id. § 3473.3-2, i.e. after the initial 20-year lease term and every 10 years thereafter, id. § 

3451.1(a)(1). The federal coal leasing program fails to generate a fair return for American taxpayers from 

royalties, just as it fails to do so from bonus bids. The GAO reported that BLM has reduced royalty rates to 

“enable continued operations in cases where mining conditions may be particularly challenging and costly, or to 

enable expanded recovery of federal coal.”272 GAO calculated the effective royalty rates for the top federal coal 

producing states in 2012 at: 267 White House Fair Return Report, at 11. 268 Id. at 11-12 (recognizing challenges 

with bonus bid reform, but concluding “royalty payments assessed on the production of coal have the potential 

to bring the return to the taxpayer” in line with Administration objectives to increase returns to taxpayers). 269 

Among the four states with the most production from federal coal leases—Colorado, Montana, Utah, and 

Wyoming—the average prices for coal originating in these states in 2011 were $39.88/ton in Colorado, 

$16.02/ton in Montana, $33.80/ton in Utah, and $13.56/ton in Wyoming. GAO Report, at 14 (citing EIA’s 2011 

Annual Coal Report). 270 Government Accountability Office Report, at 23. 271 An application for a royalty 

reduction “shall contain a detailed statement of expenses and costs of operating the entire mine, the income 

from the sale of coal, and all facts indicating whether the mine can be successfully operated under the Federal 

rental and royalty provisions fixed in the Federal lease or why the reduction is necessary to promote 

development.” 43 C.F.R. § 3485.2(c)(2)(ii). 272 Government Accountability Office Report at 24-25. 71 Wyoming 

– 12.2%; Montana – 11.6%; Utah – 6.9%; and Colorado – 5.6%. 273 When the average effective royalty rate is 

calculated based on the average delivered market prices that sellers receive for federal coal, that rate drops to 

only 4.9%. 274 In addition to low effective royalty rates, other structural flaws have yielded royalty payments that 

do not reflect the coal’s true value and costs. First, royalties historically have been paid on the coal’s price at the 

first point of sale, for which the coal is almost certainly undervalued. As the White House recognized in its June 

2016 report on the economics of federal coal leasing, “there is an incentive for companies to reduce reported 

coal sales prices in order to minimize the royalty payments owed and companies have employed several tactics to 

lower the selling price of coal without losing revenue.”275 Recognizing problems with its past approach to coal 

valuation, the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (“ONRR”) in July 2016 finalized reforms to its methodology 

for valuing coal for purposes of calculating royalty payments, establishing the value based on the first arm’s-length 

transaction. 276 These adjustments prevent companies from selling coal in captive transactions to subsidiaries at 

artificially low prices, paying royalties on that initial sale price, and then having the subsidiary re-sell in the open 

market for much higher prices without an additional royalty. Although ONRR’s reforms closed an important 

loophole in royalty collections procedures, the rule did not solve the problem of underpayment. First, ONRR did 

not set the point of valuation at the final sale to a power plant or other end-user of the coal, thus precluding any 

taxpayer return on the potentially substantial profit garnered after the first point of sale. Second, ONRR allows 

unlimited allowances for coal washing and transportation, which can significantly diminish the coal’s calculated 

value. Third, the rule did not modify royalty rates in a manner to account for the environmental externalities of 

coal production. Thus, as ONRR recognized, its rulemaking “takes steps toward ensuring that the valuation 

process for Federal and Indian coal resources better reflects the changing energy industry while protecting 

taxpayers and Indian assets, its scope is not broad enough to address the many concerns the commenters raised. 

For that and other reasons, the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) recently launched a 

comprehensive review to identify and evaluate potential reforms to the [f]ederal coal program in order to ensure 

that it is properly structured to provide a fair return to taxpayers and reflect its impacts on the environment, 

while continuing to 273 Government Accountability Office Report, at 25. While most mining in Wyoming and 

Montana is surface mining that is subject to the 12.5% default minimum royalty, more underground mining occurs 

on federal leases in Colorado and Utah, which is subject to the 8% default minimum royalty. See id. at 12. 274 

White House Fair Return Report, at 8 (citing M. Haggerty and J. Haggerty, Headwaters Economics, An 

Assessment of U.S. Federal Coal Royalties: Current Royalty Structure, Effective Royalty Rates, and Reform 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-581

Scoping Report 

Options (2015), attached as Ex. 52). 275 White House Fair Return Report, at 2. 276 Office of Natural Resources 

Revenue, Final Rule, Consolidated Federal Oil & Gas and Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Reform, 81 Fed. Reg. 

43,338 (July 1, 2016). 72 help meet our energy needs.”277 In other words, ONRR deferred to this PEIS to 

evaluate effective reforms to provide a fair return on federal coal. 

Comment Number: 0003002_Master_FormB_CountOnCoalMontana-1 

Organization1:Count on Coal Montana 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Further, the value of coal to the American people isn't just royalty revenue — the value of high paying jobs and 

reliable, affordable energy has to be taken into account as well. Increases in coal prices induced by higher royalty 

rates will flow through to the electricity market due to reduced production on federal lands. The states that rely 

on coal for the bulk of electric generation consistently enjoy lower electricity rates. Whatever incremental 

revenue the Department believes it will obtain from increasing the coal royalty rate will be at the expense of 

American businesses and families paying higher utility bills. The federal coal program has generated tens of billions 

of dollars of value for the American people in recent decades and additional billions of dollars for Colorado state 

and local governments and school districts, to the benefit of all the state's citizens. It's simple: I oppose new taxes 

that will only serve to drive coal further to the edge, will deprive public schools of an important source of 

revenue from federal leases, and ultimately increase electricity rates for hard working families. 

Comment Number: 0003003_Master_FormB2_CountOnCoalMontana-1 

Organization1:Count on Coal Montana 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Sec. Jewel is seeking to hike coal royalty rates, despite the fact that current royalty rates are above market, and if 

increased will only result in decreased production and return on investment for taxpayers.Increased rates will 

saddle the taxpayer with higher electricity prices and lower return from reduced coal production - also, the value 

of reliable affordable energy has to be taken into account, because if production on federal lands is decreased due 

to increased royalty rates, consumers will be forced to pay for more expensive forms of power 

generation.Increased energy taxes will kill jobs and state revenues, while ever-increasing electricity rates will hit 

all Americans in the checkbook. 

Comment Number: 0003005_MasterFormD2_TheSierraClub-2 

Organization1:The Sierra Club 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This PEIS must also ensure that taxpayers and local communities are getting afair return for the coal produced on 

public lands. Federal policies must beupdated to ensure that the costs that coal imposes on the rest of us are 

takeninto account when coal is leased and to ensure that coal producers are not gifted special royalty rate 

reductions that cheat taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0003006_MasterFormE_TWS-1 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We already know burning fossil fuels extracted from our public lands account for 21% of all U.S. greenhouse 

gases. Yet millions of acres of public lands are open to new coal leasing. 

To reform the current coal program, the Bureau of Land Management should disclose and reduce the impacts of 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-582 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

mining and burning publicly-owned coal on the climate, our shared public lands and communities as well as ensure 

taxpayers receive a fair return from the sale of federal coal. 

Comment Number: 0003011_MasterFormJ_KeepElecAfford-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

An increase in federal coal royalty rates would force consumers like me to pay more for the power we need at 

home and work. Raising royalty rates also would reduce coal production which means less revenue for pressing 

public needs. 

Comment Number: 0003014_MasterFormM1-1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It should be acknowledged that these additional hearings have been precipitated by a small but vocal group that 

wants to ensure that public coal — in fact that all coal — is left in the ground. It seems their true intention is to 

effectively stop the mining of coal on federal land which would equate to 0% return to the American taxpayer, 

not a higher return. In short, their efforts are exclusively focused on climate concerns instead of seeking a fair 

return on a public asset. 

Comment Number: 0003014_MasterFormM1-2 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

an increase in the royalty rate will only create further uncertainty and put additional pressure on communities 

throughout the West and on essential state programs as well 

Comment Number: 0003015_MasterFormM2-1 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The push by NGOs to "Keep It in the Ground" and seek "Coal Reform" have again caused a huge waste of 

taxpayer dollars by forcing the Bureau of Land Management to conduct a multi-year Programmatic EIS process 

and support the effort by the Department of the Interior to increase the cost of coal leasing and royalties. As a 

result, it will be even more expensive to operate a coal mine and subsequently raise the price of electricity for all 

consumers. It's a disastrous combination for everyone, from the miners whose jobs have been lost and are in 

jeopardy, to the ratepayers that will pay more each month for electricity and the communities that will have to 

go without the vital taxes and royalty dollars generated by coal mining. 

The federal coal program has been a tremendous success story that has generated tens of billions of dollars of 

value for the American people in recent decades. If DOI must take action, we strongly encourage the department 

to take steps to improve the return to the American public by making coal on public lands more competitive, not 

less. 

I oppose increased coal royalties and new taxes on our electricity. 

Comment Number: 0003016_MasterFormO_EarthJustice-4 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Requiring coal producers at existing mines to pay royalties on coal production that reflect all of coal's costs 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-583

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0003018_MasterFormR-1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is the fiduciary responsibility of the Department of Interior (DOI) under the Mineral Leasing Act to maximize 

the return on federal coal, and to do so, we need to find policies that keep federal coal competitive in the market 

place. We have already seen a series of policies over the past several years designed to increase electricity prices 

and degrade the reliability of the nation’s electricity supply by inducting the closure of coal baseload power plants 

– the backbone of our electric grid. But given these constant attacks on coal from this administration and its 

allies, we can only conclude that royalty rate increases and expensive leasing reforms have nothing to do with 

determining a fair share for taxpayers and everything to do with a political agenda. 

Comment Number: 0003019_MasterFormS-1 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I write today to voice my grave concerns with increasing coal royalty rates. Raising taxes on coal will add stress 

to coal markets and ultimately decrease the revenues accruing to the public. Simply put, a ton of coal never sold 

due to uncompetitive prices produces no revenue. 

Too, American taxpayers are receiving more than owners of private coal. The federal royalty rate is above the 

prevailing royalty rates for private coal. As compared to private coal leases, federal coal rates are, in many cases, 

forty percent higher than the prevailing rate for private coal. 

Federal lessees pay non-recoupable bonus bids, an additional upfront payment made prior to mining. Bonus bids 

are rarely if ever included in leases of private coal. Bonus bids are a significant expense. Over the last decade, 

lessees have paid over $4.2 billion in bonus bids before any coal is even mined. 

States and local communities also benefit from coal leasing and royalties. In 2014 Colorado coal producers paid 

nearly $40 million in federal royalties, rents, and bonus payments. Almost half of this comes back to the State and 

is distributed to local communities, the State Public School Fund, the Higher Education fund, and the Water 

Conservation Board Construction fund. 

The BLM can best carry out its responsibility to ensure that American taxpayers receive a fair return on the coal 

resources managed by the federal government by encouraging the growth of the coal industry and removing 

impediments to leasing coal. 

Comment Number: 0003020_MasterFormT-1 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It concerns me that the DOI is modifying the current coal leasing program, including increasing the royalty rate 

on federal coal. While, on the surface, this may seem like a plan to increase revenue, it is obvious that it will in 

fact have the opposite effect and be harmful to our economy. 

As royalties increase, so will the price of coal. An industry such as this is very dependent on the price of the 

product, so as the prices increase, the amount of coal being sold will decrease due to market factors. Eventually 

this will trickle down to less coal being mined and less revenue going to the taxpayers and back into our 

communities. Not only will this damage local economies, but the increased energy prices will stress the lower 

and middle class nationwide. 

It is obvious to me that the ultimate goal of raising royalty rates on federal coal is not to increase revenue, but to 

instead put more stress on the already burdened coal industry. 

Comment Number: 0003029_Arrington_J_06032016-4 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Patrick Arrington 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-584 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Raising royalty rates also would reduce coal production which means less revenue for pressing public needs. 

Comment Number: 0003044_Hinkemeyer_J_06112016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Stephen Hinkemeyer 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Raising royalty rates also would reduce coal production which means less revenue for pressing public (Federal 

and State) needs. Less funding would be available for DOLA grants as well that really help small communities. 

Comment Number: 0003300_MasterFormU_WVP-1 

Organization1:Western Values Project 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Close loopholes, including ending royalty rate reductions, and ensure prices paid to use federal coal 

are fair and reflect all associated costs. 

Comment Number: 000761_Bucks_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Dan Bucks 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In considering changes in royalty rates, Interior should first eliminate all loopholes in the royalty base. Otherwise, 

expected revenues will only be undercut by some companies gaming the royalty system at the expense of others 

that play by the rules. 

Comment Number: 0020008_Hoem_20160712-2 

Commenter1:Harold Hoem 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

For decades the American taxpayer has been short-changed in the process of setting royalty rates that were 

extremely low and stuck in the past The only way to begin to compensate for this so that the American 

taxpayers earn a fair return for the use of their public resources would be to adjust current royalty rates 

substantially upward for any future leases, should they occur. 

Comment Number: 0020015_Rial_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Charles Rial 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please close the loopholes with coal leasing program so that coal companies pay the full royalties. 

Comment Number: 0020016_Willims_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Raymond Willims 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It should make certain that taxpayers are getting fair market value from leasing. 

Comment Number: 0020018_Risho_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Ray Risho 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-585

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM needs to insure that we taxpayers receive fair market value for federal coal 

Comment Number: 0020020_LaPorte_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Mary LaPorte 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Taxpayers should get their fair market value. 

Comment Number: 0020023_Baer_20160712-2 

Commenter1:Carl Baer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This process should be changed so the taxpayer owners are getting a fair price for the coal. 

Comment Number: 0020027_Harris_20160722-2 

Commenter1:Mark Harris 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Also, prior to 2016, this leasing program compelled the DOI sell publicly owned coal for pennies on the dollar. 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-10

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The price used in determining royalty payments must continue to be determined at the mine loading point. This 

process gives appropriate consideration to geography and the location of BLM coal lands with respect to the 

market for the coal. The net back price at the coal load out correctly values the coal no matter where or how 

the product is used. There have been many comments in the press about the price received for coal exported. 

This value must be reduced by the cost to transport the coal to the port and port charges as a minimum before 

the price upon which royalties are calculated is determined. Many times the transportation and port charges are 

greater than the price received at the mine by a mining company. 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-11

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current method to determine fair market value is in need of improvement. In circumstances where there is 

more than one adjacent active mining operation one method is used, and in circumstances where there is not 

another likely bidder, a different process is used. 

First, the circumstance where there is more than one adjacent mining operation provides the best definition of a 

Competitive Bid that I can imagine, and the process to determine fair market value in addition to an open bid 

process seems redundant at best. In the fairest definition possible the fair market value is determined by the value 

that these operators or another party might be willing to bid. The only concern the BLM should have in this 

circumstance is whether there is risk of default on the payments. When this is the case a Fair Market Analysis 

should not be required at all. 

In the circumstance where there is only one adjacent active mining operation, the BLM implements a different 

process. A study is conducted to estimate the mining cost, realization and capital expenditures for the mine to 

complete mining in their existing reserves and this is used as a "BASE CASE" analysis from which an incremental 

analysis is conducted estimating the mining cost, realization and capital required to develop into the proposed 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-586 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

lease. All of the advertised reserves are assumed to be mined, and an "ALTERNATIVE CASE" is developed. An 

incremental analysis is conducted with a discount rate of 10% and the amount of the "fair market value" of the 

Bonus Bid is determined by the amount that will result in an NPV(IO) of zero. 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-8 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Keeping the process for a mining company to request a royalty reduction when unforeseen geologic 

circumstances are encountered or reserves are in deep cover is important to reduce the risk to the operator 

when these conditions are encountered and incent the recovery of BLM coal. Were this not the case operators 

would be less likely to attempt to mine areas with geologic risks or deep cover which would in turn reduce 

payments to taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-9 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I work in the underground mining industry and have found that as a general rule the BLM rates are higher than 

can be negotiated with private owners. Some rates with private owners have been as low as 4% or less without 

any "Bonus Bid". In Utah SITLA leases lands at the same rate as the BLM, but generally allows a "pay as you go" 

Bonus Bid which is reduced if the estimated reserves are not present. 

Comment Number: 0020033_Werny_20160722-1 

Commenter1:Isa Werny 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is time we charge the coal companies for the actual cost of the coal. This includes fair market value 

Comment Number: 0020039-3 

Commenter1:Bonnie Miller 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Royalty rates must be more than the current give-aways to coal producers 

Comment Number: 0020043-1 

Organization1:Unitarian Church 

Commenter1:Barbara Davenport 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal leases should be at fair market value. 

Comment Number: 0020052-4 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Commenter1:Barbara A. Walz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The true cost to mine federal coal, including state and federal royalty payments, all bonus bids, ad valorem 

property taxes, ad valorem production taxes, sales and use taxes, severance taxes, black lung taxes, AML fees, 

and the cost of compliance with the many laws, orders and regulations that govern federal coal production. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-587

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0020056-2 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Equally importantly, the Secretary’s stated concerns about fair return and fair value are at odds with an overlyconstrained federal coal supply. Although it is pure window-dressing when cited by environmental activists, 

competition does play a key role in ensuring efficient energy markets and value to the nation’s industrial coal 

consumers, electricity users, and ratepayers. Adequate supply means not only that there is adequate supply in 

each of the coal sub-markets, but also adequate supply to a reasonable range of coal mining companies. A coal 

sub-market cannot be competitive if all the coal of a particular type is in the hands of one or two suppliers. Thus, 

blanket statements about the aggregate amount of coal under lease are misleading if they do not account for how 

leasing is distributed among coal types, regions, and suppliers. 

Comment Number: 002362_Charter_20160721-1 

Commenter1:Steve Charter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There are over a dozen reports have 

documented a long litany of problems with the management of federal coal. It’s high time that the 

taxpayers got a fair price publicly on coal. 

Comment Number: Dvorak_DvorakRaftingFishing_20160623-3 

Organization1:Dvorak Rafting and Fishing Expeditions 

Commenter1:Bill Dvorak 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal royalty on coal is currently 12.5% well below the 18.5% assessed for offshore publically owned fossil 

fuels. It's estimated that U.S. taxpayers have lost over $30 million in revenue in the last 30 years. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-16

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Under today’s market conditions, WMA does not believe that an increase to the royalty rate is justified. In 

addition to data or analyses that justify a change to the royalty rate, BLM must also consider information that 

justifies no change to the royalty rate. As part of the scoping process, consider that duplications, redundancies 

and delays in the current leasing process, as described earlier are all very costly and serve to erode the return to 

the American taxpayer. BLM should evaluate how the true cost of the typical ten-year leasing/permitting process 

compares to the return from royalties, bonus bids and taxes. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-18

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As an additional consideration, any increase in royalty rate further reduces competitiveness for the American coal 

industry. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-588 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-19

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

WMA believes calculation of Fair Market Value (FMV) should reflect the current market for the commodity given 

the realities of the economic conditions. Pre-sale FMV should allow for extraction costs so that the final cost for 

the generation of electricity is reasonable and affordable. FMV should also be calculated with the goal of 

ultimately finding a qualified lessee for the coal tract. Artificially increasing the FMV and raising costs above what 

is economical to mine is counter-productive and contrary to the Agency’s charge of managing the responsible 

development of the resource as mandated by the Mineral Leasing Act. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-21

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

WMA supports efforts to increase transparency in the calculation process, and encourages the Agency to draw 

on the considerable experience and expertise of Wyoming State BLM office staff in studying all of the factors 

relevant to a FMV determination. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-5 

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM rules require the agency to develop fair market value estimates prior to each proposed lease sale. Over 

nearly three decades the fair market value was not challenged as being deficient until certain organizations 

determined that coal mining and use were no longer acceptable to them. Because the true fair market value 

figures are held confidential by the agency, it is curious that some organizations can claim that fair market value 

has been too low and that they can actually calculate how much the American taxpayer has been short-changed. 

These claims are clearly based on assumptions and should not be interpreted by the BLM to be factual. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-9 

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM’s scoping evaluation must reveal that the claim made by detractors that the fair market value is not providing 

an adequate return on the resource, cannot be substantiated. The results of the evaluation will verify that the fair 

market value issue needs to be put to rest. And the rules do not need to be fixed. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0003061_Post_N_20160707-3 

Commenter1:Charlie Post 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Examining the royalty schedule to more accurately compensate the American publics' coal resources (regardless 

of the so called "bankruptcy" of coal companies), 

Comment Number: 000001202_Meinhart_20160623-1 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-589

Scoping Report 

Organization1:Office of Congressman Scott Tiption 

Commenter1:Brian Meinhart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I want to start off with the first concern, whether or not the public is receiving a fair return on public resources. 

When the Department conducted its listening sessions back last August, we agreed then, and we still agree, that 

that's a fair question to ask on its face. But, we do disagree that the premise with which DOI is asking this 

question. We, we think that that's definitely misguided. Much of the conversation surrounding this question 

seems to imply that the coal industry is raking in record profits while Joe Taxpayer is left with nothing more than 

a token return. Last March, the Secretary gave a speech in which she said that, "most Americans would be 

surprised to know that coal companies can make a winning bid for about $1 a ton to mine taxpayer-owned coal". 

Now, surely that -- it sounds like that can't be fair. And you know, naturally that would be why she later 

suggested raising the royalty rate might be an option. Even the Interior Office of the Inspector General and the 

Government Accountability Office agree that the Federal Coal Program needs reform. Right? We're going to take 

a look at the accuracy of the Secretary's statements in that. First, Secretary Jewell's statement does not indicate 

what the market value for a ton of coal is. If coal is worth $1,000 a ton, then yeah, a return of $1 would surely be 

a giveaway. But, the recent spot price for a ton of Wyoming's Powder River Basincoal, which we've already seen 

is over 80 percent of the Federal coal resources, is $8.80. 

Comment Number: 000001202_Meinhart_20160623-2 

Organization1:Office of Congressman Scott Tiption 

Commenter1:Brian Meinhart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Second, the bonus payments received for [indiscernible] which the Secretary was referring, represent only one 

portion of the revenues generated by Federal coal production. And it's a smaller proportion of that. In Federal --

in fiscal year 2015, bonus payments for all Federal coal leases totaled just over $454 million. The royalties, on the 

other hand, totaled over $757 million for that same period. While those revenues do return to the Federal 

Treasury, the Secretary did not mention those. And it doesn't end there. You also have to include the State 

royalties and severance taxes. There is applicable County taxes. They're often in the form of an ad valorem or 

property tax. There are other Federal taxes, like the abandoned land mines tax, the black lung excise tax. Those 

are 2.8 percent and 5.5 percent respectively. If we were to take kind of a Colorado or local illustration here, we 

could say that maybe the spot price for a ton of coal is about $20. Most of the mines here locally are 

underground. So, we would say that the royalty rate is currently -- would be 8 percent. You can have the State 

severance tax, which in Colorado would be about 3.8 percent. You've got the EML. You have the excise tax. The 

actual tax rate is actually closer to 20 percent. And then, you add the local taxes on top of that. Those are used 

for K through 12 education, road and bridge departments, other [indiscernible] infrastructure, healthcare 

facilities. The list goes on and on. In Colorado, those payments totaled $16.6 million in 2014. And we can throw 

the rental payments, which were $1.35 million, on top of that. So, it becomes very clear that the actual return to 

the public is much higher than $1 per ton. So, when you view the Secretary's statements in that context, they 

start to look a little bit misleading. 

Comment Number: 000001203_Holappa_20160623-1 

Commenter1: Holappa 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It's important that we make sure the coal leasing program provides taxpayers with appropriate compensation for 

our public resources. 

Comment Number: 000001211_ BENG_20160623-1 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-590 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Susan Beng 

Commenter Type: Organization (nonprofit/citizens group) 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Public coal on BLM lands need to be managed as a finite resource that it is. Management by BLM must take into 

consideration the entire cycle of coal development. This includes returning a fair profit on the coal mined for 

taxpayers, reclamation of disturbed lands to put them back into production. 

Comment Number: 000001216_ VAN WEST _20160623-1 

Organization1:Western Colorado Congress 

Commenter1:Rein Van West 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Yes, this program needs to be brought into the 21st century for a more fair return to the American public. 

Greater transparency in the leasing and royalty mechanisms and absolutely balanced protections for air, land, and 

water resources, as well as the global climate. 

Comment Number: 000001220_ WELT _20160623-1 

Organization1:Mount Coal Company 

Commenter1:Kathy Welt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The American taxpayer and the Federal government must take steps now to support coal communities' transition 

to new economies, independent of the antiquated fuel source. I ask you to ensure that taxpayers collect a fair 

return on coal and reflect the cost of climate change in the pricing of the Federal Coal Program. It is time to 

modernize Western economies and increase their resiliency to climate change. Thank you so much. 

Comment Number: 000001223_ MADSON _20160623-1 

Organization1:Mountain Pact 

Commenter1:Diana Madison 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the fact of climate change, it's time to modernize the Federal Coal Program to accurately account for its cost 

to communities, taxpayers, and the environment, while supporting a transition to a more sustainable and resilient 

economy for coal communities. With new revenues from increased royalty rates, the Federal government, State, 

and communities can invest in climate preparedness practices. 

Comment Number: 000001224_ POULOS _20160623-1 

Commenter1:John Poulos 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I believe the coal industry is providing more than their fair share to the return to the American public. Leave the 

coal lease system alone. We all know that lower taxes would help bring production up; and, therefore, increase 

the dollars flowing into the government coffers. That's what we're here to talk about. Right? The current system 

includes consideration for the, for the environment. NEPA is used to evaluate the climate change issues. This has 

been decided in several court cases. See Wild Earth Guardians v. Salizar [phonetic], Wild Earth Guardians v. 

Forest Service, Western Organization of Resource Council v. Jewell [phonetic]. 

Comment Number: 000001231_ GRAVES _20160623-1 

Commenter1:Ben Graves 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-591

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal lease coal revenues need to return to the communities where these miners live. 

Comment Number: 000001233_ MILLER _20160623-1 

Organization1:West Elk Mine 

Commenter1:Jim Miller 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Simply put, an increase in the royalty rate will only further create uncertainty and put additional pressure on 

communities through increased electricity rate and decreased government revenue for critical State programs. 

So, if the Department believes that the changes to the Federal Coal Program must be made, let's protect the 

many benefit generated from this valuable resource and make coal mined on public lands more competitive, not 

less. 

Comment Number: 000001236_ O'CONNOR_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Jim O'Connor 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Using a more conservative method -- using more of a conservative method to determine the fair market value 

will enhance the likelihood that the mine operator will be able to continue operations, continue to pay royalties 

to the BLM, wages to the persons employed at the mine, property taxes to the surrounding counties, and other 

taxes and fees that are normal cost -- that are the normal cost of mining. 

Comment Number: 000001239_ RECKLE_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Eric Reckle 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the actual royalty program has to be reevaluated. 

Comment Number: 000001240_ SLOCUM_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Tyson Slocum 

Commenter Type: Individual 

Classification: Substantive 

Comment Category: 

Current Task: Analyze Assigned/Due: 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

So, the question at hand here is whether or not reforms are necessary to the royalty program, particularly from 

a taxpayer perspective? And I've heard some folks talk about, you know, there's a 12.5 percent royalty rate; and 

that seems to be adequate. Of course, nobody pays a 12.5 percent royalty rate. There are deductions and 

subtractions from that. And the actual affective royalty rate is closer to 5 percent. Some of those deductions are 

absolutely valid. But, some of them are engineered specifically to avoid paying the royalty rate. And an analysis by 

the Council of Economic Advisors that came out just this week, showed that there are ways to get at some of 

those clear, uneconomic, avoidance schemes. Like captive transactions where we see 42 percent of sales in the 

Wyoming Powder River Basin, for example, are between affiliates at below market rates that are conducted 

specifically to avoid paying the affective royalty rate due to taxpayers. Or take it and pay contracts that are 

designed with utilities. And so, I think we can reform the royalty system in a way that will raise at least another 

$300 million in revenue while not depressing the current coal industry. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-592 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 000001242_ SANDERSON_Colorado Mining Association _2016062-1 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Other Sections: 8.3 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I'm also appearing today as part of a coalition of 17 organizations of local governments and other groups 

throughout Colorado, which are really concerned and are in opposition to the Department of the Interior's 

efforts to impose a leasing moratorium, as well as to hike royalty rates. This is not only not in the interests of 

Colorado, or in the interest of the economy. But, it will jeopardize our nation's long-term interest in securing an 

affordable, reliable, and yes clean, source of energy. 

Comment Number: 000001243_ COMPTON _Utah Mining Association _20160623-6 

Organization1:Utah Mining Association 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

One of the stated reasons for the moratorium is to make sure the public receives a fair return for coal resources 

developed on Federal lands. But, the policies are, in fact, designed to simply keep coal in the ground. It doesn't 

take a rocket scientist to figure out that imposing more burdens on Federal coal production will yield less, not 

more, revenue to Federal, State, and local governments. If we really want to have an open and honest 

conversation about the Federal Coal Leasing Program and what's in the public interest, we need to consider 

lowering Federal coal royalty rates; thereby, lowering energy bills for homes and businesses. 

Comment Number: 000001255_Nettleton_20160623-2 

Organization1:Twenty Mile Coal 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Fair return. In evaluating fair return, any discussion or analysis, you must consider all components of return and 

economic benefits from leasing and production of the resource, including bonus bid payments, rents, royalties, 

State and local property taxes, sales taxes, employment taxes, employee benefits, and low-cost reliable power 

from coal for businesses and utility rate payers. 

Comment Number: 000001262_Eaton_20160623-2 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Pam Eaton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And the BLM should begin by making -- taking steps to raise the royalty rate for coal. Royalties aren't taxes. 

They're the share of the revenue sale of the public's coal that we all own. And that's our share, and we should be 

making sure we're getting it. 

Comment Number: 000001265_ SmithC_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Casey Smith 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Unfortunately most major coal companies are already in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. My question for 

you is how can an increase in a royalty percentages possibly ensure that Federal coal leases are being utilized at 

the benefit of the taxpayers? Which brings me to number 2 is wouldn't it make more sense to consider lowering 

royalty rates to a level in which Federal coal remains competitive with the private lease market? A comparative 

pricing market will generate more revenue in the form of sales, bonus bids, for the taxpayers; rather than driving 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-593

Scoping Report 

the market price to private leases and unfortunately abroad. Number 3 is BLM should reassess the efficiency and 

streamline the Federal Coal Leasing Program and remove any unwarranted delays in the leasing process that are 

financially hurting the return to the taxpayers. And then, number 4, BLM should reorganize and reconvene the 

Royalty Policy Committee that was disbanded so long ago and include a group represented by the public and 

private sector. 

Comment Number: 000001266_ Spehar_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Jim Spehar 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

My recommendation should there be a royalty increase is that these new funds be earmarked to assist coal 

communities in the inevitable transition of their economies. 

Comment Number: 000001293_Porter_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Aaron Porter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Basically you're here to talk about the [indiscernible] and royalties. The fact is is that you're getting plenty of 

money that way. This isn't free money. We worked our tails off to that coal out of the ground and you're getting 

8 percent on -- yeah, 8 percent off of that. 

That's a lot of money; billions of dollars. And we make a lot of investment. It costs a lot of money to run a mine. 

And I don't think that raising the rate is going to do you any good, because most of us will go out of business. 

There's no way we'll be able to pay you and pay our vendors and pay everybody else and pay our taxes. And you 

know, it just won't happen. 

Comment Number: 000001294_Peterson_20160623-1 

Organization1:GCC Energy 

Commenter1:Trent Peterson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Timing of coal lease sales to be condition of market fluctuations. Coal mine resource planning, including the longrange capital plans and orderly development of reserves cannot be accommodated within the relatively short 

cycles of overall economic markets. 

Comment Number: 000001294_Peterson_20160623-2 

Organization1:GCC Energy 

Commenter1:Trent Peterson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We've heard a lot about matching coal royalties to gas royalties. The current general royalty structure recognizes 

the vastly different cost structures between the two industries and should not be tinkered with. 

Comment Number: 000001296_Gawler_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Maddy Gawler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The price that these companies are getting this land for is preposterous. The average price per ton for those coal 

leases was only $1.03. Yet a ton of publically- owned coal leased during the past eight years will cause damages 

estimated at $237 on average. That is one 237th of what we should be getting paid. The carbon pollution from 

publically-owned coal leased during the past eight years will cause damages estimated at up to $530 billion. Yet, 

the amount of revenue generated from the lease sales was only [indiscernible]. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-594 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00001267_Mork_20160623-1 

Organization1:Interfairh worker Justice 

Commenter1:Doug Mork 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We call on the Bureau of Land Management to take bold action and investigate whether workers, taxpayers, and 

local communities are getting a fair return from these resources 

Comment Number: 00001269_Post_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Charlie Post 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I think it's necessary for, for the lease program to at least recoup the cost that we're talking about when we're 

extracting the resource. Very often we see that, yes, there are royalties paid. But, are we seeing the full cost 

recovered for the taxpayer? I, I think it's only fair that not only do they pay the royalties, they also pay the 

administrative costs. 

Comment Number: 00001273_Grange_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Jordan Grange 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

One of the stated reasons for implementing a moratorium on Federal Coal Leasing Program was to determine if 

the U.S. taxpayer was receiving a fair return on the resource. According to the Office of Natural Resource 

Revenue, in the last 10 years, the BLM had generated nearly $10 billion from Federal co-leases, via lease bonuses, 

rental fees, and royalties. Coal has paid the Federal Government more, more royalties, lease bonuses, and rental 

fees, than another other type of electrical generation. Thus, producing more of a return to the U.S. taxpayer than 

solar, wind, nuclear, geo-thermal, biomass, and hydro-electric, combined. 

Comment Number: 00001273_Grange_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Jordan Grange 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2014, alone, the government subsidized wind energy with 

$5.9 billion, solar with $5.3 billion, natural gas with $2.3 billion, nuclear with $1.6 billion, and coal with $1 billion. 

Now, compare that to the percent of electricity generated from each industry. Again, according to the Energy 

Information Administration, in 2014, coal generated 40 percent of the nation's power, natural gas 26 percent, 

nuclear 26 percent. Wind, wind and solar generated a whopping combined total of 3.3 percent of the nation's 

power. Yet, wind and solar spent $11.2 billion in subsidies and generated very little in royalties, lease bonuses, 

and rental fees. How is it that any self-respecting, intelligent individual, corporation, or entity can say coal 

royalties do not generate a fair return to you as taxpayers 

Comment Number: 00001275_Earl_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Taylor Earl 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA, $13.2 billion dollars in government subsidies 

were spent on wind and solar from 2010 to 2013. All of this, and wind and solar power still only accounts for less 

than 5 percent of America's total energy production. How is this a fair return for taxpayer's money? One the 

other hand, there's been nine and a half billion in revenue collected by the United States since 2016, from the 

Coal Leasing Program. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-595

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00001279_Phillips_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Tom Phillips 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Here in Colorado, the Federal royalty on coal is just $0.23 per ton. Whereas, the sales price was over $30 per 

ton in 2014. If the Federal royalties on coal were on a par with Federal oil and gas, the royalty would be almost 

$4 per ton, not $0.23. This low royalty rate is a subsidy, or give-away, to the coal industry. Given the current and 

future poor economics of coal, it is highly unlikely that further coal company bankruptcies will occur. 

Comment Number: 00001279_Phillips_20160623-4 

Commenter1:Tom Phillips 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Royalties for coal should also be right to a level equal of those collected on [indiscernible]. Taxpayers should not 

be subsidizing one of the highest carbon fuels in the world 

Comment Number: 00001292_Grako_20160623-2 

Organization1:Bowie Resources 

Commenter1:Lou Grako 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The bid we currently use, taxpayers get the most out of it. The royalty rate of 8 percent should be reduced to 

four to which it will encourage operations to invest. 

Comment Number: 0001266_Reed_20160623-2 

Organization1:High County Conservation Advocates 

Commenter1:Matt Reed 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If we're going to continue to have coal mining in Colorado, we need communities to get their fair share of 

royalties. Otherwise, mining executives in St. Louis will have shortchanged the communities and left them with 

the difficulties of transition. 

Comment Number: 0003300_MasterFormU_WVP-1 

Organization1:Western Values Project 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Close loopholes, including ending royalty rate reductions, and ensure prices paid to use federal coal 

are fair and reflect all associated costs. 

Comment Number: 0000279_Shaw_20160628-1 

Commenter1:Eddie Shaw 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

12.5 percent is way to little for coal companies to pay (if they pay) for use of federal lands given the following: 

Duke Energy's coal ash spill of 60,000 tons into the DAN River in N. Carolina 

Mountain top removal and resulting damage to streams and rivers, Strip mining damage to spil structure despite 

companies having to return land to "original condition", Continuing acid mine drainage from 50-70 yrs of deep 

mines in west PA. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-596 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000842_Mantell_WildernessSociety-2 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Joshua Mantell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Two, federal taxpayers are not receiving their fair share for the use of their land and resources. Right now coal 

companies are paying effective royalty rate of 4.9 percent according to one study, and 90 percent of coal leases 

have a single bidder since 1990. We need to raise the royalty rate for 

surface mined coal, and raise the minimum bid so that we are receiving what is due. 

Comment Number: 0000843_Seltweiger_PennFuture-3 

Organization1:Penn Future 

Commenter1:Larry Seltweiger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Government and independent investigators say American taxpayers are being short-changed because of the 

Federal Coal Program's flaws. These include inconsistencies in estimating coals, fair market value and failure to 

consider value of exporting the coal. A 2012 independent report estimates that U.S. Taxpayers have lost nearly 

30 billion in revenue over the last 30 years because BLM has failed to get fair market value in the coal mined just 

in the Powder River Basin. 

Comment Number: 0000844_Hanna_TCS-1 

Organization1:Tax Payers for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Autumn Hanna 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is a central part of our nation's energy mix and over the last decade, the BLM managed leases that produced 

approximately 4.3 billion tons of coal, resulting in $9.5 billion in revenue collections by the United States. 

These funds are an important source of revenue for the country. And while the Department of Interior is legally 

required to provide a fair return to taxpayers for the development of the coal we all own, the 

leasing program has been plagued with problems. Further, it fails to meet the goals set forth during the last 

review under the Reagan Administration. In 2013 my organization released a study on fair market value of federal 

coal. We found that the current coal program was in need of significant reform and responsible for billions in 

taxpayer losses. For example, by supplanting the competitive system envisioned by Congress more than 40 years 

ago, the current Lease by Application system has failed taxpayers. The system improperly distorts the valuation of 

lease tracts, brings in significantly reduced 

bids, and shrouds crucial information in secrecy. 

There's little, if any, competition under the leasing program. Incredibly, the Government Accountability Office 

found that 90 percent of lease sales in the Powder River Basin from 1990 to 2013 has only one bidder. The game 

is essentially rigged: under the current system, individual companies often draw the tracts for leasing themselves. 

In the absence of competition, the BLM must accurately calculate the fair market value of federal coal. Here, too, 

the BLM has failed.

Before determining the fair market value, the Secretary of Interior must provide an opportunity for public 

comments. But it is impossible to provide feedback when the BLM refuses to share its valuation data or 

methodology. Final lease sale numbers are often undervalued and can be used as comparables for new tracts, 

locking in a rolling system undervalued leases and taxpayer losses. 

Comment Number: 0000844_Hanna_TCS-3 

Organization1:Tax Payers for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Autumn Hanna 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-597

Scoping Report 

Finally, changes in the marketplace must be considered when calculating fair market value since coal exports to 

foreign markets have more than doubled in the last ten years. As we detailed in our comments to DOI last year, 

coal valuation at the initial point of sale may not truly capture the value of the taxpayers' resource. 

Comment Number: 0000851_Grenter_CenterCoalfieldJustice-2 

Organization1:Center for Coalfield Justice 

Commenter1:Patrick Grenter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If we do decide to continue coal leasing, there must be increased royalties. Coal companies should have to pay 

the full cost of their activities 

Comment Number: 0000854_Doyon_20160628-2 

Commenter1:MIchelle Doyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Taxpayer protection reforms are needed. Federal coal royalty rates are far below the 18.5 percent from offshore 

oil and gas and have not changed in 30 years. BLM should raise royalty rates and close loopholes that allow 

companies to avoid paying agreed upon royalty rates. Artificially low coal leases directly affect energy production 

competition and this low cost is undercutting renewable resource 

development 

Comment Number: 0000864_Szollosi-2 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Frank Szollosi

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We are here for coal reform. Taxpayers should not bail out the coal companies. Raise the royalty rate. Raise the 

minimum bid. It's a drag on our economy, not to mention the climate impacts for coal leasing impacts on public 

lands. We urgently need reform 

ISSUE 5.8 - COAL EXPORTS 

Total Number of Submissions: 51 

Total Number of Comments: 72 

Comment Number: 0000010_Swingle_20160526_Oral-6 

Commenter1:Rocky Swingle 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Evaluating whether exporting coal - if effect shipping carbon emissions overseas - is in the public's interest 

Comment Number: 00000183_ MCKAY_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Don McKay 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Two, if coal is to be shipped out of this country, out of my mine U.S.A., an additional royalty should be attached. 

Comment Number: 00000285_ Alexander_TaxCommonSense_20160519-1 

Organization1:Taxpayers for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-598 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Investigations in 2012 when exports were high found that coal companies in Wyoming and Montana underpaid 

for federal coal by $40 million, using the domestic price calculated royalties for the coal they exported instead of 

the much higher price in Asia. It is critical that BLM consider the role of export markets as an element of 

determining fair market valuation for federal coal. 

Comment Number: 00000345 _ Miller _20160519-1 

Organization1:Valley Resources Canyon Fuel 

Commenter1:Casey Miller 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I believe the BLM would actually benefit from not only using it here but also looking at exporting it. What about 

using some of our coal, not only locally, but also for the benefit of mankind all over? This resource we have can 

be used in all aspects of life. As technology advances, we can harvest the energy even more efficiently. 

Comment Number: 0000520_Barrasso_US Senate_20160517-4 

Organization1:United States Senate 

Commenter1:John Barrasso 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Administration should also help coal producers access international markets. Three proposed coal export 

terminals in Oregon and Washington await federal permits. Last week, the Army Corps of Engineers brazenly 

rejected a coal export terminal without even determining the impacts of the project and whether these impacts 

could be mitigated. 

If the Administration wants a greater return on federal coal, it should reverse the Corps' decision immediately. It 

should also ensure that the permitting process for coal export terminals is completed in a timely manner. These 

facilities would allow producers to export federal coal to Asia and offset declining sales in the United States. 

Comment Number: 0000602-2 

Commenter1:Sundipta Rao 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is also our responsibility to regulate our export of coal to ensure that we are not (illegible) to the problem by 

enabling other countries to generate energy irresponsibly 

Comment Number: 0000603_Williams-Derry_Sightline Institute_20160621-1 

Organization1:Sightline Institute 

Commenter1:Clark Williams-Derry 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Attached please find a report on exports of federal coal. The report details the dynamics of export economics 

since 2009: the inflation of the coal export bubble in 2009; the massive and highly profitable exports of federal 

coal during the height of the international coal boom; and the definition of that bubble. The report argues that 

BLM must consider export economics when renewing the federal coal leasing program. 

(see attached report "Unfair Market Value II: Coal Exports and the Value of Federal Coal) 

Comment Number: 0000603_Williams-Derry_Sightline Institute_20160621-2 

Organization1:Sightline Institute 

Commenter1:Clark Williams-Derry 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-599

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

First, the first comment is that for the most part, the Bureau of Land Management has ignored the unique 

dynamics of coal export markets when setting federal coal prices. There is a very different dynamic that you find 

in the U.S. market and domestic markets, and even though there's ample evidence that -- that coal companies 

highly value the ability to export coal, the BLM has not paid attention to those values and that economic value 

when setting the coal prices 

Comment Number: 0000603_Williams-Derry_Sightline Institute_20160621-3 

Organization1:Sightline Institute 

Commenter1:Clark Williams-Derry 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The second major conclusion of this report is that coal exports have gone through a boom period from 2010 

through 2014. During that time the states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Montana exported roughly 100 

million tons of coal combined. Much of that was from specific identifiable export-oriented coal mines, many of 

which rely either exclusively or heavily on federal coal. 

And even in the middle of that boom, the Bureau of Land Management did not pay attention to the unique 

dynamics of coal exports and the fact that the federal coal that was exported could receive far higher profits on 

export markets than it could in domestic markets 

Comment Number: 0000603_Williams-Derry_Sightline Institute_20160621-4 

Organization1:Sightline Institute 

Commenter1:Clark Williams-Derry 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And the last major point is that that boom period has ended and that we are now in a period when coal 

companies are retrenching and pulling back from exports. The -- still there are financial economic techniques 

hinging on what's called the real options valuation, which is described in the report, which can help set a value on 

federal coal and it's higher than coal's been leased for in the past. 

Comment Number: 0000772_Nielsen_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Nicholas Nielsen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In section 3.8 of BLM handbook 3073 it addresses the evaluation of export potential for coal in the fair market 

valuation. It states that specific requirements must be evaluated and considered in issuing coal leases. Why would 

this EIS need to evaluate the export potential in regards to fair market valuation when this section states that the 

BLM does this each lease sale? 

Comment Number: 0001102_CONSTANTINE_KingCnty_20160621-4 

Organization1:King County 

Commenter1:Dow Constantine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ultimately, the burning of our coal in Asia comes back to us in the form of pollutants here on the West Coast 

while more than canceling out all of our state and local efforts to reduce climate pollution. 

Comment Number: 0001129-2 

Organization1:Climate Solutions 

Commenter1:Beth Doglio 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-600 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As you review the Federal Coal Program, you should consider the unique dynamics of coal exports, including the 

option value of potential future coal exports when determining the fair market value of federal coal leases. Coal 

companies have paid tons of money just to keep their export options open. 

Comment Number: 0001162-1 

Organization1:Sierra Club 

Commenter1:Richard Vogel 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And the current proposal to ship coal to Asia has nothing to do with domestic energy security. So in essence, 

we're helping other countries meet their energy needs. 

Comment Number: 0002115_Schaefer_20160623-2 

Commenter1:C. Thomas Shaefer 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Especially onerous is the practice of mining coal from U.S. land and exporting it for combustion abroad. Though 

the U.S. government cannot make energy policy for other nations, it can deny those nations access coal from our 

public lands. Some argue that international buyers who are unable to buy U.S. coal will simply buy from other 

nations, allowing those nations to reap profits that might have been ours. Of course, the same rationalization can 

be applied to commerce in illegal drugs or nuclear weapons. Sometimes we must make decisions on the basis of 

what is right, rather than what generates the most short-term profit. 

Comment Number: 0002116_Sharp_20160626-1 

Commenter1:Margaret Sharp 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Exporting coal is not worth the risk that coal trains and export terminals will cause. 

Comment Number: 0002137_Zeigler_20160607-8 

Commenter1:Bob Ziegler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts of coal export. This last two years, two coal export facilities were planned for Washington State. 

Comment Number: 0002149_Hewitt_20160519_WyLSO-4 

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature's Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

given the demand on the international coal market and the competitive price of Wyoming coal, increasing 

exports could provide a boon to our state’s coal industry. 

Comment Number: 0002149_Hewitt_20160519_WyLSO-5 

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature's Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee 

Commenter1:Ted Hewitt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Longview site in Washington State proposed by Millennium Bulk Terminals could allow for the annual export 

of 44 million tons of coal. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-601

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002154_ Riordan_20160627-3 

Commenter1:Michael Riordan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In order to maintain profits and jobs, the coal industry has been attempting to pivot its coal sales to Asian 

exports from West Coast ports, mainly via Canada. There is no reason to continue these subsidies for such 

exports and thus deprive US taxpayers of the rightful income our nation should expect for use of these publicly 

owned resources. Thus appropriate changes are required in the federal coal-leasing program. 

Comment Number: 0002155_Krupnick_20160622-2 

Organization1:Center for Energy and Climate Economics Resources for the Future 

Commenter1:Alan Krupnick 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our economic analysis concluded the following: 

· Potential leakage from federal to private, state, or international coal supplies should be studied (Gerarden et al, 

2016), as well as interactions with several significant downstream policies. For the latter, two major policies 

affecting coal power plants (and therefore the market for coal) may be finalized/resolved during the study and 

moratorium time period: the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards ruling and the Clean Power Plan (see our 

Comments at 

http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-Rpt-CPPComments.pdf 

Comment Number: 0002158_Kasperik_20160517_StateRep-4 

Organization1:HD 32 Wyoming State Legislature 

Commenter1:Norine Kasperik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And there are emerging, energy-starved markets in Asia that are desperate for the cheap, clean, and affordable 

coal we produce in our state. 

Comment Number: 0002167_Baumgartner_20160629-1 

Commenter1:Laura Baumgartner 

Other Sections: 8.1 8.11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am writing to oppose further development of coal resources in the US, oppose transport of mined coal through 

western states and especially cities to our ports and oppose export of coal for use in other parts of the world. 

Comment Number: 0002170_Garber_20160622-5 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment (UPHE) 

Commenter1:Howie Garber 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Subsidizing coal on public land allows it to be shipped to countries that are already struggling with air pollution 

crises. It ruins US credibility as far as our efforts to improve the climate crisis 

Comment Number: 0002173_Quick_20160622-12

Commenter1:Kendra Quick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-602 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Federal coal produced in Wyoming is used almost exclusively for domestic energy production, with exports 

amounting to less than 2% of total production. Assertions that revenue is being lost on exports are simply wrong. 

Comment Number: 0002175_Woodcock_20160627-6 

Organization1:MSU Department of American Studies 

Commenter1:Jennifer Woodcock-Medicine Horse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

eliminate the coal pipeline to China. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-23

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

WHETHER AND, IF SO, HOW SHOULD, LEASING DECISIONS CONSIDER ACTUAL AND/OR PROJECTED 

EXPORTS OF DOMESTIC COAL FROM ANY GIVEN TRACT – CURRENT PROGRAM HANDLES WELL. NO 

CHANGES NEEDED. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-24

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

WHAT POTENTIAL MECHANISMS COULD BE USED TO APPROPRIATELY EVALUATE EXPORT 

POTENTIAL – CURRENT PROGRAM HANDLES WELL. NO CHANGES NEEDED. 

Comment Number: 0002194_Kneblik_20160518-1 

Commenter1:Terry Kneblik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Keep coal in America and stop shipping it overseas. 

Comment Number: 0002197_Wise_20160519-5 

Organization1:Kiewit Mining Group Inc. 

Commenter1:Dirk Wise 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Consider whether coal from a federal tract would be for domestic or export use- What does it matter if it’s for 

domestic or export use, if it’s generating revenue for this country then it’s a good thing. 

Comment Number: 0002212_Hawk_20160621-1 

Commenter1:Ronald Hawk 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The “export or die” strategy embarked by some coal producers is also doomed to failure. The international coal 

market is oversupplied and global coal producers will continue to face unsustainable low prices and tight margins. 

J.P. Morgan concluded it is “no longer economical to export coal.” This will not change as China’s need for coal 

imports continues to diminish and India implements its new policy of decreasing its coal imports to zero. If Japan 

and South Korea go forward with controversial plans to increase their reliance on coal fired power plants, coal 

producers in Australia, Indonesia, Russia, South Africa and even perhaps China will easily meet the demand at 

lower prices than coal exported from the U.S. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-603

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002264_Jacobson _20160712-1 

Commenter1:SueAnn Jacobson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Montana coal is the cleanest coal. 

It should be exported world wide. 

Comment Number: 0002271_Dafoe_20160714_WAITC-2 

Organization1:Wyoming Agriculture in the Classroom 

Commenter1:Jessie Dafoe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal produced in Wyoming is used almost exclusively for domestic energy production, with exports 

amounting to less than 2% of total. 

Comment Number: 0002282_Bradford_20160719-6 

Commenter1:David Bradford 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

There should be no restriction on the export of coal mined from federal lands. Export markets provide another 

market for U.S. coal companies. The coal resources are just as important to the citizens of foreign countries as 

they are to the citizens of the U.S. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-13

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The reports by both the Inspector General, and the GAO note the recent rise in exports of PRB coal to Asia and 

its growth potential. Both reports have concluded that in making fair market value determinations, it is essential 

that the BLM consider not just the domestic demand for thermal coal (which is currently flat, due to the 

competition of low-priced domestic natural gas), but the robust demand and the substantially higher prices that 

can be obtained for PRB coal sold in the Asian market. (GAO Report, 2013 at 7; IG Report at 7.) UPHE agrees 

that legitimate assessments of the fair market value of 20-year leases of PRB coal cannot be made without 

factoring in the dominant factor that will drive future demand—the potential for export, and the growth of that 

potential, that can be expected over the life of such leases 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-21

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Fair Market Value should be the final price paid by the end user, particularly for exported coal. Basing the 

calculation of royalties on the final price to the end user would have its most beneficial effect if applied to exports 

of PRB coal to Asia because that is where the price paid by the end user (between $70 and $135 per ton) can be 

as much as ten times the mine-mouth price ($13 per ton).

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-22

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 7.4 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-604 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PRB mining companies are now laying the groundwork for massive coal exports to Asia to take advantage of 

the huge subsidy of PRB coal taking place under the current Federal coal leasing program. If DOI does not take 

steps to eliminate that subsidy, the consequence will be additional CO2 emissions in Asia that more than offset all 

the emission reductions that the Obama Clean Power Plan is struggling to achieve domestically. It will not only 

doom the Obama Administration’s climate mitigation goals within the United States to failure, but could undo 

commitments made by 190 nations at the Paris climate summit last December to mitigate climate change. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-24

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Taking into account the sensitivity of both demand(11) and supply to price, he finds that these exports would 

lower the delivered cost of coal by about 12 percent and ultimately lead coal consumption to increase by about 

15 percent. As a result, he estimates, China’s coal consumption would rise by 98 million tons. That is, about 70 

percent of the PRB coal exports would represent net additional coal consumption and GHG emissions. Only 30 

percent of the PRB exports were estimated to displace other sources of coal. The 98-million-ton increase in 

annual coal consumption would emit about 183 million tons of CO2. (Power, T.M., 2013, at 3-4). 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-25

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Dr. Power warns that the decisions that the Northwest coastal communities and the BLM make now will impact 

Chinese energy habits for the next half-century. The below-market export prices that current Federal coal leasing 

rules make possible will encourage China and India to choose coal over renewable energy options that otherwise 

would be price competitive, and will retard the investments in energy efficiency that China has already planned. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-3 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Most alarmingly, subsidizing the price of Federal coal incentivizes speculation in coal leases whereby private 

mining companies seek to obtain 20-year lock-ins of the current subsidized price for purposes of exporting it to 

the countries of South Asia. Those speculators can reasonably expect to sell PRB coal for from five- to ten-times 

the current subsidized price. Shipping massive amounts of subsidized Federal coal to the Asian market can be 

expected to artificially drive down the price of coal from all suppliers to that market. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-38

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 7.4 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As noted earlier, continuing to subsidize PRB coal has the potential to alter the economics of exporting coal to 

South Asia. Subsidizing the price of PRB coal will artificially make exporting this coal to China and India profitable 

where it would not otherwise be. If China and India can count on a long-run supply of underpriced coal from the 

United States, it will increase their use of coal to generate electric power and raise the odds that they will rely on 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-605

Scoping Report 

coal rather than renewable forms of energy as both of these countries race to industrialize. This would 

undermine the commitment that the Administration secured from China in 2015 to cap its reliance on coal after 

the year 2020. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-73

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

(8) Economists Thomas M. Power and Donovan S. Power estimate that with this new infrastructure in place, the 

projected delivery cost of PRB coal to China will be approximately $77.16 per ton. (Power,M., et al, 2013 at 22.) 

The price of thermal coal shipped to the industrial southeastern region of China has fluctuated between roughly 

$70 and $135 per ton over last five years. Id. at 20, Table 1. 

Taking into account transportation costs and other fees and charges, the mine-mouth price of PRB coal could be 

as high as $53.93 per ton--a fourfold increase from the current price—and still be competitive with benchmark 

delivery prices in China and various Asian markets. While international coal prices have declined in recent years, 

the completion of ports along the American West Coast would still make PRB coal exports viable at all but the 

lowest recent prices of coal in southern China. See Center for American Progress, 5 Things You Should Know 

about Powder River Basin Coal Exports, August 18, 2014, available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/237152057/5-

Things-You-Should-Know-About-Powder-River-Basin-Coal-Exports. 

Comment Number: 0002354_Chermi_20160721-2 

Commenter1:Tio Winter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As we mentioned before, the export market, I work for one of the few coal companies that has port 

availability that we aren’t using because we cannot compete on an international market. As we have 

heard from these gentlemen up here, China, Korea, Japan, lead coal importers are going to burn coal. 

It’s better for the environment and the US if they burn our coal. 

Comment Number: 0002382_Ankney_20160721-2 

Organization1:State of Montana 

Commenter1:Duane Ankney 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We have to be behind coal – the mining of 

coal, the burning of coal and what we can do to keep coal flowing not only in the United States but the 

export of coal. They are going to burn coal from somewhere. I was fortunate to be at a dinner in Helena 

a year ago this past February. Where ambassador to China Max Baucus was. He said it’s like a world in 

parody to send this clean burning Powder River Basin coal to the Pacific Rim because how wise can it be 

buying coal from Indonesia, Australia. And that coal does have effects on people. It’s dirty. Powder River 

Basin coal is clean burning coal. 

Comment Number: 0002384_Keane_20160721-1 

Commenter1:Jim Keane 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Japan is building, under construction 37 coal fired power plants. South Korea is 

building 7 more. Now they are going to buy – they are not going to build those power plants and let 

them sit idle. Now Montana and Wyoming and the United States can benefit from the jobs in the fields 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-606 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

of moving and shipping the coal to those plants at a competitive basis or we can let somebody else do it. 

We are always talking about jobs for this country – here is a great opportunity. Somebody is going to 

supply coal to those power plants that are going to continue to run. They are the cleanest ones being 

built right now, why don’t we get on that band wagon instead of just saying, “Hey, let’s stop the coal, its 

bad.” 

Comment Number: 0002443_Koontz_20160727_BowieResources-14

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

although the impact of major federal actions on conditions outside the United States is generally excluded from 

NEPA, it is worth noting that the export of federal coal saves lives and promotes human welfare. Federal coal, 

especially coal that is attractive for export, is often of substantially higher quality and lower ash and sulfur than 

alternative coals that overseas facilities might consume. Developing nations typically cannot afford the 

sophisticated and expensive pollution controls required of U.S. facilities, and thus burning cleaner coal can 

produce immediate and dramatic improvements in emissions. In addition, U.S. coal mines are far safer than many 

overseas mines. For its part, Bowie has an outstanding safety record. To the extent Bowie (and other operators) 

export federal coal, lives are saved 

Comment Number: 0002443_Koontz_20160727_BowieResources-6 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

NMA correctly observes that the export of coal is a tiny fraction of total U.S. production, and is a vanishingly 

small fraction of worldwide coal consumption. Even if U.S. exports were aggressively expanded, they would have 

no material effect on overall federal coal production or no detectible effect whatsoever on worldwide 

consumption. Exports do not provide a rationale to undertake significant revisions to the federal coal program. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-24

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal exports 

With domestic demand for coal shrinking because of aging coal plants, concerns about air pollution and the global 

climate, and low natural gas prices, the coal industry is eyeing Asian power markets as a way to dramatically 

boost their bottom lines. The very companies that BLM is selling our coal to – Peabody, Arch, and Cloud Peak –

are developing export terminals with the intent to export more and more federal coal to U.S. competitors like 

China and India. 

The EIS should disclose impacts associated with exporting federal coal. This includes increased rail traffic and 

corresponding traffic congestion impacts (with associated costs to local communities), the necessary building of 

port facilities, and the corresponding impacts those facilities create. The BLM should also assess the financial 

impacts of coal exports, including increases in energy costs for domestic consumers and depletion of strategic 

federal energy reserves. 

The PEIS should also consider the environmental and socio-economic impacts that come with exporting federal 

coal. For example, exporting millions of tons of coal from the Powder River Basin, or even a small fraction of that 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-607

Scoping Report 

amount, would necessitate massive export infrastructure – such as ports in Washington and Oregon if destined 

for Asian markets. Those impacts, which have never been incorporated or analyzed by the BLM, must be 

examined in the PEIS. See letters from Washington and Oregon (raising these concerns). 

In addition, the dozens of coal trains needed to haul federal coal from federally supplied mines to ports would 

have dramatic and costly impacts on local traffic and infrastructure. The cost to communities in mitigating those 

coal trains congestion and public safety impacts easily adds up to hundreds of millions. 

The GAO report "Freight Transportation: Developing National Strategy Would Benefit from Added Focus on 

Community Congestion Impacts," (September 2014) found that freight related traffic congestion in communities 

resulted in delays and congested road conditions for passenger and emergency response vehicles. Addressing 

those problems is costly and federal funding that is currently allocated for state and local transportation agencies 

does not align with those needs. Communities are left on their own to foot the bill for costly rail congestion 

related infrastructure. (See attachments). 

Coal trains hauling export coal also put other commodity shippers and passenger rail at a competitive 

disadvantage as detailed in Heavy Traffic Still Ahead (attachments). In terms of alternatives, the principal 

alternative to be considered here is whether BLM should ban or otherwise dis-incentivize the export of federally 

leased coal. 

he PEIS should also consider whether allowing coal development for export is consistent with BLM’s often stated 

objective to sell federal coal to private companies “to meet the nation’s energy needs.” (31) Allowing leasing for 

export contradicts this purpose and need, by sending our domestic energy supply overseas. 

(31) See Final Environmental Statement for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications at 1-17;

see also Record of Decision for the North Porcupine Coal Lease Application at 10 (stating the federal coal 

program “provides a reliable, continuous supply of stable and affordable energy for consumers throughout the 

country” and helps to “reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign energy supplies”).

Comment Number: 0002469-1 

Commenter1:Eugenie (Oogie) McGuire 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We should also not allow any energy, whether goal, oil, natural gas or other sources, to be sold overseas. Our 

public lands and the energy resources in them belong to the American public and must be reserved strictly for 

our use, not to feather the nests of corporations. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-13

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As coal consumption for power generation declines domestically, facilitating schemes for coal export threatens to 

undermine climate policy by discouraging efficiency and renewable energy development abroad. As domestic coal 

consumption has declined, exports of Montana federal coal have increased greatly in 2013 and 2014.143 One 

study found that “[p]roposed coal export facilities in the Northwest will result in more coal consumption in Asia 

and undermine China’s progress towards more efficient power generation and usage. Decisions the Northwest 

makes now will impact Chinese energy habits for the next half-century; the lower coal prices afforded by 

Northwest coal exports encourage burning coal and discourage the investments in energy efficiency that China 

has already undertaken.”144
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-608 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

(143) Williams-Derry, Clark, Unfair Market Value II: Coal Exports and the Value of Federal Coal, Sightline 

Institute 

(2016). 

(144) Thomas M. Power, “The Greenhouse Gas Impact of Exporting Coal from the West Coast: An Economic 

Analysis” (July 2011).

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-14

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS process provides BLM both an obligation and an opportunity to make an informed and conscious 

decision as to whether it is consistent with its statutory obligations to subsidize increased coal consumption in 

China by committing to the long-term availability of relatively inexpensive Powder River Basin coal for export 

purposes. The most detailed study to date of the market, consumption, and resulting greenhouse gas 

consequences of Powder River Basin coal export to China assessed the interaction of coal prices, Chinese 

demand and capacity, combustion and transportation impacts, and concluded that PRB coal exports to China 

would (a) lower coal costs for southeastern China coastal markets, increasing the incentive for long-term 

investment in coal-fired generation, and (b) discourage Chinese investment in efficiency and low-carbon energy 

sources.146 The Power export study also noted that, because clean energy technologies are a growing market, 

and coal mining and shipping mature industries with relatively low employment potential, a policy of subsidizing 

raw coal export undermines U.S. investment and economic advantage in less carbon-intensive and more 

employment-intensive clean energy technologies.147 

(146) Thomas M. power & Donovan S. Power, “The Impact of Powder River Basin Coal Exports on Global 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions” 60 (May 2013). 

(147) Id. at 64-70.

Comment Number: 0002481_Brady_20160728_EmeryCntyUT-1 

Organization1:Emery County Commissioner 

Commenter1:Keith Brady 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The focus, nationally, should be on implementation of reasonable measures that make the impact of coal less over 

time. Over the decades Emery County power plants have implemented measures on emissions that has resulted 

in emissions being reduced to less than 1%. The US is the leading innovator in more efficient utilization of coal 

resources, and will continue to be in the future. The federal government should partner with industry to enhance 

the efficiency. For instance, creating a market atmosphere friendly to coal fired electrical generation here means 

the resource is used here in the US where it is considerably more efficient (cleaner, greener) than in other 

nations that are entirely less efficient in their practices. 

Comment Number: 0002481_Brady_20160728_EmeryCntyUT-2 

Organization1:Emery County Commissioner 

Commenter1:Keith Brady 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Exportation of a legal commodity is a function of national and international commerce and is not subject to any 

authority the Department of the Interior may choose to exercise that inhibits or disrupts the exportation of that 

commodity. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-609

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-19

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Notice indicates that the PEIS will address concerns made by stakeholders concerning whether leasing 

decisions should consider actual and/or projected exports of domestic coal, if so, how; and the mechanisms 

needed to evaluate export potential (81 FR 17726). This proposal is out of touch and fails to consider that export 

of coal is very low and costly for operators. The amount of coal exported is so low that the value would not 

yield valid statistical results of potential export. Therefore, until better shipping infrastructure is developed for 

coal producers in the West, thereby increasing export potential, further analysis regarding export forecasts or 

the appropriateness of export considerations in leasing decisions should be eliminated from detailed analysis. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-43

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As part of its PEIS review, BLM proposes to evaluate the extent to which actual and projected coal exports 

should be considered when making coal leasing decisions. Given the unpredictable nature of American coal 

exports, it is hard to see how BLM could at the leasing stage meaningfully predict the nature and terms of any 

export arrangement and how that information would be useful in making a decision on whether to lease any 

particular tract of federal coal. For example, at the leasing stage, BLM lacks the ability to accurately value future 

coal exports. Even BLM itself has recognized this fundamental limitation: “During the coal leasing EIS process, it is 

uncertain who might purchase future PRB coal, how it would be used, and where the coal might be transported 

to.” West Antelope II EIS, at 4-105 (2009). 

The factors that influence coal export potential are highly complex and dynamic. The GAO Report and IG Report 

provide a useful example of one such factor: the fluctuating demand for coal exports. Both reports, published in 

2013, discuss the need to consider the increase of exports as part of BLM’s FMV determination. See IG Report at 

7-8; GAO Report at 36-39. The IG Report provided that 125 million tons of coal was exported in 2012, which 

represented a 100% increase in coal exports since 2007. IG Report at 7-8. Similarly, the GAO Report provides 

that “coal exports have increased in recent years—particularly exports to Asia and Europe . . .” GAO Report at 

2-3. And in 2012, the United States saw an increase in coal exports of 54% over 2010 exports. Id. at 3. 

And while the IG Report and GAO Report propose to increase the significance on coal exports in BLM’s FMV 

determination, more recent trends demonstrate why such a proposal would be ill-advised. In January of 2016, the 

U.S. EIA estimated that total coal exports for 2015 dipped down to 77 million tons of coal, which would 

represent a 21% decline from the previous year. Attachment 9, U.S. EIA, “Coal Production and Prices Decline in 

2015,” (Jan. 8, 2016). Moreover, since coal exports peaked in the second quarter of 2012, coal exports have 

steadily declined. Attachment 10, U.S. EIA, “Quarterly Coal Report” (June 15, 2016). In fact, coal exports have 

declined for twelve quarters in a row. Id. The recent downturn in coal exports due to unpredictable international 

factors is a prime example as to the risk of trying to meaningfully evaluate the coal export potential at the leasing 

stage—especially when calculating FMV—given that BLM may make a leasing decision 5-10 years before coal is 

produced and sold from the lease parcel. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-44

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-610 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

BLM should not consider environmental impacts associated with coal exports in its review of the federal coal 

program. For instance, BLM lacks certainty regarding the international demand for federal coal, the availability of 

adequate transportation to global markets, and the sophistication of emissions controls. To be sure, there is far 

less information available concerning the environmental impacts from coal exports than is known about the 

environmental impacts from domestic coal transportation and combustion. BLM should not account for any 

potential federal coal exports in its analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the federal coal 

program. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-45

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Courts have recognized that fees or taxes that apply to the sale of coal into export markets violate the Export 

Clause. See Consolidation Coal Co. v. United States, 528 F.3d 1344, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding that if the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act reclamation fee was calculated based on the extraction and sale of 

coal, such that it applied to coal exports, it would be an unconstitutional violation of the Export Clause as a tax 

on exports); see also Ranger Fuel Corp. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 466, 467, 469 (E.D. Va. 1998) (holding an 

IRS-imposed coal excise tax unconstitutional and in violation of the Export Clause). 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-39

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is a fungible commodity, and its value is based upon the location, class and quality. This is no different than 

other commodities such as oil, wheat, gold or cotton. The price of commodities are based upon the physical 

location of the particular grade. Therefore the international coal index, the Newcastle price, is based upon 

bituminous coal located in Newcastle, Australia and the PRB 8800 price is based upon 8,800 BTU subbituminous 

coal located in the PRB. For the purposes of royalties and taxation, federally leased coal value should be based 

upon its physical location. Two rail cars of PRB coal at the mine are indistinguishable and should be valued the 

same, regardless of whether or not it is destined for a customer in Illinois or South Korea. The BLM does not 

apply a different valuation for natural gas that is destined for an international market. The BLM needs to consider 

how it values other federally owned minerals and apply the same standard to coal. 

The BLM needs to factor in all of the costs incurred to transport coal to location. Coal sales are consummated at 

the point at which the coal is loaded into the transport vehicle. This is known as Freight on Board sales. For most 

domestic coal sales, this occurs when the coal is loaded into the train at the mine. For export sales, the sale 

occurs when the coal is loaded into the ship at a terminal. Therefore, coal companies must pay for and incur all 

of the various costs to transport the coal to the shipping location. These costs include paying the railroad to ship 

the coal, terminal fees for the company to pay the terminal to unload the trains and load the ship, sales agent 

fees, and demurrage if a ship is delayed in loading, vessel surveys, and export customs fees. Similar to other 

commodities, discounts for quality and distance are applied. Since sub- bituminous coal is less energy intensive 

than bituminous, you cannot ship as many BTU's on the same ship, so a subbituminous discount is applied. There 

is also a discount for the increased shipping distance called the Indonesian Shipping Delta. Coal companies are 

also subject to "take or pay" contracts. This means that if a company is unable to use all of its contracted capacity 

with the terminals or the railroads, they are subject to pay for the costs anyway. Either the company "takes" the 

capacity or "pays" the costs. As the BLM looks at the export prices, they need to consider all costs. The 

difference in export versus domestic prices is created by transporting coal, not any changes to or difference in 

the quality of the coal itself. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-611

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-40

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

3. Coal importing countries such as Japan commonly pay premiums above the market price to ensure a long-term 

supply of energy. Hume, E.T., Japan's annual coal benchmark influence on the wane, Financial Times (April 8, 

2016); [18] (WY0-02158 to 02162). The final price paid is not always based upon market factors, but could 

include political considerations, such as the need for a stable supply to ensure electricity supply reliability. The 

BLM needs to consider how political and energy security factors impact the final price paid for coal. These 

externalities should not impact the valuation of the commodity itself. 

4. The BLM needs to consider how much federally owned coal is exported as a percentage of total coal 

production. Using 2015 figures, this is less than 1% and may be statistically insignificant to warrant a separate 

valuation process. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-73

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Wyoming Infrastructure Authority supported by the DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), 

conducted a GHG LCA for coal exports from the PRB to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. The NETL study was 

performed using an attributional approach to compare the next marginal megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity 

produced from PRB subbituminous coals exported to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan versus coals supplied from 

Australia and Indonesia. Preliminary results of the NETL study are presented in Figures 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 that 

includes a carbon capture pre-commercial option for Japan that uses conventional C02 capture, C02 pipeline and 

underground storage technologies. For the carbon capture option shown in Figure 3.2.2, the kilograms of C02 

equivalent emissions per megawatt-hour (kgC02e/MWh) for use of PRB subbituminous coal in Japan for power 

generation drop from 864 kgC02e/MWh to 111 kgC02e/MWh. 

During review of the draft NETL report a number of significant limitations with the available GHG LCA models 

and data were identified and should be taken into account by BLM in its PEIS review of the federal coal program. 

Many of these limitations were not resolvable before completion of the NETL study and are highlighted within 

the NETL draft report [9] results presentation. (WY0-01558 to 01582). Resolving these limitations is considered 

essential in order for BLM to study both negative and beneficial impacts and to comprehensively and accurately 

determine NCCIBs for the federal coal program. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-9 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 8.11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

iv. Coal Exports 

As the notice of intent to prepare the PEIS emphasizes, the impacts of coal exports are of great concern. To this 

end, the PEIS must fully analyze and assess the reasonably foreseeable impacts of coal exports that may occur as a 

result of future coal management. These impacts include, but are not limited to, the following: 

· Rail-related impacts: The impacts of hauling coal from mines to ports must be analyzed and assessed. The 

impacts that must be addressed include, but are not limited to, the air quality impacts of rail traffic, noise impacts 

of rail traffic, fish and wildlife impacts of rail traffic, and water quality impacts. Such an analysis must take into 

account the potential for spills and/or derailments and the impacts such events may have on land, water, fish, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-612 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

wildlife, and air. 

· Port-related impacts: The impacts of unloading coal from trains, loading coal onto barges and/or ships, 

constructing and/or maintaining port facilities, and the impacts of port operations, including ship, locomotive, 

and/or truck operations must be analyzed and assessed. The impacts that must be addressed include, but are not 

limited to, the air quality impacts of all port operations, including ship, locomotive, and truck emissions, water 

quality impacts (including wetland impacts), and fish and wildlife impacts. 

· Shipping impacts: The impacts of shipping coal, both within waters of the United States and through 

international waters must be addressed. The impacts that must be analyzed and assessed include air quality 

impacts, impacts to water quality (particularly through discharge from ships), and impacts to river and ocean 

species, especially species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 

· Coal unloading impacts at international ports: Just as coal unloading and loading at American ports must be 

addressed, the impacts of unloading coal from ships and loading coal onto trains and/or trucks at international 

ports must be analyzed and assessed. 

· Inland coal transport abroad: The impacts of transporting coal from international ports to facilities must be 

analyzed and assessed. Such an analysis must analyze and assess whether the coal is hauled by rail or by truck, and 

analyze and assess the attendant impacts. 

· Coal combustion abroad: Finally, the impacts of combusting coal abroad must be analyzed and assessed. Such an 

analysis must include, but not be limited to, an analysis of the air quality impacts of coal combustion (including 

greenhouse gas emission impacts), water quality impacts, coal ash disposal impacts, fish and wildlife impacts, and 

impacts to lands. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-60

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM Should Analyze the Direct And Indirect Impacts of Exporting Federal Coal. The activities associated with 

coal leasing dramatically increase air emissions, hazard risk and negative impacts to health. Exporting coal 

exacerbates these affects because export demands more transport, involves greater distances, requires expanded 

infrastructure (e.g., ports), and increases emissions due to often softened regulations overseas related to 

transport and combustion, compared to domestic emissions. The PEIS must analyze the direct, indirect and 

cumulative impacts from these activities. At minimum, the PEIS should analyze the following: Rail-related impacts: 

The cumulative and indirect impacts to wildlife and human health of coal traffic due to exports along the entire 

route from federal lands to existing and contemplated coal ports. Coal can be transported more than a thousand 

miles by rail just to reach this first stop before being shipped overseas. Impacts to analyze include, but are not 

limited to: the air quality impacts of rail traffic, noise impacts of rail traffic, fish and wildlife impacts of rail traffic, 

and water quality impacts. Such an analysis must take into account the potential for spills and/or derailments and 

the impacts such events may have on land, water, fish, wildlife, and air. Port-related impacts: The PEIS should 

analyze the impacts from unloading coal from trains, loading coal onto barges and/or ships, constructing and/or 

maintaining port facilities, and the impacts of port operations, including ship, locomotive, and/or truck operations. 

Specifically, the PEIS must address the air quality impacts of all port operations at each of the US coal ports, 

including ship, locomotive, and truck emissions, water quality impacts (including wetland impacts), and fish and 

wildlife impacts, and impacts to human health and safety. Exporting coal also increases vessel traffic. The PEIS 

should include an analysis of this impact. The PEIS should consider the impacts of foreseeable (proposed) export 

terminals as 64 well as analyze the potential for continued or expanded federal coal leasing to induce 

construction of new coal export terminals, particularly on the West Coast. Shipping impacts: The PEIS should 

analyze the impacts of shipping coal both within US waters and through international waters. Specifically, the 

analysis must include air quality impacts, impacts to water quality (particularly through discharge from ships), and 

impacts to river and ocean species, especially species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act. Coal unloading impacts at overseas ports: The EIS should analyze the impacts of unloading coal from 

ships and loading coal onto trains and/or trucks at Asian, South American and European ports, and wherever else 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-613

Scoping Report 

coal is exported. Coal transport overseas: The PEIS should analyze the impacts of transporting coal from ports in 

Asia, Europe and Latin America to facilities on those continents. This analysis must include impacts of transport 

by rail or truck. Coal combustion overseas: The PEIS must analyze the impacts of processing and combusting coal 

from federal lands. This includes but is not limited to analyzing the air quality impacts of coal combustion 

(including greenhouse gas emission impacts), water quality impacts, coal ash disposal impacts, fish and wildlife 

impacts, impacts to human health and safety, and impacts to lands. The PEIS should analyze the impacts described 

above but should by no means be limited to these impacts. NEPA requires agencies to gather necessary 

information relevant to reasonably foreseeable impacts unless the cost of obtaining the data is exorbitant. To this 

end, the agency must make every effort to analyze and assess these impacts. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-62

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should consider exports in valuing/pricing leases and in deciding whether to issue leases intended for export. 

Coal exports undermine our efforts both to reign in greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce pollution and 

hazards simply by extending and intensifying the coal lifecycle. Scenarios involving higher export volumes have 

correspondingly higher projected greenhouse gas emissions. 233 Offering cheap federal coal leases further 

frustrates efforts to realize national and international climate goals, degrades our shared environment and erodes 

our health; low coal prices are can increase demand and with it, consumption. 234 The PEIS should analyze how 

exporting coal will influence demand, and hence coal consumption both in the U.S. and overseas. 232 See 40 

C.F.R. § 1502.22(a). See Synapse Energy Economics, Analysis of the Tongue River Railroad Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (Sept. 23, 2015), at 15-17, attached as Ex. 43. 234 See id. at 3 (“a new source of coal that has a 

less expensive delivered price than some other coals currently being purchased should ‘shift the supply curve’ for 

coal”). 65 The coal leasing program also breathes life into a declining and damaging industry. 235 As one report 

summarizes, “Coal export is part of the last chance bailout strategy for an industry that is in a state of permanent, 

structural decline.”236 Coal export prices to Asia, and the associated profits, have declined each year for the past 

five years. 237 Over the past four years, since 2012, the amount of coal producers have exported has dropped by 

half, from 125 million tons of coal to an estimated 72.3 million tons. 238 The market is suffering from oversupply. 

239 In addition to oversupply, cheap leases can induce overbuild. Industry has proposed numerous West Coast 

export infrastructure projects over the past few years that would allow for a doubling or tripling of some states’ 

GHG emissions. 240 At the same time, many of the nations that producers seek as export partners are 

transitioning away from coal. For instance, the Indian government, which currently imports coal, has announced a 

policy to reduce its imports to zero. 241 China has been reducing coal production over the past few years and 

has recently announced further steps to shrink its coal industry. These plans include closing 1,000 coal mines in 

2016 alone, while transitioning as many as 1.8 million workers out of the coal and steel industries and into other 

fields. 242 It plans to convert to a greater share of natural gas. And other nations in Asia have the capacity to 

shift from coal to natural gas. 244 These shifts are needed for the world to meet the GHG mandate to keep 80 

percent of all fossil fuels unburned. A decision by BLM to buoy approaches that spur coal burning, by offering an 

abundance of cheap coal for export, steers us away from our joint 235 Testimony of Tom Sanzillo, City of 

Oakland, City Council Hearing, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (Sept. 2015), at 3, attached 

as Ex. 44. 236 Id. at 5. 237 Williams-Derry, Clark, Unfair Market Value II: Coal Exports and the Value of Federal 

Coal, SIGHTLINE, June 2016, at 5, attached as Ex. 45. 238 Testimony of Tom Sanzillo (Ex. 44) at 11. 239 Id. at 7, 

13. 240 See, e.g., Columbia Riverkeeper, et al. Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 

Millennium Bulk Terminals Longview, at 69. 241 Testimony of Tom Sanzillo (Ex. 44) at 11. 242 Sophia Yan, China 

plans to cut 1.8 million coal and steel jobs, CNN Money, February, 29, 2016, available at 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/29/news/economy/china-steel-coal-jobs/ (last visited July 28, 2016) 243 Thomas 

Power, et al., Comments on the Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Modeling of Coal Flows in the Millennium Bulk 

Terminals Longview SEPA Draft Environmental Impact Statement (June 2016), attached as Ex. 46. 244 Id. 66 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-614 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

commitments. 245 The PEIS must evaluate these environmental and economic impacts of coal exports, as well as 

options for limiting export of federal coal. 

Comment Number: 0003048_McBride_J_07122016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:William McBride 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Tho you are doing a good job of multi use of BLM lands and making a little money too, old timers need to 

recognize modern methods of mineral extraction and Wyoming low sulfer coal could help other countries too. 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-14

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

UCARE urges the BLM to analyze and quantify all costs associated with the export of federal coal. These costs 

include environmental contamination caused during transportation via train and cargo ship. The impacts of diesel 

and bunker fuels combustion should be aggregated with effluents from combustion of the coal itself. Recognizing 

that coal has global impacts wherever it is burned, the PEIS should consider requiring that federal coal shipped 

abroad can only be burned at facilities that meet U.S. environmental standards for emissions reduction. 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-16

Commenter1:438596 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is in the country's best interest to incent the export of coal from BLM coal lands. When coal is economically 

viable as an export commodity these exports provide a positive contribution to the nation's taxpayers in a 

number of ways: 

1) The taxpayer is paid a royalty on the coal mined and sold as well as a Bonus Bid when new coal lands are 

leased. This income reduces the tax burden on individuals for the same level of services from government which 

enhances our standard of living or lowers the public debt. As mentioned before the basis for royalty needs to 

continue to be the net back price at the mine loading point to account for the costs to transport the coal to the 

port and port charges along with other costs to move the coal to the market. This method recognizes the 

geographic impacts due to the reserve location. 

2) The sale of coal to other countries increases the demand for coal mined in the United States, which creates 

high quality jobs in the United States along with the income taxes from those jobs and jobs in the support 

industries associated with this production. This reduces the amount of taxpayer money paid out in 

unemployment or indigent support payments reducing the tax burden on individuals and enhancing our standard 

of living. 

3) Export sales improve the balance of payments for the United States and put the nation in a stronger position 

financially. 

4) Generally speaking the types of coal that are exported by the United States tend to be higher quality than 

those in the countries where it is imported. This has the potential to reduce emissions in those countries. 

5) Energy produced by the United States and shipped to our allies provides a stable and reliable source of energy 

to those countries and can reduce their dependence on politically less stable sources. (Specifically Europe and the 

potential to reduce their exposure to gas produced in Russia). 

6) Coal mines in the United States have safety records that are the envy of the world. With few exceptions coal 

mined in the United States results in fewer injuries and fatalities than coal mined in countries that import coal. 

Incenting the export of coal from the United States might displace coal mined with greater numbers of injuries or 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-615

Scoping Report 

death. (Specifically China although the comment applies to other countries as well.) 

7) The United States requires all coal mining operations to meet very high standards with respect to reclamation, 

much more rigorous than many of the nations that import coal. Coal exports from the United States might 

displace coal production from other countries that have less stringent reclamations standards thus netting cleaner 

air and water than the alternative. 

8) Export of coal from the United States to other countries enables them to increase the number of households 

that have electrical power available to them. IEA reported recently that 1.2 billion people do not have access to 

electricity, and that 2.7 billion people do not have access to clean cooking facilities. Coal exports from the United 

States enables countries to expand their electric generation capacity to more households. The World Bank 

indicates that households with access to electricity and clean cooking facilities have longer life spans, so incenting 

coal exports from the United States can result in improving standards of living in countries where imports occur 

and increase life spans. 

Comment Number: 0020056-17

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

NMA correctly observes that the export of coal is a tiny fraction of total U.S. production, and is a vanishingly 

small fraction of worldwide coal consumption. Even if U.S. exports were aggressively expanded, they would have 

no material effect on overall federal coal production or no detectible effect whatsoever on worldwide 

consumption. Exports do not provide a rationale to undertake significant revisions to the federal coal program. 

Comment Number: 0020056-3 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Finally, although the impact of major federal actions on conditions outside the United States is generally excluded 

from NEPA, it is worth noting that the export of federal coal saves lives and promotes human welfare. Federal 

coal, especially coal that is attractive for export, is often of substantially higher quality and lower ash and sulfur 

than alternative coals that overseas facilities might consume. Developing nations typically cannot afford the 

sophisticated and expensive pollution controls required of U.S. facilities, and thus burning cleaner coal can 

produce immediate and dramatic improvements in emissions. In addition, U.S. coal mines are far safer than many 

overseas mines. For its part, Bowie has an outstanding safety record. To the extent Bowie (and other operators) 

export federal coal, lives are saved. 

Comment Number: 002501_Ring_20160728-5 

Organization1:Climate911 

Commenter1:Wendy Ring 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

The US should have enough clean energy in 20 years that domestic coal is no longer needed. We should not 

endanger our lands and people to export coal to other countries. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-25

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the event that conditions improve and increased export capacity becomes available, WMA believes that federal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-616 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

coal mined and sold to international buyers should be treated similarly to domestic buyers. In Wyoming, coal 

producers pay an average of 40% of the sales price of coal in taxes, fees and royalties. Revenue generated from 

these amount to over $1 billion annually to state and local governments. Expanded markets for federal coal 

mined in Wyoming are in the financial interest of the state, as well as the federal government pursuant to the 

Mineral Leasing Act. Exported coal historically demands a higher sales price because it includes the transportation 

costs which are paid by the producer. This is different than the situation for coal sold domestically where 

transportation costs are paid by the customer. For the coal producer, these higher sales prices do not necessarily 

translate to higher profits on exported coal. WMA encourages the agency to avoid measures that would act as a 

disincentive to exporting federal coal to include raising costs, regulatory barriers or implementing arbitrary 

“social costs of carbon” standards. These actions would be contrary to the agency’s charge of responsible 

management of the resource. 

Comment Number: 000001294_Peterson_20160623-4 

Organization1:GCC Energy 

Commenter1:Trent Peterson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Leasing decisions based on export potential. This is really a social responsibility topic. U.S. coal mines are the 

safest, most efficient, and most environmentally sensitive coal mines in the world. Limiting export potential is a 

clear statement that we're not interested in the social welfare anywhere but in the U.S. It's an [indiscernible] at 

its worst. And if anything, is a good argument for increasing U.S. export potential. 

Comment Number: 0000870_erickson_CitizesCoalCouncil-1 

Organization1:Citizens Coal Council 

Commenter1:Aimee Erickson 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Even though the coal industry has seen a significant decline over the last decade, we can't ignore the reality of the 

United States is the fourth largest source of coal exports in the world. Of those exports, the majority of our coal 

is headed to Asia. Joby Warrick in a Washington Post article put it most 

aptly: "Each shipment highlights what critics describe as a hypocrisy, underlining U.S. climate policy: While 

boasting of pollution cuts at home, the United States is facilitating the sale of large quantities of governmentowned coal abroad." To make it abundantly clear, continuing the mining and export of government owned coal is 

making a statement to the world where our priorities lie and most importantly it goes against President Obama's 

Climate Action Plan. By the Bureau of Land Management not taking into account the effects of coal exports on 

global warming, you are undermining global efforts to address climate change. In yesterday's USA Today article 

on the West Virginia floods, it stated that climate change may have added to this disaster. According to the 

National Climate Assessment, the part of the U.S. that includes West Virginia has seen a 71 percent increase in 

extreme precipitation since 1958. We are exporting our pollution and that pollution is not only still contributing 

to global climate change, but its local effects are impacting poor and vulnerable populations. Now is the time to 

take a serious stance on climate change and protect the most 

vulnerable. 

ISSUE 5.9 - COAL RECLAMATION 

Total Number of Submissions: 90 

Total Number of Comments: 107 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-617

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000104_Lindlief Hal_National Wildlife Association_ 20160517-2 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Brenda Lindlief Hal 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal companies have promised to be good stewards and reclaim public lands but have left taxpayers facing the 

prospect of having to pick up the tab for reclamation, have left workers without jobs and benefits and have left 

wildlife habitats fragmented and uninhabitable. 

Comment Number: 00000110_Goran_ 20160517-2 

Commenter1:Sarah Goran 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A significant percentage of mine land has not yet met full reclamation requirements. 

Comment Number: 00000117_Clem_Cambell_County_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Scott Clem 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

For those who slam our reclamation and claim that coal mining hurts wildlife and pollutes our environment, 

you're relying upon environmental propaganda. Come and experience it yourself. Come to Gillette, Wyoming. 

Comment Number: 00000139_Craft_20160517-2 

Organization1:Wyoming Coal Company 

Commenter1:Lecia Craft 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The statement that the mines are not completing the required reclamation is completely false. Black Thunder has 

approximately half of all their disturbed land in permanent reclamation. The reclaimed land is being grazed by 

local ranchers and are more productive than native lands. Wildlife is abundant including a herd of elk frequently 

seen grazing on the reclamation. Black Thunder and many other mines have been recognized for outstanding 

reclamation achievements by a number of agencies including the Office of Surface Mining and the State of 

Wyoming. 

Comment Number: 00000143_ Short_20160517-3 

Commenter1:Robert Short 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Apparently, very little effort has been made to evaluate the positive aspect of mining lands that are reclaimed to 

an improved state, which provides outstanding wildlife habitat, recreation activities, and agricultural benefit 

Comment Number: 0000068_Smitherman_20160517-5 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Dan Smitherman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We also need to make sure that companies reclaim their past mines before getting the opportunity to open up 

new mines. Cleaning up lands should not be the responsibility of the American people and reclamation means 

more jobs. 

Comment Number: 0000078_Neal_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Dan Neal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-618 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I hope you'll consider regulations that will hold the lessees responsible for conducting full reclamation so these 

lands are restored to use for the state and its residents into the future and to do what you can to find ways to 

make certain that companies meet their obligations, pension and healthcare obligations to the people who 

worked for them so long 

Comment Number: 0000085_Kresich_ 20160517-1 

Organization1:Yellowstone Bend Citizens Council 

Commenter1:Joan Kresich 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

The costs to taxpayers for the broken leasing program are $1 billion a year in lost revenues. What could that one 

billion do? Many of us feel that it should fund a strong program for coal communities to identify what will help 

them thrive as the coal markets continue to decline. We also feel that one billion needs to fully fund reclamation 

which is currently way behind and the good dependable jobs that go with reclamation. That one billion can help 

mitigate the growing effects of climate change that we're all suffering. 

Comment Number: 0000086_Bean_ 20160517-1 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Larry Bean 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

First, new leasing should not be allowed until there's catch-up on the existing reclamation needed. This may 

sound like a drastic idea, but there are 20 years left in the ground to mine, and it's a good opportunity to hire a 

lot of good-paying jobs in reclaiming that resource. 

Comment Number: 0000086_Bean_ 20160517-3 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Larry Bean 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There should also be a requirement that reclamation planning begin in earnest at the time of the lease and even 

designs of the extraction be considered in a way that reclamation can begin as soon as any portion of the lease is 

completed, not waiting for the whole lease to complete and then start a phase. 

Comment Number: 0000093_Barteaux_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Wendy Barteaux 

Other Sections: 8.6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Institute a minimum bid. Don't allow self-bonding and require coal companies to reclaim old and current leases 

before buying new leases. Promising to pay for reclamation currently disturbed lands with future supposed profits 

constitutes a Ponzi scheme. 

Comment Number: 0000099_Wilbert_ 20160517-6 

Commenter1:Kim Wilbert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Unfortunately, coal companies have been permitted to self-bond rather than paying for real insurance that would 

cover reclamation costs after mining was complete, which now means that taxpayers will likely have to pay 

hundreds of millions of dollars to restore these mine lands to a usable condition for wildlife and ranching. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-619

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000500_Williams_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Tom Williams 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Winning bids should also put up the money necessary for reclamation so that we are not forced to clean up after 

these companies 

Comment Number: 0000511_Pfister_WesternOrg of Resource Councils_20160517-2 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Successful reclamation, of course, includes success with water, something that has been very elusive, and 

something BLM has not wanted to consider when it proposed land for leasing and mining. Montana will have 

something resembling its previous surface, but Wyoming may have immense holes in the ground, either dry pits 

or slowly filling versions of Butte's Berkley Pit. 

Comment Number: 0000511_Pfister_WesternOrg of Resource Councils_20160517-3 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Some of the mine plans when regarded from a more sober time show disregard of when reclamation would take 

place---in some cases many years. I do not know how those plans met the standard of contemporaneous 

reclamation. 

Comment Number: 0000511_Pfister_WesternOrg of Resource Councils_20160517-7 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Perhaps BLM should collect some costs to carry on reclamation at the end of the lease, since it appears that 

companies can swindle the states with impunity, and if the states decide not to attempt reclamation, BLM could 

wind up with the big holes in the ground and no recompense. BLM is already on the hook with its current leases 

Comment Number: 0000511_Pfister_WesternOrg of Resource Councils_20160517-8 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should not grant any more coal leases until the reclamation is caught up on the leases that are outstanding 

Comment Number: 0000543-2 

Commenter1:Dianna Moesh 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Require coal companies to provide adequate funds for cleanup of toxic sites 

Comment Number: 0000552-2 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-620 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Also, the leaser is supposed to have funds set aside to restore the land when finished. These funds need to be put 

in place and untouchable by the coal company when the lease is awarded. 

Comment Number: 0000609-1 

Organization1:Nothern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Beth Kaeding 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Despite federal and state laws that mandate reclamation following coal strip mining, it is not happening. There is a 

woeful lack of evidence of contemporaneous reclamation and/or reclamation success as measured by bond 

release throughout the West. Coal strip mines have been operating in Montana for more than 40 years. But as of 

September 2015, of the 41,005 acres that have been disturbed by coal strip mining operations, only 20,290 acres 

have achieved Phase I reclamation and bond release (backfilling, re-grading, topsoil replacement, re-contouring, 

and drainage control) and, even worse, only 491 acres in all of Montana have achieved final Phase IV bond release. 

By the way, bond amounts are woefully inadequate, and in this time of coal company bankruptcy, the lack of 

proper bonding - or even worse, the practice in some states of self-bonding - means that the taxpayer could once 

again be stuck with cleaning up the messes left by corporations who take their profits and run. 

Comment Number: 0000611_Leahy_NMWF-5 

Organization1:New Mexico Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Todd Leahy 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is worthy of note that the diversity of plant species, an important indicator of wildlife habitat, on reclaimed land 

is significantly less than on untouched lands. Additionally, plant areas that are reestablished have more invasive 

and non-native species than undisturbed lands. For example, a study of undisturbed sagebrush steppe lands found 

100 to 130 unique species in 24 sample plots of 50x10 meters. In contrast, the mining and reclamation plan for 

Cloud Peak's Antelope Mine in Wyoming covered only 30 species in its regeneration seed mixes. BLM must 

consider that native sagebrush-grassland steppe plant communities can require up to 60 years for natural 

development 

Comment Number: 0000770_Clarke et al (PETITION)_20160623-6 

Commenter1: Petition 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ensure coal companies with current leases fully comply with all environmental standards, including full and 

concurrent reclamation compliance, before they are allowed to lease again. 

Comment Number: 0000827-1 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Sarah Bates 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

No new leases until coal companies are held accountable for complete reclamation of federal lands they have 

mined. 

Comment Number: 0001181-2 

Organization1:Green Peace 

Commenter1:Britten Cleveland 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-621

Scoping Report 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need to put in place reforms that hold coal companies accountable for cleaning up mine sites so that the 

significant reclamation cost and responsibility isn't left to taxpayers. This should include denying any future lease 

applications for coal companies that have failed to reclaim mine sites and/or taking back undeveloped leases if 

applicable -- applicable and if they fail to make it on their reclamation commitments. 

Comment Number: 0002142_Briggs_20160602-4 

Organization1:Converse County Auto Repair 

Commenter1:Mike Briggs 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I have personally hunted on lands next to mine sites, area of mine sites that been reclaimed, in and around oil 

fields and even next to oil pump jacks. These lands have been either owned by the B.L.M. or personal property. 

Never have I personally witnessed any major impact on wildlife or habitat. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-2 

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Other Sections: 2 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our proposal for how this program would work is outlined in detail below and contains the following major 

elements: 

· Planning for new coal offerings set by DOI based on accurate analysis of coal reserves and demand. 

· Financing for the coal industry provided by a combination of private sector borrowing, and public sector asset 

transfers of coal, revenue and market guarantees, and regulatory streamlining. 

· Coal prices set by a committee made by a federal-state coal price Commission, with a pricing structure that 

takes into account the need to maintain affordable and reliable electricity and to adjust to changing market 

conditions. 

· Eliminating the self-bonding system for coal mine reclamation, replacing it with a program in which coal 

producers and the federal government share responsibility for clean-up and in which royalty payments are set 

aside to cover liabilities (and to provide for pensions for coal miners). 

· Regular bi-annual external audits of the program by the inspector generals of the Department of Energy and the 

Department of the Interior. 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-3 

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is also imperative that coal companies reclaim public lands that they have developed to mitigate the land and 

water impacts of coal mines and to assist communities in transition through the jobs which reclamation work 

provides. 

Comment Number: 0002150_Nagle_20160629-2 

Organization1:Carnegie Mellon University 

Commenter1:John Nagle 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As a citizen who wants coal users to pay for the public resources they extract, I believe that this program has 

been a give-away to coal companies, especially because they have often not reclaimed the land. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-622 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-3 

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The idea that the mining companies are not completing their reclamation is simply not true. It is in the best 

interest of the mining companies to complete reclamation as closely behind mining as possible. Direct hauling 

topsoil from the pit advance directly to the backfill avoids re-handling costs. It is the Wyoming Land Quality 

Division’s responsibility for verifying that all mines are meeting their reclamation commitments in their permit 

document. Not meeting the requirements would result in a notice of violation. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-4 

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

While bond release acres may be low, it takes many years after final reseeding of topsoil to meet bond release 

requirements. I would not be far off to estimate a 10 year period. During that time the grasses need to 

reestablish themselves enough to support livestock grazing, and the reclamation must meet diversity and shrub 

requirements. Vegetation monitoring will have occurred several times and supplemental seeding may have to 

occur to meet requirements. Supplemental seeding essentially restarts the clock. Getting final bond release is not 

an easy process to succeed at. But that does not mean that reclamation is not occurring. Changes to the selfbonding program will surely encourage coal companies to pursue more bond release. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-8 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Brian Resnick discussed how financial obligations related to reclamation are treated in bankruptcy proceedings. 

He noted that the ranking of these obligations are not specified in bankruptcy law, but generally speaking, 

reclamation does not have priority as compared with other debts (particularly debts to secured creditors and 

others with collateral). That said, most buyers will consider reclamation obligations when coming up with a 

purchase price for the company. Resnick also discussed the types of investors that are now buying coal 

companies or stakes in coal companies that have gone bankrupt. He noted there is a good deal of variation in 

terms of the types of companies (e.g., privately owned vs. publicly owned) and their reasons for investing in this 

sector. 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-14

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Sweetwater County Coal Mines and Power Plant - Good Community Neighbors: 

Within Sweetwater County, the Jim Bridger and Black Butte Coal Mines and the Jim Bridger Power Plant have 

consistently been good community neighbors. These industries have excellent environmental compliance records, 

have worked within the Sweetwater County Planning and Zoning permitting processes and have been leaders in 

the industry in regards to reclamation and environmental compliance. 

Comment Number: 0002173_Quick_20160622-13

Commenter1:Kendra Quick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-623

Scoping Report 

Many opponents claim that mines are not being reclaimed. This cannot be further from the truth. Mine 

reclamation in the PRB is an ongoing process that takes place simultaneous with mining activities. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-30

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

WE HAVE DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB OF RECLAIMING THE LAND AND HAVE WON MANY AWARDS 

FOR IT. THIS IS A NON ISSUE. 

> THERE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS THAT THERE ARE LOOP HOLES AND LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, 

BUT AS THE DOI KNOWS, THE AUDITING PRACTICE IS OPEN AND TRANSPARENT. 

Comment Number: 0002220_Andersen_20160601-3 

Commenter1:Nicole Andersen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Make the coal companies pay per ton towards reclamation (use a model similar to unemployment insurance). 

Comment Number: 0002239_Baierlein_20160621-6 

Organization1:Conservation Northwest 

Commenter1:Jeff Baierlein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal program should positively ensure mining firms conduct and pay for environmental restoration, rather 

than passing on cleanup expenses to taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0002254_Simmons_20160707-1 

Commenter1:Patricia Simmons 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reclamation of already mined lands is woefully inadequate and clean up must be required of any company wanting 

to bid on market prices of coal. 

Comment Number: 0002269_Holubec_20160715-10

Commenter1:Allen Holubec 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The operator must spray for invasive weeds during entire time of reclamation 

Comment Number: 0002269_Holubec_20160715-6 

Commenter1:Allen Holubec 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reclamation – 

a. How do you quantify compensation for externalities such as the environmental damage? 

b. Companies must reclaim to the Approximate Original Contours using native vegetation 

c. Companies must include weed spraying in reclamation calculations 

Comment Number: 0002271_Dafoe_20160714_WAITC-4 

Organization1:Wyoming Agriculture in the Classroom 

Commenter1:Jessie Dafoe 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-624 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Once mining begins, reclamation begins as well. It starts with the careful stockpiling of topsoil, a critical Wyoming 

resource. As the coal is removed, the resulting void is then backfilled with overburden and contoured in 

accordance with the approved reclamation plan. Topsoil is replaced and approved seed mixtures are then sowed. 

Unique and critical wildlife habitat, productive grazing and pastureland, and valuable stream and aquatic resources 

are created and restored in the process. 

Comment Number: 0002276_Henderson_20160715_350Colorado-5 

Organization1:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Commenter1:Gina Hardin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reforms need to ensure that coal producers are required to fully cover costs of land reclamation and 

environmental remediation. Additionally, irresponsible producers should pay a substantial penalty (in addition to 

the full cost) if land reclamation and environmental remediation is not undertaken within reasonable time, is not 

effective or is not completed. Costs of land reclamation and environmental remediation should not be 

transferred to taxpayers and to future generations. The program's policies and guidelines need to be crafted with 

the coal industry's history of environmental damage and avoidance in mind to protect against continuation of 

these practices by current and future coal producers. 

Comment Number: 0002293_Niemi_20160606-2 

Commenter1:Sharman Niemi 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Bureau of Land Management is (or should be) well aware of the commendable manner in which mined areas 

in the west are reclaimed following coal extraction to support regrowth of natural vegetation and wildlife. 

Comment Number: 0002296_Regan_20160720-2 

Commenter1:David Regan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal companies need to be held to account for cleaning up the land after it is mined out 

Comment Number: 0002316_Boeschenstein_CoGovernments_20160722-3 

Organization1:City of Grand Junction 

Commenter1:Bennett Boeschenstein 

However, our concern is about more than revenue, it’s about the businesses and Coloradans who have 

contributed to our thriving $13.2 billion outdoor recreation economy. Visitors from across the country and 

around the world come to see our public land. The review should ensure that mines get cleaned up, lands are 

returned to original conditions and any future mining does not threaten wildlife habitat, our air, our water 

resources. 

Comment Number: 0002323_Gordon_20160722-2 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Other Sections: 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At the PEIS hearing in Seattle, June 21, 2016, several people spoke. 

A spokesman for NW Steelheaders said 80% of the oysters larvae die in Netarts Bay and only 10% of the coalmined land in Wyoming is reclaimed. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-625

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002333_Magagna _20160725_WyStockgrowers-3 

Organization1:Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Commenter1:Jim Magagna 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

While our ranching lands undergo significant disturbance during mining, they are often made more productive by 

the careful reclamation undertaken by the mining companies. 

Comment Number: 0002386_Cherni_20160721-1 

Commenter1:Brian Cherni 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Cloud Peak Energy is actively reclaiming mined lands on a continual basis.Preserving, protecting, and reclaiming 

the environment is as much of our day to day business as sending a coal train down the track.In fact, part of our 

permit that allows the mine to operate is an approved reclamation plant complete with 

plans to retopsoil, revegetate, and return the land to what it was before.Our permit also requires a reclamation 

bond to gurantee the financial liability of the reclamation process. The reclamation process goes through four 

stages ofbond release. Phase 4 bond release for final reclamation can not be granted until all mining activities are 

complete within the entire designated drainage basin. 

Today at Spring Creek, approximately 25% of the land at the mine is used for facilities and will not be 

reclaimed until the end of mine life. About 50% of the land is within the active mining area, and approximately 

25% of the land at Spring Creek is under reclamation. That accounts for over 1200 acres of reclaimed mine land, 

one third of which has been issued Phase III bond release, the firest in the state of MT. 

Comment Number: 0002387_Wolff-Bowen_20160721-1 

Commenter1:Linda Wolff-Bowen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

after living in Rosebud/Treasure Counties all of 

my life is that the coal companies have done an outstanding job of reclaim. They've even 

cleaned-up the Foley Brothers' Coal Company's messes. Nee: the pits east of Colstrip. 

Nee: In the 50's, 60's and 70's, Colstrip kids did have the cleanest, safest fishing hole in 

all of eastern Montana. 

Comment Number: 0002390_Pfister_20160721-4 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In point of fact, if strip mining is the proposed method of removal, the surface owner in that case 

really should not expect to either get his land back within his lifetime or even see it with bond 

released for successful reclamation. Successful reclamation, of course, includes success with 

water, something that has been very elusive, and something BLM has not wanted to consider 

when it proposed land for leasing and mining. Montana will have something resembling its 

previous surface, but Wyoming may have immense holes in the ground, either dry pits or slowly 

filling versions of Butte's Berkley Pit. 

I believe BLM could have had quite a bit of control on how mine plans were laid out even before 

leasing the coal reserve, so that reclamation could have proceeded in a much more 

contemporaneous manner with mining. When many of these mine plans were presented to 

Montana and Wyoming, there was a sense of hysteria in the air to catch the money on the fly. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-626 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Thoughts of planning for reclamation were as elusive as butterflies. 

Some of the mine plans when regarded from a more sober time show disregard of when 

reclamation would take place---in some cases many years. I do not know how those plans met 

the standard of contemporaneous reclamation. The states were overwhelmed and over impressed 

by guys in suits with slide rules and calculators. 

With the bankruptcies currently floating through the coal industry, BLM may be getting some of 

the biggest holes in the world back into its possession. It will be a cold day determining multiple 

use for some of the pits. 

Comment Number: 0002390_Pfister_20160721-6 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The funds to reclaim the mines 

should be available, but apparently they are not. Companies that had the best reputations are 

offering the states a few cents on the dollar for the reclamation costs incurred. Perhaps BLM 

should collect some costs to carryon reclamation at the end of the lease, since it appears that 

companies can swindle the states with impunity, and if the states decide not to attempt 

reclamation, BLM could wind up with the big holes in the ground and no recompense. BLM is 

already on the hook with its current leases. 

BLM should not grant any more coal leases until the reclamation is caught up on the leases that 

are outstanding. The mines across the West are far from the standard of contemporaneous. This 

one standard alone would raise a howl of outrage from the industry, but the outstanding question 

is what has become of the money that should have been being spent on reclamation thus far? 

BLM needs to find out. I suspect it is not a pretty story. 

Comment Number: 0002393-5 

Commenter1:Mike Penfold 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There is also the large back log of destroyed land and water that must be restored. 

Only 14% of mined land has been restored. Mine plans must be scrutinized to ensure 

timely reclamation. 

Comment Number: 0002438-1 

Commenter1:Kathy Heffernan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

coal companies must be required to fully reclaim the land they mine. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-17

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Indeed, due to challenges of restoring native habitat in the arid west, no mined areas have been able to reclaim 

pre-mining conditions – topography is gentler, shrub density lighter, and water balance is changed. (163) Soil 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-627

Scoping Report 

storage is often a problem, with nutrients leaking from soils and/or becoming deposited within nutrient hot spots 

on soil storage sites. The result is that when soil is reapplied to mining sites, areas are either too nutrient rich or 

too nutrient poor to support native vegetation, and the vegetation fails. (164) Non-natives and invasions are often 

primed to outcompete native plants, and weeds will quickly establish themselves on mined areas. Even in areas 

where natives are planted and take hold, the overall diversity of plants do not match pre mining conditions, 

lessening habitat quality. (165) 

(163) Id. at 25 

(164) Id. at 26-28.

(165) Id. at 28-29. 

Water balance on sites is also extremely difficult to reclaim. Groundwater tables are often disturbed and 

lowered, impacting stream flow and timing, drying up wetland areas, and reducing water availability for plants. 

Coal mining also can cause long term water pollution and sediment issues. (166) With climate change altering 

hydrological cycles and resulting in conditions favorable for invasives, the challenge of establishing pre-mining 

conditions gets steeper. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-34

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

 Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal leasing on federal land has high external costs that are not being borne by the industry. Major areas of 

failure include basic compliance with environmental safeguards, particularly reclaiming mined land that serves as 

important habitat for wildlife; protecting the public through adequate bonds that are third party backed and keep 

clean-up costs from being passed on to the public; and failure to account for the high and increasing costs of 

carbon pollution associated with every life-cycle phase of federal coal mining. 

As a particularly apt example, a recent report has found that reclamation – a basic requirement of mining– suffers 

from chronic failure, particularly in the west where the vast majority of federally leased coal in mined. (76) The 

report finds that coal companies in the west are not fully reclaiming mines to final standards, and the public faces 

increasing long-term liability for massive reclamation costs of up to $2 billion and damage to landscapes, wildlife 

and crucial water supplies. More specifically, after decades of mining, of the 450 square miles of disturbed mined 

land in Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming, only 46 square miles has met the final reclamation requirements 

for final phase III and IV bond release. (77) This calls into question the industry’s prospects and capabilities of 

successfully reclaiming the harsh, brittle and arid ecosystems of western states. 

(76) Alexis Bonogofsky, Amanda Jahshan, Hillary Yu, Dan Cohn, Margie MacDonald, Undermined Promise II 

(National Wildlife Federation and Natural Resources Defense Council 2015), available at 

http://www.underminedpromise.org/UnderminedPromiseII.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-45

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Surface coal mining is an extraordinarily destructive process. Although SMCRA requires that land be reclaimed 

contemporaneously with mining, the alarmingly weak financial state of coal companies mining federal coal raises 

serious questions about the companies’ capacity to fulfill reclamation requirements. Currently, in nine states, 

reclamation self-bonds can be secured by assurances or assets that may not be available in the event of a 

reclamation claim. 

Even for reclaimed sites, the true value of these lands compared to pre-mining conditions is questionable. While 

some sites may achieve vegetation coverage – the type of vegetation needed that is essential to support premining – native habitats may take decades to become re established. For example, reclaiming mined lands to 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-628 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

sagebrush habitat for sage grouse may take between 15-60 years to develop native shrub communities 

comparable to pre-mining conditions. (162) 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-55

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal law and related state laws require reclamation to begin as contemporaneously as practicable. (154) 

Contemporaneous reclamation promotes environmental protection of land and water resources by: minimizing 

the length of time lands are disturbed, maintaining stable, non eroding mine sites; reducing fugitive dust from 

unvegetated areas; and helping to achieve productive post-mining land uses. (155) Specific requirements vary 

from state to state, but are generally similar to the federal law outlining the phases of bond release. 

(154) 30 C.F.R. § 816.100. 

(155) Western Organization of Resource Councils, Coal Mine Reclamation and Bonding Fact Sheet (May 2011), 

available at http://www.worc.org/userfiles/file/Coal/Coal_Mine_Reclamation_&_Bonding.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002450_Trainor_20160727-2 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Michael Trainor 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

With regards to the environment impacts of mining, consideration must be given to how reclamation is currently 

regulated. Through the ussuance of bonds and the dilligence of mining companies, reclaimed lands are often more 

productive and have less invasive species than before being mined. Mining companies understand that reclamation 

is a critical part of their license to mine. 

Comment Number: 0002457_Johnson_20160728-3 

Organization1:Western Slope Conservation Center 

Commenter1:Alex Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

- Require the highest degree of reclamation standards, full bonding (not self-bonding) for future reclamation 

activities, requiring thorough analysis of all impacts to air, water and wildlife prior to issuing new leases. 

Comment Number: 0002459_Ball_20160728-3 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Connie Ball 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Surface mining destroys the environment for wildlife and reclamation, if done, still takes decades if not longer for 

the restoration to come close to the original flora and fauna. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-15

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Every year, OSMRE prepares oversight reports on state programs implementing SMCRA which analyze state-
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-629

Scoping Report 

wide trends regarding contemporaneous reclamation. OSMRE evaluates the effectiveness of a state program 

achieving reclamation success based on the number of acres that meet the standards for phases of bond release 

and acres that have been released from bond. BLM should fully consider these reports in the scope of its PEIS 

and solicit additional information from OSMRE as necessary to disclose the current reclamation status of mines 

with federal coal leases. 

Specifically, the reports on the Wyoming program, where the largest amount of federal coal is being mined, show 

that contemporaneous reclamation requirements are not being met because of a growing gap between disturbed 

and reclaimed acreages, delays in reclamation activities, failure to achieve bond release, and operational emphasis 

on production over reclamation. These reports affirmatively demonstrate that, on average, the rate of land 

disturbance is much greater than the rate of reclamation for PRB coal mines. OSMRE has stated that “the data 

shows that the State program may not be fully effective in its goal of having all disturbed lands reclaimed to the 

approved post-mining land use as contemporaneously as possible.” Annual Evaluation Summary Report For The 

Wyoming Regulatory Program (OSMRE 2009) at 9. OSMRE concludes that “...there could be delays in backfilling 

and grading or permanent seeding operations due to the mines’ operational emphasis on coal production over 

reclamation.” Id.

The risks and impacts associated with the failure to complete these reclamation obligations must be thoroughly 

examined in the PEIS. The PEIS should also disclose the reclamation and bond release status of all mining 

operations. BLM must also assess how long land uses will be impacted (e.g. what is the expected time frame for 

reclamation and the area to re-gain access for grazing, hunting, and recreational purposes?). These impact 

analyses should be site-specific and cumulative on a regional basis. (23) 

(23) As identified by BLM’s sister agency, OSMRE, bond release status is the most objective 

measure of reclamation success. For example, in Wyoming bond release is tied to restoration progress, and the 

operator is not eligible for final bond release until re-vegetation standards have been met, pre-mining productivity 

has been re-established, and pre-mining surface and groundwater quality and quantity (including groundwater 

recharge capacity) have been restored. See Wyo. Land Quality Regulations Ch. 15 § 5. 

Assessing the status of reclamation is fundamental to BLM’s responsibilities to limit coal leasing to those 

circumstances that are in the public interest. 30 U.S.C. § 201. Federal law makes contemporaneous reclamation a 

pre-requisite to coal leasing. Leasing and the right to mine coal that it conveys is allowed only where reclamation 

can and does occur. 30 U.S.C. §1202(c) (purpose of SMCRA is to “assure that surface mining operations are not 

conducted where reclamation as required by this Act is not feasible.”). The success and failure of coal companies 

to reclaim land previously mined is a critical factor in BLM’s determination whether to lease more coal. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-31

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is critical that before new leasing, BLM ensure that previously leased lands fully comply with SMCRA, the Clean 

Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and other environmental requirements governing coal mining and development. 

However, beyond these legal requirements more often met by EPA, OSMRE, and state agencies, BLM has an 

independent duty to assess impacts and corresponding mitigation measures pursuant to its mandates under the 

MLA, FLPMA, and other statutes. This is especially true for areas mining federal coal, where SMCRA and FCLAA 

has given the Department of Interior special management obligations under federal mining plans and resource 

recovery and protection plans (R2P2s). In sum, the new federal coal leasing regulatory framework must minimize 

and mitigate adverse environmental impacts of mining federal coal reserves. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-630 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-58

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Timely and effective reclamation practices are essential to protecting land and water resources, minimizing the 

length of time lands are disturbed, maintaining stable non-eroding mine sites, reducing fugitive dust from 

unvegetated areas, and achieving productive end land uses. Inadequate reclamation has substantial adverse 

impacts, including the spread of noxious weeds, decreased air quality as a result of a larger area of disturbance, 

less water restoration, and a longer loss of livestock and wildlife pastureland. Absent ensured contemporaneous 

reclamation, land may not be able to be restored “to a condition equal to or greater than the ‘highest previous 

use’” as required by Federal and state laws. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-63

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Facilitating reclamation 

As noted, NEPA requires agencies to consider appropriate mitigation measures, which include “[r]ectifying the 

impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment,” “[r]educing or eliminating the impact 

over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and/or “[c]ompensating for 

the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20. 

Certain mining sites are more difficult to successfully remediate, and a tract’s design is critical to facilitating 

successful remediation. To fulfill mitigation requirements under NEPA and other statutes, under this alternative 

BLM would consider establishing additional unsuitability criteria focused on insuring that remediation can be 

adequately completed, and additional design criteria to ensure that tract design best aligns with remediation 

objectives. 

BLM would also consider subjecting lease tract design to public comment, including from neighboring landowners, 

allowing the public the opportunity to weigh in on whether lease design could be improved to ensure reclamation 

timeliness and success. 

Comment Number: 0002470-15

Organization1:Taxpayer for Common Sense 

Commenter1:Ryan Alexander 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM must review its bonding regulations and practices to determine whether current arrangements will 

adequately cover reclamation costs in the event of default. Reclamation costs must be reviewed to keep pace 

with current development costs. And BLM must change self-bonding practices to ensure that companies have 

assets adequate to cover all unreclaimed leases. 

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) requires coal mining operators to restore all 

land affected by their operations and to post a bond to cover reclamation costs if they fail to restore the land.17 

With many coal companies financially stressed, the ability of BLM to implement the law’s bonding requirements, 

particularly in allowing “self-bonding,’’ is questionable.

(17) P.L. 95-87 - August 3, 1977, Section 509(c) 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-631

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-53

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 11 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Develop a program to hire mine workers for restoration and rehabilitation beyond the mine site. BLM should 

also propose a program to employ the skills of mine workers in restoration and rehabilitation of public lands, 

aimed at both improving resilience of public lands in the face of climate change and their ability to mitigate climate 

change through biological sequestration. 

Over the last several decades, the federal government has invested in programs to address job losses and 

improve environmental conditions in local areas. BLM should look to, learn from, and improve upon past 

examples like the watershed restoration and the “Jobs-in-the-Woods Program” from the 1990s and its 

contemporary incarnations. (69) 

(69) Christopher E. DeForest, 1999. Watershed restoration, jobs-in-the woods, and community assistance: 

Redwood National Park and the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-449. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 31 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr449.pdf. Last accessed, July 26, 2016. See also, Ecotrust, “Investing in 

natural assets for the benefit of communities and salmon” brochure, http://www.ecotrust.org/media/WWRIRestoration-Economy-Brochure.pdf describing current economic benefits of restoration for Oregon 

communities. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-6 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should strengthen requirements for companies bidding on leases to ensure that they have sufficient 

financial resources and technical expertise, have not been cited for violations of environmental regulations in 

connection with other operations, and have been fulfilling reclamation obligations in connection with other 

operations. Further, BLM should not issue leases to companies that already have ten or more years of reserves. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-7 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

No new mining should be permitted if there is not a reasonable likelihood reclamation needs and requirements 

will be met in a reasonable amount of time. The public should not have to wait for generations for its lands to be 

reclaimed. As provided for by SMCRA, reclamation should occur contemporaneously with mining, and this should 

be required by BLM-issued documents, as well. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-8 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Achieving successful, contemporaneous reclamation of lands disturbed by coal mining is a central feature of 

SMCRA and it should therefore be central to the analysis in the PEIS. The MLA and the BLM’s coal mining 

regulations also call for ensuring successful reclamation. The PEIS should therefore ensure that strong 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-632 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

reclamation requirements are in place for the federal coal mining program, by rulemaking if necessary. The BLM 

should seek to meet a goal of restoring the land to the condition it was in prior to mining. As mentioned in the 

recommendation above, the BLM should prohibit self-bonding as a means to meet coal mining reclamation 

obligations on the federal mineral estate. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-43

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining in Wyoming has a temporary impact on livestock and wildlife grazing and management. Wyoming 

surface coal operators reclaim lands in a timely manner and in compliance with the permitted mine and 

reclamation plans. Wyoming has primacy from the OSMRE for regulating compliance of these mining operations. 

Mine and reclamation acres for coal operations in Wyoming as of January 1, 2016 are: 169,639 disturbed acres, 

90,214 acres (53%) in active mining/facilities or partially reclaimed; 79,425 acres (47%) reclaimed through final 

seeding; and 38,000 acres (22%) in agricultural or hay production. Wyoming operators have received national 

recognition for their excellence in reclamation in 7 out of the past 10 years and range from shrub establishment 

to stream channel design and function. Wyoming has been and continues to be a national leader in reclamation of 

disturbed lands and places high importance on returning reclamation to livestock grazing, agricultural production 

and wildlife habitat in a timely manner. 

Successful reclamation in Wyoming is at least two times more productive than pre-mine native rangeland and 

provides a valuable mechanism for carbon capture and sequestration which must be evaluated by BLM in the 

PEIS. See Wick, et al., Aggregate and organic matter dynamics in reclaimed soils as indicated by stable carbon 

isotopes, Soil Biology and Chemistry, pp. 1-9 (2008); (WY0-02814 to 02822); and Stahl, et al., Accumulation of 

organic carbon in reclaimed coal mine soils of Wyoming (2003); (WY0-02824 to 02836). Reclamation of surface 

mines can provide an avenue for atmospheric C02 to be captured as organic carbon in the soil and vegetative 

community. See Ganjegunte, et al., Accumulation and composition of total organic carbon in reclaimed coal mine 

lands, Land Degradation and Development, 20: 156-175 (2008); (WY0-02838 to 02857); and Miyamoto, et al., 

Long-term effects of mechanical renovation of a mixed-grass prairie: II. Carbon and Nitrogen Balance, Arid Land 

Research and Management. 18:141-151 (2004); (WY0-02869 to 02880). Reclaimed surface mine soils not only 

capture significant levels of carbon but also provide higher levels of organic nutrient storage, and thus vegetative 

biomass, allowing for additional carbon capture. These factors show the importance and benefits reclamation, and 

subsequent management of soil and vegetation has on the carbon cycle. Id.; (WY0-02869 to 02880); McDermot 

c, Elavarthi S., Rangelands as carbon sinks to mitigate climate change: A review, Earth science & climate change, 

5:8 1-12 (2014); (WY0-02882 to 02893); and Rhoades et al., Carbon Sequestration of Surface Mine Lands, 

Department of Forestry, University of Kentucky, Department of Soil Science, North Carolina State University; 

(WY0-02895 to 02916). 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-4 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 4.5 2 8.1 8.7 8.5 7.1 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

2. Just Transition Alternative 

The “Just Transition Alternative” is meant to both wind down the federal coal program in order to keep fossil 

fuels in the ground and to ensure an orderly, effective, and fair transition of workers and communities away from 

coal to more prosperous and sustainable economies. The “Just Transition Alternative” is defined by the following 

key components: 

1. An end to federal coal leasing: Consistent with authorities and discretion under the Mineral Leasing Act, the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-633

Scoping Report 

Just Transition Alternative imposes a permanent pause on the leasing of federal coal. The primary basis for 

adopting this permanent pause would be to ensure the protection of the public interest and the interests of the 

United States. Such justification for an end to leasing is clearly supported by the Mineral Leasing Act. 

This pause would apply to all competitive leases (including all leases by application, including emergency leases, as 

defined by 43 C.F.R. § 3425.1-4) and lease modifications. We further believe there is ample justification for 

applying a permanent pause to other forms of non-competitive leasing, such as preference right lease applications 

and lease exchanges. With regards to lease exchanges, the BLM has clear authority to reject exchanges that are 

not in the “public interest.” 43 C.F.R. § 3435.4(a); see also 43 C.F.R. § 3436.0-2(b) (related to alluvial valley floor 

exchanges) and 43 C.F.R. § 2200.0-6 (generally related to exchanges). With regards to preference right lease 

applications, the BLM has the authority to reject such applications where there does not exist “commercial 

quantities” of coal. 43 C.F.R. § 3430.5¬1(a)(1). Given the dismal state of the coal industry and the overwhelming 

climate costs that coal imposes on society, it would be dubious at best to claim that any commercial quantities of 

coal exist where there are preference right lease applications. Accordingly, the BLM has the authority to reject 

such applications. (20) 

Furthermore, to ensure an orderly end to federal coal leasing, the BLM and the Department of the Interior 

should issue a rule or guidance requiring that as land management planning is undertaken pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 

1610, et seq., that all lands within a resource management area that are not currently leased for coal, be made 

unavailable for leasing. The authority to impose such direction is set forth at 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e), which gives 

the BLM broad discretion to “eliminate additional coal deposits from consideration to protect other resource 

values.” 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e)(3). 

(20) The only preference right lease applications that exist are in northwestern New Mexico, where Arch Coal, 

which is currently bankrupt, has the rights to acquire 21,000 acres of leases. Legislation was introduced in the 

U.S. House of Representatives that would allow the Secretary to retire these preference right lease applications. 

See HR-1820, available online at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1820/text. If this 

legislation is passed, there would be no additional preference right lease applications requiring action. We 

support this legislation and urge the Secretary of the Interior to encourage its passage in the U.S. Senate and 

adoption into law. 

Putting a permanent pause on leasing will not destroy the U.S. economy or otherwise endanger our energy 

security. As a recent report looking at leasing in the Powder River Basin found, existing leased reserves in the 

Powder River Basin are sufficient to meet demand and effectively contribute to limiting temperature increases. 

(21) This report is instructive as the Powder River Basin is the largest coal producing region in the United States 

and imposes the greatest influence on energy supply and demand in the nation. If an end to federal leasing can be 

justified in the Powder River Basin, it can be justified for federal leasing elsewhere in the U.S. 

21 See Exhibit 11, Fulton, M., D. Koplow, R. Capalino, and A. Grant, “Enough Already: Meeting 2oC PRB Coal 

Demand Without Lifting the Federal Moratorium,” Report Prepared for Energy Transition Advisors, Earth Track, 

and Carbon Tracker Initiative (July 2016), available online at http://www.carbontracker.org/report/enoughalready-2c-powder-river-basin-coal-demand-federal-moratorium/. 

2. Increased royalty rates and rentals: Coal is exacting a tremendous toll on our nation, costing our society 

billions in climate damages, adverse health impacts from air pollution, and water contamination. Royalty rates 

from production on existing coal leases and rentals on existing leases must be increased to begin to recoup the 

costs of these externalities, which are currently shouldered by the public. 

Although royalty rates are normally imposed through new leasing, we recommend that the Interior Department 

and BLM incorporate higher royalty rates into existing leases as existing leases are readjusted pursuant to 43 

C.F.R. § 3451.1. To accomplish this, we urge the amendment of 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-2(a)(1) and (2) to incorporate 

increased royalty rates for both surface and underground mining. As leases are readjusted, these royalty rates 

must be applied to existing leases pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3451.1(a)(2). 

Increasing royalty rates has been recommended by the White House as both a means to generate revenue and 

address the costs of environmental externalities, including carbon costs. (22) 

(22) See Exhibit 12, Executive Office of the President of the United States, “The Economics of Coal Leasing on 

Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers” (June 2016), available online at 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-634 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160622_cea_coal_leasing.pdf. 

Furthermore, royalty rate reductions should not be approved. Currently, royalty rate reductions are routinely 

granted as companies claim poverty or difficulty in mining with little apparent scrutiny as to whether the 

reductions are justified. In Colorado, for example, BLM officials have approved royalty rate reductions to facilitate 

methane venting and most recently proposed to approve a retroactive royalty rate reduction for a mine that was 

not even producing coal. (23) See Exhibits 13 and 14. 

Similarly, we urge Interior and BLM to amend 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-1(a) to raise rental rates for federal coal leases. 

Currently, rental rates are set at $3.00 per acre, a figure that has not been adjusted since 1979, if not earlier. This 

rental rate not only has failed to be adjusted to account for inflation, but fails to account for the fact that some 

leases may be of small acreage, yet yield significant amounts of coal. Rentals should reflect the value of the lease, 

which depends on the amount of coal a lease contains. In accordance with 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-1(a), any increased 

rental rate must be applied to any readjusted coal lease. 

3. Existing leases that are not producing must be canceled: Where a lease is not meeting continued operation 

requirements under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.1(a)(2), it is subject to cancellation pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3452.2. Where a 

lease is not meeting continued operation requirements, BLM and the Interior Department should make clear that 

cancellation of the lease must be pursued. To this end, discretionary avenues for avoiding cancellation should be 

prohibited. Thus, lease suspensions under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.3 and payment of advanced royalties in lieu of 

continued operation under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.4 should be barred. 

The justification for imposing such direction is very clear. Currently, BLM regularly grants lease suspensions and 

allows payment of royalties in lieu of continued operation with no assessment of whether such actions are 

appropriate or in the public interest. BLM appears to be under the impression that lease suspensions or advanced 

royalties are somehow mandated, and that the agency has no choice but to approve company requests. An 

egregious example of this is with regards to Arch Coal’s Carbon Basin Lease in southern Wyoming (No. WYW139975). Arch acquired this lease with the aim of developing a mine to fuel a proposed coal to liquids facility. 

However, this coal to liquids facility has never materialized or even shown any promise of materializing. Most 

recently, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality terminated the permit for the proposed facility. 

(24) Nevertheless, since 2010, Arch has failed to meet continued operation requirements. The BLM has allowed 

Arch to maintain its lease, however, by routinely allowing the company to pay advanced royalties in lieu of 

continued operation. (25) These decisions appear to be pro forma in nature, and do not reflect any consideration 

as to whether it is appropriate or remotely in the public interest to accept advance royalties in lieu of continued 

operation. 

(24) See Exhibit 15, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, “Permit Termination, Medicine Bow Fuel 

and Power Coal to Liquid Project” (June 27, 2016).

(25) See Exhibit 16. 

Furthermore, where an existing lease is not producing, yet is part of a producing logical mining unit, BLM and the 

Interior Department should use their discretion to modify the boundaries of logical mining units to eliminate the 

non-producing lease and facilitate its cancellation. BLM has such discretion under 43 C.F.R. § 3478.1. 

Cancelling leases that are not producing will serve the goal of preventing any potential future development of 

existing leases and contribute to an orderly end to the federal coal program. 

4. Accounting for carbon costs in coal management: It should be made clear, whether through new rules or 

guidance, that carbon costs must be analyzed, assessed and disclosed as federal coal management decisions are 

made. Such decisions are most likely to include mining plan modifications issued pursuant to the Mineral Leasing 

Act, 30 U.S.C. § 207(c), and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (“SMCRA”), 30 C.F.R. § 746, and 

lease readjustments. It is imperative that the BLM and Interior maintain close accounting of the carbon emissions 

and costs resulting from its coal management actions, to ensure full transparency around these emissions and 

costs, and to meaningfully act to address these emissions and costs. Particularly given that, pursuant to authorities 

under the Mineral Leasing Act and SMCRA, the Secretary of the Interior has full discretion to disapprove mining 

plans authorizing the development of leased federal coal, it is imperative that carbon emissions and costs factor 

into and influence such decisionmaking. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-635

Scoping Report 

5. Reclamation must be guaranteed: To ensure an orderly end to the federal coal program, full and final 

reclamation must be guaranteed within a reasonable timeframe. We urge two regulatory changes to ensure this 

occurs. 

First, Interior should amend regulations at 30 C.F.R. §§ 816.100 and 817.100 to provide clarification and 

specificity around contemporaneous reclamation. Current rules are vague and fail to ensure that reclamation 

proceeds in a manner that is as “contemporaneously as possible” with mining in accordance with 30 U.S.C. § 

1202(e). These regulations should be amended to make clear that the success of contemporaneous reclamation 

must be measured based on a comparison of Phase III bond release acres, as defined under 30 C.F.R. 

§ 800.40(c)(3), with disturbed acres and ensure that reclamation proceeds at a 1:1 rate, in other words for every 

acre disturbed, one acre should be fully reclaimed to meet Phase III bond release standards. 

Second, just as current BLM rules require diligent development of federal coal, these rules should also require 

diligent reclamation. To this end, Interior and BLM should consider rule changes to ensure that nonproducing 

coal leases are fully reclaimed within two years of failing to meet continued operation requirements and set 

deadlines for the full reclamation of federal coal leases that are no later than 2035. This reclamation deadline 

should be established by rule and incorporated into lease terms as leases are readjusted. 

Finally, Interior should amend self-bonding regulations at 30 C.F.R. § 800.23, and any other regulations, as 

appropriate, to prohibit self-bonding whenever publicly owned coal is permitted to be mined. This will ensure 

that, as coal companies continue their decline, that American public resources are fully protected and fully 

guaranteed to be cleaned up. 

6. Prioritizing transition: Above all, the BLM and Interior must make transition away from coal a foremost goal as 

the federal coal program comes to an end. To do this, the agencies should not only explicitly commit, to the 

extent possible, their leadership, resources, and expertise to ensure that workers and communities receive the 

support and assistance they need to transition to more sustainable and prosperous economies. Among the 

actions that Interior and BLM can and should undertake to ensure transition: 

-Work to secure Congressional authorization to direct increased royalty and rental payments toward worker 

and community support. Under NEPA, agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate 

reasonable alternatives “not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(c). Here, although 

BLM and Interior may not be able to direct royalties toward transition support, they can recommend that 

Congress pass legislation that provides such authorization. 

-Establishing an Economic Transition Fund, which would be sustained by an increase in reimbursement fees 

charged by the Interior Department when processing coal-related applications. Under the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (“FLPMA”), Interior has authority to recover reasonable costs associated with its coal 

management program and to appropriate and spend such monies. Specifically, FLPMA provides the Secretary of 

the Interior with authority to “require a deposit of any payments intended to reimburse the United States for 

reasonable costs with respect to applications,” including coal lease application. See 43 U.S.C. § 1734(b). Such 

payments are “authorized to be appropriated and made available until expended” by FLPMA. Id. Funds from the 

Economic Transition Fund should be directed toward transition-oriented initiatives. 

-Prioritizing support and assistance to help communities transition. In addition to securing funds and making them 

available, the Department of the Interior can play a key role in helping direct communities to support, steering 

resources to support conservation and research projects in or near communities, encouraging renewable energy 

development on public lands. Such leadership could be conveyed through a Secretarial Order that simply makes it 

an overarching priority of the Interior Department to advance transition 

Overall, the Interior Department and BLM must move to keep our publicly owned coal in the ground. However, 

keeping coal in the ground should not mean that we turn our backs on the workers and communities that have 

been dependent on coal for so long. Embracing an alternative that ensures “Just Transition,” in other a fair, 

compassionate, and orderly transition away from coal, is the most effective way to both protect our climate and 

help our nation effectively move to more sustainable economies and reliable and affordable means of energy 

production. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-636 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002506_Nichols_20160729-5 

Organization1:Wild Earth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reclamation must be guaranteed: Your Interior Department must not only ensure that coal companies can pay 

for the reclamation of their mines, but also accomplish reclamation where they are mining publicly owned coal. 

We urge you to ensure deadlines for full and final reclamation are established and enforced to ensure that as the 

federal coal program winds down, effective clean up does not lag behind. 

Comment Number: 0002513_Lish_20160707-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Christopher Lish 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A comprehensive review of the federal coal program 

must ensure that coal companies clean up their pollution caused by mining and coal ash disposal. 

Despite the low lease fees, coal companies are in debt and relying on self-insurance. They are 

then walking away from the remaining pollution when they go bankrupt. Even worse, as some of 

the world’s largest coal companies file for bankruptcy protection, coal executives are reaping 

millions of dollars’ worth of compensation packages while laying off coal workers and dumping the 

costs of clean-up and reclamation on taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-9 

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS Should Evaluate Unmet Reclamation Obligations The PEIS also must examine the impacts of federal coal 

leasing in light of the coal industry’s general failure to meet obligations to reclaim mined land. The Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act (“SMCRA”), 30 U.S.C. §§1201-1328, establishes minimum federal standards for the 

regulation of coal mining. Pursuant to SMCRA, most states have primary coal-mine permitting authority under 

state regulatory programs that satisfy those minimum standards. One key component of an application for a 

permit to mine is the “reclamation plan.” Id. § 1258. SMCRA requires the operator to restore the affected land 

to a condition capable of supporting the uses it could support before mining, or to “higher or better uses.” Id. § 

1265(b)(2). The operator must also: restore the approximate original contour of the land by backfilling, grading, 

and compacting; minimize disturbances to the hydrologic system by avoiding acid mine drainage and preventing 

additional contributions of suspended solids to nearby streams and other water bodies; “insure that all 

reclamation efforts proceed in an 217 Id. at 8-13. 218 See id. at 13-18. 219 Id. at 18. 60 environmentally sound 

manner and as contemporaneously as practicable with the surface coal mining operations;” and establish a 

permanent vegetative cover in the affected area. Id. § 1265(b). In addition, “after a surface coal mining and 

reclamation permit application has been approved but before such a permit is issued,” the operator must furnish 

a bond for the area of land on which mining will occur during the five-year permit term. Id. § 1259(a). “The 

amount of the bond required for each bonded area shall depend upon the reclamation requirements of the 

approved permit; shall reflect the probable difficulty of reclamation giving consideration to such factors as 

topography, geology of the site, hydrology, and revegetation potential, and shall be determined by the regulatory 

authority.” Id. The Secretary of the Interior may approve state programs that authorize “self-bonding” where 

“the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority ... a history of financial solvency and 

continuous operation sufficient for authorization to self-insure or bond such amount or in lieu of the 

establishment of a bonding program.” Id. § 1259(c). Eighteen states currently allow self-bonding. 220 Coal-mine 

operators almost universally fail to meet SMCRA’s reclamation standards, and increasingly fall short of their 

bonding obligations. The National Wildlife Federation, Western Organization of Resource Councils, and Natural 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-637

Scoping Report 

Resources Defense Council published a report in 2015, “Undermined Promise II,” documenting reclamation and 

enforcement failures under SMCRA. 221 Of 287,442 acres of disturbed land in Montana, North Dakota and 

Wyoming, only 29,673 acres have achieved Phase III bond release, demonstrating successful establishment of 

vegetation and soils to satisfy permit requirements for post mining land uses. 222 257,769 acres—or more than 

400 square miles—remain unreclaimed by federal standards. In addition, reclamation that is accomplished often is 

inadequate to restore pre-mining conditions, particularly hydrologic and habitat conditions. “Mining always alters 

the ecosystem – topography is gentler, shrub density is lighter, water balance is altered. The long term and 

cumulative impacts of coal mining and reclamation are significant and often permanent.”223 While reclamation of 

mined land historically has been inadequate, the problem is exacerbated by the dismal state of current coal 

markets and financial insolvency of coal producers. According to the most recent data reported by the States, 

outstanding self-bond obligations total approximately $3.86 billion. Of that total, $2.4 billion is held by coal 

companies currently or recently in bankruptcy. 224 As OSMRE observed, this raises “a concern about whether 

disturbed coal mines will be reclaimed by the bankrupt companies; whether the 220 Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Notice of availability of petition to initiate rulemaking and request for comments 

on the petition, 81 Fed. Reg. 31,880 (May 20, 2016). 221 National Wildlife Federation et al., UNDERMINED 

PROMISE II (June 2015), attached as Ex.40. 222 UNDERMINED PROMISE, at 7 223 Id. at 25. 224 Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Notice of availability, 81 Fed. Reg. at 31,880. 61 bankrupt 

companies will abandon their legal obligations to restore impacted lands and waters; whether the costs to 

restore the land and water will be shifted to taxpayers; and, whether the existing regulations are adequate to 

protect people, communities, and the environment as envisioned by Congress when it enacted SMCRA.”225 

Further, because coal companies have been allowed to self-bond so many acres of disturbed land, they have 

acquired significant leverage over state regulators desperate to avoid permit forfeitures and the associated 

transfer of reclamation liability to the state. BLM echoed these concerns in the NOI, observing that given the 

state of the coal market, many stakeholders have expressed concern over the practice of “self-bonding” and 

noted that the combination of depressed market conditions and reluctant enforcement of existing regulations 

threaten to put states and taxpayers on the hook for coal companies’ unfunded reclamation obligations. 226 In 

response, BLM specifically sought input as part of the PEIS process on whether it should “[p]rohibit or otherwise 

limit leasing to entities that are not meeting their environmental responsibilities, such as ... Entities that have not 

met their reclamation or bonding (including bond release) requirements.”227 Consistent with BLM’s NEPA 

obligation to take a hard look at the economic and environmental consequences of its proposals, BLM must 

acknowledge the current state of the market—and the hundreds of millions of dollars of under-funded “selfbonds” held by companies currently in bankruptcy—and explain how BLM’s proposals could impact the economic 

effects of its considered alternatives, particularly the risks to taxpayers and states of continued reliance on selfbonding practices for coal mines situated on federal lands. Further, the PEIS must examine the environmental 

impacts of mining federal coal in light of the coal industry’s overall failure to meet SMCRA’s reclamation 

standards—a situation that is worsened by the proliferation of self-bonding and financial instability of the coal 

industry. The Secretary of Interior should take action to prohibit financially vulnerable companies from utilizing 

“self-bonds,” including those that emerge from the recent spate of coal company bankruptcies. In the short term, 

however, OSMRE need not tie its action to the federal coal leasing PEIS process. On July 20, 2016, Sierra Club, 

Earthjustice, and nine other organizations submitted extensive comments to OSMRE in response to a call for 

public comments on a petition to initiate changes to existing self-bonding regulations. 228 Additionally, Sierra 

Club and more than thirty other organizations submitted similar comments on the same rulemaking on July 14, 

2016.229 As explained in those comments, extensive reliance on self-bonding puts taxpayers in an unnecessary 

and dangerous position. OSMRE should step in to correct this situation by 225 Id. at 31,881. 226 Notice of 

Intent, 81 Fed. Reg. 17,724. 227 Id. at 17,727. 228 Letter from Sierra Club et. al to Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (July 20, 2016), attached as Ex. 41. 229 Letter from Powder River Basin Resource 

Council et. al to Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (July 14, 2016), attached as Ex. 42. 62 

taking immediate action under the existing regulations to transition self-bonded mine operators towards surety 

bonds or other financial instruments held by third parties. The federal SMCRA statute authorizes self-bonds, but 

only where the regulator determines that there is “a history of financial solvency and continuous operation 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-638 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

sufficient for authorization to self-insure or bond such amount.” 30 U.S.C. § 1259(c). The statute’s emphasis on 

the regulator’s discretion means that self-bonding may be authorized, but it is not mandatory. Furthermore, selfbonding should be available only in limited circumstances. The federal bonding regulations underscore this point 

by emphasizing that a “regulatory authority may accept a self-bond from an applicant for a permit if all of the 

[specified] conditions are met by the applicant or its parent corporation guarantor.” 30 C.F.R. § 800.23 (emphasis 

added). Like the enabling statute, the regulations are clear that even where a mine operator or its guarantor 

satisfies all of the enumerated financial conditions, the regulator nonetheless retains the discretion to deny an 

application for a new or renewed self-bond and require the use of a different form of bond. SMCRA and its 

implementing regulations provide the regulatory authority with “case-by-case discretion to consider factors 

particular to a case which may indicate, for instance, that even though the applicant meets the general 

qualifications of the self-bonding rules, past behavior tending to undercut the soundness of the applicant, or other 

factors, may dictate refusal.” 48 Fed. Reg. at 36,420. OSMRE should immediately release additional guidance to 

state regulators clarifying that due to the extremely high risk of insolvency within the coal mining industry at this 

time, self-bonding is not appropriate, even for companies that satisfy the 30 C.F.R. § 800.23(b)(3) criteria. In 

particular, OSMRE should emphasize that operators who have emerged from bankruptcy within the last five years 

are not eligible for self-bonding, even if they—or a separate guarantor—otherwise satisfy the specified criteria. 

Insolvency and bankruptcy represent precisely the sort of “past behavior” that OSMRE has determined should 

render an operator ineligible for self-bonding. In the longer term, among other changes, OSMRE should revise its 

existing regulations to ensure that the financial fitness tests are strong enough to ensure that only truly sound 

companies qualify for the practice. 230 As explained in that letter, “recent history clearly demonstrates the 

financial fitness metrics in the current regulations do not properly ensure that only healthy, stable companies with 

low risk of bankruptcy can self-bond. The regulatory financial fitness tests should be thoroughly rewritten to 

ensure that self-bonded companies are financially sound enough to live up to their cleanup commitments.”231 

While OSMRE is responsible for ensuring that coal companies meet their reclamation obligations under SMCRA, 

BLM must consider the implications of the coal industry’s enduring 230 Sierra Club et. al letter to Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement at 5 (July 20, 2016) (Ex. 41). 231 Id. 63 failure to satisfy those 

obligations—a failure likely exacerbated by the industry’s financial instability—in its analysis of the environmental 

consequences of the federal coal program. F. The EIS Must Analyze the Impacts of Federal Coal Exports and the 

Implications of Under-Valued Coal Federal coal leasing affects the environment at each stage of the coal lifecycle, 

from exploration, extraction, and transport, to processing and use. Coal export expands and intensifies this 

lifecycle. Exports can also effect coal price and increase coal consumption. NEPA requires that federal agencies 

consider the reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect impacts of their actions, even if the extent of these 

impacts is not known. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8; see also Mid States Coal. for Progress, 345 

F.3d at 549-550 (finding that the agency should examine the rail project’s reasonably foreseeable effect of 

increasing coal consumption). Consequently, the PEIS should analyze the impacts of allowing federal coal export, 

consider exports in its coal-price valuation, and, given the adverse impacts of coal exports, consider whether to 

lease federal land where the coal is likely bound for international markets. 

Comment Number: 0003007_MasterFormF_WEG-3 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ensuring the industry pays: Reforms need to hold coal companies fully accountable to expeditiously cleaning up 

their mining operations, ensure companies pay their fair share to the American public while they wind down their 

operations, and eliminate any and all loopholes or breaks that let the likes of Arch and Peabody put the cost of 

coal on American taxpayers. 

Comment Number: 0003008_MasterFormG_NWF-1 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-639

Scoping Report 

Coal mining on our public lands involves huge risks and harm to wildlife and other resources. Coal companies 

haven't been paying their fair share or living up to their responsibility to clean up their messes. Now coal 

companies are using bankruptcy to walk away from their promises to reclaim our public lands. They're walking 

away from wildlife protections. 

Comment Number: 0003010_MasterFormI_PhysiciansSocialRespon-6 

Organization1:Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition, a comprehensive review of the federal coal program must ensure that coal companies clean up their 

pollution caused by mining and coal ash disposal. Despite the low lease fees, coal companies are in debt and 

relying on self-insurance. They are then walking away from the remaining pollution when they go bankrupt. 

Comment Number: 0003015_MasterFormN2_WORC-3 

Organization1:Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Holding mining companies accountable to clean up what they’ve already mined before giving them any more 

public coal. 

Comment Number: 0003050_Heath_20160729-1 

Commenter1:Soulin Heath 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal mining process in of itself is destructive to the surrounding areas not just limited only to the mine site. 

The burdensome costs related to the mass cleanup of coal and other mines historically has all too often ended up 

on the shoulders of the tax paying public while the profits have been gained by just a few. Then to add insult to 

injury, when the 'public' land's lease is up, the land is usually not useable by the owners (the public) and is 

dangerous, and polluted. Oftentimes mines have had hazardous pollutants leach into or drain into public and 

municipal waterways and not only is the mine site on said 'public' land rendered hazardous it can and probably 

will negatively affect surrounding areas by emitting toxic runoff (and may be gasses into air also) into waterways. 

further Furthermore, the public's liability and future usability of the land after the lease is up should be far more 

considered when deciding any land lease, particularly for any extractive uses. 

Comment Number: 0003051_Taylor_20160729-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Bruce Taylor 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal companies are all under major financial stress due to low commodity prices. Their business plan will be 

to mine the coal, take the money, and leave the cost of clean up to the tax payers. 

Comment Number: 0003300_MasterFormU_WVP-2 

Organization1:Western Values Project 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ensure coal companies with current leases fully comply with standards for full and concurrent 

reclamation compliance, before they are allowed to lease again. 

Comment Number: 0020001_Murnion_20160712-1 

Organization1: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-640 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:David Murnion 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The present methods of reclamation of strip mines land is inadequate. 

Comment Number: 0020008_Hoem_20160712-4 

Commenter1:Harold Hoem 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reclamation. The BLM should consider and evaluate what a company's history has been in reclaiming land. The 

company should not be given any new leases until reclamation of already mined land has been completed. The 

industry’s record on reclamation, particularly regarding water, is dismal. The reclamation record has not been 

contemporaneous, and damage is not being effectively ameliorated. 

Comment Number: 0020013_Hyndman_20160712-4 

Commenter1:Donald Hyndman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition, MT mining companies reclamation record is dismal and not keeping up with their mining. 

Comment Number: 0020014_Coppager_20160712-1 

Commenter1:R. Coppager 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is evident that the Powder River Basin coal mine operators are not performing their required amount of mined 

lands reclamation 

Comment Number: 0020016_Willims_20160712-5 

Commenter1:Raymond Willims 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Leases should not be granted to companies who have failed in reclamation of prior leases. 

Comment Number: 0020017_Devlin_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Juliane Devlin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Cleanup and reclamation must be monitored and completed 

Comment Number: 0020023_Baer_20160712-4 

Commenter1:Carl Baer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reclamation lags way behind mining and like other extraction industries they drag it out as long as they can if they 

do it at all. 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-12

Commenter1:438596 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should not have any responsibility with regards to determining the operator's position with respect to 

reclamation. This is covered by the mining permit. Mining permit oversight is conducted by individual State 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-641

Scoping Report 

agencies with OSM oversight. Within existing regulations mining companies are required to maintain 

contemporaneous reclamation and can be forced to curtail operations should they fail to achieve acceptable 

reclamation within specific timelines. 

Additional stipulations or regulations by the BLM in this area would only add confusion to the process that 

already exists to address reclamation and in my mind would result in lawsuit after lawsuit to clarify the 

differences that would undoubtedly result from a duplicate set of regulations in this area. 

Comment Number: 0020043-2 

Organization1:Unitarian Church 

Commenter1:Barbara Davenport 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal companies should be responsible for clean up and remediation. 

Comment Number: 0020052-10

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Commenter1:Barbara A. Walz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The long term benefits that coal mining can have for the environment, specifically the reinvigoration of wildlife 

habitats which may be in decline or of poor quality to start. 

Comment Number: Dvorak_DvorakRaftingFishing_20160623-1 

Organization1:Dvorak Rafting and Fishing Expeditions 

Commenter1:Bill Dvorak 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Where I live in central Colorado between Buena Vista and Salida we have also seen the ramifications of mining 

companies not being responsible for reclamation and cleanup. We had a toxic plume on the Arkansas in 1985 

that makes the recent plume on the Animas near Durango seem almost inconsequential. It killed everything. 

Invertebrates, fish, aquatic plants, everything! 

It's taken over 20 years and many millions of taxpayers' dollars to get it right and continues to need more millions 

every year to maintain it'd current status. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-22

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Direct reclamation oversight is rightly provided by state officials of the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality (DEQ), and accounting for reclamation in the BLM leasing process is unnecessary. Reclamation progress 

is painstakingly monitored by the DEQ and is guided by mine plans and staff review. Annual reports are 

exhaustive and comply with state and federal requirements. Proper state, federal and producer communication 

should be the avenue to determine if responsibilities have been met. There should be no questions or obstacles 

to the BLM checking on reclamation activities with the state. 

BLM should consult the State DEQ’s reclamation records to determine the success of the State’s reclamation 

program. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-642 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-23

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In fact, reclamation in Wyoming has been recognized at both the federal and state levels as arguably the best and 

most successful efforts in the nation since the enactment of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. Wyoming 

has been managing this effort for 45 years. Now is not the time to invent yet another duplicative regulatory 

program at the public’s expense.

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0003061_Post_N_20160707-2 

Commenter1:Charlie Post 

Other Sections: 8.6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Requiring adequate bonding to FULLY cover the costs of remediation, 

Comment Number: 000001208_Grobe_20160623-1 

Organization1:Moffat County 

Commenter1:Chuck Grobe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Is, number 1, the reclamation efforts made during the mining of the coal improved land quality immensely. 

We have at Trapper Mine, through the reclamation, we have a lot more animal species in the, in the community, 

a lot better habitat for them. It's also happening at Colowyo and [indiscernible]. And it's also with Colowyo. The 

same thing with the reclamation efforts. One rancher has said that his family has had the least -- at Trapper Mine 

since the '20s and since the reclamation, they're getting three times the output of hay and wheat and, and being 

able to put more animals on that property. 

Comment Number: 000001226_ TYSON_20160623-1 

Organization1:Colorado Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:James Tyson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM and coal extraction [indiscernible] must be held accountable when reclamation planning or 

implementation fails to restore, to the extent possible, wildlife and habitat that has been displaced. If handled 

properly, this accountability can be extremely positive step forward for leasees and the BLM while bolstering 

Colorado's economy through direct job creation and remediation and sustaining or augmenting the substantial 

outdoor recreation segment of the economy. 

Comment Number: 000001228_ BASTABLE _20160623-1 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Clare Bastable 

Other Sections: 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Out of a total of 450 square miles of mined lands across Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota alone, only 46 

square miles, or around 10 percent of these lands, have been fully reclaimed. Lack of adequate reclamation 

presents significant threats to the 300 species in the [indiscernible] and the future of our backcountry 

experiences and those of future generations. Second, related to this, OSM needs to end self-bonding practices. 

Recent bankruptcies have left behind $3.6 billion in self-bonding liability to taxpayers. Communities simply cannot 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-643

Scoping Report 

afford to take on this liability. And third, the royalty rate needs to be modernized; and a portion of funds from 

royalty rates should be used to mitigate impacts of mining on wildlife and its habitat. The BLM has no easy task, as 

it sets out to appropriately modernize its Coal Leasing Program. 

Comment Number: 000001256_Best_20160623-2 

Organization1:Greenpeace 

Commenter1:Diana Best 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The second 

reform is coal companies must be held fully accountable for the cleaning up of their mine site, so the significant 

reclamation cost and responsibility isn't left to taxpayers. This could include denying any and future -- anyfuture 

coal leases for coal companies that have failed to reclaim mind sites and/or taking back undeveloped leases if 

companies have failed to make good on reclamation commitments. Dozens of coal companies that we've heard 

today have already filed for bankruptcy, including three of the four large Powder River Basin companies. Yet 

these same companies are continuing to pursue lease applications and new modification. I believe this is 

unacceptable. If you can't cover the existing cost, you can't continue to grow your operation banking on a public 

bailout. 

Comment Number: 000001257_Petersen_20160623-5 

Organization1:Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado 

Commenter1:Bonnie Petersen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reclamation 

on these coal mines. People come to Colorado and love our land. Oftentimes don't realize that they kill their first 

[indiscernible] or get their first fish off of reclaimed coal mines. Reclamation is one of the major improvements to 

habitats that we get in, in Colorado, particularly Western Colorado 

Comment Number: 000001258_Inouye_20160623-5 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:David Iouye 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

You also need to make sure that restoration will occur. It can be successful. But, how will bankrupt companies 

follow through with that restoration? So, these ecological impacts can be minimized if we minimize future Federal 

coal resources. 

Comment Number: 000001261_Beebe_20160623-2 

Organization1:Utah Sierra Club 

Commenter1:Lindsay Beebe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We must also ensure that sufficient funds are secured from the coal industry and are -- and not the taxpayer, to 

reclaim the sacrifice zones coal mines leave behind, so that we don't end up leaving our children with another 

version of the Gold King Mine spill, for example. 

Comment Number: 00001269_Post_20160623-3 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Charlie Post 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-644 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The reclamation process. I attended another meeting. And it said that seven to 10 years out that some of these 

areas are still not being reclaimed. And I -- I'm dumbfounded at why that's being allowed. Two to five years, that 

should be the amount of time that we're talking about for them to be done on all public lands. The lease doesn't 

cover them for an indeterminate period of time. 

Comment Number: 0003300_MasterFormU_WVP-2 

Organization1:Western Values Project 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ensure coal companies with current leases fully comply with standards for full and concurrent reclamation 

compliance, before they are allowed to lease again. 

Comment Number: 0000842_Mantell_WildernessSociety-4 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Joshua Mantell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And four, there is a terrible record of reclaiming old mines. We should not be leasing to companies that have a 

poor track record of cleaning up land 

Comment Number: 0000845_Lyon_NWF-3 

Organization1:Naitonal Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our report recently found that of the 450 square miles of mined land in the Powder River Basin, only 46 square 

miles have been fully reclaimed to final bond to these standards. It's doubtful these lands are going to be fully 

reclaimed because of damaged water. How far reclamation has lagged behind performance and company's 

financial health is in trouble. This is not ultimate use, this is permanent 

damage. As you know, the majority of these, federal coal lies under prairies, fragile habitat that's home to 

imperiled sage grouse, mule deer, elk, pronghorn and 300 other species. Can take decades to reclaim these mines 

to pre-mining conditions. Another recent study we did of wildlife herds in and outside of fossil fuel extraction 

zones of the Powder River showed that only one out of 8 mule deer herds and 

only 3 out of 11 pronghorn herds are healthy. So the coal leasing must not result in permanent damage to public 

lands and water. It must include repercussions for wildlife. 

Comment Number: 0000849_Perry_20160628-1 

Organization1:NWF 

Commenter1:Ed Perry 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And here in Pennsylvania coal companies going out of business are infamous for not cleaning up after themselves. 

And as a result, we have thousands of miles of streams that are devoid of aquatic life that we will have to bear 

the cost of restoring. 

Comment Number: 0000854_Doyon_20160628-3 

Commenter1:MIchelle Doyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need reclamation and bonding reforms. In my communities that I live in, Scottdale and Mt. Pleasant, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-645

Scoping Report 

Pennsylvania, there are many locations that are adversely affected by old, abandoned, unreclaimed coal mines, 

processing sites and dumps 

Comment Number: 0000865_Wasser-1 

Commenter1:Justin Wasser 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The process on any land of reclamation is an absolute failure. It's a failure to the communities on the terms of 

quality of life and to their health. Where I grow up or grew up, one of my family lives there, there are higher 

rates of cancer, of heart disease, of issues that scientific consensus shows, they may not say it's a direct 

correlation, but definitely the lack of cleaning up after mining, after burning and transporting coal contributes to 

it.

ISSUE 5.10 - COAL MITIGATION 

Total Number of Submissions: 14 

Total Number of Comments: 35 

Comment Number: 00000355 _ Thomas _20160519-1 

Commenter1:Ann Thomas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I also question whether mitigation efforts that go along with mining can truly compensate for what is lost in the 

course of that destruction. 

Comment Number: 0000809-3 

Commenter1:Beth Blattenberger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

No guarantee of mitigation: Companies may go bankrupt and mitigation does not happen. Then there is a sudden 

disappearance of jobs and the public is left with the clean-up. Companies need to have good mitigation plans 

before they do any coal removal, and there needs to be a solid guarantee that funds will be available. 

Comment Number: 0002158_Burger_SabineCenter_9132016-2 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Other Sections: 6 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal government has a duty to mitigate climate impacts from downstream GHG emissions associated with 

the coal leasing program. There are at least four potential non-statutory sources of the federal government’s 

affirmative duty to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and associated climate impacts from federal coal: the 

principles of international law and the requirements set forth under the United Nations Framework Convention 

on Climate Change; the public trust doctrine; the federal common law of public nuisance; and private nuisance 

under state common law. Although it is plausible that none of these sources would result in an affirmative court 

decision holding the government liable for a breach of its duty, that shortfall does not negate the existence of the 

duty itself. The statutes and regulations that govern Interior’s management of public lands provide other, and 

potentially even more forceful, sources for a duty to mitigate upstream and downstream greenhouse gas 

emissions and associated climate change impacts arising from the federal coal leasing program. Pursuant to the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) and NEPA, BLM has a duty to 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-646 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

analyze and implement mitigation measures for the adverse environmental, social and public health impacts 

attributable to its management of fossil fuels on public lands. 

Comment Number: 0002158_Burger_SabineCenter_9132016-3 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Other Sections: 2 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal statutes, regulations and policy provide Interior and BLM with ample authority to adopt a fee as a form of 

compensatory mitigation 

BLM has recognized that compensatory mitigation for unavoidable or residual climate change impacts arising from 

agency decisions is fully consistent with its mission and its multiple use mandate and that it possesses the 

discretion to require it, and has clarified that doing so is in fact the agency’s policy. A climate change impacts fee 

for downstream GHG emissions fits within the agency’s NEPA obligations and its compensatory mitigation policy. 

The climate change impacts at issue in this paper are those that occur as a result of GHG emissions both at the 

coal mine and downstream, when the extracted coal is transported and eventually combusted for its end use. 

These downstream GHG emissions are considered “indirect effects” under NEPA, and the climate change 

impacts associated with those emissions are unavoidable or “residual” impacts. In undertaking the Programmatic 

EIS, Interior has recognized that NEPA requires it to analyze downstream emissions – a conclusion that comports 

with the current trajectory of courts’ interpretations of NEPA. Under NEPA, then, the agency 

must also identify and assess appropriate mitigation measures for these emissions, including compensatory 

mitigation measures. The mitigation measures discussed in the Programmatic EIS should follow the “mitigation 

hierarchy,” and should include both a “net zero” emissions offset program as well as a climate change impacts fee. 

A climate change impacts fee would be consistent with recent directives, including the 

Presidential Memorandum Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related 

Private Investment; Secretarial Order 3330, Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of the 

Interior; and “Landscape-Scale Mitigation Policy,” a new chapter in its Departmental Manual, which effectively 

operationalizes Order 3330. The sum total of the White House and Interior guidance is that BLM can and should 

assess and potentially implement mitigation measures, which might operate through any number of mechanisms, 

including lease stipulations and chargeable fees, among other things. The mitigation measure should first seek to 

avoid GHG emissions and their climate impacts; second, seek to minimize emissions and impacts; and third, 

compensate for unavoidable impacts, as through a climate 

change impacts fee. 

Comment Number: 0002158_Burger_SabineCenter_9132016-4 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There are a number of key questions to address in developing a mitigation framework in any context: 1) whether 

to mitigate; 2) when to mitigate; 3) what mitigation should be required; 4) technical issues surrounding how to 

mitigate. The question of whether to mitigate was addressed above. The question of when to mitigate is one of 

practical consequence: advance mitigation in this context, based on acreage or projected production, might result 

in overcharging lessees and so basing mitigation on actual production would seem to be a more reasonable 

approach. The questions of what mitigation should be required and what technical issues the agency will 

necessarily confront are more complex they are. They are treated in summary form below. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-647

Scoping Report 

a. What mitigation should be required The Presidential Memorandum Mitigating Impacts from Natural Resource 

Development identifies three types or categories of resources: irreplaceable resources; resources that are 

important, scarce or sensitive; and other resources managed consistent with an agency’s mission and objectives. 

There is an argument to be made that the climate in which human civilization took shape and in which we 

continue to exist constitutes an irreplaceable resource, and that the appropriate mitigation measure for 

continued GHG emissions and climate change impacts is avoidance. If BLM concludes that the climate is not an 

irreplaceable resource warranting avoidance to the maximum extent practicable the agency must conclude that it 

is nonetheless an important and sensitive resource, and that the appropriate mitigation standard is a minimum of 

no net loss, and preferably a net benefit. Such mitigation could be pursued on a number of different scales: 

planetary, national or regional. 

b. How to calculate a climate change impacts fee 

The question of what the proper amount to charge for federal coal has been the subject of several economic 

analyses, and this paper does not seek to answer it. Rather, the paper identifies a number of fee-related issues 

Interior and BLM should consider in the environmental review. These include: whether to use the Social Cost of 

Carbon and the Social Cost of Methane or other metrics; how to account for intervening actors; how to account 

for regulations on power plants and other coal users; how to account for the different carbon intensity of coal; 

whether and how to account for historic emissions; whether and how to account for historic costs; and how to 

account for the impacts different prices will have on different companies, industry sectors, states, tribes, and local 

communities. The paper also looks at different mechanisms for compensatory 

mitigation—such as in lieu fees, mitigation banks and permittee-responsible measures. 

Comment Number: 0002158_Burger_SabineCenter_9132016-6 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Other Sections: 2 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal government has the discretion to mitigate climate impacts from 

downstream GHG emissions associated with the coal leasing program 

Even if the duty to mitigate is of uncertain scope or enforceability, FLPMA, the MLA and NEPA all confer a 

definite discretion to mitigate climate change impacts. The multiple use mandate and unnecessary and undue 

degradation prohibition of FLPMA, the public interest requirements of the MLA and the ambitious goals and 

specific analytical requirements of NEPA individually and taken together grant the agencies broad discretion to 

mitigate foreseeable impacts, and to require compensation for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized. 

Comment Number: 0002158_Burger_SabineCenter_9132016-8 

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A Sample Framework for Developing a National Compensatory Mitigation Strategy 

for the Federal Coal Leasing Program 

In considering employing a climate change impacts fee as a compensatory mitigation strategy for the federal coal 

leasing program BLM will not be starting from scratch. The paper uses the bureau’s Regional Mitigation Strategies 

for Solar Development as a template to develop an analytic framework for the coal leasing program. Accordingly, 

the paper offers one set of possible responses that result in establishment of a climate change impacts fee as a 

compensatory mitigation strategy. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-648 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-13

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

HOW MAY BLM BEST ENSURE NO UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE DEGRADATION OF PUBLIC LANDS 

FROM CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS -- THIS IS NOT PART OF THE ACT AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN 

INTO CONSIDERATION IN THIS PROGRAM. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-14

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

HOW DO WE MITIGATE, ACCOUNT FOR, OR OTHERWISE ADDRESS THOSE IMPACTS -- THIS IS NOT 

PART OF THE ACT AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THIS PROGRAM. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-17

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF FEDERAL COAL PRODUCTION ON WATER RESOURCES, AIR QUALITY, 

WILDLIFE, AND OTHER LAND USES SUCH AS GRAZING AND RECREATION – ALL ADDRESSED AND 

MITIGATE IN PERMITTING AND OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-18

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

ARE IMPACTS FROM MINING AND COMBUSTING FEDERAL COAL ADEQUATELY MITIGATED – YES. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-19

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

SHOULD STANDARD MITIGATION AT THE PROGRAMMATIC LEVEL BE REQUIRED, IN ADDITION TO 

ON A PROJECT¬BY-PROJECT BASIS – NO. 

Comment Number: 0002318_Gordon_20160722-3 

Commenter1:Diana L. Gordon 

Other Sections: 5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Of course, we can take some mitigation measures. However, there is just no way to mitigate the quantity of 

GHG produced by the mining of coal with huge machines in open pit mines and the transport of the coal to 

plants in this country or possibly across the ocean to Asia. Further, that coal will be burned in plants that may or 

may not have effective pollution control devises. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-27

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Of vital importance for this PEIS, for each of these effects, the EIS must also grapple with “[e]nergy requirements 

and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures.” Id. §1502.16(e). Such mitigation 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-649 

Scoping Report 

measures may include: 

(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 

(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. 

(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. 

(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of 

the action. 

(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 

Comment Number: 0002474_Trice_20160728_EPA-2 

Organization1:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Commenter1:Jessica Trice 

Other Sections: 8.12 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

EPA recommends that the Draft PEIS estimate the direct and indirect GHG emissions caused by the various 

future coal use scenarios, including emissions associated with end use combustion of coal. It may be appropriate 

to employ the social cost of carbon and social cost of methane to estimate the economic value of impacts 

associated with the proposal's net change in CO2 and CH4 to contextualize the potential emissions and compare 

alternatives. EPA recommends that the Draft PEIS describe measures to reduce GHG emissions, including 

reasonable alternatives and practicable mitigation opportunities, and disclose the estimated GHG reductions. 

Such measures should include technologies used to mitigate coal mine methane that is currently vented to the 

atmosphere. Given the likelihood of advancements in GHG mitigation technologies during the timeframe 

considered, we recommend the Draft PEIS discuss how the BLM can encourage adoption of those technologies in 

future lease sales. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-31

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 2 1 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To date, restoration and mitigation efforts have largely failed when it comes to protecting water quality and 

species. For this reason, we ask BLM to focus on protection of essential habitat areas and waterways first, and to 

rely on mitigation only in certain limited situations – i.e., when ESA-listed or proposed species or designated 

critical habitats are not present downstream or in the mine site area, and it can be shown with sufficient evidence 

that the functions and values of the impacted streams and native ecosystems can be fully restored. 

Numerous studies document the failure of restoration to protect water quality, species, and local communities 

from the impacts of coal mining. These studies are too numerous for us to list in total so we provide relevant 

excerpts of scientific conclusions: 

-“Overall, the data show that mitigation efforts being implemented in southern Appalachia for coal mining are not 

meeting the objectives of the Clean Water Act to replace lost or degraded streams ecosystems and their 

functions”269

-“Mitigation actions being undertaken are primarily geomorphic projects to enhance perennial streams yet the 

majority of streams impacted are intermittent and fewer linear feet of stream have been restored than impacted. 

Compliance is primarily based on visual habitat assessments performed by the mining company or their 

consultants which typically report marginal or suboptimal habitat status post restoration. Projects were not 

required to meet specified biological or water quality standards yet for the projects that reported such data, 

most were impaired.”270
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-650 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

-“The disturbance caused by MTR/VF is drastically changing the central Appalachian landscape, compromising the 

natural ecological and functional state of both terrestrial and aquatic environments. The reclamation process, 

emphasizing soil compaction and the establishment of non-native herbaceous species, has hindered the 

establishment of native tree species on MTR sites (Zipper et al., 2011). These terrestrial impacts in combination 

with changes in water chemistry and stream geomorphology lead to long-lasting changes to terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystem function (Simmons et al., 2008). Full recovery of species diversity in streams impacted by MTR/VF has 

not been documented”271

-“Indeed, the MTR/VF streams had, on average, 75% less forest cover than control streams”272

-“Reclaimed mine sites have soils containing unweathered rock that is heavily compacted to reduce erosion, 

resulting in altered water tables and disturbed flow paths (Bonta et al., 1992; Bernhardt and Palmer, 2011). In 

particular, compacted soils lead to high rates of storm water runoff. Negley and Eshleman (2006) and Ferrari et 

al. (2009) found that MTR/VF streams had tripled storm runoff and doubled flow rates compared to reference 

catchments.”

-“The extent to which these constructed channels provide important ecosystem services lost by burial of natural 

headwater streams as a result of mining is not well known. Fritz et al. (2010) reported significantly lower rates of 

litter breakdown and higher levels of iron, manganese, sulfate, and conductivity in constructed channels draining 

VF watersheds than in natural channels draining forested watersheds. Petty et al. (2013) observed lower organic 

matter (OM) decomposition rates and higher levels of conductivity, dissolved solids, and dissolved organic carbon 

(DOC) in West Virginia MTR/ VF constructed channels than in nearby reference channels. Based on their 

database containing descriptions of 38,000 stream and river restoration projects, Bernhardt and Palmer (2011) 

stated that they did not know of a single case where a constructed channel recreated the hydrology or ecological 

functions of natural streams.”273

As these examples illustrate, mitigation of coal mining activities has failed to reclaim the functions and values of 

impacted waterways. In particular, it has failed in Appalachia to restore water quality and fish, wildlife, and other 

species. Moreover, as discussed above coal mining has been one of several threats that has led to the need to 

protect species under the ESA, indicating that mitigation efforts have not been successful in protecting species, 

and should not be relied on by BLM to protect the environment. 

Therefore, in light of the record before it, it is critical that BLM ensure that waterways affected by proposed 

mines with ramifications for species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA and their critical habitat are 

protected, rather than rely on mitigation plans to justify destruction of these important habitat areas, since 

restoration plans may not adequately address impacts to imperiled species and their habitat.274 

(269) Palmer, M. A., & Hondula, K. L. (2014). Restoration as mitigation: analysis of stream mitigation for coal 

mining impacts in southern Appalachia. Environmental science & technology, 48(18), 10552-10560. 

(270) Id. 

(271) Brenee’L, M., Price, S. J., Bonner, S. J., & Barton, C. D. (2014). Mountaintop removal mining reduces stream 

salamander occupancy and richness in southeastern Kentucky (USA). Biological Conservation, 180, 115-121. 

(272) Id. 

(273) Burke, R. A., Fritz, K. M., Barton, C. D., Johnson, B. R., Fulton, S., Hardy, D., ... & Jack, J. D. (2014). Impacts 

of mountaintop removal and valley fill coal mining on C and N processing in terrestrial soils and headwater 

streams. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 225(8), 1-17. 

(274) According to the DOI Energy and Climate Change Task Force, avoidance should be the first goal: “If a 

project can reasonably be sited so as to have no negative impacts to resources of concern then that is generally 

the most defensible approach. By avoiding adverse impacts in the first place, there is no need to take further 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-651

Scoping Report 

action to minimize or offset such impact.” See A Strategy for Improving the Mitigation Policies and Practices of 

The Department of the Interior at 2 (April, 2014). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-32

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 2 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If BLM will continue to rely on mitigation for the coal program, a new mitigation protocol must be developed. 

The Department of the Interior has been revising its mitigation policies in recent years, and has in fact declared 

that it is “necessary to successfully shift from project-by project management to consistent, landscape-scale, 

science-based management of the lands and resources for which the Department is responsible.”275 DOI has 

further stated that “in the mitigation context, the landscape approach dictates that it is not sufficient to look 

narrowly at impacts at the scale of the project; it is necessary to account for impacts to resource values 

throughout the relevant range of the resource that is being impacted.”276

It does not appear that the current mitigation regime for BLMs coal program is meeting the goals set forth by 

DOI. Mitigation is done piecemeal, without the comprehensive, industry-wide analysis that is necessary for 

landscape-scale mitigation, resulting in the environmental harm discussed herein. As DOI even admits, “mitigation 

experts have noted, ‘[T]he way mitigation is currently applied does not capture cumulative impacts associated 

with development; it does not provide a structured decision-making framework to determine when projects can 

proceed or should be avoided; and it does not harness the full potential of offsets (conservation actions applied 

away from the development site).’”277

To rectify this, DOI has provided guiding principles for landscape-scale mitigation. These include that an agency, 

“[a]t the outset of the project planning process, [should] incorporate mitigation and landscape objectives into the 

design and development of projects that are likely to impact natural or cultural resources.” DOI further urges 

bureaus to “[i]dentify and promote mitigation efforts that improve the resilience of our nation’s resources in a 

rapidly changing climate,” and to “[p]romote transparency and consistency in the development of mitigation 

measures.” Therefore, we urge BLM to undertake, concurrent with this programmatic EIS, an analysis of the 

various alternatives to mitigation for coal mining, and to thereby develop protocols to establish a mitigation 

program on a landscape-scale.278 This should be done in consultation with FWS and NMFS for mitigation that 

has the potential to affect listed species.279 

(275) The Energy and Climate Change Task Force, A Strategy for Improving the Mitigation Policies and Practices 

of The Department of the Interior at I (April, 2014). 

(276) Id. at II. 

(277) Id. at 8 (citing Kiesecker, Joseph M., Holly E. Copeland, Bruce A. McKenney, Amy Pocewicz, and Kevin E. 

Doherty. 2011. Energy by Design: Making Mitigation Work for Conservation and Development. Chapter 9 in: 

David E. Naugle (Ed.), Energy Development and Wildlife Conservation in Western North America. pp. 159-181). 

(278) Id. at 13. DOI has provided a process to follow for this analysis, which includes four steps: 1) identifying key 

landscape-scale attributes, and the conditions, trends, and baselines that characterize these attributes; 2) 

developing landscape-scale goals and strategies; 3) developing efficient and effective compensatory mitigation 

programs for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized; and 4) monitoring and evaluating progress and making 

adjustments, as necessary, to ensure that mitigation is effective despite changing conditions. 

(279) See id. at 12 (directing bureaus to “Coordinate with other federal and state agencies, tribes, and 

stakeholders in conducting assessments of existing and projected resource conditions, forming mitigation 

strategies, and developing compensatory mitigation programs.”).
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-652 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-71

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is readily apparent that mitigation for the impacts of coal mining has been woefully inadequate. As discussed 

herein, the existing regulatory program has proven to be insufficient, resulting in the wanton destruction of 

habitat areas across the country. For example, the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming is well known 

as a sacrifice zone that pumps out coal for domestic and foreign use. Once home to wide ranging elk herds, 

pronghorn, mule deer, prairie falcons, bobcats, mountains lions, and greater sage-grouse – as well as providing 

habitat for hundreds of migratory birds – today the region is largely dotted with coal mines, roads, and other 

coal-related facilities. While wildlife still hang on the brink of extirpation in a few areas in this region, the basin 

evidences how environmental laws have failed to strike a balance of protecting environmental values while 

authorizing coal production, and that harm is not being mitigated. 

Although the majority of federal coal leasing occurs in the interior west (and primarily the Powder River Basin of 

Wyoming and Montana), federal coal leasing also occurs in Appalachia, where biodiversity and human health are 

being devastated for coal production.258 

(258) See, e.g., BLM and USFS, Environmental Assessment, Bledsoe Coal Lease, KYES-53865 (Oct. 2012), 

available at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/es/minerals/coal/coal_lease_sales_nepa.Par.46357.File.dat/BledsoeCoalLeas

e.EA.12Oct2012.LowResolu.pdf ; see generally BLM, BLM Eastern States Coal 

Sales,http://www.blm.gov/es/st/en/prog/minerals/coal.html. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-16

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM has ample authority to apply needed mitigation measures and other environmental protections on existing 

leases, not only at the time of renewal, modification or transfer, but also for ongoing approvals of development. 

BLM can also provide for shorter readjustment periods than those in the current regulations, and should initiate 

any required rulemaking. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-23

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM must ensure that the mitigation components of the PEIS are consistent with all relevant laws and 

policies, including current mitigation guidance. This includes the use of a landscape-scale approach, an emphasis 

on a net benefit outcome, the importance of preservation as a mitigation action, and the use of Regional 

Mitigation Strategies and Plans to support the PEIS. A Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Coal PEIS would set an 

important framework to guide additional Regional Mitigation Strategies and Regional Mitigation Plans. Mitigation 

should be analyzed at both the land use planning stage and at the regional coal leasing stage via NEPA-based EISs 

that adopt the required mitigation policies. The mitigation policy should be made applicable to existing mines and 

areas in the vicinity of existing mines that are proposed for mining, as well as to new areas that might be open for 

mining consideration. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-653

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-41

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 2 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

For unavoidable climate change impacts associated with leasing and development of coal resources, BLM should 

develop a framework in the PEIS that can be used for the entire program. We will be releasing a longer 

whitepaper going into greater detail on key design considerations and operational elements in August 2016 and 

will provide as supplemental comment. In the meantime, this letter spells out the basic framework. 

To establish this framework, BLM must quantify through the PEIS the GHG emissions using the tools described in 

Section VI.C, and analyze the climate impacts associated with these GHG emissions using the tools described in 

Section VI.D. 

The BLM should establish in the Record of Decision as a matter of policy that the agency will require 

compensatory mitigation to offset the climate impacts of federal coal leasing and production. The same tools 

should be required to be used for future lease-level analysis with guidance for field staff on how to apply them. 

The estimated impacts resulting from the analysis represent unavoidable climate impacts that should be addressed 

through compensatory mitigation. 

As part of the compensatory mitigation policy, the BLM should initiate a regional mitigation strategy/plan for key 

coal leasing areas that addresses all impacts include climate. BLM should consider several key design features that 

should be spelled out in the ROD: 

• BLM should consider compensatory mitigation actions that offset the climate impacts associated with the 

emissions attributable to the leased coal in question, and that offset the carbon emissions themselves. 

Quantifying impacts is becoming increasingly more practical, and the science connecting impacts to temperature 

changes increasingly more precise. The practice of arriving at a mitigation fee at a lease level can be challenging, 

but real harm will be felt by human and natural communities. Compensatory mitigation funds can be directed at 

enhancing the adaptive capacity of human and natural communities in the affected landscape to improve their 

health and resilience in the face of expected change. Offsetting actions can include investments in land protection, 

restoration or rehabilitation. They can also include payments to communities to assist with a transition away 

from coal-dependent regional economy. 

Significant opportunity also exists to offset the GHG emissions themselves. EPA has repeatedly urged land 

management agencies to assess carbon offsets in EAs and EISs as a way to reduce climate change impacts of 

agency actions. EPA has specifically noted that offsets are a reasonable alternative to lessen the impacts of coal 

mine methane emissions. In a 2007 letter concerning a proposal to permit MDWs at the West Elk Mine, EPA 

specifically rejected the Forest Service’s assertion that a carbon offset alternative was not reasonable: “[I]t is 

reasonable to consider offset mitigation for the release of methane, as appropriate. Acquiring offsets to counter 

the greenhouse gas impacts of a particular project is something that thousands of organizations, including private 

corporations, are doing today.” (45) EPA specifically recommended that the Forest Service’s Lease Modifications 

EIS “acknowledge that revenues for carbon credits are available via several existing markets.” (46) Similarly, EPA 

has recommended that a Forest Service NEPA analysis of a forest health project “discuss reasonable alternatives 

and/or potential means to mitigate or offset the GHG emissions from the action.” (47) Numerous state agencies 

already use offsets to control GHG emissions. (48) Offsets can include participation in third-party offset markets 

or renewable energy credits. 

(45) Letter of L. Svoboda, EPA to C. Richmond, Forest Service (Aug. 7, 2007) at 7 (emphasis added). 

(46) EPA July 2012 Comment Letter (Ex. 29) at 5 (identifying four U.S. carbon exchanges creating a market for 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-654 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

carbon credits). 

(47) Letter of L. Svoboda, EPA, to T. Malecek, USFS, at 8 (Oct. 27, 2010). 

(48) See, e.g., Settlement Agreement, ConocoPhillips and California (Sept. 10, 2007) (California agency requiring 

offsets as a condition of approving a project), attached as Ex. 46; Minn. Stat. § 216H.03 subd. 4(b) (Minnesota law 

requiring offsets for certain new coal-fired power plants); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 38, § 580-B(4)(c) (Maine law 

establishing greenhouse gas initiative that includes the use of carbon offsets). 

The potential for federal participation in an offsets program is well demonstrated by actions that have been taken 

relative to emissions from the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona to comply with Clean Air Act requirements 

pursuant to EPA’s regional haze rules. There, in agreement with state, federal, tribal and NGO participants, the 

DOI has committed to reduce or offset federal carbon dioxide emissions by three percent annually for a total of 

11.3 million metric tons of emissions reductions by the end of 2031. (49) This is intended to reduce carbon 

dioxide emissions and demonstrate the workability of a credit-based system to achieve carbon dioxide emission 

reductions. In addition, the DOI has committed to facilitating development of Clean Energy Projects intended to 

achieve eighty percent generation of clean energy for the federal share at the Navajo Generating Station by 2035 

by securing over twenty-six million megawatt hours in Clean Energy Development Credits. (50) 

(49) See https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/upload/7-25-2013-NGS-TWG-AgreementFINAL_Executed.pdf (presenting the Technical Work Group Agreement Related to Navajo Generating Station 

(NGS)). 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-42

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should attempt to address the full scope of lifecycle emissions through compensatory mitigation – that is, 

production, transport and combustion. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-43

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should specify whether compensatory mitigation should be paid on an annual basis or paid up front. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-44

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In lieu fees collected for compensatory mitigation are often paid in lump sum at the beginning of a project’s 

operational life. In the case of climate impacts, it may make more sense to consider an annual payment on the 

basis of production, or an annualized payment schedule based on expected production with corrections on a 

semi-annual basis. By spreading payments over the life of the project (and tying them to when the impacts actually 

occur), the system should be both fairer to producers and truer to the spirit of mitigation. 

• BLM must ensure mitigation actions are additional—that is, result in actions that add real, verifiable carbon 

savings or other benefit—and durable—that is, the conservation benefit lasts for at least a period of time 

commensurate with the duration of the impact itself. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-655

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-48

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 7.4 8.12 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Recommendations: The BLM should examine and advance regulations to reduce the emissions of methane and 

other greenhouse gases from coal mining operations, both underground and surface operations. Unless and until 

those regulations are complete, the BLM should immediately consider other options to offset these emissions or 

otherwise address the associated climate impacts. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-74

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

More recent guidance in the form of the Presidential Memorandum: Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources 

from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment (2015) and the Department of the Interior’s 

Landscape-Scape Mitigation Manual (2015) also emphasize the importance of mitigation in BLM planning and 

decision-making. Key elements of these policies are summarized below and should be incorporated into BLM’s 

approach to mitigation in the PEIS:

· Landscape-scale approach: land use planning for conservation and energy development as well as analysis of 

proposed development and consideration of mitigation must use a landscape-scale approach to focus 

development in low-conflict areas and prioritize conservation in areas with important and sensitive resources and 

values. 

· “Irreplaceable resources”: avoidance is the most appropriate tool for addressing “irreplaceable resources,” 

“resources recognized through existing legal authorities as requiring particular protection from impacts and that 

because of their high value or function and unique character, cannot be restored or replaced.”

· No net loss of important resources and values: mitigation must achieve a goal of no net loss of important 

resources and values, with a net benefit goal as required or appropriate. 

· Climate change impacts and resilience: agencies must identify and promote mitigation measures that help 

address climate change impacts and resilience. 

· Compensatory mitigation standards: compensatory mitigation (generally comprised of acquisition, restoration 

or preservation of resources and values) must be: 

o Durable: protected against non-conforming uses like development and lasting as long as the impacts; 

o Additional: demonstrably new conservation benefits that would not occur without mitigation; 

o Be developed based on the best available science: including for determining equivalency of impacts and 

mitigation benefits;

o Provide for public transparency: including tracking locations of impacts and mitigation actions; and 

o Include monitoring and adaptive management. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-86

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to the legal and policy direction that requires mitigation for climate impacts from the federal coal 

program and provide the agency with ample discretion to require mitigation, it is important to underscore that as 

a land manager, the federal government is facing huge and rapidly escalating costs to address the impacts caused 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-656 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

by fossil-fuel driven climate change. Forest fires, widespread drought, rising sea levels, spread of invasive species 

and spread of disease already result in significant costs to the federal government, and each new coal lease the 

BLM authorizes increases these problems and the associated costs. Research from the University of Vermont’s 

Gund Institute for Ecological Economics and The Wilderness Society suggests that total costs in degraded 

ecosystem services could exceed $14.5 billion annually under a 2-degreeC warming scenario. (42) These costs 

are ultimately borne by all American taxpayers, and BLM has a responsibility to recoup these costs when it makes 

decisions authorizing activities that directly cause these impacts and associated costs. 

(42) See Esposito, Valerie; Phillips, Spencer; Boumans, Roelof; Moulaert, Azur; Boggs, Jennifer. 2011. “Climate 

change and ecosystem services: The contribution of and impacts on federal public lands in the United States.” In: 

Watson, Alan; Murrieta-Saldivar, Joaquin; McBride, Brooke, comps. Science and stewardship to protect and 

sustain wilderness values: Ninth World Wilderness Congress symposium; November 6-13, 2009; Merida, 

Yucatan, Mexico. Proceedings RMRS-P-64. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 155-164. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p064.pdf? 

(accessed July 23, 2016). 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-20

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

First, if BLM promulgates the proposed land use planning rules described in the BLM Planning 2.0 initiative, the 

mitigation hierarchy will be formally adopted at the land use planning level-negating the need for analysis in the 

PEIS. (7) 

(7) CMA opposes the inclusion of the mitigation hierarchy at the land use planning level, and incorporate by 

reference the AEMA comments related to the BLM Planning 2.0 Initiative (incorporated by reference and 

attached hereto). 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-29

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The avoided use of federal lands (and other lands) enabled by energy dense coal power plants retains federal 

lands for other purposes, including climate change mitigation measures such as growing trees, grasses and 

managing rangelands to remove carbon dioxide (C02) from the atmosphere and providing public recreation 

areas. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-55

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Should mitigation be attempted at the programmatic level, estimates of potential impacts may be used that are 

highly speculative and may never come to fruition at the project level. Additionally, without project specific 

details it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the BLM to prescribe mitigation within the jurisdiction of the 

BLM at the programmatic level. 

Specifically, any air quality impact assessment is speculative at the programmatic level, would not result in 

informed decisions and lacks technical justification. A more appropriate action would be for the BLM to work 

with state agencies that have regulatory authority for air quality to develop an agreement that defines how and 

when an air quality impact assessment should be performed and appropriate air quality mitigation within the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-657

Scoping Report 

jurisdiction of the BLM. 

BLM must acknowledge and analyze the role and responsibilities of states and the regulatory control of Wyoming 

and state environmental agencies generally and specifically in any consideration of air quality and air resources. 

BLM must also acknowledge its jurisdictional limits in the PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-56

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the past, if there was potential for unforeseen impacts, Wyoming DEQ, LQD and WGFD worked to minimize 

them through avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation during the permitting process. Wyoming will 

continue to address impacts in this fashion. BLM is developing a Mitigation Framework for all resources which will 

also support reduced impacts. 

WGFD recommends that continued wildlife monitoring and re-vegetation occur as administered by DEQ, LQD 

and reviewed by WGFD. 

Comment Number: 0002504_Lefton_20160729-3 

Organization1:Climate Advisors 

Commenter1:Rebecca Lefton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Requiring Lessees to Obtain Offsets for GHG Emissions from Coal Produced from their Lease Could Achieve 

the Largest GHG Emissions Reductions at Lowest Cost 

Offsets are a well-established mechanism in environmental regulation to reduce the impacts of an activity. Offsets 

are intended to achieve particular environmental objectives at a lower cost and/or to achieve additional 

environmental objectives without raising compliance costs. Offsets are accepted United States, including under 

the Clean Air Act.[8] State and regional GHG programs (such as California’s GHG regulations and the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative among Northeastern states) include offsets to encourage greater emissions reductions 

at lower costs. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which passed in the House of Representatives in 

2009, included offsets as a component of achieving greater emissions reductions. BLM’s Notice of Intent for the 

PEIS explicitly noted that it would assess “whether and how to mitigate, account for, or otherwise address 

[climate impacts] through the structure and management of the coal program, including, as appropriate, land use 

planning, adjustments to the scale and pace of leasing, adjustments to royalties or other means of internalizing 

externalities, mitigation through greenhouse gas reductions elsewhere, information disclosure, and other 

approaches.”[9]

Offsets from the land sector offer low-priced GHG abatement opportunities. There is significant potential for 

reducing emissions in the U.S. land sector.[10] Obtaining some portion of offsets internationally from actions 

taken in developing countries offers additional affordable abatement. Emissions reductions from projects and 

policies to manage land use in developing countries are among the lowest cost GHG abatement opportunities in 

the world.[11] In 2014, reducing one ton of CO2 emission from international land use projects cost 

approximately $7.50 on average.[12] Estimates for reducing emissions in the U.S. power sector (by switching 

from coal generation to non- emitting generating sources) are many times that amount.[13] 

By including scenario(s) that require offsets in its integrated modeling, BLM can most comprehensively explore 

options for achieving maximum emissions reductions at lowest cost. Some commenters advocate for complete 

cessation of federal coal leasing. Others advocate for including a price on carbon as part of the leases (either as 

part of a royalty payment, rent, or otherwise). These options should be assessed in the modeling to determine 

the relative emissions reductions that can be obtained (and the cost of those emissions reductions). Excluding 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-658 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

scenarios with offsets arbitrarily would limit the insights that can be gained from the assessment, and may 

overlook options that can achieve the greatest GHG reductions at lowest cost. 

Including the option for lessees to obtain international offsets would support U.S. climate leadership. As noted 

above, ensuring that all major federal policies are consistent with the U.S. emissions reductions goals will enable 

the United States to continue to exercise international leadership. The United States, collectively with other 

developed countries, has committed to mobilizing $100 billion per year by 2020 in public and private finance to 

support adaptation and mitigation in developing countries.[14] Allowing lessees to obtain offsets internationally 

would not only potentially allow lessees to reduce emissions most cost-effectively, but would also support the 

United States’ climate finance commitment. The projects that generate offsets in developing countries also have 

many co-benefits, including improved biodiversity and economic development for local populations.[15] 

Comment Number: 0002504_Lefton_20160729-4 

Organization1:Climate Advisors 

Commenter1:Rebecca Lefton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Interior Has the Authority to Require Lessees to Acquire GHG Offsets as a Condition of Their Lease 

The Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) grants Interior broad authority to place terms and conditions in a coal lease, 

providing: “The lease shall include such other terms and conditions as the Secretary shall determine.”[16] The 

MLA further provides that effects on the environment are among the factors Interior shall consider before 

granting a lease.[17] Finally, the MLA provides that even after a lease is granted, the lessee cannot take any action 

that might cause significant disturbance of the environment until the lessee submits an operation and reclamation 

plan for Interior’s approval.[18]

This broad discretion to the Secretary, and the directive to consider environmental impacts in considering a 

lease, has resulted in Interior including conditions in BLM’s model lease that direct the lessee to carry out 

operations in a way that avoids damage or degradation to “any land, air, water, cultural, biological, visual, and 

other resources, ... Lessee must take measures deemed necessary by lessor to accomplish the intent of this lease 

term.”[19] It has long been recognized that additional specific or general mitigation provisions to protect the 

environment can be included in lease conditions or stipulations. This includes mitigation provisions beyond those 

specifically mandated by statute and mitigation provisions that protect resources beyond the mine site.[20] A 

1984 report to Congress noted: 

Mitigation techniques can be specific or generic, and can address either sites specific or cumulative impacts. They 

can be designed to accommodate uncertainties about potential impacts or tailored to cover well-understood 

mining and reclamation situations. Requirements for impact mitigation included in a lease or mining permit might 

reiterate requirements of current laws and regulations, or they may impose higher standards. They usually apply 

to lease tracts, but may cover offsite locations affected in some manner by the mining and reclamation 

operations. 

Thus, not only is there statutory authority for broad discretion in determining lease terms and conditions, but 

the agency already exercises that authority to enact environmental protections. Using this authority to address 

the climate impacts of allowing a coal lease, including by requiring offsets for the full life-cycle emissions of the 

coal, is consistent with the MLA. 

In addition to the MLA, coal-leasing decisions are affected by Interior’s broader mandates to be the caretaker of 

federal lands under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). FLPMA directs Interior to manage 

federal lands so that they are “utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the 

American people;...a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-659

Scoping Report 

needs of future generations for renewable and non- renewable resources” (emphasis added).[21] FLPMA further 

provides that the public lands will be managed “in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, 

historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values...”[22]

These provisions require Interior to take full account of the life-cycle emissions from coal produced on federal 

lands. Climate change driven by GHG emissions will have profound impacts on the United States, including on the 

federal lands managed by Interior. Changing precipitation patterns and growing seasons, increasing heat waves, 

droughts, and greater risks of wildfires will fundamentally alter federal lands in the coming decades. Including 

terms and conditions in federal coal leases, requiring lessees to obtain offsets for emissions from the combustion 

of coal from those lands, is a direct way for Interior to balance the present and future needs of the American 

people in avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, including their future use and enjoyment of federal lands. 

Exercising its authority to impose terms and conditions in leases to address environmental concerns is fully 

consistent with Interior’s mandate to manage public lands “in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for 

domestic sources of minerals”[23] and the Federal Government policy of fostering “economically sound” 

domestic mining and “orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources . . . to help assure 

satisfaction of industrial, security, and environmental needs.”[24]

Climate Advisers believes Interior has the discretion under FLPMA and the MLA to impose changes on coal 

leasing practices up to an indefinite moratorium. If further federal coal leasing is to be allowed, however, 

requiring lessees to obtain offsets may represent a cost-effective way to maximize total GHG emissions 

reductions. 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-12

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should consider establishment of a mitigation fund, financed through coal lease payments, to insure 

remediation of spoiled land and relief for economically displaced citizens. 

Comment Number: 0020039-1 

Commenter1:Bonnie Miller 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Costs of clean up of spills, mining, accidents should be required of all lease-holders 

ISSUE 5.11 - COAL TRANSPORTATION/ROWS 

Total Number of Submissions: 15 

Total Number of Comments: 17 

Comment Number: 0001102_CONSTANTINE_KingCnty_20160621-1 

Organization1:King County 

Commenter1:Dow Constantine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Movement of coal by rail in mile-and-a-half-long trains delays rail transport of our agricultural and manufactured 

products. It snarls traffic at at-grade crossings, it burdens hundreds of communities with coal dust and other 

impacts. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-660 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0001118_PETERSON_WY state rep_20160621-1 

Organization1:21st District 

Commenter1:Strom Peterson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We are looking at an increasing numbers of trains throughout the system, and that delay in getting onto a ferry 

system is important to local jobs and important to our local economy, and I think that's something that this 

impact statement really needs to look at. Edmonds is not alone in that. There are communities throughout 

Washington and I think throughout the region, from the Powder Basin on that would have these effects with 

increasing numbers of coal trains. I think we also have to look at the, you know, economic effects when it comes 

to local health. I think this is something that the EIS has been looking at, but as we look where these trains load 

and unload, where these trains travel through, I think it especially affects communities of color that are already 

showing severe health, negative health effects from the coal dust as well as just from the pollution of these 

incredibly long trains. These are trains that are a mile long that go through -- incredibly slowly through our 

towns. And finally, I think that the EIS also has to look at some of the public safety aspects, not only the force of 

derailment of one of these trains, as we just saw in Oregon, whether it's an oil train or a coal train, these have 

incredible public safety aspects. 

Comment Number: 0002167_Baumgartner_20160629-1 

Commenter1:Laura Baumgartner 

Other Sections: 8.1 8.8 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am writing to oppose further development of coal resources in the US, oppose transport of mined coal through 

western states and especially cities to our ports and oppose export of coal for use in other parts of the world. 

Comment Number: 0002173_Quick_20160622-16

Commenter1:Kendra Quick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Wyoming coal is shipped to 30 states across the nation as an abundant source of affordable and reliable fuel for 

electricity generation. Those states that rely on coal for the bulk of their electric generation consistently enjoy 

lower energy rates. 

Comment Number: 0002194_Kneblik_20160518-2 

Commenter1:Terry Kneblik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Mine for coal in America wherever coal is located and build storage facilities and transportation hubs accordingly. 

Comment Number: 0002223_HigbeeSudyka_20160531-2 

Commenter1:Debra HigbeeSudyka 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal trains (today) are 120–125 cars long, and each car holds 115 tons of coal. [NOTE: Coal trains are 

transitioning to 150 cars in length.] At the lower level of coal exports studied in the report, Oregon would likely 

see at least 30 more coal trains each day (15 loaded going west and 15 empty returning to the coal fields) – in 

addition to all the train traffic we currently experience. And, if all the West Coast ports were built or expanded 

and the high-end coal company projections are met, Oregon could potentially experience as many as 64 more 

coal trains (total east and west) each day. 

There will be health, safety, quality of life, as well as actual financial costs to Oregon citizens and communities 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-661

Scoping Report 

from this increase in coal train traffic. Oregon cities along the train routes will be most affected by this increase 

in the number of coal trains. 

The increased number of trains in Oregon will mean more noise, a greater potential that emergency responders 

will be delayed in reaching residents when there is a medical emergency (or a fire or the need for police), and a 

greater potential for vehicle collisions with trains and for pedestrian accidents. These issues must be addressed, 

analyzed, and their consequences fully considered in the EIS being prepared. 

More trains in Oregon will mean an increase in the amount of airborne pollutants (particulate matter) from diesel 

engines as well as from coal dust. Medical studies have shown a clear link between both diesel air pollutants and 

coal dust and disease. Additionally, more trains will mean more vehicles idling at train crossings when trains are 

passing – and adding their exhaust (containing particulate matter and other pollutants) into the air. While those 

with chronic disease, the elderly, young children, and pregnant women are most at risk, the health effects from 

particulate matter exposure may occur years later, so even healthy individuals need to be concerned. These 

issues must be addressed, analyzed, and their consequences fully considered in the EIS being prepared. 

Comment Number: 0002271_Dafoe_20160714_WAITC-1 

Organization1:Wyoming Agriculture in the Classroom 

Commenter1:Jessie Dafoe 

Comment Excerpt Text:

Wyoming coal is shipped to 30 states across the nation as an abundant source of affordable and reliable fuel for 

electricity generation. 

· Those states that rely on coal for the bulk of their electric generation consistently enjoy lower energy rates. 

Comment Number: 0002466_Smith_20160728_SELA-2 

Organization1:Safe Energy Leadership Alliance 

Commenter1:Rachel Smith 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Movement of coal by rail in mile¬and¬a-half long trains delays rail transport of agricultural and manufactured 

products, snarls traffic at at-grade crossings, and burdens hundreds of communities with coal dust. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-18

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal Transportation Impacts 

Downstream impacts on air quality must also be considered. For example, trains used to transport federal coal 

run on fossil fuels – in particular diesel – which produce a variety of air pollutants, including nitrogen oxide, soot, 

sulfur dioxide22, and carcinogens. In 2006, U.S. diesel trains released approximately a million tons of ozone 

forming oxides of nitrogen and 32,000 tons of PM2.5, causing 3,400 deaths and 290,000 lost work days. Hein and 

Howard at A4. Assuming that 40% of U.S. trains are freight and 40% of freight is coal, one study estimated the 

approximate cost of air pollution from U.S. coal transport to be $4 per ton of coal in 2015 USD. Id. at A13. 

Coal trains also emit dust from the exposed coal in the train cars. Even with surfactant sprayed over coal train 

cars, over 100 pounds of coal dust per train car, or about 12,500 pounds per train, blows off the trains as they 

move from the mines to their final destination. See, e.g., Ashley Ahearn, What Coal Train Dust Means for Human 

Health, Earthfix, June 21, 2016, available at http://www.opb.org/news/article/coal-dust-a-closer-look/. Over 160 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-662 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

doctors in Washington expressed public health concerns about increased coal train traffic, and resulting air 

pollution from diesel emissions and coal dust. See Whatcom Docs, Position Statement on the Proposed Cherry 

Point Coal Terminal, available at http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/whatcom-docs-position-statement-and-appendices. 

Rail transportation also poses risks to public health due to accidents, noise and congestion. Transportation of 

federal coal can also burden traffic patterns in towns with rail lines, causing impacts to emergency services and 

daily commuting. If communities wish to avoid these impacts, they must invest in expensive infrastructure 

projects, such as bypasses and overpasses. 

Increased coal train traffic can also displace other rail users, such as agricultural freight trains, leading to impacts 

for those economic sectors. Limited rail capacity means that freight, agricultural shippers, and passenger trains, 

risk delays and higher rates as they are bumped by coal, which often takes priority on the tracks. See, e.g., Terry 

Whiteside, et al., Heavy Traffic Ahead and Heavy Traffic Still Ahead, available at www.heavytrafficahead.org. 

Timely deliveries are particularly important with agricultural products. At least one significant agricultural 

business has been closed in recent years due to being pushed off the rails by coal train traffic. See Steve Wilhelm, 

Coal Trains Kill Cold Trains: Fruit delivery service shuts down as rail congestion heats up, Puget Sound Business 

Journal, Aug. 8, 2014, available at http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2014/08/07/coal-trains-kill-cold-trainsfruit-delivery.html. 

All of these impacts should be considered cumulatively across all federal coal leasing, and the PEIS should guide 

how they will be considered in site-specific EISs. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-9 

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal Transportation Impacts: Coal rail lines scar lands capes and create coal dust pollution along the tracks. 

Trains also can create traffic congestion at road intersections near mines and across the Nation 

Comment Number: 0002474_Trice_20160728_EPA-1 

Organization1:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Commenter1:Jessica Trice 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

EPA recommends that this analysis include potential impacts along the routes associated with transportation of 

coal to market for both domestic use and for exports. That evaluation would appropriately include potential 

fugitive coal dust and diesel emission impacts that may accompany rail traffic, and their potential human health 

impacts to communities along reasonably foreseeable routes, together with potential environmental impacts. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-8 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

. Coal Transportation Impacts 

The PEIS must fully analyze and assess impacts related to coal transport, including, but not limited to, the impacts 

of rail transport of coal, local and regional trucking of coal, and any conveying of coal from mines to power plants. 

Transport-related impacts are likely to include air impacts, impacts related ongoing rail maintenance and possible 

expansions, water quality impacts related to roads and railways, and fish and wildlife impacts. The PEIS must 

provide a detailed analysis and assessment of how federal coal is transported from mines to the source of 

consumption, and provide the public with information and analysis on what the impacts of this transport are likely 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-663

Scoping Report 

to be.See Attached for Graphic - Coal from the Powder River Basin being hauled by rail through downtown 

Denver. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-9 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 8.8 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

iv. Coal Exports 

As the notice of intent to prepare the PEIS emphasizes, the impacts of coal exports are of great concern. To this 

end, the PEIS must fully analyze and assess the reasonably foreseeable impacts of coal exports that may occur as a 

result of future coal management. These impacts include, but are not limited to, the following: 

· Rail-related impacts: The impacts of hauling coal from mines to ports must be analyzed and assessed. The 

impacts that must be addressed include, but are not limited to, the air quality impacts of rail traffic, noise impacts 

of rail traffic, fish and wildlife impacts of rail traffic, and water quality impacts. Such an analysis must take into 

account the potential for spills and/or derailments and the impacts such events may have on land, water, fish, 

wildlife, and air. 

· Port-related impacts: The impacts of unloading coal from trains, loading coal onto barges and/or ships, 

constructing and/or maintaining port facilities, and the impacts of port operations, including ship, locomotive, 

and/or truck operations must be analyzed and assessed. The impacts that must be addressed include, but are not 

limited to, the air quality impacts of all port operations, including ship, locomotive, and truck emissions, water 

quality impacts (including wetland impacts), and fish and wildlife impacts. 

· Shipping impacts: The impacts of shipping coal, both within waters of the United States and through 

international waters must be addressed. The impacts that must be analyzed and assessed include air quality 

impacts, impacts to water quality (particularly through discharge from ships), and impacts to river and ocean 

species, especially species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 

· Coal unloading impacts at international ports: Just as coal unloading and loading at American ports must be 

addressed, the impacts of unloading coal from ships and loading coal onto trains and/or trucks at international 

ports must be analyzed and assessed. 

· Inland coal transport abroad: The impacts of transporting coal from international ports to facilities must be 

analyzed and assessed. Such an analysis must analyze and assess whether the coal is hauled by rail or by truck, and 

analyze and assess the attendant impacts. 

· Coal combustion abroad: Finally, the impacts of combusting coal abroad must be analyzed and assessed. Such an 

analysis must include, but not be limited to, an analysis of the air quality impacts of coal combustion (including 

greenhouse gas emission impacts), water quality impacts, coal ash disposal impacts, fish and wildlife impacts, and 

impacts to lands. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-48

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should analyze the impact of accidents caused by federal coal transport and storage. The PEIS should 

include a meaningful analysis of the potential safety, human and environmental risks of rail accidents, both those 

involving, and those proximately caused by, coal trains. Rail accidents can release coal into the surface waters and 

water supply causing significant impacts. Moreover, coal is very difficult to clean up. 201 This affects downstream 

communities as coal released into water supply can degrade agricultural communities and municipal water 

supplies in addition to harming fish and other aquatic life. The blast zone for coal trains is within one mile of the 

train tracks. These explosions disproportionately impact low income communities and communities of color—
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-664 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

because these often are the communities that live near railroad tracks. 202 This impact should be analyzed as an 

indirect and cumulative impact, especially in light of other hazards these communities are exposed to. 203 Coal 

trains, which weigh far more than other types of trains, also deposit coal dust on the tracks and in the track 

ballast. The additional stress on the tracks increases the probability of accidents. 204 Coal dust is highly 

combustible and causes risks from explosions and fire. The federal Surface Transportation Board has concluded 

that coal dust can impair track stability lead to train derailment. 205 Consequently, coal trains are a proximate 

cause of rail accidents. 206 200 Id. at 20. 201 Id. at 9. 202 “Crude Injustice on the Rails,” Communities for a 

Better Environment and Forest Ethics, (June 2015) at 3 (80 percent of the 5.5 million Californians with homes in 

the blast zone live in low income communities and communities of color). 203 Id. at 11. 204 Id. at 10. 205 Surface 

Transportation Board Decision, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation – Decision on Petition for 

Declaratory Order, Docket No. FD 35305 (Mar. 3, 2011); available at 

http://stb.dot.gov/Decisions/readingroom.nsf/UNID/79B5382AE20F7930852578480053111F/$fi le/40436.pdf (last 

visited July 28, 2016). 56 Spills are not uncommon during bunkering (or fueling), and spills into environmentally 

sensitive waters. The PEIS should evaluate this spill risk for both offshore bunkering— throughout the route—

and onshore at port. 

Comment Number: 0020030_Griffin_20160722-1 

Commenter1:Nancy Griffin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal and coal trains are a real problem. Traffic delays impact travel and emergency services. 

Comment Number: 0020042-1 

Commenter1:Margaret 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

In Seattle and elsewhere, we're protesting coal trains moving through our cities 

Comment Number: 00001270_Smyth_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Joe Smyth 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And transporting coal disrupts communities with mile-long trains 

ISSUE 5.12 - METHANE CAPTURE 

Total Number of Submissions: 9 

Total Number of Comments: 11 

Comment Number: 00000118_Lapis_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Ted Lapis 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We have between two and ten times the value of all the energy in oil, coal, and gas combined in methane 

hydrates, and that is produced in Alaska by a Conoco-Japanese consortium by pushing CO2 in and capturing the 

methane on the way out. 

Comment Number: 0002009_CenterBioDiversity_20160329-5 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-665

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

On waste mine methane, the Interior Department must be directed to pause approval of any coal lease or mining 

plan that would lead to underground mining activities requiring degasification systems (i.e., systems that vent 

methane other than normal ventilation air systems) pending completion of Bureau of Land Management 

regulations meant to address coal mine methane 

Comment Number: 0002269_Holubec_20160715-8 

Commenter1:Allen Holubec 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Methane – 

a. Major Greenhouse gas 

b. Methane in a coal mine is a hazardous gas that is exhausted directly to the atmosphere 

c. Have to change some laws 

i. Gas companies lease the gas in a coal bed, but not the coal 

ii.Mining companies have to get rid of it. The mining companies cannot capture it and sell the gas, it belongs to 

the gas company, the gas company won’t capture it because it’s not cost justifiable to drill coal bed wells to drain 

the methane and the mining company does not want the drill holes to interfere with the mine 

d. The gas is a waste product of mining coal 

i. The mining company in some instances can capture and sell the captured methane to an immediate adjacent 

power plant or some other company to process. 

e. Allow the mining companies to capture and sell the methane. 

f. Force the mining companies and the gas companies to work together to capture and sell the gas that would 

otherwise be wasted and vented to the atmosphere. 

Comment Number: 0002474_Trice_20160728_EPA-2 

Organization1:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Commenter1:Jessica Trice 

Other Sections: 8.10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

EPA recommends that the Draft PEIS estimate the direct and indirect GHG emissions caused by the various 

future coal use scenarios, including emissions associated with end use combustion of coal. It may be appropriate 

to employ the social cost of carbon and social cost of methane to estimate the economic value of impacts 

associated with the proposal's net change in CO2 and CH4 to contextualize the potential emissions and compare 

alternatives. EPA recommends that the Draft PEIS describe measures to reduce GHG emissions, including 

reasonable alternatives and practicable mitigation opportunities, and disclose the estimated GHG reductions. 

Such measures should include technologies used to mitigate coal mine methane that is currently vented to the 

atmosphere. Given the likelihood of advancements in GHG mitigation technologies during the timeframe 

considered, we recommend the Draft PEIS discuss how the BLM can encourage adoption of those technologies in 

future lease sales. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-47

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Since 1990, methane pollution in the United States has decreased by eleven percent, even as activities than can 

produce methane have increased. However, methane pollution is projected to increase to a level equivalent to 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-666 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

over 620 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution in 2030 absent additional action to reduce emissions. BLM 

recognized that “[r]educing methane emissions is a powerful way to take action on climate change.” (57) 

Although methane emissions from coal mines account for only about 6.3 percent of the total lifecycle emissions 

for coal used to produce electricity, (58) an analysis by The Wilderness Society suggests that implementation of 

the Mine Methane Waste Rule could reduce direct emissions from the federal coal program by an estimated 2.4 

million MTCO2e. (59) 

(57) From BLM to Examine Steps to Reduce Methane from Mining Operations on Public Lands, at 

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/info/newsroom/2014/april/blm_to_examine_steps.html. 

(58) Whitaker et al., Harmonization of Coal Life Cycle GHG Emissions, Yale University, 2012. 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00465.x/pdf 

(59) Ratledge, Nathan. Unpublished analysis of carbon emissions reduction potential of current and proposed 

rules at the Department of the Interior and related agencies. October 2015. Available upon request. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-48

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 7.4 8.10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Recommendations: The BLM should examine and advance regulations to reduce the emissions of methane and 

other greenhouse gases from coal mining operations, both underground and surface operations. Unless and until 

those regulations are complete, the BLM should immediately consider other options to offset these emissions or 

otherwise address the associated climate impacts. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-87

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2014, the BLM issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reduce methane from mining operations 

on public lands. (60) BLM cited its authority for regulation methane waste: “The authority for the BLM to address 

the capture, use, or destruction of waste mine methane across 700 million acres of Federal mineral estate comes 

from the Mineral Leasing Act.”

(60) Waste Mine Methane Capture, Use, Sale, or Destruction, A Proposed Rule by the Bureau of Land 

Management on April 29, 2014, 79 FR 23923, RIN 1004-AE23. 

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/04/29/2014-09688/waste-mine-methane-capture-use-sale-ordestruction. 

The ANPR also recognizes that methane is emitted “not only from underground coal mines, but also from active 

surface coal mines and post-mining operations, as well as abandoned or closed underground coal mines.” (61) 

BLM should consider regulations to reduce emissions from these sources as well. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-51

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

5. The PEIS Should Evaluate the Impacts of Coal Mine Methane and Mitigation Measures to Limit Coal Mine 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-667

Scoping Report 

Methane Emissions. There is increasing scientific evidence that for humanity to have a chance to keep climate 

change within tolerable levels (below 2 °C), governments around the world must act quickly to reduce methane 

emissions in particular. 88 Part of that consensus is that methane pollution is more damaging than previously 

thought. The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) in 2013 

concluded that methane is a much more potent driver of climate change than scientists understood it to be just a 

few years previous—with a global warming potential as much as 36 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year time 

frame, and 87 times greater than CO2 over a 20-year time frame. Approximately one-third of the anthropogenic 

climate change we are experiencing today is attributable to methane and other short-lived climate pollutants, and 

about thirty percent of the warming we will experience over the next two decades as a result of this year’s 

greenhouse gas emissions will come from methane. 89 Climate scientists now recognize that avoiding 

catastrophic climate change will require both a long-term strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and nearterm action to mitigate methane and similar “accelerants” of climate change. As a 2013 article in the journal 

Science stated: “The only way to permanently slow warming is through lowering emissions of CO2. The only way 

to minimize the peak warming this century is to reduce emissions of CO2 and [short-lived climate pollutants],” 

including methane. 90 Because of methane’s outsize role in near-term climate-forcing, this administration has 

specifically targeted methane pollution to address climate change. In 2013, the White House published a climate 

strategy that concluded: “Curbing emissions of methane is critical to our overall effort to address global climate 

change.”91 The need to address methane’s damaging climate impacts spurred both BLM and EPA to propose 

regulations to limit the fugitive methane emissions from oil and gas operations. EPA’s 88 B. McKibben, Global 

Warming’s Terrifying New Chemistry, THE NATION (Mar. 23, 2016), attached as Ex. 14, and available at

http://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-terrifying-new- chemistry/ (last visited July 28, 2016). 89 

Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Thomas Stocker et al., eds. 2013), available at 

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf (last visited July 28, 2016). 90 J.K. 

Shoemaker, et al., What Role for Short-Lived Climate Pollutants in Mitigation Policy? 342 SCIENCE 1323-24 

(2013), attached as Ex. 15, and available at http://www-ramanathan. ucsd.edu/files/pr200.pdf (last visited July 28, 

2016). 91 Executive Office of the President, The President’s Climate Action Plan (June 2013), attached as Ex. 16, 

and available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf (last visited 

July 27, 2016). 35 2015 proposed regulations specifically address methane’s damaging climate impacts. 92 BLM has 

issued draft rules that also address climate impacts. 93 Both agencies concluded that reducing methane pollution 

would have significant social benefits, based in large part on the significant social cost of methane and/or carbon in 

continuing to permit unnecessary methane releases. 94 Earlier this year, the U.S. and Canada also signed a climate 

agreement which calls for significant methane reductions from the oil and gas sector. 95 Coal mines—including 

operations that mine federal coal in the U.S. —are a significant source of methane pollution. Eight percent of 

global methane emissions come from coal mines. 96 One coal mine operating on federal leases in Colorado is 

reportedly that state’s largest single source of methane pollution; this in a state with a vast amount of oil and gas 

infrastructure. 97 As a result, coal mine methane (“CMM”) has also long been targeted for reduction by the 

federal government. In 1994, EPA established the Coalbed Methane Outreach Project (“CMOP”) to “work[] 

cooperatively with the coal mining industry in the United States – and other major coal-producing countries – to 

reduce CMM emissions. By helping to identify and implement methods to recover and use CMM instead of 

emitting it to the atmosphere, CMOP has played a key role in the United States' efforts to reduce GHG 

emissions and address 92 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed Rule, Oil and Natural Gas Sector, 80 

Fed. Reg. 56,593, 56,598 (Sep. 18, 2015), attached as Ex. 17, and available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2015-09-18/pdf/2015-21023.pdf (last visited July 27, 2016). 93 Bureau of Land Management, Proposed Rule, 

Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation, 81 Fed. Reg. 6,616, 6,617 (Feb. 

8, 2016), attached as Ex. 18, and available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-02-08/pdf/2016-01865.pdf 

(last visited July 28, 2016). 94 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed Rule, Oil and Natural Gas Sector, 

80 Fed. Reg. at 56,657 (Ex. 17); BLM, Proposed Rule, Waste Prevention, 81 Fed Reg. at 6670-71 (Ex. 18); Bureau 

of Land Management, Regulatory Impact Analysis for Revisions to Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing (Jan. 14, 2016) at 

32, 130-49 (Ex. 12). 95 The White House, U.S.-Canada Joint Statement on Climate, Energy, and Arctic Leadership 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-668 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

(Mar. 10, 2016), attached as Ex. 19, and available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ 2016/03/10/uscanada-joint-statement-climate-energy-and-arctic-leadership (last visited July 28, 2016). 96 “In 2015, global 

methane emissions from coal mines were estimated to be 630 MMTCO2E, accounting for 8 percent of total 

global methane emissions.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Frequent Questions About Coal Mine 

Methane, available at https://www.epa.gov/epa-coalbed- methane-outreach-program/frequent-questions (last 

visited July 28, 2016). 97 See K. Ray, Colorado’s worst methane polluter is an Arch Coal mine, Colorado 

Independent (May 3, 2016), attached as Ex. 20, and available at 

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/159131/colorados-worst-methane-polluter-is-an-arch-coal-mine- west-elkjohn-hickenlooper (last visited July 28, 2016). 36 global climate change.”98 In 2014, the administration published a 

strategy to reduce methane pollution which specifically identified the need for voluntary and regulatory actions to 

limit methane emissions from coal mines. 99 Further, in 2014 BLM issued an advance notice for proposed 

rulemaking (“ANPR”) requesting “comments and suggestions that might assist the agency in the establishment of 

a program to capture, use, or destroy waste mine methane that is released into the mine environment and the 

atmosphere as a direct consequence of underground mining operations on Federal leases for coal and other 

minerals.”100 The ANPR for waste mine methane noted that the agency had the authority to require methane 

capture in coal leases: Based on the readjustment authority [30 U.S.C. § 207], the BLM may readjust lease terms 

to both authorize and require lessees to capture otherwise vented [waste mine methane] to use or sell. The BLM 

also has authority under the same section of the MLA to include such terms and conditions in new coal leases. 

101 The ANPR also notes that agency climate policy supports the control or elimination of methane pollution 

from coal mines: [R]educing [waste mine methane] venting would reduce emissions of a potent greenhouse gas, 

consistent with the President’s Climate Action Plan— Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions (March 2014) and 

Secretarial Order 3289, Amendment No. 1 (“Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, 

Land, and other Natural and Cultural Resources,” dated February 22, 2010). 102 98 U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Coal Mine Methane – What EPA is Doing, attached as Ex. 21, and available at 

https://www.epa.gov/epa-coalbed-methane-outreach-program/what-epa- doing (last visited 28, 2016). 99 The 

White House, Climate Action Plan, Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions (Mar. 2014), attached as Ex. 22, and 

available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strategy_to_reduce_methane_emissions_2014-03- 

28_final.pdf (last visited July 28, 2016). 100 79 Fed. Reg. 23,923 (Apr. 29, 2014). 101 Id. at 23,924; see also id. at 

23,923 (citing 30 U.S.C. § 189, which states that the Secretary “is authorized to prescribe necessary and proper 

rules and regulations and to do any and all things necessary to carry out and accomplish the purposes of” the 

Mineral Leasing Act governing coal leasing, and 30 U.S.C. § 207, which states that coal leases “shall include such 

other terms and conditions as the Secretary shall determine.”). 102 Id. at 23,924. 37 BLM should immediately 

finalize its coal mine methane rulemaking to address harmful methane emissions now, even as it considers 

broader reforms. In addition, BLM must evaluate the climate consequences of coal mine methane and potential 

mitigation to reduce those emissions in its programmatic review of the federal coal leasing program. In the 

context of this review, if the BLM considers any alternative that provides for new coal leasing, the agency must 

also consider requiring methane mitigation measures on those leases. Wilderness Soc’y v. Wisely, 524 F. Supp. 2d 

1285, 1309 (D. Colo. 2007) (holding that EIS must consider “all possible approaches to, and potential 

environmental impacts of, a particular project”). In comments on the ANPR for the coal mine methane 

rulemaking, attached, Sierra Club, Earthjustice and others provided detailed recommendations for feasible and 

available mine methane mitigation measures. 103 As those comments explain, coal mine methane generally is 

removed from underground mines one of two ways. Methane can be removed by moving vast quantities of air, 

including dilute quantities of methane, through a mine’s ventilation system. This methane pollution, known as 

ventilation air methane (VAM), is distinct from methane removed from the coal seam by methane drainage wells 

(MDWs) drilled into the coal seam from above. Mitigation measures are available for both removal methods. 

VAM makes up over half of all coal emissions in the United States and worldwide. VAM mitigation measures are 

technically and economically feasible and have already been employed at mines worldwide, including in the United 

States, to reduce 95% or more of VAM emissions. BLM and the Forest Service (which must consent to coal 

leasing on national forest lands) have generally declined to address such an alternative at the leasing stage, for 

example, when addressing lease modifications for the West Elk Mine in the last few years, despite the multiple 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-669

Scoping Report 

examples of successful VAM mitigation measures. But the agencies’ previous justifications for declining to study in 

detail and alternative requiring the use of VAM reduction technology all lack support, and should not be used by 

BLM to reject such alternative in the PEIS. In addition to measures available to reduce VAM emissions, BLM 

should consider carbon offsets, which are a tested, feasible, and practical alternative to allowing federal coal 

leaseholders to vent millions of cubic feet of methane into the atmosphere every without (or with minimal) 

mitigation or control. EPA has repeatedly urged land management agencies to assess carbon offsets in EAs and 

EISs as a way to reduce climate change impacts of agency actions. EPA has specifically noted that offsets are a 

reasonable alternative to lessen the impacts of coal mine methane emissions. In a 2007 letter concerning a 

proposal to permit methane drainage wells at the West Elk Mine, EPA specifically rejected the Forest Service’s 

assertion that a carbon offset alternative was not reasonable: “[I]t is reasonable to consider offset mitigation for 

the release of methane, as appropriate. Acquiring offsets to counter the greenhouse gas impacts of a particular 

project is something that thousands of organizations, including private corporations, are doing today.”104 EPA 

specifically recommended that another EIS on a coal leasing proposal 103 See Comments by Sierra Club, et al., 

1004-AE23, Waste Mine Methane Capture, Use, Sale, or Destruction, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(June 30, 2014), attached as Ex. 23. 104 Letter from L. Svoboda, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to C. 

Richmond, U. S. Forest Service (Aug. 7, 2007) at 7 (emphasis added), attached as Ex. 24. 38 “acknowledge that 

revenues for carbon credits are available via several existing markets.”105 Similarly, EPA has recommended that a 

Forest Service NEPA analysis of a forest health project “discuss reasonable alternatives and/or potential means to 

mitigate or offset the GHG emissions from the action.”106 Numerous state agencies already use offsets to 

control GHG emissions. 107 BLM has authority to require such offsets, and numerous federal agencies require 

similar mitigation, and so addressing such an alternative in the PEIS is reasonable. For example, the Interior 

Department is a participant in an offset program related to GHG pollution from the Navajo Generating Station in 

Arizona. In a settlement with state, federal, tribal and conservation groups related to Clean Air Act compliance, 

DOI committed to reduce or offset federal CO2 emissions by 3% annually for a total of 11.3 million metric tons 

of emissions reductions by the end of 2031.108 This is intended to reduce CO2 emissions and demonstrate the 

workability of a credit-based system to achieve pollution reductions. DOI also committed to facilitating 

development of Clean Energy Projects intended to achieve 80% generation of clean energy for the federal share 

at the Navajo Generating Station by 2035 by securing nearly 27 million megawatt hours in Clean Energy 

Development Credits. 109 A number of underground coal mines operating on federal leases not only remove 

methane in dilute quantities through ventilation systems (as VAM), but also emit millions of cubic feet a day of 

higher concentration methane via methane drainage wells (MDWs). Because emissions from MDWs generally 

contain methane in higher concentrations, such emissions can be combusted, or flared, before they enter the 

atmosphere. Flaring results in an 87% reduction in GHG emissions compared with venting methane directly into 

the atmosphere. 110 As a State of Colorado 2016 report states: From a climate change standpoint, emitting 

carbon dioxide is much less harmful on the environment than a mine’s direct emission of methane into the 

atmosphere. Accordingly, flaring methane, 105 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency July 2012 Comment Letter 

at 5 (identifying four U.S. carbon exchanges creating a market for carbon credits), attached as Ex. 25. 106 Letter 

from L. Svoboda, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to T. Malecek, U. S. Forest Service, at 8 (Oct. 27, 2010), 

attached as Ex. 26. 107 See, e.g., Settlement Agreement, ConocoPhillips and California (Sept. 10, 2007) (California 

agency requiring offsets as a condition of approving a project), attached as Ex. 27; Minn. Stat. § 216H.03 subd. 

4(b) (Minnesota law requiring offsets for certain new coal-fired power plants); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 38, § 580-

B(4)(c) (Maine law establishing greenhouse gas initiative that includes the use of carbon offsets). 108 See 

Technical Work Group Agreement Related to Navajo Generating Station (July 25, 2013) at 5-6, 9, available at 

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/upload/7-25-2013-NGS- TWG-Agreement-FINAL_Executed.pdf 

(last viewed July 28, 2016). 109 Id. 110 Daniel J. Brunner & Karl Schultz, Effective Gob Well Flaring 724 (1999), 

attached as Ex. 28. 39 which converts the residual gas emission to carbon dioxide, has nearly the same 

environmental impacts as using methane to generate electricity or heat. 111 Where MDWs are or can be 

utilized, methane flaring is a reasonable, practical, effective, and feasible alternative to reduce GHG emissions 

from new or existing coal lease. 112 Although mitigation for coal mine methane emissions is not alone sufficient 

to avoid or mitigate the climate change impacts of the federal coal leasing program, it is a near-term necessity to 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-670 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

ensure that existing coal mining does not exact irreversible consequences. The PEIS should analyze these 

mitigation options. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0003060_Laverty_N_20160710-1 

Commenter1:Denise Claire Laverty 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Require coal companies to capture and use the methane they release from their mines. 

Comment Number: 000001239_ RECKLE_20160623-4 

Commenter1:Eric Reckle 

Commenter Type: Individual 

Other Sections: 18 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

let's see addressed is the fact that any methane vent -- we have to watch out how we put those in, especially if 

above-ground area is a wilderness area. I think I'd look at that in terms of how we, how we put that vent in if it's 

a wilderness area above ground. 

Comment Number: 00001268_Ortiz_20160623-2 

Organization1:Western Slope Conservation Center 

Commenter1:Karen Ortiz 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

You've heard about our very clean burning coal. North Fork communities have benefited from this wealth over 

many decades without sacrificing the other riches that our local land, water, and air provide. That, coupled with 

methane off-gassing from our closed and currently operating mines in our recapture project, puts us into an 

excellent position for the Federal Government to leverage our values of methane recapture methods 

[indiscernible] research and training site. It could create training and jobs for some displaced miners while 

diversifying our local economy and energy generation through methane recapture and other renewable sources 

at our disposal. 

ISSUE 5.13 - SURFACE OWNER RIGHTS 

Total Number of Submissions: 9 

Total Number of Comments: 12 

Comment Number: 0000072_Tully_20160517-7 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Tom Tully 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Provide for protection for surface owners in the instance of a split-estate and especially before allowing the 

exchange of split-estate coal, regardless of the methods used to mine coal. This includes longwall and other 

methods of underground mining. 

Comment Number: 0000076_Pfister_20160517-1 

Organization1:Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-671

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Much of BLM's 570 million acre mineral estate in the West is under private surface such as mine. And as the 

surface owner, I am very concerned about this. This thing has hung over my head for 25 years. Only one thing 

will be mined from the coal deposit, but the lease is for all the coal. And so we actually stand a potential for being 

under-mined two or three more times, and we don't know when the lease expires. Does it expire when the main 

seam is taken? Does it expire a hundred years from now when maybe they get around to the last one? There's no 

certainty when you coal -- when you own surface over federal coal, and there's a lot of private surface owners in 

the West in that situation. 

Comment Number: 0000511_Pfister_WesternOrg of Resource Councils_20160517-1 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As a surface owner over federal coal, I, too, am concerned about the future of coal leasing. I have had a federal 

coal trade or lease hanging over my head for 25 years. Only one seam will be mined, but there are a number of 

less lucrative seams. BLM refused to do a seam specific lease in our area. Is the coal lease effective until the last 

thin seam is removed or until the mine gets the one it says it wants? When does the lease expire? Does it release 

my land when every last section in the lease is mined or is it as the coal is removed section by section? Surface 

owner consent, hard fought in SMCRA, is compromised by coal trades or coal for land trades. Are owners of 

grazing rights on federal lands compensated for the loss of the rights and the income they represent? 

Comment Number: 0000511_Pfister_WesternOrg of Resource Councils_20160517-10

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM has areas in its lease forms for additional provisions. There is lots of talk today about "private property 

rights". In some cases property owners have everything except the coal, but as holders of those rights from the 

federal government, we are treated as nothing more substantial than overburden. I believe the Federal 

Government has an equitable responsibility to see that our lands are reclaimed and not rendered unusable while 

and after federal mineral is developed. BLM has been unwilling to add equitable remedies to coal leases in the 

additional provisions sections 

Comment Number: 0000840-3 

Commenter1:Craig J. Provost 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is also important to note that many of the properties being considered are so close to, or adjacent to, our 

beautiful National Parks, which are the source of millions of dollars to the tourism industry of our state. 

Decimating the quality of air in our Parks and further damaging the quality of our public roads including historic 

scenic byways is not worth the bargain basement prices the BLM offers these lands for leasing. Then there is the 

question of rehabilitation of the lands after they have been robbed of their resources, and left as slag heaps when 

the Coal companies have gone bankrupt, as reported by the banking industry, which is reluctant to offer loans for 

further coal development. 

Comment Number: 0002079_Horwitz_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Christopher Horwitz 

Other Sections: 8.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-672 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

landholders should be paid up front for their land, including the remediation charges; the coal production should 

only then proceed. 

Comment Number: 0002390_Pfister_20160721-10

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As a surface owner over federal coal I have some questions about my private property rights in relation to leased 

federal coal which I would like to have delineated. 

Comment Number: 0002390_Pfister_20160721-3 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As a surface owner over federal coal, I, too, am concerned about the future of coal leasing. I 

have had a federal coal trade or lease hanging over my head for 25 years. Only one seam will be 

mined, but there are a number of less lucrative seams. BLM refused to do a seam specifIc lease 

in our area. Is the coal lease effective until the last thin seam is removed or until the mine gets 

the one it says it wants? When does the lease expire? Does it release my land when every last 

section in the lease is mined or is it as the coal is removed section by section? Surface owner 

consent, hard fought in SMCRA, is compromised by coal trades or coal for land trades. Are 

owners of grazing rights on federal lands compensated for the loss of the rights and the income 

they represent? 

Comment Number: 0002391-5 

Commenter1:Tom Tully 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

5) Provide more protection for surface owners in the instances of a split estate, and especially before allowing 

exchanges of split estate coal, regardless of the method used to mine coal. This includes longwall and other 

methods of underground mining. 

Comment Number: 0002394-2 

Commenter1:Barbara Archer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Surface owners need to be fairly considered in the case of the split estates. 

Split estate coal has been exchanged without landowners' permission. When mined, for all 

practical purposes surface damage is permanent. Reclamation so far is taking generations. 

Comment Number: 0002458_Friez_20160728-1 

Organization1:North American Coal Corporation 

Commenter1:Christopher Friez 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In North Dakota, federal coal typically represents a small, yet not inconsequential, proportion of the coal within a 

mine area. The federal coal exists in pockets intermingled with larger blocks of privately and state owned coal. 

Often, the federal government may share its ownership of the federal coal in a given tract with other coal 

owners. Additionaly, the federal government has no surface ownership above its coal reserves. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-673

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002458_Friez_20160728-5 

Organization1:North American Coal Corporation 

Commenter1:Christopher Friez 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As indicated above, in North Dakota, in some cases where the federal government owns coal, it does not own 

100% of the coal underlying an entire tract. In those cases, the federal government shares its coal ownership with 

private owners. By sterilizing these tracts of coal, the federal government is stranding the assets of private 

citizens and may bring liability issues upon itself by not allowing private citizens to develop their valuable 

resources. In addition, in nearly all cases where the federal government owns coal at NACoal's operations, the 

surface on those tracts is privately owned. 

Issue 6 - Environmental justice 

Total Number of Submissions: 16 

Total Number of Comments: 18 

Comment Number: 0000015_Gorenflow_TNInterfaithPwr_20160525-1 

Organization1:Tennessee Interfaith Power and Light 

Commenter1:Louise Gorenflo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The elderly, children, communities of color and lower-income people - those least responsible for climate change 

- are disproportionately harmed by the impacts of climate change and our persistent inaction. 

Comment Number: 00000161_ HUGHES_20160517-2 

Organization1:Statewide Organizing for Community Empowerment 

Commenter1:Adam Hughes 

 Other Sections: 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2008, one billion gallons of coal ash contaminated with heavy metals spilled on the communities of Roane 

County. The cleanup was long and costly, finishing only last year and doing damage that cannot be truly quantified. 

The ash from the spill was shipped by train to the cash poor predominantly African-American community of 

Uniontown, Alabama, where it sits in a land fill directly across from houses. Residents report health problems and 

crop failures, and they have filed a civil rights complaint and testified in Washington, D.C. We must understand 

that the Federal Coal Leasing Program is directly connected to the injustices in Kingston and Uniontown. 

Comment Number: 0000081_Lempke_20160517-5 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association 

Commenter1:Doug Lempke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

our member system serves one of the economically depressed communities in the region where residents can 

least afford to pay higher electrical bills. As BLM develops the programmatic environmental impact statement for 

the federal coal program, Tri-State strongly encourages you to consider the impact on the cost of electricity, 

consider federal, state, and local government dependence on royalty payments that they'd receive
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-674 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000797_Nehring_Voices for UT Children_20160519 -9 

Organization1:Voices for Utah Children 

Commenter1:Lincoln Nehring 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Among children who suffer from asthma, racial and economic inequities persist, as well. As Children's National 

Health System chairman of pediatrics Stephen Teach explains, "There are stark and dramatic disparities in the 

prevalence of the disease."5 In Utah, asthma is likewise known to have disparate impacts on certain groups, often 

affecting higher percentages of the populations of some racial and ethnic minorities. According to the 2016 Utah 

Prevention and Needs Assessment report on asthma in schools, for example, Salt Lake County data indicated 

"black youth (21.3%) had a higher current asthma prevalence compared to the total (12.2%), other (10.5%), and 

Hispanic youth (8.1%).6 

(5) http://upr.org/post/childhood-asthma-rates-Ievel-racial-disparities-remain 

(6) http://health.utah.gov/asthma/pdfs/data/schooIPNA20I6.pdf 

Comment Number: 0000824-6 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Since 1980, the world has increased its use of coal, oil, and natural gas by over 80 percent - because that is the 

most cost-effective way to produce energy. At the same time, the average life expectancy of our world's 7 billion 

people has gone up 7 years-that's 7 years of precious life! Every other metric of human well-being has also 

improved, from income to access to health care to nourishment to clean water access. The most growth has 

been among the poorest people in the world. (Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, Historical data 

workbook World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI)). 

Comment Number: 0002011_Clay_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Beth Clay 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The poor people, and I mean poor in a financial way, have coal furnaces in almost every older home in town. If 

coal is no longer available, how can those people, who cannot afford to replace their furnaces with some green 

form that won't work, heat their homes. 

Comment Number: 0002067_VanSickle_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Jim Van Sickle 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reduction of the coal industry in Montana will bring our poverty stricken Crow nation to their knees. 

Comment Number: 0002474_Trice_20160728_EPA-4 

Organization1:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Commenter1:Jessica Trice 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Therefore, EPA recommends the Draft PEIS consider the potential for any associated disproportionate adverse 

impacts and any benefits to minority and low-income populations that may occur as a result of various reforms to 

the Federal coal program, including consideration of reasonable mitigation where appropriate. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-675 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-42

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS Should Evaluate the Impacts of Mining and Burning Federal Coal on Downstream Communities, 

Including the Environmental Justice Impacts Associated with Each Considered Alternative BLM’s Notice of Intent 

states that “[w]ith respect to the climate impacts of the Federal coal program, the Programmatic EIS will examine 

how best to measure and assess the climate impacts of continued Federal coal production, transportation, and 

combustion.”168 We applaud this commitment. But the PEIS must go further: it must also analyze and disclose 

the non-carbon environmental, health, and economic impacts of coal production, transport, and combustion. 

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider “any adverse environmental effects of their major actions.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 4332(2)(C). This consideration extends to both direct and indirect impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8. Indirect impacts 

are reasonably foreseeable impacts that are caused by the project but that occur later in time or at a greater 

distance. Id. A “reasonably foreseeable impact” is one that is “’sufficiently likely to occur that a person of ordinary 

prudence would take into account in reaching a decision.’” Mid States Coal. for Progress, 345 F.3d at 549 (citing 

Sierra Club v. Marsh, 976 F.2d 763, 767 (1st Cir. 1992)). Even if complete information is lacking on the extent of 

the foreseeable impact, “the agency may not simply ignore the effect.” 166 Leonard G. Pearlstine, Elise V. 

Pearlstine, & Nicholas G. Aumen, A Review of the Ecological Consequences and Management Implications of 

Climate Change for the Everglade, 29-4 JOURNAL OF THE NORTH AMERICAN BENTHOLOGICAL 

SOCIETY, 1510, 1513 (2010); E. Stabenau, J. Sadle, & L. Pearlstine, Sea-level Rise: Observations, impacts, and 

proactive measures in Everglades National Park, 28 PARK SCIENCE, 26-30 (2011). 167 Government 

Accountability Office, Climate Change, at 27. 168 81 Fed. Reg. at 17,725. 49 Id. If the nature of the effect is 

reasonably foreseeable, this effect must be addressed in the PEIS. Id. Given the scope and scale of the federal 

leasing program, it is undeniable that it has significant, adverse effects on water quality and access, air quality, 

health and climate. The activities directly and indirectly associated with coal leasing include, among other things, 

coal transport by rail, truck and sea, construction and operation of infrastructure and equipment related to 

storing, shipping and processing coal, coal combustion domestically and overseas, and disposal of coal ash. Each of 

these “downstream” activities negatively downstream communities, harming their health, threatening their safety 

and causing significant nuisance. More specifically, the federal coal program’s downstream activities generate coal 

dust and other air , reduce water access and worsen water quality, increase accident and hazard risk, induce 

growth that magnifies these affects, and hasten impacts from climate disruption, such as sea level rise. These 

impacts are particularly pernicious because many downstream communities, and low income communities and 

communities of color in particular, are already disproportionately impacted by pollution and hazards. 

Communities situated within two miles of rail lines, 169 in cities next to ports, those near coal terminals and 

plants, and communities that depend upon clean and accessible water for their livelihoods are most vulnerable. 

Since NEPA requires analysis of all foreseeable direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, the PEIS must analyze 

impacts to downstream communities. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-44

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS must analyze downstream impacts of coal dust. Coal dust emissions can significantly impact the health of 

downstream communities and workers, and damage our environment. The PEIS should analyze both coal dust 

emissions impacts from railcars and fugitive emissions. Coal dust is generated by coal-carrying rail cars during 

transit and as a fugitive emission from coal storage piles, and loading and unloading activities. 177 Rail lines parallel 

waterways where rail cars emit coal dust, transporting it to nearby communities and farms. Coal trains emit coal 

dust from the top and bottom of the rail cars throughout the trip. An average rail car loses 645 lbs during a 400 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-676 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

mile trip. 178 BNSF estimates that 500 to 2000 lbs of coal dust can be emitted from each train car per trip. 179 

Surfactants are sometimes sprayed over the coal to control dust. However, surfactants wear off during the trip 

and require tremendous quantities of water to apply. Coal dust can impact port communities and workers 

because of higher emissions associated with containment within a smaller area and the types of locomotives used 

within port facilities. 180 Currently, no federal regulations protect communities from coal dust exposure. Coal 

dust consists mainly of granules and fine black particles that increase both PM10 and PM 2.5 in the ambient air. 

Most acutely, coal dust causes wheezing, excess cough and other 176 Power Consulting, Inc., The Economic 

Consequences of the Federal Coal Leasing Program: Improving the Quality of the Economic Analysis (July 27, 

2016) at 49, attached as Ex. 1, citing, inter alia, National Research Council, Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced 

Consequences of Energy Production and Use,” Committee on Health, Environmental, and Other External Costs 

and Benefits of Energy Production and Consumption (2010), available at http://nap.edu/12794 (last visited July 27, 

2016), attached as Ex. 32; Paul R. Epstein, et al., Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal,” in “Ecological 

Economics Review, ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 1219 (2011): 73-98, available at 

http://www.chgeharvard.org/sites/default/files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf (last visited July 27, 2016), 

attached as Ex. 33; Nicholas A. Muller et al., Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States 

Economy. AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 101 (August 2011): 1649-1675, available at 

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.101.5.1649 (last visited July 27, 2016), attached as Ex. 34. 177 

Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental Health and Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized 

Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 13, attached as Ex. 35. 178 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental Health and 

Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 2 (Ex. 35). 179 

Sustainable Systems Research, LLC, “Technical Memorandum Air Quality, Climate Change, and Environmental 

Justice Issues from Oakland Trade and Global Logistics Center, September 18, 2015, at 6, attached as Ex. 36. 180 

Id. 52 respiratory symptoms. 181 Longer term exposure can lead to skin damage, circulatory problems, and 

increased risk of developing cancer. Coal dust also increases accident risk because coal dust from trains 

destabilizes the track ballast—the surface that bears the load of the railroad ties. Coal dust contaminates soil, 

coats crops, yards, homes and vehicles raising health concerns and causing nuisance. 182 Fugitive coal dust can 

impair lung function, and cause or contribute to cardiovascular disease and developmental disorders. Covered rail 

cars would appear to reduce coal dust emissions, so the PEIS should also explore the impacts of covered rail 

cars. To our knowledge, at this time, no covered coal trains are in use in the U.S. and we know of no published 

study of the efficacy for coal trains. Covered cars would still emit coal dust from the bottom of the train, which 

constitutes 7 percent of the total coal dust. 183 And if the cars included venting units, the coal dust would 

additionally vent from the top of the car. Covered rail cars also pose an additional rail accident risk; coal is highly 

combustible, and coal trapping heat limited space could facilitate spontaneous combustion. 184 In addition to 

analyzing the impacts of coal dust emissions from uncovered cars, the PEIS should analyze and disclose emissions 

from empty coal trains. One recent Australian study found that empty coal trains emit more particulate pollution 

than loaded ones. 185 Controlling coal dust requires millions of gallons of water per year. Water is needed 

during rail car loading, at storage piles within enclosures, at drop points, and during ship loading. 186 About 8 

gallons of water are required for each ton of coal throughput to control dust. 187 Given that coal travels through 

states that are experiencing drought, the PEIS should analyze the impacts of coal leasing in this context. The PEIS 

should also consider the cumulative impacts of coal dust given the impacts faced by communities located near rail 

lines and ports where the trains are carried. Cumulative impacts are the related past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects. 181 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental Health and Safety Impacts of the 

Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 16 (Ex. 35). 182 Paul R. Epstein et al, 

Full Cost of Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal, ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, v. 

1219, 2011, at 84 (Ex. 33). 183 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Health and Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland 

Bulk and Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 17 (Ex. 35). 184 Id. at 18. 185 Nick Higgenbotham et al, 

Coal Train Pollution Signature Study: A briefing paper prepared for the For the Coal Terminal Action Group 

Dust and Health Committee, August 2013, attached as Ex. 37. 186 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental 

Health and Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 2 (Ex. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-677

Scoping Report 

35). 187 Id. at 7. 53 Given that ports and other areas impacted by coal dust are located in low-income 

communities and communities of color, the PEIS must analyze these impacts. 188 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-55

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

8. The PEIS must analyze environmental justice impacts. The PEIS must address the environmental justice 

implications the federal coal program, particularly with regard to climate impacts. Minority and low-income 

communities bear a disproportionate risk of suffering adverse effects of climate disruption. According to EPA, 

“[C]limate change is an environmental justice issue. Low-income communities and communities of color already 

overburdened with pollution are likely to be disproportionately affected by, and less resilient to, the impacts of 

climate change.”207 In addition, low-income communities and communities of color face multiple vulnerabilities 

due to threats to health, housing, healthy food, transportation, jobs, safety, and clean energy, among other things, 

208 all of which the mining and burning of federal coal exacerbates. EPA cites the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change’s (“IPCC’s”) Fifth Assessment Report, which concludes that climate disruption will hit lowincome neighborhoods and people of color the hardest. According to the IPCC, “[m]any key risks constitute 

particular challenges for the least developed countries and vulnerable communities, given their limited ability to 

cope.”209 These disproportionate risks relate to economic impacts and effects on 206 A recent draft EIS 

evaluating the impact of Millennium Bulk Terminals Longview in Washington State acknowledged that the coal 

project would increase the number of rail accidents by 22% statewide. 207 Clean Power Plan, 80 Fed. Reg. 

64,662, 64,914 (Oct. 23, 2015). 208 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, EQUITY IN 

BUILDING RESILIENCE IN ADAPTATION PLANNING at 2 available at http://action.naacp.org/page/- 

/Climate/Equity_in_Resilience_Building_Climate_Adaptation_Indicators_FINAL.pdf (last visited July 28, 2016), 

attached as Ex. 39. 209 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, CLIMATE CHANGE 2014: IMPACTS, 

ADAPTATION, AND VULNERABILITY: SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS (2014), at 13. 57 human health. In 

the United States, researchers have found that African-Americans and Latinos are also more likely to reside in 

areas vulnerable to climate change impacts such as sea-level rise, flood risk, and wildfire risk, and that median 

household incomes are inversely related to these vulnerability risks. 210 This is not a recently reached 

conclusion. EPA’s supporting documents in its 2009 Endangerment Finding summarized major assessment reports 

by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the IPCC, and the National Research Council (NRC) of 

the National Academies, which found that that poor communities can be especially vulnerable to climate change 

impacts. 211 According to EPA, recent studies reaffirm these conclusions. These studies, cited extensively in 

supporting documentation for EPA’s Clean Power Plan, “find that certain climate change related impacts—

including heat waves, degraded air quality, and extreme weather events—have disproportionate effects on lowincome populations and some communities of color, raising environmental justice concerns.”212 Additionally, 

EPA concluded that climate disruption poses particular threats to health, well-being, and ways of life of indigenous 

peoples in the U.S. As part of the PEIS process, DOI must, at a minimum, acknowledge the body of wellestablished research, endorsed by EPA, which concludes that “low income populations and some communities of 

color are especially vulnerable to the health and other adverse impacts of climate change.”In addition to fully 

disclosing the climate impacts of its federal coal leasing program, DOI must disclose the likelihood that the 

impacts of any decision to continue leasing and burning taxpayer-owned coal will fall disproportionately on lowincome communities and communities of color. 

Comment Number: 0003037_Crystal_J_06052016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:John Crystal 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Proposed changes to the federal coal program could threaten the reliability and affordability of electricity by 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-678 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

increasing federal coal royalty rates and thus forcing consumers like me to pay more for the power we need at 

home and work. While I personally might be able to afford that, all I read about are the increasing numbers of 

more economically disadvantaged that are having problems in affording their monthly utility bills. Why should our 

government penalize those that are most economically disadvantaged? 

Comment Number: 0003043_Griffith_J_06112016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Caleb Griffith 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Don't listen to those who just want to keep coal in the ground, which would produce no return for taxpayers 

and disproportionately affects the poor. 

Comment Number: 0003046_Kinnes_J_06032016-1 

Commenter1:Dwight Kinnes

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Increased electricity rates hurt those who can least afford it the most. Seniors on fixed incomes and families living 

on the edge of poverty cannot afford any increases in electricity. 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-8 

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2014, the NAACP in found that low income families and communities of color are disproportionately harmed 

by the fossil fuel industry.(3) 

Comment Number: 00001270_Smyth_20160623-4 

Commenter1:Joe Smyth 

Commenter Type: Individual 

Other Sections: 5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Spring coal is a major cause of air pollution, particularly in lower-income communities. 

Comment Number: 0000847_Mann_SierraClub-2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I share the deep concern expressed earlier that we are not moving rapidly enough to avert catastrophic climate 

impacts that will most definitely burden and potentially displace the most vulnerable communities, especially low 

income and people of color communities, and will rob my grandchildren of their generation of the future they 

deserve 

Comment Number: 0000873_Kirkpatrick-1 

Commenter1:Claudia Kirckpatrick 

Other Sections: 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Burning coal is a direct cause of asthma, respiratory illnesses and cancer. It is a serious risk especially to children 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-679

Scoping Report 

and families in the areas around the power plants which are still burning coal. And it is 

more likely that low income and minority children and families will be the people most seriously harmed 

Issue 7 - Public health and safety 

Total Number of Submissions: 68 

Total Number of Comments: 124 

Comment Number: 0000005_Kurtz_20160526_Oral-3 

Commenter1:Sandra Kurtz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Mining companies should pay the full cost of any mining on public land including the cost of adverse impacts to 

human health. 

Comment Number: 00000161_ HUGHES_20160517-2 

Organization1:Statewide Organizing for Community Empowerment 

Commenter1:Adam Hughes 

Other Sections: 9 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2008, one billion gallons of coal ash contaminated with heavy metals spilled on the communities of Roane 

County. The cleanup was long and costly, finishing only last year and doing damage that cannot be truly quantified. 

The ash from the spill was shipped by train to the cash poor predominantly African-American community of 

Uniontown, Alabama, where it sits in a land fill directly across from houses. Residents report health problems and 

crop failures, and they have filed a civil rights complaint and testified in Washington, D.C. We must understand 

that the Federal Coal Leasing Program is directly connected to the injustices in Kingston and Uniontown. 

Comment Number: 00000169_ HILL_20160517-1 

Organization1:Kentuckians for the Commonwealth 

Commenter1:Joanne Golden Hill 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Cooper Power Plant was built in 1963 on the banks of the Cumberland River in Burnside, Kentucky. The 

power plant is located directly across the river from the Burnside Elementary School. You don't have to be in the 

healthcare field to notice there is an abnormal high amount of brain cancer in the Burnside, Kentucky area, some 

diagnosed as early in their thirties. And most of them have attended the Burnside Elementary School. 

Comment Number: 00000170_ JUDY_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Carol Judy 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If you will go to ILoveMountains.org, there are at least thirteen health studies there on water qualities, physical 

health, and the cost of medical attention or nonattention, as I would say. But also, you can go to the 

Beehivecollective.org. This is an artist cooperative that over the past fifteen years have looked at global and local 

issues in the same way. 

Comment Number: 00000172_ TERRY_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Vicky Terry 

Other Sections: 16 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-680 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I became aware of all the health effects and the water quality. And we water test. We monitor our own water 

because we have been able to the coal mine and the regulations that are in place isn't the violations up there. I 

can show you with -- I can show you violations. And they are not being enforced. Nobody is enforcing any 

regulations. We are watching our water quality go down. We don't eat fish out of the creeks anymore. We are 

scared of the fish. And we have to watch where we go swimming now. 

Comment Number: 00000174_ HEADRICK_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Mary Headrick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

there are health hazards for people who live or work near a coal extraction site that include toxic pollutants in 

air and water, such as selenium, benzine, mercury, arsenic, but more widespread than these and affecting many 

more lives are the health hazards of actually burning coal 

Comment Number: 00000174_ HEADRICK_20160517-3 

Commenter1:Mary Headrick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To give you the statistic, each increase of 30 micrograms per cubic meter of fine particulates can increase the risk 

of death, all causes, by three percent, increases of death of heart disease by ten percent, increase of death of 

respiratory disease by twenty-seven percent. 

Comment Number: 00000181_ MULLINS_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Nick Mullins 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Those who enjoy the brief economic benefits of coal employment have been left to suffer the health impacts, 

including black lung, cancer, joint deterioration, and back injuries. 

Comment Number: 00000182_ BANBURY_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Scott Banbury 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We are the asthma capital of the United States right now. Coal combustion, in both bow and steam plant, but 

also at private facilities that burn coal for their own internal power consumption have contributed the vast 

majority of aggrevants that kids are suffering from and elderly are suffering from. These are the things that I hope 

are really going to be considered. These externalities impact the public health. 

Comment Number: 00000199_ BURTON_20160517-1 

Commenter1:James Robert Burton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I live in a city that has the twelfth worst air pollution in the country. And most of that air pollution comes from 

coal- fired power plants. Those coal-fired power plants are owned by Alabama Power. Fifty percent of Alabama 

Power's energy comes from coal. Fifty percent of that coal comes from the Powder River Basin, and so a lot of 

their coal is mined from lands that you all work on. Ever since I moved to Birmingham, I have had about four 

times worse health than before, and, according to my doctors, is about twenty percent of my health condition. 

And I think all of these health issues are something that needs to be considered when you all work to decide 

your policies on what the price of leasing is. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-681

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000320 _ GARBER _20160519-1 

Commenter1:Howie Garver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

These are some of the healthcare costs of burning coal. The emission from coal plants are the major source of 

sulfur dioxide, second only to automobiles as sources of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. NOx also is also 

a precursor of ozone. The emissions of all the coal-powered plants in this country have been calculated by the 

American Lung Association to cause about 25,000 premature deaths every year or an average of 30 to 50 deaths 

per plant per year. Coal-powered plant pollution is responsible for half a million asthma attacks, 16,000 episodes 

of conic bronchitis and 38,000 nonfatal heartaches every year. This pollution increases the annual healthcare bill 

by about $170 billion according to the California EPA. The American Heart Association and the American Lung 

Association state that air pollution on average shortens the life span of everyone one to three years. No one 

escapes the consequences of air pollution. 47,000 Utah children live within 30 miles of a coal power plant. Please 

look at the 2015 USGS report of toxic mercury concentration in the Colorado River. It doesn't take a rocket 

scientist to recognize that this mercury comes from coal-fired power plants near Price, Utah, and Page, Arizona. 

Comment Number: 00000367 _ Rossi _20160519-1 

Commenter1:Ericka Rossi 

Other Sections: 1 5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to information I have received, toxic coal mined from our public lands and burned in Utah's coal fire 

plants -- power plants have significantly affected the health of many people. The Hunter and Huntington coal-fired 

power plants are responsible for 40 percent of all of our state's dangerous haze causing nitrogen oxide pollution 

from the electricity sector. According to the Clean Air Task Force, pollution from the plants contributes to 11 

premature deaths and 233 asthma attacks every year. 

Comment Number: 0000766_Scissors_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Kenneth Scissors 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Processing and burning fossil fuels contributes significantly to air pollution which in turn causes health problems, 

especially in the oldest and youngest, and those with pulmonary disease. As a doctor I have seen these health 

problems first hand, especially at the VA with its vulnerable population. These health effects are caused both 

directly by inhaling harmful chemicals and particles and indirectly by upsetting the balance of nature and weather. 

Comment Number: 0000766_Scissors_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Kenneth Scissors 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

For those interested in understanding the scientific evidence, the best publication I have found is titled "Scientific 

Evidence of Health Effects from Coal Use in Energy Generation", produced by the Health Care Research 

Collaborative based at the University of Illinois. It is easily located on the Internet. In summary, it documents that 

the use of coal as an energy source has multiple large-scale serious worldwide health effects including illness and 

death related to respiratory, cardiac, and neurological diseases, as well as cancers and adverse effects on the 

developing fetus and pregnancy. 

Comment Number: 0000797_Nehring_Voices for UT Children_20160519 -1 

Organization1:Voices for Utah Children 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-682 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Lincoln Nehring 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

in efforts to modernize its coal leasing program, give specific focus and consideration to potential impacts on the 

overall health and wellbeing of children and families. 

Comment Number: 0000797_Nehring_Voices for UT Children_20160519 -6 

Organization1:Voices for Utah Children 

Commenter1:Lincoln Nehring 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The health and environmental impacts of coal combustion are many and varied. Pollutants discharged into the 

atmosphere through the combustion of coal by electrical utilities are well-known to cause harm to the 

respiratory system; this is especially problematic for children, whose lungs and respiratory 

systems are still in the process of developing. These effects, as noted in literature from Physicians for Social 

Responsibility, fall into several classes: "de novo production of a condition, such as asthma, that did not exist 

prior to an exposure; an exacerbation of a previously-existing illness, again, such as 

1 asthma; and the development or progression of a chronic illness such as asthma, lung cancer, chronic 

obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and emphysema."2 

(1) https:/ /www.regulations.gov/ #!documentDetail;D=BLM -2016-0002-0044 

(2) http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coals-assault-chapter-3.pdf 

Comment Number: 0000797_Nehring_Voices for UT Children_20160519 -7 

Organization1:Voices for Utah Children 

Commenter1:Lincoln Nehring 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to the Utah Department of Health's Utah Asthma Program, "poor air quality [is] a health concern for 

many Utahns, especially children and those with asthma."3 Although air quality and childhood asthma are 

significant concerns in Utah, however, the majority of the state's energy is still produced by the burning of coal. 

Despite the well-settled correlation between air quality and respiratory conditions, moreover, policy efforts 

aimed at controlling 

asthma tend merely to emphasize limiting exposure to pollution rather than highlighting the importance of 

pollution reduction. The reality, though, is that reducing the triggers of asthma attacks - including carbon 

pollution - represents an equally critical element of any viable approach. 

(3) http://www.health.utah.gov/asthma/ 

Comment Number: 0000797_Nehring_Voices for UT Children_20160519 -8 

Organization1:Voices for Utah Children 

Commenter1:Lincoln Nehring 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2008, it was estimated that more than 52,000 children in Utah had asthma. Among these children, lifetime 

asthma prevalence amounted to 9.8 percent, while current asthma prevalence was 6.6 percent. Based on 2012-

2013 data from the Central Utah Public Health Department and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the 

rate of physician-diagnosed asthma among Utah children (ages 0 -17) was 11.4 percent, compared with a national 

average rate of 9.3 percent. And the economic toll is high: Utah spent some $16.2 million in asthma-related 

hospitalizations in 2010 alone. 4 

(4) http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/54743373-78/asthma-utah-health-quality.html.csp 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-683

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000819-2 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Howie Garber 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current coal leasing program is a dinosaur. It gives unfair economic advantage to an industry that greatly 

contributes to global warming and to air pollution. The climate crisis is recognized in the medical community as 

the greatest public health crisis of our time. 

Comment Number: 0000824-5 

Commenter1:Garrett Atwood 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to the international disaster database (Emergency Events Database EM-DATL climate-related deaths 

are down 98 percent over the past 80 years. In 2013, there were 21,122 such deaths worldwide compared to a 

high of 3.7 million in 1931, when world population was less than a third of its current size. Why is the climate 

killing less people? Because while fossil fuel use has only a mild warming impact, it has an enormous protecting 

impact. Nature doesn't give us a stable, safe climate that we make dangerous. It gives us an ever-changing, 

dangerous climate that we need to make safe. And the driver behind sturdy buildings, affordable heating and airconditioning, drought relief and everything else that keeps us safe from climate is cheap, plentiful, reliable energy, 

overwhelmingly from coal and other fossil fuels. (Source: "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels", Alex Epstein) 

Comment Number: 0000829-5 

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy (UCARE) 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Is coal really affordable? A 2010 study found that Utah's coal-fired power plants cause hundreds of premature 

deaths annually and hundreds of millions of dollars in health care costs. University of Utah researchers report 

that children are especially vulnerable to respiratory illnesses from fossil fuel emissions. One "U" pediatrician 

referred to our children as "21st Century Canaries in the Coal Mine"...lightning rods for the dangers that 

ultimately threaten us all. Is coal cheap? Not for asthmatic kids. 

Comment Number: 0001134-1 

Commenter1:Janice Smith 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And also, I am a retired teacher. I am a retired teacher of preschool children. I have seen the evidence of coal in 

these young infants and adolescents. They are at risk. There is increase of respiratory-related illnesses such as 

asthma, RSV, too numerous, numerous illnesses. 

And also I'm a senior citizen. I am 70 years old. Our senior citizens have chronic bronchitis, emphysema, COPD, 

pulmonary fibrosis are indicators of coal dust in our systems. 

Comment Number: 0001179-1 

Commenter1:Joanna Schoettler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

So I usually say when I tell people about coal and fossil fuels that we can live without fossil fuel products but we 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-684 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

can't live without clean water. And as you saw on our signs, it says coal costs us our money, our health, our lands 

and our future, so keep the fossil fuel in the ground. It's not worth it for sustainability of our public health. 

Comment Number: 0001189-1 

Commenter1:Vivian MacKay 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The kids and the adults playing at Golden Gardens Park on Puget Sound, which isn't too far from my house are 

breathing in coal dust because the trains run right behind the park. The coal dust is blowing into Puget Sound 

from the trains, again, running right along the Sound, endangering the fish, the birds, shellfish and anything else 

that happens to be close by. 

Comment Number: 0002114_Savlove_20160613-1 

Commenter1:John Savlove 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mine leasing programs have outlived their usefulness. Compared with England, both the amount of coal and 

the byproducts reaped (positive and negative) are much greater in proportion. Black lung disease killed off the 

British miners while the land was being stripped. In the 90s, long after the mines and jobs were left barren, other 

grave coal-related accidents in the aftermath took place. 

Comment Number: 0002115_Schaefer_20160623-4 

Commenter1:C. Thomas Shaefer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is the fuel of the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century. Two centuries ago, fatalities resulting from coal 

mine collapses, explosions, and black lung disease were acceptable collateral damage--part of the price of 

admission to the modern era. The same was true of toxic smog and soot deposition. Of course, this was long 

before the advent of even more destructive mining technologies such as strip mining and mountaintop removal, 

and long before anyone dreamed of human-caused global warming or ocean acidification. 

Today, in the 21st century, we understand much, much more about the immense damage to human and 

environmental health caused by the continuing mining and combustion of coal. 

Comment Number: 0002115_Schaefer_20160623-5 

Commenter1:C. Thomas Shaefer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Moreover, coal mining, transport, and combustion cause the release of myriad toxic chemicals that threaten the 

health of humans and wild organisms alike. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-12

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

David Hillman spoke about labor-related liabilities, such as legacy healthcare costs for retirees. He described 

several types of such liabilities and whether they can be terminated in bankruptcy. 

First, there are benefits from collective bargaining agreeents (CBAs), and these can be 

terminated in bankruptcy if deemed necessary for the reorganization or liquidation. Second, the Coal Act 

imposes two types of obligations on companies: to provide healthcare benefits to their own retirees and 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-685

Scoping Report 

dependents, and to pay monthly premiums to health care funds that cover not only the operator’s former 

employees but also employees of operations that have gone out of business. Bankruptcy courts have held that the 

debtors may terminate or modify the healthcare benefits, but they cannot terminate the premiums (because 

these are treated in bankruptcy as taxes with administrative expense priority status). Third, the Black Lung Act 

requires operators 

to pay certain health and disability benefits to current and former employees with black lung disease and to pay 

an exercise tax on coal sales. The Black Lung obligations cannot be terminated in bankruptcy: the person with 

black lung has an unsecured claim against the operator, and if the operator cannot pay, the employee can receive 

funds from the federal Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. Andy Stevenson concluded the panel with a presentation 

about taxpayer liability to these costs when coal companies go bankrupt. He noted that the short-term taxpayer 

costs from coal bankruptcies are up to $3.7 billion from the big 3 coal companies alone (Alpha Natural, Peabody, 

and Arch Coal). This includes $1.7 in exposure from coal mine reclamation settlements. In terms 

of long-term taxpayer costs, he estimated that there could be up to $30 billion in total mine and worker 

retirement obligations. 

Comment Number: 0002167_Baumgartner_20160629-3 

Commenter1:Laura Baumgartner 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is responsible for irreparable damage to the planet's air and water resources in the form of sulfur oxides, 

nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide produced from the combustion of coal. In addition, 

coal mining produces solid wastes that are toxic and must be remediated to avoid leaching of heavy metals into 

the water and soil. These consequences are not just risks. They are real threats to the air we breathe, the water 

we drink, and the soil in which we grow our food. Not only do they threaten us, they threaten our children and 

future generations of people both here and around the world, and they threaten the ability of other species to 

survive and thrive. 

Comment Number: 0002170_Garber_20160622-1 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment (UPHE) 

Commenter1:Howie Garber 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

These are some of the health care costs of burning coal. The emissions from coal plants are the major source of 

Sulfur Dioxide and are second only to automobiles as sources of Nitrogen Oxide and particulate matter. NOx 

also is precursor of ozone. 

The emissions of all the coal power plants in this country have been calculated by the American Lung Association, 

to cause about 25,000 premature deaths every year, or an average of 30 to 50 deaths per plant per year. Coal 

power plant pollution is responsible for half a million asthma attacks, 16,000 episodes of chronic bronchitis, and 

38,000 non-fatal heart attacks every year. This pollution increases the annual health care bill by about 170 billion 

dollars according to the California EPA. The American Heart Association and the American Lung Association 

state that air pollution on average shortens the life span of everyone one to three years. No one escapes the 

consequences of air pollution: 47,000 Utah children live within 30 miles of a coal power plant. Protecting public 

and global health should be our top priority. Do we really want to subsidize an industry that causes such adverse 

health consequences and climate disruption? 

Comment Number: 0002170_Garber_20160622-2 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment (UPHE) 

Commenter1:Howie Garber 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-686 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Methylmercury is a potent neurotoxin . It is well known that most mercury in our lakes and rivers and children 

comes from coal powered power plants. In early 2004, EPA scientists estimated that one in six women of 

childbearing age in the U.S. has levels of methylmercury in her blood that are sufficiently high to put 630,000 of 

the four million babies born each year at risk of learning disabilities, developmental delays, and problems with fine 

motor coordination, among other problems. This figure is a doubling of previous estimates based on increasing 

evidence that methylmercury concentrates in the umbilical cord, exposing the developing fetus to higher levels of 

mercury than previously understood. The neurological deficits can be subtle and not recognizable until the child 

is 4-5 years old. The mother may not have any symptoms and yet her child may be born with severe deficits. I 

urge you to look at the 2015 USGS report of toxic mercury concentrations in Lake Powell and the Colorado 

River. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that this mercury originates from coal powered power plants 

near Price, Utah and Page, Arizona. 

Comment Number: 0002170_Garber_20160622-3 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment (UPHE) 

Commenter1:Howie Garber 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

My understanding is that the coal burned from US Federal lands account for 13% of US greenhouse gas emissions. 

The climate crisis is recognized in the medical community as the greatest public health crisis of our time. A hotter 

world is already becoming a world of more virulent infectious diseases. West Nile, Lyme disease, yellow fever, 

Japanese encephalitis, Zika and malaria are just a few of the many infectious diseases spreading far beyond their 

previous geography .Insect-borne diseases never before seen in the United States such as Zika are now here.. 

Zika causes small brains in children of pregnant women exposed to it. 

Comment Number: 0002175_Woodcock_20160627-2 

Organization1:MSU Department of American Studies 

Commenter1:Jennifer Woodcock-Medicine Horse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The toxicity of petrochemicals and their ill effects on workers and surrounding communities is scarcely a big 

secret. 

Comment Number: 0002186_Torp_20160512-1 

Commenter1:Christian Torp 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Communities near to coal-mining sites bear a hugely disproportionate share of the cost when it comes to the 

environmental degradation caused by extractive industries. Peer reviewed scientific research has shown a 40+% 

increase in birth defects and huge increases in cancer for those living near certain forms of coal mining. 

Comment Number: 0002198_Provost_20160519-1 

Commenter1:Dale Provost 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal-fired power plants were responsible for 66% of the state's total CO2 emissions.(WWW.sourcewatch.com) 

and this does not address the people who live who have adverse health events from pollution, or the pollution 

and severe environmental impact of coal mining. So, if coal power kills 66% of 1000 to 2000 Utahns per year, that 

is, kills 660 to 1320 people per year, what is worth more- 2,036 jobs or between 660 and 1320 LIVES PER YEAR? 

I believe that it is highly inappropriate for the federal government to continue to subsidize in any way an industry 

that is harming our population and our environment. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-687

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002225_Wheeler_20160519-3 

Commenter1:Ray Wheeler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Averse health effects from air pollution from coal burning 

Comment Number: 0002228_Graves_20160627-2 

Commenter1:Royal Graves 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Burning coal affects several major body organ systems and contributes to four of the five leading causes of 

mortality in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases. Coal release nitrous 

oxide which causes asthma attacks and adversely affects the lung development of children. 

Comment Number: 0002229_Schneider_20160627-1 

Commenter1:Debra Schneider 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need to stop externalizing the health costs of burning coal to tax payers. 

Comment Number: 0002263_Davidheiser_20160710-4 

Organization1:German House 

Commenter1:James Davidheiser 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

4) include the external costs of using coal such as the impact on health and the environment into the royalty 

rates. 

Comment Number: 0002274_Hazen_20160715-1 

Commenter1:Libby Hazen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The noise, coal dust from the uncovered cars, and particulates from the heavy diesel traffic are all detrimental to 

my health and that of my family. Therefore I ask for the “no action alternative” to new coal leases on federal 

lands. The cost is too high. Public lands should benefit the public, not destroy our health! 

Comment Number: 0002278_Wynn_20160717-1 

Commenter1:Ralph Wynn 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal lease program needs serious review and significant reform. Coal from leased public lands constitutes a 

significant percentage of the greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants that contribute to the deterioration 

of the air quality in our region, a decrease in the ability to see clearly into the distance and and increase in the 

respiratory diseases that effect both the adults and children living here. We have also seen here in Eastern TN 

the devastating results of coal ash spill and the impact on the surrounding area. Part of any lease, should include 

strict regulations regarding worker, environmental and community health and safety. 

Comment Number: 0002314_Beres_EarthMinWAInterfaithPower_20160722-4 

Organization1:Creation Justice Ministries 

Commenter1:Shantha Alonso 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-688 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We are also aware that rising rates of asthma and other maladies that relate to mercury exposure and air quality 

must be counted when we consider the coal’s impact on communities.

Comment Number: 0002320_Gordon_20160722-1 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Kashama Sawant of the Seattle City Council testified on June 21, 2016, at the PEIS hearing in Seattle that the 

pollution from coal and oil cause 800,000 premature births worldwide each year. The burning of coal from China 

alone sends CO2 and mercury to us in the pollution that comes via the jet stream, plus who knows the true 

extent of chemicals? 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-39

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Permits for five new port facilities in the Pacific Northwest have been applied for that total 170 million tons of 

capacity per year. That much coal would translate to an additional 63 trains per day through Wyoming, Montana, 

Oregon, and Washington above today’s traffic. They would pass through towns and cities along railroad corridors 

and rivers, exposing them to substantial amounts of toxic coal dust. (Western Resource Councils, 2014.) 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-40

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Billings Montana pulmonologist Dr. Robert Merchant warns that “shipping export-bound coal through towns like 

mine has significant health impacts ranging from increased problems with asthma and COPD to increased heart 

attacks and strokes.” http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/dr-robert-merchant/image c6e64340-54b3-5622-a19c15914eb8c246.html. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-41

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While coal-fired power plants provide the direct benefit of slightly cheaper power than clean alternatives (a 

circumstance that will last for only three or four more years), the indirect costs of such costs are staggering. This 

is because coal-fired power plants are essentially enormous neurotoxin factories—an economic reality that has 

yet to be reflected in the price of the power that they produce. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-43

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 16 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When coal is burned, toxins in the coal are released into the smokestack. If modern air pollution controls are in 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-689

Scoping Report 

place, airborne toxins are captured through filtration systems before they can become airborne. The captured 

toxins end up in coal ash. As a result, heavy metals such as mercury are concentrated in what the EPA considers 

"recycled air pollution control residue." This only delays the exposure of the public to these toxins. The EPA 

concedes that all coal ash landfills eventually leak, and Federal regulation of coal ash landfills is minimal. Rain falling 

on ash piles leaches out these heavy metal compounds. The heavy metals eventually end up in ground water, or in 

lakes and streams, contaminating drinking water sources. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-45

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There are over 3,500 peer-reviewed scientific studies that document the harm to public health from air pollution, 

especially in urban in developed economies. (D’amato, g., et al., 2010.) Fossil fuel combustion is responsible for 

the vast majority of air pollution in developed countries.(21) Air pollution has been found to damage every major 

organ system in the human body. These studies have caused the World Health Organization to conclude that air 

pollution is the most important environmental cause of cancer, more important than second-hand cigarette 

smoke. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/17/cancer-air-pollution-carcinogens/3002239/. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-46

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Cigarette smoke contains 69 known carcinogens. Coal-fired power plant emissions contain 67 known 

carcinogens or neurotoxins (U.S.EPA, 1998)—many of the same ones found in cigarette smoke. Cigarette smoke 

and power-plant emissions both contain 

• Fine particulate matter (PM2.5)

• Carbon monoxide

• Ozone precursors 

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), such as benzene, toluene, and formaldehyde;

• Acid gases, such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride;

• Dioxins and furans;

• Lead, arsenic, and other toxic heavy metals;

• Mercury;

• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH); and 

• Thorium, Uranium, Polonium and other radioactive metals

The harm to public health that second-hand cigarette smoke and fossil fuel emissions pose is remarkably similar. 

The difference is primarily quantitative, not qualitative. A typical life-long smoker will shorten his life by ten years. 

The American Lung Association reports that the typical urban dweller in the United States is exposed to enough 

airborne fine particulate matter to shorten his life by one-to-three years. (Pope, C.A. III, 2000.) Nearly all of that 

exposure is due to pollution from the burning of fossil fuels. This shortened life span of a typical urban dweller is 

not just the effect of his exposure to fine particulate pollution. Exposure to other components of air pollution 

caused by burning fossil fuels--such as ozone and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)--further shortens his life. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-690 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-48

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

An example of the current research on the toxicity of lead is provided by a major study of the relationship 

between lead exposure levels and reduced intellectual capacity that was completed in Italy in 2012. (Lucchini, 

R.G., et al., 2012.) The study found that the I.Q. of Italian teenagers is reduced in proportion to their lead 

exposure, no matter how small their lead exposure is. Specifically, the study demonstrated that every 0.19 

micrograms of lead per deciliter in an adolescent’s blood is accompanied by a one-point reduction in that 

teenager’s I.Q.

According to this study, the I.Q. of Italian adolescents has been reduced by 9 points on average, given their 

average blood serum lead level of 1.71 micrograms. The most recent lead exposure data available for the United 

States focuses on the 1-5 year-old age group. For the years 2007-2010, their average blood serum level was 1.3 

μg/dL. Id. The Italian study imply that the I.Q. of preschoolers in the United States has been reduced by 7 points, 

on average, due to their exposure to lead pollution, since the exposure of American preschoolers is a little more 

than three-fourths that of Italian teenagers.(24) 

(24) The implication that the degree of mental impairment in American pre-school children due to their average 

blood-serum levels of lead is approximately three-fourths of the impairment experienced by Italian teenagers is 

based on the assumption that impairment is proportional to exposure levels. This is a conservative assumption 

since other research consistently shows that the younger children are, the more vulnerable they are to exposure 

to neurotoxins. In addition, although blood lead concentrations in American preschool children of 1.3 μg/dL are 

less than the 1.71 μg/dLin Italian teenagers, these concentrations would likely be comparable if American 

teenagers were measured, because blood levels of heavy metals generally increase quadratically until age 50. See 

Caldwell KL1, Mortensen ME, Jones RL, Caudill SP, Osterloh JD., Total blood mercury concentrations in the U.S. 

population: 1999-2006, Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2009 Nov;212(6):588-98. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2009.04.004. Epub 

2009 May 29. 

It is estimated that average blood lead levels are 50 times higher than natural lead levels were before the 

industrial revolution. (Flegal, A.R., et al., 1992.) In the United States, as in Italy, lead exposure has historically had 

three main sources: lead paint, leaded gasoline, and coal-fired power plants. Lead exposure from paint and 

gasoline has largely been brought under control. Coal-burning power plants are now the primary source of lead 

exposure for young children in most of the United States. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-50

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The harm to public health from lead pollution from coal-fired power plants, however, is modest compared to the 

harm that they cause through mercury pollution. Estimates of the amount of mercury in the environment that is 

generated by human activity range from 70 to 96%. The World Health Organization estimates that total worldwide mercury emissions have tripled as a result of the industrial revolution. The single largest source of 

environmental exposure to mercury in the United States (65%) is from coal-fired power plants. (AMAP/UNEP, 

2013 at 3-4.)(26) The main sources of man-caused mercury pollution are the proliferation of coal-fired power 

plants, the use of mercury in small-scale, low-technology (and typically illegal) gold and silver mining in less 

developed countries, and the use of lead in dental amalgum. See www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coal-fired-powerplants.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-51

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-691 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

From the perspective of epidemiologists, coal-fired power plants are huge neurotoxin factories. A typical coalfired power plant without modern pollution controls emits 170 pounds of mercury each year. In 2009, coal-fired 

power plants in the United States injected 134,365 pounds (more than 67 tons) of mercury into our 

environment. Ninety percent of this mercury could be removed by using activated carbon injection (ACI) 

technology combined with baghouses. As of 2011, however, only 8% percent of coal-fired power plants were 

equipped with this technology. (EPA Trends Report, 2010.) 

When coal is burned by a power plant without controls, mercury is released into the air and settles onto bodies 

of water where it is converted to its organic form (methylmercury). Methylmercury accumulates in the tissue of 

fish and shell fish. Eating fish is the main source of methylmercury exposure for most of the population. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-52

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate disrupting CO2 emissions come primarily from coal-fired power plants. Reducing those emissions also 

reduces other pollution (notably SO2, NOx, and PM2.5), which brings major health benefits to the American 

public. The EPA’s Integrated Planning Model yields an updated estimate that implementing the Clean Power Plan 

would reduce CO2 and related emissions in the year 2030 by 30% relative to 2012 levels. This would yield health 

and benefits of from $64 to $99 billion by reducing SO2, NOx, PM2.5 emissions (without taking the effects of 

reduced exposure to neurotoxins into account). http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution-standards/.However, if political 

or legal considerations keep the Clean Power Plan from being implemented, or an unreformed Federal coal 

leasing program continues to offset its effects, coal-fired power plants will continue to inject neurotoxins into the 

environment at the pace. The result could be that the productivity of the nation’s children will be far below what 

it could otherwise be at the time that those children enter the workforce. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-82

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2010, utilities in the United States burned 1.05 billion tons of coal. (Energy Information Agency, 2014.) This 

coal contains 109 tons of mercury, 7884 tons of arsenic, 1167 tons of beryllium, 750 tons of cadmium, 8810 tons 

of chromium, 9339 of nickel, and 2587 tons of selenium. 

http://www.precaution.org/lib/laid to waste.000601.pdf., p. 2. On top of emitting 1.9 billion tons of carbon dioxide 

each year, coal-fired power plants in the United States also create 120 million tons of toxic waste. That means 

each of the nation's 600 coal-power plants produce an average 240,000 tons of toxic waste each year. A plant 

that operates for 40 years will leave behind 9.6 million tons of toxic waste. This coal combustion waste (CCW) 

constitutes the nation's second largest waste stream, after municipal solid waste. See 

http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn is coal green.081106.htm 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-85

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Methylmercury is the most powerful non-radioactive neurotoxin in nature. It is many-fold more toxic than lead. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-692 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

This is confirmed by a recent study conducted at the University of Calgary medical school. In the study, brain 

neurons were exposed in vitro to a series of metals that were known or suspected neurotoxins. At 

concentrations so small that neither lead, cadmium, aluminum, nor manganese affected neuron integrity, 

methylmercury caused 77% of exposed neuron endings to disintegrate. (Leong, C.C., et al., 2001.) 

According to the World Health Organization, exposure to methylmercury damages not just the nervous system, 

but the digestive, respiratory, and immune systems as well. It causes intellectual impairment during fetal 

development and childhood, attention deficit disorder, impaired vision and hearing, tremors, paralysis, insomnia, 

and emotional instability. (WHO Report, 2005.) In adults, mercury poisoning closely mimics the symptoms of 

Alzheimer’s disease. (Mutter, J., et al., 2010.) The World Health Organization observes that “mercury may have 

no threshold below which some adverse effects do not occur.” Id.

As an indication of its potency, just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited in a 25-acre lake can make all of 

the fish in that lake unsafe to eat for a year. (Weiner, J.G., et al., 1990.) It is estimated that over 6 million acres of 

lakes, reservoirs, and ponds in the United States have unsafe concentrations of mercury. (EPA Watershed 

Assessment, 2010.) In 47 of the 50 states, wild fish cannot be eaten because their methyl mercury exceeds safe 

levels, due, primarily, to emissions from coal-fired power plants. www.ucsusa.org/clean 

energy/coalvswind/c02c.html#.VHQPMfRDuSq. 

Human fetuses are five to ten times more vulnerable than adults to the brain-addling powers of methylmercury. 

There are two reasons, 1) they typically receive a 70% greater exposure to mercury than the mother (because of 

the placenta’s concentrating action), and 2) their brain cells need to move from the center of the brain to the 

surface before they multiply. Methylmercury paralyzes brain cells, blocking the movement and multiplication that 

is necessary for normal fetal development. (Mahaffey, K., et al., 2004 at 562-570; Mahaffey, K., EPA 

Methylmercury Update, 2004, Slide 9.) 

In the United States, one in six mothers of childbearing age has enough mercury in her blood to put her fetus at 

risk of intellectual impairment. (Center for Disease Control, 2001; Mahaffey, K., EPA Methylmercury Update, 

2004.) This implies that 689,000 of the 4.1 million babies born every year are at risk of reduced mental capacity 

as a result of mercury exposure. (National Center for Health Statistics, 2010 at 1.) The estimate that one in six 

mothers of childbearing age have blood lead levels that are unsafe for a fetus, however, is almost certainly 

understated because it is based on the EPA’s definition of a safe blood level of 0.58 μg/dL. This is higher than the 

World Health Organization’s definition of a safe blood level of lead [0.5 μg/dL]. The recent research described 

above, however, implies that methylmercury is much more toxic than lead and other toxic metals, and, therefore, 

the definition of a safe blood level of methylmercury (if there were one) should be well below that of other such 

metals. 

There is evidence that the neurotoxic effects of methylmercury in the presence of other heavy metals in blood 

and tissues is not merely additive, but is synergistic, and amplifies the neurotoxic effects of both metals. 

(Schubert, J., et al., 1978.) Child development experts have recently been warning chemical and metal brain 

toxicity is increasingly prevalent in the human population, causing a silent, global pandemic of neurobehavioral 

disorders and intellectual compromise in children. (Grandjean, P., et al., 2014.) The rapid proliferation of 

neurotoxins that children are exposed to, and the likelihood that they act synergistically, provide a powerful 

argument for the Federal government to become more aggressive in reducing their exposure. At the top of the 

list of known neurotoxins that are contributing to this tragic trend are mercury, lead, and arsenic—all prominent 

components coal-fired power plant emissions. 

While overall exposure to some neurotoxins like lead has decreased in recent years for a variety of reasons 

having nothing to do with reduced coal power plant emissions, mercury exposure has increased. A study showed 

that in 2006, 30% of women had detectable levels of mercury, up from 2% in 2000. (Laks, D., 2009.) 

Mercury is also implicated as a cause of Alzheimer’s disease. A recent meta-analysis reviewing 1,041 studies 

clearly showed a strong relationship between this increasingly common illness and exposure to mercury. (Mutter, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-693

Scoping Report 

J., et al., 2010.) Research shows that Alzheimer’s was the underlying cause in 500,000 deaths in the United States 

in 2010. This represents a 68% increase from 2000. http://www.alz.org/alzheimers disease facts and 

figures.asp#cost. 

More money is spent on treating Alzheimer’s patients than on any other disease. Care for Alzheimer patients is 

costing the nation about $200 billion annually, a figure which does not reflect the costs of lost productivity, nor 

the emotional and financial burden of the “free care” that family members provide. If the rapid growth of 

Alzheimer’s continues, it has the potential to bankrupt the nation’s health care system. Mercury emitted by coalfired power plants appears to bear a significant share of the blame. 

2. Accounting for the Combined Effect of Exposure to Methylmercury and Lead on Intellectual Capacity and 

Workforce Productivity 

A crucial question is what the combined effect of exposure to methylmercury and lead is on the public’s 

intellectual capacity. We know that methylmercury is far more toxic than lead to the nervous system, and we 

know that the separate effects of methylmercury and lead are amplified when they occur in combination. 

Although we do not know precisely how much more toxic to the nervous system methylmercury is than lead, or 

how synergistic it is with lead, it is safe to assume that its toxicity is at least equal to that of lead. Therefore, it is 

also safe to assume that the effect of blood serum levels of mercury and lead are at least additive when exposure 

to mercury and lead occurs together at levels near their current average concentrations. 

Under this conservative hypothesis, to account for the combined impact of currently prevailing blood levels of 

both methylmercury and lead on the intellectual capacity of the preschool population, one would have to assign a 

neurological effect to methylmercury in blood serum that is at least equal to the neurological effect of an 

equivalent concentration of lead in the blood. Average blood levels of methylmercury among American preschool 

female children are 0.356 μg/m3. (27) This implies that, on average, blood serum levels of methylmercury in 

preschool children in the United States have reduced their intellectual capacity by roughly 2 points (at a 

minimum) in addition to the 7 I.Q. points from their exposure to lead, or a total of 9 I.Q. points. 

(27) Caldwell KL1, et al. 2009, cited above. Total mercury in blood serum occurs overwhelmingly in the form of 

methylmercury. 

If the current generation of American workers had escaped exposure to both methylmercury and lead, their 

average I.Q. could be expected to be at least 9 points higher. Reducing the intellectual capacity of an entire 

workforce by 9 points transforms the intellectual capacity that workforce. National average I.Q. has a strong 

correlation with GDP per worker. Research suggests that while an increase of 15 points (one standard deviation) 

results in a 15% increase in average wages of individuals, it results in proportionately greater increases in national 

productivity (approximately 150%), due largely to a multitude of external effects that increased intellectual 

capacity has on the economic processes of a society as a whole.(28) Again, taking a conservative approach, if the 

average I.Q. of American school-age children has been reduced at least 9 points due to exposure to lead and 

methylmercury, this amounts to a reduction of one-half of a standard deviation. Therefore, such exposure has 

likely reduced the productivity of the national workforce at least 75% (half of 150%). 

(28) See, e.g., research summarized in Jones, G., 2011.) 

The loss of intellectual capacity from the avoidable exposure of America’s children to methylmercury and lead 

pollution is a personal and social tragedy. The recent epidemiological and macroeconomic studies cited above 

imply that this loss of intellectual capacity is drastically reducing the productivity of our nation’s workforce, as 

illustrated by our back-of-the-envelope estimate of those effects presented below. This strongly implies that the 

most important co-benefit of reducing reliance on coal to generate electric power—as the Administration’s 

Clean Power Plan hopes to do--is that it reduces the level of exposure of the American workforce to 

methylmercury and lead pollution. 

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-12

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-694 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Coal combustion injures human health during the entire cycle from extraction to disposition of coal combustion 

wastes. Our Federal Government should not produce coal any more than it should produce cigarettes or lead 

paint. 

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-13

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal extraction injures workers,(14) and coal mining is considered one of America’s top ten most dangerous 

jobs.(15) 

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-16

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal ash containment has come to the fore as an issue since TVA’s massive spill. TVA has spent more than a 

Billion dollars on partial remediation of the Kingston spill, compensation to landowners, civil penalties for 

environmental pollution, and attorney fees. It is spending another Billion on creating lined landfills for future ash 

generated. Its proposal to leave legacy ash “capped and covered” in unlined riverside ponds is being challenged. 

The latest and deadly problem to become visible is worker deaths and injuries resulting from handling TVA coal 

ash after the 2008 spill. (18) 

Coal is a cradle to grave polluter when burned. It injures health and environment from beyond the grave when 

forever coal ash dumps discharge leachate to ground and surface waters. As a Tennessee Valley resident I oppose 

the extraction of federally owned coal which is delivered to fuel TVA power plants by rail and barge. As a 

ratepayer my bills have increased steadily as TVA been forced to deal with the decades of coal ash dumped in 

unlined and unreliable ponds in(19) and adjacent to our rivers and lakes. 

(14) See: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Injury Experience in Coal Mining, 2012 

(15) http://www.blog4safety.com/2009/10/dangerous-job-coal-mining/ 

(16) http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html#.V5OBCDVVXYk 

(17) Id. 

(18) Article on worker exposure to coal ash by Kristen Lombardi at Center for Public Integrity: 

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/07/20/19962/former-cleanup-workersblame-illnesses-toxic-coal-ashexposures?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=publici-ifttt 

(19) The coal ash from the Johsonville 10 unit coal fired plant was first put into a shallow area of the Tennessee 

river contained only by porous berms. This ash constantly discharges leachate containing toxic heavy metals to 

the river. 

Comment Number: 0002335_Webber_20160725_HealthActionNM-1 

Organization1:Health Action New Mexico 

Commenter1:Barbara Webber 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal has a had a serious impact on the health of New Mexicans and we feel evaluation the health impact of coal 

extraction and related processes is essential to safe coal reform. 

Comment Number: 0002335_Webber_20160725_HealthActionNM-2 

Organization1:Health Action New Mexico 

Commenter1:Barbara Webber 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-695

Scoping Report 

We support reforming the outdated federal coal program to ensure that the impacts on public health are 

factored into decisions on whether to lease coal, and applaud the Department of Interior and Bureau of Land 

Management for taking steps to reform the program. 

Comment Number: 0002335_Webber_20160725_HealthActionNM-4 

Organization1:Health Action New Mexico 

Commenter1:Barbara Webber 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As described below, each stage in the life cycle of coal development has an impact on public health and on the 

health of our environment. The human health and environmental impacts and full costs of each stage in the coal 

development life cycle must be factored into the reform of the federal coal program. Any reforms should aim to 

eliminate these impacts. 

Comment Number: 0002335_Webber_20160725_HealthActionNM-5 

Organization1:Health Action New Mexico 

Commenter1:Barbara Webber 

Other Sections: 11 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to research by the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the Harvard School of Public 

Health (2) (CHGE), “The economic, health and environmental impacts associated with extraction, transportation, 

processing, and combustion cost the U.S. public between a third to over half a trillion dollars annually.” Coal 

mining regions have 11,000 excess deaths annually from lung cancer, heart, respiratory and kidney disease. Lives 

lost in coal mining regions are evaluated at $74.6 billion per year. 

(1) http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/MMD/Coal-FAQs.html#CoalinNM 

(2) p://www.chgeharvard.org/resource/explore-true-costs-coal

These adverse health impacts are felt in New Mexico. In San Juan County, where coal activity is more prevalent, 

the American Lung Association (ALA) reports that residents are at an elevated risk for lung diseases. The ALA 

indicates there are 2,885 cases of pediatric asthma, 8,442 cases of adult asthma and 5,219 people diagnosed with 

COPD in this rural northwestern New Mexico county alone. 

Measurable health effects of coal-related air pollution include increased rates of lung and heart disease. According 

to CHGE, 2005 data showed that “[p]articulates and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur kill over 24,000 people 

annually, including 2,800 from lung cancer.” Further, pollution from coal operations produces 38,200 non-fatal 

heart attacks annually. 

Comment Number: 0002335_Webber_20160725_HealthActionNM-6 

Organization1:Health Action New Mexico 

Commenter1:Barbara Webber 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Of particular concern, combustion from coal-fired utilities and industrial boilers causes mercury to be released 

into the air and therefore the ecosystem (3). Microbes turn mercury to methylmercury, which builds up in fish 

and enters the human body when those fish are eaten. Mercury causes mental health issues and cardiovascular 

disease in people. 

(3) http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-016-03/

Comment Number: 0002335_Webber_20160725_HealthActionNM-7 

Organization1:Health Action New Mexico 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-696 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Barbara Webber 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Moreover, ponds built next to coal mines and processing plants contain dangerous coal byproducts such as 

slurry, sludge, and fly ash that can contaminate the air and water with toxins, heavy metals and radioactive 

elements. These waste ponds, which have a history of spilling, increase risk of property damage, injuries and 

deaths. 

Comment Number: 0002374_Whiting_20160721-1 

Commenter1:Betty Whiting 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need to know what effects 

coal has on our health, and if they need to pay for it they need to pay for that. What was once considered a 

really good source of energy now may be considered a deadly product. 

Comment Number: 0002440_Zwigart_20160721-1 

Commenter1:Donna Zwigart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Have we investigated what burning federal coal imposes on the tax payers of our country with resulting higher 

medical bills and chronic diseases? FAIR tax revenues could be used not for disruptive programs but constructive 

programs such as the reeducation of the many people who continue to lose their jobs in the coal industry, 

researching and development of new forms of clean energy and the education of the public on the moral issue 

that climate change is REAL! 

Comment Number: 0002441_Hyche_20160724-1 

Commenter1:Roe Hyche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Health reasons: Coal mining itself causes health problems for the workers, the people in the surrounding 

communities, and also, importantly, the people affected by the dumping of the coal ash. In Uniontown, AL, those 

people didn't even know they were getting a coal ash pond in their community. Why didn't the coal ash pond 

remain in TN where it started? TN needs to keep it in TN and completely secure the coal ash so it doesn't affect 

any of TN's citizens. Meanwhile, Uniontown's residents are still reeling from and dealing with the unclean ash 

pond. And they are not the only ones in the USA with this problem. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-15

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The occupational health impacts of mining coal are well known and must be considered when reviewing the 

effects of electricity generation with coal. Most of the research on the health effects of coal mining have been 

performed among miners in large scale mines in Europe and North America.150 

Traumatic injury remains a significant problem and ranges from trivial to the fatal. Coal mining leads U.S. 

industries in fatal injuries.151 Common causes of fatal injury include rock fall, fires, explosions, mobile equipment 

accidents, falls from height, entrapment and electrocution.152 Less common but recognized causes of fatal injury 

include flooding of underground workings, wet-fill release from collapsed bulkheads and air blast from block 

caving failure.153 Noise is almost ubiquitous in mining; it is generated by drilling, blasting, cutting, materials 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-697

Scoping Report 

handling, ventilation, crushing, conveying and ore processing. Controlling noise has proven difficult in mining and 

noise-induced hearing loss remains common.154 

Coal mining is also associated with chronic health problems among miners, such as Coal Workers’ 

Pneumoconiosis, also known as CWP or "black lung disease," which causes permanent scarring of the lung 

tissue.155 A 2002 review of 250 studies on coal mining calculated that up to 12% of coal miners develop the 

potentially fatal lung condition due to the inhalation of dust during mining operations. Data indicates a direct 

relationship between the mass of respirable coal mine dust inhaled and the incidence and severity of CWP.156 

The following chain of events has been proposed for the initiation and progression of CWP: (1) inhaled coal dust 

concentrates at the bifurcations of the respiratory bronchioles; (2) local inflammation results in the accumulation 

of phagocytic cells that scavenge coal dust particles, forming lung lesions known as coal macules; (3) with further 

exposure, coal macules enlarge to form coal nodules; (4) as the lesions condense, surrounding tissue is torn 

forming scar emphysema; and lastly (5) connective tissue becomes associated with these lesions leading to 

progressive massive fibrosis (PMF).157 

Not only are miners at a higher risk for CWP, but they are also at higher risk for chronic bronchitis and 

accelerated loss of lung function. As a result, the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 legislatively has 

defined ‘‘black lung disease’’ to include not only CWP but also obstructive lung diseases, such as chronic 

bronchitis and emphysema, as well as silicosis associated with an employment history in coal mines.158 Inhalation 

of coal mine dust is associated with the development of pulmonary disease in miners, and coal miners have also 

been reported to have a higher than normal incidence of stomach cancer.159 

(150) C. Stephens, M. Ahern, Worker and Community Health Impacts Related to Mining Operations 

Internationally. A 

Rapid Review of the Literature, London, Mining and Minerals for Sustainable Development Project (2001) 

(151) See Coal's Assault on Human Health at vi. 

(152) A.M. Donoghue, Occupational Health Hazards in Mining: An Overview, Occupational Medicine 283 (2004) 

(153) Id. 

(154) Id. 

(155) See generally R.K. Pachauri & A. Reisinger (eds), Climate Change 2007--Synthesis Report: Contribution of 

Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (2007); C. Stephens, et al.,; E. Burt, et 

al., Health Effects from Coal Use; Coal's Assault on Human Health. 

(156) W.M. Walton et al., The Effect of Quartz and Other Non-Coal Dusts in Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis: 

Part I, 

Walton, W.H. (ed) Inhaled Particles IV 669-700 (1977) 

(157) R. Finkelman et al., Health Impacts of Coal and Coal Use: Possible Solutions, International Journal of Coal 

Geology 50, at 438 (2002). 

(158) Id. 

(159) Id. at 440.

Threats to the public health persist even after removal of coal from a mine. Surface mining destroys forests and 

groundcover, leading to flood-related injury and mortality, as well as soil erosion and the contamination of water 

supplies. When mines are abandoned, rainwater reacts with exposed rock to cause the oxidation of metal sulfide 

minerals. This reaction releases iron, aluminum, cadmium, and copper into the surrounding water system and can 

also contaminate drinking water. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-18

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 5 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-698 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

The "external costs" of electricity generation from coal are the burdens to society that are not included in the 

electricity's monetary price. Estimates of the external costs of electricity generation from coal suggest that 95% 

of the external cost consists of the adverse health effects on the population.163 When coal is burned, it produces 

air-borne pollutants of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides, mercury, arsenic, chromium, 

nickel, and other heavy metals, acid gases, hydrocarbons, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous 

to human health.164 It also contributes to smog through the release of oxides of nitrogen, which react with 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight to produce ground level ozone, the primary 

ingredient in smog. In 2011, the World Health Organization compiled air quality data from 1,100 cities in 91 

countries and found that residents living in many urban areas are exposed to persistently elevated levels of fine 

particle pollution, partly due to coal-fired power plants, as well as the burning of coal for cooking and heating.165 

A 2007 article published in the medical journal, The Lancet, summarizes the burden of the health effects of 

generating electricity from coal and lignite (a type of coal). It estimated that for every TWh (Terrawatt-hour) of 

electricity produced from coal in Europe, there are 24.5 deaths, 225 serious illnesses including hospital 

admissions, congestive heart failure and chronic bronchitis, and 13,288 minor illnesses.166 When lignite, the most 

polluting form of coal, is used, each TWh of electricity produced results in 32.6 deaths, 298 serious illnesses, and 

17,676 minor illnesses.167 To give these data perspective, consider the fact that nearly half of the 4,160 TWh of 

electricity generated in the United States in 2007 came from coal-fired power plants.168 If these estimates are 

applied to the U.S., as many as 50,000 deaths per year may be attributable to burning coal.169 

The major health effects linked to coal combustion emissions damage the respiratory, cardiovascular, and 

nervous systems and contribute to four of the top five leading causes of death in the United States: heart disease, 

cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases.170 Although it is difficult to ascertain the proportion of 

this disease burden that is attributable to coal pollutants, even very modest contributions to these major causes 

of death are likely to have large effects at the population level, given high incidence rates. 

(163) E. Burt, et al., Health Effects from Coal Use at 4. 

(164) See id. at 3. 

(165) Tackling the Global Clean Air Challenge, News Release, World Health Organization (Sept. 2011). 

(166) A. Markandya & P. Wilkinson, Energy and Health 2: Electricity Generation and Health, The Lancet 979-990 

(2007) 

(167) Id. 

(168) Id. 

(169) A. Lockwood, et al., Coal’s Assault on Health at 2. 

(170) See generally E. Burt, et al., Health Effects from Coal Use; A. Lockwood, et al., Coal's Assault on Human 

Health 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-19

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Particulate Matter -- Particulate matter is generated from the combustion of coal and is characterized by size --

small particles less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) and larger particles up to 10 micrometers (PM10). PM2.5 

travels deeper into the airways than PM10 and is therefore generally believed to cause a greater threat to human 

health.171 In a report evaluating over 40 studies on the health effects of exposure to small particulate matter 

(PM2.5), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded that PM2.5 likely causes respiratory symptoms, the 

development of asthma, and decrements in lung function in children.172 Findings from the review conclude that a 

10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 is associated with a 1% to 3.4% decrease in FEV1, a measure of lung function, in 

asthmatic children.173 It also concluded that exposure to PM2.5 increases emergency department visits and 

hospital admissions for respiratory related symptoms such as infections and chronic obstructive pulmonary 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-699

Scoping Report 

disease.174 Epidemiological evidence from Australia and New Zealand, Mexico, Canada, and Europe confirm that 

these health effects on the respiratory system are seen around the globe among communities exposed to 

PM2.5.175 In addition to respiratory illnesses, long-term exposure to PM2.5 is causally linked to the development 

of lung-cancer. [Implementing the final emission guidelines of the Clean Power Plan may lead to reductions in 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations below the NAAQS for PM and ozone in some areas and assist other areas with 

attaining these NAAQS.]176 

Sulfur Dioxide -- Exposure to sulfur dioxide (SO2) emitted by coal burning power plants increases the severity 

and incidence of respiratory symptoms of those living nearby, particularly children with asthma.177 For adults and 

children who are susceptible, inhalation of SO2 causes inflammation and hyper-responsiveness of the airways, 

aggravates bronchitis, and decreases lung function. There is a significant association between community-level 

SO2 concentration and hospitalizations for asthma and other respiratory conditions, and asthma emergency 

department visits particularly among children and adults over 65.178 The EPA identified three short-term 

morbidity endpoints that the SO2 ISA identified as "causal relationship": asthma exacerbation, respiratory related 

emergency department visits, and respiratory-related hospitalizations.179 

Oxides of Nitrogen -- Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) are by-products of fossil fuel combustion from automobiles and 

coal-fired power plants, among many other sources. Oxides of nitrogen react with chemicals in the atmosphere 

to create pollution products such as ozone (smog), nitrous oxide (N2O), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO2 and 

ozone are pollutants of particular concern. When asthmatic children are exposed to NO2 they can experience 

increases in wheezing and cough.180 Exposure to NO2 also increases susceptibility to viral and bacterial 

infections, and at high concentrations (1-2 ppm), it can cause airway inflammation.181 At low concentrations (0.2 

- 0.5 ppm) NO2 causes decrements in lung function in asthmatics.182 Increases in ambient NO2 levels (3-50 ppb) 

cause increases in hospital admissions and emergency department visits for respiratory causes, particularly 

asthma. Depending on localized concentrations of volatile organic compounds, reducing NOx emissions would 

also reduce human exposure to ozone and the incidence of ozone-related health effects.183 

Reducing emissions of SO2 and NOx would also reduce human exposure to ambient PM2.5 and the incidence of 

PM2.5-related health effects.184 In 2008, the National Academies of Sciences issued a series of recommendations 

to the EPA regarding the quantification and valuation of ozone-related short-term mortality. Chief among these 

was that "...short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths" and the 

committee recommended that "ozone-related mortality be included in future estimates of the health benefits of 

reducing ozone exposures..."185 

(171) See E. Burt, et al., Health Effects from Coal Use at 5. 

(172) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Dec. 2009). 

(173) Id. 

(174) Id. 

(175) A.G. Barnett, et al., Air Pollution and Child Respiratory Health: A Case-Crossover Study in Australia and 

New 

Zealand, Am. J. of Resp. Crit. Care Med. (2005); A. Barraza-Villarreal, et al., Air Pollution, Airway Inflammation, 

and Lung Function in a Cohort Study of Mexico City Schoolchildren, Environ. Health Persp. (2008); Y. Chen, et 

al., 

Influence of Relatively Low Level of Particulate Air Pollution on Hospitalization for COPD in Elderly People, Inhal 

Toxicol. (2004); J. De Hartog, et al., Effects of Fine and Ultrafine Particles on Cardiorespiratory Symptoms in 

Elderly Subjects with Coronary Heart Disease: The ULTRA Study, Am. J. Epidemiol. (2003). 

(176) Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(Aug. 

2015) available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/cpp-final-rule-ria.pdf 

(177) See E. Burt, et al., Health Effects from Coal Use at 6. 

(178) Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides – Health Criteria, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-700 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

(2008). 

(179) See Regulatory Impact Analysis at 4-53.

(180) Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen-Health Criteria, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

(July 2008). 

(181) See id. 

(182) See id. 

(183) Id. 

(184) See Regulatory Impact Analysis at 4-11. 

(185) Id. at 4-17, 4-18. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-20

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal-fired power plants contribute to the global burden of cardiovascular disease primarily through the emission 

of particulate matter. PM2.5 has been causally linked to cardiovascular disease and death.186 The World Health 

Organization (WHO) estimates that worldwide, 5% of cardiopulmonary deaths are due to particulate matter 

pollution.187 Long term exposure to PM2.5 has been shown to accelerate the development of atherosclerosis 

and increase emergency department visits and hospital admissions for ischemic heart disease and congestive heart 

failure.188 The U.S. EPA reports that a majority of the studies it reviewed found a 0.5-2.4% increase in 

emergency department visits and hospital admissions for cardiovascular diseases per each 10 μg/m3 increase in 

PM2.5 concentrations,189 and a 2007 scientific review of the health effects of combustion emissions reported an 

8-18% increase in cardiovascular deaths per 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 concentration in the United States.190 

(186) See Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter,. 

(187) Global Health Observatory (GHO): Outdoor Air Pollution, World Health Organization (2003) available at: 

http://www.who.int/gho/phe/outdoor_ air_pollution/en/index.html. 

(188) See E. Burt, et al., Health Effects from Coal Use, at 7. 

(189) See Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter. 

(190) J. Lewtas, Air Pollution Combustion Emissions: Characterization of Causative Agents and Mechanisms 

Associated with Cancer, Reproductive, and Cardiovascular Effects, Mut. Res. 636:95 (2007) 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-21

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal contains many naturally-occurring heavy metals, including mercury. When coal is burned, mercury is 

emitted into the atmosphere in gaseous form. The United Nations estimates that 26% of global mercury 

emissions (339-657 metric tons/ year) come from the combustion of coal in power plants.191 The mercury 

emitted into the atmosphere is deposited into waterways, converted to methylmercury, and passed up the 

aquatic food chain. Consumption of methylmercury-contaminated fish, from mercury emissions locally, regionally, 

and internationally, by pregnant women can cause developmental effects in their offspring such as lower 

intelligence levels, delayed neurodevelopment, and subtle changes in vision, memory, and language.192 

(191) J. Pacyna, et al., Study on Mercury Sources and Emissions and Analysis of Cost and Effectiveness of Control 

Measures: “UNEP Paragraph 29 Study”, UNEP (Nov. 2010). 

(192) World Health Organization, Exposure to Mercury: A Major Public Health Concern, Pub. Health & Env. 

(2007) 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-701

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-22

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The National Academy of Sciences concluded that "the population with the highest risk is the children of women 

who consumed large amounts of fish and seafood during pregnancy. The committee concludes that the risk to 

that population is likely to be sufficient to result in an increase in the number of children who have to struggle to 

keep up in school."193 The evidence of air pollution’s effects on pregnancy is sufficient to conclude that exposure 

to air pollution during pregnancy can cause low birthweight.194 Researchers have studied the association 

between electricity generation from coal-fired power plants and infant mortality, and infant mortality was shown 

to increase with increased coal consumption in countries that had mid to low infant mortality rate at baseline 

(1965).195 

(193) National Research Council (NRC), Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury (2000). 

(194) See E. Burt, et al., Health Effects from Coal Use at 7. 

(195) J. Gohlke, et al., Estimating the Global Public Health Implications of Electricity and Coal Consumption, Env. 

Health Perspect. 119(6) (June 2011) 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-23

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 16 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The storage of post-combustion wastes from coal plants also threatens human health. After combustion, some 

coal ash is recycled into cement and other engineering products, but most of it is disposed of in dry or wet 

landfills.217 There are 584 coal ash dump sites in the U.S., and toxic residues have migrated into water supplies 

and threatened human health at dozens of these sites.218 Landfills that leak fly-ash waste can contaminate ground 

and surface water with arsenic, cadmium, barium, thallium, selenium, and lead.219 

(217) See See E. Burt, et al., Health Effects from Coal Use at 3. 

(218) See Methane as a Greenhouse Gas, U.S. Climate Change Science Program (2006) available at: 

http://www.climatescience. gov/infosheets/highlight1/CCSP-H1-methane18jan2006.pdf; Coalbed methane—An 

Untapped Energy Resource and an Environmental Concern—USGS Fact Sheet, U.S. Geological Survey, FS-019-97 

(1997) available at: http://energy.usgs.gov/ factsheets/Coalbed/coalmeth.html. 

(219) See E. Burt, et al., Health Effects from Coal Use at 3. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-24

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The occurrence of uncontrolled coal fires increased following the beginning of coal mining because of the 

increased amount of coal being exposed to oxygen and because of fires associated with the mining activity as well 

as accidental and intentional fires started on coal waste piles. Unofficial estimates from the U.S. Office of Surface 

Mining indicate that, despite many years of concerted efforts to extinguish these fires, there are still 

approximately 150 uncontrolled surface and underground coal fires in the U.S.220 

(220) R. Finkelman, Potential Health Impacts of Burning Coal Beds and Waste Banks, 59 Intl. J. of Coal Geo. 19, 

20 (2004). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-702 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-37

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In evaluating the federal coal leasing program as a whole, however, BLM must consider not only energy supply 

and economic return and the physical and policy limits on greenhouse gas emissions, but also several other 

significant indirect consequences of the coal leasing program. Federal coal leasing has significant adverse effects on 

both human health and welfare and on species at risk of extinction (both from the direct impacts of coal mining, 

transport, combustion, and disposal, and from the federal coal programs’ significant contribution to global 

greenhouse gas emissions). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-38

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As discussed herein, coal’s life-cycle impacts are significant based on the intensity of effects on public health and 

safety, and the cumulative nature of the effects, particularly on coal mining, transport and export communities. 

Other agencies have recognized that the impacts of coal mining and coal transport are sufficiently significant to 

require preparation of an EIS. See e.g., WildEarth Guardians, 738 F.3d at 311 (Department of Interior prepared 

EIS for coal mining leases, where impacts included local air pollution, including ozone and nitrous oxides); Natural 

Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Jamison, 815 F. Supp. 454, 457 (D.D.C. 1992) (Department of Interior prepares EIS to 

assess impact of leasing proposed sites for coal mining); US Army Corps of Engineers, Notice of Amendment to 

the Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Millennium Bulk Terminals—Longview 

Shipping Facility Project, 78 Fed. Reg. 54873 (Sept. 6, 2013) (EIS to be prepared due to potentially significant 

impacts related to proposed construction and operation of a facility to ship coal, which included air and water 

quality, noise, traffic, and recreation). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-39

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to the significance of impact based on health and safety effects, the cumulative impact of coal’s lifecycle processes is significant. See 40 C.F.R. §1508.27(b)(7). CEQ regulations define cumulative impact as “the 

impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Id. at 1508.7. When an agency‘s action involves an increase in 

existing impacts, the relevant environmental impact is the cumulative impact, not merely the incremental 

difference between the new and existing level of activity. See Grand Canyon Trust v. FAA, 290 F.3d 339, 342 

(D.C. Cir. 2002) (EA should have considered cumulative impact of new airport, and not merely incremental 

difference between noise associated with new airport and noise associated with existing airport.). The cumulative 

impacts of coal’s life-cycle effects on human health and the environment are significant and therefore, BLM is 

obligated to consider the effects of those impacts, “incorporating the effects of other projects into the 

background data base of the project at issue.” Grand Canyon Trust, 290 F.3d at 342 (citation omitted). Finally, 

recognizing the potentially significant public health impacts of the life-cycle of coal would set a precedent that 

would require BLM to apply NEPA to all future impacts and activities associated with federal coal, both upstream 

and downstream. Clearly, the health impacts of coal from cradle to grave are significant, as discussed at length in 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-703 

Scoping Report 

the following sections. Therefore, BLM has a responsibility within the scope of their NEPA authority to examine 

these impacts thoroughly and provide for ample public review. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-4 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Effects on health from increased temperatures: “The impact on mortality and morbidity associated with increases 

in average temperatures, which increase the likelihood of heat waves, also provides support for a public health 

endangerment finding.”20

(20) Final Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,497 

Increased chance of extreme weather events: “The evidence concerning how human induced climate change may 

alter extreme weather events also clearly supports a finding of endangerment, given the serious adverse impacts 

that can result from such events and the increase in risk, even if small, of the occurrence and intensity of events 

such as hurricanes and floods. Additionally, public health is expected to be adversely affected by an increase in the 

severity of coastal storm events due to rising sea levels.”21

(21) Final Endangerment Finding at 66,497-98.

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-66

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

From cradle to grave, coal’s impact on human health is undeniable. At every stage of coal’s lifecycle, health 

impacts are clearly documented including during mining, transport, preparation at the power plant, combustion, 

disposal of post-combustion wastes, and export abroad. Coal combustion in particular has been well-studied, 

with compelling evidence of widespread health effects on neighboring communities. Burning coal to generate 

electricity harms human health and compounds many of the major public health problems facing the world today. 

The pollution from coal affects all major organ systems in the human body, and contributes to diseases affecting 

large portions of the U.S. population, including asthma, lung cancer, heart disease and stroke.148 It interferes 

with lung development, increases the risk of heart attacks, and compromises brain capacity and mental health. In 

addition, the discharge of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere associated with burning coal is responsible for 

more than 30% of total U.S. carbon dioxide pollution, contributing significantly to global warming and its 

associated health impacts.149 

(148) See generally E. Burt, et al., Scientific Evidence of Health Effects from Coal Use in Energy Generation, 

Healthcare Research Collaborative, University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health (April 2013); A. 

Lockwood, et al., Coal's Assault on Human Health, Physicians for Social Responsibility (Nov. 2009). 

(149) See Id. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-67

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate change health effects 

Pollution from the life-cycle of coal is one of the leading causes of climate change.196 Climate change itself is a 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-704 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

significant threat to human health and well-being.197 The health impacts of climate change include harms from 

increasing heat stress and other extreme weather events, increases in air pollution, the spread of vector-borne 

diseases, food insecurity and under-nutrition, changing exposure to toxic chemicals, displacement, and stress to 

mental health and well-being.198 Although everyone is vulnerable to health impacts from climate change, certain 

groups are particularly vulnerable to climate change-related health harms such as children, the elderly, lowincome communities, some communities of color, immigrant groups, and persons with disabilities and preexisting 

medical conditions.199 The 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change highlighted that climate 

change is causing a global medical emergency, concluding that “the implications of climate change for a global 

population of 9 billion people threatens to undermine the last half century of gains in development and global 

health.”200

Climate change-driven health impacts are already occurring in the United States, particularly due to morbidity 

and mortality from extreme weather events which are increasing in frequency and intensity.201 Heat is already 

the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the United States, and extreme heat is projected to lead to 

increases in future mortality on the order of thousands to tens of thousands of additional premature deaths per 

year across the United States by the end of this century.202 Extreme precipitation events have become more 

common in the United States, contributing to increases in severe flooding events in some regions.203 Floods are 

the second deadliest of all weather-related hazards in the United States and can lead to drowning, contaminated 

drinking water leading to disease outbreaks, and mold-related illnesses.204 

Air pollution components, specifically ozone, air particulates, and allergens, are expected to increase with climate 

change. 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 §IV.B.1(b). Climate-driven increases in ozone will cause more premature deaths, 

hospital visits, lost school days, and acute respiratory symptoms.205 Projected climate-related increases in 

ground-level ozone concentrations in 2020 could lead to an average of 2.8 million more occurrences of acute 

respiratory symptoms, 944,000 more missed school days, and over 5,000 more hospitalizations for respiratoryrelated problems.206 In 2020, the continental U.S. could pay an average of $5.4 billion (2008$) in health impact 

costs associated with the climate penalty on ozone, with California experiencing the greatest estimated impacts 

averaged at $729 million.207 

Risks from infectious diseases are also increasing as climate change alters the geographic and seasonal distribution 

of vector-borne diseases.208 Climate change favors the spread of some pathogen-carrying vectors. Lyme disease 

is the most common vector-borne disease in the United States, with 25,000–30,000 cases reported to the CDC 

per year, with the highest incidence among children between ages 5 and 9.209 The risk of human exposure to 

Lyme disease is expected to increase as ticks carrying Lyme disease and other pathogens become active earlier in 

the season and expand northward in response to warming temperatures.210 Rising temperatures and changes in 

rainfall have already contributed to the maintenance of West Nile virus in parts of the United States, and climate 

change is expected to increase suitable conditions for the mosquitoes that transmit West Nile virus, increasing 

human exposure risk to the disease.211 

As highlighted by the Third National Climate Assessment, fighting climate change by reducing greenhouse gas 

pollution provides critical “opportunities to improve human health and well-being across many sectors,” including 

a wide array of important health co-benefits.212 

The impacts of coal combustion can also be described in economic terms, and several papers have attempted to 

estimate the cost of using coal by assigning value to the environmental and public health damage caused during 

each stage of coal’s extraction, transportation, combustion, and disposal. One such study estimated that the 

external costs of coal-fired electricity in the U.S. add an extra 17.8 cents to each kWh of electricity produced; an 

amount that would triple its cost to consumers.213 Another U.S. report by Machol et al. estimates 45 cents per 

kWh as the cost of the health burden and environmental damages from coal combustion.214 In 2011, the US EPA 

estimated the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act, a law which regulates emissions of sulfur dioxide, oxides of 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-705

Scoping Report 

nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter in the United States. The EPA calculated that the ratio of 

health care cost savings to compliance costs was 25:1 in 2010.215 This means that for every dollar spent 

complying with the Clean Air Act, twenty-five dollars were saved in health care costs due to lower disease 

burden, including a reduction in premature deaths, and cases of bronchitis, asthma, and myocardial infarction.216 

(196) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report Chapter 7, Energy Systems. pg 554. 

(197) Luber, G. et al. 2014: Ch. 9: Human Health. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third 

National Climate Assessment. J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, 220-256. doi:10.7930/J0PN93H5. See also Watt, N. et al. 2015. Health and climate change: 

policy responses to protect public health. The Lancet 386: 1861-1914. 

(198) Sheffield, P. and Landrigan, P.J. 2011. Global Climate Change and Children’s Health: Threats and Strategies 

for Prevention. Environmental Health Perspectives 119: 291-298.. 

(199) See Id. See also USGCRP [US Global Change Research Program]. 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on 

Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, A., J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, C.B. Beard, J.E. 

Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J. Eisen, N. Fann, M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D.M. Mills, S. Saha, M.C. Sarofim, 

J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 312 pp. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0R49NQX. 

(200) Watt, N. et al. 2015. Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. The Lancet 386: 

1861-1914. 

(201) See Id. See also Luber, G. et al. 2014: Ch. 9: Human Health. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: 

The Third National Climate Assessment. J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, 220-256. doi:10.7930/J0PN93H5; USGCRP [US Global Change Research Program]. 

2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, 

A., J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, C.B. Beard, J.E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J. Eisen, N. Fann, M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. 

Jantarasami, D.M. Mills, S. Saha, M.C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

Washington, DC, 312 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0R49NQX. 

(202) See USGCRP, 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States. 

(203) See Luber, G. et al. 2014: Ch. 9: Human Health. Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 

(204) See Id. 

(205) See USGCRP, 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States. 

(206) UCS [Union of Concerned Scientists]. 2011. Rising Temperatures and Your Health: Rising Temperatures, 

Worsening Ozone Pollution. Available at 

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-change-andozonepollution.pdf. 

(207) See Id. 

(208) See USGCRP, 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States 

(209) Bernstein, A.S. and S.S. Myers. 2011. Climate change and children’s health. Current Opinion in Pediatrics 

23: 221–6. 

(210) See USGCRP, 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States. 

(211) Harrigan, R.J., H.A. Thomassen, W. Buermann, and T.B. Smith. 2014. A continental risk assessment of West 

Nile virus under climate change. Global Change Biology 20: 2417-2425; Paz, S. 2015. Climate change impacts on 

West Nile virus transmission in a global context. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370: 

20130561. 

(212) See Luber, G. et al. 2014: Ch. 9: Human Health. Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 

(213) P.R. Epstein, et al., Full Cost Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal, Ann. NY Acad. Sci. (2011) 

(214) B. Machol & S. Rizk, Economic Value of U.S. Fossil Fuel Electricity Health Impacts, 52 Env. Intl. 75-80 (2013) 

(215) The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1990-2020, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Air and Radiation (2010). 

(216) Id. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-706 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-68

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The United States produced just under a billion short tons of coal in 2015, but as domestic coal use declines, 

producers are increasingly looking to export U.S. coal—and the pollution associated with burning this coal—

overseas.221 Even though the coal will ultimately be burned elsewhere, the mining and transportation of coal for 

export nonetheless have significant adverse effects on human health and the environment in the United States. 

Transporting the coal to ports releases coal dust from open rail cars, as well as diesel exhaust from train engines, 

along the rail lines.222 Coal dust particles themselves contribute to lung disease, asthma, and cardiopulmonary 

diseases, and can contain toxic heavy metals like arsenic and lead, which pose additional health risks, such as skin, 

bladder, liver, and lung cancers and damage to the nervous system.223 At the ports, unloading the coal, storage 

in piles, and reloading it onto ships all emit large quantities of coal dust.224 Trains and ships used to transport 

coal also emit diesel exhaust and other harmful air pollutants, which worsen respiratory and pulmonary 

conditions and can cause premature death. 

(221) U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Coal Use Projections and forecasts found at 

https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/coal.cfm; Government Accountability Office, Coal Leasing: BLM Could 

Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information 36 

(Dec. 2013), GAO-14-140.

(222) BNSF Railway. "Coal Cars." Found at http://www.bnsf.com/customers/equipment/coal-cars/. 

(223) Center for Disease Control and Prevention. "Coal dust." NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. Nov 

18, 2010. Found at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0144.html. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-69

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ports are also a significant source of coal dust. When a train arrives at a coal export terminal, it may dump its 

coal into an open air storage pile or holding silo. Alternatively, a train arriving at a port terminal may wait for 

days in a train yard at the port before its coal is unloaded. These waiting train cars and open-air coal piles are 

significant sources of coal dust particulate matter at export terminals because typical wind speeds and wind gusts 

prevalent in near-coastal areas cause coal particles from the storage piles and from the uncovered tops of waiting 

coal cars to be released into the air.228 Unloading the coal from rail cars into storage piles at the port facility and 

storing the coal in these piles emits coal dust into the air, soil, and water nearby. In addition, coal dust is carried 

off the storage piles as runoff when the piles are exposed to rain.229 This runoff can impact both surface water 

and underlying groundwater. When a ship is ready for loading, conveyor belts transport the coal from the train 

car, silo, or coal pile, and dump the coal onto the ship, releasing additional coal dust into the air and water. 

Coal dust, once emitted, can have multiple impacts on humans and the environment. Fugitive coal dust that is 10 

micrometers or less in diameter is classified as PM10, and fugitive coal dust that is 2.5 micrometers or less in 

diameter is classified as PM2.5. PM10 can travel up to 30 miles, and PM2.5 can travel 500 miles.230 Both PM10 

and PM2.5 are extremely harmful to human health. The particles can travel deep into the lungs and into the 

bloodstream, causing premature death in people with heart or lung disease, heart attacks, decreased lung 

function, and increased respiratory effects, including irritation of the airways, aggravated asthma, coughing, and 

breathing difficulties.231 Groups that are most at risk due to PM10 and PM2.5 exposure include children, older 

adults, low-income communities, and individuals with asthma or preexisting heart and lung disease. Inorganic 

arsenic found in coal dust deposited in soil near coal export terminals is a human carcinogen.232 Human 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-707

Scoping Report 

exposure to inorganic arsenic by inhalation has been strongly associated with lung cancer, and ingestion has been 

linked to skin, bladder, liver, and lung cancers.233 Chronic inhalation has been associated with irritation of the 

skin and mucous membranes, as well as effects in the brain and nervous system. Gastrointestinal effects, anemia, 

peripheral neuropathy, skin lesions, hyperpigmentation, and liver or kidney damage have resulted from chronic 

oral exposure to elevated levels of inorganic arsenic.234 

In addition to coal dust, the trains and ships used to transport coal emit diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust contains 

significant sources of harmful air pollutants including particulate matter (PM/PM2.5), volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), toxic compounds known as air toxics, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and, in the case 

of ships, sulfur oxides (SOx), and contributes to elevated ozone levels.235 This pollution causes poor air quality, 

reduced visibility, water and soil contamination, and ecosystem damage. Health effects associated with exposure 

to this pollution include premature mortality, increased hospital admissions, heart and lung diseases, asthma, 

reduced lung function, and increased cancer risk.236 

228Bounds, WJ and Johannesson, KH. "Arsenic addition to soils from airborne coal dust originating at a major 

coal 

shipping terminal." Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 185 (2007): 195-207. 

229 See Id. at 198. 

230 See Id. at 200. 

231 See Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Science Assessment on PM at 25. 

232 See Bounds, WJ and Johannesson.KH at 196. 

233 World Health Organization Fact Sheet on Inorganic Arsenic found at 

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs372/en/. 

234 See Id. 

235 California EPA’s Fact Sheet on Health Impacts of Diesel Exhaust emissions found at: 

http://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf, 

236 See Id. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-74

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 17 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The indirect effects of coal leasing and mining include atmospheric emissions of mercury from coal combustion. 

Mercury is a potent and widely distributed neurotoxin with serious adverse health effects on human health and 

development as well as the behavior, reproduction, and survival of threatened and endangered species. The 

United Nations estimates that 26% of global mercury emissions (339-657 metric tons/ year) come from the 

combustion of coal in power plants.294 A recent decision held that agencies must consider the indirect effects of 

even microscopic levels of mercury from coal leasing, mining and combustion decisions: 

(294) J. Pacyna, et al., Study on Mercury Sources and Emissions and Analysis of Cost and Effectiveness of Control 

Measures: “UNEP Paragraph 29 Study”, UNEP (Nov. 2010).

“the record reveals that even microscopic changes in the amount of mercury deposition can have significant 

impacts on threatened and endangered species in the area impacted by the Four Corners Power Plant. See AR 1-

2-14-1990 (concluding that a .1% increase in mercury deposition in the basin is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the Colorado pikeminnow). Given the potentially significant impacts of mercury pollution, OSM's 

failure to discuss or analyze the deleterious impacts of combustion-related mercury deposition in the area of the 

Four Corners Power Plant is troubling.295”

(295) Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, 82 F.Supp. 3d 1201, 1215 (D. Colo. 2015). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-708 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

The deposition of mercury and selenium within the Colorado River Basin continues to threaten both human 

health and endangered species, including the four Colorado River endangered fish. Current scientific information 

indicates continuing mercury and selenium contamination in the Colorado River Basin, which has the potential to 

detrimentally affect these species. 

Consumption through the food chain is the primary mechanism of bioaccumulation of mercury in the endangered 

fish, and particularly affects the Colorado pikeminnow’s diet as the largest of the endangered Colorado River fish 

(Herrmann et al. 2016 at 204). Sources of mercury include high levels of atmospheric mercury deposition called 

“cold condensation” from coal-fired power plant emissions (Id. at 205). This atmospheric deposition and 

watershed runoff is the most prevalent source of mercury in the Colorado River, but mercury pollution from old 

gold smelters in the Basin have also infiltrated this river system through decades of runoff from smaller tributaries 

(Id. At 215). In Grand Canyon, there is a high concentration of mercury in the atmosphere due to emissions from 

the coal burning Navajo Generating Station in Page, Arizona, resulting in direct negative effects on the 

endangered fishes’ habitat in the lower Colorado River Basin (Walters 2015 at 2385).

Mercury contamination is especially concerning because all four species depend on aquatic invertebrates as a food 

source. Other piscivorous animals and non-native fish that prey on these juvenile fish, in turn, accumulate 

mercury, which continues up the food chain, bioaccumulating in adult fish. Concentrations of mercury exceeding 

8 micrograms (μg/g) in fish organs or eggs may result in reproductive dysfunction and abnormalities (Herrmann et 

al. 2016 at 204). Walters et al. (2015) found that mean mercury concentrations for three native species and three 

non-native species from a Colorado River sample site exceeded the risk threshold for piscivorous mammal 

consumption (Id. at 2390). 

Because of the scale of the federal coal leasing program (over 40% of U.S. coal production), BLM must quantify, 

consider, and consult on, the indirect mercury emissions from combustion of coal, its contribution to global 

mercury atmospheric concentrations and deposition rates, and its ensuing effects on sensitive, threatened, and 

endangered species, including the four Colorado River listed fish. 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-112

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Emissions associated with the coal leasing program impair the public interest through the health and welfare costs 

of air pollution and climate change. Of total nationwide emissions in 2013, 36% came from electric power 

generation, of which 76% was from coal combustion, of which 41% was from coal produced from federal lands.22 

A recent study by PSE Healthy Energy concludes that communities living near coal power plants are at higher risk 

of developing adverse health impacts. Emissions from coal combustion in Pennsylvania and Ohio caused more 

than 4,333 premature deaths nationwide in 2015 alone.23These premature deaths and illnesses also generated 

nearly $38 billion in health impacts.24 The per-capita impacts were most concentrated in areas near to and 

downwind of coal power plants – areas with higher than average concentrations of minority and/or low-income 

residents. By failing to consider these health effects, BLM misses the opportunity to interpret the public interest 

in a way that serves Americans. 

[22 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013 

(April 15, 2015).] 

[23 This figure compiles the health burdens from Ohio and Pennsylvania power plants' fine particle pollution, with 

2,133 adult deaths in Ohio and 2,300 adult deaths in Pennsylvania (4,333 total) from coal and gas plants 

combined. Of these totals, 2,088 and 2,263, respectively, were attributable to coal power plants in each state. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-709

Scoping Report 

Krieger, E, et al., “The Clean Power Plan in Pennsylvania Analyzing power generation for health and equity,” June 

2016. Available at https://nextgenamerica.org/news-reports/our-air-pa-technical/ at viii; Krieger, E, et al., “Our 

Air: Healthy and Equity Impacts of Ohio’s Power Plants,” June 2016. Available at 

https://nextgenamerica.org/news-reports/our-air-ohio/ at 6. Supplemental data specific to coal plants courtesy of 

the report’s author.]

[24 Id.] 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-13

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ash management impacts: Burning of coal produces massive amounts of coal ash, which is often disposed of in 

inconsistent and potentially unhealthy ways. The PEIS must address the impacts of coal ash production and 

disposal and provide information and analysis disclosing to what extent the federal coal program is linked to 

adverse health and environmental impacts related to coal ash production. 

Comment Number: 0002513_Lish_20160707-12

Commenter1:Christopher Lish 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Respiratory effects: Air pollutants from coal play a role in the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease (COPD), a lung disease characterized by permanent narrowing of airways. Coal pollutants may also cause 

COPD exacerbations. Coal pollutants —among them nitrous oxide and very small particles, known as PM2.5—

adversely affect lung development and trigger asthma attacks, thus posing particular risks to children. Nitrous 

oxide in combination with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight and heat forms ground-level 

ozone, a widespread pollutant which can cause permanent lung scarring as well as exacerbations of asthma. 

Exposures to ozone and PM are also correlated with the development of and mortality from lung cancer, the 

leading cancer killer in both men and women. 

Cardiovascular effects: The concentration of PM2.5 in ambient air increases the risk of heart attacks and hospital 

admissions for ischemic heart diseases, disturbances of heart rhythm, and congestive heart failure. Nitrogen 

oxides and PM2.5, along with other pollutants, are associated with hospital admissions for potentially fatal cardiac 

arrhythmia. Nervous system effects: Studies have shown a correlation between coal-related air pollutants and 

stroke. Mercury exposure contributes to neurological and developmental impairments like autism and causes 

lifelong loss of intelligence. Coal Life-Cycle: Burning coal is not the only health harming action, but all steps of the 

coal lifecycle—mining, transportation, washing, and disposing of post-combustion wastes—impacts human health. 

Each of these steps must be evaluated for the cumulative impacts on Americans of further coal leasing on federal 

lands. 

Health effects associated with climate change: Because coal-fired power plants account for so much of U.S. 

carbon dioxide emissions, coal is a major contributor to the health impacts of climate change. Determination of 

the climate threats needs to be quantified by the PEIS to evaluate the ultimate cumulative impact of additional 

leasing on federal land. For example,more frequent heat waves will lead to a rise in heat exhaustion and heat 

stroke, potentially resulting in death, especially among elderly and poor urban dwellers. Rising temperatures 

are expanding the ranges for disease- carriers like mosquitoes and ticks in some cases causing epidemics of Lyme 

disease. Drought causes detrimental effects on food supply resulting in crop failure, higher prices and worsening 

nutrition. The increased frequency of intense precipitation events contributes to flooding, water contamination 

and the spread of infectious and mosquito-borne diseases. Drought, declining food supplies and rising sea 

levels increase the migration of affected populations and increase armed conflict and global instability. 

These threats to health are of great concern to me. It is essential to analyze the large costs to our health from 

the mining, combustion and management of coal ash to our health when we evaluate the leasing program on 

publicly-owned land. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-710 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-43

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 8.1 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS Should Examine Significant Non-climate Impacts Associated With Coal Mining, Transport, and 

Combustion. BLM’s scoping notice acknowledges that “[t]he Federal coal program has other potential impacts on 

public health and the environment, beyond climate impacts, that will also be assessed in the Programmatic 

EIS.”170 However, the notice states that the EIS’s analysis will “include the effects of coal production” without 

explicitly addressing the impacts of coal transport and combustion. 171 The scoping notice also commits to a 

broad analysis of the federal coal program’s socioeconomic impacts. 172 Because NEPA requires agencies to 

evaluate the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of a proposed action, and coal combustion is a foreseeable 

result 169 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental Health and Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland Bulk and 

Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 19. 170 81 Fed. Reg. at 17,725-26. 171 Id. at 17,726 (emphasis 

added) 172 Id. 50 of coal mining on federal lands, the PEIS must disclose the non-carbon environmental and 

socio-economic impacts of coal combustion. 173 It is particularly crucial that the PEIS address these impacts 

because they are likely significant. The that mining, transportation, and especially combustion of federally owned 

coal causes to life expectancy and health may be much larger than the current estimates and are tied to 

greenhouse gas emissions. In June 2016, a White House Council of Economic Advisors report on the economic 

impacts of the federal coal leasing program explicitly recognized that significant health-based costs are associated 

with the continued mining and burning of federal coal. 174 Specifically: On the production side, coal mining 

involves emissions of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. Coal extraction and processing also may lead to 

external costs from water pollution and land degradation. Transportation of coal is often energy and emissions 

intensive. Coal combustion releases carbon dioxide, mercury, and other harmful air pollutants. Impoundments 

and coal combustion waste can also lead to severe water . 175 All of these social and environmental costs must 

be disclosed in the PEIS. Numerous environmental reviews from the past several years support the White House 

Report findings concerning harms from the non-carbon emissions of coal-fired electric generators: sulfur and 

nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, ammonia, and mercury. These environmental 

reviews reveal damage from coal burning to health, 173 In addition, this letter speaks at length about the need to 

analyze the impacts of the federal coal program’s climate-related impacts. The program drives the continued 

production of coal and reliance on coal for energy generation, frustrating state, national, and international climate 

goals. In addition the federal coal program perpetuates and increases exposure by downstream communities to 

climate disruption. While this section focuses on non-climate impacts, the downstream climate impacts due to 

the federal coal program also should be analyzed in the PEIS. 174 White House Fair Return Report, at 28 175 Id. 

51 longevity, quality of life, and property. 176 As discussed below, these are all environmental and health impacts 

that NEPA mandates that the PEIS address 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-44

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 9 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS must analyze downstream impacts of coal dust. Coal dust emissions can significantly impact the health of 

downstream communities and workers, and damage our environment. The PEIS should analyze both coal dust 

emissions impacts from railcars and fugitive emissions. Coal dust is generated by coal-carrying rail cars during 

transit and as a fugitive emission from coal storage piles, and loading and unloading activities. 177 Rail lines parallel 

waterways where rail cars emit coal dust, transporting it to nearby communities and farms. Coal trains emit coal 

dust from the top and bottom of the rail cars throughout the trip. An average rail car loses 645 lbs during a 400 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-711

Scoping Report 

mile trip. 178 BNSF estimates that 500 to 2000 lbs of coal dust can be emitted from each train car per trip. 179 

Surfactants are sometimes sprayed over the coal to control dust. However, surfactants wear off during the trip 

and require tremendous quantities of water to apply. Coal dust can impact port communities and workers 

because of higher emissions associated with containment within a smaller area and the types of locomotives used 

within port facilities. 180 Currently, no federal regulations protect communities from coal dust exposure. Coal 

dust consists mainly of granules and fine black particles that increase both PM10 and PM 2.5 in the ambient air. 

Most acutely, coal dust causes wheezing, excess cough and other 176 Power Consulting, Inc., The Economic 

Consequences of the Federal Coal Leasing Program: Improving the Quality of the Economic Analysis (July 27, 

2016) at 49, attached as Ex. 1, citing, inter alia, National Research Council, Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced 

Consequences of Energy Production and Use,” Committee on Health, Environmental, and Other External Costs 

and Benefits of Energy Production and Consumption (2010), available at http://nap.edu/12794 (last visited July 27, 

2016), attached as Ex. 32; Paul R. Epstein, et al., Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal,” in “Ecological 

Economics Review, ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 1219 (2011): 73-98, available at 

http://www.chgeharvard.org/sites/default/files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf (last visited July 27, 2016), 

attached as Ex. 33; Nicholas A. Muller et al., Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States 

Economy. AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 101 (August 2011): 1649-1675, available at 

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.101.5.1649 (last visited July 27, 2016), attached as Ex. 34. 177 

Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental Health and Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized 

Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 13, attached as Ex. 35. 178 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental Health and 

Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 2 (Ex. 35). 179 

Sustainable Systems Research, LLC, “Technical Memorandum Air Quality, Climate Change, and Environmental 

Justice Issues from Oakland Trade and Global Logistics Center, September 18, 2015, at 6, attached as Ex. 36. 180 

Id. 52 respiratory symptoms. 181 Longer term exposure can lead to skin damage, circulatory problems, and 

increased risk of developing cancer. Coal dust also increases accident risk because coal dust from trains 

destabilizes the track ballast—the surface that bears the load of the railroad ties. Coal dust contaminates soil, 

coats crops, yards, homes and vehicles raising health concerns and causing nuisance. 182 Fugitive coal dust can 

impair lung function, and cause or contribute to cardiovascular disease and developmental disorders. Covered rail 

cars would appear to reduce coal dust emissions, so the PEIS should also explore the impacts of covered rail 

cars. To our knowledge, at this time, no covered coal trains are in use in the U.S. and we know of no published 

study of the efficacy for coal trains. Covered cars would still emit coal dust from the bottom of the train, which 

constitutes 7 percent of the total coal dust. 183 And if the cars included venting units, the coal dust would 

additionally vent from the top of the car. Covered rail cars also pose an additional rail accident risk; coal is highly 

combustible, and coal trapping heat limited space could facilitate spontaneous combustion. 184 In addition to 

analyzing the impacts of coal dust emissions from uncovered cars, the PEIS should analyze and disclose emissions 

from empty coal trains. One recent Australian study found that empty coal trains emit more particulate pollution 

than loaded ones. 185 Controlling coal dust requires millions of gallons of water per year. Water is needed 

during rail car loading, at storage piles within enclosures, at drop points, and during ship loading. 186 About 8 

gallons of water are required for each ton of coal throughput to control dust. 187 Given that coal travels through 

states that are experiencing drought, the PEIS should analyze the impacts of coal leasing in this context. The PEIS 

should also consider the cumulative impacts of coal dust given the impacts faced by communities located near rail 

lines and ports where the trains are carried. Cumulative impacts are the related past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects. 181 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental Health and Safety Impacts of the 

Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 16 (Ex. 35). 182 Paul R. Epstein et al, 

Full Cost of Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal, ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, v. 

1219, 2011, at 84 (Ex. 33). 183 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Health and Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland 

Bulk and Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 17 (Ex. 35). 184 Id. at 18. 185 Nick Higgenbotham et al, 

Coal Train Pollution Signature Study: A briefing paper prepared for the For the Coal Terminal Action Group 

Dust and Health Committee, August 2013, attached as Ex. 37. 186 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental 

Health and Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 2 (Ex. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-712 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

35). 187 Id. at 7. 53 Given that ports and other areas impacted by coal dust are located in low-income 

communities and communities of color, the PEIS must analyze these impacts. 188 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-45

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS must consider all air pollutant impacts from coal transport on downstream communities. Coal transport 

by rail also causes significant air quality and health impacts through coal train exhaust, which includes diesel 

particulate matter (DPM), and criteria pollutants including NOx, SO2, PM10, PM 2.5 and CO. Trains emit these 

pollutants while in motion and idling. 189 Communities and workers in close proximity to rail tracks, coal 

terminals, and shipping lanes are at highest risk for DPM exposure. DPM is associated with “acute short term 

symptoms such as headache, dizziness, light headedness, nausea, coughing, difficulty breathing, tightness of chest, 

and irritation of eyes, nose and throat. Long-term exposure can result in increased probability of heart attacks, 

lung cancer, worsening of asthma, and infant mortality. 190 Health risk assessments of rail terminals and ports 

have found significant cancer risks associated with DPM up to two miles from coal terminals. 191 The PEIS should 

quantify health impacts along the entire coal transportation corridor. In addition, the PEIS should analyze air 

emissions from coal export and shipping activities. For instance, air modeling for a proposed state of the art 

covered coal export at the Port of Morrow in Oregon showed major exceedances of particulate matter and 

NAAQs for NOx. 192 Storing coal in communities also generates large amounts of PM. 193 It is also well known 

that coal export can increase acid rain and mercury deposition in the Pacific Ocean and Western US from Asia. 

194 These impacts should also be analyzed. In evaluating the significance of air quality impacts due to coal storage 

and transportation, the analysis should not base its conclusions solely on National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(“NAAQS”) because harms may occur at pollutant concentrations below the NAAQS standards. For example, 

epidemiological studies have shown associations between SO2 188 Pastor, Manuel Jr., et al., Waiting to Inhale? 

The Demographics of Toxic Air Release Facilities in 21st Century California, 85 SOCIAL SCIENCE 

QUARTERLY, no. 2, June, 2004. 189 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental Health and Safety Impacts of the 

Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 19 (Ex. 35). 190 Id. 191 Id. 192 See, e.g., 

AMI International, AIR QUALITY MODELING FOR THE PROPOSED ENCLOSED COAL EXPORT FACILITY 

AT THE PORT OF MORROW (2012), 

http://media.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/other/AERMOD_Modeling_Morrow_vfin.pdf (last visited July 

28, 2016), attached as Ex. 38. 193 See id. 194 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental Health and Safety Impacts 

of the Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 7 (Ex. 35). 54 concentrations and 

emergency room visits and hospital admissions down to the 50 ppb level even though the NAAQS for SO2 is 85 

ppb. 195 Moreover, NAAQS does not account for the fact that some pollutants have higher localized impacts—

pollutants like SO2 concentrate locally. The PEIS should analyze the significance of the health impacts of the 

program associated with air emissions on downstream communities. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-48

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 8.11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should analyze the impact of accidents caused by federal coal transport and storage. The PEIS should 

include a meaningful analysis of the potential safety, human and environmental risks of rail accidents, both those 

involving, and those proximately caused by, coal trains. Rail accidents can release coal into the surface waters and 

water supply causing significant impacts. Moreover, coal is very difficult to clean up. 201 This affects downstream 

communities as coal released into water supply can degrade agricultural communities and municipal water 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-713

Scoping Report 

supplies in addition to harming fish and other aquatic life. The blast zone for coal trains is within one mile of the 

train tracks. These explosions disproportionately impact low income communities and communities of color—

because these often are the communities that live near railroad tracks. 202 This impact should be analyzed as an 

indirect and cumulative impact, especially in light of other hazards these communities are exposed to. 203 Coal 

trains, which weigh far more than other types of trains, also deposit coal dust on the tracks and in the track 

ballast. The additional stress on the tracks increases the probability of accidents. 204 Coal dust is highly 

combustible and causes risks from explosions and fire. The federal Surface Transportation Board has concluded 

that coal dust can impair track stability lead to train derailment. 205 Consequently, coal trains are a proximate 

cause of rail accidents. 206 200 Id. at 20. 201 Id. at 9. 202 “Crude Injustice on the Rails,” Communities for a 

Better Environment and Forest Ethics, (June 2015) at 3 (80 percent of the 5.5 million Californians with homes in 

the blast zone live in low income communities and communities of color). 203 Id. at 11. 204 Id. at 10. 205 Surface 

Transportation Board Decision, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation – Decision on Petition for 

Declaratory Order, Docket No. FD 35305 (Mar. 3, 2011); available at 

http://stb.dot.gov/Decisions/readingroom.nsf/UNID/79B5382AE20F7930852578480053111F/$fi le/40436.pdf (last 

visited July 28, 2016). 56 Spills are not uncommon during bunkering (or fueling), and spills into environmentally 

sensitive waters. The PEIS should evaluate this spill risk for both offshore bunkering— throughout the route—

and onshore at port. 

Comment Number: 0003010_MasterFormI_PhysiciansSocialRespon-1 

Organization1:Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Respiratory effects: Air pollutants from coal play a role in the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease (COPD), a lung disease characterized by permanent narrowing of airways. Coal pollutants may also cause 

COPD exacerbations. Coal pollutants—among them nitrous oxide and very small particles, known as PM2.5—

adversely affect lung development and trigger asthma attacks, thus posing particular risks to children. Nitrous 

oxide in combination with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight and heat forms ground-level 

ozone, a widespread pollutant which can cause permanent lung scarring as well as exacerbations of asthma. 

Exposures to ozone and PM are also correlated with the development of and mortality from lung cancer, the 

leading cancer killer in both men and women. 

Comment Number: 0003010_MasterFormI_PhysiciansSocialRespon-2 

Organization1:Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Cardiovascular effects: The concentration of PM2.5 in ambient air increases the risk of heart attacks and hospital 

admissions for ischemic heart diseases, disturbances of heart rhythm, and congestive heart failure. Nitrogen 

oxides and PM2.5, along with other pollutants, are associated with hospital admissions for potentially fatal cardiac 

arrhythmia. 

Comment Number: 0003010_MasterFormI_PhysiciansSocialRespon-3 

Organization1:Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Nervous system effects: Studies have shown a correlation between coal-related air pollutants and stroke. 

Mercury exposure contributes to neurological and developmental impairments like autism and causes lifelong loss 

of intelligence. 

Comment Number: 0003010_MasterFormI_PhysiciansSocialRespon-4 

Organization1:Physicians for Social Responsibility 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-714 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal Life-Cycle: Burning coal is not the only health harming action, but all steps of the coal lifecycle—mining, 

transportation, washing, and disposing of post-combustion wastes—impacts human health. Each of these steps 

must be evaluated for the cumulative impacts on Americans of further coal leasing on federal lands. 

Comment Number: 0003010_MasterFormI_PhysiciansSocialRespon-5 

Organization1:Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Health effects associated with climate change: Because coal-fired power plants account for so much of U.S. 

carbon dioxide emissions, coal is a major contributor to the health impacts of climate change. Determination of 

the climate threats needs to be quantified by the PEIS to evaluate the ultimate cumulative impact of additional 

leasing on federal land. For example, more frequent heat waves will lead to a rise in heat exhaustion and heat 

stroke, potentially resulting in death, especially among elderly and poor urban dwellers. Rising temperatures are 

expanding the ranges for disease-carriers like mosquitoes and ticks in some cases causing epidemics of Lyme 

disease. Drought causes detrimental effects on food supply resulting in crop failure, higher prices and worsening 

nutrition. The increased frequency of intense precipitation events contributes to flooding, water contamination 

and the spread of infectious and mosquito-borne diseases. Drought, declining food supplies and rising sea levels 

increase the migration of affected populations and increase armed conflict and global instability. 

Comment Number: 0003010_MasterFormI_PhysiciansSocialRespon-7 

Organization1:Physicians for Social Responsibility 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Programmatic Environment Impact evaluation needs to incorporate the health impacts of coal pollutants. Air 

pollution from burning coal affects all major body organ systems and contributes to four of the five leading causes 

of mortality in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases. 

Comment Number: 0003029_Arrington_J_06032016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Patrick Arrington 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When we cut out CO emissions the crops world wide will decline and you 

will be responsible for starvation of people 

Comment Number: 0003056_Andersen_20160729-1 

Commenter1:Susan Andersen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is also true that coal mined in certain areas, among them South Dakota and Wyoming contain radioactive 

materials such as uranium which are dispersed into the air when the coal is burned and pose a radiation exposure 

danger to anyone within a certain radius of the coal plant, especially the workers themselves who are present for 

large amounts of time. 

Comment Number: 0003085_Hyche_D_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Joe Hyche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-715

Scoping Report 

Coal mining itself causes health problems for the workers, the people in the surrounding communities, and also, 

importantly, the people affected by the dumping of the coal ash 

Comment Number: 0003085_Hyche_D_20160712-2 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Joe Hyche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal ash must be stored in completely secure ponds where no leakage occurs. This is not happening. Not only 

that, but the more the coal is mined, the harder it will be to contain the pollution it causes. Our taxpayer-owned 

public lands need protection, not exploitation. Cleaner energy sources are environmental friendly. 

Comment Number: 0003089_Laws_I_20160628-1 

Commenter1:Miki Laws 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

and in my work 

as a church minister regularly visiting the elderly I clearly see the long-term effects of exposure to coal 

mining and use in electric power production. A majority of the elderly in my care are suffering from 

lung conditions that can be tied back to these factors, in this rural area where coal mining has played a 

historic role, and the local air is downwind from coal-powered electric generating stations. 

Comment Number: 0003126_McLaughlin_20160608-1 

Commenter1:Michael McLaughlin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Burning coal creates acid rain, spreads 

toxic methyl mercury into the environment, where it is picked up my 

organisms and biomagnified until it affects the health of humans and 

other large animals. It is a neurotoxin, affecting brain health at tiny 

concentrations. 

Comment Number: 0020001_Murnion_20160712-4 

Commenter1:David Murnion 

Other Sections: 5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The emission control apparatus on all coal generating power plants needs more modifications now, as we 

continue to learn that several chemical agents in the coal emissions are causing lung and heart diseases such as 

heart failure, asthma and cancer. 

Comment Number: 0020006_Cowden_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Rhonda Cowden 

Other Sections: 5 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The UN Environmental Program reported on May 24, 2016 that according to WHO the air pollution level has 

risen 8% between 2008-2013, threatening to kill 7 million people yearly. 80% of these people living in areas where 

are pollution is monitored. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-716 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0020006_Cowden_20160712-3 

Commenter1:Rhonda Cowden

Comment Excerpt Text: 

CDC - Heart Disease ages 35 plus 334-1094 death rates per 100,000 by 2013 in Tennessee. 

CDC - All Cancers 178-201 per 100,000 by 2012 by 2012 death rates per 100,000 in Tennessee. 

These statistics are directly impacted by the use of burning fossil fuels. 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-7 

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A 2010 Synapse Energy Economics report prepared for Utah found that the state's mostly coal-fired energy 

generation units (EGUs) were responsible for hundreds of premature deaths annually and hundreds of millions of 

dollars in health care costs.[2) 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-9 

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In her 2015 Pediatric Grand Rounds presentation at Primary Children's Hospital, available on YouTube, Dr. 

Michelle Hofmann highlights the current state of the science exploring a host of health threats posed to children 

exposed to ambient air pollution, including fossil fuels pollution (4). 

Comment Number: 0020030_Griffin_20160722-2 

Commenter1:Nancy Griffin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal dust is a health problem. 

Comment Number: 0020037-1 

Commenter1:Corey Weathers 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We strongly oppose coal leasing in WA state as coal is not only a public health threat but also one of the key 

contributors to climate change 

Comment Number: 002501_Ring_20160728-4 

Organization1:Climate911 

Commenter1:Wendy Ring 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Costly damage to public health 

Coal is harmful to human health in every phase of its life cycle and a contributor to 4 of our 5 leading causes of 

death. Harvard's Center for Global Health and the Environment estimates that coal mining costs the American 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-717

Scoping Report 

public $175 billion to 523 billion dollars per year in damage to health, the climate and the environment (CGHE, 

2011). Since 41% of coal is mined from federal lands, the attributable cost is $70 to $209 billion dollars annually. 

When the full social cost of coal; including health, climate and environmental impacts extending far beyond the 

lifetime of the leases; is taken into account along with fees and royalties commensurate with market value, coal is 

less affordable than clean alternatives. 

Comment Number: 003058_Armistead, M.d._1072016-1 

Commenter1:Susan Armistead 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The United States produced 110 million tons of coal ash in 2012. It contains manganese, selenium, and arsenic, 

which can cause nerve problems, reproductive system problems and cancer. People living within a mile of unlined 

coal ash storage ponds have a 1-in-50 risk of cancer, according to the EPA. It's a cancer risk more than 2,000 

times higher than the EPA considers acceptable 

Comment Number: 003069_Rabener_1072016-1 

Commenter1:Nancy Rabener 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

U.S. coal-fired power plants pump more than 48 tons of mercury into the air each year. Approximately a third of 

U.S. emissions settles within U.S. borders, poisoning lakes and waterways. The rest cycles through the 

atmosphere, with much of it eventually winding up in the world's oceans. Inorganic mercury is not easily 

assimilated into the human body, and if the mercury emitted by power plants stayed in that form, it probably 

would not have made so many people sick. But when inorganic mercury creeps into the aquatic sediments and 

marches, as well as mid-depths of oceans, bacteria convert it into methylmercury, an organic form that not only 

is easily assimilated, but also accumulates in living tissue as it moves up the food chain: the bigger and older the 

fish, the more mercury in its meat. It takes only a tiny amount to do serious damage: One-seventieth of a 

teaspoon can pollute a 20-acre lake to the point where its fish are unsafe to eat. Thousands of tons a year settle 

in the world's oceans, where they bioaccumulate in carnivorous fish. Forty percent of human mercury exposure 

comes from a single source --- Pacific tuna. 

Comment Number: 000001297_Slabakov_20160623-2 

Organization1:Climate Reality Project 

Commenter1:Yana Slabakov 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining areas are also the hardest hit by another reality -- heath impacts. These external costs are great. And 

coal miners and their communities often pay for them with their wellbeing. Coal is harmful to the human body at 

every stage of its production cycle. The American Lung Association estimates that 13,000 premature deaths 

occur each year from coal pollution. And this pollution is a major contributor to chronic respiratory diseases, 

heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Those who mine coal themselves take on the biggest dangers associated. But, 

it certainly doesn't end there. Mining operations spew water contaminated with mercury, sulfur oxides, and heavy 

metal, which finds its way into local water supplies and into the aquatic food chain. This acid mine drainage, 

coupled with mine chemicals that are often improperly injected underground, spread an unforeseen and 

uncontained wave. At its core, this is a public health problem. Not only miners are affected. The consequences of 

goal combustion impacts us all. Associated air pollutants, such as mercury, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter 

contribute to growing rates of asthma, lung disease, and nervous system impairment. High mercury 

concentrations in water have a left more and more children being born with low birth weights and blood 

mercury levels high enough to impact IQ. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-718 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00001271_Sussors_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Kenneth Sussors 

Other Sections: 5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Processing and burning fossil fuels contributes significantly to air pollution, which in turn causes health problems, 

especially in the oldest and youngest and those with pulmonary disease. As a doctor, I've seen these health 

problems firsthand, especially here at the VA with its vulnerable population. These heath affects are caused both 

directly by inhaling harmful chemicals and particles and indirectly by upsetting the balance of nature and weather 

Comment Number: 00001271_Sussors_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Kenneth Sussors 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is particularly significant due to the high concentration and wide range of harmful particles and chemicals it 

produces and the large amount of coal that America uses to generate heat and power. The ideas I'm presenting 

today are not just my own personal opinions. They are evidence-based. The world's scientists have been studying 

the health effects of coal for decades and have accumulated a vast database indicating that the health effects are 

indeed extremely harmful. These finding are not controversial. They are universally acknowledged as scientifically 

valid. For those who are interested in understanding this scientific evidence, I would recommend a publication 

titled Scientific Evidence of Health Effects from Coal Use in Energy Generation. Again, for those interested, the 

publication is Scientific Evidence of Health Effects from Coal Use in Energy Generation. And it is easily available 

on the internet. It's produced by the Healthcare Research Collaborative, based at the University of Illinois. It's a 

summary of documents that the use of coal as an energy source has multiple, large-scale, serious worldwide 

health effects, including illness and considerable death rates related to respiratory, cardiac, and neurologic 

diseases, as well as cancers and adverse effects on pregnancies and developing fetuses. 

Comment Number: 00001271_Sussors_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Kenneth Sussors 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In conclusion, the scientific evidence for adverse health effects stemming from using coal as an energy source is 

overwhelming. In fairness to the human race and all other living species and the planet itself, it is an urgent 

medical and ecological imperative to take a more comprehensive approach to our fuel choices and move 

vigorously towards clean energy sources. 

Certainly our own government, tasked with protecting its citizenship and protecting its environment, 

should take a lead role in safe energy development for our country. 

Comment Number: 0001280_Weidner_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Sharon Weidner 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Burning coal releases numerous toxic chemicals and particulates, which can have hidden costs to a country's 

population in terms of life expectancy and increased health cost. While pollutants, such as acid gases, stay in a 

local area, metals, such as lead and arsenic, travel beyond the State line. And fine particulate matter has a global 

impact. Physicians for Social Responsibility released a report in 2009 called Coal's Assault of Human Health. Some 

of what they're saying is that coal combustion releases mercury particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, 

dioxide, and dozens of other hazardous substances. Air pollutants produced by coal combustion act on our 

respiratory system, causing asthma, lung disease, lung cancer. Pollutants from coal combustion have 

cardiovascular effects as arterial blockage causing heart attacks, tissue death due to oxygen deprivation, leading to 

permanent heart damage, as well as cardiac arhythmia, and congestive heart failure. Coal pollutants, mainly 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-719

Scoping Report 

mercury, act on the nervous system to cause decreased influxual [phonetic] capacity. It's estimated that between 

300 and 600,000 children born each year with blood mercury levels high enough to decrease the IQ scores and 

cause lifelong loss of intelligence. Researchers from Harvard University School of Public Health found that 

pregnant women exposed to high levels of mercury were twice as likely to have an autistic child than their peers 

in low-pollution areas. Even people who do not develop illness from coal pollutants will find their health 

and wellbeing impacted due to coal's contribution to climate change. We're seeing increased and stronger storm 

systems causing flooding. Increased temperatures causing fires, heat stroke, malaria. Declining food production, 

scarce water supplies, social conflict, and starvation. There are negative impacts in each step of the coal life cycle. 

Coal mining leads U.S. industries in fatal injuries and is associated with chronic health problems among miners. 

The communities near the mines may be as [indiscernible] affected by blasting, washing, leakage from 

[indiscernible] ponds, damage to streams and waterways. And I'd just like to say that the cost of coal, it has to 

include our health and our planet's health. 

Comment Number: 0000741_Perry_NWF-3 

Commenter1:Edward Perry 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The adverse impacts on human health are also substantial. As just one example, every body of water in our 

country is contaminated with mercury caused primarily by burning coal. Some streams and lakes in Pennsylvania 

are so contaminated the state lists an additional 86 streams and lakes where they recommend women of 

childbearing age only consume one meal of fish per month. 

Comment Number: 0000848_Tomick_20160628-2 

Commenter1:Patrice Tomcik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I live downwind from one of the largest coal plants. I'm particularly concerned about what my children are 

breathing in. The pollutants that are emitted are particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and dangerous 

heavy metals such as mercury, lead and there are many more. This pollution can effect our children's health by 

causing ground level ozone response, which affects lung tissue, cause respiratory diseases, adversely affect the 

normal lung development of children and exacerbate asthma attacks. Asthma is a leading cause of missed school 

days among children ages 5 to 17. Exposure to mercury is a particular concern for pregnant women and nursing 

mothers and young children because mercury is a toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage, impairs learning 

and growth. Even people who do not develop illness directly from whole foods find their health impacted due to 

coal's contribution to carbon dioxide and causing climate change. The health risk from climate change are 

especially serious for children, elderly those who are immune compromised. The direct effects of climate change 

include increased illness and deaths from extreme weather and heat stress. Children are especially vulnerable to 

heat exposure because they don't have fully developed temperature regulation mechanisms within their bodies. 

The indirect effects of climate change are malnutrition, food insecurity, anxiety, depression 

and increase of insect-borne diseases like the zika virus. The BLM must consider the climate consequences and 

health impacts on our children and future generations of leasing public lands for 

fossil fuel extraction. We need to start developing the capacity today to generate energy from clean, safe and 

renewable sources for the health of our children today and future generations. 

Comment Number: 0000849_Perry_20160628-2 

Organization1:NWF 

Commenter1:Ed Perry 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And as I understand it, this EIS is only going to focus on future leases, but any business today, when it's 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-720 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

recognized that they are causing damage to public health or pollution problems, they have to clean up their act. 

So I strongly recommend that this EIS, whatever you come up with, also applies to existing coal operations 

Comment Number: 0000849_Perry_20160628-4 

Organization1:NWF 

Commenter1:Ed Perry 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The adverse impacts on human health are also substantial. Just one example, every body of water in our country 

is contaminated with mercury. And here in Pennsylvania, the State of Pennsylvania lists an additional 86 streams 

and lakes, thousands of stream miles and thousands of acres of lakes that are so contaminated they recommend 

women of childbearing age only consume one meal of fish per month. 

Comment Number: 0000868_Rakovan-1 

Commenter1:Rachel Rakovan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

in recap, coal mining causes cancer, which then causes people to become addicted to cancer medications, which 

then contributes to the illicit drug trade and then causes teenage drug overdose 

Comment Number: 0000873_Kirkpatrick-1 

Commenter1:Claudia Kirckpatrick 

Other Sections: 9 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Burning coal is a direct cause of asthma, respiratory illnesses and cancer. It is a serious risk especially to children 

and families in the areas around the power plants which are still burning coal. And it is more likely that low 

income and minority children and families will be the people most seriously harmed 

Issue 8 - Socioeconomics 

Total Number of Submissions: 301

Total Number of Comments: 449 

Comment Number: 0000010_Swingle_20160526_Oral-5 

Commenter1:Rocky Swingle 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Determining what can be done to make sure that coal miners and others in secondary industries that rely on 

coal-like railroad workers who haul coal, for example - don't loose their livelihoods but are able to make the 

transition to a clean energy economy. 

Comment Number: 00000103_Williams_Arch Coal_ 20160517-2 

Organization1:Arch Coal 

Commenter1:Keith Williams 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Right now, public coal is struggling to compete in the marketplace due in large part to the high taxes and royalty 

burden placed upon it. Simply put an increase in the royalty rate will only create further uncertainty and put 

additional pressure on communities throughout the West and on critical state programs as well. I'd like to finish 

up by saying part of the properties I'm in charge of are the Thunder Basin properties in the Powder River Basin in 

Wyoming. The first of the year, we had about 1,700 employees employed at those properties, and now we're 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-721

Scoping Report 

close to 1,400. So we're down 300 employees. A little over 15 percent of our workforce has declined through 

what's happening 

Comment Number: 00000106_Newell_ 20160517-1 

Commenter1:Kevin Newell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The fishing industry in the Northwest is a three-and-a-half billion dollar industry. It represents 16,000 jobs. They 

depend on good fishing, not okay fishing, not inconsistent fishing, but fishing that we know will be there for the 

long term -- today, tomorrow, and forever. 

Comment Number: 00000108_Opfer_ 20160517-1 

Organization1:Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Commenter1:James Opfer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It doesn't matter whether you are an advocate of coal or not, you can't deny having received immense benefit 

from the countless number of public projects that have been funded either in their entirety or in part by the 

existing federal coal lease program. Projects ranging from highways to schools to water supply pipelines and 

other public infrastructure have been funded by this program. It is highly likely that the vast majority of these 

projects would never have been undertaken, and, in fact, many of them would not have been made possible if it 

weren't for the funds generated from the coal leasing program. 

Comment Number: 00000108_Opfer_ 20160517-3 

Organization1:Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Commenter1:James Opfer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the scenario of higher rates coupled with the existing coal marketplace, it is likely that coal consumption from 

the PRB could be curtailed significantly along with the collection of federal and state receipts associated with the 

leasing program, not to mention the potential significant decrease in the number of good-paying mining jobs. 

Comment Number: 00000119_Schilling_20160517-2 

Organization1:Wyoming Business Alliance 

Commenter1:Bill Schilling 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Campbell County's employment is primarily dominated by goods-producing sectors, jobs that add value to the 

economy. That 40 percent figure is about twice that of the State's overall average and more than twice of the 

national average. So that 40 percent accounts for all the rest, quite frankly. That also is not mentioned in your 

research and it has to be. You have to distinguish between goods-producing and service-providing. And the folks 

you have heard today, these miners, they are the goods-producing people that make our lives that much better. 

The number of jobs, 2000 jobs direct and indirect that have basically been lost in the coal industry in recent 

months, I imagine if that percentage were to apply to a larger metropolitan area, take Campbell County's 

population and multiply that out. Let's take Chicago. Instead of being 2,000 jobs, it would be more like 100,000 

jobs. The 2,000 jobs in Wyoming are hardly a blip on the national media, but a hundred-thousand-plus jobs in 

Chicago would be national news. 

Comment Number: 00000120_Wasserburger_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Jeff Wasserburger 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-722 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Wyoming has used this revenue from coal to remodel or build new construction in schools in all 48 districts. 

Every school district in this state has benefitted as a result of the coal lease bonus program. The moratorium on 

coal lease bonus threatens the future of Wyoming's K-12 system and all of our students. 

Comment Number: 00000125_Fairbanks_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Clark Fairbanks 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I'm here to ask on behalf of the coal companies that you complete the programmatic environmental impact 

statement, that you not levy new taxes, that by allowing the coal companies, Cloud Peak or Powder River Basin 

coal companies to continue in the economic system that they've been operating in that they can continue to do 

more and continue to support our communities 

Comment Number: 00000126_Moeller_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Stacey Moeller 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

But have you thought about the moral issues of burdening the coal companies to the extent of bankrupting them? 

I do not advocate for those companies, but for the thousands of people who work in our mines and associated 

jobs in our communities, the effort to shut down coal is not bankrupting just the companies. They are 

bankrupting our communities and my people. 

Comment Number: 00000127_Kot_Sweetwater_Board_of_Count-1 

Organization1:Sweetwater County Board of Commissioners 

Commenter1:Mark Kot 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal production provides approximately $245 million to the annual assessed valuation of the county. This 

valuation helps support high quality public services including schools, roads, recreation, social services, and 

healthcare. "The Sweetwater County coal mines of Jim Bridger and Black Butte together employ approximately 

710 workers. With the 310 employees who work at the coal-fired Jim Bridger power plant, the coal industry 

employs approximately 1,000 workers within Sweetwater County. "The National Mining Association estimates 

that for every coal mining job, an additional 3.5 jobs are created. This means the Sweetwater County coal creates 

approximately 350 additional jobs -- excuse me 3,500 additional jobs. "Employees directly or indirectly related to 

coal production, their families, communities depend upon the stable coal and energy markets backed by sound 

federal policies. Without these stable markets and sound policies, jobs could be lost, home values could fall, and 

the economy of our communities, county and state, will suffer." 

Comment Number: 00000130_Backer_United_Way_20160517-1 

Organization1:United Way 

Commenter1:Roxann Backer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

this proposed increase, this proposed change, and the other regulations coming down from our federal 

government will dramatically impact our community and your community as well, whether you live in Wyoming, 

Montana, Colorado, Virginia, Washington, D.C. This is what I think so many people don't understand. The 

benefits that residents in our state receive from the coal industry is incomparable to any other state. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-723

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000133_Blake_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Laura Blake 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Few other incomes in Wyoming or in other states are comparable to what the coal mines offer in terms of 

wages, benefits, and quality of life. In short, the income from coal is virtually irreplaceable 

Comment Number: 00000137_Goodnough_Western_Fields_Asso-1 

Organization1:Western Fields Association and Western Fields Wyoming, Inc. 

Commenter1:Beth Goodnough 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Clean Power Plan is projected to -- depending on what study you read -- either raise electricity prices by 

more than 10 percent or double or triple the price. This will be coupled with losses of 260,000 jobs annually 

between 2020 and 2040. Therefore, while the Clean Power Plan calls for reducing coal use by 32 percent 

nationwide, the market replacement technology is simply not available or would wreck the economy to try to 

implement by 2030. Given the projected negative impacts to the economy due to the Clean Power Plan, it is 

imperative that the BLM retain a reasonable and practical federal coal leasing program in order to keep the lights 

on in this country and especially in rural America. 

Comment Number: 00000138_Simonson_20160517-1 

Organization1:Wyoming Machinery Company 

Commenter1:David Simonson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Every coal mining job that is regulated out of existence eliminates at least three additional service support jobs, 

reduces federal and state revenues, and reduces the incomes of every citizen of Wyoming with really no 

quantifiable benefit to our nation. Current royalty rates and compounded taxes and fees of the coal industry are 

above all other industries and above the market of those charged for private lands in other states, and if 

increased, it will only result in decreased production and decreased return on investment for federal and local 

taxpayers. That hurts schools, roads, infrastructures. It hurts everyone in Casper, the State of Wyoming and also 

the federal -- the rest of the United States. 

Comment Number: 00000141_Kline_20160517-1 

Commenter1:David Kline 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal royalties currently provide sufficient value and should continue to provide values for the American 

public as long as the coal is allowed to be mined. Further restrictions on coal production will severely impact the 

local and state economies. Coal jobs are some of the highest-paying jobs, as everybody's been saying earlier. For 

every coal job lost, there's three to seven additional jobs, service jobs that are also lost throughout the 

community and the country. 

Comment Number: 00000142_ Deti_20160517-1 

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Travis Deti 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Attempts to artificially increase the fair market value and raise costs of leases on leased grounds appear political 

with the intent of making the resource uneconomical to develop. If the agency does choose to pursue this, we 

surely recommend the inclusion of a much more empirical social benefit standard to include not only the positive 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-724 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

economic realities of vital jobs and revenues, schools, and infrastructure but the measurable positive contribution 

and reliable low cost electricity for our country and the world. 

Comment Number: 00000143_ Short_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Robert Short 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Expect the cost of everything in our everyday lives to increase dramatically if you arbitrarily assign punitive costs 

to coal in an effort to justify more costly electric power which will be economically damaging and have a negative 

effect on the entirety of our country. 

Comment Number: 00000146_Cady_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Kelli Cady 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If you leave the royalty rate alone, great jobs will still remain for thousands of people across the country just like 

me

Comment Number: 00000147_Jinat_20160517-1 

Organization1:Wild Earth First Guardians 

Commenter1:Judy Jinat 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

People support their familles in other states with Campbell County coal mining because there are no job 

opportunities like these where they come from. 

Comment Number: 00000148_Long_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Jim Long 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Mineral extraction is what supports the Wyoming economy. Additional taxes will probably put the final nail in the 

coffin of an already struggling industry 

Comment Number: 00000149_Long_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Briana Long 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

increasing taxes on coal and therefore electricity will make electricity prices rise, creating a further burden on 

college students already struggling to make ends meet. 

Comment Number: 00000150_Nell_SalArmy_20160517-1 

Organization1:Salvation Army 

Commenter1:Jenny Nell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Every day I see firsthand the problems coal families are facing with the recent layoffs and energy industry 

slowdown. 

Comment Number: 00000150_Nell_SalArmy_20160517-2 

Organization1:Salvation Army 

Commenter1:Jenny Nell
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-725

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The trickle-down effect on nonprofits that support our families and provide much needed therapies and health 

services as well as food and shelter is leaving the citizens of our community in danger of being unsupported. We 

can not afford any more taxes or royalties on coal, or we may not survive. 

Comment Number: 00000151_Sweeney_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Pat Sweeney 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

one of the environmental groups, stated that coal mines were bad for tourism because they're an eyesore. That's 

absolute nonsense 

Comment Number: 00000153_ Smith_BoysGirlsClb _20160517-1 

Organization1:Boys and Girls Club of Campbell County 

Commenter1:Robert Smith 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I have witnessed the devastation Washington's energy agenda has had on Wyoming families. I have seen families 

divided as fathers are displaced, as mothers struggle with two or three jobs. I witness the effect these have on 

our community as we shift and how that affects our children. Our Wyoming youth have observed the attack on 

coal, the attack on their way of life. I have seen their frustration. I have heard their anger. Their grades and 

behavior are indicators of this. The absence of coal in our community is not only hurting our economy but our 

nation. As a nonprofit CEO, I rely on the donations that I receive from coal and the industry that everything is 

about and everything about it. These donations help me to provide all the necessary aspects to the community 

that strengthen those components, and currently I'm struggling to do so. 

Comment Number: 00000154_ Edwards_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Michelle Edwards 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I have seen the firsthand devastation of communities that are affected by a single mine closure 

Comment Number: 00000155_ Jenkins_ Congressman Griffith _20160517-2 

Organization1:United States Congress 

Commenter1:Michelle Jenkins 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The impacts of this action are not only felt in the coal fields, but also in industries such as rail, manufacturings, and 

others that rely on coal mines for dependable energy. After all, life above ground is impacted when work stops 

underground as the result of a regular onslaught on coal regions, the low cost of competitive fuel, and a sluggish 

world economy." 

Comment Number: 00000155_ Paad_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Paul Paad 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2014 Wyoming received more than $555 million from coal. That funded a lot of things around here including 

our education system 

Comment Number: 00000155_ Paad_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Paul Paad 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-726 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The study by his Energy found that the current base load generation mix anchored by coal saves ratepayers 

roughly $93 billion in annual electric bills while also reducing utility volatility by 30 percent. That's what we need 

to look at, volatility. We don't need this jumping up and down or around 

Comment Number: 00000156_ Dargon_ Congressman Phil Rowe _20160517-1 

Organization1:United States Congress 

Commenter1:Bill Dardon 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I want to begin by saying that Congressman Rowe believes that the review is unnecessary because the program is 

working well and providing a fair return to the taxpayers, both at the state and federal levels. To give you a sense 

of whether the program is giving a fair return, all you need to do is look at what has happened in the 

communities where coal producers have pulled out and stopped mining. There is widespread economic 

devastation, and federal agencies crafting these policies don't seem to care. 

Comment Number: 00000157_ PRATT _20160517-2 

Commenter1:Jack Pratt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I also am very concerned about the recent news of coal company bankruptcies. Top executives at one company 

unveiled a plan to give over $11 million in bonuses to senior executives while (Inaudible) and worker benefits. 

Alfa Coal also proposed to eliminate health insurance, disability, and other benefits for mine workers. Frankly, 

mine workers deserve better 

Comment Number: 00000158_ FRENCH_20160517-1 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Kate French 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The negative effects of coal mining are both fiduciary and ecological. From the threat mining poses to pre-existing 

stable and vital economic sectors to the tax burden foisted upon the public, coal development under current 

regulations weakens our state's long-term economic stability. In Montana and Wyoming, most coal is mined in 

the Powder River Basin. And it is also an area that is home to thousands of farms and ranches. In some counties, 

agriculture -- the agricultural sector provides more jobs than any other sector. 

Comment Number: 00000158_ FRENCH_20160517-4 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Kate French 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The leasing, bonding, and bid rates set for federal coal mining is intended to count for all these externalities. 

However, in the West, these costs are far from sufficient. Half the funds collected through federal coal mining in 

Montana goes back to the state and to our local budgets and this pays for schools and roads. So, when the 

externalities are not taken into account, this severely affects what we can fund in our state 

Comment Number: 00000161_ HUGHES_20160517-1 

Organization1:Statewide Organizing for Community Empowerment 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-727

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Adam Hughes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A recent report by the nonprofit environmental entrepreneurs praises Tennessee as among the best nationwide 

for growth in clean energy jobs, with nearly half the gains coming in the crucial manufacturing sector. This growth 

could be even more profound were it not for the defective federal subsidy for the coal industry. When 

considering the true cost of the Federal Leasing Program, please consider the economic impact it has on our 

green economy. 

Comment Number: 00000165_ WATERMAN_20160517-1 

Commenter1:John Todd Waterman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We must also ensure that displaced miners are the first to benefit from the new green economy and its far more 

abundant jobs by providing them with the transitional support and training they need. The best analyses found the 

economic benefits of switching to sustainable energy sources are from five to twenty times greater than its cost. 

Comment Number: 00000167_ WILSON_20160517-1 

Commenter1:William Wilson 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal counties in Appalachia are consistently some of the poorest counties in the nation. Coal does not bring 

economic benefit. 

Comment Number: 00000175_Christensen_WySenate_20160517-3 

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature 

Commenter1:Leland Christensen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Wyoming, which relies on coal, a lot of our electricity and the nation's comes from Wyoming.Here we are with 

roughly half of the electrical rates that California has. You see other countries around the world are now starting 

to abandon the wind and solar because they had left coal, and they found out their electrical rates increasing from 

triple to doubling, doubling to triplin 

Comment Number: 00000176_Ziegler_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Jacqueline Ziegler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A reformed coal leasing program must include investments to future or support workers' transitions to different 

economic opportunities, different careers. Royalties from future mining should be tied to job training and other 

support programs for workers so that we can ensure a fair and just transition away from the fossil fuels. A fair 

and just transition to people means affected workers, their unions, and communities, our equal partners in a 

wellplanned, carefully negotiated and managed transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. 

Comment Number: 00000176_Ziegler_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Jacqueline Ziegler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I invite you to read House Bill 4456 called the reclamation or Reclaim Act sponsored by West Virginia state --

House Representative "Hal" Rogers, and it will give you information about moneys and programs available to help 

you. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-728 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000179_ FUSAN_20160517-4 

Commenter1:Lynn Fusan 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Most importantly, we no longer need coal. Renewable energy is the future. Fortune Magazine's January 16, 2016 

issue noted: "Last year, the solar sector added workers at a rate that was almost twelve times faster than the 

overall economy. In fact, 1.2 percent of all jobs or 1 in 83 jobs created in the U.S. last year were solar jobs." 

Comment Number: 00000181_ MULLINS_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Nick Mullins 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The cyclical boom and bust nature of coal markets have left sweeping poverty, complete with the typical 

indicators, including rampant substance abuse. 

Comment Number: 00000182_ BANBURY_20160517-3 

Commenter1:Scott Banbury 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And the socio-economic impacts, I hope that we are not just going to focus on the loss of mining jobs, but also 

focus on how not internalizing the environmental and health impacts of taking this coal carbon out of the ground 

and putting it into our atmosphere, how not internalizing those costs is affecting the competitiveness of clean 

alternative energy forms like wind and distributive solar. 

Comment Number: 00000186_ GELLERT_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Paul Gellert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And I think a lot of Americans would be surprised that the Bureau of Land Management, which provides an awful 

lot of public services and ecosystem services and however one wants to term it, is selling that for coal in a period 

in which climate change is so urgently needing to be addressed 

Comment Number: 00000186_ GELLERT_20160517-5 

Commenter1:Paul Gellert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And think we need to think about the distribution of costs and benefits. I think the figures that were introduced 

by the representatives of our congress people at the beginning threw out some figures without putting it into any 

sort of comparison. Yes, coal produces money, but what are the costs and what are the incommensurable nonmonetizable costs of this production? 

Comment Number: 00000192_ GOSS_20160517-1 

Organization1:Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning 

Commenter1:Sandra Goss 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am here to encourage you to take a transparent and understandable look and provide us a good analysis of 

exactly what the situation is in terms of costs to communities, both in jobs, benefits, taxes, royalties, et cetera, 

costs to our country in terms of national and resource security, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-729

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000291_FONVILLE_20160519-1 

Commenter1:Terry Fonville 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am concerned about potential impacts that changing the federal coal lease program could have on my life, my 

employer, and the communities currently. A large portion of the economy and tax base for the communities and 

counties in central Utah are connected to the production and support of the coal industry and its employees. 

Comment Number: 00000295_ EARL _20160519-1 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Skyline Mine 

Commenter1:Tayler Earl 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Limiting coal's ability to provide inexpensive power to our state and country would not only be hurting us by 

raising our monthly power billing but would force companies to relocate with states and countries with cheaper 

energy costs taking jobs away from not only the people that work at those companies but everyone that works 

at coal mines, coal-fired power plants, trucking companies, and every other industry that supports them. 

Comment Number: 00000296_ PAULSEN _20160519-2 

Organization1:Canyon Fuel Company Skyline Mine 

Commenter1:Todd Paulsen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I saw a proposal to include the social cost of mining such as loss of recreational or other values in the leasing 

program. The question is who is going to determine if there really is a cost and what the value is? 

Comment Number: 00000299_ GARLICK _20160519-1 

Organization1:Skyline Mine 

Commenter1:Robert Garlick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Support for streamlining the current leasing process so the Federal Coal Program is administered in a way that 

better promotes economic stability and jobs, especially in coal communities which are already suffering from 

depressed economic conditions. 

Comment Number: 00000302_ LEVANGER _20160519-1 

Organization1:Skyline Mine 

Commenter1:Carol Levanger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need to be able to lower the royalty rates and to make the permitting process a little bit more manageable 

so that we encourage some more coal mines to go in. That will create jobs. That will create revenue. That will 

create tax revenue for everybody, for federal, state, local, and businesses. 

Comment Number: 00000304_ BYERS _20160519-1 

Organization1:Sufco Mine 

Commenter1:John Beyers 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

You've heard from other commenters that increased royalties may push struggling oil, gas, and coal completely 

out of business. I want to make you aware of the small portion of impacts of royalties in surrounding area. These 

projects have been great additions to our community and either sustain or improve our way ever life. They also 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-730 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

provide jobs for local engineering and construction companies. Without funding from BLM royalties these 

projects would either not exist or be funded personally by each of us. I would like you to consider the 

socioeconomic impacts of your decision and the true impact it will make. 

Comment Number: 00000311_ SMALDON _FriendsCoalWest_20160519-2 

Organization1:Friends of Coal West 

Commenter1:David Smaldone 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal producers take 40 percent of the selling price of coal in taxes, fees, and royalties, and there's no justification 

to increase royalty or leasing rates. To increase these rates will leave less revenue for states and communities, 

fewer jobs, higher energy prices, and will hit all Americans in the checkbook 

Comment Number: 00000315_ SMITH _20160519-1 

Organization1:Canyon Fuel Company 

Commenter1:Jacob Smith 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Currently the coal industry pays an effective tax rates of approximately 40 percent. This money is used to 

support our government and improve the communities in which we live. 

Comment Number: 00000316_PALMA_20160519-1 

Organization1:BLM 

Commenter1:Juan Palma 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We must ensure that our coal workers and communities are protected and supported. I believe that that is 

something that the BLM ought to consider as you move forward with this Programmatic EIS. 

Comment Number: 00000330 _ Ross _NPConserv_ 20160519-1 

Organization1:Public Lands Solution 

Commenter1:Catherine Ross 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am just here to reiterate the message that recreation is a proven economic driver. Look at Moab. Moab is 

thriving off of recreation. Recreation is sustainable, not subject to the same market fluctuations as traditional 

resource extraction. And I just urge the people representing communities in this room to think about diversifying 

a little bit 

Comment Number: 00000331 _ St. Joan_ 20160519-1 

Commenter1:Sharon St. Joan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Jobs depend on attracting tourists to the beauty of our wildlands. Three million tourists visit Zions National Park 

every year. No tourists will travel to visit coal mines. 

Comment Number: 00000332 _ Collinson _ 20160519-1 

Commenter1:Angel Collinson 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Winter is shorter, warmer, we're receiving less snowfall. And it's having a real impact on skiers like me and our 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-731

Scoping Report 

communities here depend on our winter sports economy. The outdoor recreation industry in Utah alone 

generates 12 billion annually and supports 122,000 jobs, which is one in every ten jobs. So our public lands are 

really important to us. And I'm speaking at this hearing to ask that the coal industry pays the fair market rate for 

these lands and not at a discounted rate as it currently can. 

Comment Number: 00000336 _ May _ 20160519-2 

Organization1:SUFCO Mine 

Commenter1:Kenneth May 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the benefit of central and rural region of Utah, SUFCO employs 383 people and accounts for as many as 300 

truck driving jobs. SUFCO Mine delivers to Utah County and families $43 million in payroll, $81 million in 

supplies and services, $4.4 million in utility costs, $2 million in local property tax, $7.2 million in production tax, 

$24.2 million in royalties to the Federal Government, 36 million to the local trucking jobs, a total of $188 million 

in direct and indirect benefits to our part of the state. 

Comment Number: 00000343 _ Salvato _20160519-3 

Commenter1:Bobbie Bryant-Salvato 

Other Sections: 19 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

My hope is that the Federal Government and the State of Utah will look at alternative forms of clean energy that 

will increase employment in rural Utah as a demand for coal decreases, give these clean industry businesses the 

same advantages on federal lands that we have given the coal industry for decades 

Comment Number: 00000346 _Taylor_20160519-1 

Organization1:SUFCO Mine 

Commenter1:Joshua Taylor 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

if we stop coal leases, we not only lose the lease but the economic boost that helps our schools and our 

communities, which heavily rely on our coal companies to survive 

Comment Number: 00000351 _ Carson _20160519-2 

Organization1:Skyline Mine 

Commenter1:Jared Carson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Shutting down coal production won't just affect our local cities, it will also affect the economies, because it will 

raise the price of power, it will put some people out of work and possibly put them on unemployment, but also, 

people that are living in poverty or close to poverty will have more expense because a higher percent of their 

income will go to paying for the energy, which will go up in price. That will also affect their health and their 

standards, less access to health care, healthy food, things like healthy lifestyle, and more dependence upon the 

government. 

Comment Number: 00000353 _ Klunker _20160519-2 

Commenter1:Chris Klunker 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To impose increased rates would cause a negative effect on the coal dependent communities. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-732 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000353 _ Klunker _20160519-3 

Commenter1:Chris Klunker 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our lifestyle in rural Utah demands conservation and responsible use of our natural resources. 

Comment Number: 00000356 _ Provost _20160519-3 

Commenter1:Craig Provost 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And although coal mining has been important as income for many of you good, hardworking people, we should 

focus on helping y'all shift the skills at these high schools and junior highs that the man just mentioned to teach 

the new generation new jobs, because coal does appear to be going out. 

Comment Number: 00000357 _ Walsh_20160519-5 

Organization1:Sierra Club (National) 

Commenter1:Elizabeth Walsh 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As you consider opening these and other areas to coal leasing, I urge you to carefully consider and study the 

negative impacts to our climate, our future water quality, and the economic consequences on the eco-tourism 

economy. 

Comment Number: 00000365 _ Lund _20160519-1 

Commenter1:Steve Lund 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In Sanpete County, we are one of the poorest counties in the state. And being one of the poorest counties in the 

state, we rely heavily upon the coal industry. We have two hospitals that are primary care, we have three high 

schools and one junior college. If these miners here lose their jobs, we potentially lose one hospital and one high 

school. 

Comment Number: 0000065_Ballow_WyDE_20160517-2 

Organization1:State of Wyoming 

Commenter1:Jillian Ballow 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is the main revenue source for school capital construction. In fact, the lease bonuses have paid for new 

school buildings and major maintenance in our state since. Even the smallest communities in our state have 

excellent facilities and equitable opportunities for students to succeed because of coal devastating our state. Since 

our state has spent over $. billion on school facilities. We've built new schools, and we've modernized an 

additional . This was paid for almost entirely with coal lease bonus money. 

Comment Number: 0000065_Ballow_WyDE_20160517-3 

Organization1:State of Wyoming 

Commenter1:Jillian Ballow 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Recently, Wyoming was ranked eighth in the nation and best in the West for quality of education. The quality of 

our education could not be as high as it is without the mining revenue and because of our way of life that the 

mining industry has carved out for us in Wyoming. Mining has allowed Wyoming to pay higher wages for our 

teachers and to our para-professionals in schools. It's allowed us to pay percent of our education costs, special 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-733

Scoping Report 

education costs, percent of our school transportation costs, and percent of our school construction since 2003. 

Now, realize in other rural states, funding of these activities, funding these items is difficult at best. Schools in 

small communities have closed. Small communities have dried up and withered away. 

Comment Number: 0000065_Ballow_WyDE_20160517-4 

Organization1:State of Wyoming 

Commenter1:Jillian Ballow 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Rural states have struggled to provide a quality education to students, but because of coal, Wyoming has ensured 

opportunities for students all across our state and especially in our smallest communities like other states have 

not been able. We have reached a point where the restrictions and the regulations have outpaced any 

opportunity for us, for the industry to continue to work and adapt, and it has directly put thousands of hardworking families out of work. It is bankrupting our state, and it doesn't need to happen that way. 

Comment Number: 0000067_Laresche_20160517-1 

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Commenter1:Bob Laresche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

First, 40 years of leasing and management have created thousands of jobs, thriving communities, and deep state 

revenue dependence on coal mining. Both state and federal governments have created moral obligations to 

provide a just transition to the new economic future. Pensions, healthcare, other benefits earned over the 

decades must not be voided. Economic diversification initiatives must be created and underwritten. Interior can't 

do this alone. The federal government can't do this alone. States like Wyoming must participate 

Comment Number: 0000068_Smitherman_20160517-1 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Dan Smitherman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As natural gas supply across the country has grown and its prices have dropped, coal is no longer the cheap 

energy source it once was, and the market and the financiers have recognized this. 

Comment Number: 0000068_Smitherman_20160517-3 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Dan Smitherman 

Other Sections: 8.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Right now it's estimated that we have 20 years of federal coal reserves already leased. It is an ideal time to take 

stock of where we are and where we want to go. We need to look to how we can adapt and diversify to ensure 

that boom and bust cycles don't affect individuals in the way that they have. We need a diverse economy, and 

that means looking to our public lands for value outside of coal, including renewable energy, recreation, and 

conservation. With reform of the federal coal program, what we have in front of us is an opportunity to really 

look at what we want the future to be. 

Comment Number: 0000068_Smitherman_20160517-6 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Dan Smitherman 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-734 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal has long been important to Wyoming. It has brought jobs, revenue, and power to many parts of the state. 

And the recent downturn in coal has been devastating to many communities and people who have seen formerly 

stable jobs go away. But fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas are commodities and subject to worldwide market 

conditions that are largely out of the hands of many. This is what we've seen here in Wyoming. 

Comment Number: 0000078_Neal_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Dan Neal 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I'd like to see if the program can be modified in a way that leases could be set up to protect workers and the 

communities that they reside in. We need to cut deals and hold these companies to it. Historically, Wyoming, 

you know, imposed -- initially imposed a 10-and-a-half percent severance tax on the coal producers with the 

promise that, when a coal impact fund had reached $250 million, that severance tax could be cut to 7 percent. 

Comment Number: 0000079_Obermiller_20160517-1 

Organization1:Sierra Club 

Commenter1:Donna Obermiller 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our infrastructure needs to be replaced in building, engineering, and transportation, not just in green jobs, and 

that means funding for education, long-term funding -- not a month, not a year, maybe like four years and 

graduate degrees. 

Comment Number: 0000081_Lempke_20160517-1 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association 

Commenter1:Doug Lempke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Increasing the cost of federal coal will have a direct adverse impact on our members and the communities they 

serve, but will provide little actual benefit to the environment since it will just shift the development to other 

areas. 

Comment Number: 0000084_Christopherson_EngyCapEconDev_20160517-2 

Organization1:Energy Capital Economic Development 

Commenter1:Phil Christopherson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The second point that needs to be addressed is how are we going to ensure that our people have good, wellpaying jobs? We shouldn't artificially raise the minimum wage. We should provide good-paying jobs that allow 

people to go out and work and earn a good living. That's what coal jobs are. That's what mineral jobs are. That's 

what technology jobs are. That's where the focus of your scoping needs to be. How do we provide good 

affordable energy for our nation so we can continue to grow? And how do we continue to provide good jobs for 

our citizens? 

Comment Number: 0000091_Stubson_ WyLSO_20160517-1 

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature 

Commenter1:Tim Stubson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

you should move forward knowing that coal is an essential element to the economic health of our state and its 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-735

Scoping Report 

people. Prior to the recent downturn, Wyoming coal produced 11 percent of Wyoming's gross state product. It 

employed about 7,000 people in good-paying jobs. In one year alone, 2012, coal paid $1.3 billion to the State of 

Wyoming, and those funds were used to build schools, educate our kids, to provide basic state services to people 

all across the State. But it's important to remember it's not just an economic benefit to the State of Wyoming. It's 

an economic benefit to our nation 

Comment Number: 0000097_Voelker_ 20160517.txt-1 

Commenter1:Sandra Voelker 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Now, I'm going to talk about externalities. For those of you who don't speak "economicalese," that means any 

costs that are not incorporated into the fixed and variable costs of any business enterprise. It's obvious. A lot of 

the externalities that come from the coal companies, but one thing that I haven't heard mentioned so much is the 

impact on the tourism industry. Tourism is the second greatest income producer in Wyoming. People do not 

come to Wyoming to see coal mines. They come to see the beauty of our natural resources, which I think 

sometimes we have become so used to we don't even see them. 

Comment Number: 0000097_Voelker_ 20160517.txt-2 

Commenter1:Sandra Voelker 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

You're all familiar with severance taxes, and Wyoming collects them on energy production, and they have fallen 

from nearly 960 million in fiscal year 2014 to an estimated 625 million in the current fiscal year. That's a decline 

of about 35 percent in one year 

Comment Number: 0000099_Wilbert_ 20160517-3 

Commenter1:Kim Wilbert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Third, the new coal leasing program must include measures to offset the loss of economic opportunities for 

people and communities most affected by the transition away from coal. 

Comment Number: 0000099_Wilbert_ 20160517-7 

Commenter1:Kim Wilbert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The new program must include money sources to help miners and communities dependent on coal mines to 

transition away from coal. We must make these corporations be responsible community actors and make whole 

these people that have worked to create the corporate profits from this publicly owned resource. 

Comment Number: 0000233_Dwyer_20160519-1 

Commenter1:Kevin Dwyer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I encourage the Interior Department to conduct a thorough PEIS, accounting for the complete economic costs, 

including externalities, of the coal leasing program 

Comment Number: 0000280_TATTEN_20160519-2 

Commenter1:Kurt Tatten 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

But I want to talk about little bit the economic impact that our money brings to the state and to our surrounding 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-736 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

communities. We employ 107 employees. Out of that there are an additional 73 trucking jobs that are supplied 

through another vendor to haul the coal from our mine. This is just last year, 2015. So total jobs indirect and 

direct -- there's another ratio of vendors and other support -- comes to 501 people. 501 families supported from 

this small mine but in MSHA's eyes a large mine. Our payroll is 13 million and some change. Supplies and services 

24 million, that we're paying out to vendors. Our utilities, Rocky Mountain Power, $1,425,000. Here's getting to 

these ends. Property taxes, 385,000. Production taxes 902,000, and royalties 2,229,00. Again, this is 2015. So 

total direct benefits to the state that they see out of Dugout Canyon Mine is $42,422,000. Indirect benefits, 

average employee wage for the mine, so 107 employees, $122,000 annual. That's wages and benefits. We're part 

of Bowie Resource Partners teams. You're going to hear substantially higher numbers that we're part of. So we 

provide a service that's actually paying to help our schools, help our state, help our communities, and help our 

children. So please take that into consideration when you look at this re-leasing. 

Comment Number: 0000364_Albury_20160519-3 

Commenter1:Kathryn Albury 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We, as a nation, must not abandon the workers in the coal industry who are already getting laid off and having 

difficulty finding new work. Retraining and perhaps relocation is needed for many workers and should be easily 

available to them. 

Comment Number: 0000507_Martinson_20160517-1 

Organization1:Rehab Solutions 

Commenter1:Dustin Martinson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Due to the war on coal and the companies having to change their health insurance to higher deductible, lower 

reimbursing plans, healthcare in Wyoming is at an incredible risk. At a hospital in Wyoming, the bad debt has 

increased by 43% in less than two years. This is directly due to the war on coal. There are over 670 rural 

hospitals in America that are at risk for closure, none in Wyoming, yet! If this war on coal continues there will 

continue to be an effect and the chance for a Wyoming hospital to close greatly increases. 

Comment Number: 0000509_Pauack_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Don Pauack 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

First you have the loss of jobs and income to families in the coal mining industry, then you have the increase in 

cost of electricity to the general public. The loss of jobs and incomes to families in industries related to or 

connected to the coal mining industry. No revenue to the tax payers for however long this situation drags on. 

Comment Number: 0000510_Buell_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Rick Buell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Low income folks will suffer from coal loss as well my family 

Comment Number: 0000511_Pfister_WesternOrg of Resource Councils_20160517-5 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-737

Scoping Report 

If it were not for the very low Montana severance tax on underground coal, Musselshell County, where most of 

the coal for Signal Peak is located, would receive nothing back from the Federal coal leasing, since Great 

Northern Properties, LLC and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe have latched onto the money produced from the 

federal coal in this area. Under ordinary circumstances, half the lease money would have been paid to the State of 

Montana, and half of that would have gone to Musselshell County. Today all of it goes to Houston and Lame 

Deer. 

Comment Number: 0000518_Madden_20160517-2 

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature 

Commenter1:Michael Madden 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As an economist, I submit that raising taxes and leases will not increase revenue to the Federal government - it 

will decrease, it will not increase the viability of low cost energy - it will reduce it, it will not increase the stability 

and dependability of the nations power grid - it will reduce both. It will not increase economic growth, but rather 

drastically reduce it. Nobody benefits. Most important, it will not contribute any measurable impact on the 

climate, whatsoever. 

Comment Number: 0000520_Barrasso_US Senate_20160517-1 

Organization1:United States Senate 

Commenter1:John Barrasso 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In Wyoming, production of federal coal has enabled thousands of people to achieve the American dream. 

Production of federal coal provides good jobs for Americans regardless of their educational background. 

In 2014, the average annual wages for coal workers in Wyoming was $83,594. That is almost twice the average 

annual wages for all workers in Wyoming. And over 60 percent above the average annual wages for all workers 

in the United States. 

In Wyoming, a coal worker's salary provides financial security. It allows parents to buy a home, save for their 

children's education, prepare for their own retirement, and assist their elderly parents. Simply put- coal 

production provides a level of financial security and social mobility that is unavailable in most of America 

Comment Number: 0000521_Lummis_US Rep_20160517-2 

Organization1:United States Congress 

Commenter1:Cynthia Lummis 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal lease sales provide revenue to both the federal and state governments through per acre fees as well as 

bonus bids on the coal reserve tonnage. Coal production in Wyoming creates good paying jobs and helps fund 

our education system and other vital community services. 

Comment Number: 0000532-1 

Organization1:Wyoming House of Representatives 

Commenter1:Rosie Berger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Not only are people losing their jobs, but the jobs that remain cannot support a family. 

A decrease in hours couples with a decrease in hourly rates has resulted in a 40 percent decrease in wages for 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-738 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

some Wyoming workers... and even more for many others. 

Workers and their families are getting hit from both the rate and the available hours, and those are the lucky 

ones who still have jobs to go to. 

Comment Number: 0000533-1 

Organization1:Campbell County School District 

Commenter1:David Fall 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal lease bonus money has been invaluable for school construction in the state of Wyoming and our county. 

Since 1980 Wyoming has received an estimated 2.71 billion dollars in coal lease bonus payments with 2.38 billion 

or 88% deposited in the school capital construction account and used to build schools all over Wyoming. Every 

county in the state of Wyoming has at least one new school built with coal lease money. 

Comment Number: 0000543-4 

Commenter1:Dianna Moesh 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Consider funding to help mining labor reboot for jobs in alternative energy 

Comment Number: 0000565-1 

Organization1:Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Commenter1:Bob LeResche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

40 YEARS OF LEASING AND MANAGEMENT HAVE CREATED THOUSANDS OF JOBS, THRIVING 

COMMUNITIES, AND EXCESSIVE STATE REVENUE DEPENDENCE ON COAL MINING. BOTH STATE AND 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE CREATED MORAL OBLIGATIONS TO PROVIDE A JUST TRANSITION 

TO THE NEW ECONOMIC FUTURE. QUITTING FEDERAL COAL LEASING "COLD TURKEY" WOULD BE 

AN UNJUST DISASTER 

Comment Number: 0000608-5 

Organization1:JE Stoer & Associates 

Commenter1:Tamme Bishop 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

How will severance tax payments to local governments be affected? 

Comment Number: 0000610-2 

Organization1:City of Craig 

Commenter1:Ray Beck 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We support the current program because coal is the backbone of our community. The federal coal program 

results in thousands of jobs, provides affordable electricity to some of the most economically. depressed regions 

of our state and supports our energy needs. 

Comment Number: 0000610-3 

Organization1:City of Craig 

Commenter1:Ray Beck 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-739

Scoping Report 

Increased royalty rates will only result in depressed revenue for our schools and roads with little, if any, positive 

impact on the environment. Increased rates would also have a detrimental effect on our local economy which 

would be seen in decreased state revenue, lost jobs and increased electricity prices for consumers. 

Comment Number: 0000618-1 

Organization1:Citizens for Clean Air 

Commenter1:Karen Sjoberg 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A comprehensive review of the existing federal coal program is essential for our quality of life. We are 

surrounded by public lands that many of us work, play and appreciate on a daily basis. 

Comment Number: 0000621-2 

Commenter1:Marc Thomas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is true that many communities, like Tonawanda, NY that depend on the coal industry for jobs and for tax 

revenue are in trouble. There, community, environmental, and labor groups established a coalition to address the 

problems, and the recently passed NY state budget gives financial assistance to the schools and local governments 

losing tax revenues. This type of cooperative action turns a community facing a loss into one building its future. 

Similar actions must be done nationwide with federal support for workers, businesses and communities. 

Comment Number: 0000623-1 

Commenter1:Jason Timbreza 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I'm one of the last 40 employees at Bowie #2 and will only be employed for 5 more weeks. In my lifetime in our 

Valley there have been many jobs lost in different industries, logging, agriculture, construction, oil and gas, and as 

this has occurred many people from those industries came the coal mines because of the financial security and 

the benefits provided or to help keep family farms in operation and small businesses running. With the loss of the 

coal mining jobs there is nothing that will replace the lost revenue to our Valley and the surrounding 

communities. 

Comment Number: 0000623-2 

Commenter1:Jason Timbreza 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Further more the reduction in coal generated power, will only lead to problems in providing reliable power and 

paying higher prices for electricity, something that will end up costing tax payer's more, rather than receiving any 

tax revenue from mining. 

Comment Number: 0000624-2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Even without the nearly 40% tax rate, the affordable energy that the poorest among us enjoys is a tremendous 

benefit to our local, state and national economy 

Comment Number: 0000625-1 

Commenter1:Ty Gardiner 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal coal program provides revenues to federal and state governments, totaling $13.8 Billion since 2003. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-740 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000751_Rubingh_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Jeremy Rubingh 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal support for economic transition must grow continue, local elected officials need to support connectivity 

and the public lands that help drive our booming tourism and remote workforce economies and we all need to 

acknowledge reality as we plan for a prosperous future in western Colorado. 

Comment Number: 0000752_Lempke_Tri-State_20160623-2 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc 

Commenter1:Doug Lempke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Increasing the costs of federal coal will have a direct, adverse impact on our members and the communities they 

serve, but provide little actual benefit to the environment, since it will just shift coal development to other areas. 

Comment Number: 0000754_Nutgrass_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Chris Nutgrass 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There are a few techniques already being used around the American West and world to help mitigate the impacts 

of market fluctuations on community livelihoods. 

The first are local stabilization funds. These are funds created by collecting revenue when resource prices are 

high and distributed when resource prices are low. This type of fund helps to smooth out the volatility of 

government receipts and spending. Stabilizations funds require communities to set trigger prices for the 

commodity above which revenue is collected and below which signal disbursements. These funds are also 

sometimes referred to as "rainy day" funds and can provide critical assistance during an unexpected event that 

affects the market. 

Another type of fund is a permanent trust. Whereas stabilization funds are designed to counter the cycle of 

revenue flows, permanent trusts are established to create a sustainable benefit from an unsustainable source. 

These funds are created by placing a portion of the revenues from resource extraction into a trusts for future 

generations. The fund can then be invested and income from that fund used to support education, health, 

economic development, infrastructure maintenance, and other local priorities. Although there are many examples 

of this type of fund around the west, including Wyoming, Montana, and New Mexico, Colorado has no such fund. 

On an international level, over $4 trillion has been invested in this type of fund. 

And yet another fund, known as a growth fund, is also being implemented. It is similar to a permanent trust but 

used to expand business and investment holdings. The Southern Ute tribe is using this type of fund to capitalize 

on revenues from their land. Realizing that energy resources are finite, the fund is used to diversify the economic 

activity of the tribe. 

Comment Number: 0000756_Reece_Club 20_20160623-1 

Organization1:CLUB 20 

Commenter1:Christian Reece 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

With an annual economic impact of over $2.8 billion to Colorado's Gross Domestic Product, Colorado's Coal 

industry directly employs 6,200 individuals and indirectly contributes to more than 23,000 jobs to our region. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-741

Scoping Report 

These individuals are highly compensated for their time, averaging more than $110,000 in wages and benefits per 

employee. In these difficult economic times, high paying jobs in our rural communities are rare and these jobs 

allow families to contribute back to our local economies. 

Comment Number: 0000756_Reece_Club 20_20160623-5 

Organization1:CLUB 20 

Commenter1:Christian Reece 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

These efforts combined will lead to further job losses, increase the price of energy on middle and low-income 

families, and ensure that state and federal revenues become non-existent. In fact, we have already seen a 50% 

reduction in coal production over the last couple of years and Colorado has lost its largest export market due to 

regulations with intentions similar to these proposals. Our rural communities cannot afford the kinds of impacts 

that will result from keeping coal in the ground. 

Comment Number: 0000763_Koontz_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Wendell Koontz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

this PEIS should also consider: 

- Social benefits provided to the taxpayers from bonus bid payments, royalties, taxes, and continued employment 

of thousands and that economic impact to the US, states, and local communities. 

- Social benefits of dependable reliable power to the health care industry, print and digital media, recreation, 

government, emergency responders, military, and other industries that require affordable power on demand 

24/7. 

- Social impacts of lost jobs including the 900 lost jobs locally in the North Fork and 

thousands of lost jobs nationally on families, communities, and states. 

- Social cost of increasing prices on commodities and utilities that are the logical outcome on the proposed 

increases in royalties and taxes and decreasing production. 

Comment Number: 0000782-5 

Commenter1:Lawson LeGate 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As the BLM considers socio-economic impacts, it should examine the potential for a just transition to new 

employment opportunities in a changing economy. Coal mining generates numerous externalities, all of which 

should be factored in to the coal leasing program costs. 

Comment Number: 0000789-1 

Organization1:Sufco Mine 

Commenter1:Satoshi Bautista 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If they don't allow our mine to lease it may affect many families involved in the mining industry from truck drivers 

to vendors all the way down to the children of those parents. 

Comment Number: 0000795-1 

Organization1:Sufco 

Commenter1:Anoy Ballow 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-742 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Close to 100 people in Sever County alone are employed by Sufco coal mine. Making close to 70,000 dollars a 

year. If you take that away it affects every business in the county by removing this money. 

Comment Number: 0000815-1 

Organization1:Dugout Canyon Mine 

Commenter1:William King 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Government is asking the wrong questions. They should be asking for economically and environmentally safe 

ways to obtain maximum coal extraction rates which in turn would provide an increased return for Americans 

while protecting the environment. 

Comment Number: 0000825-1 

Commenter1:Gary Leaming 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the last three years approximately 40% of the MMUs in our country have been shut down. Displaced miners 

are struggling to find employment of any kind and the communities they help support are losing jobs and tax base 

rapidly. For every coal mining job lost, at least six other people's jobs are affected. This ripple affect impacts 

almost all aspects of their communities including tax revenue, lost jobs, lost employment hours, higher costs for 

goods, and so on. This coal lease moratorium along with other government sanctions are continuing the 

shuttering of coal mines and placing hundreds of families below the poverty level. Rather than being viable, 

contributing citizens, these hard-working miners and their families are now on the dependency and welfare rolls 

of our country. 

Comment Number: 0000832-2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To the benefit of the central and rural region of Utah, Sufco employs 383 people and provides 300 local contract 

trucking jobs. 

Sufco mine delivers to Utah's counties and families: 

$43 million local payroll 

$81 million in supplies and services 

$4.4 million in Utilities costs, 

$2 million is local property taxes 

$7.2 million in production taxes 

$24.2 million in royalties. 

$36 million to local contract trucking companies. 

$188 million in total direct and indirect benefit. 

Comment Number: 0001103_BYRD_WY state rep_20160621-1 

Organization1:Wyoming House District 44 

Commenter1:James Byrd 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

So quickly, in my district we do not have any coal at all. I am 250 miles from the nearest coal mine. But I have at 

least 500 direct jobs that are related by the coal business and another couple thousand jobs that are indirectly 

related to the coal business in my area, and those are in the industry. There's related industries that are the 

railroads, the other support industries, the engineering and everything, so it's not just the coal industry that 

suffers with improper regulation. It is in my case the entire state. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-743

Scoping Report 

The largest impact in my area is money that comes from the coal lease program that goes directly into building 

schools and providing the materials so that we can give our students a competitive education and be right up 

there in the top. 

Comment Number: 0001106_CORNELISON_20160621-1 

Organization1:Cityof Hood River, OR 

Commenter1:Peter Cornelison 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The City of Hood River urges the Department of Interior to do three things: Update the coal royalty rate for 

fossil fuels extracted on public lands; number two, help diversify those rural economies and create new jobs and 

investments where the coal miners will be displaced; and number three, tighten the bonding requirements for 

coal. As we've heard, there's huge scars on the land. We're not sure the coal companies have the wherewithal 

financially to recover that. That needs to be inspected. 

Comment Number: 0001125-1 

Commenter1:Elke Littleleaf 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And not only through our guide service, it's the way we make a living, but we use it as an education to teach nontribal members what's in our rivers, because it's not just about catching the fish, it's about, you know, respecting 

the fish. We're one of the only guide services that teaches catch and release, and this is something that we feel 

that as American Indians we teach people to respect our animals, our creatures of this world. And once upon a 

time I used to work on a railroad, and 90 percent of my jobs that I've done were just disastrous things, 

derailments, and I could see that nothing could ever be replaceable, you know, with our system, our fish, our 

rivers, and this is just a gamble that we can't take. 

Comment Number: 0001142-2 

Organization1:United Steelworkers 

Commenter1:Steve Garey 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The new program must also provide support for economic diversification, for protecting local tax bases to help 

ensure adequate funding for local governments, education, and other necessary services. 

Comment Number: 0001148-1 

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Commenter1:Bob LeResche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

40 years leasing and management have created thousands of jobs, thriving communities, and excessive state 

revenue dependence on coal mining. Both state and federal governments have created a moral obligation to 

provide a just transition to the new economic future. Quitting federal coal leasing cold turkey would be an unjust 

disaster. 

Comment Number: 0001159-1 

Organization1:Got Green 

Commenter1:Rashad Barber 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-744 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

So we're talking about social economic impacts, but I ask you to really consider the social impacts. And there's no 

hospital costs that's being externalized the way that it's being affected to my family and our -- and my people. 

Comment Number: 0001165-1 

Commenter1:Pat Freiberg 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Oh. Meanwhile, in the midst of all this destruction, 40 percent of global electricity is produced by burning coal. A 

halt in this system could cause social and governmental collapse and that collapse would be equal to the climate 

collapse that we're hoping to avoid, so we're in a Catch-22, a balancing act. 

Comment Number: 0001180-2 

Organization1:Alaska Coal Association 

Commenter1:Lorali Simon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If production on federal lands is decreased, consumers will be forced to pay for more expensive forms of power 

generation. 

Comment Number: 0001181-3 

Organization1:Green Peace 

Commenter1:Britten Cleveland 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We should also be setting aside resources to help communities transition when coal companies pack up shop and 

leave. 

Comment Number: 0001187-3 

Commenter1:Peggy Willis 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And I would say in the review I would urge you to include a very thorough current best science and economicsbased review. I haven't heard a lot of emphasis on the science-based current best practices science-based review 

today. 

Comment Number: 0002004_Borner_20160617-1 

Organization1:Musselshell County 

Commenter1:Nicole Borner 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The state of Montana, Musselshell County, people’s livelihood, and many communities' economic health are 

directly tied to the coal industry. The coal industry provides a reliable and affordable source of energy to 

hardworking Montana families, we are directly affected by decisions being made by the BLM review. 

Comment Number: 0002004_Borner_20160617-2 

Organization1:Musselshell County 

Commenter1:Nicole Borner 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I humbly ask that BLM’s proposals to change coal leasing policy take into consideration the impacts that will 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-745

Scoping Report 

happen to my community and state and be very diligent that they are not being swayed by emotional rhetoric of 

an extreme environmental agenda. 

Comment Number: 0002012_Colton_20160613-2 

Commenter1:Dave Colton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Many jobs are being lost in Colorado, Wyoming and other coal producing states. This is impacting people in real 

ways. Governments are loosing severance taxes which reduces services they can provide to their residents. 

Comment Number: 0002024_Grassman_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Brent Grassman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Perhaps some funding could be provided to transition coal workers to different jobs and ease the transition, but 

ultimately coal will go away, as it should. 

Comment Number: 0002035_Clausing_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Marcia Clausing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The negative impact on families from recent closures in this state of relatively low economic status is already 

being felt in the small community of Colstrip. 

Comment Number: 0002042_Highum_20160608-1 

Commenter1:Jess Highu 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I do know that thousands of people are directly affected be the recent “war on coal”, many losing their jobs and 

all the benefits from those jobs. 

Comment Number: 0002063_Trebella_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Matt Trebella 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We as a country need to continue to become less reliant on this dirty technology, and instead increase 

renewable sources. While it may hurt some jobs in Montana, the net outcome will benefit Montana and our 

surrounding states with decreased healthcare costs, and a shift to more sustainable energy future. 

Comment Number: 0002069_Williamson_20160619-1 

Commenter1:Alec Williamson 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I don't want the communities that benefit from coal mining to suffer economically, so those towns should get first 

priority receiving tax breaks or other incentives to become clean energy producers. 

Comment Number: 0002089_Krizan_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Larry Krizan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is a vital element of our national and state economies. Eliminating its use all together just to satisfy a 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-746 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

minority in the USA and elsewhere that don’t like the mining industry, prefer wind and solar over fossil fuels, and 

don’t make their living working in the fossil fuels industry is very short sighted and will devastate the economies 

of affected states and the energy they produce for the country and the rest of the world. 

Comment Number: 0002092_Lynch_20160624-1 

Commenter1:K. Lynch 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Montana workers need the jobs that coal mining creates for them 

Comment Number: 0002108_Raymond_20160624-1 

Commenter1:Jazmine Raymond 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If Montana is to keep a viable economy into the future, we are going to have to find new ways to create jobs 

while relying less on the extraction of non-renewable resources. 

Comment Number: 0002112_Sanderson_20160624_CoMineAssoc-11

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current measures are simply an attempt to drive coal out of the energy mix and will hurt Colorado’s 

economy and deprive our public schools of hundreds of millions of dollars of royalty revenues. 

Comment Number: 0002112_Sanderson_20160624_CoMineAssoc-3 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal miners in Colorado alone earn average wages and benefits approaching $135,000 annually, according to the 

Colorado Mining Association’s Coal Production and Employment Report for 2015. But federal and state laws 

have resulted in significant harm to western slope economies. Since 2013, two mines in Gunnison and Delta 

Counties have been forced to cease operations and a third recently announced a reduction in its workforce. All 

mines in Colorado have reduced production, which fell to a 25 year low in 2015 of less than 19 million tons, 

down more than 50 percent from the record levels achieved in 2004. 

Comment Number: 0002112_Sanderson_20160624_CoMineAssoc-4 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management have announced an unprecedented assault on 

affordable energy and coal production, one of the backbones of Colorado’s and the nation’s economy.

Comment Number: 0002112_Sanderson_20160624_CoMineAssoc-8 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-747

Scoping Report 

Western coal mining jobs are important to rural economies and the clean, affordable and reliable energy from 

mining still accounts for the bulk of electricity produced in Colorado and much of the west. 

Comment Number: 0002121_Sullivan_20160624-1 

Commenter1:Don Sullivan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Any thought of new regulations must be scrapped and existing regulations that cost jobs and hurt economic 

growth need to be rolled back. 

Comment Number: 0002124_Todd_20160622-1 

Commenter1:David Todd 

Other Sections: 8.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I support the President's plan to reduce coal extraction and burning and reject the efforts of Steve Daines to 

block those reductions. 

Rather than burn coal to keep US jobs, Daines might better lead an effort to keep US companies from shipping 

jobs abroad. 

Comment Number: 0002125_Turnquist_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Debra Turnquist 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Those people now employed in the coal industry should have first rights to jobs in clean energy. 

Comment Number: 0002132_Pirruccio_20160525-1 

Commenter1:Tyler Pirruccio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A coal miner is not a scientist, and we should expect them to be hesitant to change. Its good to see you that 

people care about there jobs. And the only chance we have at keeping jobs in industry is adapting quickly. Solar 

energy, wind, etc. We have the chance to be at the front lines of the energy revolution or drag your heels in the 

back because were scared to loose jobs. 

Comment Number: 0002133_Kukowski_20160525-1 

Commenter1:Arthur Kukowski 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The impact that coal mining has on people and communities is a very large one. Many people that are currently in 

the industry have dedicated their lives to it. That is how they support their families and is a large part of their 

entire lives. That, to me, is the legacy of coal mining, and the meaning of coal mining to everyone that is involved 

in this industry. 

Comment Number: 0002136_Hooley_20160525-1 

Commenter1:Kevin Hooley 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The sheer number of people that are effected by the moratorium have been seriously overlooked. It’s not just 

the coal miner, power plant worker, truck driver or vendor. The census goes down due to people relocating and 

it’s also the construction worker, school teacher, police and small businesses. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-748 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002138_Drake_20160521-1 

Commenter1:Wilrose Drake 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

shutting down the coal industry will certainly put some people out of work, but consider how many jobs it will 

open as we move to other ways of providing power 

Comment Number: 0002142_Briggs_20160602-2 

Organization1:Converse County Auto Repair 

Commenter1:Mike Briggs 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We have seen the loss of approximately 500 coal related jobs and countless oil field, railroad, uranium and local 

business related jobs all within a 100 mile radius of our town. This can be devastating to a state whose total 

population is only about 300,000. With the state of Wyoming being this country's leading supplier of coal and a 

major supplier of oil, natural gas and uranium our government should be troubled by the direction it is taking. 

Comment Number: 0002142_Briggs_20160602-3 

Organization1:Converse County Auto Repair 

Commenter1:Mike Briggs 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A loss of local taxes greatly affects our education systems, funding for needed projects and community upgrades 

such as libraries, justice buildings, road and highway repairs just to name a few. 

Comment Number: 0002144_Kot_20160519_SweetwtrCnty-2 

Organization1:Sweetwater County, Wyoming 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal production provides approximately 245 million dollars to the annual assessed valuation of Sweetwater 

County. This valuation helps support high quality public services including schools, roads, recreation, social 

services and health care. 

Comment Number: 0002144_Kot_20160519_SweetwtrCnty-3 

Organization1:Sweetwater County, Wyoming 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Sweetwater County coal mines, Jim Bridger and Black Butte, together employ approximately 710 workers. 

With the 310 employees, who work at the coal fired Jim Bridger Power Plant, the coal industry employs 

approximately 1000 workers within Sweetwater County. 

Comment Number: 0002144_Kot_20160519_SweetwtrCnty-4 

Organization1:Sweetwater County, Wyoming 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The National Mining Association estimates that, for every coal mining job, an additional 3.5 jobs are created. This 

means that, for Sweetwater County, coal creates approximately 3,500 additional jobs for a total of 4,500 coal 

related jobs in our county. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-749

Scoping Report 

· Employees, directly or indirectly related to coal production, their families and communities depend upon stable 

coal and energy markets backed by sound federal policies. Without these stable markets and sound policies, jobs 

could be lost, home values could fall, and the economy of our communities, county and state will suffer. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-17

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is also possible that other ailing mining companies could follow their competitors into Chapter 11. Such a 

development may make it possible to close unprofitable mines, restructure their debt (especially nonsecured 

debt), sell or shut noncompetitive assets, and start to restore their businesses to a firmer financial footing. In 

addition, some companies may wind up liquidated and their creditors wiped out, creating the opportunity for 

players that provide new capital to earn profits by buying up the mine properties that are cash positive and would 

then be unencumbered by previous obligations. But these initiatives might have only limited impact on the overall 

financial health of the industry, given that there could continue to be many miners sticking to the business as 

usual path. 

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-22

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coal industry’s failure to provide manageable financial and economic models in the current environment 

makes DOI’s response all the more urgent.

Comment Number: 0002145_Buchanan_20160513_IEEFA-23

Organization1:Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis 

Commenter1:Tom Sanzillo 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

McKinsey & Co., a prominent global business consultancy, has recently observed that coal companies require “a 

major mindset industry change” if they are to fashion a winning strategy. McKinsey warns that coal companies 

emerging from bankruptcy run a risk of adopting business strategies that will result in another round of 

bankruptcies 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-16

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Powerful economic forces continue to influence a shift in the U.S. energy sector. A combination of factors is 

forging a new reality where lower natural gas prices, rising coal costs, and the competitive cost of renewable 

energy sources are driving a shift to clean energy. The new energy technologies coming on-line will create 

hundreds of thousands of new jobs and will continue to do so in communities across the country. But, as our 

nation makes this transition, some workers and communities may be impacted. 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-2 

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-750 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Other Sections: 2 8.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The contemplated overhaul of this program is, however, not only an opportunity to fix a broken system, but also 

an opportunity to take a hard look at how coal-dependent communities, regional economies, and individual 

workers can transition to new economic models. 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-4 

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The contemplated review of the federal coal leasing systems must evaluate BLM authority and opportunities—as

well as actions other agencies and Congress could take— to help ensure a just transition for workers and 

communities to a clean energy economy. Such actions should include robust investment in community economic 

development, protection of worker livelihoods, and development of new tax revenue sources for local 

economies. 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-8 

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mines, coal-fired power plants, coal transportation infrastructure, coal handling facilities, and their 

associated supply and maintenance industries are often the lifeblood of small towns, providing significant 

employment and contributing to their communities’ tax base. Moving toward clean energy could result in fewer 

jobs at a local level and a reduction in the tax stream going to local governments, cutting into funding for public 

schools, hospitals, and infrastructure projects. 

Therefore, as the BLM works to capture a fair return for American taxpayers generally, it must also consider that 

the economic impacts of a reduction in coal usage over the coming years will not be shared equally across the 

American public. We must consider what authority and opportunities it possesses—having succeeded in 

capturing a fair return for extracted coal—to ensure that some portion of this increased return is put to use 

ensuring a just transition for workers, communities, and regional economies. It will be necessary for some 

workers to obtain new skills and employment and for some communities to redevelop and diversify their 

economies. 

Comment Number: 0002147_Anderson_20160621_BlueGreenAllliance-9 

Organization1:BlueGreen Alliance 

Commenter1:Kim Glas 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In protecting the interests of the American public, BLM must also seek to protect the interests of those 

populations that will be disproportionately impacted by the gradual transition away from fossil energy resources. 

Reform of the federal coal leasing system provides an opportunity to secure a stable source of funding to provide 

the tools and resources necessary for workers to transition to new jobs, and to diversify local and regional 

economies. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-751

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002148_OLaughlin_20160621_K2-1 

Organization1:K2 Sports 

Commenter1:Matt O'Laughlin 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to a 2012 NRDC report on the “Climate Impacts on the Winter Tourism Economy in the US”, across 

38 states in the U.S., winter tourism generates $12.2 billion in revenue and over 200K jobs annually. In 

Washington State, winter tourism contributes over 6,000 jobs and $348 million in value to our economy every 

year. When you consider higher emission scenarios, the PNW snowpack is projected to decrease between 40-

70% by 2050 due to warmer winters. That would have a significant impact on the physical health of our 

customers, the financial health of winter sports retail in the region and K2’s global business as a whole if we don’t 

act now. 

Comment Number: 0002149_Hewitt_20160519_WyLSO-1 

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature's Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee 

Commenter1:Ted Hewitt 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Prior to the recent downturn in the coal industry, Wyoming’s coal producers created more than 11% of 

Wyoming’s gross state product. In 2012, the industry produced more than $5 billion of coal. It employed almost 

7,000 hard¬working Wyomingites in good-paying jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2013 the 

average Wyoming coal mine worker’s annual salary exceeded $80,000. Each Wyoming coal mine worker 

depended on that job to help accomplish life’s goals: to buy a house, to send a child to college, to save for 

retirement. Additionally, tax revenue from the coal industry provides vital support to our state and local 

governments. In 2012, direct taxation on coal production provided almost $1.3 billion in total revenues to the 

state. 

Comment Number: 0002149_Hewitt_20160519_WyLSO-8 

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature's Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee 

Commenter1:Ted Hewitt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), with control of more than 40 million acres of federal mineral estate in 

Wyoming, plays a pivotal role in determining how Wyoming’s coal industry performs. Reductions in coal 

production caused by an overhaul of the federal coal program would reduce our ability to provide for our state’s 

schools, roads, and hospitals. Wyoming is already dealing with the negative effects of reduced demand for coal: 

higher unemployment, reduced incomes, corporate bankruptcies, and lower revenues for state and local 

governments. Our federal government should not make this problem worse; rather it should work to help 

increase coal production. We should maximize our coal’s value and put it to work to improve our country. 

Comment Number: 0002149_Hewitt_20160519_WyLSO-9 

Organization1:Wyoming Legislature's Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee 

Commenter1:Ted Hewitt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Certainly, it is true that low natural gas prices currently depress demand for coal, however that could change 

given the unpredictable variables that control the price of natural gas. Rather than weaken coal as one of our 

country’s great energy assets we should strengthen it so that we can continue to enjoy the benefits that it 

provides. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-752 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-14

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

given the scale of current legacy liabilities, they also felt that other solutions would be necessary to protect 

taxpayers from the costs of coal bankruptcies. Andy Stevenson recommended the short-term solution of a 

Bailout Recovery Fee on coal production that would allow states to recoup their unpaid coal bills, and the longerterm solution of a coal-utility fee to help cover taxpayer exposure created by the coal industry. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Burger_SabineCenter_09132016-17

Organization1:Sabine Center for Climate Change Law 

Commenter1:Michael Burger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

U.S. coal markets face several significant challenges, primarily 

from renewable energy and natural gas, which are unlikely to abate to a degree sufficient to 

cause an upturn in their medium- or long-term prospects. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Madder_20160517_EnergyPolicyNetwork-2 

Organization1:Energy Policy Network 

Commenter1:Kelly Mader 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Setting aside policy considerations and the legality of the these rules under the Clean Air Act, the BLM must 

consider the sweeping nature of the regulation of coal combustion and the impact that these rules have on the 

competitiveness of coal in state resource planning processes and the economic dispatch protocols in organized 

markets. These rules increase the costs of coal as a fuel source and ultimately serve to (1) price new coal entirely 

out of competitive bidding processes for new generation resources and (2) severely disadvantage existing coal in 

any security-constrained economic dispatch model or resource planning process. 

Comment Number: 0002157_Madder_20160517_EnergyPolicyNetwork-4 

Organization1:Energy Policy Network 

Commenter1:Kelly Mader 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In evaluating any alternative that would result in increased coal royalty rates, increased bonuses to be paid when 

the BLM issues a lease, increased rental fees, or any combination of these results, the BLM must consider the 

socio-economic consequences of the alternative. To be meaningful, this analysis should consider how the 

alternative in question will impact coal’s competitiveness in resource planning processes and in organized electric 

markets, while also analyzing the impacts on electric reliability of the significant decrease or outright elimination 

of coal as a generation resource. The Council on Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations require the 

consideration of the effects of each alternative, and further provide that “[e]ffects includes 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.”(3) The effects on 

electric rates and electric reliability are indirect effects of any change to the Federal coal program and should 

therefore be considered within the scope of this NEPA analysis of any alternatives.(4) 

(3) 40 C.F.R. 1508.8 

(4) 40 C.F.R. 1502.16 requiring the consideration of indirect effects); 40 C.F.R. 1508.8 ("Indirect effects, which 

are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 

Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-753

Scoping Report 

land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, 

including ecosystems.") 

Comment Number: 0002158_Kasperik_20160517_StateRep-5 

Organization1:HD 32 Wyoming State Legislature 

Commenter1:Norine Kasperik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

much of the rest of the country benefits from the affordable, reliable electricity made possible by Wyoming coal. 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-1 

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal PEIS Economic Impact: Sweetwater County strongly objects to the PEIS proposed modifications to the Coal 

Leasing Program, and believes that, if the BLM suggestions are implemented, they will negatively impact the 

economy of Sweetwater County and the State of Wyoming. Some of the PEIS proposed modifications we object 

to include: 

· Adding external costs such as climate change and social and environmental impacts to the determination of fair 

market value for coal leases. 

· Increasing coal royalty and bonus payments 

· Creating new regulations addressing water resources, air quality, human health, visibility, wildlife and others. 

All of these proposed modifications will increase the cost of mining coal especially when added to the myriad of 

federal rules that have been adopted to regulate coal mining and its related industries. A partial list of these rules 

include the Clean Power Plan, Regional Haze Rules, Clean Water Act Definition of Water of the United States, 

pending regulation regarding Sage Grouse, Mercury and other Toxic Air Pollution Standards which are in addition 

to more than three dozen additional federal rules that govern the mining industry. The layering effect of these 

regulations drives up the cost of coal mining making it more costly for coal mining companies to stay in business. 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-10

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal Severance: In 2014, Wyoming Coal Companies contributed $269.4 million in severance taxes to the state, 

which contribute to the Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund. This fund provides revenue to the state when minerals are 

not profitable to extract, and the taxes become a smaller portion of government revenues. These funds will help 

all Wyoming counties and communities if mineral revenues decline. 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-11

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal Mineral Bonus Payments: The 2014 funds from federal mineral bonus payments contributed $212.9 

million to build Wyoming schools. The Sweetwater County school system has benefitted from these funds. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-754 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-12

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Abandoned Mine Lands: In 2014, the Abandoned Mine Lands program distributed $49.9 million in grants to 

mitigate lands affected by coal mining. Sweetwater County has benefited from these finds. 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-13

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

coal is a vital economic driver for the economy of Sweetwater County, and because of this, Sweetwater County 

strongly opposes the Coal PEIS and its proposals to place economic hardships on our coal industry. These 

hardships include adding external costs into the fair market value of coal, increasing royalty and bonus payments 

and increasing the layers of regulations. 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-3 

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Coal PEIS modifications will have a major impact on small businesses. The coal mining industry is a tapestry 

of smaller companies and, in the western states, the PEIS will have a disproportionate impact on this important 

segment of the economy. In Sweetwater County, this industry directly creates hundreds of jobs and indirectly 

creates many hundreds more jobs with equipment and parts suppliers, service providers, and other vendors. 

Many of these providers are small to medium sized businesses. The reach of job creation and small business startup goes far beyond the county in which a mine is located. 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-5 

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In this summary, we have included economic values from the Jim Bridger Power Plant along with the values from 

the Jim Bridger and Black Butte coal mines because the Jim Bridger Power Plant is coal dependent and is an 

integral part of the operation of the Jim Bridger Mine. 

Employment and population: Within Sweetwater County, the Jim Bridger and Black Butte Coal Mines and the Jim 

Bridger (coal fired) Power Plant are the primary coal industries. Together these industries employ approximately 

1000 workers. The National Mining Association estimates that, for every coal mining job, an additional 3.5 jobs 

are created. This means coal creates approximately 3,500 additional jobs for a total of 4,500 coal related jobs in 

our county. With an average of 2.5 person per household, coal mining supports 15,750 county residents or 

approximately 35% of the total Sweetwater County population of 44,626 residents. 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-6 

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Housing: Sweetwater County coal related employees play an important factor in adding to the value and stability 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-755

Scoping Report 

of the county housing market. From recent estimates, within the county, there are 11,774 owner occupied 

homes, which represent approximately 62% of the total housing market. If we assume that coal employees own 

the same percentage of single family homes as the general population, then 62% of the 4,500 coal related 

employees own their home, for an approximate total of 3,000 single family homes. These 3000 coal related 

employee single family homes represent 25% of the total 11,774 owner occupied homes in Sweetwater• County. 

With an average value of $213,500, these homes add approximately 640 million dollars to the total value of 

Sweetwater County. 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-7 

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal Ad Valorem Values — equipment, land, and production: The Sweetwater County Assessor's Office has 

reported that 2015 equipment and land values of the Black Butte and PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant and 

Coal Mine together have an assessed value of $40,104,219. The coal production from Black Butte and Jim Bridger 

Coal Mines adds $231,104,831 to the assessed valuation. Together, the assessed value of the equipment, land and 

production of the Black Butte and Jim Bridger Coal Mines with the assessed value of the Jim Bridger Power 

provides a total of $271,209,050 to the assessed valuation of Sweetwater County. 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-8 

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Sales Tax: According to the Wyoming Department of Revenue, in 2015, the Jim Bridger Power Plant paid 

$3,200,000 in sales tax and the Jim Bridger and Black Butte Coal Mines paid a combined total of $336,000 in sales 

tax. Together these primary coal related industries paid $3,536,000 in sales tax of which $1,909,440 remained 

with local governments and 1,626,560 were paid to the state. 

Comment Number: 0002160_Kot_20160629_SweetwtrCnty-9 

Organization1:Sweetwater County 

Commenter1:Wally Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Mineral Royalty: In 2014, Wyoming Coal Mines paid 263.5 million dollars in federal royalty payments. These 

payments helped pay for schools across the state. Sweetwater County has received mineral royalty dollars for 

the construction of new schools. 

Comment Number: 0002164_Whyde_20160519-1 

Commenter1:Patricia Whyde 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Several coal companies in WY have gone bankrupted. It seems no thought was placed for downturns like this. 

The environment has suffered. The people working for those coal companies have been affected. The 

communities and the state of WY have all been affected. 

Comment Number: 0002172_Adamek_20160627-2 

Commenter1:Cari Adamek 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-756 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

In addition, coal has a large economic impact in Montana. You need to factor in how much your changes will 

affect jobs and the economy in Montana. 

Comment Number: 0002172_Adamek_20160627-3 

Commenter1:Cari Adamek 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am also concerned that a sudden change like this in energy sources for electricity may cause an increase in 

electricity rates. 

Comment Number: 0002173_Quick_20160622-11

Commenter1:Kendra Quick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS must evaluate how changes to the Federal Coal Program impact reliability and affordability of electricity. 

Many lower income families and the elderly are on fixed incomes and cannot afford to have their utility bills 

increase. If production on federal lands is decreased due to increased royalty rates or governmental oversight, 

consumers will be forced to pay for more expensive forms of power generation. 

Comment Number: 0002173_Quick_20160622-14

Commenter1:Kendra Quick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Raising royalty would have a negative effect on an industry already struggling in a very difficult regulatory climate 

and market environment. Political efforts to use the BLM Coal Lease Program to further burden industry in an 

attempt to eliminate the resource are simply unacceptable. As is making a national statement that “we will put all 

coal miners out of business”.

Comment Number: 0002173_Quick_20160622-3 

Commenter1:Kendra Quick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2014, the coal industry contributed over $1.1 billion in revenue to state and local governments in taxes, 

royalties and fees. Since 2002, over $6 billion in federal mineral royalties have been paid and coal has contributed 

over $19 billion to federal, state and local governments in taxes, royalties and fees. Over the years, bonus bids 

from the federal coal leasing program have totaled over $2.6 billion; providing revenue that has been dedicated to 

building schools and supporting community colleges, universities and highways across the state. Over 100 school 

buildings and facilities have been built in Wyoming with money from coal bonus bids, and every county has 

benefitted. 

Comment Number: 0002173_Quick_20160622-4 

Commenter1:Kendra Quick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Wyoming also gets value from 6,000 direct mining jobs (prior to the latest layoffs) with an annual payroll of 

nearly $700 million. The average coal mining job pays nearly $83,000 per year, well above the national average. 

Comment Number: 0002173_Quick_20160622-7 

Commenter1:Kendra Quick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This does not include the monetary investments of the companies for the National Environmental Policy Act 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-757

Scoping Report 

(NEPA) studies, exploratory drilling so the federal government can obtain information of about the coal reserves 

and mitigation costs. All these activities provide numerous jobs for the communities in and around the coal 

mining areas. 

Comment Number: 0002175_Woodcock_20160627-4 

Organization1:MSU Department of American Studies 

Commenter1:Jennifer Woodcock-Medicine Horse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To say that Montanans will lose jobs is really clouding the issue, when those workers can be re¬employed in 

green energy jobs at a minimal retraining cost 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-20

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

DOES THE CURRENT PROGRAM ADEQUATELY ACCOUNT FOR EXTERNALITIES RELATED TO FEDERAL 

COAL PRODUCTION, INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS – YES. PROVIDES LOW 

COST ENERGY TO SOME OF THE POOREST COMMUNITIES. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-21

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

HOW DOES THE ADMINISTRATION, AVAILABILITY, AND PRICING OF FEDERAL COAL AFFECT STATE, 

REGIONAL, AND NATIONAL ECONOMIES (INCLUDING JOB IMPACTS), AND ENERGY MARKETS IN 

GENERAL – CURRENT PROGRAM WORKS WELL. ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR 

UNCERTAINTIES WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT STATE, REGIONAL, AND NATIONAL ECONOMIES. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-22

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF POSSIBLE PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES ON THE PROJECTED FUEL MIX AND 

COST OF ELECTRICITY – WILL RESULT IN HIGHER COST AND HAVE NEGATIVE AFFECTS ON 

ECONOMY. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-28

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

WHEN IT COMES TO NONPROFIT COOPERATIVES, WHICH SUPPLY ENERGY TO OUR RURAL AND 

LOWER INCOME AREAS, ANY INCREASE IN THE FUEL COST IS DIRECTLY BORN BY THE MEMBERS. 

THESE ARE THE ONES WHO CAN LEAST BARE THE COST OF HIGHER ENERGY BILLS. 

Comment Number: 0002192_Befus_20160518-1 

Organization1:University of Wyoming Foundation 

Commenter1:Brett Befus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal production is beneficial to the University of Wyoming, State of Wyoming, the United States and the rest of 

the world. Increased taxes and further regulation on coal leasing decrease this benefit. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-758 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002196_Thalken_20160519-1 

Commenter1:Lisa Thalken 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

With the mines north of town being the main source of employment in Converse County, it is of no surprise that 

the recent layoffs as well as the general uncertainty surrounding the future of coal has made a huge impact on the 

community already. By changing the federal coal program and possibly increasing taxes and royalties, you will only 

make this worse. 

Comment Number: 0002196_Thalken_20160519-2 

Commenter1:Lisa Thalken 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I urge you to step back and look at what a decrease in coal is already doing to our Wyoming communities. We 

are already seeing an increase in crime, abuse, dependence on alcohol and suicide and this is only the beginning. I 

discourage you from changing the federal coal program. I would encourage you to review future leases quickly. 

We need Wyoming coal. We need the jobs that coal provides, the stability that the mines provide for their 

employees, the revenue that then trickles down to every business in the community and ultimately the affordable 

electricity that it generates for the rest of the country. Wyoming coal has been a backbone of this state for too 

long to just throw it by the wayside. Please don’t forget the people of Wyoming and of Converse County. We 

need this industry as much as it needs us. 

Comment Number: 0002197_Wise_20160519-4 

Organization1:Kiewit Mining Group Inc. 

Commenter1:Dirk Wise 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

How the pricing of Federal Coal will affect regional and national economies- By increasing royalty rates at a time 

when the market is so low would ensure the demise of the coal industry. Which in my opinion is what this 

department & president are out to do. Having said that, I believe that increasing royalty rates will ensure that coal 

is no longer mined and that the government as well as the public will lose all income produced by mining. By 

switching to alternative energies the cost of electricity will no doubt increase substantially(a point that even the 

president has admitted to), to a point where electricity will be too expensive for most people to afford. This 

nation will begin to suffer the economic and social issues this will cause when it cannot afford the required energy 

to function. At a local level, I invite you to come to Gillette Wyoming or how about West Virginia where the 

mines are closing....Funding for schools for the state is dwindling resulting in teachers being laid off, construction 

projects for public transportation have been paused, halted or cancelled altogether forcing workers to abandon 

their homes because they can’t sell them and certainly can’t pay for them since there are no longer any jobs, the 

businesses that supported the mines have already started closing or going bankrupt. These are not just a few 

businesses or just a few people but thousands that have already lost everything they own due to this 

administrations agenda. The people have not just been affected in this town but in towns all across this state. In 

short, the socio economic impact that’s already been made by this administration is deplorable and you have only 

affected us this far, if you do this to the rest of the country it will be devastating to the economy. 

Comment Number: 0002204_Trowbridge_20160602-2 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Trowbridge 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I understand that the economic power of coal companies is still very strong and the jobs involved in it- which 

have been declining over time and will only continue to decline- are appealing to many people who make 

arguments about the need for a healthy economy. But as former U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson said, “There is no 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-759

Scoping Report 

economy without an ecology”, and that’s the spirit that I believe the U.S. Interior Department should approach 

its power to give- or to not give- coal companies leases for federal land. 

Comment Number: 0002211_Russell_20160620-3 

Commenter1:Holly Russell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2014, the coal industry contributed over $1.1 billion in revenue to state and local governments. Since 2002, 

coal has contributed over $19 billion to federal, state and local governments in taxes, royalties and fees. Since 

2002, over $6 billion in federal mineral royalties have been paid. Over the years, bonus bids from the federal coal 

leasing program have totaled over $2.6 billion – revenue that has been dedicated to building schools, and 

supporting community colleges and highways across the state. This does not include charitable donations made to 

schools and other local programs. 

Comment Number: 0002221_Anderson_20160524-2 

Organization1:University of Utah 

Commenter1:Samuel Anderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

coal miners and their families must receive support during the transition, as coal is a dying industry. The 

economies of Central/Southern Utah need to be diversified as well. 

Comment Number: 0002222_Gray_20160524-1 

Commenter1:Lew Gray 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Running up the cost of power in the USA will drive good paying jobs like those in Norfolk, NE to China and India. 

The opportunity for other good paying jobs in Norfolk, NE are nearly nonexistent. Most of the steel plant’s 

workforce is not high-tech employees that can find another equivalent paying job in the surrounding corn fields of 

Nebraska. 

Comment Number: 0002225_Wheeler_20160519-1 

Commenter1:Ray Wheeler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Hugely unfavorable cost-benefit ratio to our Utah economy due to averse impacts on corporate recruitment due 

to bad air on the Wasatch Front and in other cities. Note that coal mining accounts for just 0.2 percent of Utah 

jobs (as of 2009--it's gone down since), while tourism by contrast accounts for 132,000 jobs in Utah (2014 data). 

Comment Number: 0002225_Wheeler_20160519-5 

Commenter1:Ray Wheeler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Lost economic benefits due to air quality degradation in coal strip mines closely proximate or adjacent to Bryce 

Canyon National Park 

Comment Number: 0002226_Tobe_20160603-3 

Commenter1:Jerry Tobe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Another cost is the costs associated with train derailments. There were 18 train derailments in the first five 

months of 2016 and at least one of them was a coal train derailment. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-760 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002229_Schneider_20160627-2 

Commenter1:Debra Schneider 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

its time to use our tax dollars to subsidize clean energy and move our economy and jobs toward a more 

equitable and wise choices for taxpayers and long term economic jobs and choices for our citizens. 

Comment Number: 0002231_Schwend_20160620-2 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:David Schwend 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The DOI's recent moratorium on federal coal leases will negatively impact funding for local schools, governments, 

and communities. When industry is regulated into bankruptcy or near bankruptcy it has a ripple effect into every 

part of the state's economy. Not only are coal miners, power plant workers and coal industry companies 

affected; equipment and part suppliers, manufacturers, railroads, truckers, steel manufacturers and a long list of 

service jobs are all greatly affected. 

Comment Number: 0002231_Schwend_20160620-4 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:David Schwend 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2015 Spring Creek Coal Mine paid $52Million to the State of Montana for taxes and royalties and 

approximately $20Million to the federal government. We exported 3.6 Million tons of coal to Asia in 2015 and 

lost money. Between Spring Creek Mine and Cloud Peak Energy Logistics, $82Million were lost in 2015. Cloud 

Peak Energy CPE) as a whole lost $204.9Million. CPE pays approximately $0.39 for every dollar on taxes and 

royalties. How much more taxes does the government want coal companies to pay? 39% isn't enough? 

Comment Number: 0002267_Duncan_20160713_WyBusinessAlliance-1 

Organization1:Wyoming Business Alliance 

Commenter1:Bill Schilling 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Several thousand prime jobs have vanished in Campbell county over the past year – coal company jobs direct, 

contract labor direct, plus community indirect impact jobs of several thousand more. With the loss of 10,000 

jobs over the past year, Wyoming’s unemployment rate today is at 5%, below the national rate. The mines have 

made their cuts, now comes the trickle down effects – home sales and distressed prices, declining retail sales, and 

most importantly in the Gillette area uncertainty about the future. 

The job losses in Campbell County (Gillette) – over 4,000 – are impactful, but on the national scale miniscule. 

Extrapolated, these 4,000 jobs for an area of 40,000 people would, in Chicago alone, be 280,000! Clearly that 

would catch the attention of the American public, and all federal agencies. 

Comment Number: 0002276_Henderson_20160715_350Colorado-6 

Organization1:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Commenter1:Gina Hardin 

Organization2:350 Colorado Board of Directors 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-761

Scoping Report 

BLM’s National Operations Center (NOC) has a potential role in assisting offices in impacted communities in 

with maintaining strength and focus, providing communications and economics advice, as well as grants and other 

assistance. NOC could task the resources to assist District and State Offices respond positively, while also 

helping BLM staff deal with the transitions and local negative reaction in their community. We don’t know that 

NOC’s role can be or should be put into regulation, but it can be taken as an agency initiative now. We also 

question whether a “community reclamation” bond could be put into place specifically for local transition from a 

coal based economy. 

Comment Number: 0002282_Bradford_20160719-5 

Commenter1:David Bradford 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal from federal lands generates considerable revenues. These revenues provide a significant amount of the 

revenues used by states, counties and municipalities where federal coal is located. As noted previously, any 

changes in the federal coal program need to evaluate the effects of these changes on the socio-economic 

condition of the states, counties and municipalities in which the federal coal is located. 

Comment Number: 0002287_Whittemore_20160714-1 

Commenter1:Judy Whitmore 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

You are also ignoring the fact of the hundred of thousands of jobs lost and economic devastation to local mining 

areas. 

Comment Number: 0002289_Spalding_20160711-1 

Commenter1:Mike Spalding 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If you raise the cost of energy, you raise the cost of nearly everything. A poor person will see the cost of 

electricity, heating and transportation increase. But, since these are components of all retail stores and all goods, 

they will see everything else increase too. A small increase in energy prices will add up to a huge reduction in 

everyone's standard of living. 

Comment Number: 0002292_Rich_20160603-1 

Commenter1:Brenda Rich 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Colorado has an abundance of clean burning coal and it's the best source for electricity in the west - plus it 

provides much needed good-paying jobs for Colorado 

Comment Number: 0002293_Niemi_20160606-1 

Commenter1:Sharman Niemi 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining in the western United States not only serves our coal fired power plants to sustain reliable and 

affordable electricity but also provides good paying jobs to rural families and tax revenues to local counties. 

Comment Number: 0002293_Niemi_20160606-3 

Commenter1:Sharman Niemi 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Because federal coal royalties are a direct, pass through cost to all consumers, rates for electricity will increase 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-762 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

requiring consumers to cut spending in other areas. The trickle-down effect of such cuts can significantly impact 

the economic livelihood for rural communities. 

Comment Number: 0002309_Monseu_20160721_AmericanCoalCouncil-10

Organization1:American Coal Council 

Commenter1:Betsy Monseu 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

For many states with major fiscal challenges, reduced tax dollars are already a reality due to the surging number 

of regulations resulting in decreasing coal production. The prospect of further declines in tax revenues due to 

changes in the federal coal leasing program is a very serious concern for them. 

Comment Number: 0002309_Monseu_20160721_AmericanCoalCouncil-11

Organization1:American Coal Council 

Commenter1:Betsy Monseu 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Unnecessary regulations and reforms targeted at coal are already devastating coal communities. The coal industry 

has lost more than 45,000 jobs in the past three years.7 

Comment Number: 0002309_Monseu_20160721_AmericanCoalCouncil-12

Organization1:American Coal Council 

Commenter1:Betsy Monseu 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The recent report on the economics of federal coal leasing issued by the Obama administration’s Council of 

Economic Advisors (“CEA”) mirrors that lack of understanding. This government modeling exercise addresses 

the question of whether an increase in royalty rates by the Department of the Interior will increase or 

decrease government revenues. The CEA’s answer to the question is that it will increase them. However, the 

conclusions reached by CEA in arriving at its answer show a complete disconnect between its theoretical 

modeling results and the way the real-world coal marketplace functions. The CEA therefore misconstrues the 

outcome 

of such a policy change and its report must not be relied on. As an example of the problematic nature of the 

report, one of the CEA’s conclusions is that increasing the cost to produce coal under federal leases (which 

mainly occurs in the Powder River Basin) through higher royalty payments will raise the market price of coal 

nationally. This conclusion is incorrect, and it demonstrates a failure to appropriately analyze the competitive 

market forces at play in the various coal producing regions of the United States, as well as the broader energy 

marketplace in America. 

Comment Number: 0002309_Monseu_20160721_AmericanCoalCouncil-13

Organization1:American Coal Council 

Commenter1:Betsy Monseu 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Premature shutdown of coal-consuming plants is a trend already occurring due to the influence of an increasing 

number of environmental regulations promulgated for such plants. The robust marketplace competition that 

exists coal and natural gas 2 Energy Information Administration, “Today in Energy”, March 16, 2016.
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-763

Scoping Report 

3 IHS Energy News Release, “IHS Study: Diversity of United States Power Supply Could be Significantly

Reduced in Coming Decades”, July 24, 2014. Available at http://press.ihs.com/press-release/energy-powermedia/ 

ihs-study-diversity-united-states-power-supply-could-be-significant will be significantly changed as more coal plants 

are shut down and new ones are not added to the system. The graph below from the Department of Energy’s 

Energy Information Administration is a snapshot of scheduled electric generation capacity additions and 

shutdowns for 2015, and clearly shows the net reduction in coal capacity. If this trend continues, as expected, 

coal demand and production will drop. Natural gas demand will increase, bolstered by the build out of new 

natural gas capacity underway. These conditions will lead to higher natural gas prices and coal will be less 

available to buffer higher gas prices and gas price spikes. 

Comment Number: 0002309_Monseu_20160721_AmericanCoalCouncil-2 

Organization1:American Coal Council 

Commenter1:Betsy Monseu 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The American Coal Council is greatly concerned about any reform of the federal coal program by DOI-BLM that 

would increase cost of mining and thereby negatively impact the ability of coal suppliers to compete in the highly 

competitive U.S. and global energy markets. 

Comment Number: 0002309_Monseu_20160721_AmericanCoalCouncil-3 

Organization1:American Coal Council 

Commenter1:Betsy Monseu 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The stage is set for higher electricity costs for American households and businesses. This could occur because of 

a change such as a royalty rate increase on federal coal that raises the cost to produce coal, or as a result of 

factors pushing the U.S power generation fleet’s continued shift away from coal and forcing its heavier reliance on 

natural gas. 

Comment Number: 0002310_Payne_20160721-3 

Commenter1:Steven Payne 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Colorado’s $13.2 billion outdoor recreation economy depends on healthy public lands and abundant snow pack. 

Comment Number: 0002314_Beres_EarthMinWAInterfaithPower_20160722-3 

Organization1:Creation Justice Ministries 

Commenter1:Shantha Alonso 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

An aspect of the coal economy that has long been overlooked is in the tax system. Local communities that should 

have received millions in royalties to support schools, libraries, roads, and other projects for the common good, 

have not gotten their fair share. 

Comment Number: 0002314_Beres_EarthMinWAInterfaithPower_20160722-5 

Organization1:Creation Justice Ministries 

Commenter1:Shantha Alonso 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

we know that changes in the marketplace for coal have and will continue to impact jobs in our communities. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-764 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002314_Beres_EarthMinWAInterfaithPower_20160722-6 

Organization1:Creation Justice Ministries 

Commenter1:Shantha Alonso 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

we also believe that any responsible federal coal review process should include a robust plan and discussion 

around ensuring that coal workers are cared for, and that they will have new economic opportunities available to 

them. 

Comment Number: 0002315_Stewart_UnitedChurchChirst_20160722-5 

Organization1:Creation Justice Ministries 

Commenter1:Shantha Alonso 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We believe it is a moral imperative that this federal coal review process include a conversation about a transition 

plan for coal economy workers and that local, state and the federal governments come together to take strong 

action to address this challenge. 

Comment Number: 0002318_Gordon_20160722-4 

Commenter1:Diana L. Gordon 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This pollution causes ocean acidification and climate change. We have already evidenced both of these 

phenomena. Ocean acidification which, for example, interferes with the ability of oysters to form shells, has 

already had repercussions in our shellfish industry, especially with oysters. The shellfish industry brings in about 

270 million dollars to Washington's economy and provides jobs for about 3,200 people. Can we afford to do 

anything that we know might affect it further? 

Comment Number: 0002324_Dubbert_20160722_BME-2 

Organization1:Blue Mountain Energy 

Commenter1:Jeffrey C Dubbert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BME believes the taxpayer and the local community is getting a fair return from the coal resources.The impact 

that the mine has on the local community is enormous, the mine is one of the largest employers in the 

community. Without the support of the mine through wages and taxes, server limitation would be placed on the 

local community. 

Comment Number: 0002324_Dubbert_20160722_BME-3 

Organization1:Blue Mountain Energy 

Commenter1:Jeffrey C Dubbert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In rural communities such as Rangely, Colorado energy drives the economy. It builds roads, schools and recently 

helped build a new Hospital. The town, county and local communities depend upon the mine just like the mine 

depends upon the community to provide services to the operation and to its employees. There is no question 

that the BME mining operation is a good member of the community and definitively pays the fair share to help 

support it. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-765

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-36

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It will artificially accelerate the loss of jobs in the Appalachian coal industry, 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-49

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The loss of intellectual capacity from unnecessary exposure to lead in the United States (and in the rest of the 

developed world that relies on coal to generate power) is not only a personal and social tragedy, it has caused a 

drastic reduction in the productivity of the workforce in the economies of countries that obtain their energy 

primarily from burning coal.(25) 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-52

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Climate disrupting CO2 emissions come primarily from coal-fired power plants. Reducing those emissions also 

reduces other pollution (notably SO2, NOx, and PM2.5), which brings major health benefits to the American 

public. The EPA’s Integrated Planning Model yields an updated estimate that implementing the Clean Power Plan 

would reduce CO2 and related emissions in the year 2030 by 30% relative to 2012 levels. This would yield health 

and benefits of from $64 to $99 billion by reducing SO2, NOx, PM2.5 emissions (without taking the effects of 

reduced exposure to neurotoxins into account). http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution-standards/.However, if political 

or legal considerations keep the Clean Power Plan from being implemented, or an unreformed Federal coal 

leasing program continues to offset its effects, coal-fired power plants will continue to inject neurotoxins into the 

environment at the pace. The result could be that the productivity of the nation’s children will be far below what 

it could otherwise be at the time that those children enter the workforce. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-53

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM leases are the source of 40% of the thermal coal burned for power in the United States. Current Federallyleased reserves are projected to run out in 20 years. If the current moratorium were made permanent, it might 

eventually reduce the amount of thermal coal burned in the United States by as much as 40%. Such a moratorium 

would then bring with it a roughly 40% reduction in exposure of the American public to SOx, NOx, PM2.5, and 

to mercury, lead, and other toxic heavy metals. A back-of-the-envelope estimate of the long-term value to the 

American economy of phasing out Federally leased thermal under these assumptions is an increase in the 

productivity of the American workforce worth about $5.83 trillion per year ($14.586 x 0.40 = $5.83).(31) 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-54

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-766 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

As mentioned earlier, if the electric generating capacity that had been supplied by phased-out coal is replaced 

primarily by energy efficiency and renewable forms of energy, as is contemplated under the Clean Power Plan, 

the National Resources Defense Council has shown that retail electric rates would actually fall by 2030. This 

implies that in calculating the economic value of a long-term phasing out of Federal coal as a source of electric 

power, there is no need to adjust that value downward for increases in retail electric rates. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-7 

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Chronically selling Federal coal far below its market value continues to have a number of socially damaging 

effects. It has resulted in depriving both Federal and state governments of some $40 billion in revenue(2) since 

the market made its major turn from privately-sourced coal to underpriced Federally-leased coal. Chronically 

selling Federal coal far below its market value has also had a damaging effect on employment. Most Federallyleased coal is surface mined. Selling it below its market price displaces coal from the privately-held underground 

mines of Appalachia and Illinois. In the process, it substantially reduces overall employment in the coal mining 

industry. Mining coal underground in Appalachia is labor intensive, while surface mining is capital intensive. Coal 

strip mined in the Powder River Basin supports one-tenth as many jobs as the same quantity of coal mined 

underground in Appalachia, and one-fifth as many jobs as the same quantity of coal mined in the Illinois Basin 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-79

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal subsidies unfairly disadvantage coal producers in Appalachia and other regions, causing economic 

dislocation and lowering total employment in the United States. More broadly, the BLM’s subsidies of coal distort 

U.S. markets, incentivize U.S. coal exports by subsidizing transportation costs, place low-carbon sources of 

energy at a disadvantage, and ultimately undercut the president’s Climate Action Plan. DOI’s subsidies of coal also 

harm public health and damage America’s natural systems, directly through strip mining, and indirectly by 

accelerating changes to America’s climate. The health and climate effects do particular harm to the Western 

United States. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-81

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A study by the New Climate Economy Project(19) and a working paper from the International Monetary 

Fund(20) recently corroborated the results of the NRDC’s update of the EPA’s Integrated Planning Model. They 

conclude that because of recent advances in renewable technology and the secondary health benefits of cutting 

fossil fuel emissions, the choice between a strong economy and a strong response to climate change is a false 

one. They found that ambitious policies to cut carbon emissions would either have a very small drag on economic 

growth or lead to faster growth. Jeff Spross, Would Limiting Carbon Emission’s Destroy the Economy?, October 

16, 2013, at http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/16/2730271/carbon-regulations-economy/. Recent modeling 

of an extremely aggressive national carbon tax for the United States found a similar result, even before the health 

benefits are factored in. (Nystrom, S., 2014.) A recent of upcoming British policy to cut emissions from its 

economy reached a similar conclusion. (Cambridge Economics, 2014.) 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-767

Scoping Report 

(19) See New Climate Economy Project, Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, available at 

http://newclimateeconomy.report/. 

Comment Number: 0002327_Everdean_20160724-2 

Commenter1:Jo Everdean 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Baseload Act should not apply to coal development that is done on public lands. In addition to harming the 

public, it also has negative socioeconomic impacts. The public should not have to pay for a private company to do 

it's business. Even more over, those who are struggling economically should not have to at all support a private 

company, even if that company is developing energy for public use. 

Comment Number: 0002329_Segger_20160724_CambellCntyWY-1 

Organization1:County and Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Commenter1:Carol Seeger 

Other Sections: 13 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The potential impacts to state and local government resulting from a proposed change to the federal coal leasing 

program are not identified as being an issue that will be addressed in the environmental assessment. We 

specifically request that the economic impacts to state and local governments be included. Currently, there is an 

estimated 25 billion tons of economically recoverable coal located in the Powder River Basin with 343 million 

tons of coal being produced in Campbell County in 2013 accounting for 88% of the state's total production. 

Eighty percent of all coal in Wyoming is produced from federal and Indian lands. 

Comment Number: 0002329_Segger_20160724_CambellCntyWY-2 

Organization1:County and Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Commenter1:Carol Seeger 

Other Sections: 13 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Campbell County generated 120 million in revenue in FY2014 stemming from coal resources valued at 3.5 billion. 

In 2013, Campbell County collected 64.7 million in ad valorem tax with 85% coming from natural resource 

production. This percentage does not include the revenue generated by the service industries that support coal 

production nor the fact that 5,195 people representing approximately 11% of the county residents and 24% of 

total employment are directly employed by the coal mining industry. In addition to the revenue generated to 

support Campbell County government, a mill levy is also applied to the taxable value of the coal to support the 

Campbell County Hospital District, the Campbell County Cemetery District, the Campbell County School 

District, the Campbell County Weed & Pest District, the Campbell County Conservation District, the City of 

Gillette and the Town of Wright. Any EIS intended to evaluate the federal coal leasing program must address the 

economic impacts to state and local governments. Such impacts are without question relevant in evaluating the 

federal coal program. 

Comment Number: 0002329_Segger_20160724_CambellCntyWY-3 

Organization1:County and Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Commenter1:Carol Seeger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Any change to the federal coal program needs to consider the potential impacts to taxpayers throughout the 

country if this affordable method by which electricity is provided is altered. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-768 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002329_Segger_20160724_CambellCntyWY-8 

Organization1:County and Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Commenter1:Carol Seeger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Board would first like to lend its support to the concerns raised by members of the United States Senate in a 

letter dated July 14, 2016, and signed by both Senator Barrasso and Senator Enzi representing the great State of 

Wyoming. The letter expressed concern regarding the timing of a report entitled The Economics of Coal Leasing 

on Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to the Taxpayers which was published by the President's Council of 

Economic Advisors. This report covers and makes assertions regarding the federal coal leasing program that we 

understood was to be the subject of the programmatic assessment being conducted by your office. The issuance 

and timing of this report severely compromises the integrity of any assessment of the federal coal leasing 

program completed by the Department. 

There is a reference in the above mentioned report that increasing royalty payments will increase revenues to 

state governments. As you know, Campbell County relies on ad valorem tax as its revenue source. Ad valorem 

tax is paid on the fair market value of the coal produced less federal royalty payments. Any increase in federal 

royalty payments has a direct negative impact on ad valorem taxes paid to Campbell County. This was a point we 

made at the scoping session held in Gillette, Wyoming, last summer. It should be further noted that the majority 

of ad valorem tax collected in Campbell County goes to support the K through 12 school system throughout the 

State of Wyoming. In Wyoming, ad valorem tax revenue is recaptured and redistributed from wealthier school 

districts to poorer districts within the state. To date, Campbell County School District has paid over $1 billion to 

the State of Wyoming that was redistributed to other school districts within the state. Under the best scenario, 

only 48% of the additional money that may be gained by an increase to the federal mineral royalty would be 

returned to the State of Wyoming. (Federal mineral royalties are distributed 50% to the federal government, 48% 

to the State of Wyoming with a 2% administrative charge withheld by the federal government.) 

Comment Number: 0002333_Magagna _20160725_WyStockgrowers-2 

Organization1:Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Commenter1:Jim Magagna 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Every citizen of the state of Wyoming benefits significantly from the revenues generated from coal mining and the 

bonus payments, taxes and royalties paid by the mining industry. Many of our smaller ranching enterprises are 

made more sustainable by the opportunity for a family member to work in the mining industry to support the 

ranching enterprise. 

Comment Number: 0002333_Magagna _20160725_WyStockgrowers-4 

Organization1:Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Commenter1:Jim Magagna 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While the natural resource industries in our state share a certain competitiveness for land and labor, we have a 

critical interdependence. Mines create employment opportunities for ranch families, while ranching provides rural 

living opportunities for miners. Our members benefit from the enhanced services that spring up in our local 

communities from public facilities to retail businesses. 

Comment Number: 0002335_Webber_20160725_HealthActionNM-5 

Organization1:Health Action New Mexico 

Commenter1:Barbara Webber 

Other Sections: 10 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-769

Scoping Report 

According to research by the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the Harvard School of Public 

Health (2) (CHGE), “The economic, health and environmental impacts associated with extraction, transportation, 

processing, and combustion cost the U.S. public between a third to over half a trillion dollars annually.” Coal 

mining regions have 11,000 excess deaths annually from lung cancer, heart, respiratory and kidney disease. Lives 

lost in coal mining regions are evaluated at $74.6 billion per year. 

(1) http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/MMD/Coal-FAQs.html#CoalinNM 

(2) p://www.chgeharvard.org/resource/explore-true-costs-coal

These adverse health impacts are felt in New Mexico. In San Juan County, where coal activity is more prevalent, 

the American Lung Association (ALA) reports that residents are at an elevated risk for lung diseases. The ALA 

indicates there are 2,885 cases of pediatric asthma, 8,442 cases of adult asthma and 5,219 people diagnosed with 

COPD in this rural northwestern New Mexico county alone. 

Measurable health effects of coal-related air pollution include increased rates of lung and heart disease. According 

to CHGE, 2005 data showed that “[p]articulates and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur kill over 24,000 people 

annually, including 2,800 from lung cancer.” Further, pollution from coal operations produces 38,200 non-fatal 

heart attacks annually. 

Comment Number: 0002336_Cole_20160725_MesaCntyCO-2 

Organization1:Mesa County Colorado, Board of County Commissioners 

Commenter1:Kristen Cole 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Affordable Energy Improves our Standard of Living: In addition to the economic benefits we get from resource 

extraction such as coal mining, we should also recognize that affordable, reliable energy that comes from coal 

helps to stimulate our economy. The more affordable and reliable our electricity is, the better our access is to 

food, shelter, clothing, transportation, sanitation and clean water. In states such as California where electricity 

from fossil fuel use has been restricted, electricity rates are over double the rates we pay here in Colorado. 

Comment Number: 0002336_Cole_20160725_MesaCntyCO-4 

Organization1:Mesa County Colorado, Board of County Commissioners 

Commenter1:Kristen Cole 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Economic Impacts to Mesa County: While coal resource extraction in Mesa County is limited, there are several 

companies that operate in and around Mesa County that provide goods and services to the coal mining industry. 

These businesses provide good paying jobs with benefits for many residents in the county. Additionally, many of 

the miners who live in rural communities outside of Mesa County travel to our county to shop and do business. 

Businesses here in Mesa County will be impacted if additional mines are forced to close due to excessive federal 

government regulation and interference 

In addition to direct tax revenue, an economy that has a solid base of natural resource development will provide 

additional economic opportunities for tourism and other service industries 

Comment Number: 0002339_Satterfield_20160726_IECA-2 

Organization1:Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) 

Commenter1:Marnie Satterfield 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), between 2008 and 2013, U.S. coal production fell by 

16 percent. In 2015, U.S. coal production was 11 percent lower than 2014, the lowest level since 1986. However, 

U.S. electricity prices are rising. Since 2005, U.S. electricity prices have risen 28 percent. (3) And, industrial 

electricity prices have risen 20 percent and manufacturing jobs have decreased by 13 percent over the same ten-
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-770 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

year time period. (4) With the decline of coal production, and more expensive energy forms introduced into the 

market, consumers of energy have suffered. 

3) Energy Information Administration, Electricity, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/. 

(4) Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment, http://www.bls.gov/ces/. 

Comment Number: 0002339_Satterfield_20160726_IECA-6 

Organization1:Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) 

Commenter1:Marnie Satterfield 

Other Sections: 7.4 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

2. The BLM has failed to include increased global GHG emissions because of industrial GHG leakage.The BLM has 

not included the cost of industrial GHG leakage in its cost calculations. When coal and coal-fired electricity prices 

increase, energy-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) industries will shift production to other countries in order to be 

competitive. (7) When they do, their GHG emissions and jobs move with them and global GHG emissions will 

not have been achieved. 

7) Climate Change Trade Measures: Consideration for U.S. Policymakers, GAO, 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-724R

Comment Number: 0002342_Etter_20160726-6 

Organization1:Bowie Resources, LLC 

Commenter1:Art Etter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I have experienced firsthand the impacts lost coal mining jobs have on our local, rural communities. I’m a resident 

of Delta County, Colorado, with a population of 30,000. As the Denver Post reported on May 14, the closing of 

two mines in the valley resulted in a loss of roughly 1000, wellpaying jobs. Jobs that paid on average $80,000 per 

year in salaries, not including health and retirement benefits. This equates to a total economic hit to the county of 

$80 million annually in salaries alone. 

Comment Number: 0002347_Matney _20160607-2 

Commenter1:Barry Matney 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

-People spoke of poor communities where coal mines are – I believe that is a false statement. These communities 

may be poor compared to larger developed communities but the incomes that are made in these areas are spent 

in these areas. What causes these communities to become run down and desolate and poor is when it becomes 

too expensive for operators to operate the mine and it shuts down due to federal regulations – that income 

(normally higher paying wages) has disappeared and now who is left to buy the new vehicles, shop at the local 

furniture store, etc. The trickledown effect causes the communities to dry up. No greater example than what 

happened in Detroit under this administration. 

Comment Number: 0002348_Thompson _20160607-2 

Commenter1:bret thompson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I have a four year degree in Wildlife Conservation. I have worked for both the North Carolina Wildlife and the 

Wyoming Game and Fish. I have also worked for the Wyoming Department of Corrections. Until I worked for 

Antelope Mine, Cloud Peak Energy, a coal mine, I could not afford more than a house trailer. I now own a new 

2,200 square ft. house, if I lose my job my family and I will not be able to afford the payments on the house, a 

situation many of my friends and miners form other companies are currently facing. The sudden loss of jobs in 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-771

Scoping Report 

the area has caused a huge increase in available houses for sale, all our houses are under water. There aren’t any 

comparable jobs in the area so the vast majority of us will end up defaulting on our loans and we will lose our 

homes and our credit rating. This will affect not only us but also the economy of the region. 

Comment Number: 0002352_Hutt_20160721-1 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Ryan Hutt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please don’t take away coal companies ability through increase in costs and mining costs – don’t take away their 

ability to help provide families in the Powder River Basin with jobs, good reliable jobs, and good clean energy. 

Comment Number: 0002355_Prinkki_20160721-1 

Commenter1:John Prinkki 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is important to the state of Montana. It’s important to Carbon County. We are going to spend another $2 

Million in the next biennium on TSEP project funded bridges – that trust fund is going to be inviolate and never 

removed, but we rely on the interest rates. Without building that fund, the interest that we draw on that money 

– inflation is going to eat that benefit up. So infrastructure projects that are good for the State of Montana and 

Carbon County will not be funded in the same way they have in Helena. We introduced resolutions to the 

National Associations of Counties and the interim resolution we have now is in opposition basically to the Clean 

Power Plan urging congress not to allow the implementation of the Clean Power Plan until the federal 

government finds a way to either provide tax incentives or funding to develop clean coal technology. Like the 

Crow Tribe – they have developed technology where they can use Carbon through algae to produce fertilizer or 

high grade jet fuel. That would be a win-win process for the State of Montana, the Crow Tribe and the federal 

government. Its alarming to me that the federal government is in a deficit situation, yet we will 

not use our natural resources to reduce that deficit. 

Comment Number: 0002358_Small_20160721-1 

Organization1:Boilermakers Local 11 

Commenter1:Jason Smalls 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As far as trades 

goes, we have boilermakers, pipefitters, electrical workers and operating engineers who are all getting 

hit by this. These are good salt of the earth people. Businesses such as the mine in Butte, the mine, and 

refineries in billings in laurel are also taking the hit. Other things that affect it like we said are 

infrastructure projects, school systems, and the pension of many Montanans. Your good working class 

people. The other thing that’s starting to come into play now will be the lack of money that the coal 

board is allowed to disperse. And we have to remember them because they do a lot of good for the local 

communities and also for some of the reservations in Montana. I know the Crow reservation receives 

funding from them. And the Northern Cheyenne tribe just last week got $300,000 and another $45,000 

for the utilities commission. That makes over $600,000 to these communities the past three years alone. 

Comment Number: 0002359_Goffena_20160721-1 

Organization1:Musselshell County 

Commenter1:Bob Goffena 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The United 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-772 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

States has 25% of the recoverable coal in the world. Out of that 25%, 8% of it is in Montana so it’s kind 

of like we are sitting on a coal mine or a gold mine, however you want to look at it. So, if we are going to 

develop this coal, this is what’s going to run up our economy for our state. It will affect our state 

government, but it will especially affect us at the county government. Signal Peak, the only underground 

coal mine in Montana is mostly in our county. But last year, 36.3% of our revenue come directly from 

Signal Peak mine and that’s of course is what is running our economy and our budget. This coming year 

we are going to take a 50% drop in that so we are going to have to cut our budget by 18% because of the 

loss of coal revenue. When I was a commissioner the first time in 2000, we were the second lowest 

county per capita income of non-reservation counties so we were pretty close to the bottom. Now we 

are 17th from the bottom per capita income. We have a lot of high paying coal miner jobs and because of 

that my three children were able to stay in Musselshell County and not have to move away to make a 

living. We are looking forward to Signal Peak continuing production. 

Comment Number: 0002361_Williams_20160721-1 

Organization1:City of Colstrip 

Commenter1:John Willians 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need to recognize that, we need to get the word out on the value of coal 

development and the power plants in Colstrip, what they do for the state. There is almost a billion 

dollars that’s sits in the school trust account, a billion dollars that has been collected in one tax alone 

and that doesn’t count for the billions of dollars paid in wages to the good jobs to the people of our 

state. 

Comment Number: 0002369_Neiman_20160721-1 

Organization1:West Energy Company 

Commenter1:Sabrina Neiman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2013 the state of Montana made over $56 million in state severance tax. So where does that go? $14 million of 

that went to grants to local government infrastructure projects. $7.4 million of that went to the Treasure State 

Endowment Program to do regional water system projects. $7.4 million of that went to grants and loans, are 

available to local governments for economic development projects such as certified regional development 

corporations for the purposes of: creating good paying jobs for Montana residents, promoting long-term stable 

economic growth, encouraging local economic development organizations, and retaining or expanding existing 

businesses. $13 million of that went to the general fund. That goes to public schools, human services, 

Department of Corrections, and higher education. $6.7 million goes to the legislature who appropriates the 

money in HB 5 to finance building projects at universities, locational educational institutions, state buildings, and 

state institutions. $3.2 million is appropriated to the coal board in HB 2 for local impact grants and administrative 

costs. $3 million can be spent for the 

following 3 purposes: Montana growth through agriculture, conservation districts, and the state library 

commission. $718,000 to state parks. $537,000 to renewable resource debt service fund. This money in this fund 

is used to service debt on coal severance tax bonds used to finance renewable resource projects. $356,000 is 

distributed to the stress for the purposes of protecting works apart in the Capitol. $250,000 goes in 

appropriated HB 2 to the Department of Environmental Quality to administer and enforce Coal and Uranium 

land reclamation. 

Comment Number: 0002376_Custer_20160721-2 

Organization1:Montana House of Representatives 

Commenter1:Geraldine Custer 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-773

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal in the state of Montana produces property taxes for the universities, states, schools, counties, and 

districts. The income tax alone on $114 million in 2015 that was just on coal mining jobs. 

Comment Number: 0002378_Heaphy_20160721-1 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Hayden Heaphy 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And now on the economic side of 

things, Sheridan, Wyoming, they just had their economic area Top 10 List, Spring Creek is #3 on the 

employment. Only 3 of the 10 top employers were non-state or federal entities. The other one was the 

railroad and Walmart. So the mine is the only thing that is actually generating revenue and money from 

a resource and creating value for the local economy. Everything else is either service-based or it’s 

funded through things like coal, income taxes, and everything else. So getting rid of that one item that 

generates revenue for the area, and value, it’s going to feel all other background circle and everything 

else is going to come down. 

Comment Number: 0002381_Schwend_20160721-1 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Molly Schwend 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The average coal miner, you know without benefits, without overtime, is making $70,000 at Spring Creek 

Mine. Just last year we put $17 million into this community, mostly in Billings between goods and 

services 

Comment Number: 0002382_Ankney_20160721-3 

Organization1:State of Montana 

Commenter1:Duane Ankney 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is labor intensive. 

It takes a lot of people to mine it. It takes a lot of people to burn it. That’s a lot of paychecks going home 

on Friday night getting thrown on the table, shoes for the baby. There are not a lot of jobs in wind 

regardless of what you hear. 600 Megawatts of wind will be about 12 jobs. 600 Megawatts of Coal fired 

generation is about 135 at the plant, and about another 100 jobs at the coal mine. $80,000 plus a year 

jobs. 

Comment Number: 0002385_Arveschoug_20160721-1 

Organization1:Big Sky EDA 

Commenter1:Steve Arveschoug 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

From our stand point and an economic development stand point, it’s a significant 

issue. Energy drives our economy. We must have affordable and reliable energy to create jobs, power 

business, and power industry and continue to develop as a global community and as a state. 

Notwithstanding Senator Keane’s earlier comments, 50% of the major power users in the state of 

Montana are in Yellowstone County. I have not quantified that by power usage but I do know that 

industry in Yellowstone County relies on affordable, reliable power. Resolving this issue about our 

energy future is very, very important for local industries, local businesses that support those industries, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-774 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

and all the jobs that are tied to those. So from an economic development standpoint, this is a very 

important issue for Yellowstone County and parts of the state that we help to support and where we 

encourage economic growth 

Comment Number: 0002390_Pfister_20160721-5 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When BLM decides to lease coal in an area, all other uses of the area are overshadowed. Coal 

does not tolerate other industries coming into its immediate area. Colstrip has a fair sized 

population for Eastern Montana, but it has the most minimal business infrastructure possible for 

a town that size. Its population is terrorized right now because of the fear for the viability of the 

power plant and mine. What will they do? They may be in as tough a situation as the 

homesteaders stranded on the prairie. BLM has a responsibility to the people who come in to 

mine the coal. Opening mining in an area should not be done lightly. 

Comment Number: 0002392-4 

Commenter1:Mary Fitzpatrick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the BLM should be preparing to help coal country plan for an economic future where we all can prosper with a 

national coal leasing plan. We need to promote economic diversification in communities hurt by the decline of 

the coal industry 

Comment Number: 0002436-10

Commenter1:Sharon St Joan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It will also be possible to provide programs and re-training for coal and other fossil fuel workers join the new 

economy. These workers have worked hard to provide energy for us to heat and cool our homes and for us to 

have electricity, and they deserve a just transition. But coal is the energy of the past. Now it is time to move on. 

Comment Number: 0002443_Koontz_20160727_BowieResources-1 

Organization1:Bowie Resource Partners, LLC 

Commenter1:Gene DiClaudio 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The local rural cities and towns, counties, and state economies rely on the economic contributions of the Bowie 

mines through its payment of salaries, taxes, and royalties. The continued operations of the Bowie mines is 

critical to the future economic health of the communities and counties local to the mines. Additionally, much of 

the coal produced from the Bowie mines is used to generate low-cost electricity that is supplied to the 

residences of Utah and other western states. 

Comment Number: 0002444_Rait_20160727-3 

Organization1:The Pew Charitable Trusts

Commenter1:Ken Rait 

Other Sections: 18 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In conducting the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) of the federal coal leasing program, the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-775

Scoping Report 

Pew Charitable Trusts recommends that BLM consider the potential impacts new policy direction will have on 

the agency’s mission to manage the lands with wilderness characteristics as part of BLM’s multiple use mission. 

Pristine BLM lands provide a range of uses and benefits in addition to their value as settings for solitude or 

primitive and unconfined recreation. These lands are some of our nation’s most sought after hunting and fishing 

grounds, most popular mountain biking trails, home to an extensive network of ungulate migration corridors, 

essential habitat for imperiled species like the greater sage grouse and habitat for 450 listed species. The 

protection of these values deserves consideration when reforming the federal coal leasing program on BLM lands. 

Recreation on natural BLM-managed lands has a significant positive impact on rural economies across the West. 

A study conducted by the independent firm ECONorthwest and commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts 

recently highlighted this value, finding non-motorized recreation on the 246 million acres of our nation’s land 

overseen by the Bureau of Land Management supports 25,000 jobs and generates $2.8 billion for the U.S. 

economy. (See: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2016/03/31/the-economic-valueofquiet-recreation-on-blm-lands) 

Comment Number: 0002446_Ballck_20160727-1 

Organization1:Craig/Moffat Economic Development Partnership 

Commenter1:Michelle Balleck 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Surface and subsurface coal mining directly employ 4.6% of the region’s employees and account for

17.4% of the region’s direct output. Coal mining provides 1,545 direct jobs and total employment (direct and

indirect) of 3,149 jobs out of the Northwest Colorado region’s total employment of 33,411. The coal mining 

sector contributes $478.6 million to the region’s Gross Regional Product.

The report, “Measurement of Economic Activity for Coal Industry and Electrical Power Generation Industry” 

outlines measures of the economic activity associated with coal mining and associated electrical power generation 

in Northwest Colorado. The report observes that the coal industry “provides a strong foundation of primary 

jobs based on the introduction of wealth from outside sources and strong output from the coal mining 

companies.” We support the current program because coal is the backbone of our community’s economy and a 

critical part of meeting our nation’s affordable energy needs. 

Comment Number: 0002447_Mork_20160727-1 

Organization1:Interfaith Workers Justice

Commenter1:Ian Pajer-Rogers 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal companies not only bear an responsibility to their workers, through fair royalties and taxes, but they are 

also responsible to entire communities, to those who depend on good infrastructure, quality schools, safe 

communities and so much more. 

Comment Number: 0002447_Mork_20160727-2 

Organization1:Interfaith Workers Justice 

Commenter1:Ian Pajer-Rogers 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Further, when these coal companies mine on federal lands, they have an even greater burden of responsibility to 

ensure that profits earned from coal mined on public lands are used to benefit the greater public good. This must 

include providing a smooth transition for the tens of thousands of miners who will lose their jobs as the nation 

transitions and reduces the amount of coal it burns. In Germany, for example, the transition away from coal was 

buttressed by work-training for miners under the age of forty and a program to help older workers ease into 

retirement, while fulfilling promises on retiree payments. In the United States, no such program exists to help 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-776 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

miners. Particularly for those miners who work on public lands, such a program should be a top priority for coal 

companies and the federal government. 

Comment Number: 0002447_Mork_20160727-3 

Organization1:Interfaith Workers Justice 

Commenter1:Ian Pajer-Rogers 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We call on BLM to take bold action and investigate whether workers, taxpayers, and local communities are 

getting a fair return from these publicly owned resources. We call on the BLM to find new ways to hold coal 

companies accountable to their workers, to make sure that promises made are kept. Finally, we call on the BLM 

and the Federal Government as a whole to pay special attention to good, living wage jobs in the communities 

hardest hit by the inevitable changes in this industry. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-39

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This report demonstrates that big game and other wildlife populations in the area are vulnerable to the impacts 

of coal leasing, both directly from mining but also from indirect and cumulative impacts such as coal rail transport 

and climate change. Declines in habitat have direct impacts on local economies. Nearly 11 million tourists travel 

through Montana annually, largely driven by recreation and wildlife-watching opportunities. Visitors to Montana 

support over 38,000 jobs and generate $3.9 billion to the state economy. In Wyoming, tourism created 31,510 

jobs and totaled $3.33 billion in revenue. (93) 

(93) National Wildlife Federation and Natural Resources Defense Council, Losing Ground Energy Development’s 

Impacts on the Wildlife, Landscapes, and Hunting Traditions of the American West (Nov. 2015) at 11, available at 

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wil_15111601a.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002450_Trainor_20160727-1 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy 

Commenter1:Michael Trainor 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The result of keeping coal in the ground will also have a devastating impact on employment rates. Those who 

earn their living mining support local businesses, charities, community programs, and quality education. As this 

domino effect, created by keeping coal in the ground, spreads we will see high unemployment; increased tax 

burden with fewer taxpayers; increased cost of electricity; businesses shutting down; and degradation of local 

infrastructure. 

Comment Number: 0002451_Hibbs_20160727-4 

Organization1:Utah American Energy 

Commenter1:David Hibbs 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM contends that even if coal production decreases as a result of higher royalty rates, the net effect of 

increased royalty rates may be revenue neutral. But, the public return on coal development cannot be measured 

only through federal coal lease revenue. Federal coal development provides many measurable benefits to rural, 

western communities. Coal production provides high paying jobs. These jobs, mine support services and 

businesses generate state and local tax base and additional opportunities for economic development in rural 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-777

Scoping Report 

areas. Although, BLM argues that decreased production would be offset by higher royalty rates. BLM does not 

address the fact that other impacts of decreased production cannot be offset. 

Employment in rural, Utah counties would be significantly impacted by decreased coal production on federal 

lands. Lower production translates into fewer jobs. Approximately 80% of coal produced in Utah is mined on 

federal land. Overall, coal mining generated 14,570 jobs in the State of Utah in 2012.9 In 2014, the EIA identified 

Utah as having 1,393 direct coal mining jobs. Most of these jobs are located in rural Utah counties. Approximately 

300 of these jobs are directly attributed to UEI. Many coal producers throughout the region have already been 

forced to cut their workforce in the face of decreased demand and increasing production costs. An increase in 

the federal royalty would put further pressure on the Utah coal market, and in some cases, render operations 

uneconomic. 

Comment Number: 0002452_Donovan_20160727-1 

Organization1:Colorado State Senate 

Commenter1:Kerry Donovan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In Delta and Gunnison Counties, there is the same shared passion about the pathway forward and the uses of 

public lands. These discussions are more acute now that additional coal mines have been shuttered and additional 

layoffs have been announced. Change resulting in job loss is a tough subject to discuss and an even tougher one 

to solve. As you thoughtfully proceed through your review of coal guidelines, the associated processes, the 

royalties, and the future uses of our public lands, I ask that you consider including a plan that would help Western 

communities diversify their economies. When I have listened to national dialogue or participated in conversations 

regarding the decline in coal, the West is often forgotten. The wonderful small communities in my district have 

the will and the want to create a new diversified future, but often lack the resources. We can help them move 

forward. 

As a Nation, and as a world, our energy supply is changing and there is momentum causing coal demand to 

decline. We cannot leave our coal communities behind as collateral damage. I suggest there is an opportunity to 

enhance the overall discussion by being proactive and helping our coal communities find their next great identity. 

Comment Number: 0002453_Cook_20160727-1 

Organization1:Rio Blanco County 

Commenter1:Katelin Cook 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Rio Blanco County is highly dependent upon the natural resource extraction industries, including coal production. 

Sixty percent of Rio Blanco County’s total assessed value is attributed to these industries, with the top fifteen 

taxpayers being industry related companies. Federal Mineral Lease and Severance Tax payments are critical to 

maintaining local infrastructure, and without additional production, these payments will not be realized by Rio 

Blanco County, educational institutions, special taxing districts and other service providers that are an absolute 

necessity. Having the ability to continue coal production and supply these resources to the world is paramount to 

the existence of rural communities in Northwest Colorado. If coal production is minimalized, the economic 

impact on Colorado, especially the Western slope of Colorado, will be devastating. 

The coal industry pays a tremendous amount of taxes including, but not limited to: Federal and State Excise Tax; 

Federal and State Severance Tax; Black Lung Tax; Sales Tax including Excise Tax; Natural Resources 

Consumption Tax; Local Property Tax; Impact Fees; Payroll Taxes. The true economic impact, direct and 

indirect, that this specific industry has on the United States and local communities is unparalleled, and we should 

be working to eliminate barriers and decrease production and permitting expenses to encourage continued 

development, while providing a balanced, realistic approach to offering affordable energy to United States citizens. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-778 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002455_Walters_20160728-1 

Organization1:Wyoming House District 38 

Commenter1:Tom Walters 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

This PEIS represents BLM complicity in the "Keep it in the Ground" campaign; it's bad for the taxpayer, bad for 

the economy, and bad for miners and the tens of thousands of others that depend on mining. This also increases 

the cost of electricity, which has a negative impact on everyone. 

Comment Number: 0002456_Degenfelder_20160728-3 

Commenter1:Steve Degenfelder 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal makes a significant socio economic contribution to each state where it is produced, something the 

President's policies continue to fail miserable in his efforts to stimulate the economy. Most importantly, coal 

provides safe, reliable and low-cost electricity to our nation.

Comment Number: 0002457_Johnson_20160728-1 

Organization1:Western Slope Conservation Center 

Commenter1:Alex Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We must safeguard the many natural resources upon which coal communities will rely for generations to come. 

WSCC and the mines have worked hard to conserve North Fork Valley resources thanks to conscientious local 

mines and an engaged citizenry. Put simply, coal has been a good neighbor, and we must in turn be a good 

neighbor to the mining community which is in the midst of a dramatic shift in their lives. 

One example already happening here locally is the pioneering training program spearheaded by Solar Energy 

International (SEI), a global solar energy training school located in Delta County. SEI is providing high school 

students with the opportunity to take a year-long class in renewable energy technology where they learn about 

principles of electricity alongside emerging technology in biofuels, wind turbines, battery chemistry; training 

culminates with students receiving a vocational certificate in solar photovoltaic installation. 

Comment Number: 0002457_Johnson_20160728-2 

Organization1:Western Slope Conservation Center 

Commenter1:Alex Johnson 

 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

- Support coal miners, their families, and the communities in which they live with all available federal support to 

hasten new businesses and jobs and stabilize the community as it undergoes an economic transition. 

- Support local renewable energy generation by incentivizing emerging energy technologies like coal mine 

methane capture, residential solar and small scale hydroelectric. 

Comment Number: 0002460_Berry_20160728-2 

Organization1:Town of Paonia 

Commenter1:Jane Berrry 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

From the Town of Paonia's perspective, annual severance and mineral leasing revenue has dropped from 

$115,000 to an anticipated $45,000. In a town that has 14 employees, the loss in revenue is equal to the salary of 

two employees. Further, the Town just completed a drinking water filtration project and is currently replacing 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-779

Scoping Report 

crumbling water distribution lines. These two projects were made possible by a $1,000,000 energy impact 

assistance grant funded by severance and mineral leasing taxes. The Town has been advised by the State 

Department of Local Affairs that no new funds will be made available. For the Town, it is a question of how to 

continue to provide basic services with a rapidly dwindling source of funds. 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-10

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2014, the Wyoming mines also employed around 6,500 people, with 958 of those employees working on mines 

located in Lincoln, Sweetwater, and Uinta Counties. 81 Fed. Reg. at 17721; Wyoming Mining Association at 5, 7. 

Coal mining also created around 9,100 indirect and induced jobs, increasing the total impact of coal mining on the 

state to almost 16,000 jobs created or 4.1 percent of state employment. Godby at 27 (2012 numbers, not 

including those associated with the rail and electricity generation sectors). In southwest Wyoming where coal 

mining occurs in the Uinta Basin, mining creates about 2,739 jobs or 4.3 percent of the total jobs in the region. Id. 

at 29 (2012 numbers). 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-11

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Wyoming was just recently hit with massive layoffs in the Powder River Basin. Peabody Energy cut 235 miners at 

the North Antelope Rochelle Mine and Arch Coal cut 230 miners at its Black Thunder Mine on March 31, 2016. 

Benjamin Storrow, Casper Star Tribune, Wyoming’s Two Largest Coal Mines Announce Layoffs (Mar. 31, 2016), 

available at http://trib.com/business/energy/wyoming-s-two-largest-coal-mines-announce-layoffs/article_0d217a3a5a9d-5b1d-8d0d-8a5081724bb2.html. More coal mine layoffs followed with 37 miners losing their jobs in April at 

the Alpha Natural Resources’s Belle Ayr and Eagle Butte mines, and an additional 45 layoffs from the Buckskin 

Mine in June. Leigh Paterson, Inside Energy, More Coal Layoffs in Wyoming (Apr. 28, 2016), available at 

http://insideenergy.org/2016/04/28/more-coal-layoffs-in-wyoming/; The Washington Times, More Coal Mine 

Layoffs in Wyoming (June 15, 2016), available at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/15/more-coalmine-layoffs-in-wyoming/. In total, Wyoming coal mines have seen over 540 lost jobs in the last three months 

alone. 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-7 

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments 

Commenter1: Kent 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While developing the Coal PEIS, the BLM must consider the economic impact to local communities in Wyoming 

from any potential reforms to the federal coal program. 

Comment Number: 0002471_Reed_20160728-4 

Organization1:High Country Conservation Advocates 

Commenter1:Matt Reed 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Support Needed for Community Transition 

Crested Butte, the town where HCCA is based, was founded on coal mining. Scattered ghost towns across the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-780 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

area attest to the rise - and fall - of coal in Gunnison County: Baldwin, Kubler, Floresta, Anthracite, and more. It 

is important that the PEIS consider the need for community transition and worker support as local economies 

move beyond coal mining and embrace other, less polluting energy economies. The agency should evaluate means 

of creating opportunities to help ensure a viable transition away from coal and to a clean energy economy, 

including robust investment in community economic development, job training and protecting worker livelihoods. 

Phasing out coal mining from public lands will entail job loss. But it will also lead directly to job growth and new 

job opportunities. We ask that the BLM consider options for ensuring that rural western counties, like Gunnison, 

are able to adjust to the changes. 

Comment Number: 0002473_Hornback_20160728_WCC-1 

Organization1:Western Colorado Congress 

Commenter1:Emily Hornback 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We encourage the BLM to look at the policy ideas and initiatives that are coming from organizations such as 

Kentuckians for the Common Wealth and the Mountain Association for Economic Development. Such ideas 

include:

- Severance tax reform, ensuring that taxes that are intended to provide funds to invest in economic 

diversification in the coalfields are actually being invested back into coal producing counties at a higher rate and in 

a timely manner. Possibly setting aside a portion of annual severance tax revenues to create a "permanent fund" 

for long term investment in local economic development. 

- The RECLAIM Act, which would release $1 billion is available Abandoned Mine Lands funds for land 

remediation and reforestation and reforestation of formerly mined lands. This money will not only be used to 

help create jobs in mining communities but also reverse the adverse environmental effects of mining on our lands, 

air and waters. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-1 

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Headwaters Economics has compiled economic and fiscal data that provide context for the socioeconomic 

assessment in the PEIS, including coal production, employment, and revenues. This report provides background 

information and methods, and documents the data sources used, and is accompanied by a web post with data 

visualizations and maps: 

http://headwaterseconomics.org/energy/coal/federal-coal-program-context/ 

Summary Findings 

-Federal coal, which is mined predominantly in the West, made up more than 43 percent of total U.S. coal 

production in 2015. 

-The value of federal coal made up 20 percent of the total value of coal mined nationally in 2014. The low value 

relative to production is explained by a wide range of factors including low heat content, remoteness, and lower 

mining costs that allow producers to gain market share by selling coal at lower prices. 

-Federal coal is produced largely from efficient surface mines and employs relatively few people compared to the 

volume of production. Coal mines with federal leases employed 19 percent of total coal mine workers in the U.S. 

in 2015. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-781

Scoping Report 

-Federal coal production is concentrated in a few places. Changes to the federal coal program will be felt acutely 

in rural communities dependent on coal mining for employment and tax revenue. However, these impacts will be 

limited in scale from a state and national perspective. 

-Royalty and tax revenues from coal are relatively more important to states and local governments when 

compared to the employment benefits. Recent modeling of leasing and royalty reform options suggests new 

revenues will outweigh the costs associated with reform1. 

(1) U.S. Council of Economic Advisors, The Economics of Coal Leasing on Federal Lands: 

Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers (Washington, D.C., 2016), 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160622_cea_coal_le 

asing.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-11

Organization1:Headwaters Economics

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 8.5 8.7 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Several recent reports from the Government Accountability Office and the Inspector General of the Interior 

Department raised concerns about the leasing process, including the social and environmental impacts of the 

federal coal program, and whether the program was receiving a fair return for taxpayers.4 Importantly, the 

federal coal leasing and royalty program has not been reviewed for 30 years.5 

(4) "Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide 

More Public Information, February 2014" U.S. Government Accountability Office 

http://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-140; "Coal Management Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, Report 

No. CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012, June 2013" Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

https://www.doioig.gov/reports/coal-management-program-us-departmentinterior. 

(5) The Secretary of the Interior, Order No 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

to Modernize the Federal Coal Program 

(Washington, D.C., 2016) 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/news_release_attachment

s.Par.4909.File.dat/SO%203338%20Coal.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-12

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Secretarial Order stated that the PEIS should at a minimum address six topics, including socioeconomic 

considerations. Specifically, the Order states: "Beyond the issue of fair market value, the PEIS should assess 

whether the current Federal coal leasing program adequately accounts for externalities related to Federal coal 

production, including environmental and social impacts. It should more broadly examine how the administration, 

availability, and pricing of Federal coal affect regional and national economies (including job impacts)."6 

(6) Ibid, page 8. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-13

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-782 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Socioeconomic impact assessment is important because the Department of the Interior should understand the 

impacts of its decisions on communities and workers. Additionally, the public deserves the opportunity to 

understand how government decisions will affect them and the opportunity to participate in the decision-making 

process.7 

(7) Jeffrey B. Jacquet, A Short History of Social Impact Assessment (Bozeman, MT:Headwaters Economics, 2014), 

http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wpcontent/uploads/Energy_Monitoring_SocialImpacts_History.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-14

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Recent history and experience has shown that socioeconomic impact assessment too often is formulaic and lacks 

important context.9 A comprehensive socioeconomic impact assessment should do more than compile easily 

obtainable baseline information such as population statistics, employment trends, and wages in affected sectors, 

or rely solely on an input/output model such as IMPLAN or REMI to describe the likely impacts of a federal 

decision on the economy. 

(9) Jacquet, A Short History of Social Impact Assessment. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-15

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to describing baseline data, socioeconomic impact assessments should include plans and support for 

adaptive management and monitoring, and identify mitigation strategies that may resolve or limit some of the 

impacts related to proposed actions.10 

(10) Ana Maria Esteves, Daniel Franks, and Frank Vanclay, "Social impact assessment: the state of the art," Impact 

Assessment and Project Appraisal 30, no. 1 (2012): 34-42.

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-16

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Headwaters Economics developed the Economic Profile System (EPS) in partnership with Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service in order to make public data available to these federal agencies and to 

the public, and to help provide context to socioeconomic impact assessments.11 For example, EPS can be used 

to assess the size of the projected changes relative to the rest of the economy (Is the expected change big or 

small?) and to understand the role of federal lands and natural resources in the broader economy. 

Headwaters Economics also worked with academic experts to provide suggestions for how make socioeconomic 

monitoring effective and efficient. We produced two case studies (one on Sublette County, WY, and one on 

Garfield County, CO)12 in addition to a review of social impact assessment and recommended best practices for 

monitoring the social and economic impacts related to energy development. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-783

Scoping Report 

(11) "Economic Profile System," Headwaters Economics, http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profilesystem/about/. 

(12) Julia Haggerty and Keegan McBride, "Does local monitoring empower fracking host communities? A case 

study from the gas fields of Wyoming," Journal of Rural Studies 43 (2016): 235-247; Jeffrey B. Jacquet, The 

Battlement Mesa Health Impact Assessment: A Case Study and Oral History of Process and Lessons Learned 

(Bozeman, MT: Headwaters Economics, 2014) http://headwaterseconomics.org/energy/oilgas/energy-monitoringpractices/. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-20

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2015, mines that had federal local leases employed 13,098 workers. Roughly half of these jobs were in 

Wyoming.29 

Throughout this report "federal coal mining jobs" are defined as all jobs in coal mines that had active or inactive 

federal coal leases as of February 3, 2015. 

[See Figure 3: Percent of Direct Jobs from Federal Coal Mining in 2014] 

(29) "Data Sets," U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration. See 10. 

Employment/Production Data Set (Quarterly), 

http://arlweb.msha.gov/OpenGovernmentData/OGIMSHA.asp. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-21

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Increased efficiency in federal coal production resulted in significant job losses nationally. Coal employment was 

down by about 200,000 jobs from the early 1980s to 2015 despite large increases in total production volume.32 

Most of these jobs have been lost in Appalachia as coal mining shifted to more efficient Western surface mines 

where fewer people are required to extract an equivalent amount of coal. These mines are located primarily in 

the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana. 

32 "Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages," U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/.

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-22

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal Mining Employment will be more uncertain in the future. Future employment in coal mining will depend on 

the relative price of natural gas, renewable energy, and coal. Because natural gas prices have historically been 

more volatile compared to coal prices, coal producers can be less certain going forward about how much coal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-784 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

will be demanded from year to year, or even month to month. This uncertainty in electricity markets creates 

uncertainty for coal workers. 

Coal fired electricity generation provides additional employment opportunities.34 Thirteen counties have coalfired power generators that receive coal deliveries directly from mines with federal leases. These coal-fired plants 

listed in Table 3 contribute to an additional 3,782 direct jobs in electricity generation, transmission, and 

distribution,35 adding to 13,098 federal coal mining jobs. 

[See Table 3: Electric Power Generation Jobs in Federal Coal Mining Counties in 2014] 

(34) "Electricity: Form EIA-923 detailed data,” U.S. Energy Information Administration. 

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/. 

(35) "County Business Patterns," U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-23

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Direct coal mining jobs create jobs in other local economic sectors. "Multiplier" effects of coal mining are an 

important contribution of the mining sector. Estimates of the indirect and induced benefits range from between 

0.2 and 2, meaning every ten jobs in the mining sector creates between two36 and twenty37 additional jobs in 

the local economy. Because of the wide differences in estimates of the additional employment benefits associated 

with mining, this report does not describe secondary and tertiary jobs associated with mining activities. Direct 

employment in coal mining and in coal-fired power generation are presented in order to identify communities 

most dependent on coal mining. 

(36) Dan Black, Terra McKinnish, and Seth Sanders, "The Economic Impact of the Coal Boom and Bust," The 

Economic Journal 115, no. 503 (2005): 449-476. 

(37) National Mining Association, The Economic Contributions of U.S. Mining (2012), (Washington, D.C.: 

National Mining Association, 2014), 

http://www.nma.org/pdf/economic_contributions.pdf (accessed July 18, 2016). 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-24

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Headwaters Economics developed several new tools, utilizing the latest data (through 2014) that can be used to 

understand economic conditions in coal mining regions and to compare coal-dependent counties to other 

western counties with similar characteristics.39 

(39) Chris Mehl, “Know Your Economy: Economic Tools Updated for Every County,” Headwaters Economics 

(blog), December 2015, http://headwaterseconomics.org/economic-development/trendsperformance/insightseconomic-tools-updated/. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-4 

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-785

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal mining generates relatively few jobs when compared to production volume. In 2015, federal coal 

made up 43 percent of total U.S. coal production, but was responsible for only 19 percent of direct coal mining 

jobs.30 

(30) Headwaters Economics analysis of Mine Safety and Health Administration employment and production data. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-5 

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Direct coal mining jobs are concentrated in relatively few Western counties. Of 224 counties that have coal 

mines nationally, 28 counties have coal mines with federal leases. These counties represent less than one percent 

of 3,114 counties (and county equivalents such as Parishes and Boroughs in Louisiana and Alaska, respectively) 

nationally. 

In ten counties, direct employment in coal mining is a significant portion of total employment. Direct coal mining 

jobs in mines with federal leases make up five to fifteen percent of total private and government employment in 

ten counties. In all other counties, direct coal mining jobs make up less than five percent of total employment. 

[See Table 1: Direct Federal and Non-Federal Coal Mining Jobs in 2015] 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-6 

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Direct coal mining jobs are a small share of total employment at a national and a state scale. In the nine states 

that have federal coal leases, coal mining jobs associated with these mines made up 1.6 percent of total 

employment (private and government) in Wyoming and less than 0.3 percent of total employment in all other 

states in 2015.31 

[See Table 2: Direct Coal Mining Jobs as a Percent of Total State Employment in 2015] 

(31) "Regional Economic Accounts," U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/ 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-7 

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The current downturn in production is resulting in job losses in coal mining in the West. Increased competition 

with natural gas and renewable energy sources is resulting in additional job losses in the coal sector. In the last 

year, employees at coal mines have worked 10 million fewer hours, and a total of 16,746 coal mining jobs have 

been lost.33 These declines come on the heels of 22,549 coal mining jobs already lost between the first quarter 

of 2012 and the first quarter of 2015. The West has seen fewer coal mining job losses over time, but the recent 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-786 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

downturn is starting to affect the region. Wyoming has lost 858 coal mining jobs since the second quarter of 

2012, with 343 of these job losses coming in the last year. 

[See Figure 4: Hours Worked by U.S. Coal Miners per Quarter, 2000-2016] 

(33) "Data Sets," U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration. See 10. 

Employment/Production Data Set (Quarterly), 

http://arlweb.msha.gov/OpenGovernmentData/OGIMSHA.asp. 

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-8 

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining communities have different challenges associated with declining coal production. For all coal mining 

communities, continued dependence on natural resources may become increasingly problematic as coal 

production and prices decline and are likely to become more volatile in the future. Declining coal production will 

disproportionately impact rural counties that do not have easy access to major population centers via road travel 

or that lack an educated labor force necessary to compete in the non-resource extraction portions of the U.S. 

economy. Rural counties will have more difficulty diversifying economically and replacing lost coal mining jobs 

with jobs in other sectors.38 

(38) Ray Rasker, Patricia H. Gude, Justin A. Gude, and Jeff Van den Noort, "The economic importance of air 

travel in high-amenity rural areas," Journal of Rural Studies 25, no. 3 (2009): 343-353.

Comment Number: 0002478_Haggerty_20160728_HeadwaterEcon-9 

Organization1:Headwaters Economics 

Commenter1:Mark Haggerty 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal extracted from federal land is an important source of revenue for some states and local governments. Coal 

production in states with federal leases generated $1.2 billion in 2014. The largest source of revenue is federal 

royalties, followed by a host of state production taxes levied directly on coal extraction, and royalties from coal 

extracted from state-owned lands.40 

(40) Mark Haggerty, The Impact of Federal Coal Royalty Reform on Prices, Production, and State Revenue 

(Bozeman, MT: Headwaters Economics, 2015) 

http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp-content/uploads/Report-Coal-Royalty-Reform-Impacts.pdf. 

Federal coal revenue is a relatively larger contribution to state economies compared to employment. Coal 

revenue made up 12.5 percent of total state and local government budgets in Wyoming in 2012 (the latest year 

for which accurate, national data on total state and local government budgets is available). By comparison, coal 

mining jobs made up only 1.8 percent of total employment in 2012. This same relationship holds in the other 

states, although the relative importance of federal coal revenues is significantly lower. In Montana, the state 

where federal coal mining is second most important in terms of its fiscal contributions, federal royalty and state 

taxes on federal coal production add to 1.1 percent of total state and local government revenue. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-52

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-787

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Support communities’ creation of impact mitigation plans. Given the relatively small number of counties and 

communities engaged in mining of federal coal, BLM should work with communities to conduct analyses of the 

socio-economic characteristics of each county in which federal coal is mined. BLM should, among other things, 

use the Economical Profile System (EPS) and produce detailed socioeconomic profiles. (67) BLM should 

incorporate best practices for social impact assessment, including involving potentially affected publics and 

developing mitigation plans. (68) BLM could incorporate transition approaches for affected communities both in 

the PEIS and through targeted RMP amendments or revisions for areas with current mining operations. 

(67) http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system/about/. Last accessed, July 24, 2016 

(68) Jeffrey B. Jacquet, Ph.D., A Short History of Social Impact Assessment, November, 2014. 

http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp-content/uploads/Energy Monitoring SocialImpacts History.pdf 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-53

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 8.9 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Develop a program to hire mine workers for restoration and rehabilitation beyond the mine site. BLM should 

also propose a program to employ the skills of mine workers in restoration and rehabilitation of public lands, 

aimed at both improving resilience of public lands in the face of climate change and their ability to mitigate climate 

change through biological sequestration. 

Over the last several decades, the federal government has invested in programs to address job losses and 

improve environmental conditions in local areas. BLM should look to, learn from, and improve upon past 

examples like the watershed restoration and the “Jobs-in-the-Woods Program” from the 1990s and its 

contemporary incarnations. (69) 

(69) Christopher E. DeForest, 1999. Watershed restoration, jobs-in-the woods, and community assistance: 

Redwood National Park and the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-449. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 31 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr449.pdf. Last accessed, July 26, 2016. See also, Ecotrust, “Investing in 

natural assets for the benefit of communities and salmon” brochure, http://www.ecotrust.org/media/WWRIRestoration-Economy-Brochure.pdf describing current economic benefits of restoration for Oregon 

communities. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-54

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Provide communities a comprehensive review of tools to help diversify their economies. This has been helpful for 

coal-dependent communities—across the country and specifically in the West—to support worker transition and 

to help communities retooling their economies to become more resilient to changing conditions. These tools 

include programs targeted at workers and their families to address economic security (such as job retraining 

programs (71), ensuring health and retirement security), local government (such as providing local infrastructure 

(72)), rural 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-788 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

school improvement (73), small business support, repurposing mine lands, and infrastructure programs. (74) 

(71) Such as retaining programs in Kentucky (http://www.jobsight.org/jobseeker/coalminers) and West Virginia 

(http://workforcewv.org/job-seekers/training/laid-off-coal-miners.html). Last accessed, July 24, 2016. 

(72) For example, see efforts to expand broad band internet access in Colorado’s Delta County. 

http://www.region10.net/regional-development/broadband/. Last accessed, July 24, 2016. See also National 

Association of Counties’ Coal-Reliant Communities Innovation Challenge. 

http://www.naco.org/resources/programs-and-initiatives/coal-reliant-communities-innovation-challenge and 

http://diversifyeconomies.org/. Last accessed July 24, 2016. 

(73) See http://ieefa.org/invest-struggling-coal-industry-communities-let-us-count-ways/. Last accessed July 24, 

2016.

(74) See also Adele C. Morris, “Build a Better Future for Coal Workers and their Communities,” The Brookings 

Institution, Washington, D.C., APRIL 25, 2016. 

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2016/04/25-coal-workers-morris/build-a-better-futurefor-coal-workers-and-their-communities-morris-updated-071216.pdf. Last accessed, July 24, 2016. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-90

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Communities that are largely dependent on mining publicly-owned coal are already feeling the impacts of 

structural changes in the coal industry. Compared to 2008, coal production in the Powder River Basin was down 

by 19 percent in 2015, a decrease of nearly one-fifth in just eight years. Across ETA’s Western Region, where 

most federally-owned coal is located, over the same period coal mining jobs went from 15,177 down to 14,100, a 

seven percent decrease. Colorado has lost roughly 320 coal mining jobs since January 2015, or 20 percent of jobs 

at mines. (62) Workers and their families have borne the brunt of these changes, losing jobs, facing unmet 

healthcare needs and dealing with the emotional impacts of suffering dramatic changes to their lives and those of 

their neighbors. 

(62) Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 

Monthly Coal Summary Reports, http://mining.state.co.us/Reports/Reports/Pages/Coal.aspx. Last accessed July 26, 

2016. See also, http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/14/collapse-of-colorado-coal-industry-leaves-mining-townsunsure-whats-next/. 

Going forward, coal-dependent communities in the West will continue to experience declines in employment and 

revenue. ETA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2016 (AEO2016) reference case projects that coal production in the 

Western Region will fall by 155 million tons between 2015 and 2040. (63) These changes have occurred without 

any significant new policies or regulations specific to the federal coal program, driven by gains in productivity and 

loss of market share to natural gas and renewable energy. 

(63) http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26992 

The federal coal program should help communities become more resilient to the accelerating changes in the coal 

sector. A significant part of federal coal program reform and the PEIS should include taking action to address 

current job losses and mine closures and create more resilient economies in future. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-789

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-91

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the West, some 45 mines with federal coal leases are spread across 27 counties in seven states. (64) The 

degree to which different counties and communities depend on coal varies, but all are reliant on coal mining for 

jobs, taxes, and federal royalties to a significant extent. Counties where coal-fired power plants are located at the 

mouth of the coal mine or where coal mines supply coal to only one nearby power plant are more economically 

dependent on the coal industry. Prime examples include Moffat and Routt Counties in Colorado, Emery County 

in Utah, and Campbell, Lincoln, and Sweetwater Counties in Wyoming. (65) 

(64) Colorado, 7 counties; Montana, 5 counties; North Dakota, 4 counties; New Mexico, 2 counties; Utah, 3 

counties; Washington, 1 county; Wyoming, 5 counties. Based on data from MSHA BLM Coal Mine Crosswalk 

Feb. 3, 2015. Pers. Comm. From Mark Haggerty, Headwaters Economics, July 15, 2016. 

(65) Form EIA-923 detailed data, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/. Last accessed, July 22, 2016. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-92

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As BLM reviews socio-economic impacts of federal coal leasing and development, it should consider the positive 

and negative impacts of continued economic reliance of local communities on coal extraction. Some research has 

shown that dependence on coal adversely affects non-coal employment in places like Appalachia. (66) They found 

that high levels of coal employment are associated with lower levels of entrepreneurship and higher levels of 

migration out of Appalachian regions as coal crowds out other types of businesses. Prolonging coal employment 

may actually slow the transition to other economic activities and reduce long-term economic growth. 

(66) Michael R. Betz, Mark D. Partridge, Michael Farren, Linda Lobao, Coal mining, economic development, and 

the natural resources curse, Energy Economics, Volume 50, July 2015, Pages 105–116. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-93

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Explore changes to revenue sharing statutes to improve community access to funding for local schools and other 

community priorities. Headwaters Economics and others have proposed changing the formula through which the 

federal Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program functions so that the size and relative distribution of federal 

payments to counties is less directly tied to the specific source of revenue. This would create a framework that 

can accommodate new dedicated funding streams from public lands from various sources, such as increased fossil 

fuel royalties, new leasing fees or a carbon tax. (70) It could also provide more stable funding for local schools in 

vulnerable communities. Though such an approach would require federal legislation, the PEIS could propose and 

analyze such an option. 

(70) Testimony of Mark Haggerty, Headwaters Economics March 19, 2013, Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee Hearing on PILT and SRS Reauthorization and Reform. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-790 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=4cf8ec04-5477-4c03-87f5-b0eb29ea6e26. Last 

accessed July 24, 2016. 

Comment Number: 0002484_Ross_20160728_PLS-1 

Organization1:Public Land Solutions 

Commenter1:Katie Ross 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Many gateway communities across the West currently depend significantly on resource extraction industries to 

support local government and public needs. However, there are also increasingly more communities that are 

beginning to invest in more sustainable economic drivers, such as outdoor recreation and protecting the quality 

of life in a rural community. Unlike the rollercoaster commodities market represented by oil, gas and coal 

development, recreation remains relatively stable, has experienced explosive growth in the last decade, and as an 

economic sector significantly outperformed resource extraction during the Recession of 2008 in many places. 

Comment Number: 0002487_Clarke_20160728_UtahGovOffice-3 

Organization1:Utah Office of the Governor 

Commenter1:Kathleen Clarke 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A recent study by independent economists commissioned by the Governor's Office of Energy Development, 

found that Utah's coal-mining industry contributed $887 million dollars in 2013 to Utah's economy, including 

$173 million dollars in labor income.3 Utah's coal economy is especially important to rural Utah, providing 

roughly 2,000 direct high-paying jobs, and a fundamental part of the tax base of several rural counties.4 Wages in 

the coal industry are, on average, 211 percent of the state average.5 Without coal and the high-quality jobs it 

supports, many of Utah's rural communities will decline significantly or disappear. 

(3) 2015 Report by Applied Analysis. Accessed July 28, 2016. http: //energy.utah.gov/wpcontent/ 

uploads/UtahsEnergyEconomy Econom icI mpactAssessment.20 15 .compressed.pdf 

(4) 2014 Utah State Tax Commission RepOlt on Property Tax. 

(5) Utah Department of Workforce Services data for NAICS categories analyzed by the Utah Office of Energy 

Development. 

Comment Number: 0002487_Clarke_20160728_UtahGovOffice-7 

Organization1:Utah Office of the Governor 

Commenter1:Kathleen Clarke 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Utah's efficient power plants supply Utah with affordable and reliable energy which supports Utah's dynamic 

economy. Over seventy percent of Utah's power is generated from coal mined in Utah. According to the Energy 

Information Administration, Utah's average price of electricity over all sectors is 8.7 cents per kWh, significantly 

lower than the national average of 10.06 cents per kWh.6 These low power prices support Utah's economy at all 

levels, including residential, commercial and industrial. 

(6) Energy Information Administration power pricing tables. Accessed July 28, 2016. 

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm table grapher.cfrn?t=epmt 5 6 a 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-791

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002487_Clarke_20160728_UtahGovOffice-8 

Organization1:Utah Office of the Governor 

Commenter1:Kathleen Clarke 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In an era of rapidly changing energy systems, electricity produced by coal has provided the foundation for building 

a robust and diversified energy economy in Utah and the country. Needlessly restricting coal production has 

direct impacts to Utah's coal fleet. The result is conditions that can both increase prices and reduce resiliency of 

the industry. The benefits of a diversified energy fleet are well understood, and actions to restrict diversity can 

lead to increased costs without realizing any associated benefits. 

Additionally, the coal industry in Utah is largely supported through the BLM's coal-leasing program. Continuing 

this program without unwarranted restriction is crucial to the vitality of Utah's coal industry. Eighty-three 

percent of Utah coal is produced from federal land. In 2014, Utah coal produced on federal lands had a total sales 

value of over $570 million and generated royalty revenues in excess of $41 million.7 BLM must lift the coal lease 

moratorium during the programmatic review to prevent further harm and destabilization to the coal industry 

Utah's economy. 

(7) Utah's Energy Landscape, 4th Edition, Utah Geologic Survey, Michael Vanden Berg. 

Comment Number: 0002487_Clarke_20160728_UtahGovOffice-9 

Organization1:Utah Office of the Governor 

Commenter1:Kathleen Clarke 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is generally a more price stable fuel source than natural gas.8 A study on the nation's fuel diversity for 

generating power found that reductions in coal utilization would cost the U.S. economy more than $93 billion 

dollars a year.9 Unfortunately, despite these significant costs, the BLM's coal moratorium and review are unlikely 

to result in any additional revenues or benefits to the American people. 

(8) Energy Information Administration, "Today in Energy", March 16,2016. 

(9) IHS Energy Study, The Diversity of United States Power Supply Could be Significantly Reduced in Coming 

Decades. 

Accessed July 28, 2016. http://press. ih s.com/press-release/energy-power-medialihs-study-di versity-united-statespowersupply-could-be-sign ificant 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-4 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (hereinafter RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) requires BLM to analyze adequately the impacts of its proposals on small 

entities. BLM must ensure that while conducting review of the Federal Coal Program (hereinafter Coal Program) 

that adverse impacts to small businesses as a result of Coal Program reform are considered. As BLM discovered 

in Northwest Mining Association v. Babbitt, 5 F.Supp.2d 9 (D.D.C. 1998), failure to comply with the RFA and 

SBREFA will invalidate a rulemaking. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-792 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-13

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As currently managed, the federal coal program provides significant benefits to the American people. Not only 

does federal coal production provide substantial revenue to federal, state, and local governments, but it also 

provides high-paying jobs to hardworking coal miners and other employees in industries tied to coal extraction, 

transportation, and combustion. The continued leasing and development of federal coal also plays an important 

role in America’s energy portfolio by ensuring a safe, reliable, and cost-effective domestic energy source that 

provides America with greater energy independence from foreign sources. Any proposed change to the federal 

coal program that discourages coal production will harm these important domestic interests. 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-16

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In recent years, several economic factors have adversely impacted the U.S. coal industry. With the increase of 

low-priced natural gas, the demand for coal in the United States has declined over the past several years. The 

U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) estimates that the use of coal to generate electricity in the United 

States has decreased 29% between 2007 and 2015. Attachment 2, U.S. EIA, “Power Sector Coal Demand Has 

Fallen in Nearly Every State Since 2007” (Apr. 28, 2016). In turn, coal production has also declined. According to

the EIA, coal production in the first three months of 2016 constituted the lowest levels since the second quarter 

of 1981. Attachment 3, U.S. EIA, “Quarterly Coal Production Lowest Since the Early 1980s” (June 10, 2016). In 

the first quarter of 2016, the Powder River Basin saw the largest decline in coal production—in both tonnage and 

percentage—from the previous quarter. Id. Moreover, the U.S. EIA projects that coal production will continue to 

decrease by more than 100 million short tons in 2016, which would constitute the largest decrease in coal 

production since the beginning of data collection in 1949. Attachment 4, U.S. EIA, “Short-Term Energy Outlook” 

(July 12, 2016). 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-17

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The table below illustrates the current economic burdens on Cloud Peak Energy (see next page): 

Table 1 – Cloud Peak Energy Economic Burdens 

(All $ in thousands) 2013 2014 2015 Total 3 Year Average 

Total Gross Revenue 1,396,097 1,324,004 1,124,111 3,844,212 1,281,404 

Total Payments to 

Federal, 

State, and 

Local Governments(1) 439,000 423,000 372,000 1,234,000 411,333 

Government Payments 

as a Percentage of 

Total Gross Revenue 31.4% 31.9% 33.1% – 32.1% 

Net Income (Loss) 51,971 78,960 (204,900) (73,969) – 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-793

Scoping Report 

To further illustrate, the following is an illustrative breakdown of the royalties, taxes, and production costs 

assessed on a single ton of July 2016 Powder River Basin coal: 

Table 2 – Taxes, Royalties, and Production Costs Per Ton of PRB Coal 

Spot Price— July 2016 PRB Coal (8800 Btu) $8.78 

Federal Royalty (12.5%) ($1.10) 

Abandoned Mine Lands Tax (3.19%) ($0.28) 

Black Lung Tax (4.21%) ($0.37) 

Bonus Bid Payment(2) (11.39%) ($1.00) 

State Severance Tax (5.24%) ($0.46) 

County Ad Valorem Tax (4.33%) ($0.38) 

Total Taxes and Royalties = ($3.59) 

Illustrative Cash Cost of Production ($6.75) 

Loss: ($1.56) 

(1) These amounts represent the accrued federal bonus payments and royalties and production-related taxes, as 

well as property, sales, and payroll taxes payable on 2013, 2014, and 2015 operations, respectively. This differs 

from the amounts actually paid in 2013, 2014, and 2015, which would have included payments for operations in 

other years. 

(2) The bonus bid payment reflects the average bonus bid received on the last ten federal coal lease sales in the 

southern Powder River Basin from 2008 to 2012. 

Finally, the United States government receives a far higher rate of return than any other country involved in the 

production of coal: 

Table 3 – Comparative Global Coal Royalty Rates(3) 

Country Surface Royalties Total Royalties, Taxes, and Other Governmental Fees 

Australia 8.2% 8% - 12.5% 

India 6.0% 6% - 14% 

China 0.5% - 4% 4% - 14% 

Republic of 

South Africa 0.5% - 7% 0.5% - 7% 

Colombia 5% - 10% Less than 10% 

Canada 4% - 15% 4% - 15% 

United States 12.5% Federal 32% - 42% Federal 

5% - 8% Private 5% - 20% Private 

(3) Information compiled from the World Coal Association, the National Coal Council, and the National Mining 

Association 

Comment Number: 0002490_Emrich_20160728_CloudPeakEnergy-42

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Inc. 

Commenter1:Andrew C. Emrich, P.C. 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal production on federal lands also provides high-paying jobs and related economic benefits to state and local 

communities. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, coal mining employed nearly 90,000 individuals in 2012. 

Id. As of May 2014, it was estimated that coal mining provided 74,000 direct jobs in the United States. Id. Of 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-794 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

those direct jobs, it was estimated that approximately 6,500 of those jobs were located in the State of Wyoming 

with an average salary of $82,000 before benefits. Id.; Attachment 6, Wyoming Mining Association, “Coal’s 

Economic Impact.” The average salary of an employee in the Wyoming coal industry is nearly twice the statewide 

salary average. Attachment 6, Wyoming Mining Association, “Coal’s Economic Impact.” 

Comment Number: 0002491_Weiskopf_20160728_NextGenClimateAmer-112

Organization1:NextGen Climate America 

Commenter1:David Weiskopf 

Other Sections: 1 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Emissions associated with the coal leasing program impair the public interest through the health and welfare costs 

of air pollution and climate change. Of total nationwide emissions in 2013, 36% came from electric power 

generation, of which 76% was from coal combustion, of which 41% was from coal produced from federal lands.22 

A recent study by PSE Healthy Energy concludes that communities living near coal power plants are at higher risk 

of developing adverse health impacts. Emissions from coal combustion in Pennsylvania and Ohio caused more 

than 4,333 premature deaths nationwide in 2015 alone.23These premature deaths and illnesses also generated 

nearly $38 billion in health impacts.24 The per-capita impacts were most concentrated in areas near to and 

downwind of coal power plants – areas with higher than average concentrations of minority and/or low-income 

residents. By failing to consider these health effects, BLM misses the opportunity to interpret the public interest 

in a way that serves Americans. 

[22 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013 

(April 15, 2015).] 

[23 This figure compiles the health burdens from Ohio and Pennsylvania power plants' fine particle pollution, with 

2,133 adult deaths in Ohio and 2,300 adult deaths in Pennsylvania (4,333 total) from coal and gas plants 

combined. Of these totals, 2,088 and 2,263, respectively, were attributable to coal power plants in each state. 

Krieger, E, et al., “The Clean Power Plan in Pennsylvania Analyzing power generation for health and equity,” June 

2016. Available at https://nextgenamerica.org/news-reports/our-air-pa-technical/ at viii; Krieger, E, et al., “Our 

Air: Healthy and Equity Impacts of Ohio’s Power Plants,” June 2016. Available at 

https://nextgenamerica.org/news-reports/our-air-ohio/ at 6. Supplemental data specific to coal plants courtesy of 

the report’s author.]

[24 Id.] 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-35

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Wyoming relies heavily on its mineral wealth to support public education. Beginning in 1995 the State evaluated 

the needs of school facilities in all school districts across the state to determine how to provide adequate school 

facilities to all school districts whether they are large or small, urban or rural. A change in law resulting from the 

school finance litigation cases, known collectively as the Campbell cases, resulted in financial responsibility for 

capital construction being vested with the State, not local school districts. In 2001 the State created the School 

Facilities Commission to determine school facilities conditions and needs and to implement facilities remedies; 

counting on the State’s mineral wealth and more specifically coal lease bonuses to fund the maintenance, 

renovation and construction of schools. In 2011 the State created the School Facilities Department to work with 

local school districts to administer the program for improving school facilities; again counting on coal lease 

bonuses to fund the maintenance, renovation and construction of schools. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-795

Scoping Report 

Since 2001 Wyoming has renovated/modernized 35 schools, constructed 75 new schools and established funding 

of a uniform major maintenance program for all school districts. In addition, there are 31 new schools and 6 

additions/renovations currently being designed or under construction. On average, approximately $217 million 

Dollars per year has been appropriated by the State legislature for the period 2003-2017. Projections of future 

funding for school facility improvements because of a drop in coal lease bonus payments, decrease to 

approximately $17 million Dollars for 2018. Further projections indicate that there will be no available funds 

beyond 2018. While the need for additional school facilities improvements has been identified as well as the need 

for an ongoing major maintenance program for the foreseeable future, currently there is no funding mechanism in 

place to continue the Wyoming school facilities program. 

Wyoming’s school facility improvement program has played a major role in the State's planning, design, and 

construction industry. It has been a catalyst to create job opportunities and support a diversification of 

employment within the industry and across the State. The diversification of employment has been a welcome 

opportunity for a State whose economy is overwhelmingly dependent on agriculture, minerals, and tourism. 

The BLM must analyze the impacts to Wyoming's education system and its ability to meet the needs of students 

and communities along with the associated impact to the construction industry that will result from any 

reduction, significant modification or elimination of the coal leasing program. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-36

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage and salary covered payroll is the single largest component of gross state 

product and represents a key component of Wyoming's contribution to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. In the 

fourth quarter of2015, the total UI covered payroll for the state was $3.4 billion. One of Wyoming’s few base 

export industries, private sector coal production, accounted for 4..2% of total payroll and 2.3% (6,515 jobs) of all 

wage and salary covered jobs. Clearly, this industry is an important component of Wyoming's labor market. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-37

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Table 4.2.1 summarizes the overall impact of the loss of 600 jobs in the mining industry. The direct effect on 

employment with a loss of 600 jobs is a loss of an additional 537 jobs lost (221 indirect and 316 induced). 

Collectively, this results in a total job loss of 1,137 jobs and a decrease in total economic output of nearly $357 

million per year. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-38

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to the Wyoming Legislative Service Office, each one million ton decrease in coal sold equates to a 

$1,800,000 reduction in state collected revenue. See Wyoming Legislative Service Office 2015 Budget Fiscal Data 

Book. [14] (WY0-04040 to 04173).This immediate reduction in revenue resulted in cuts across state and local 

government. Wyoming has lost over 1,300 jobs in the coal industry over the past year and the secondary impacts 

of this decrease in personal income are just beginning. Creating further uncertainty in the future of coal in the 

energy portfolio will accelerate the downward momentum of Wyoming's economy. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-796 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-58

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM should also consider the direct and indirect benefits of federal coal use including the benefits of affordable, 

reliable energy to health, lifespan, safety, and housing stability, vulnerable populations such as the elderly and low 

income, the economy, income, employment rates, jobs and vulnerable communities. See The Social Costs of 

Carbon? No, the Social Benefits of Carbon, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (Jan. 2014); (WY0-

01827 to 02011); The Global Value of Coal, Coal Industry Advisory Board, International Energy Agency (2012); 

(WY0-02013 to 02051); The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide: Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising 

Atmospheric C02 Concentrations on Global Food Production, Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., Center for the Study of 

Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (Oct. 21, 2013); (WY0-02053 to 02082). 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-72

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM must consider the potential impacts to all sources of revenue from coal mining activities including those 

on federal payroll and income taxes. The replacement of high paying jobs in the mining sector with lower paying 

careers impacts federal tax receipts through lower Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), federal and state 

income taxes. For example, in one published case, a laid off coal miner found new employment as a prison guard. 

Davenport, C, As Wind Power Lifts Wyoming Fortunes, Coal Miners Are Left in the Dust , The New York 

Times (June 19, 2016).[2] In 2015, according to the Wyoming Mining Association the average salary for a coal 

miner was $83,594 and Bureau of Labor Statistics data states the median salary for a correctional officer was 

$40,580. See Wyoming Coal Information Committee, The 2015-16 Concise Guide to Wyoming Coal (August, 

2015); [3] (WY0.:.03521 to 03528); and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Correctional Officers and Bailiffs (Dec. 17, 

2015); [4] (WY0-03530 to 03531). In this - instance, the lost taxable wages would be $43,014, a loss of over 51%. 

This reduction in salary could also lead to the individual dropping into a lower IRS tax bracket, costing the federal 

government additional revenue. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-75

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Wyoming School Foundation Program (Foundation Program) guarantees local school districts the necessary 

instructional and operational resources to provide each Wyoming student with an equal opportunity to receive a 

proper education. The Foundation Program is overwhelmingly dependent on the mineral industry for revenue. 

FMR from the production of minerals on federal land, most notably coal, make up a significant portion of the 

revenue to the School Foundation Program Account (SFPA). The amount the SFPA receives is dependent upon 

the actual mineral production and the state distribution policy. In total, FMRs account for approximately 23% of 

revenue to the SFPA. The impact of the moratorium and the BLM PEIS will result in fewer FMRs to the SFPA and 

shrinking enrollment in impacted districts. 

The School Foundation Funding guarantee is based on a number of factors, the most important of which is the 

number of students enrolled in the district. Any future changes in the federal coal leasing program that would 

lead to the loss of job opportunities and the decline in families with school-aged children in areas with high 

activity in coal extraction will result in a reduction in K-12 funding for the impacted school districts. The loss of 

even a small number of students could have a significant impact on local school district resources and the ability 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-797

Scoping Report 

to deliver educational services. The BLM must consider how its actions will impact Wyoming's Foundation 

Program under any scenario considered in the PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-80

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is also important for BLM to consider, as part of the PEIS process, the economic stimulus generated by supply 

chain spending and the geographical extent of expenditures by Wyoming coal companies for supplies and 

services. This includes expenditures on freight, consulting and contractor services, support services and 

equipment and other supply-chain spending. Id at p. II; (WY0-02098). In 2008, these expenditures totaled 

$2,272.54 million. Id. at p. 13; (WY0-2100). The geographical extent of expenditures associated with Wyoming 

coal production is illustrated in Figure 4.3.2. (Id 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-81

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to losses in income and total output, there are also tax impacts at the federal, state and local levels to 

consider. Table 4.2.3 displays the impact on federal tax revenue. Across all categories, federal tax revenue is 

projected to fall by $28.6 million per year. Social security contributions will decrease by nearly $9.5 million per 

year while personal income tax will decrease by $7.7 million per year. At the state and local level (Table 4.2.4) 

tax revenues are projected to drop by over $37 million per year. Taxes on production and imports accounts for 

$36.3 million of this loss in revenue 

Comment Number: 0002494_Smyth_20160728-2 

Commenter1:Joe Smyth 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future—especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels. 

We do them no favor when we don’t show them where the trends are going. That’s why I’m going to push to 

change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on 

taxpayers and on our planet. 

In a speech presenting her energy vision, Interior Secretary Jewell sought input on how we can manage federal 

coal “in a way that is consistent with our climate change objectives?” (3)

(3) https://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/secretaryjewelloffersvisionforbalancedprosperousenergyfuture 

Comment Number: 0002497_Johnson_20160728-1 

Commenter1:Kristine Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal miners need to be nimble, learn new trades and not expect that they are owed jobs from a dying industry. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-2 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 1 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-798 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal coal program, however, is doing more than just damaging our climate. Facing declining demand, the 

consequences of chronically poor business decisions, and increased competition from cleaner sources of energy, 

the coal industry is now in the midst of one of the most significant job killing and downsizing sprees in history, 

firing thousands of workers and leaving communities hanging. 

In the past year, the first, second, and fourth largest coal companies, Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, and Alpha 

Natural Resources, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in federal court. (12) All three of these companies have 

major mining operations in the western United States and rely heavily on federal coal to sustain their businesses. 

Further, in the western United States, more than 2,600 jobs have been lost in the coal industry since 2012. (13) 

In the wake of the industry’s collapse, coal-dependent communities are struggling to stay afloat, with revenues 

declining and putting even local schools at risk. (14) Not surprisingly, coal production rates are hitting historic 

lows, particularly in the western United States. 

(12) For information on Alpha Natural Resources bankruptcy, see 

http://www.kccllc.net/alpharestructuring. For information on Arch Coal’s bankruptcy, see 

http://www.archcoal.com/restructuring/. For information on Peabody Energy’s bankruptcy, see 

http://www.kccllc.net/peabody. 

(13) See Blankenbuehler, P., “By the numbers: western coal mine layoffs,” High Country News (July 6, 2016), 

available online at https://www.hcn.org/articles/western-coal-miner-layoffs. 

(14) See e.g. Finley, B., “Coal giant’s hiccup causes turmoil and dependent Colorado towns,” Denver Post (June 

23, 2016), available online at http://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/23/coal-giants-hiccup-causes-turmoil-independent-colorado-towns/. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-4 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Other Sections: 4.5 2 8.1 8.7 8.5 7.1 8.9 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

2. Just Transition Alternative 

The “Just Transition Alternative” is meant to both wind down the federal coal program in order to keep fossil 

fuels in the ground and to ensure an orderly, effective, and fair transition of workers and communities away from 

coal to more prosperous and sustainable economies. The “Just Transition Alternative” is defined by the following 

key components: 

1. An end to federal coal leasing: Consistent with authorities and discretion under the Mineral Leasing Act, the 

Just Transition Alternative imposes a permanent pause on the leasing of federal coal. The primary basis for 

adopting this permanent pause would be to ensure the protection of the public interest and the interests of the 

United States. Such justification for an end to leasing is clearly supported by the Mineral Leasing Act. 

This pause would apply to all competitive leases (including all leases by application, including emergency leases, as 

defined by 43 C.F.R. § 3425.1-4) and lease modifications. We further believe there is ample justification for 

applying a permanent pause to other forms of non-competitive leasing, such as preference right lease applications 

and lease exchanges. With regards to lease exchanges, the BLM has clear authority to reject exchanges that are 

not in the “public interest.” 43 C.F.R. § 3435.4(a); see also 43 C.F.R. § 3436.0-2(b) (related to alluvial valley floor 

exchanges) and 43 C.F.R. § 2200.0-6 (generally related to exchanges). With regards to preference right lease 

applications, the BLM has the authority to reject such applications where there does not exist “commercial 

quantities” of coal. 43 C.F.R. § 3430.5¬1(a)(1). Given the dismal state of the coal industry and the overwhelming 

climate costs that coal imposes on society, it would be dubious at best to claim that any commercial quantities of 

coal exist where there are preference right lease applications. Accordingly, the BLM has the authority to reject 

such applications. (20) 

Furthermore, to ensure an orderly end to federal coal leasing, the BLM and the Department of the Interior 

should issue a rule or guidance requiring that as land management planning is undertaken pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 

1610, et seq., that all lands within a resource management area that are not currently leased for coal, be made 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-799

Scoping Report 

unavailable for leasing. The authority to impose such direction is set forth at 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e), which gives 

the BLM broad discretion to “eliminate additional coal deposits from consideration to protect other resource 

values.” 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e)(3). 

(20) The only preference right lease applications that exist are in northwestern New Mexico, where Arch Coal, 

which is currently bankrupt, has the rights to acquire 21,000 acres of leases. Legislation was introduced in the 

U.S. House of Representatives that would allow the Secretary to retire these preference right lease applications. 

See HR-1820, available online at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1820/text. If this 

legislation is passed, there would be no additional preference right lease applications requiring action. We 

support this legislation and urge the Secretary of the Interior to encourage its passage in the U.S. Senate and 

adoption into law. 

Putting a permanent pause on leasing will not destroy the U.S. economy or otherwise endanger our energy 

security. As a recent report looking at leasing in the Powder River Basin found, existing leased reserves in the 

Powder River Basin are sufficient to meet demand and effectively contribute to limiting temperature increases. 

(21) This report is instructive as the Powder River Basin is the largest coal producing region in the United States 

and imposes the greatest influence on energy supply and demand in the nation. If an end to federal leasing can be 

justified in the Powder River Basin, it can be justified for federal leasing elsewhere in the U.S. 

21 See Exhibit 11, Fulton, M., D. Koplow, R. Capalino, and A. Grant, “Enough Already: Meeting 2oC PRB Coal 

Demand Without Lifting the Federal Moratorium,” Report Prepared for Energy Transition Advisors, Earth Track, 

and Carbon Tracker Initiative (July 2016), available online at http://www.carbontracker.org/report/enoughalready-2c-powder-river-basin-coal-demand-federal-moratorium/. 

2. Increased royalty rates and rentals: Coal is exacting a tremendous toll on our nation, costing our society 

billions in climate damages, adverse health impacts from air pollution, and water contamination. Royalty rates 

from production on existing coal leases and rentals on existing leases must be increased to begin to recoup the 

costs of these externalities, which are currently shouldered by the public. 

Although royalty rates are normally imposed through new leasing, we recommend that the Interior Department 

and BLM incorporate higher royalty rates into existing leases as existing leases are readjusted pursuant to 43 

C.F.R. § 3451.1. To accomplish this, we urge the amendment of 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-2(a)(1) and (2) to incorporate 

increased royalty rates for both surface and underground mining. As leases are readjusted, these royalty rates 

must be applied to existing leases pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3451.1(a)(2). 

Increasing royalty rates has been recommended by the White House as both a means to generate revenue and 

address the costs of environmental externalities, including carbon costs. (22) 

(22) See Exhibit 12, Executive Office of the President of the United States, “The Economics of Coal Leasing on 

Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers” (June 2016), available online at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160622_cea_coal_leasing.pdf. 

Furthermore, royalty rate reductions should not be approved. Currently, royalty rate reductions are routinely 

granted as companies claim poverty or difficulty in mining with little apparent scrutiny as to whether the 

reductions are justified. In Colorado, for example, BLM officials have approved royalty rate reductions to facilitate 

methane venting and most recently proposed to approve a retroactive royalty rate reduction for a mine that was 

not even producing coal. (23) See Exhibits 13 and 14. 

Similarly, we urge Interior and BLM to amend 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-1(a) to raise rental rates for federal coal leases. 

Currently, rental rates are set at $3.00 per acre, a figure that has not been adjusted since 1979, if not earlier. This 

rental rate not only has failed to be adjusted to account for inflation, but fails to account for the fact that some 

leases may be of small acreage, yet yield significant amounts of coal. Rentals should reflect the value of the lease, 

which depends on the amount of coal a lease contains. In accordance with 43 C.F.R. § 3473.3-1(a), any increased 

rental rate must be applied to any readjusted coal lease. 

3. Existing leases that are not producing must be canceled: Where a lease is not meeting continued operation 

requirements under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.1(a)(2), it is subject to cancellation pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3452.2. Where a 

lease is not meeting continued operation requirements, BLM and the Interior Department should make clear that 

cancellation of the lease must be pursued. To this end, discretionary avenues for avoiding cancellation should be 

prohibited. Thus, lease suspensions under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.3 and payment of advanced royalties in lieu of 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-800 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

continued operation under 43 C.F.R. § 3483.4 should be barred. 

The justification for imposing such direction is very clear. Currently, BLM regularly grants lease suspensions and 

allows payment of royalties in lieu of continued operation with no assessment of whether such actions are 

appropriate or in the public interest. BLM appears to be under the impression that lease suspensions or advanced 

royalties are somehow mandated, and that the agency has no choice but to approve company requests. An 

egregious example of this is with regards to Arch Coal’s Carbon Basin Lease in southern Wyoming (No. WYW139975). Arch acquired this lease with the aim of developing a mine to fuel a proposed coal to liquids facility. 

However, this coal to liquids facility has never materialized or even shown any promise of materializing. Most 

recently, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality terminated the permit for the proposed facility. 

(24) Nevertheless, since 2010, Arch has failed to meet continued operation requirements. The BLM has allowed 

Arch to maintain its lease, however, by routinely allowing the company to pay advanced royalties in lieu of 

continued operation. (25) These decisions appear to be pro forma in nature, and do not reflect any consideration 

as to whether it is appropriate or remotely in the public interest to accept advance royalties in lieu of continued 

operation. 

(24) See Exhibit 15, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, “Permit Termination, Medicine Bow Fuel 

and Power Coal to Liquid Project” (June 27, 2016).

(25) See Exhibit 16. 

Furthermore, where an existing lease is not producing, yet is part of a producing logical mining unit, BLM and the 

Interior Department should use their discretion to modify the boundaries of logical mining units to eliminate the 

non-producing lease and facilitate its cancellation. BLM has such discretion under 43 C.F.R. § 3478.1. 

Cancelling leases that are not producing will serve the goal of preventing any potential future development of 

existing leases and contribute to an orderly end to the federal coal program. 

4. Accounting for carbon costs in coal management: It should be made clear, whether through new rules or 

guidance, that carbon costs must be analyzed, assessed and disclosed as federal coal management decisions are 

made. Such decisions are most likely to include mining plan modifications issued pursuant to the Mineral Leasing 

Act, 30 U.S.C. § 207(c), and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (“SMCRA”), 30 C.F.R. § 746, and 

lease readjustments. It is imperative that the BLM and Interior maintain close accounting of the carbon emissions 

and costs resulting from its coal management actions, to ensure full transparency around these emissions and 

costs, and to meaningfully act to address these emissions and costs. Particularly given that, pursuant to authorities 

under the Mineral Leasing Act and SMCRA, the Secretary of the Interior has full discretion to disapprove mining 

plans authorizing the development of leased federal coal, it is imperative that carbon emissions and costs factor 

into and influence such decisionmaking. 

5. Reclamation must be guaranteed: To ensure an orderly end to the federal coal program, full and final 

reclamation must be guaranteed within a reasonable timeframe. We urge two regulatory changes to ensure this 

occurs. 

First, Interior should amend regulations at 30 C.F.R. §§ 816.100 and 817.100 to provide clarification and 

specificity around contemporaneous reclamation. Current rules are vague and fail to ensure that reclamation 

proceeds in a manner that is as “contemporaneously as possible” with mining in accordance with 30 U.S.C. § 

1202(e). These regulations should be amended to make clear that the success of contemporaneous reclamation 

must be measured based on a comparison of Phase III bond release acres, as defined under 30 C.F.R. 

§ 800.40(c)(3), with disturbed acres and ensure that reclamation proceeds at a 1:1 rate, in other words for every 

acre disturbed, one acre should be fully reclaimed to meet Phase III bond release standards. 

Second, just as current BLM rules require diligent development of federal coal, these rules should also require 

diligent reclamation. To this end, Interior and BLM should consider rule changes to ensure that nonproducing 

coal leases are fully reclaimed within two years of failing to meet continued operation requirements and set 

deadlines for the full reclamation of federal coal leases that are no later than 2035. This reclamation deadline 

should be established by rule and incorporated into lease terms as leases are readjusted. 

Finally, Interior should amend self-bonding regulations at 30 C.F.R. § 800.23, and any other regulations, as 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-801

Scoping Report 

appropriate, to prohibit self-bonding whenever publicly owned coal is permitted to be mined. This will ensure 

that, as coal companies continue their decline, that American public resources are fully protected and fully 

guaranteed to be cleaned up. 

6. Prioritizing transition: Above all, the BLM and Interior must make transition away from coal a foremost goal as 

the federal coal program comes to an end. To do this, the agencies should not only explicitly commit, to the 

extent possible, their leadership, resources, and expertise to ensure that workers and communities receive the 

support and assistance they need to transition to more sustainable and prosperous economies. Among the 

actions that Interior and BLM can and should undertake to ensure transition: 

-Work to secure Congressional authorization to direct increased royalty and rental payments toward worker 

and community support. Under NEPA, agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate 

reasonable alternatives “not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(c). Here, although 

BLM and Interior may not be able to direct royalties toward transition support, they can recommend that 

Congress pass legislation that provides such authorization. 

-Establishing an Economic Transition Fund, which would be sustained by an increase in reimbursement fees 

charged by the Interior Department when processing coal-related applications. Under the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (“FLPMA”), Interior has authority to recover reasonable costs associated with its coal 

management program and to appropriate and spend such monies. Specifically, FLPMA provides the Secretary of 

the Interior with authority to “require a deposit of any payments intended to reimburse the United States for 

reasonable costs with respect to applications,” including coal lease application. See 43 U.S.C. § 1734(b). Such 

payments are “authorized to be appropriated and made available until expended” by FLPMA. Id. Funds from the 

Economic Transition Fund should be directed toward transition-oriented initiatives. 

-Prioritizing support and assistance to help communities transition. In addition to securing funds and making them 

available, the Department of the Interior can play a key role in helping direct communities to support, steering 

resources to support conservation and research projects in or near communities, encouraging renewable energy 

development on public lands. Such leadership could be conveyed through a Secretarial Order that simply makes it 

an overarching priority of the Interior Department to advance transition 

Overall, the Interior Department and BLM must move to keep our publicly owned coal in the ground. However, 

keeping coal in the ground should not mean that we turn our backs on the workers and communities that have 

been dependent on coal for so long. Embracing an alternative that ensures “Just Transition,” in other a fair, 

compassionate, and orderly transition away from coal, is the most effective way to both protect our climate and 

help our nation effectively move to more sustainable economies and reliable and affordable means of energy 

production. 

Comment Number: 0002506_Nichols_20160729-6 

Organization1:Wild Earth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Transition must be a priority: Above all, you must make transition away from coal a foremost goal of reform. The 

coal industry is collapsing, already leaving communities and workers struggling. As the federal coal program 

comes to an end, it behooves your Interior Department to ensure resources, expertise, and leadership are 

provided to help communities move to more prosperous and sustainable economies. A “Just Transition,” one 

that is fair and helps workers move on from coal, must be embraced. 

Comment Number: 0002507_Nettleton_20160801-16

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Both the proposed regulatory changes and the de-facto leasing moratorium will result in reduced federal, state, 

and local revenues, the loss of high-wage jobs, and inevitable increases in electric utility rates for American 

families and businesses. Please recognize and remember that any actions that reduce the viability and availability 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-802 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

of reliable, affordable coal-based electricity will impact not just coal miners and their communities, but every 

household and business that pays an electric bill, and the future prosperity of America. 

Comment Number: 0002510_Cowan_20160728-2 

Organization1:Wyoming County Commissioners Association 

Commenter1:Gregory Cowan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS must evaluate how changes to the Federal Coal Program impact the revenues of those communities 

that are dependent on federal coal resource extraction. 

Collectively, Wyoming's counties rely heavily on the revenue generated from the production of federal coal 

resources in Wyoming. Accordingly, they are particularly situated to shoulder the worst of any detrimental 

economic impacts associated with changes in coal production or utilization based on changes in regulation. 

Counties' economic viability, as well as the economic viability of our entire state's economy, is dependent upon 

coal revenues to fund essential governmental services - most notably K-12 education. 

For example, Campbell County's 2015 total assessed valuation was $6.2 billion. Eighty-three percent of that 

assessment was from mineral production, with a majority (sixty-five percent) of that eighty-three percent 

represented by federal coal.1 In 2016, Campbell County's assessed value is $5.2 billion, a nearly fifteen percent 

reduction from last year.2 A reduction of this kind can only result in reduced services to Campbell County 

residents. Additionally, a county like Niobrara, with an assessed value of only $141 million3, is heavily dependent 

upon state-shared revenue sourced from the production and delivery of coal. 

Comment Number: 0002510_Cowan_20160728-3 

Organization1:Wyoming County Commissioners Association

Commenter1:Gregory Cowan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS must evaluate impacts felt at the local level from the loss of jobs and revenue associated with severe 

declines in rail transport employment, as well as small mining service contractors. 

The downturn in the oil and gas sector and previous downturns in auto manufacturing have shown to most 

significantly affect small suppliers and service contractors. However, too often federal regulatory analysis fails to 

account for jobs outside the direct employment of the large manufacturer or operator. 

While some may argue that alternative fuel market forces have driven the value of Wyoming's coal downward, 

we believe that federal regulation affecting the production and use of coal have also had a measurable detrimental 

impact. We believe that revenue impacts and its effect on quality of life in Wyoming's counties must be fairly 

reviewed and evaluated for both its direct and indirect impacts. 

Comment Number: 0002513_Lish_20160707-8 

Commenter1:Christopher Lish 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Evaluating the Bureau of Land Management’s authority and opportunities—as well as actions 

other agencies and Congress could take—to help ensure a Just Transition to a clean energy 

economy, including robust investment in community economic development, protecting 

worker livelihoods, and replacing any lost tax revenues to aid miners and coal communities. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-803

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002513_Lish_20160707-9 

Commenter1:Christopher Lish 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

American taxpayers are propping up the dirty coal that is polluting our planet and negatively 

affecting our health. According to independent nonprofit research group Headwaters Economics, 

reforming the coal-leasing program would have generated $900 million to $5.6 billion more 

revenue between 2008 and 2012. That math doesn’t even speak to the social costs of the climate 

change and health impacts of burning coal. Including those costs, the 522,443,982 metric tons of 

carbon dioxide emitted by the top three U.S. coal mining companies in 2014 alone amount to $18 

billion in damages to society, using the federal government’s midrange social cost of carbon 

figures. 

Comment Number: 0002513_Quinlan_20160707-1 

Commenter1:Alby Quinlan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And it is time to find ways to provide alternative employment for those workers who will be affected by the 

cessation of coal burning. There will be 

many jobs in the transition to clean energy and the coal workers should be retrained 

and helped to move to the clean energy sector. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-2 

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

IV. THE PEIS SHOULD EVALUATE OPPORTUNITIES TO ENSURE AN ECONOMICALLY JUST TRANSITION 

OF COAL-DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES TO A RENEWABLE ENERGY FUTURE Through the PEIS process, 

BLM must evaluate opportunities and actions to help ensure an economically just transition to a clean energy 

economy for communities most affected by the downturn in the coal market. BLM must evaluate ways to 

promote economic diversification within those communities most directly affected by the essential and 

irreversible shift away from burning fossil fuels. The PEIS should explore, among other things, opportunities for 

robust investment in community economic development, protecting worker livelihoods, and replacing lost tax 

revenues to aid miners and coal communities. The measures should not be limited to what BLM alone can 

accomplish, but include actions that other agencies and Congress can take. 309 The opportunities that BLM 

identifies must help ensure a fair and just transition to a clean energy economy for all people. While the transition 

from dirty fuels to clean energy will create many more jobs than those lost, we must not ask workers and 

communities that have helped power our country to bear the burden of this energy transformation that will 

benefit everyone. Identified measures should drive sustainable investment and job creation in regions where the 

coal industry has abused and abandoned the land, air, water and people. On the most fundamental level, “just 

transition” refers to a path or plan for workers displaced by transformations in the economy. 310 The PEIS 

should identify measures for a fair and just transition in which affected workers, their unions, and communities 

are equal partners in a well-planned, carefully negotiated and managed transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. 

Such measures should bring good job opportunities to those traditionally left behind and job security and 

livelihood guarantees to affected workers. Workers’ pensions and health care benefits should be preserved, and 

workers and members of affected 307 Id. 308 White House Fair Return Report, at 28. 309 Forty Questions, 46 

Fed. Reg. at 18,031 (“All relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project are to be 

identified, even if they are outside the jurisdiction of the lead agency or the cooperation agencies ....”). 310 Labor 

Network for Sustainability, Strategic Practice Grassroots Policy Project, “Just Transition” – Just What Is It?: An 

Analysis of Language, Strategies, and Projects, at 22 (2016), attached as Ex. 63; Caroline Farrell, A Just Transition: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-804 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Lessons Learned From the Environmental Justice Movement, 4 DUKE FORUM FOR LAW & SOCIAL CHANGE 

45 (2012), attached as Ex. 64. 80 communities should receive right of first employment for any jobs that are 

created by power plant decommissioning or site reclamation. In addition, the PEIS should evaluate measures in 

which workers receive education and training for industries, ideally unionized, with similar pay and benefits. 

Measures for a fair and just transition also should engage every level of government and business in an effort to 

maximize public and private investments in economic development and diversification, provide workforce 

training, replace lost tax revenues, and create lasting, good jobs that strengthen the economy and sustain working 

families— especially jobs related to clean energy, energy efficiency, and climate-resilient infrastructure. Finally, 

such measures should ensure that the mining companies responsible for harmful pollution to be held accountable 

for cleaning it up so that communities are left with usable land and clean water. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-30

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As explained in detail in the attached Power Consulting report on available energy-economy models, the model 

selected by BLM to evaluate impacts of competing alternatives in the PEIS should, at a minimum, have the 

following characteristics: 1. The ability to estimate GHG emissions with a high enough degree of precision to 

differentiate between emissions output from a reference scenario and adjusted scenarios where various levels of 

federal coal are allowed as inputs; 2. The ability to differentiate between coal with different properties both in 

supply and end user; 3. The ability to accurately account for changes in delivered coal prices, including changes in 

mine-mouth prices and transportation costs; 41 ICF International, Integrated Planning Model, available at 

http://www.icfi.com/insights/products-and-tools/ipm (last visited July 21, 2016). 42 Peter H. Howard, The Bureau 

of Land Management’s Modeling Choice for the Federal Coal Programmatic Review, Institute for Policy Integrity 

(2016). 22 4. The ability to accurately account for price elasticity between supply and demand; 5. The ability to 

account for emissions reduction through fuel switching inherent in our current electric economy; 6. The ability to 

accounts for coal mine methane emissions; 7. The ability to account for changes in electricity demand as 

electricity prices change; and 8. Be transparent and independently verifiable. Of particular importance—and an 

aspect that the Forest Service did not account for when employing ICF’s IPM in its 2015 Draft EIS to reinstate the 

coal mining loophole in the Colorado Roadless Rule—is the likelihood that policies that increase the supply of 

comparatively low-cost Powder River Basin coal may reduce the cost of electricity to Americans, and that this 

reduced cost may lead to an increase in the overall use of electricity. This is a significant oversight. Just as the 

lower coal prices are expected to lead to the increased use of coal, the lower electric prices should also increase 

the use of electricity. That would require the burning of additional fuel, the emission of more GHGs, and greater 

economic costs from damages caused by climate change. Any use of the IPM or another model by BLM here must 

not simply assume a fixed level of demand for electricity for each year no matter what happens to fuel and other 

electric generating costs. Accurate modeling must be able to reflect market adjustment to lower energy prices.

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-42

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 9 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS Should Evaluate the Impacts of Mining and Burning Federal Coal on Downstream Communities, 

Including the Environmental Justice Impacts Associated with Each Considered Alternative BLM’s Notice of Intent 

states that “[w]ith respect to the climate impacts of the Federal coal program, the Programmatic EIS will examine 

how best to measure and assess the climate impacts of continued Federal coal production, transportation, and 

combustion.”168 We applaud this commitment. But the PEIS must go further: it must also analyze and disclose 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-805

Scoping Report 

the non-carbon environmental, health, and economic impacts of coal production, transport, and combustion. 

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider “any adverse environmental effects of their major actions.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 4332(2)(C). This consideration extends to both direct and indirect impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8. Indirect impacts 

are reasonably foreseeable impacts that are caused by the project but that occur later in time or at a greater 

distance. Id. A “reasonably foreseeable impact” is one that is “’sufficiently likely to occur that a person of ordinary 

prudence would take into account in reaching a decision.’” Mid States Coal. for Progress, 345 F.3d at 549 (citing 

Sierra Club v. Marsh, 976 F.2d 763, 767 (1st Cir. 1992)). Even if complete information is lacking on the extent of 

the foreseeable impact, “the agency may not simply ignore the effect.” 166 Leonard G. Pearlstine, Elise V. 

Pearlstine, & Nicholas G. Aumen, A Review of the Ecological Consequences and Management Implications of 

Climate Change for the Everglade, 29-4 JOURNAL OF THE NORTH AMERICAN BENTHOLOGICAL 

SOCIETY, 1510, 1513 (2010); E. Stabenau, J. Sadle, & L. Pearlstine, Sea-level Rise: Observations, impacts, and 

proactive measures in Everglades National Park, 28 PARK SCIENCE, 26-30 (2011). 167 Government 

Accountability Office, Climate Change, at 27. 168 81 Fed. Reg. at 17,725. 49 Id. If the nature of the effect is 

reasonably foreseeable, this effect must be addressed in the PEIS. Id. Given the scope and scale of the federal 

leasing program, it is undeniable that it has significant, adverse effects on water quality and access, air quality, 

health and climate. The activities directly and indirectly associated with coal leasing include, among other things, 

coal transport by rail, truck and sea, construction and operation of infrastructure and equipment related to 

storing, shipping and processing coal, coal combustion domestically and overseas, and disposal of coal ash. Each of 

these “downstream” activities negatively downstream communities, harming their health, threatening their safety 

and causing significant nuisance. More specifically, the federal coal program’s downstream activities generate coal 

dust and other air , reduce water access and worsen water quality, increase accident and hazard risk, induce 

growth that magnifies these affects, and hasten impacts from climate disruption, such as sea level rise. These 

impacts are particularly pernicious because many downstream communities, and low income communities and 

communities of color in particular, are already disproportionately impacted by pollution and hazards. 

Communities situated within two miles of rail lines, 169 in cities next to ports, those near coal terminals and 

plants, and communities that depend upon clean and accessible water for their livelihoods are most vulnerable. 

Since NEPA requires analysis of all foreseeable direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, the PEIS must analyze 

impacts to downstream communities. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-46

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should analyze the safety and economic impacts of traffic for downstream communities. The PEIS should 

analyze the impact that coal trains cause at rail grade crossings. Coal trains are frequently 120 cars long. 196 

Consequently, these coal trains adversely impact traffic at grade crossings. 197 They can create traffic jams during 

rush hour and hours of after spills or rail accidents. Coal trains also cause traffic jams with other freight trains. A 

2014 study showed that congestion from coal and oil trains is already displacing and harming other economic 

sectors. 198 These economic impacts should be analyzed. Most significantly, coal trains can delay emergency 

vehicles, such as ambulances and fire trucks. 199 The PEIS must consider the frequency and magnitude of these 

impacts on communities. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-47

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should analyze impacts to communities from train noise and vibration. Noise from trains and their 

vibration is a serious issue for those residing near train tracks. In addition to general affects to quality of life, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-806 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

chronic noise exposure can affect effects including cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment in children, sleep 

disturbance (which has many secondary effects) fatigue, hypertension, arrhythmia, increased rate of accidents and 

195 75 Fed Reg. 35,547. 196 See Polly Wood, Another Voice: Coal Transport Comments Needed Now, HOOD 

RIVER NEWS, Friday, January 11, 2013, available at http://www.hoodrivernews.com/news//jan/11/another-voicecoal-transport-comments-needed- now/ (last visited July 28, 2016); see also Hearing Transcript, July 29, 2010, Ar. 

Elec. Coop. Ass’n – Petition for Declaratory Order, Surface Transportation Board, Docket No. FD 35305, at 

42:5 13. 197 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental Health and Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland Bulk 

and Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 18 (Ex. 35); see also Scott Gutierez, The bane of all drivers in 

Seattle’s SODO neighborhood: train crossings, SEATTLE PI, May 21, 2011, available at 

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/transportation/article/Getting-There-How-long-can-trains- legally-block1403713.php (last visited July 28, 2016). 198 Western Organization of Resource Councils, HEAVY TRAFFIC 

STILL AHEAD (2014), available at http://heavytrafficahead.org/pdf/Heavy-Traffic-Still-Ahead-web.pdf (last visited 

July 28, 2016). 199 Comments of Phyllis Fox, Environmental Health and Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland 

Bulk and Oversized Terminal, September 21, 2015, at 19 (Ex. 35). 55 injuries, exacerbation of mental health 

disorders, depression, stress and anxiety, and psychosis. 200 Federal rules require that engineers of all trains 

sound horns for at least 10-15 seconds at 96-110 decibels at all public crossings. At the lowest range, this is “very 

loud” and at the highest it is dangerous. Consequently, the PEIS should analyze the number of crossings within 

urban areas that coal trains pass through and the program’s cumulative impacts of noise on communities.

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-54

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

7The PEIS should analyze induced growth and infrastructure. The coal market is deteriorating, yet in the past 

several years we have seen numerous proposed projects to construct new coal terminals and other 

infrastructure. The PEIS should analyze the impacts of increased infrastructure based on proposed and reasonably 

foreseeable projects catalyzed by the federal coal leasing program. See Mid States Coal. for Progress, 345 F.3d at 

549 (emphasizing the need, particularly for large projects, to examine the impacts that may occur as result of 

reasonably foreseeable effects of the action, including induced infrastructure build-out, and increased demand and 

use). These projects have the greatest impact on downstream communities. The purpose of a PEIS is to fully 

understand these impacts before deciding to maintain the program that causes them. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-56

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS Should Examine Significant Non-climate Costs Associated with the Federal Coal Leasing Program. 

Consistent with BLM’s commitment in its scoping notice to conduct a broad analysis of the federal coal 

program’s socioeconomic impacts, 214 the PEIS must examine the non-carbon English et al., Racial and Income 

Disparities in Relation to a Proposed Climate Change Vulnerability Screening Method for California, 4-2 THE 

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATE CHANGE: IMPACTS AND RESPONSES (Apr. 2013) at 1-18. 211 

Clean Power Plan, 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662, 64,940 (Oct. 23, 2015). 212 Id. 213 Id. 214 Notice of Intent, 81 Fed. Reg. 

at 17,726. 58 environmental, health, and economic impacts of coal mining, transport, and combustion that are 

direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of federal coal leasing. As discussed above, the June 2016 report of the 

White House Council of Economic Advisors acknowledged significant health-based costs associated with the 

continued mining and burning of federal coal. 215 Numerous reviews in the past several years support the 

findings of the White House Report in its analysis of harms from the non-carbon emissions from coal-fired 

electric generators: sulfur and nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, ammonia, and 

mercury. These reviews show damage to longevity, health, quality of life, and property. 216 In addition to 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-807

Scoping Report 

examining the harm that coal production, transport, and combustion cause to the environment and public health, 

the PEIS should calculate the economic impacts of this harm. Specifically, the PEIS should estimate the economic 

damage of costs associated with increased human mortality, increased human illness (morbidity), reductions in 

the productivity of forests, farms, and ranches, the accelerated deterioration of structures and equipment, and 

declines in quality of life due to reduced visibility and degraded recreation opportunities – all foreseeable impacts 

from coal production, transport, and combustion. The PEIS must address these environmental and socioeconomic harms. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-57

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS Must Objectively Evaluate the Socio-economic Impacts of the Federal Coal Program on Coal Mining 

Communities. The PEIS must take a hard look at the socio-economic impacts of federal coal leasing on local 

communities where mines are located. In doing so, the PEIS must disclose both the benefits and the damage that 

coal mining can cause. Only after understanding the characteristics associated with coal mining that can limit the 

industry’s ability to support sustained economic development can a strategy to integrate coal mining into a local 

economic development strategy be crafted 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-58

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

a. The PEIS Cannot Assume That Coal Mining Has Only Beneficial Economic Impacts Because History Shows 

Otherwise. Coal mining can in some instances pay relatively high wages, and those mines that are located on 

public lands can make substantial payments to local, state, and federal governments, helping them to fund 

important public services. But the financial contributions of coal mining are often the only economic 

characteristics mentioned in federal agency NEPA reviews. Concluding that expanded or continued coal mining 

will have a positive impact on coal-dependent communities or that declines in coal mining will have catastrophic 

impacts on such communities is incomplete and misleading, and cannot be used to guide public decision making. 

Recent empirical economic studies on the relationship between coal mining and local economic vitality and wellbeing paint contradict the rosy picture of coal mining’s socio-economic impacts. For example, historical evidence 

shows that: coal and other metal mining 215 White House Fair Return Report, at 28 216 Power Consulting, Inc., 

The Economic Consequences of the Federal Coal Leasing Program: Improving the Quality of the Economic 

Analysis (July 27, 2016) at 49 (Ex. 1). have often failed to bring sustained prosperity to adjacent communities; that 

counties that rely more heavily on natural resource extraction experience less economic growth than counties 

with more diverse economic portfolios; that while coal and mining booms result in few additional jobs outside 

the mining sector, busts cause a greater loss in local employment; that a high share in coal employment in a 

county was correlated with a lower rate of self-employment, indicating that reliance on mining may restrain 

entrepreneurial activity. The attached report by Power Consulting, Inc. et al. describes in detail studies 

supporting these conclusions. The PEIS must take this evidence into account in preparing its socio-economic 

analysis 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-59

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-808 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

The PEIS Must Carefully Identify the Scale at Which it Analyzes Socio-economic Impacts. To take the “hard look” 

at the federal coal program’s socio-economic benefits, which NEPA requires, the PEIS must analyze the area 

where those impacts are likely to be most significant and measureable: the county in which the mine is located or 

the majority of impacts are likely to occur. Focusing solely on a larger area is likely to mask how coal mining can 

effect local communities, as the impacts from coal mining will be overwhelmed by other sectors of the economy. 

For this reason, the Powers Consulting report recommends focusing the analysis on the 51 rural counties where 

coal mining provided more than 5% of the employment in 1990.218 The data Powers analyzed shows such coal 

dependent communities experienced slower job growth, lower real earnings, lost more population, and 

recovered from economic downturns more slowly, “reflect[ing] the instability of coal mining employment.”This is 

the type of information that should inform the PEIS’s analysis as the Interior Department attempts to understand 

how the federal coal program impacts local mining economies 

Comment Number: 0003002_Master_FormB_CountOnCoalMontana-1 

Organization1:Count on Coal Montana 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Further, the value of coal to the American people isn't just royalty revenue — the value of high paying jobs and 

reliable, affordable energy has to be taken into account as well. Increases in coal prices induced by higher royalty 

rates will flow through to the electricity market due to reduced production on federal lands. The states that rely 

on coal for the bulk of electric generation consistently enjoy lower electricity rates. Whatever incremental 

revenue the Department believes it will obtain from increasing the coal royalty rate will be at the expense of 

American businesses and families paying higher utility bills. The federal coal program has generated tens of billions 

of dollars of value for the American people in recent decades and additional billions of dollars for Colorado state 

and local governments and school districts, to the benefit of all the state's citizens. It's simple: I oppose new taxes 

that will only serve to drive coal further to the edge, will deprive public schools of an important source of 

revenue from federal leases, and ultimately increase electricity rates for hard working families. 

Comment Number: 0003003_Master_FormB2_CountOnCoalMontana-1 

Organization1:Count on Coal Montana 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Sec. Jewel is seeking to hike coal royalty rates, despite the fact that current royalty rates are above market, and if 

increased will only result in decreased production and return on investment for taxpayers.Increased rates will 

saddle the taxpayer with higher electricity prices and lower return from reduced coal production - also, the value 

of reliable affordable energy has to be taken into account, because if production on federal lands is decreased due 

to increased royalty rates, consumers will be forced to pay for more expensive forms of power 

generation.Increased energy taxes will kill jobs and state revenues, while ever-increasing electricity rates will hit 

all Americans in the checkbook. 

Comment Number: 0003004_MasterFormD_TheSierraClub-6 

Organization1:The Sierra Club 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Evaluating BLM’s authority and opportunities - as well as actions other agencies and Congress could take - to help 

ensure a Just Transition to a clean energy economy, including robust investment in community economic 

development, protecting worker livelihoods, and replacing any lost tax revenues to aid miners and coal 

communities.
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-809

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0003005_MasterFormD2_TheSierraClub-3 

Organization1:The Sierra Club 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM must also make sure the federal coal program helps ensure a just transition for workers and communities 

that helped to power our country for generations. The President's Power Plus Plan provides a useful starting 

point, and BLM should include provisions that protect the livelihoods of coal workers and communities as part of 

its update of the federal coal leasing program. 

Comment Number: 0003007_MasterFormF_WEG-2 

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Helping communities and workers dependent on coal transition: Programs and resources need to be mobilized to 

help communities develop more sustainable economies and to provide education and retraining for workers. 

Keeping coal in the ground needs to be coupled with an effective economic transition strategy. 

Comment Number: 0003011_MasterFormJ_KeepElecAfford-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

An increase in federal coal royalty rates would force consumers like me to pay more for the power we need at 

home and work. Raising royalty rates also would reduce coal production which means less revenue for pressing 

public needs. 

Comment Number: 0003012_MasterFormK-2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Roughly 41 percent of US coal production comes from federal lands. Of that, 85 percent came from the Powder 

River Basin. Over the last ten years, coal leases on federal lands have generated $10.3 billion in federal revenues 

from bonus bids, rental fees, and production royalties. Using these resources creates opportunities for businesses 

and individuals, and supports so much more than the miners and their families. In 2012, overall coal mining 

activities contributed nearly 2 million jobs across various sectors of the economy. 

Comment Number: 0003013_MasterFormL-2 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should also consider and adopt measures to support and assist coal industry workers and their 

communities through the coming energy transition. 

Comment Number: 0003014_MasterFormM1-2 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

an increase in the royalty rate will only create further uncertainty and put additional pressure on communities 

throughout the West and on essential state programs as well 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-810 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0003015_MasterFormM2-1 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The push by NGOs to "Keep It in the Ground" and seek "Coal Reform" have again caused a huge waste of 

taxpayer dollars by forcing the Bureau of Land Management to conduct a multi-year Programmatic EIS process 

and support the effort by the Department of the Interior to increase the cost of coal leasing and royalties. As a 

result, it will be even more expensive to operate a coal mine and subsequently raise the price of electricity for all 

consumers. It's a disastrous combination for everyone, from the miners whose jobs have been lost and are in 

jeopardy, to the ratepayers that will pay more each month for electricity and the communities that will have to 

go without the vital taxes and royalty dollars generated by coal mining. 

The federal coal program has been a tremendous success story that has generated tens of billions of dollars of 

value for the American people in recent decades. If DOI must take action, we strongly encourage the department 

to take steps to improve the return to the American public by making coal on public lands more competitive, not 

less. 

I oppose increased coal royalties and new taxes on our electricity. 

Comment Number: 0003016_MasterFormO_EarthJustice-6 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Creating opportunities and tools to help ensure a fair transition to a clean energy economy, including robust 

investment in community economic development and protecting worker livelihoods, in line with the president's 

commitment to help coalfield communities. 

Comment Number: 0003019_MasterFormS-1 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I write today to voice my grave concerns with increasing coal royalty rates. Raising taxes on coal will add stress 

to coal markets and ultimately decrease the revenues accruing to the public. Simply put, a ton of coal never sold 

due to uncompetitive prices produces no revenue. 

Too, American taxpayers are receiving more than owners of private coal. The federal royalty rate is above the 

prevailing royalty rates for private coal. As compared to private coal leases, federal coal rates are, in many cases, 

forty percent higher than the prevailing rate for private coal. 

Federal lessees pay non-recoupable bonus bids, an additional upfront payment made prior to mining. Bonus bids 

are rarely if ever included in leases of private coal. Bonus bids are a significant expense. Over the last decade, 

lessees have paid over $4.2 billion in bonus bids before any coal is even mined. 

States and local communities also benefit from coal leasing and royalties. In 2014 Colorado coal producers paid 

nearly $40 million in federal royalties, rents, and bonus payments. Almost half of this comes back to the State and 

is distributed to local communities, the State Public School Fund, the Higher Education fund, and the Water 

Conservation Board Construction fund. 

The BLM can best carry out its responsibility to ensure that American taxpayers receive a fair return on the coal 

resources managed by the federal government by encouraging the growth of the coal industry and removing 

impediments to leasing coal. 

Comment Number: 0003020_MasterFormT-1 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It concerns me that the DOI is modifying the current coal leasing program, including increasing the royalty rate 

on federal coal. While, on the surface, this may seem like a plan to increase revenue, it is obvious that it will in 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-811

Scoping Report 

fact have the opposite effect and be harmful to our economy. 

As royalties increase, so will the price of coal. An industry such as this is very dependent on the price of the 

product, so as the prices increase, the amount of coal being sold will decrease due to market factors. Eventually 

this will trickle down to less coal being mined and less revenue going to the taxpayers and back into our 

communities. Not only will this damage local economies, but the increased energy prices will stress the lower 

and middle class nationwide. 

It is obvious to me that the ultimate goal of raising royalty rates on federal coal is not to increase revenue, but to 

instead put more stress on the already burdened coal industry. 

Comment Number: 0003029_Arrington_J_06032016-3 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Patrick Arrington 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

An increase in federal coal royalty rates would force consumers like me to pay more for the power we need at 

home and work 

Comment Number: 0003030_Baker_J_06112016-1 

Commenter1:Alicia Baker 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Here in Northwest Colorado coal is the major economic factor for our small town. The coal mines employ 

hundreds of workers and pump thousands of dollars into our economy. If coal fired power plants were shut 

down it would completely devastate not just our community but all coal mining companies and communities. 

Consumers would not be able to afford to pay such high electrical bills, especially those on a fixed income. 

Comment Number: 0003034_Cast_J_06112016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Doug Cast 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need coal to keep electricity affordable! We need coal to utilize the production facilities we already have in 

place! We need coal to maintain jobs that are reliant on the coal industry! 

Comment Number: 0003036_Crites_J_06112016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Sarah Crites 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

An increase in federal coal royalty rates would force consumers like me to pay more for the power we need at 

home and work. And we will see an overall increase in consumer goods as business pass along there higher 

electricity bills to the consumer. If I'm spending more on electricity and food, then I will spend less on other 

things, thus hurting the economy even more. 

Comment Number: 0003041_Goins_06052016-2 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Denise Goins 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

"eliminating" the coal industry will put 

thousands of people out of work in an already struggling economy! 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-812 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0003044_Hinkemeyer_J_06112016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Stephen Hinkemeyer 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Raising royalty rates also would reduce coal production which means less revenue for pressing public (Federal 

and State) needs. Less funding would be available for DOLA grants as well that really help small communities. 

Comment Number: 0003047_McAnally_J_06032016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Roy McAnally 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Less coal production will lead to work force reductions which will severely impact the economies of many 

communities across the nation where coal mining is the major employer and the driving force in a stable and 

strong economy. The human and economic impact of reduced coal production will be devastating to local 

economies and when considered in an aggregate will devastating to the national economy in the long term 

analysis. 

Comment Number: 0003086_Campbell_H_06182016-1 

Organization1:Friends of the Earth 

Commenter1:Mary Baine Campbell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

People who make their living from coal (and I don't mean corporate executives, who will be fine no matter what 

happens-- and frankly deserve not to be!) are going to suffer from the death of that industry. But no one 

disagrees that the industry is going to die. Better to try to help the workers now, before climate change has so 

stretched federal and local budgets that no help is affordable. 

Comment Number: 0003088_Biggart_H_06182016-1 

Organization1:Friends of the Earth 

Commenter1:Neal Biggart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

coal workers who lose their jobs must be given monetary help and training to find other jobs. Let's do the right 

thing for the environment and for the workers. 

Comment Number: 000761_Bucks_20160623-4 

Commenter1:Dan Bucks 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Finally, the PEIS should consider how Interior can support broader federal, state and local policies to meet the 

needs of coal dependent communities and workers as the nation undergoes an historic energy transition. 

Comment Number: 0020016_Willims_20160712-3 

Commenter1:Raymond Willims 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The leasing and mining of coal has social impacts that need to be evaluated, also. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-813

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0020031_Parkins_20160722-16

Commenter1:438596 

Other Sections: 8.8 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is in the country's best interest to incent the export of coal from BLM coal lands. When coal is economically 

viable as an export commodity these exports provide a positive contribution to the nation's taxpayers in a 

number of ways: 

1) The taxpayer is paid a royalty on the coal mined and sold as well as a Bonus Bid when new coal lands are 

leased. This income reduces the tax burden on individuals for the same level of services from government which 

enhances our standard of living or lowers the public debt. As mentioned before the basis for royalty needs to 

continue to be the net back price at the mine loading point to account for the costs to transport the coal to the 

port and port charges along with other costs to move the coal to the market. This method recognizes the 

geographic impacts due to the reserve location. 

2) The sale of coal to other countries increases the demand for coal mined in the United States, which creates 

high quality jobs in the United States along with the income taxes from those jobs and jobs in the support 

industries associated with this production. This reduces the amount of taxpayer money paid out in 

unemployment or indigent support payments reducing the tax burden on individuals and enhancing our standard 

of living. 

3) Export sales improve the balance of payments for the United States and put the nation in a stronger position 

financially. 

4) Generally speaking the types of coal that are exported by the United States tend to be higher quality than 

those in the countries where it is imported. This has the potential to reduce emissions in those countries. 

5) Energy produced by the United States and shipped to our allies provides a stable and reliable source of energy 

to those countries and can reduce their dependence on politically less stable sources. (Specifically Europe and the 

potential to reduce their exposure to gas produced in Russia). 

6) Coal mines in the United States have safety records that are the envy of the world. With few exceptions coal 

mined in the United States results in fewer injuries and fatalities than coal mined in countries that import coal. 

Incenting the export of coal from the United States might displace coal mined with greater numbers of injuries or 

death. (Specifically China although the comment applies to other countries as well.) 

7) The United States requires all coal mining operations to meet very high standards with respect to reclamation, 

much more rigorous than many of the nations that import coal. Coal exports from the United States might 

displace coal production from other countries that have less stringent reclamations standards thus netting cleaner 

air and water than the alternative. 

8) Export of coal from the United States to other countries enables them to increase the number of households 

that have electrical power available to them. IEA reported recently that 1.2 billion people do not have access to 

electricity, and that 2.7 billion people do not have access to clean cooking facilities. Coal exports from the United 

States enables countries to expand their electric generation capacity to more households. The World Bank 

indicates that households with access to electricity and clean cooking facilities have longer life spans, so incenting 

coal exports from the United States can result in improving standards of living in countries where imports occur 

and increase life spans. 

Comment Number: 0020034_Koontz_TownofHotchkiss_20160729-7 

Organization1:Town of Hotchkiss 

Commenter1:Wendell Koontz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Mine closures, additional government regulation, and market forces have severely impacted the local mines and 

our local economy. As noted herein, it is likely the Town will have to make serious and significant cuts to our 

2017 budget to account lost mineral leasing, sales tax, and severance tax revenues projected to be at $75,000 to 

$95,000 or 10%- 12% of our General Fund all of which can be directly tied to the mine closures and lost 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-814 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

employment. Indirect losses of families and school students and all that means to our community are still in 

progress. 

Comment Number: 0020034_Koontz_TownofHotchkiss_20160729-8 

Organization1:Town of Hotchkiss 

Commenter1:Wendell Koontz 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the Board of Trustees of the Town of Hotchkiss requests the Department of Interior to include in the PEIS: 

*Social benefits of bonus bid payments, royalties, taxes, and continued employment for economic impacts to the 

US, states, and communities. 

*Social benefits of affordable reliable power to the health care industry print and digital media, recreation, and 

other industries that require power on demand 24/7. 

*Social impacts of lost jobs including the hundreds of lost jobs locally and thousands of lost jobs nationally on 

families, communities, and states. 

*Social cost of increasing prices on commodities and utilities that are the logical outcome on the proposed 

increases in royalties and taxes and decreasing production. 

*Social cost of the slow pace of federal leasing actions. 

[5] (Secretary S. Jewell May 6, 2016) http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2016/05/06/sallyjewell-keep-ground-protests-naive/83992074/ 

Comment Number: 0020049-1 

Organization1:City of Casper 

Commenter1:V.H. McDonald 

Other Sections: 13 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Many of Wyoming's local governments' economies are highly dependent upon the vitality of the coal industry. 

Local employment in those communities will likely be adversely affected by any regulatory changes and or 

increases of any tax or royalty rates. These modifications or additional cost burdens on coal producers can 

create disincentives to, or obstacles in, extracting this valuable energy resource. Consequently, it is essential that 

the extent of the economic impact of any changes in regulations and increases in tax and royalty rates upon state 

and local governments be determined and clearly reported. 

Comment Number: 0020052-2 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Commenter1:Barbara A. Walz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Because Tri-State is a not-for-profit association of rural electric cooperatives, any increase in the cost to generate 

and deliver that electricity, such as increasing the cost of the fuel, is directly borne by the our member systems, 

many of whom serve consumers that can least afford increased electricity rates. Tri-State's member systems 

serve some the most rural and economically disadvantaged families in the western U.S. Member system residents 

typically pay a higher percentage of their income for electricity in the rural West because there are so few 

consumers per mile to share the cost of its development and delivery. An increase in the cost of coal production 

does not provide a more "fair return from the development of these publicly owned resources" for these 

taxpayers, but does add extra costs and the possible loss of jobs and community services. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-815

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0020052-5 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Commenter1:Barbara A. Walz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The impacts of the cost to mine federal coal on the cost of the electricity it generates and the impact that the 

increased cost of electricity has on the American taxpayer in the rural West. 

o The dependence of state and local governments on the royalty payments and taxes and the benefits that they 

provide for local communities in the rural west. 

Comment Number: 0020052-7 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Commenter1:Barbara A. Walz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Production plays a vital role supporting rural communities and their ability to maintain key government services. 

Many of these rural communities have grown up around the implementation of the federal coal program. For 

example, Tri-State (Tri-State, through its ownership of Elk Ridge Mining and Reclamation) owns and operates the 

Colowyo Mine (Colowyo), located in northwest Colorado, about 26 miles southwest of the town of Craig. 

Colowyo has been conducting surface mining operations since 1977 and holds several federal coal leases from 

which it produces coal for sale. Since 2012, when Tri-State purchased the mine, Colowyo has generated over $32 

million in royalty payments. Much of this has gone to the state of Colorado and been distributed through various 

mechanisms to local communities. Coal mining and the electric power generation industry are major economic 

drivers for communities in northwest Colorado and benefit greatly from the revenues resulting from energy 

production. Another example was highlighted in a recent article in the Denver Post (June 23, 2016), which 

discussed how the loss of federal coal production revenue to the community of Oak Creek, Colorado has 

impacted to school, fire protection, library services and the local cemetery. 

Comment Number: 003071_Caulfield_1772016-1 

Commenter1:A Dean Caulfield 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

we have an unprecedented opportunity to build a clean energy industry and bring everyone form the out of work 

miners all the way up to the owners of these energy companies who are currently exploiting these resources at 

the expense of the surrounding communities, into alignment with each others interests by employing miners in 

the new energy sectors of hydroelectric geothermal and solar. By providing them with the retraining they might 

need to move to the new energy sector (a one time expense that should be shared by the underfunded coal 

states and the Federal government- who's job and purpose is to provide the National infrastructure) we eliminate 

the problem of the the depressed economies of coal dependant states while creating a new energy sector with 

strong growth potential. 

Comment Number: 003072_Stookey_1072016-2 

Commenter1:Jeff Stookey 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Renewable energy already employs 2.7 million workers (more than the fossil fuel industry) and studies have 

shown that green energy will continue to create far more jobs than the fossil fuel industries. [see: Sizing the 

Clean Economy, A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment by the Metropolitan Policy Program at the 

Brookings Institute, 2011. Also, One Million Climate Jobs, 3rd Edition, 2014, edited by Jonathan Neale, published 

by the Campaign Against Climate Change] A U.S.-led, green, industrial revolution will move our economy 

forward, create millions of new jobs, and help ensure a livable planet for future generations. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-816 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_00000201_ REILLY_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Katie Reilly 

Other Sections: 8.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I ask that BLM take full advantage of this review process to protect coal impacted communities, our public lands, 

and our climate for generations to come, not just for the next few years. This PEIS must look at stopping coal 

production on taxpayer land, incorporating the cost of carbon into royalty rates, evaluating how federal coal 

impacts production of clean energy, re-evaluating self-bonding, which unfairly places a burden of reclamation on 

taxpayers, evaluating BLM's authority to ensure a just transition for coal-impacted communities. 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0002437_Downing_20160727_WyMineAssoc-26

Organization1:Wyoming Mining Association 

Commenter1:Jonathan Downing 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Wyoming is the top coal producing state in the nation with the vast majority of this production coming from 

federally leased coal. The financial contribution from this coal to state and local governments in the form of taxes, 

royalties and fees was about $1 billion. Wyoming’s share of federal mineral royalties – royalties paid to mine the 

leased coal - was over $200 million. The industry employs nearly 6,000 individuals directly with a payroll of nearly 

$700 million, and over 2,000 contractors. The average coal mining job pays over $83 thousand per year, well 

above the state average. And every coal mining job supports another 2-3 jobs in the service and supply industry. 

Needless to say the coal industry is critical to Wyoming and the Nation’s economy.

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0003062_Hoy_G-2 

Commenter1:Judy Hoy 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In Montana, tourism and wildlife watching and wildlife photography provides more jobs and more money to the 

citizens of Montana than mining coal 

Comment Number: 000001202_Meinhart_20160623-6 

Organization1:Office of Congressman Scott Tiption 

Commenter1:Brian Meinhart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And those working in the coal industry will be left in the lurch. And we're already seeing those effects. Just a few 

weeks ago, we received news that the last coal mine standing in Delta County's [indiscernible] had to lay off 

another 80 workers. In just a few years, Delta County has lost about 900 of its once 1200-strong coal mining 

workforce. 

Comment Number: 000001204_Swartout_20160623-2 

Organization1:Governor Hickenlooper 

Commenter1:John Swartout 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

You know Colorado has been a leader in balancing environmental protections with the health of our economy. 

Back, you know, almost 25 years ago, Governor Roy Romer said when he got industry together to reduce 

admissions, especially on the Front Range, he said I want to look at industry as a partner and not, you know, 

create an adversarial relationship. So, the other thing that we ask is that you treat industry and folks that are 

commenting as partners in this effort. I mean we all want to live on a healthy planet. We all want jobs. We all 

want that balance. And we think -- the Governor thinks that we can do both. We can have a healthy coal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-817

Scoping Report 

industry that provides a portion of our energy generation into the future, while we protect the environment. And 

they're not exclusive. You know the politics that we live in today tends to be a duality. It's this or that. It's 

either/or. But, but Colorado has always found a way to balance those things and go forward. And we ask that this 

review -- you keep, you keep that in mind. 

Comment Number: 000001205_Justman_20160623-1 

Organization1:Mesa County 

Commenter1:John Justman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Recent mining job losses has had a severe and negative impact on this region's economy. A variety of factors, 

including State and Federal regulatory pressure, obstructive legal actions from special interest group, and 

unwise court rulings have resulted in the loss of jobs, income, workforce, and revenue for our region. 

Comment Number: 000001205_Justman_20160623-2 

Organization1:Mesa County 

Commenter1:John Justman 

Other Sections: 19 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We are all short of money on all government levels. It's interesting to me that recently in the paper there was an 

article how in some part of Canada when they went away from coal, their electric rates went up 300 percent. 

Germany had a project here a few years ago where they got rid of their nuclear and coal plants and were going 

to rely on wind and solar. And now they have energy poverty where people pay 10 percent of their household 

income for their energy bill -- for their household [indiscernible]. And that is not going to work well. Why do 

you think BMW relocated their manufacturing plant to America? Energy cost. The more energy we consume, the 

higher your standard of living. 

Comment Number: 000001209_Monger_20160623-1 

Organization1:Routt County 

Commenter1:Doug Monger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

You know our coal industry and our power industry, with the Hayden Power Plant, is the number 1 and number 

2 taxpayers in Routt County. Twentymile Coal itself pays $1.7 million to, to - not to the County, but to the 

County's -- all the taxing entities -- $1.7 million. And the fact is for the Soroco South Routt School District, it --

the -- they get $1 million out of their $5 million total budget. So, as, as the Commissioner from Delta County has 

referred to, we're in a crisis right now because of the pending bankruptcy of Peabody Coal. You know we -- on 

top of that, you know, we -- the Federal mineral lease to Routt County is about $350,000 a year. That --

probably 90 percent -- 95 percent, that comes from coal industry. 

Comment Number: 000001210_Nichols_20160623-1 

Organization1:Wild Earth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jerermy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I want to be clear that keeping coal in the ground doesn't mean that we turn our backs on the workers and 

communities that have worked very hard for many, many years to keep out lights on. We need to focus on 

transition. We need to help workers and communities transition to more prosperous and sustainable economies. 

This reform process provides an opportunity for the Interior Department to take a leadership role in helping to 

make that happen. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-818 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 000001229_ REHN_20160623-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Maddie Rehn 

Commenter Type: Individual 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I urge the Interior Department to update the Federal Coal Program to ensure resources extracted on public land 

return a fair share to American taxpayers and account for the impacts to our environment. I also urge the 

Interior Department to diversify rural economies and create new jobs through investments and technology and 

infrastructure for both renewable energy and recreation outdoor economy. 

Comment Number: 000001235_ SCHMIDT _20160623-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Phil Schmidt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I ask BLM to lift the, the moratorium on, on Federal coal leasing. And if the review of the Coal Leasing Program is 

needed, proceed. But, for the objective approach that is not punishing to responsible co-operators, their 

employees, and communities being so harshly impacted. 

Comment Number: 000001242_ SANDERSON_Colorado Mining Association _2016062-2 

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We've already heard today about the unprecedented regulatory assault on coal through the [indiscernible] the 

mercury, air, toxics rules, and the other laws which have discouraged, and which have actually driven down 

production in Colorado. I would like to remind you that according to the most recent survey that the Colorado 

Mining Association performs, coalminers are among the highest paid industrial workers in the State, earning 

average wages and benefits in excess of $135,000 annually. We pay above market royalty rates. 

Comment Number: 000001243_ COMPTON _Utah Mining Association _20160623-2 

Organization1:Utah Mining Association 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is still the backbone of our nation's and the world's energy supply. And restricting access to this affordable 

and abundant resource will destroy jobs and lead to higher and higher electric bills for every American. 

Comment Number: 000001243_ COMPTON _Utah Mining Association _20160623-4 

Organization1:Utah Mining Association 

Commenter1:Mark Compton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Fifty percent of Federal coal lease revenues are returned to the States in which the coal is mined. And these 

funds are very important to local and county budgets, to directing community impacts, and developing 

infrastructure. And of course, this action has significant economic impacts on applicants who have borne the cost 

of environmental analysis, but now cannot proceed to a final decision on the lease. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-819

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 000001245_ COFIELD_20160623-2 

Organization1:Wagner Equipment Company 

Commenter1:Brad Cofield 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

What is the economic benefit of keeping Federal coal in the ground? By not developing coal resources on Federal 

lands, we will create zero return to taxpayers. We will put thousands of miners out of work, as well as kill jobs 

for the industries that support our mines. There's no way to examine the economic reality of this initiative and 

not conclude that this administration could care less about the economic impacts, but simply wants to kill coal as 

a fuel source. 

Comment Number: 000001245_ COFIELD_20160623-4 

Organization1:Wagner Equipment Company 

Commenter1:Brad Cofield 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

How would decreasing coal production on Federal lands impact our electricity costs? Coal represents 33 percent 

of our country's energy. And it is the backbone of our electric grid. By eliminating coal, we rely on more 

expensive alternative sources. Consumers, no doubt, will carry the burden of higher electricity costs. 

Comment Number: 000001245_ COFIELD_20160623-5 

Organization1:Wagner Equipment Company 

Commenter1:Brad Cofield 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

By decreasing coal production on Federal lands, we will further impact the lives of miners in our communities, 

like Craig and Hayden, Paonia, and Hotchkiss, and potentially decimate their economies. These communities rely 

on the coal industry, that we heard today, to fund their schools, support their local businesses, and provide highpaying jobs. 

Comment Number: 000001250_ SEGO_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Jeff Sego 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

acknowledge the profound affect that this will have on the future supply of low-cost, reliable coal, high-paying 

jobs, and revenue from Federal land. This administration does not seem to care about the moratorium's 

immediate impact or the long-term effects on coal production and cheap, reliable -- and energy production. 

Comment Number: 000001252_ ANGELOVICH_20160623-1 

Organization1:Mayor of Paonia 

Commenter1:Charles Stewart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Paonia is a town of roughly 1600 people in the North Fork Valley in Delta County. In the past, we had three 

mines that were operating -- Oxbow Valley and West Elk. At that time, the payroll for the three mines was in 

excess of $100 million. The one mine that is left, West Elk, is in Chapter 11. Payroll has dropped less than $30 

million. We have lost a very substantial amount of income from our community. Quite frankly, if you had the 

same kind of loss in Denver, there would be a tremendous political uproar. From the town's perspective, we 

were receiving $115,000 a year from severance and mineral leasing revenue when all three mines were operating. 

We're projecting $45,000 for this year. If, in fact, West Elk is not able to survive, that amount will drop even 

further. Well, people have to understand, we're a small town. Our general fund budget is $651,000. When you 

lose $115,000, you're losing 17 percent of your budget. You are looking at layoffs. We are a town that went from 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-820 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

19 fulltime employees down to 10 fulltime employees, four part-time employees. If, in fact, we have to layoff 

additional people, we're looking at losing Police Officers, sanitation workers. And we're going to have a difficult 

time providing basic services to our community. 

Comment Number: 000001252_ ANGELOVICH_20160623-2 

Organization1:Mayor of Paonia 

Commenter1:Charles Stewart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

think what people don't also know is that we receive a significant amount of money from the energy 

[indiscernible] fund. The EPA, through the State, ordered us to filter our water to upgrade our filtration process. 

That project would not have been possible without $1 million grant from the Mineral Impact Assistance Fund. 

We are also right now in a position where we have an aging water infrastructure. The bottom line is, again, it is 

my money that is paying for the replacement of pipes. It is my industry that's cleaned our water, that bring waters 

to our -- water to our households. So, you need to keep that in mind. The impact of the mines -- a very positive 

impact of the mines is substantial. 

Comment Number: 000001252_ ANGELOVICH_20160623-3 

Organization1:Mayor of Paonia 

Commenter1:Charles Stewart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

My hope is that we can find a way that the low sulfur, high-heat coal of the North Fork Valley can play a very 

significant role in the energy production of this country. 

Comment Number: 000001253_Stewart_20160623-1 

Organization1:Town of Paonia 

Commenter1:Charles Stewart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the past, we had 

three mines that were operating -- Oxbow Valley and West Elk. At that time, the payroll for the three mines was 

in excess of $100 million. The one mine that is left, West Elk, is in Chapter 11. Payroll has dropped less than $30 

million. We have lost a very substantial amount of income from our community. Quite frankly, if you had the 

same kind of loss in Denver, there would be a tremendous political uproar. From the town's perspective, we 

were receiving $115,000 a year from severance and mineral leasing revenue when all three mines were operating. 

We're projecting $45,000 for this year. If, in fact, West Elk is not able to survive, that amount will drop even 

further. Well, people have to understand, we're a small town. Our general fund budget is $651,000. When you 

lose $115,000, you're losing 17 percent of your budget. You are looking at layoffs. We are a town that went from 

19 fulltime employees down to 10 fulltime employees, four part-time employees. If, in fact, we have to layoff 

additional people, we're looking at losing Police Officers, sanitation workers. And we're going to have a difficult 

time providing basic services to our community. I think what people don't also know is that we receive a 

significant amount of money from the energy [indiscernible] fund. The EPA, through the State, ordered us to filter 

our water to upgrade our filtration process. That project would not have been possible without $1 million grant 

from the Mineral Impact Assistance Fund. We are also right now in a position where we have an aging water 

infrastructure. The bottom line is, again, it is my money that is paying for the replacement of pipes. It is my 

industry that's cleaned our water, that bring waters to our -- water to our households. So, you need to keep that 

in mind. The impact of the mines -- a very positive impact of the mines is substantial. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-821

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 000001255_Nettleton_20160623-3 

Organization1:Twenty Mile Coal 

Commenter1:Jerry Nettleton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Market conditions. Decreases in coal production, extensive layoffs, coal company bankruptcies, and social 

impacts on affected communities and regions are very real and immediate impacts of the current policies and 

some of the proposed actions. These need to be considered, and deserve and should be considered in any 

objective analysis. 

Comment Number: 000001256_Best_20160623-3 

Organization1:Greenpeace 

Commenter1:Diana Best 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The third piece reform that I would suggest here is that we also need a well-resourced plan to support a just 

transition for coal workers and traditional mining communities. 

Comment Number: 000001257_Petersen_20160623-1 

Organization1:Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado 

Commenter1:Bonnie Petersen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our communities in Northwest Colorado depend on these jobs in the coal mines and the power plants 

they supply, as well as the economic benefits provided by the suppliers of goods and services to mines and power 

plants. 

Comment Number: 000001257_Petersen_20160623-3 

Organization1:Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado 

Commenter1:Bonnie Petersen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Federal Coal Program provides substantial revenues to Federal and State governments, totally $13.8 

billion since 2003. Because coal bonus bids, rents, and royalties are shared with the States, the Colorado citizens 

receive $22 million from Federal coal in 2015 alone. That represents 49 percent of the monies paid to the 

Federal Government. Our communities depend on these payments to provide for schools and infrastructures to 

benefit our citizens. 

Comment Number: 000001258_Inouye_20160623-2 

Commenter1:David Iouye 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Third is job market changes. Now, if you think about Crested Butte, it was coal mining town. And when I first 

went there in 1971, it was a pretty shaky economy. The streets weren't paved. Now, probably a few people in 

this room could afford to live there. It was a booming economy, depended on tourism, recreation, on wildlife, on 

wildflowers, on view sheds. And I think that's an example of how there can be a successful transition from an 

economy town that's based primarily on coal to one that's now based on other factors. 

Comment Number: 000001258_Inouye_20160623-3 

Commenter1:David Iouye 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-822 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Now, in Delta County, I think is a good example of how Federal programs could help support alternative careers. 

For instance, the Delta/Montrose Electric Association is starting this month to put gigabyte internet broadband 

service into the County. And that's going to open up a number of opportunities for additional jobs in that county. 

Comment Number: 000001259_Johnson_20160623-1 

Organization1:Western Slope Conservation Center 

Commenter1:Alex Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The coalmines have invested in our communities. They have supported generations of families who built the 

homes and streets and irrigation canals that have made our Valley so productive. For more than a century, coal 

and agricultural -- agriculture have gone hand-in-hand. Farmers mined coal. And coal miners farmed. Together, 

the Western Slope Conservation Center, local coal mines, and community residents formed good neighbor 

partnerships that not only mitigated impacts, but directly supported conservation of the North Fork Valley. 

Offering just one example, over the last 15 years, the West Elk Mine and the Western Slope Conservation 

Center have worked together to put over 11,000 acres of private land into conservation easements, conserving 

our agricultural heritage forever. But, this is a difficult and historic moment for our Valley. In the last two years, 

the local coal mines have laid off nearly 900 well-paid employees. Two of the coal mines have shut down 

indefinitely, with Oxbow having just demolished its rail silo this past month. The reality of our community is 

that we are now looking into an unknown and scary future. 

Comment Number: 000001259_Johnson_20160623-2 

Organization1:Western Slope Conservation Center 

Commenter1:Alex Johnson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I request that the Department of Interior should do everything in its power to support local coal miners, their 

families, and the communities in which they live. Laid off coal miners should be given adequate resources 

for retraining, so that they can stay in the communities which they have called home for generations. Coal 

communities also need Federal support to hasten new businesses and job. Our communities will thrive only with 

a balanced approach that safeguards our air, land, and water, supporting a diversified economic and energy future. 

Comment Number: 000001260_Muhr_20160623-1 

Organization1:Outdoor Recreation Coalition 

Commenter1:Chris Muhr 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

But, as the Outdoor Rec Coalition, we don't have really a horse in this race. What I'm doing here is we're 

actually wanting to offer our hand and our help as a coalition of manufacturers of outdoor goods to the people, 

the community, and the land managers of the North Fork Valley. We're looking at a diversification of the 

economy up there. We've done this in the past. We've done it with Fruita. We've done it with Cortez. We're 

doing it right now with Ridgeway, Colorado. In fact, a guy came down from Ridgeway, and after having ridden 

their mountain bike trails that were just put in, and he said it's going to be like printing money up there. But, I 

think what we're trying to do is we would like to help drive tourism up into the North Fork Valley. We would 

also like to drive entrepreneurs and manufacturers and people with higher educations. We would like to take and 

drive people into the area so that the people in the North Fork Valley can take advantage of those extra tourism 

dollars and those opportunities to start businesses of their own. You know we've seen this happen in Grand 

Junction. We've got businesses like Bonsai Designs, who design zip-lines that go -- send them all over the world. 

We've got Lightner Plummer [phonetic] who designs chair lifts and sends them all over the world. Mountain 

racing products. Cortez has osprey packs. So, certainly there's, there's life after minerals have been played out or 

did they lose their pricing. And I'm one of those people. I, I have a welding and fabrication shop here in Grand 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-823

Scoping Report 

Junction. You know one of the things that we started back when Oxbow had the accident which locked in their, 

their [indiscernible] equipment, was working with tourism officials, both at the State and the local level, to 

develop a plan. And we've had [indiscernible] work on this. Develop a plan to drive tourism into the area. And 

we hope that that plan and working with you in this room, we can additionally give some economic boost to the 

area. 

Comment Number: 000001261_Beebe_20160623-3 

Organization1:Utah Sierra Club 

Commenter1:Lindsay Beebe 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As coal declines, we must ensure that coal workers and extraction communities are supported with 

sustainable economic opportunities. And the government must play a key role in helping drive a just transition 

towards clean energy economy that will maximize investments in economic development, provide workforce 

training, and create lasting jobs in impacted communities. If we choose to act now using all the capacity of our, as 

yet, unlimited human ingenuity, we can create the clean energy economy that will fuel both economic and 

spiritual prosperity. 

Comment Number: 000001288_Stein_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Joe Stein 

Other Sections: 19 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Opponents of the coal moratorium correctly argue that the coal industry provides jobs and economic 

benefits to working class towns that need it. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 

56,700 Americans are employed in coal mining; down from 80,000 in 2014. These workers are drawn to coal 

because jobs are a plenty. The U.S. still gets one-third of its energy from coal. Coal companies claim that we 

cannot replace the jobs that they provide with jobs in the green industry. The data says something different. 

Worldwide, there are more jobs in renewables than coal mining, oil, and gas combined. As fossil fuels dry up, 

workers are turning to the solar sector. There are already twice as many solar workers in the U.S. as there are 

coal miners. 31,000 new solar jobs were created in 2014 alone. With wise policies centered around green energy 

subsidies, we could create thousands of jobs, effectively nullifying the job loss experienced during the inevitable 

and necessary divestment from fossil fuel based energy. 

Comment Number: 000001291_Ramey_20160623-1 

Organization1:Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Jim Ramey 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I hope we can look to our public lands to support diversifying the local economy with alternative energy 

development and by growing the outdoor recreation economy. 

Comment Number: 000001298_McIntosh_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Frankie McIntosh 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I want to keep coal miners employed. 

Comment Number: 000001299_Roeber_20160623-1 

Organization1:Delta County 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-824 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Mark Roeber 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our economy is based on agriculture, coal mining, and tourism. We're 57 percent Federal land. So, whatever the 

BLM, Forest Service, does has a direct impact on our economy. Historically, as was previously stated, Delta 

County had 1200 jobs in the coal mining industry in 2012. We're down to about 250 now. That's a 42 percent 

decrease in four years, and our communities are suffering. We -- with a 42 percent decrease, if you relate that to 

jobsin the Denver area based on population, you'd be looking at 31,000 jobs. That would get national attention. 

And we ask that Delta County be considered with our job loss, that we be taken seriously. We -- you know it's 

not just our direct job mining losses. Losses to our schools, our communities. We're losing nurses out of the 

hospital as husbands have lost jobs in the mine. That affects all of our economy, all of our people, and the services 

they provide. We're losing the kids out of the schools. Our school district is looking at consolidation, closing the 

school. 

Comment Number: 00001267_Mork_20160623-2 

Organization1:Interfairh worker Justice 

Commenter1:Doug Mork 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We call on the BLM to find new ways to hold coal companies accountable to the miners, to their workers, to 

make sure that promises made are kept 

Comment Number: 00001267_Mork_20160623-3 

Organization1:Interfairh worker Justice 

Commenter1:Doug Mork 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Finally, we call on the BLM and the Federal government as a whole to pay special attention to good, living wage, 

to jobs in the communities' hardest hit by the inevitable changes in this industry 

Comment Number: 00001268_Ortiz_20160623-2 

Organization1:Western Slope Conservation Center 

Commenter1:Karen Ortiz 

Other Sections: 8.12 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

You've heard about our very clean burning coal. North Fork communities have benefited from this wealth over 

many decades without sacrificing the other riches that our local land, water, and air provide. That, coupled with 

methane off-gassing from our closed and currently operating mines in our recapture project, puts us into an 

excellent position for the Federal Government to leverage our values of methane recapture methods 

[indiscernible] research and training site. It could create training and jobs for some displaced miners while 

diversifying our local economy and energy generation through methane recapture and other renewable sources 

at our disposal. 

Comment Number: 00001270_Smyth_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Joe Smyth 

Commenter Type: Individual 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Federal Coal Program impacts communities in a wide variety of ways. Federal coal mining provides jobs and 

revenue for communities in Colorado, Utah, Montana, and particularly Wyoming. So, as we move away from coal 

in favor of cleaner forms of energy, the Federal government has a responsibility to help those communities 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-825

Scoping Report 

transition. This dependence on coal in the West exists largely because of the Federal program. So, the level of 

national support in this transition should be comparable to what we see when the Defense Department 

decommissions a military base. That could be financed with the Federal Government's share of coal royalties. 

Why should all the money go to the Federal Treasury? We owe these communities for what they've done to help 

power our nation 

Comment Number: 00001270_Smyth_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Joe Smyth 

Other Sections: 8.11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And transporting coal disrupts communities with mile-long trains. 

Comment Number: 00001270_Smyth_20160623-6 

Commenter1:Joe Smyth 

Commenter Type: Individual 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And even they lead their companies into bankruptcy, these executives gave themselves multimillion dollar 

bonuses. We heard about $8 million bonuses from Arch Coal. That was approved on Friday, January 8th. One 

business day before they filed for bankruptcy. Now, imagine if that money had been invested in communities and 

economic transition strategies. 

Comment Number: 00001272_Armstrong_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Jeremiah Armstrong 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I'd like to point out a little bit about hypocrisy. As we've talked about coal royalties and the amount of money 

that's supposedly is lost from the Federal government for not having higher royalty rates. It's, it's quite low 

compared to some other subsidies that, that are quite astounding. We know the ultimate goal of this 

administration is to keep coal in the ground. But, Federal coal in the ground -- but keeping Federal coal in the 

ground as a coal project, opponents suggest, would result in no return to the taxpayer. The Federal Coal 

Program provides [indiscernible] revenues. That's Federal and State Governments totaling roughly $14 billion 

since 2003. Is zero really better than billions of dollars? 

Comment Number: 00001275_Earl_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Taylor Earl 

Commenter Type: Individual 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Coal Leasing Program is more than fair. And coal mines benefit the communities they affect in an 

overwhelmingly positive way 

Comment Number: 00001276_Bear_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Bill Bear 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Many local communities have built school systems and other needed infrastructure on the continued mining of 

coal. What, if any, alternative will be offered to replace this lost revenue from the leasing and the mining of coal? 

Limiting or denying the leasing of coal destroys coal companies, as well as other related industries, such as 

transportation systems, including railroads. What impact will the reduction of [indiscernible] put on the rail have 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-826 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

on the overall [indiscernible] and the cost of goods delivered to distant destinations? How will the Federal 

Government manage or pay to hold the cost related to transportation to what they are -- to what they were 

before the eliminating the lease of -- leasing of coal? Electric utilities have been able to supply low- cost power to 

their consumers, based on the fact that their two large users helped defray the utilities fixed cost. With the loss 

or the curtailing of these large users, the fixed costs are going to be dumped onto the little guy, driving up their 

cost. How many will be able to absorb the extra burden? The Programmatic EIS needs to address this and how 

the Federal Government and those driving this process are going to help pay for that. 

Comment Number: 00001276_Bear_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Bill Bear 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In Delta County, we are seeing vital support industries, such as medical, leaving. Doctors and their employees are 

leaving the area because they can no longer generate revenues to sustain their practices. A healthy mining 

community provides medical insurance to their employees as a benefit of their employee. With the diminishing 

job market for miners and subsequent cash flow streams to doctors and hospitals, these community resources 

are beginning to disappear. How will the Federal 

Government address this? 

Comment Number: 00001278_Nilsen_20160623-1 

Organization1:Delta Rigging and Tools 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

hope you consider the number of jobs created and the tax revenue produced by these mines and their vendors. 

The coal industry is already in decline. And many communities are suffering. My company has made considerable 

cuts because of this downturn 

Comment Number: 00001281_Monholland_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Landon Monholland 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Recreation as an economic driver is only growing and can offer communities a solid structure around which to 

grow. The coal PEIS study, as announced by Secretary Jewell, will give communities a chance to look towards 

other economic drivers for their areas, while also addressing issues with the current leasing system. Recreation is 

the sustainable and obtainable option for communities in Southwest Colorado. And I urge our region to consider 

alternatives to resource-extraction-based economies 

Comment Number: 00001283_Unknown_20160623-1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As we look at these issues of the BLM and coal leases, there's so much at stake, so many lives that depend on 

these leases and jobs. These jobs are the life bloods of the communities where they're at. 

Comment Number: 00001284_Sager_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Jennifer Sager 

Commenter Type: Individual 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to making sure that Americans are receiving a fair return on Federal coal, I ask the BLM's leadership 

work with the President and Congress to ensure that those resources get directed to the most impacted 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-827

Scoping Report 

communities so that the transition away from fossil fuels is one that is fair to the communities and workers 

whose daily grind and kept our country running 

Comment Number: 00001285_Abshire_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Jim Abshire 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The one question that hasn't been asked today is what happens if there is no coal? A brief history of that. The 

Provence of Ontario shut down their coal plants, resulting in the electricity cost increasing by over 318 percent 

and the loss of over 300,000 jobs. Manufacturing companies either went bankrupt or left. 

Comment Number: 00001286_LeValley_20160623-1 

Organization1:Delta County 

Commenter1:Robbie LeValley 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I want to clearly state that we want you to also consider all of the taxes that the coal mine industry pays -- not 

just the royalty when it comes to this EIS. And I know that after reading hundreds of NEPA documents over my 

short tenure -- I know that you will, but I would ask specifically that you include all of them, including the dollars 

that are given to the Department of Local Affairs that fund our sewer, that fund the water, that fund the 

economic diversity projects, that fund the recreation projects. Include all of those information in this 

Programmatic EIS. All of those taxes -- again, not just the royalty taxes 

Comment Number: 00001286_LeValley_20160623-2 

Organization1:Delta County 

Commenter1:Robbie LeValley 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I've got to cut out -- again, specifically for 2017, out of our County budget. I have to figure out a way to cut 

$500,000 out just from Bowie Mine. I have to figure out how to cut 700,000 out of our road and bridge budget. 

Those are real numbers that have a real impact on Delta County. And that -- those come directly from the 

mines. That's not just the [indiscernible] business. That's just directly from the mine. And so, I ask you just to 

understand that at the local level, that's 20 percent of my budget 

Comment Number: 00001292_Grako_20160623-1 

Organization1:Bowie Resources 

Commenter1:Lou Grako 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When the new mine opens up, the standard of living raises. For property taxes and other taxes, mining 

operations pay. Mining jobs can bring great earning opportunities for the community, as you can see 

here today. And great volunteerism by our miners. Bowie paid 1.1 million in property tax, 1 million in royalties 

and severance tax for schools and education last year alone. 

Comment Number: 00001292_Grako_20160623-4 

Organization1:Bowie Resources 

Commenter1:Lou Grako 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As I near retirement, I fear the high cost of the utility bill due to the high cost of wind and solar and, and it will 

cut deeply into my ability to enjoy my retirement years. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-828 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0003062_Hoy_G-2 

Commenter1:Judy Hoy 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In Montana, tourism and wildlife watching and wildlife photography provides more jobs and more money to the 

citizens of Montana than mining coal 

Comment Number: 0000730_Rothfus_USRep_20160628-1 

Commenter1:Keith Ross 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As you consider possible changes to the Federal Coal Leasing Program, Congressman Rothfus urges you to be 

mindful of the overwhelming benefits provided to the American people. The coal industry supports familysustaining jobs nationwide and fuels a significant portion of our country's energy supply. Any efforts to reduce the 

amount of coal produced on federal lands would have a significant and negative impact on American jobs and 

energy security 

Comment Number: 0000843_Seltweiger_PennFuture-1 

Organization1:Penn Future 

Commenter1:Larry Seltweiger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Communities here and throughout the nation have struggled to survive with scarred and subsided lands, 

poisoned waters and wide spread and severe ecological damage from coal mined on our public lands, often in a 

single bidder arrangement, causes great harm to the communities while ships go to China to produce cheap 

goods to undercut U.S. workers and harm our economy 

Comment Number: 0000847_Mann_SierraClub-3 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I will just note that given the urgency of rapid progress in transitioning the economy off fossil fuels to clean, 

renewable energy, BLM must evaluate the alternative of ending the program all together to a planned transition 

that leaves the remaining coal in the ground and remaining lands in tact with their environmental and social 

benefits and provides a transition for the communities and workers dependent on it 

Comment Number: 0000850_Mosley_BluegreenAlliance-1 

Organization1:Blue Green Alliance 

Commenter1:Khari Mosley 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Blue Green Alliance believes that the concentrated overall of this program is not only an opportunity to fix a 

broken system, but also an opportunity to take a hard look at how coal-dependent communities, regional 

economies and individual workers can transition to new economic models 

Comment Number: 0000851_Grenter_CenterCoalfieldJustice-1 

Organization1:Center for Coalfield Justice 

Commenter1:Patrick Grenter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Washington and Greene Counties are communities where almost no one owns the rights to their coal. Greene 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-829

Scoping Report 

County just in the past couple years was the third largest coal-producing county in the 

country, home to the largest underground coal mine in the country. These are frontline communities directly 

impacted by coal every single day for people who live there. So not having the rights to their coal means so many 

people are forced to live with the harms of the coal industry, destroyed streams, 

displaced communities, reduced tax base, destroyed property values. 

Comment Number: 0000871_Kasserman-1 

Commenter1:Krissy Kasserman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

continued federal coal leasing diverts our attention from the real work, transitioning coal communities like mine 

to a clean energy future. The transition to a clean energy economy will create new jobs and new opportunities 

for those of us living in coal country. Some of these new jobs will be in reclamation, 

reclaiming and restoring old dangerous and polluted mine sites which foul our streams and create a danger to 

community. We want time and opportunity to assist communities in moving forward. 

And we can be using funds released by the U.S. government to manage the Federal Coal Leasing Program to 

enhance this transition or to restore these legacy sites. The Federal Coal Leasing program should be ended in 

order to save taxpayers money, protect public land and to begin the meaningful 

transition for coal communities here in Appalachian and beyond. 

Issue 9 - Tribal interests and Native American religious concerns 

Total Number of Submissions: 15 

Total Number of Comments: 18 

Comment Number: 00000175_ MORRIS_20160517-2 

Commenter1:R. Noah Morris 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I would first implore the BLM to respect Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and honor the treaties with native 

nations where much of this land and this coal is being leased unlawfully by our own constitutional law

Comment Number: 00000183_ MCKAY_20160517-4 

Commenter1:Don McKay 

Other Sections: 16 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Four, the coal in nearby communities or underwater systems or near -- in view sight of religious sites not be 

mined. 

Comment Number: 0000630-1 

Organization1:Dine Citizens Against Ruining our Environment 

Commenter1:Anna Marie Frazier 

Excerpt Text: 

am a resident of Navajo (Native American) reservation where there are 2 large coal mines active - one is closed. 

There are also 2 large coal burning power plants all located on Navajo land. Existing along border of Navajo land 

are two more large power plants. The coal mines were developed in 1930's and continuing today. 

The health impacts from the coal has been devastating to our people - health has declined from the mines and 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-830 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

power plants operating year round 24/7 days a week for 364 days a year releasing 14,491,316 tons of carbon 

dioxide, 39,189 tons of Nitrogen Oxides, 11,144 tons of Sulfur Dioxide and 445.75 pounds of mercury. 

The contaminants from coal mining have impacted our drinking water as well. Today we are fighting for our share 

of use of Colorado River and LC's although we have first residents rights to the water - the corporations don't 

acknowledge the initial agreements and laws that relate to Indian Country. 

In the case of coal mining on Indian lands - federal review process leaves the Tribal Coal off the table, while it 

should be treated similar to any other states. 

I encourage the Federal Government that has oversight over Tribal Lands to begin closure of coal mining so the 

land can heal as well as healing for all living species. 

Comment Number: 0001101-1 

Organization1:Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 

Commenter1:Carina Miller 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I just wanted to come today to make a statement from the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs that we do not 

support any fossil fuels going over any indigenous lands which do include the Columbia River and the surrounding 

areas. 

Comment Number: 0001101-2 

Organization1:Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 

Commenter1:Carina Miller 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Continuing to let oil and coal go along the Columbia River or along any indigenous lands in this day goes directly 

against our treaty rights, which supersedes state and city incorporation rights. It goes against our ability to 

decolonize, to reclaim identities taken from us, to give us the ability to come out of an oppressive colonization 

identity that have been forced on us for 500 years. 

Comment Number: 0001122-1 

Organization1:Yakama Nation 

Commenter1:Raymond Estrada 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And I come here as an eyewitness to the effects of coal and the effects of the climate change on a traditional 

level. This year alone we've had -- we've seen a -- the earliest harvest of our traditional foods. It's been about a 

month, month and a half early, and we've also seen the shortest harvest our foods, our traditional foods that we 

hold dear to us. It's only been about two weeks that we've been able to gather our foods that we rely on for 

many events throughout the year, many traditional funerals, traditional gatherings that we cannot support most of 

these gatherings anymore because the food is not there because of the climate change. And I am also a traditional 

fisherman and have witnessed many things happen on the Columbia River. I've seen a lot of fish and a lot of the 

effects that we, as people, have had on the salmon itself and on the sturgeon and all the other river ecosystem, 

and one being taking our Celilo Falls away to build a railroad bridge and the dams on the Columbia River for 

electricity. I encourage the Bureau of Land Management to have a hearing just for tribal leadership because we 

are nations within a nation. We are with the United States but we are separate. We reserved that right in our 

traditional treaties. And I would hope that you would hear my words and address our leaders through not only in 

the Yakama Nation but all the nations throughout the United States that are affected by this and our traditional 

foods that are affected by this. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-831

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0001124-1 

Organization1:Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 

Commenter1:Shayleen Macy 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

For the Warm Springs tribes, these rights to continue these practices are guaranteed by federal government 

treaties, yet these rights have been threatened and harmed by fossil fuels, exports and consumption. Coal export 

projects are having a negative impact on our fishing rights and traditions. Coal traffic poses a physical threat to 

our people on the river and an environmental threat. 

Comment Number: 0001133-1 

Organization1:Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 

Commenter1:Musulcha Smith 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The testing is proven, the documentation is there, the other people that speak of this, you know, that it definitely 

is a negative. So we are stewards of the lands. We waste not, want not. I strongly object to coal transport due to 

contamination of the air, land, and water, the negative impacts, coal dust, noise effect, the water, a special 

concern as we're saying, you know, we're here to set an example, the responsibility of family, tribal elders to 

teach gathering and care of our revered ceremonial traditional foods, our salmon, deer, elk, roots, the 

chokecherries and the berries that are in our traditional lineup of gatherings. 

Comment Number: 0001138-1 

Organization1:Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

Commenter1:Kaden Walksnice 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our reservation is almost surrounded by coal mines, and we're fighting to protect our land. And in fact, the 

Powder River coal basin is all ancestral Cheyenne territory from Montana all the way down into Colorado. So 

anything that happens affects our people. 

Comment Number: 0001195-1 

Commenter1:Ramona Owen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It's important to remember that industrialized nations have made decisions regarding the use of natural resources 

that not only impacts citizens of that nation but eventually small, nonindustrialized nations all around the world. 

Right now the Pacific Ocean is rising and encroaching on the homes of Belauan people. Recently a large and 

important taro plant garden that provides a traditionally sacred and critical food supply to an entire village has 

begun dying. This is due to the elevation of sea levels and acidification impacting coasts and islands. 

Comment Number: 0002009_CenterBioDiversity_20160329-13

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We also strongly urge that as you undertake reforms to modernize the way federal coal is managed, that you also 

give considerations to the way tribal coal is managed. We understand there are significant differences between 

the management regimes and fully support the sovereign authority of tribal nations. At the same time and 

recognizing the broader impacts of coal, we urge Interior and tribal nations to work together to ensure the 

management of tribal coal is also modernized with full consideration of climate impacts. At a minimum, we urge 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-832 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

you to ensure that tribal interests are consulted as federal coal reforms, are undertaken. The concerns raised 

during last summer's listening sessions highlight the impacts of the federal coal program to tribal interests, and 

the corresponding need for consultation. 

Comment Number: 0002285_Gordon_20160719-1 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to testimony in Seattle June 21, 2016, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs want no coal trains 

going over their land. 

Comment Number: 0002285_Gordon_20160719-2 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Indian treaties should be taken into consideration and the Indians’ present desires should both be included in the 

PEIS scoping. 

Comment Number: 0002383_WIlson_20160721-1 

Organization1:Crow Nation Executive Branch 

Commenter1:Dana Wilson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

What does it mean to me as a tribal official? 2/3 of my budget comes from coal mining. That’s 

depending on coal sales but that averages out to about $17 million a year. That supports a lot of jobs 

and a lot of people are dependent on that. Also, every single tribal member gets a capital payment that 

is similar to a dividend, they reap the benefits, every tribal member does – that’s our rule they get a 

check every quarter from coal. So I am a little worried about this moratorium. It doesn’t affect the 

leasing of Crow coal, however, it could have some spillover effects that can affect me. 

Comment Number: 0002383_WIlson_20160721-2 

Organization1:Crow Nation Executive Branch 

Commenter1:Dana Wilson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There is a set of regulatory hurdles. Especially the unreasonable restrictions the development on our coal it’s not 

only making it hard on us but what the coal companies do to export coal. Suspending or further impeding Indian 

coal leasing would be an infringement on tribal sovereignty. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-41

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition, NWF has significant concerns about the environmental and cultural impacts of mining to our tribal 

partners. We have worked with the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and many other tribes, for over a decade to 

prevent the development of the largest proposed coal mine in the U.S., the Otter Creek Mine. The threat of this 

mine to tribal communities is immense and is dramatically amplified by the fact that mining companies are subject 

to a low royalty rate and that federal lands are opened up to new coal development prior to the companies 

meeting their obligations for reclamation of existing mines. Taxpayers should not be left on the hook for the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-833

Scoping Report 

costs of mine cleanup, nor should tribes and other Americans suffer the brunt of new mines before existing 

mines are reclaimed 

Comment Number: 0020001_Murnion_20160712-2 

Commenter1:David Murnion 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There needs to be big changes in the way the land is stripmined for coal, so that ancient cultural sites are 

protected and significant landmarks are preserved. 

Comment Number: 000001254_Fraser_20160623-1 

Organization1:Navajo Nation 

Commenter1:Anna Fraser 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And the problem with that is that the Federal regulations that are supposed to have been protecting the citizens 

of the communities throughout our nation, does not really have that strength or whatever. I mean it's not being 

utilized enough to protect the people that are impacted. Because we have on our Reservation, there's two 

[indiscernible]. One on Black Mesa, that produces coal. And it transports it over to a Navajo generating station 

right along the [indiscernible] right along the Colorado River. And that, that power plant pumps water from 

Parker, Arizona. And then, it, it sends the water to Phoenix, Arizona, where they water their plants and build 

swimming pools and, and golf courses and whatnot. But, here on our Reservation, we are -- you know 

we, we're fighting for the water, as well, because we're in a drought area. So, those at the things that are, are 

very concerning for us. And there's also another power plant over at the Navajo, Navajo Mine. There's a Navajo 

Mine, a coal mine. And then, right next to it, is the San Juan generator station that's near Farmington, New 

Mexico. And, and from that, power is also going down to [indiscernible] City, Arizona, and then on to Phoenix, 

too. So, we don't see any of the power that, that is going off of our Reservation at all. So, in the -- and, and 

what happens there with that is that the power is -- it goes down to Phoenix. And our Navajo Tribe has to buy 

the power back to Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, which is the only utility company for our Reservation. 

So, we have to almost like double -- it's a double pay -- oh, goodness, it's [indiscernible]. Anyway, I just 

wanted to say that it's really devastating for our, our Navajo people to be in that situation. 

Issue 10 - State's interests and concerns 

Total Number of Submissions: 13 

Total Number of Comments: 15 

Comment Number: 00000111_Deutsch_ 20160517-1 

Organization1:North Dakota Public Service Commission 

Commenter1:Jim Deutsch 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I think the BLM needs to understand the federal coal situation is different in North Dakota. It's only about 15 

percent of the lands that are on federal land and BLM does not own any of the surface. The rest of it is all either 

private or state-owned coal. Mining companies when they -¬before they sign their contracts, they typically lease 

all that federal coal or not just the federal coal, but the private coal that is necessary for the life of those 

contracts. The federal coal leasing comes later, and if they're unable to get the federal coal, they need to bypass 

those federal coal tracts. But they still have a surface lease to disturb the surface of that, and typically it is for 

roads, soil stockpiles, and sedimentation piles. If the federal coal ends up getting bypassed in these situations, the 

federal coal will never be mined in the future, and as a result of this, the federal government and the State of 

North Dakota loses this royalty and other revenues from that, and the rate of return to the taxpayers becomes 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-834 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

zero. Also mining around federal coal, it basically means more private coal has to be mined. So instead of 

eliminating or reducing the amount, the total amount of coal mined, it's just increasing the cost because typically 

what happens is they have to close the pit, open a new pit, go around the federal coal tracts, and that increases 

the cost significantly, and those costs then get passed on to rate-payers. 

Comment Number: 00000131_Rammell_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Rex Rammell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I think the only solution to this whole problem is to the transfer of public lands from the federal government 

back to the state. 

Comment Number: 0002076_Haslam_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Michele Haslam 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is vital that you include Montana’s elected officials in the policy discussions regarding the future of coal.These 

decisions affect thousands of Montana citizens and could jeopardize millions of tax dollars. 

Comment Number: 0002078_Hilton_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Reine Hilton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Montanans should have a big say in what the EPA is proposing for the coal industry since we are the largest coal 

producer in the country. 

Comment Number: 0002128_Walter_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Marlis Walter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal government needs to stop it's interference of states rights to develop and use our natural resources. 

We are sick of federal over-reach and efforts to control matters which should be left to the states. 

Comment Number: 0002195_DeWitt_20160519-1 

Commenter1:Jordan DeWitt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I believe that the federal coal moratorium should have had involvement of state representatives. Congress was 

not given a chance to give their input of the matter. 

Comment Number: 0002329_Segger_20160724_CambellCntyWY-1 

Organization1:County and Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Commenter1:Carol Seeger 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The potential impacts to state and local government resulting from a proposed change to the federal coal leasing 

program are not identified as being an issue that will be addressed in the environmental assessment. We 

specifically request that the economic impacts to state and local governments be included. Currently, there is an 

estimated 25 billion tons of economically recoverable coal located in the Powder River Basin with 343 million 

tons of coal being produced in Campbell County in 2013 accounting for 88% of the state's total production. 

Eighty percent of all coal in Wyoming is produced from federal and Indian lands. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-835

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002329_Segger_20160724_CambellCntyWY-2 

Organization1:County and Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Commenter1:Carol Seeger 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Campbell County generated 120 million in revenue in FY2014 stemming from coal resources valued at 3.5 billion. 

In 2013, Campbell County collected 64.7 million in ad valorem tax with 85% coming from natural resource 

production. This percentage does not include the revenue generated by the service industries that support coal 

production nor the fact that 5,195 people representing approximately 11% of the county residents and 24% of 

total employment are directly employed by the coal mining industry. In addition to the revenue generated to 

support Campbell County government, a mill levy is also applied to the taxable value of the coal to support the 

Campbell County Hospital District, the Campbell County Cemetery District, the Campbell County School 

District, the Campbell County Weed & Pest District, the Campbell County Conservation District, the City of 

Gillette and the Town of Wright. Any EIS intended to evaluate the federal coal leasing program must address the 

economic impacts to state and local governments. Such impacts are without question relevant in evaluating the 

federal coal program. 

Comment Number: 0002356_Kary_20160721-1 

Organization1:State of Montana 

Commenter1:Doug Kary 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

our federal government needs to look at each state individually because we are individual states and not take us 

all as one 

Comment Number: 0002390_Pfister_20160721-11

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Ellen Pfister 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The State should have a long-term interest in how well and how soon reclamation of mined land is accomplished 

in order to return that mined land to productive taxable property. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-42

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The security of critical infrastructure data collected in support of risk, vulnerability, or threat assessments is of 

vital concern to facility owners, operators, managers, and responders across Wyoming. Therefore is of the 

utmost importance that all precautions are taken to protect the data during the assessment process. Best 

practices dictate that plans and procedures are in place to ensure their security. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-77

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The DEQ, Land Quality Division (LQD), the BLM, USFS and OSMRE coordinate processes necessary to assure 

that all federal regulatory requirements are fulfilled during the State's permitting actions. This interagency 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-836 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

coordination is defined through the Working Agreement for the Wyoming State-Federal Cooperative Agreement 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (Working Agreement) (WY0-03045 to 03050) signed by all agencies 

which is applicable to mining of federal coal in Wyoming. The USFS is a cooperating agency in the federal coal 

leasing process. 

BLM must acknowledge the established Working Agreement with the DEQ, LQD and not step outside of the 

boundaries established by the Working Agreement in its analysis of the federal coal program in the PEIS 

Comment Number: 0002505_Brooke_20160729-5 

Organization1:Black Warrior River Keeper

Commenter1:Nelson Brooke 

Other Sections: 5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Additionally, we have concerns with the use of Powder River Basin coal from out West being burned at Alabama 

Power Company’s Miller Steam Plant on the Locust Fork in Jefferson County. This massive coal-fired power plant 

burns a lot of coal – predominantly from the Powder River Basin – coal which has elevated levels of mercury and 

potentially radionuclides (radioactive isotopes). These contaminants are better left in the ground than put into 

our air and water near Birmingham, Alabama. Miller Steam Plant is one of the largest CO2 emitting power plants 

in the entire U.S., and the BLM does not need to be feeding this beast. 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-10

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should revisit the federal state lease profits split and consider setting "appropriate use" parameters for 

monies generated by federal coal leasing. 

Comment Number: 0020049-1 

Organization1:City of Casper 

Commenter1:V.H. McDonald 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Many of Wyoming's local governments' economies are highly dependent upon the vitality of the coal industry. 

Local employment in those communities will likely be adversely affected by any regulatory changes and or 

increases of any tax or royalty rates. These modifications or additional cost burdens on coal producers can 

create disincentives to, or obstacles in, extracting this valuable energy resource. Consequently, it is essential that 

the extent of the economic impact of any changes in regulations and increases in tax and royalty rates upon state 

and local governments be determined and clearly reported. 

Issue 11 - Visual resources 

Total Number of Submissions: 2 

Total Number of Comments: 2 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-7 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 17 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-837

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text:

Surface coal mining severely alters the landscape, disrupting virtually all ecological and aesthetic elements of the 

landscape and reducing the value of the natural environment in the mined area and surrounding land. Strip mining 

destroys the genetic soil profile, eliminates existing vegetation, displaces or destroys wildlife and habitat, and to 

some extent permanently changes the general topography of the area mined. This often results in a scarred 

landscape with no scenic value. Soil disturbance results in conditions conducive to erosion. Soil removal from the 

area to be mined alters or destroys many natural soil characteristics and reduces its biodiversity and productivity 

for revegetation and agriculture. Paleontological, archeological, cultural, and other historic features and values 

may be endangered due to the disruptive activities of mining coal. 

Comment Number: 0003129_Takacs_06042016-1 

Commenter1:Carla Takacs 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The scars 

from coal mining are insanely grotesque and virtually impossible to repair! 

Issue 12 - Water resources 

Total Number of Submissions: 33 

Total Number of Comments: 40 

Comment Number: 00000106_Newell_ 20160517-2 

Commenter1:Kevin Newell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal trains. We already got a couple coming down the Columbia River. So we know what's happening. Coal flies 

out of the cars. It's deposited on the railroad tracks and in the riparian zone next to the river, and it also goes in 

the river. It acidifies when it gets in the river. Our baby salmon, sturgeon, and steelhead are supposed to live in 

this water. 

Comment Number: 00000158_ FRENCH_20160517-2 

Organization1:Northern Plains Resource Council 

Commenter1:Kate French 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Most of the coal mined in the PRB is federal coal, as you saw earlier. Strip mining that coal severely threatens 

water quality, water quantity, and the viability of our agricultural sector. The runoff from unreclaimed mine lands 

pollutes our water, and this contamination often leaves streams too salty to use for irrigation or cattle 

production. Coal seams also serve as vital aquifers for the area, and mining that coal often severs these aquifers, 

and that dries up natural springs and leaves many wells able to be dried up. Excuse me. Even underground 

(Inaudible) mining has an effect in cases of (Inaudible). There are oftentimes subsidence cracks and that leaves 

land no longer intact and affects the underlying hydrologic balance in these areas. This severely affects the 

insurance viability in the area. 

Comment Number: 00000172_ TERRY_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Vicky Terry 

Other Sections: 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I became aware of all the health effects and the water quality. And we water test. We monitor our own water 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-838 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

because we have been able to the coal mine and the regulations that are in place isn't the violations up there. I 

can show you with -- I can show you violations. And they are not being enforced. Nobody is enforcing any 

regulations. We are watching our water quality go down. We don't eat fish out of the creeks anymore. We are 

scared of the fish. And we have to watch where we go swimming now. 

Comment Number: 00000179_ FUSAN_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Lynn Fusan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

On January 1, 2009, the first independent tests were conducted following the coal ash spill at the Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry Laboratories at Appalachian State University. Results show significantly elevated levels 

of toxic metals in with the slurry and river water. These toxic metals included arsenic, copper, barium, cadmium, 

chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and thallium. 

Comment Number: 00000182_ BANBURY_20160517-2 

Commenter1:Scott Banbury 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

They impact water quality. The fluent that comes out of the coal ash ponds at our plant and other plants, these 

things should be included in the calculations. 

Comment Number: 00000183_ MCKAY_20160517-4 

Commenter1:Don McKay 

Other Sections: 12 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Four, the coal in nearby communities or underwater systems or near -- in view sight of religious sites not be 

mined. 

Comment Number: 00000357 _ Walsh_20160519-3 

Organization1:Sierra Club (National) 

Commenter1:Elizabeth Walsh 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At the same time, we're faced with another challenge, water quality. If we continue to pollute our fresh water 

resources by burning dirty fuels like coal, we have even less high-quality fresh water available for human 

consumption, crop irrigation, and to support wildlife and aquatic life such as fisheries. 

Comment Number: 0000587-1 

Organization1:Littlelead Guides 

Commenter1:Elke L. Kirk 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As a tribal fishing guide from Warm Springs Ore, Im against any kind of hazzardous materials along our river 

channels. 

Comment Number: 0002152_Bruse_20160518-2 

Commenter1:Debbie Bruse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The idea that coal mining is polluting the water is simply not true. An array of water type permits are required 

before mining can commence and most of these permits come with regular reporting and inspections. The 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-839

Scoping Report 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that each mine has, regulates specific criteria 

that water must meet to be discharged off permit area. Any mine in Wyoming that discharges water, completes 

testing prior to each and every discharge to make sure that standards are met (some exceptions may apply, but 

an exception would be atypical). 

Comment Number: 0002321_Gordon_20160722-2 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As the acidity the oceans increase, coral reefs die and harvestable fish die; here in the Northwest, oyster growers 

are moving their oyster start operations to Hawaii. The acidic sea water here on our coasts dissolve the fragile 

beginning calcium shells of the oysters and the starts die. This industry is in danger of disappearing. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-34

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 19 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Continuing such subsidies will also artificially widen the permanent damage that strip mining does to the 

rangelands and aquifers of the PRB. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-43

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When coal is burned, toxins in the coal are released into the smokestack. If modern air pollution controls are in 

place, airborne toxins are captured through filtration systems before they can become airborne. The captured 

toxins end up in coal ash. As a result, heavy metals such as mercury are concentrated in what the EPA considers 

"recycled air pollution control residue." This only delays the exposure of the public to these toxins. The EPA 

concedes that all coal ash landfills eventually leak, and Federal regulation of coal ash landfills is minimal. Rain falling 

on ash piles leaches out these heavy metal compounds. The heavy metals eventually end up in ground water, or in 

lakes and streams, contaminating drinking water sources. 

Comment Number: 0002328_Paddock_20160724-15

Commenter1:Brian Paddock 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining and coal burning for electricity pollutes and misuses water. This is particularly a problem in the West 

which is already suffering from water scarcity which is likely to increase a the global temperature increases.(17) 

Comment Number: 0002335_Webber_20160725_HealthActionNM-8 

Organization1:Health Action New Mexico 

Commenter1:Barbara Webber

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And here in New Mexico, the primary aquifers serving the Navajo Nation have been degraded by decades of 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-840 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

irresponsible and rampant coal mining. A 2011 study by the University of Arizona found that one company’s 

decades of coal mining had depleted Navajo Aquifer storage by 21,000 to 53,000 acre feet of water, well above 

what the company’s environmental consultants predicted.

Comment Number: 0002342_Etter_20160726-5 

Organization1:Bowie Resources, LLC 

Commenter1:Art Etter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The EIS must consider that increased restrictions and/or reductions placed on the coal industry directly benefit 

the gas industry and have little impact on renewable use. One could argue that increased renewable use is driven 

more by federal incentives than market competitiveness. Although, power generation from coal produces more 

carbon dioxide than natural gas, gas development poses substantially more long term risk to groundwater quality 

with the injection of production fluids and wastewater. 

Comment Number: 0002392-1 

Commenter1:Mary Fitzpatrick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Strip mining of coal severely threatens water quality and quantity, and therefore the viability of agricultural 

production in this region. Water is our most valuable resource, and we must protect it or risk losing our lifeblood. 

Comment Number: 0002436-1 

Commenter1:Sharon St Joan 

Other Sections: 8.4 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A tributary of Kanab Creek has already been relocated by the mine and has been polluted with coal dust. Kanab 

Creek provides the drinking water for the city of Kanab. New expansion of coal on to public lands would further 

contaminate Kanab Creek, which is also the main source of water for wildlife. 

Comment Number: 0002441_Hyche_20160724-3 

Commenter1:Roe Hyche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal ash must be stored in completely secure ponds where no leakage occurs. This is not happening. Not only 

that, but the more the coal is mined, the harder it will be to contain the pollution it causes. Our taxpayer-owned 

public lands need protection, not exploitation. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-56

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Another aspect of reclamation is restoration of water resources, including surface and groundwater hydrology. 

SMCRA requires coal operators to: assure the protection of the quality and quantity of surface water systems 

from the adverse effects of mining; restore the recharge capacity of the mined area to approximate pre-mining 

conditions; and, in Western states, preserve the essential hydrologic functions of most alluvial valley floors. (156) 

Where they cannot assure that the quantity of water will be protected, surface mine operators must provide an 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-841

Scoping Report 

alternative water source. (157) Since coal seams serve as aquifers in much of the western United States, such as 

in the Powder River Basin, demonstrating the ability of water (both pre-mining quality and quantity) to return to 

mined lands can be the most difficult reclamation requirement. 

(156) Mark Squillace, THE STRIP MINING HANDBOOK at Ch. 7 (Participating in Bond Release Proceedings), 

available at https://sites.google.com/site/stripmininghandbook/ 

(157) Id. at Ch. 5 (Reviewing a Permit Application). 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-8 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Surface coal mining adversely affects surface water and groundwater. Coal beds often contain underground 

aquifers, which are dewatered or destroyed during mining, which in turn leads to lowering of water levels in 

adjacent areas and changes in flow direction within aquifers. Other adverse impacts include contamination of 

usable aquifers below mining operations due to infiltration (percolation) of poor-quality mine water as well as 

increased infiltration of precipitation on spoil piles, which can result in increased runoff of poor-quality water and 

erosion from spoil piles, recharge of poor-quality water to shallow groundwater aquifers, and poor-quality water 

flow to nearby streams. Infiltration may contaminate both groundwater and nearby streams for long periods. 

Deterioration of stream quality results from acid mine drainage, toxic trace elements, high content of dissolved 

solids in mine drainage water, and increased sediment loads discharged to streams. When coal surfaces are 

exposed, pyrite comes in contact with water and air and forms sulfuric acid, which moves into waterways during 

precipitation events. Also, waste piles and coal storage piles can yield sediment, acid, and toxic trace elements to 

streams that can harm wildlife. Surface waters may be rendered unfit for agriculture, human consumption, 

bathing, or other household uses. 

Open-pit mining requires large amounts of water for coal preparation plants and dust suppression. To meet this 

need, mines acquire (and remove) surface or groundwater supplies from nearby agricultural or domestic users, 

which reduces the productivity of these operations or halts them. These water resources, once separated from 

their original environment, are rarely returned after mining, presenting flow harms for wildlife and harming other 

water uses. This can be a significant problem in places like the arid west, which comprise the vast majority of 

federal coal leasing. 

Comment Number: 0002459_Ball_20160728-2 

Commenter1:Connie Ball 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal fired power plants consume enormous quantities of water, and in the West, water is scarce and becoming a 

very big problem for a growing population. 

Water used in producing electricity becomes a contaminant to the environment and as coal companies go 

bankrupt, taxpayers have to pick up the enormous tab of cleanup. 

Comment Number: 0002461_breen_20160728-6 

Organization1:The WIlderness Society 

Commenter1:Katie Breen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal reform improves our access to water. Coal mining companies have drained aquifers once used for 

drinking water and livestock water. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-842 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-16

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Groundwater Depletion 

Western coal mining often takes place in very arid environments, with limited rainfall and surface water 

resources. Thus, successful reclamation of rangeland requires not only establishing surface vegetation, but also 

replacement and restoration of pre-mining water resources, the impacts on which must also be fully considered. 

As such, BLM should analyze and disclose the bond release status of previously leased acreage, and assess 

associated impacts related to water resources. OSMRE dictates that, “[a]chievement of surface water quality and 

quantity restoration can be measured by acres of Phase III bond release.” OSMRE Wyoming 2009 Report at 9. 

There is no other objective measure of water quality and quantity restoration (sufficient to allow post-mining 

land uses) that BLM could substitute for its evaluation. 

Additionally, BLM should review previous NEPA analyses for federal coal leases, analyses which have disclosed 

significant – and irreversible – impacts to groundwater resources. For instance, the Wright Area Leases Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Powder River Basin in Wyoming disclosed: “[t]he overburden and coal 

aquifers within the leased tracts would be completely dewatered and removed, and the area of drawdown caused 

by overburden and coal removal would be extended...” Bureau of Land Mgmt., Final EIS For the Wright Area 

Coal Lease Applications, 3-111 (July 2010). According to the EIS, “the effect of coal mine dewatering on the 

Upper Fort Union from 1990 to 2010...is a cumulative drawdown ranging from...50 to 150 feet in the vicinity of 

the Black Thunder” mine. Id. at 4-62. BLM states that “[t]he rate and extent of the actual drawdown in the coal is 

currently much greater than the life-of-mine drawdown predictions,” and that “[r]oughly 30 years of surface 

mining and the more recent CBNG development have resulted in complete dewatering of the coal aquifer in 

localized areas...” Id. at ES-40, 3-118. Additionally, the agency discloses that “resaturation of coal mine pit backfill 

to form backfill aquifers may take approximately 100 years after cessation of mining.” Id. at ES-67 (emphasis 

added).(24) 

(24) These statements essentially acknowledge that coal mining is resulting in material 

damage to the hydrologic balance of ground and surface water and that compliance with SMCRA’s statutory 

requirement to restore the regional Fort Union coal aquifer to “pre-mining conditions” may in fact be impossible.

Coal mining also uses substantial amounts of water for dust control, extraction (i.e., to cool equipment and 

prevent fire), and processing (e.g., coal washing). The Department of Energy estimates that U.S. coal mining uses 

approximately 70 to 260 million gallons of water per day, with average uses of 10 gallons per ton of coal mined 

on the surface in the West. See Hein and Howard at 10. Most, if not all, of this water comes from underground 

sources. The PEIS should provide a cumulative analysis of these impacts and direction for considering these 

impacts in future site-specific EISs. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-5 

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Groundwater Depletion: Coal mining has caused complete dewatering of aquifers formerly used for drinking 

water and livestock watering. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. §1201 et 

seq., creates responsibilities to restore both the quality and quantity of aquifers; however, companies are far 

behind on meeting these obligations, especially at a landscape scale. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-843

Scoping Report 

Delayed Reclamation and Corresponding Impacts to Other Land Uses: The gap between disturbed and reclaimed 

lands continues to grow. After decades of mining, across 562 square miles of land in Colorado, Montana, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, only 77 square miles have been fully reclaimed and released from 

bond, meaning that the vast majority of lands have not met regulatory requirements for re-vegetation and water 

restoration necessary to sustain pre-mining land uses. Western Organization of Resource Councils, et al., 

Undermined Promise II, available at www.underminedpromise.org. This lack of reclamation prevents land from 

being returned to its prior use of habitat for wildlife and livestock. Unreclaimed lands can also lead to the spread 

of noxious weeds and can contribute to air quality impacts. Due to down market conditions for coal, the threat 

of failed and untimely reclamation is becoming even more prevalent for companies that are “self-bonded.”

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-60

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS must also address the substantial hydrological impacts of coal leasing. In the water-scarce western U.S., 

groundwater, intermittent surface water and sub-irrigation are vital to the environment and the economic base. 

Mined coal seams often contain groundwater aquifers that nourish springs, wells, streams, and natural systems. 

Coal mining pollutes both surface and groundwater resources, often increasing levels of suspended solids and 

sediment load in streams and wetlands nearby. This in turn can increase ventilation rates, reducing oxygen levels 

for aquatic life. Suspended solids can also diminish light penetration through water, limiting aquatic plant 

productivity. See Undermined Promise II at 30. 

Surface waters can become contaminated from the leaching of toxic substances from exposed ore, waste rock, 

and overburden. In Wyoming and Idaho, for example, dust from the surface mining of coal in areas with selenium 

containing overburden was found to cause selenium levels to increase in the environment. Selenium leaches from 

coal ash and coal mine waste into nearby water and soil and heavily impacts aquatic ecosystems, where it can 

easily reach toxic concentrations and bio-accumulate through the food chain. In several lakes and reservoirs, 

selenium has been linked to reproductive impairment in fish and waterfowl. Contamination of groundwater 

usually occurs as the result of the leaching of ions from soils or the leakage of chemicals from waste-management 

facilities. See Helmut Meuser, Contaminated Urban Soils (Springer Sciences 2010) at 39; see also Richard S. Ogle 

et al., Bioaccumulation of Selenium in Aquatic Ecosystems, 4 Lake and Reservoir Management 2 (1988). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-16

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Before coal can be transported to power plants, it must be washed to remove soil and rock impurities. Coal 

washing uses polymer chemicals and large quantities of water and creates a liquid waste called slurry. Slurry 

ponds can leak or fail, leading to injury and death, and slurry injected underground into old mine shafts can 

release arsenic, barium, lead, and manganese into nearby wells, contaminating local water supplies.160 

(160) See A. Lockwood, et al., Coal’s Assault on Human Health at 4; E. Burt, et al., Health Effects from Coal Use 

at 3. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-23

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-844 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Other Sections: 1 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The storage of post-combustion wastes from coal plants also threatens human health. After combustion, some 

coal ash is recycled into cement and other engineering products, but most of it is disposed of in dry or wet 

landfills.217 There are 584 coal ash dump sites in the U.S., and toxic residues have migrated into water supplies 

and threatened human health at dozens of these sites.218 Landfills that leak fly-ash waste can contaminate ground 

and surface water with arsenic, cadmium, barium, thallium, selenium, and lead.219 

(217) See See E. Burt, et al., Health Effects from Coal Use at 3. 

(218) See Methane as a Greenhouse Gas, U.S. Climate Change Science Program (2006) available at: 

http://www.climatescience. gov/infosheets/highlight1/CCSP-H1-methane18jan2006.pdf; Coalbed methane—An 

Untapped Energy Resource and an Environmental Concern—USGS Fact Sheet, U.S. Geological Survey, FS-019-97 

(1997) available at: http://energy.usgs.gov/ factsheets/Coalbed/coalmeth.html. 

(219) See E. Burt, et al., Health Effects from Coal Use at 3. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-5 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to water resources: “Water resources across large areas of the country are at serious risk from climate 

change, with effects on water supplies, water quality, and adverse effects from extreme events such as floods and 

droughts. Even areas of the country where an increase in water flow is projected could face water resource 

problems from the supply and water quality problems associated with temperature increases and precipitation 

variability, as well as the increased risk of serious adverse effects from extreme events, such as floods and 

drought. The severity of risks and impacts is likely to increase over time with accumulating greenhouse gas 

concentrations and associated temperature increases.”22

Impacts from sea level rise: “The most serious potential adverse effects are the increased risk of storm surge and 

flooding in coastal areas from sea level rise and more intense storms. Observed sea level rise is already increasing 

the risk of storm surge and flooding in some coastal areas. The conclusion in the assessment literature that there 

is the potential for hurricanes to become more intense (and even some evidence that Atlantic hurricanes have 

already become more intense) reinforces the judgment that coastal communities are now endangered by humaninduced climate change, and may face substantially greater risk in the future. Even if there is a low probability of 

raising the destructive power of hurricanes, this threat is enough to support a finding that coastal communities 

are endangered by greenhouse gas air pollution. In addition, coastal areas face other adverse impacts from sea 

level rise such as land loss due to inundation, erosion, wetland submergence, and habitat loss. The increased risk 

associated with these adverse impacts also endangers public welfare, with an increasing risk of greater adverse 

impacts in the future.”23

(22) Final Endangerment Finding at 66,498. 

(23) Final Endangerment Finding at 66,498 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-50

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Unlike most states, Wyoming has laws and regulations that address all aspects of surface and groundwater within 

coal mining permit areas as well as offsite. In this capacity, the State Engineer's Office regularly coordinates with 

the DEQ, LQD to prepare cumulative hydrologic impact assessments for the coal production permitting process 

under provisions of the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act. This Act requires that no coal mining activity is to 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-845 

Scoping Report 

be approved in Wyoming unless the operation is designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance 

outside the permit area. 

It is important that the BLM analyze the regulatory control exerted by Wyoming in any consideration of the 

quantity and quality of water resources, including aquifer drawdown and impacts on streams and alluvial valley 

floors. 

Comment Number: 0002499_Nichols20160728-14

Organization1:WildEarth Guardians 

Commenter1:Jeremy Nichols 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Water quality and quantity impacts: Burning coal requires massive amounts of water for cooling and impacts 

water quality through the discharge of pollutants. The PEIS must address the impacts of coal combustion to water 

quality and quantity and provide information and analysis disclosing to what extent the federal coal program 

contributes to depletion of water supplies, particularly in the western United States, and to what extent water 

quality problems are linked to the federal coal program. 

Comment Number: 0002505_Brooke_20160729-1 

Organization1:Black Warrior River Keeper 

Commenter1:Nelson Brooke 

Other Sections: 8.4 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A recent BLM lease (ALES-055199) of 160 acres was awarded to Narley Mine No. 3 utilizing the “emergency 

lease” qualification, under the premise that the 868,423 tons of recoverable federal coal were needed within a 

three-year timeframe to maintain an existing mining operation – the adjacent Narley Mine. Operated by Best 

Coal, Inc., Narley Mine No. 3 (surface mine) is permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (NWP 21: SAM2012-00615-CMS), the Alabama Surface Mining Commission (P-3954) and the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management (NPDES: AL0075752). NPDES AL0075752 allows discharges through six sediment 

basins to an unnamed tributary to Trouble Creek, which flows into Trouble Creek, and then into the Locust Fork 

of the Black Warrior River in Jefferson County, AL. Sediment basins are allowed to be placed within streams in 

Alabama by utilizing a grandfather provision to exercise use of the old Nationwide Permit 21. This Corps 

permitting system is outdated and destructive – its use was discontinued in all other Appalachian coal mining 

states years ago. Sadly, its use has been allowed to continue in Alabama. It is stated that fill impacts would not be 

had by this operation on Trouble Creek, but there will be fill impacts to Trouble Creek’s tributaries. For this 

mine, SAM-2012-00615-CMS allows for the destruction and fill of 4,080 linear feet of intermittent streams and 

7,106 linear feet of ephemeral streams. Headwater tributaries and their critical ecosystem functions should not 

and cannot be overlooked when considering the cumulative impacts of an operation within a watershed. 

Placement of fill and sediment ponds in drainages and tributaries is a key concern of Black Warrior Riverkeeper, 

and we believe this is a practice allowed by NWP 21 that should be expressly banned. These streams are 

headwater tributaries, and any impacts to them eventually have a downstream cumulative impact on the Locust 

Fork. A 100 foot Stream Buffer Zone cannot and should not be touted as a sufficient measure to protect water 

quality and aquatic species, as it is in the EA on page 46. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-40

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to Water Coal mining depletes aquifers and pollutes groundwater and surface water. The PEIS should 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-846 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

examine these direct effects of coal mining, as well as the indirect impact on water resources due to climate 

change spurred by the mining and burning of federal coal. As with land, water resources are permanently altered 

by coal mining. BLM has acknowledged that mining coal means removing aquifers that are never reclaimed, but 

instead are replaced with homogeneous backfill material. 137 As mines are dewatered, groundwater levels 

decline under surrounding lands. 138 The cumulative effect of mining-related drawdown and groundwater 

depletion from coalbed natural gas development in the same areas can be substantial. In addition to groundwater 

depletion, coal mining impairs water quality. BLM has observed that, as a general matter, concentrations of total 

dissolved solids, calcium, magnesium, and sodium sulfates all are elevated in mined areas compared to 

undisturbed areas. 139 These same pollutants may discharge to surface waters. In addition, coal mining can 

pollute surface waters with selenium, which is naturally present in coal and mobilized into the environment when 

coal-bearing strata are exposed to air and water. 140 Because selenium is toxic to aquatic 134 U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, Climate Change, at 3. 135 National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory 

Committee, Climate CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES at 4 (2014). 136 See U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, Climate Change, at 23. 137 Bureau of Land Management, Wright Area FEIS, at ES-40; see 

also Alton Coal Tract Lease by Application Draft Environmental Impact Statement, at ES-14 (Nov. 2011), available 

at http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/prog/energy/coal/alton_coal_project/alton_coal_eis.html (last visited July 27, 

2016). 138 Bureau of Land Management, Wright Area FEIS, at ES-40. 139 Bureau of Land Management, Wright 

Area FEIS, at 3-115. 140 D. Lemly, AQUATIC HAZARD OF SELENIUM POLLUTION FROM COAL MINING, 

Fosdyke, Gerald B. ed. Coal Mining: Research, Technology and Safety (2009), available at 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/33826 (last visited July 26, 2016). 44 life and bioaccumulates in food chains, even 

“a small amount of selenium in water can translate to a significant environmental hazard.”141 The PEIS must 

examine these and other direct impacts to ground and surface waters due to mining federal coal. Further, the 

nation’s bodies of water are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change catalyzed and accelerated by fossil fuel 

development. 142 These existing and future impacts are broad and can range from drought, to altered runoff 

patterns, to a lack of drinking water and adverse effects on that dwindling water supply, to ocean acidification, 

and even to damage to national marine sanctuaries. While rising sea levels due to climate change will affect 

enormous portions of coastal lands, 143 the impact on water will persist far inland as well. A common problem 

will be drought, which is expected to become worse in broad regions ranging from California, to South Dakota, 

to Georgia. 144 As these droughts worsen surface and groundwater supplies will begin to steadily decrease, 

resulting in widespread water shortages. 145 These shortages affect not only the human population, but can be 

harmful to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and may even cause land subsidence. 146 As these natural 

processes are adversely impacted by climate change the quality of the available water will also begin to decrease. 

147 Poor water quality can be hugely detrimental to the health of human populations, wildlife populations, and 

vegetation. 148 To make matters worse, these impacts on water quality will not be restricted to those areas 

facing drought. Many areas will face increased flooding due to climate change which in turn can also contribute to 

contaminated water supplies. 149 141 Id. 142 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water and Climate 

Change Research, at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/water-and-climate-change-research (last visited July 21, 

2016). 143 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts, at 

https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/ (last visited July 21, 2016). 144 Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Drought and 

Climate Change, at http://www.c2es.org/science-impacts/extreme-weather/drought (last visited July 21, 2016). 

145 National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee, CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN 

THE UNITED STATES at 70. 146 United States Geological Survey, Groundwater and Drought, at 

http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/drought/ (last visited July 21, 2016). 147 National Climate Assessment and 

Development Advisory Committee, CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES at 86-88. 148 See 

generally Peter S. Murdoch, Jill S. Baron, & Timothy L. Miller, Potential Effects of Climate Change on Surfacewater Quality in North America, 36-2 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 

(2007) (broadly discussing the various impacts of poor water quality on various populations and ecosystems). 149 

National Climate Assessment and Advisory Committee, CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED 

STATES at 80-81; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Disasters – Flooding at 

https://www.epa.gov/natural-disasters/flooding (last visited July 21, 2016). 45 Consequently, largely varied regions 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-847

Scoping Report 

from southern Florida to northern Arizona will exposed to water-related and climatologically caused risks. 150 

These negative impacts on are not limited to coastal water, as even the oceans themselves face increased 

temperatures and acidity. 151 As ocean acidity and temperature continue to stray further away from their norms 

they will create a variety of problems for aquatic and coastal areas. 152 Even minor fluctuations in ocean pH 

levels or temperature can lead to more severe hurricane seasons, tidal patterns, and coastal precipitation. 153 

These impacts also persist deep below the ocean’s surface. 154 This in turn threatens national marine 

sanctuaries. 155 As these sanctuaries provide a stable environment for marine ecosystems, a disruption of the 

sanctuary due to acidification, water temperature, current patterns, or any other oceanographic element of 

climate change, would not only adversely affect the ecosystem itself, but may also inhibit scientific research being 

done within the sanctuary that may otherwise help stem the tide of these negative impacts. 156 Like land-based 

indirect impacts, water-based indirect impacts of climate change are not easily contained, and their harm cannot 

easily be mitigated once the damage is done and current management practices may become insufficient. 157 As a 

result, it is imperative that actions be taken to reduce the harm to the nation’s water resources before mitigation 

becomes improbable. 

Comment Number: 0003126_McLaughlin_20160608-2 

Commenter1:Michael McLaughlin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining and burning bring several 

toxic materials to the surface, which are then leached by rain into 

watersheds and groundwater 

Comment Number: 0020008_Hoem_20160712-3 

Commenter1:Harold Hoem 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Damage to groundwater. Montana strip mining severely pollutes groundwater and damages aquifers by disturbing 

the ground and previously inert toxins such as mercury, arsenic and other heavy metals. Damage to aquifers is 

inevitable, as the aquifer is often within the coal bed. Furthermore, burning of coal for power leaves you with coal 

ash problems and on-going coal ash contamination. Colstrip, Montana, is a poster child for ongoing ash pond 

pollution. Efforts to stop ash pond water seepage have been unsuccessful for years. 

Comment Number: 0020013_Hyndman_20160712-3 

Commenter1:Donald Hyndman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Montana strip mining severely pollutes groundwater with heavy metals even after reclamation. 

Comment Number: 0020013_Hyndman_20160712-5 

Commenter1:Donald Hyndman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal burning for power generates huge amounts of coal ash, disposal ponds cause ongoing awful water pollution 

and heavy waste of clean water. 

Comment Number: 0020039-2 

Commenter1:Bonnie Miller 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Protection of streams and rivers and lakes and other bodies of water must be paramount 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-848 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0020040-1 

Commenter1:Susan M. Patton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Per USGS Fact Sheet 073-02 serious problems exist in contaminated coal mine drainage. Acids draining from 

closed and abandoned mines have far-reaching effects on fish and wildlife and water quality. 

Comment Number: 00001270_Smyth_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Joe Smyth 

Commenter Type: Individual 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

After it's burned, coal ash waste threatens the drinking water supplies of communities all across the country. 

Comment Number: 0000725_Kirchner_NWF-1 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Jane Kirchner 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Degradation of aquatic habitats is a major impact of coal mining, and may be apparent many miles from a mining 

site. Sediment contamination of surface water is common with mining. Sediment yields may increase to a 

thousand times their former level as a result of strip mining. The heaviest sediment pollution of a drainage 

normally comes within 5 to 25 years after mining. In some areas, unreclaimed spoil piles continue to erode even 

50 to 65 years after the area has been mined. 

Issue 13 - Biological resources 

Total Number of Submissions: 45 

Total Number of Comments: 91 

Comment Number: 00000102_Rees_Association of Northwest Steelheaders _ 20160517-1 

Organization1:Association of Northwest Steelheaders 

Commenter1:Bob Rees 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When developing the EIS on BLM's coal leasing program, we ask that you take into account the true cost of coal 

including the consumption of this fossil fuel on ocean acidification. The shellfish on the Pacific Coast are our 

"canary in a coal mine," and our Pacific shellfish are on the brink of a major disaster. The Whiskey Creek Shellfish 

Hatchery on Netarts Bay, our state's cleanest estuary, has recently invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in 

water quality equipment just to ensure that their oyster juveniles survive. Prior to the water quality equipment, 

they were losing up to 80 percent of their juvenile oysters that fuel a multi-million dollar industry on the Pacific 

Coast. That water quality equipment deals with ocean acidification. The Dungeness Crab Fishery on the Pacific 

Coast is worth million of dollars. The pacific shrimp harvest this year has closed off the Oregon coast. We have 

serious deterioration of the plankton that feeds our juvenile salmon as well as our forage fish. And probably most 

alarming is that now we're realizing ocean acidification from the effects of fossil fuel consumption 30 years ago, 

and we've more than tripled our consumption since then. We also need to take into account the chemical 

reaction that takes place from the coal dust that's left along our 150-mile drain system along the Columbia River 

affecting the chemical makeup of the waters that our salmon swim in. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-849

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000104_Lindlief Hal_National Wildlife Association_ 20160517-1 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Brenda Lindlief Hal 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining on federal lands occurs on some of the West's most fragile and important fish wildlife habitats. Strip 

mining threatens our public land, water, wildlife, and our way of life throughout the West. 

Comment Number: 00000114_Laakso_20160517-1 

Organization1:Friends of Coal 

Commenter1:Jack Laakso 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I guarantee you if you want to see some of the largest mule deer and some of the largest elk, you go to some of 

reclaimed areas on the mine sites 

Comment Number: 00000355 _ Thomas _20160519-2 

Commenter1:Ann Thomas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Not only is mining itself destructive, displacing species such as the sage grouse, along with air, water, noise, and 

pollution, have adverse effects on surrounding ecological communities. 

Comment Number: 00000357 _ Walsh_20160519-4 

Organization1:Sierra Club (National) 

Commenter1:Elizabeth Walsh 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As compounds like mercury are deposited in local water bodies by the use of fossil fuels, it accumulates up the 

food web and is concentrated into our predators like our trout and other fishes, making them unhealthy and unfit 

for human consumption. 

Comment Number: 0000081_Lempke_20160517-3 

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association 

Commenter1:Doug Lempke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Consider the long-term benefits that coal mining can have for the environment, specifically reconfiguration of 

wildlife habitats which may be in decline or of poor quality to start. 

Comment Number: 0000092_Bradley_MtWildFed_20160517-1 

Organization1:Montana Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:John Bradley 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining impacts the habitats of wildlife by polluting water sources and air with sulfide dioxide, nitrous oxide, 

and toxic trace metals such a lead. Carbon pollution from burning of fossil fuel clearly presents impacts to 

wildlife. 

Comment Number: 0000542-1 

Organization1:Vulcan Inc. 

Commenter1:Dave Stewart 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-850 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Rising acidification in Puget Sound is dissolving our oyster beds; Sea rise and storm surges are buffeting our coast 

line; Rising, record temperatures are melting our glaciers; and Climate-aided pest infestations are ravaging our 

forests 

Comment Number: 0000546-1 

Organization1:City of Gillette 

Commenter1:Louise Carter King 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In Gillette, we cherish the abundant wildlife that exists right alongside the coal mines. Pronghorn, mule deer, 

Canada geese ... They co-exist peacefully with our mineral extraction industries, and flourish on reclaimed lands. 

Comment Number: 0000556-3 

Organization1:Conservation Northwest 

Commenter1:Jeff Baierlein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should also consider disease and premature mortality caused by air and water pollution from coal 

burning and coal ash, and the massive threat to our economy and well-being caused by climate change. 

Comment Number: 0000567-1 

Organization1:Conservation Committee of Tahoma Audubon 

Commenter1:Bruce Hoeft 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2014, after seven years of compiling research, the National Audubon Society published a report which warns 

that 314 North American bird species are likely to lose more than half their current ranges by 2080, due to rising 

temperatures.This is a field guide, which shows which avian species are found in what locations. We now have a 

field guide of future North American bird populations. A third of the birds are missing. Though there are many 

variables to consider, the lead cause is habitat loss due to climate change. 

Comment Number: 0000567-2 

Organization1:Conservation Committee of Tahoma Audubon 

Commenter1:Bruce Hoeft 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Also last month the NABCI, a commission created by the governments of Canada, the US, and Mexico in 1999, 

published a totally different study, using an entirely different methodology. It concluded that of the 1154 bird 

species in North America, 432 are in danger of extinction, and again, climate change was a major cause. 

Comment Number: 0000595-1 

Commenter1:Diane Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ocean acidification is a huge problem for the economy of our state. It affects one of our major industries, one 

that earns an estimated $270 million a year for the state coffers every year, the shellfish industry. Acidic water 

affects oysters and, even more important, shell-forming marine plankton which is critical in basic marine food 

chains. These effects start in the higher latitudes and gradually move toward the equator. The burning of coal in 

Asia will affect ocean acidification all over the world, especially having an impact on ecosystems such as coral 

reefs, an important support system for fish stocks. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-851

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000611_Leahy_NMWF-3 

Organization1:New Mexico Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Todd Leahy 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the vast majority of federal coal lies under prairies, ranch lands, and valuable wildlife habitat in the Powder River 

basin in Wyoming and Montana. More of these lands would have to be strip-mined to extract the coal that is 

underneath them, causing widespread pollution and habitat fragmentation. A full review of the federal coal 

program will ensure that future development safeguards not only public lands, but also watersheds and wildlife so 

American sportsmen and women can continue to enjoy their American outdoor traditions for generations to 

come. 

Comment Number: 0000782-4 

Commenter1:Lawson LeGate 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I would urge BLM to take special note of the leasing program effects on sage grouse habitat. No coal should be 

leased within the boundaries of America's Redrock Wilderness Act (S.1375/H.R. 2430) as introduced in the 114th 

Congress. 

Comment Number: 0000812-3 

Organization1:National Parks Conservation Association 

Commenter1:Cory MacNulty 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal combustion, particularly at outdated coal-fired power plants, contributes to dirty air in our national parks 

that ruins scenic views, harms wildlife and historic sites, and affects the health of visitors. 

Comment Number: 0002081_Inouye_20160626-3 

Organization1:University of Maryland 

Commenter1:David Inouye 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Disturbance associated with expansion of existing leases or new ones can fragment habitats critical for wildlife 

and wildflower. 

Comment Number: 0002081_Inouye_20160626-4 

Organization1:University of Maryland 

Commenter1:David Inouye 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Habitat loss from disturbance can have major impacts on wildlife ranging from insect pollinators to big game 

populations, as well as impacting wildflowers. It can exacerbate conflicts between ranchers and wildlife, which is 

already a significant factor in Gunnison and Delta counties. 

Comment Number: 0002119_Stensaas_20160504-2 

Commenter1:Suzanne Stensaas 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The ugliness of the process and destruction of habitat is also a big consideration. Let us learn from our past 

mistakes. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-852 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002139_Simonsen_20160519_MESA-2 

Organization1:Mormon Environmental Stewardship Alliance (MESA) 

Commenter1:Soren Simonsen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Wildlife and habitat have been destroyed beyond nature’s ability to repair and replenish. 

Comment Number: 0002239_Baierlein_20160621-1 

Organization1:Conservation Northwest 

Commenter1:Jeff Baierlein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the BLM should consider socioeconomic and other externalities such as destruction of the habitat of some of the 

West’s most beloved wildlife including mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and the greater sage-grouse, and damage 

to outdoor recreation opportunities and the tourism economy, caused by coal mining. 

The BLM should also consider disease and premature mortality caused by air and water pollution from coal 

burning and coal ash, and the massive threat to our economy and wellbeing caused by climate change. 

Comment Number: 0002239_Baierlein_20160621-2 

Organization1:Conservation Northwest 

Commenter1:Jeff Baierlein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At Conservation Northwest we work to preserve the Pacific Northwest’s iconic wildlife that the American 

people treasure, such as lynx, caribou and wolverine. These species are snow-dependent: 

for example, wolverine require snow for denning and reproduction. Greenhouse gasses from coal reduce 

snowpack, so with climate change Washington’s wolverines may no longer have a home in which to raise their 

family, and the species may be extirpated from the lower 48. 

Comment Number: 0002310_Payne_20160721-5 

Commenter1:Steven Payne 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

irreversible impacts to water, wildlife and other resources 

Comment Number: 0002314_Beres_EarthMinWAInterfaithPower_20160722-1 

Organization1:Creation Justice Ministries 

Commenter1:Shantha Alonso 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining’s impact on land, water, and creatures has not been adequately accounted for 

Comment Number: 0002323_Gordon_20160722-2 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Other Sections: 8.9 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

At the PEIS hearing in Seattle, June 21, 2016, several people spoke. 

A spokesman for NW Steelheaders said 80% of the oysters larvae die in Netarts Bay and only 10% of the coalmined land in Wyoming is reclaimed. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-853

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002323_Gordon_20160722-3 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A man from Audubon forecasts up to 1/3 of bird species will die in the next 65 years. 

Comment Number: 0002323_Gordon_20160722-4 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Other Sections: 8.7 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Another man from Conservation Northwest said the royalties for coal should be the same as for oil. He also 

mentioned that lynx, wolverine, and caribou need snow. 

Comment Number: 0002436-3 

Commenter1:Sharon St Joan 

Other Sections: 8.4 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A “lek,” or breeding ground, of the severely threatened sage grouse lies at the exact location of planned new coal 

expansion onto BLM land.Although the sage grouse species should have been listed for protection under the 

Endangered Species Act, it was not. Instead, an impractical plan has been agreed to by eleven western states to 

“manage” sage grouse habitat. This plan involves allowing key, essential sage grouse habitat to be taken over by 

coal strip--mining and other industrialization, while at the same time attempting to design new habitat, which, it is 

hoped, any sage grouse that survive may move on to. 

This new habitat is being created by having machines crunch up miles and miles of beautiful native pinion and 

juniper trees, leaving the dead remains of the trees littering the ground, so that it is impossible even for a human 

to walk over them. It is hard to imagine the sage grouse doing their beautiful mating dance on top of broken, 

splintered trees. In some cases, nonnative grasses have been planted at these sites, which is ecologically 

inappropriate. 

There is no proof that the sage grouse will move onto these miles and miles of destroyed trees, which do not in 

any way resemble sage grouse habitat. In the meantime, the habitat of all the native species who used to live 

there – the coyotes, the deer, the elk, the rabbits, the beavers, foxes, cougars, bobcats, and the many small 

mammal and avian species -- has been eradicated. 

Comment Number: 0002436-5 

Commenter1:Sharon St Joan 

Other Sections: 8.4 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

these public lands being considered for new coal expansion are right on a wildlife corridor that runs up through 

the Grand Canyon, through the Kaibab forest, through Kane County, Utah, and farther north on up to Canada. 

This is a key wildlife corridor for the annual mule deer migration, along with the animals that travel with them –

including cougars and coyotes. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-1 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining also harms wildlife by polluting nearby water and air. Mining equipment emits sulfur dioxide, nitrous 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-854 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

oxide, and toxic trace metals such as lead in areas that oftentimes would otherwise be relatively free of these 

pollutants. In areas near access roads and other locations with heavy traffic, “increased levels of lead in vegetation 

and wildlife have been observed.” (15) Over time, increased exposure of wildlife to trace elements through dust 

from various mining activities can cause animals to “suffer from disorders of the mucous membranes and 

pulmonary complication.” (16) Surface water contamination from increased sediment loads and the leaching of 

toxic elements from exposed ores and rocks can cause decreases in aquatic oxygen content and light 

penetration, reducing the growth of aquatic plants and resulting in fish mortality as well as habitat degradation 

and destruction in streams. (17) 

(15) U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-126, “Wildlife: User guide for mining and reclamation,” 

(July, 1982), available at http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d03009787s. 

(16) Id. 

(17) Id. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-10

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The study finds that both mule deer and pronghorn antelope in the Powder River Basin have “shown declines in 

population size or productivity or both in the past 32 years.” (89) For example, of eight mule deer herds 

examined, only one was found to be in good condition, three in fair condition, and half in poor condition. The 

report concludes that “[mule deer] populations are especially vulnerable to additional habitat loss or 

degradation.” (90) Similarly, of twelve pronghorn herds examined, none received a good rating. The rest were 

either fair or poor and one could not be rated for lack of data. (91) At-risk herds were again determined to be 

“especially vulnerable to loss of habitat.” (92)

(89) Id. at 4. 

(90) Id. 

(91) Id. at 6. 

(92) Id. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-12

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 6 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Likewise, in western Montana and the northwestern United States, “warmer and drier conditions have helped 

increase the number and extent of wildfires .... Higher temperatures and drought stress [] contribut[e] to 

outbreaks of mountain pine beetles that are increasing pine mortality.” (119) Climate change also threatens 

western fisheries by “increas[ing] disease and/or mortality in several iconic salmon species,” (120) as well as 

“lead[ing] to increasing fragmentation of remaining habitats and accelerated decline” of Montana’s native Bull 

trout. (121) To reduce other stressors, fishing restrictions during periods of high water temperatures are being 

put in place for trout fisheries like the Bitterroot, Blackfoot, and Clark Fork Rivers due to warm water 

conditions. The average number of days each year that are thermally stressful for trout has nearly tripled in 

Montana’s Madison River since the 1980s. (122) Closures of these popular fishing locations during summer 

vacations can have major economic implications. The fishing opportunities in Yellowstone National Park, where 

there have also been closures, are valued at between $67.5 and $385 million annually. (123) 

(119) U.S. National Climate Assessment, supra, at 495. 

(120) Id. at 491. 

(121) Bruce E. Reiman et al., Anticipated Climate Warming Effects on Bull Trout Habitats and Populations Across 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-855

Scoping Report 

the Interior Columbia River Basin, 136 TRANSACTIONS AM. FISHERIES SOC’Y 1552 , 1552 (2007).

(122) NWF, Wildlife in Hot Water, at 8. 

(123) Id. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-28

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is of utmost importance that this PEIS provide the basis to reform the coal leasing program in a manner that 

protects wildlife from the vast impacts of federal coal mining and use. Wildlife are too often the first to be 

impacted by poor land management actions, unbridled energy development, and an increasingly warming world 

that threatens species extinction and decline. It is essential that the federal coal program be in sync with where 

this country is going toward building a clean energy future that is oriented to sustainable land and water 

conservation, and managed for the public’s long term interest. It is also important that the federal coal program 

be updated to reflect the realities of the modern coal industry: an industry that is in a state of extreme instability 

and long-term decline, and one that has a standing legacy of failure to achieve basic promised and required 

environmental, wildlife and land use outcomes. 

Wildlife is affected by coal mining in many ways. Mining and related activities cause direct wildlife mortalities and 

disturb and displace wildlife. Reptiles, amphibians and small mammals are generally not mobile enough to avoid 

mining equipment and are often directly killed during mining. Birds die when they collide with electrical 

transmission lines and other mine support structures. Fish and other aquatic wildlife are killed when streams are 

re-routed, and from construction and mining activities that occur near stream channels. (12) 

(12) U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-126, “Wildlife: User guide for mining and reclamation,” 

(July 1982), available at http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d03009787s. 

Coal mining also fragments habitat and causes extreme disturbances that displace larger, more mobile wildlife. 

Displaced wildlife are placed at risk because, among other impacts like road crossings, they must move to 

locations already occupied by other wildlife and will experience greater competition for resources they need to 

survive. 

Wildlife in habitat near mines like pronghorn and raptors are often forced to move given the intense noise and 

destructive activity associated with mining. For example, it has been shown that energy development taking place 

within 3 kilometers (1.86 miles) or less of greater sage grouse leks – areas where male sage grouse perform in 

front of females as part of the birds’ mating ritual – can cause an increase in the distance females travel to nesting 

sites and result in lower rates of nest initiation. (13, 14) 

(13) A.G. Lyon and S.H. Anderson, “Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation and 

movement,” Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(2)486-491 (2003), available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3784329. 

(14) U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management Instruction Memorandum No. 2014-100, 

“Gunnison Sage-grouse Habitat Management Policy on Bureau of Land Management-Administered Lands in 

Colorado and Utah,” (May 30, 2014), available at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2014/IM_20

14-100.html. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-37

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Despite federal laws passed in the 1970s that stopped some of the worst practices and put in place protections, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-856 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

coal mining on federal lands – and the resulting combustion of that coal – continues to result in long-term 

damage to the soil, water, air, climate and wildlife. The major direct impacts of surface mining – the primary 

method used to extract most federally leased coal, particularly in the arid west –are massive disturbances of large 

areas of land and disruption of surface and groundwater patterns. Other significant impacts include emissions of 

fugitive dust and other air pollutants, carbon pollution emissions, disposal of overburden/waste rock, and water 

pollution. The disturbances have both immediate and long term impacts on people and wildlife populations. 

Impacts on Land Resources (82) 

(82) Much of this description of environmental impacts is taken from Mark Squillace, THE STRIP MINING 

HANDBOOK at Ch. 2 and Ch. 4 (Common Problems), available at 

https://sites.google.com/site/stripmininghandbook/. For a review of the environmental impacts of coal 

development, from mine to power plant, see Clean Air Task Force, CRADLE TO GRAVE: THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM COAL (June 2001), available at 

http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Cradle_to_Grave.pdf. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-38

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A recent study detailing population trends of big game and greater sage-grouse in Southeast Montana and 

Northeast Wyoming, which is the heart of federal coal leasing, found big game not faring well. (85) Studying 

trends starting in the 1980s and continuing through 2012 and 2013, the report demonstrates the vulnerability of 

mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and sage-grouse populations in the area to events like habitat fragmentation and 

climate change that are being exacerbated by federal coal mining. (86) The report specifically cites “human 

development” as causing “additional impacts” on the species in this area. (87) The impacts the study examines 

include coal mining and habitat conversion. (88) 

(85) John Ellenberger and A. Eugene Byrne, Population Status and Trends of Big Game and GreaterSage-Grouse 

in Southeast Montana and Northeast Wyoming (Jan. 2015) at 3 (attached hereto). 

(86) Id. at 3 

(87) Id. 

(88) Id. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-7 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Other Sections: 15 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Surface coal mining severely alters the landscape, disrupting virtually all ecological and aesthetic elements of the 

landscape and reducing the value of the natural environment in the mined area and surrounding land. Strip mining 

destroys the genetic soil profile, eliminates existing vegetation, displaces or destroys wildlife and habitat, and to 

some extent permanently changes the general topography of the area mined. This often results in a scarred 

landscape with no scenic value. Soil disturbance results in conditions conducive to erosion. Soil removal from the 

area to be mined alters or destroys many natural soil characteristics and reduces its biodiversity and productivity 

for revegetation and agriculture. Paleontological, archeological, cultural, and other historic features and values 

may be endangered due to the disruptive activities of mining coal. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-9 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-857

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Surface mining of coal causes direct and indirect damage to wildlife. The impact on wildlife stems primarily from 

disturbing, removing, and redistributing the land surface. Some impacts are short-term, and confined to the mine 

site; others have far-reaching, long-term effects. The most direct effect on wildlife is destruction or displacement 

of species in areas of excavation and spoil piling. Pit and spoil areas are not capable of providing food and habitat 

for most species of wildlife. Mobile wildlife species like game animals, birds, and predators leave these areas. 

More sedentary animals like invertebrates, reptiles, burrowing rodents, and small mammals may be destroyed. 

The community of microorganisms and nutrient-cycling processes are upset by movement, storage, and 

redistribution of soil. 

Degradation of aquatic habitats is a major impact by surface mining, and may be apparent many miles from a 

mining site. Sediment contamination of surface water is common with surface mining. Sediment yields may 

increase to a thousand times their former level as a result of strip mining. The heaviest sediment pollution of a 

drainage normally comes within 5 to 25 years after mining. In some areas, unreclaimed spoil piles continue to 

erode even 50 to 65 years after mining. 

The effects of sediment on aquatic wildlife vary with the species and the amount of contamination. High sediment 

levels can kill fish directly, bury spawning beds, reduce light transmission, alter temperature gradients, fill in pools, 

spread stream flows over wider, shallower areas, and reduce production of aquatic organisms used as food by 

other species. These changes destroy the habitat of valued species, and may enhance habitat for less-desirable 

species. 

Comment Number: 0002454_Hoeft_20160727-1 

Organization1:Tahoma Audubon 

Commenter1:Bruce Hoeft 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2014, after seven years of compiling research, the National Audubon Society published a report 

(http://climate.audubon.org/), which warns that 314 North American bird species could lose more than half their 

current ranges by 2080, due to rising temperatures. We now have a field guide of future North American bird 

population locations and sizes. A third of the birds are missing. Though there are many variables to consider, the 

lead cause is habitat loss due to climate change. 

Comment Number: 0002454_Hoeft_20160727-2 

Organization1:Tahoma Audubon 

Commenter1:Bruce Hoeft 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

NABCI (North American Bird Conservation Initiative) created by the governments of Canada, the US, and 

Mexico in 1999, published a different study in mid-May, entitled "The State of North America's Birds" 

(http://www.stateofthebirds.org/2016/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/SotB_16-04-26-ENGLISH-BEST.pdf). The 

work concluded that of the 1154 species found in the three countries, 432 (one third) are in danger of extinction. 

NABCI's work focused on the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) and eBird submissions, and sought to 

identify annual trends among all bird populations in North America. 

The two studies, performed by different groups of scientists, using different methodologies and different data 

sets, came out with the same quantitative conclusions. Species in arid, grassland, and coastal habitats showed the 

greatest decline, especially those with small populations or ranges. The NABCI study identifies that "climate 

change, pollution, habitat loss, and predation are risks to these vulnerable populations." 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-858 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002459_Ball_20160728-4 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Connie Ball 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Transport of coal kills much wildlife including deer and birds of prey as they feed on deer kill. 

Subsurface mining requires venting methane gas to the environment, and when it is flared it may also kill birds of 

prey who perch on vent pipes. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-19

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Habitat and Wildlife Impacts 

Coal mining – and particularly mining in the context of inadequate reclamation – also can have severe adverse 

impacts on habitats, wildlife, and ecosystems. The PEIS must provide a cumulative impacts analysis of these issues, 

and also provide guidance on how they should be addressed further in site-specific reviews. 

For instance, the PEIS should disclose wildlife population trends in coal mining regions and generally discuss 

impacts to population and habitat as a result of coal leasing and mining activity. 

Among the mining activities that impact wildlife and plant species, and must be examined in the PEIS, are: (a) 

exhaust from heavy equipment and transport vehicles, which contain sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and lead; and 

(b) exposure of ores and rocks, which causes surface water contamination from increased sediment loads and the 

leaching of toxic elements, leading to decreases in aquatic oxygen content and light penetration, reductions in 

growth of aquatic plants, and consequent mortality of fish and other aquatic species dependent on those plants. 

Undermined Promise II at 25. As explained in Undermined Promise II (at 24): 

Wildlife is affected by coal mining in a variety of ways. Construction and mining activities cause direct wildlife 

mortalities in addition to the disturbance and displacement of wildlife populations. Direct mortalities from mining 

activities occur primarily as the result of interactions between wildlife species and mining equipment, increased 

traffic and other development. Reptiles, amphibians and small mammals are generally not mobile enough to avoid 

mining equipment. Mortalities of birds are caused by collisions with electrical transmission lines and other mine 

support structures while fish mortalities result from the rerouting of streams or the activity from heavy 

construction near stream channels. 

Because mined areas are also susceptible to non-native plants and weeds, the PEIS should also examine these 

habitat impacts. Id. at 28. 

The PEIS must also address brush lands protection. Brush lands are very difficult to reestablish, and very little 

acreage of brush lands has been reclaimed at western coal mines. Schuman, Richmond, and Neuman, Sagebrush 

Establishment on Mined Lands: Ecology and Research, 2000. (26) Lack of brush land reclamation has adverse 

impacts to brush-dependent wildlife species, including the Greater Sage-grouse and mule deer, and an overall 

reduction in sagebrush results in a long term reduction of habitat for some species. 

(26) This paper was a compilation of proceedings at a workshop held by OSMRE in 2000. The paper is available 

at: http://www.osmre.gov/resources/library/proceedings/Sagebrush.pdf 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-859

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-56

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Federal coal leasing imposes significant adverse impacts on water and air resources, habitats and wildlife in the 

immediate regions where coal is mined. Climate change will further exacerbate many of these threats in decades 

to come. BLM’s existing regulatory scheme fails to insure that operators fulfill the reclamation obligations 

necessary to ameliorate these impacts. To address these issues, BLM must perform a detailed NEPA analysis that 

considers several alternatives to improve decision-making concerning where mining occurs, and to improve the 

reclamation process. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-7 

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to Wildlife : The grasslands and forests of the Western U.S. are home to abundant wildlife, including big 

game, songbirds, raptors, and the iconic greater sage-grouse. Coal mining, especially strip mining, disrupts this 

important wildlife habitat. The PEIS must fully assess impacts to all wildlife species. 

Comment Number: 0002471_Reed_20160728-9 

Organization1:High Country Conservation Advocates 

Commenter1:Matt Reed 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the western United States, higher temperatures and lower precipitation are expected to lead to drought 

conditions that will exacerbate forest stressors, especially fire and insect disturbance. The majority of land in 

Gunnison County is managed by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the Gunnison National Forest, which is 

administered jointly with the Grand Mesa and Uncompahgre National Forests. Over the course of only a decade 

on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forests, approximately 223,000 acres of 

spruce forest have been affected by spruce beetle and 229,000 acres of aspen by Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD).13 

These disturbances are occurring because of and in the context of a changing climate. Higher summer 

temperatures can foster spruce beetle outbreaks by allowing beetles to reproduce every year rather than every 

two years. Anticipated more frequent drought conditions make stands more vulnerable to insect and disease. 

And wildfire behavior in recently dead spruce-fir and areas with heavy fuel loadings can create more 

unpredictable fire behavior that is more hazardous to manage.14 

(13) Supra note 7, at 2. 

(14) Id. at 6. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-29

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Furthermore, 43 C.F.R. § 3461.4 allows for exploration on lands that have been deemed unsuitable under the 

current criteria. This is illogical and dangerous.246 Not only does this allow exploration activities that have the 

potential to cause harm to the environment and local habitats on lands already deemed unsuitable (potentially 

because of the presence of features or species that make the area sensitive to such activities), but this provision 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-860 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

can only be meant to allow mining companies the opportunity to find economic reserves in order to exert 

pressure on BLM to release lands already deemed unacceptable by finding some exemption. Encouraging the 

development of lands that have already been deemed unsuitable for mining is inconsistent with the best interests 

of the public and can only lead to unnecessary environmental harm. 

(246) For example, the regulations state that all areas within 300 feet of any public building, school, church, 

community or institutional building or public park or within 300 feet of an occupied dwelling are unsuitable, yet 

this provision would allow exploration in these sensitive areas regardless. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-31

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 2 8.10 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

To date, restoration and mitigation efforts have largely failed when it comes to protecting water quality and 

species. For this reason, we ask BLM to focus on protection of essential habitat areas and waterways first, and to 

rely on mitigation only in certain limited situations – i.e., when ESA-listed or proposed species or designated 

critical habitats are not present downstream or in the mine site area, and it can be shown with sufficient evidence 

that the functions and values of the impacted streams and native ecosystems can be fully restored. 

Numerous studies document the failure of restoration to protect water quality, species, and local communities 

from the impacts of coal mining. These studies are too numerous for us to list in total so we provide relevant 

excerpts of scientific conclusions: 

-“Overall, the data show that mitigation efforts being implemented in southern Appalachia for coal mining are not 

meeting the objectives of the Clean Water Act to replace lost or degraded streams ecosystems and their 

functions”269

-“Mitigation actions being undertaken are primarily geomorphic projects to enhance perennial streams yet the 

majority of streams impacted are intermittent and fewer linear feet of stream have been restored than impacted. 

Compliance is primarily based on visual habitat assessments performed by the mining company or their 

consultants which typically report marginal or suboptimal habitat status post restoration. Projects were not 

required to meet specified biological or water quality standards yet for the projects that reported such data, 

most were impaired.”270

-“The disturbance caused by MTR/VF is drastically changing the central Appalachian landscape, compromising the 

natural ecological and functional state of both terrestrial and aquatic environments. The reclamation process, 

emphasizing soil compaction and the establishment of non-native herbaceous species, has hindered the 

establishment of native tree species on MTR sites (Zipper et al., 2011). These terrestrial impacts in combination 

with changes in water chemistry and stream geomorphology lead to long-lasting changes to terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystem function (Simmons et al., 2008). Full recovery of species diversity in streams impacted by MTR/VF has 

not been documented”271

-“Indeed, the MTR/VF streams had, on average, 75% less forest cover than control streams”272

-“Reclaimed mine sites have soils containing unweathered rock that is heavily compacted to reduce erosion, 

resulting in altered water tables and disturbed flow paths (Bonta et al., 1992; Bernhardt and Palmer, 2011). In 

particular, compacted soils lead to high rates of storm water runoff. Negley and Eshleman (2006) and Ferrari et 

al. (2009) found that MTR/VF streams had tripled storm runoff and doubled flow rates compared to reference 

catchments.”
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-861 

Scoping Report 

-“The extent to which these constructed channels provide important ecosystem services lost by burial of natural 

headwater streams as a result of mining is not well known. Fritz et al. (2010) reported significantly lower rates of 

litter breakdown and higher levels of iron, manganese, sulfate, and conductivity in constructed channels draining 

VF watersheds than in natural channels draining forested watersheds. Petty et al. (2013) observed lower organic 

matter (OM) decomposition rates and higher levels of conductivity, dissolved solids, and dissolved organic carbon 

(DOC) in West Virginia MTR/ VF constructed channels than in nearby reference channels. Based on their 

database containing descriptions of 38,000 stream and river restoration projects, Bernhardt and Palmer (2011) 

stated that they did not know of a single case where a constructed channel recreated the hydrology or ecological 

functions of natural streams.”273

As these examples illustrate, mitigation of coal mining activities has failed to reclaim the functions and values of 

impacted waterways. In particular, it has failed in Appalachia to restore water quality and fish, wildlife, and other 

species. Moreover, as discussed above coal mining has been one of several threats that has led to the need to 

protect species under the ESA, indicating that mitigation efforts have not been successful in protecting species, 

and should not be relied on by BLM to protect the environment. 

Therefore, in light of the record before it, it is critical that BLM ensure that waterways affected by proposed 

mines with ramifications for species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA and their critical habitat are 

protected, rather than rely on mitigation plans to justify destruction of these important habitat areas, since 

restoration plans may not adequately address impacts to imperiled species and their habitat.274 

(269) Palmer, M. A., & Hondula, K. L. (2014). Restoration as mitigation: analysis of stream mitigation for coal 

mining impacts in southern Appalachia. Environmental science & technology, 48(18), 10552-10560. 

(270) Id. 

(271) Brenee’L, M., Price, S. J., Bonner, S. J., & Barton, C. D. (2014). Mountaintop removal mining reduces stream 

salamander occupancy and richness in southeastern Kentucky (USA). Biological Conservation, 180, 115-121. 

(272) Id. 

(273) Burke, R. A., Fritz, K. M., Barton, C. D., Johnson, B. R., Fulton, S., Hardy, D., ... & Jack, J. D. (2014). Impacts 

of mountaintop removal and valley fill coal mining on C and N processing in terrestrial soils and headwater 

streams. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 225(8), 1-17. 

(274) According to the DOI Energy and Climate Change Task Force, avoidance should be the first goal: “If a 

project can reasonably be sited so as to have no negative impacts to resources of concern then that is generally 

the most defensible approach. By avoiding adverse impacts in the first place, there is no need to take further 

action to minimize or offset such impact.” See A Strategy for Improving the Mitigation Policies and Practices of 

The Department of the Interior at 2 (April, 2014). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-33

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

BLM Must Undertake ESA Consultation on the Coal Program 

Congress enacted the ESA in 1973 to provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened fish, wildlife, 

plants and their natural habitats.280 The ESA imposes and procedural obligations on all federal agencies with 

regard to listed and proposed species and their critical habitats.281 

Under section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies must “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by 

such agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species 

or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined ... to be 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-862 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

critical.”282

The definition of agency “action” is broad and includes “all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, 

or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies,” including programmatic actions, such as the BLM action 

at issue here.283 

The duties in ESA section 7 are only fulfilled by an agency’s satisfaction of the consultation requirements that are 

set forth in the implementing regulations for section 7 of the ESA, and only after the agency lawfully complies 

with these requirements may an action that “may affect” a protected species go forward.284 Here, BLM is 

considering broad changes to the Federal coal program, which “includes land use planning, processing applications 

(e.g., for exploration licenses and lease sales), estimating the value of proposed leases, holding lease sales, and 

post-leasing actions....”285 According to BLM’s Notice, “[t]he Federal coal program has other potential impacts 

on public health and the environment, beyond climate impacts, that will also be assessed in the Programmatic EIS. 

These include the effects of coal production on. . . wildlife, including endangered species. . . .”286 Based on this 

admission, it is clear that BLM must undertake programmatic consultation in order to fulfill its duties pursuant to 

Section 7 of the ESA. 

However, while formal programmatic consultation is required on BLM’s coal program, it would be improper and 

unlawful for any incidental take statement to be issued as part of the biological opinion.287 Numerous different 

ESA-protected species and their designated critical habitats are likely to be adversely affected. It remains unclear 

whether sufficient protections will be implemented to ensure that listed species are not jeopardized by 

cumulative impacts. 

Moreover, there is no feasible way that the Services can predict, let alone quantify, the amount of incidental take 

of currently-listed species that will result from coal mining throughout the country under BLM’s program in the 

years to come. Further, the biological opinion cannot possibly analyze or quantify incidental take for future-listed 

species that will be adversely affected by coal mining. Rather, incidental take can only occur, and can only be 

analyzed an appropriately permitted, at the site-specific and species-specific level. Therefore, consistent with the 

Services’ revised regulations defining “framework programmatic action,” the programmatic consultation on BLM’s 

revised coal program should acknowledge that it is a framework programmatic consultation under which any 

incidental take will be subsequently authorized under a permit-specific Section 7 or Section 10 process.288 

(280) Id. §§ 1531, 1532. 

(281) See id. §§ 1536(a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(4) and § 1538(a); 50 C.F.R. § 402. 

(282) 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). 

(283) 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. Likewise, the “action area” includes “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the 

Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.” Id. 

(284) Pac. Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050, 1055-57 (9th Cir. 1994). 

(285) 81 Fed. Reg. at 17722. 

(286) Id. at 17726. 

(287) It is well-settled that programmatic biological opinions do not require an incidental take statement where 

those opinions explicitly mandate future site-specific consultations for take authorizations. See Gifford Pinchot 

Task Force v.USFWS, 378 F.3d 1059, 1067–68 (9th Cir.) am. by 387 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2004); Forest Serv. 

Employees for Envtl. Ethics, 726 F. Supp. 2d at 1224–1225; W. Watersheds Project v. BLM, 552 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 

1139 (D. 

Nev. 2008); Swan View Coal., Inc. v. Turner, 824 F. Supp. 923, 934–35 (D. Mont. 1992). Here, should the 

Services issue a no-jeopardy opinion on OSMRE’s regulations, it should not be accompanied by an incidental take 

statement because all incidental take (including any resulting from OSMRE-issued SMCRA permits) should only be 

authorized, if at all, via a Section 10 permit or Section 7 consultation. 

(288) See 80 Fed. Reg. 26,832 (May 11, 2015) (adding definition of “framework programmatic action” to 50 C.F.R. 

§ 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-863 

Scoping Report 

402.02 and adding 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)(1)(6) on incidental take statements not being required at the 

programmatic 

level where subsequent actions resulting in incidental take will be separately consulted on). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-34

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Moreover, any to defer analysis of the potential impacts to listed species to a later decision would violate BLM’s 

regulations regarding special status species as set forth in BLM Manual 6840 - Special Status Species Management. 

Pursuant to Manual 6840, it is the responsibility of State Directors to not only inventory BLM lands to determine 

the occurrence of BLM special status species, but also to determine “the condition of the populations and their 

habitats, and how discretionary BLM actions affect those species and their habitats.”290 The leasing of federal 

lands for coal extraction is a discretionary BLM action that has the potential to adversely affect listed species. 

Deferring an analysis of the potential effects of selling coal leases to the __ stage is entirely inconsistent with the 

requirements of Manual 6840. If a lease is sold, the lessee acquires certain contractual rights constraining BLM 

authority. For example, according to 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2, once a lease is issued to its owner, that owner has the 

“right to use as much of the lease lands as is necessary to explore for, drill for, mine, extract, remove and dispose 

of the leased resource in the leasehold” subject to specific nondiscretionary statutes and lease stipulations. 

Therefore, once the lease is sold, it will be too late for BLM to ensure that sufficient protections will be in place 

to protect this species from the cumulative impacts of extraction-related activities. 

The development of species-specific and ecosystem-based conservation strategies implicitly necessitates a more 

holistic review of the cumulative impacts of the proposed lease sale, which cannot be accomplished through sitespecific analysis alone. And, piecemeal analyses of individual lease sales do not provide the appropriate 

perspective for examining the cumulative effects of hydraulic fracturing and climate change impacts at the regional 

and landscape scale and for making land management decisions. 

Where activities have the potential to adversely impact listed species, those impacts must be addressed “at the 

earliest possible time,” in order to avoid delay, ensure that impacts are avoided and opportunities for mitigation 

are not overlooked.291 Furthermore, under the ESA an analysis of the effects of an action must consider actions 

that are interrelated or interdependent.292 This suggests that BLM should consider the effects of coal mining, 

transport, combustion and disposal activities at the lease sale stage, since those actions are inherent in leasing 

land for such purposes. It is therefore evident that in order to effectuate the policy of protecting Bureau sensitive 

species set forth in Manual 6840,293 and consistent with the established practice of early, comprehensive review 

of potential impacts to sensitive species, BLM must consider impacts to listed species at the lease sale, rather 

than waiting until the APD stage for project specific review. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-35

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In reviewing the federal coal leasing program, the Bureau of Land Management must consider the impacts, 

including climate impacts, on threatened and endangered species. Specifically, the Bureau must consult with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service as required by section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-864 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-45

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to Biodiversity and Ecosystems: Across the United States ecosystems and biodiversity, including those on 

public lands, are directly under siege from climate change—leading to the loss of iconic species and landscapes, 

negative effects on food chains, disrupted migrations, and the degradation of whole ecosystems.31 Specifically, 

scientific evidence shows that climate change is already causing changes in distribution, phenology, physiology, 

genetics, species interactions, ecosystem services, demographic rates, and population viability: many animals and 

plants are moving poleward and upward in elevation, shifting their timing of breeding and migration, and 

experiencing population declines and extirpations.32 Because climate change is occurring at an unprecedented 

pace with multiple synergistic impacts, climate change is predicted to result in catastrophic species losses during 

this century. For example, the IPCC concluded that 20% to 30% of plant and animal species will face an increased 

risk of extinction if global average temperature rise exceeds 1.5°C to 2.5°C relative to 1980-1999, with an 

increased risk of extinction for up to 70% of species worldwide if global average temperature exceeds 3.5°C 

relative to 1980-1999.33 

As greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting harms from climate change grow, the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service are increasingly recognizing climate change as a significant threat to listed 

species. The Services determined that climate change is a threat (and a listing factor) in the listing rules for the 

vast majority of species listed as threatened and endangered in recent years. Our analysis of listing rules found 

that climate change was determined to be a threat for 96% and 91% of all species listed in 2012 and 2013, 

respectively. 

In recent years, several species have been listed primarily because of climate change threats resulting from 

continued greenhouse gas emissions, including the polar bear in 2008, the bearded seal and ringed seal in 2012, 

and 20 coral species in 2014. The best-available science has concluded that the survival and recovery of these 

climate-vulnerable species depends on a return to lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations than the present level 

of 400 ppm. As such, the massive greenhouse gas emissions stemming from the federal coal program are clearly 

not consistent with the survival and recovery of these species. 

from the permafrost carbon feedback, 5 Nature Geoscience 719-721 (2012), doi:10.1038/ngeo1573. 

(30) See National Climate Assessment at 592; Foti, R., Met al., Signs of critical transition in the Everglades 

wetlands 

in response to climate and anthropogenic changes, 110 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 6296- 

6300, (2013), doi:10.1073/pnas.1302558110. 

(31) National Climate Assessment at 13. 

(32) See Parmesan, C. and G. Yohe, A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural 

systems, 421 Nature 37 (2003); Root, T. et al., Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants, 421 

Nature 57 (2003); Chen, I. et al., Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming, 333 

Science 

1024 (2011). 

(33) IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 48 [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K 

and Reisinger, A.(eds.)] (2007). Other studies have predicted similarly severe losses: 15%-37% of the world’s 

plants and animals committed to extinction by 2050 under a mid-level emissions scenario, see Thomas et al., 

Extinction risk from climate change, 427 Nature 145 (2004)); the potential extinction of 10% to 14% of species by 

2100 if climate change continues unabated, see Maclean, I. M. D. and R. J. Wilson, Recent ecological responses to 

climate change support predictions of high extinction risk, 108 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 12337-12342 (2011); and the 

loss of more than half of the present climatic range for 58% of plants and 35% of animals by the 2080s under the 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-865

Scoping Report 

current emissions pathway, in a sample of 48,786 species, see Warren, R. J. et al., Increasing Impacts of Climate 

Change Upon Ecosystems with Increasing Global Mean Temperature Rise, 106 Climatic Change 141 (2011). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-46

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Corals: For example, NMFS’ 2015 Final Recovery Plan for Elkhorn and Staghorn Coral includes a recovery 

criterion with specific targets for ocean temperature and ocean acidification conditions that must be achieved for 

these corals to survive and recover. As noted in the Final Recovery Plan, meeting this criterion is consistent with 

a return to an atmospheric CO2 concentration of less than 350 ppm, as concluded by numerous scientific studies 

that have examined coral species viability in response to ocean warming and ocean acidification. Recognizing the 

responsibility of all federal agencies to promote listed species’ conservation, the Final Recovery Plan further 

includes a recovery criterion calling for the adoption of “adequate domestic and international regulations and 

agreements” to abate threats from increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The plan also includes a 

recovery action to “develop and implement U.S. and international measures to reduce atmospheric CO2 

concentrations to a level appropriate for coral recovery.”

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-47

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Polar Bears: Similarly, the 2015 Draft Polar Bear Conservation Plan acknowledges that the polar bear cannot be 

recovered without decisive action to mitigate the primary threat to the species—greenhouse gas (“GHG”) 

emissions driving sea-ice loss: 

The single most important step for polar bear conservation is decisive action to address global warming 

(Amstrup et al. 2010, Atwood et al. 2015), which is driven primarily by increasing atmospheric concentrations of 

greenhouse gases. Short of actions that effectively addresses the primary cause of diminishing sea ice, it is unlikely 

that polar bears will be recovered. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-48

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Organization2:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Other Sections: 1 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Loggerhead sea turtles: Other marine species are also at risk from numerous consequences of GHG emissions 

and ensuing ocean temperature increase, sea level rise, disruption of ocean currents, and extreme weather 

events. The 2011 listing rule for the loggerhead sea turtle found climate change and sea level rise to be a 

significant threat to multiple distinct population segments of the loggerhead sea turtle, including the North and 

South Pacific populations.34 The Services found that “Similar to other areas of the world, climate change and sea 

level rise have the potential to impact loggerheads in the North Pacific Ocean.”35 This includes beach erosion 

and loss from rising sea levels, skewed hatchling sex ratios from rising beach incubation temperatures, and abrupt 

disruption of ocean currents used for natural dispersal during the complex life cycle (Hawkes et al., 

2009;Poloczanska et al., 2009). Scientific reviews of the impacts of climate change on sea turtles confirm that 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-866 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

climate change poses significant threats to the loggerhead (Fuentes et al. 2009, Hawkes et al. 2009, Witt et al. 

2010). Hawkes et al. (2009) concluded that “[o]verall, climate change could supersede current documented 

threats posed to marine turtle populations” including bycatch, habitat destruction, and pollution (p.146). Fuentes 

et al. (2010) highlighted that sea turtles will be affected simultaneously by changes in multiple climatic processes 

which will create amplifying effects, especially in combination with other threats. Furthermore, many researchers 

have cautioned that sea turtles are especially vulnerable to climate change because they are slow to recover from 

disturbances due to their life history characteristics. The best available science on the impacts of observed and 

projected climate change on loggerhead sea turtles, reviewed below, clearly indicates that climate change--

including sea level rise, increasing sand temperatures, increasing storm activity, rising ocean temperatures and 

changes in circulation pattern, and ocean acidification—is a significant threat to the survival of the species. 

(34) Fish and Wildlife Service, Determination of Nine Distinct Population Segments of Loggerhead Sea Turtles 

and Endangered or Threatened, 76 Fed. Reg. 58,868, 58,909 (Sept. 22, 2011). 

(35) Id. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-49

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Monarch Butterfly: The Monarch butterfly, due to its narrow thermal requirements and specific microhabitat 

requirements, is also at exceptional risk due to climate change:36 

The monarch is threatened by several other factors including global climate change, severe weather events, 

pesticides, and the spread of invasive species. Unfavorable weather conditions have been identified as a primary 

factor contributing to the recent drastic declines in monarch populations. Weather that is too hot or too cold at 

critical times in monarch development can cause massive mortality of caterpillars and adults. A single winter 

storm event in Mexican overwintering habitat in 2002 killed an estimated 450-500 million monarchs. This high 

death toll from a single storm event is particularly staggering given that the entire monarch population now 

numbers only about 35 million butterflies. Because of their narrow thermal tolerance and specific microhabitat 

requirements, climate change threatens monarchs in their summer and winter ranges. The threat from climate 

change in the monarch’s overwintering habitat in Mexico is so dire that monarchs may no longer occur in the 

Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve by the end of the century due to climatic changes. The monarch’s summer 

breeding habitat in the United States is also predicted to become too hot in many areas for monarch’s to be able 

to successfully reproduce.37 

(36) Center for Biological Diversity, PETITION TO PROTECT THE MONARCH BUTTERFLY (DANAUS 

PLEXIPPUS LEXIPPUS) UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. 

(37) Id. at 10-11.

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-50

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Colorado River listed fishes (Colorado pikeminnow, bonytail chub, humpback chub, and razorback sucker): 

Anthropogenic climate change is profoundly impacting the Colorado River in ways that are altering temperature, 

streamflow, and the hydrologic cycle. As detailed below, changes observed to date include rising temperatures, 

earlier snowmelt and streamflow, decreasing snowpack, and declining runoff and streamflow. Modeling studies 

project that these changes will only worsen, including continued declines in streamflow and intensification of 

drought. Climate change is likely to have significant effects on the endangered fish and the Colorado River 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-867

Scoping Report 

ecosystem.38 

(38) Impacts of Climate Change on the Colorado River Basin, Shaye Wolf, Ph.D., Climate Science Director, 

Center for Biological Diversity (March 10, 2016). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-51

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts from Algal Blooms: Toxic algal blooms are a public health menace and they have an obvious and distinct 

relationship with global warming.39 Many types of algae release toxic compounds, or harbor other deadly 

bacteria, that can have a wide range of health consequences, especially neurotoxicity, and can even be fatal if 

swallowed.40 The public health threat is enhanced because the toxicity of the blooms is not always proportional 

to their visibility.41 In fact, the blooms can be dilute and inconspicuous and still highly toxic to wildlife and human 

health.42 

(39) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Impacts of Climate Change on the Occurrence of Harmful Algal 

Blooms, EPA Office of Water 820-S-13-001 (May 2013), found at 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/climatehabs.pdf. 

(40) Anderson, M. Donald et al., Estimated Annual Economic Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the 

United States, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (September 2000) pg. 5-6, found at 

https://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=24159&pt=10&p=19132. 

(41) Id. 

(42) Id. 

Algae feed on nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus whose presence in water may be the result of reckless 

agricultural practices, inadequate regulations, and leaky sewage systems.43 But warmer temperatures ignite the 

process.44 In fact, climate change promotes the growth and dominance of harmful algal blooms through a cascade 

of multiple mechanisms, including: warmer water temperatures, changes in rainfall patterns, increases in the 

acidity of ocean waters, and sea level rise.45 

(43) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nutrient Pollution Sources and Solutions, EPA Office of Water 

(January 

2016), found at https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions. 

(44) See generally EPA, Impacts of Climate Change. 

(45) See Id. 

Algae need carbon dioxide to survive. Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the air and water accelerate algae 

growth, especially toxic blue-green algae which can float to the water’s surface, depriving other marine life of 

oxygen and sunlight.46 When global warming unleashes heavy rainfall and flooding more nitrogen/phosphorus 

pollution from farms and sewage seeps into waterways, serving up the nutrient banquet for the algae to thrive on. 

47 Where global warming leads to drought, the salinity of fresh water bodies is increased.48 This can cause 

marine algae to invade freshwater ecosystems. In the southwestern and south central United States, toxic marine 

algae have been killing fish in freshwater lakes since 2000.49 

(46) See Id. 

(47) See Id. 

(48) See Id. 

(49) See Anderson, Estimated Annual Economic Impacts, at 24. 

Warmer temperatures inhibit mixing of water layers, allowing stagnation of warmer layers near the surface, 

promoting thicker and faster algae growth.50 Algal blooms actually increase water surface temperatures by 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-868 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

absorbing more sunlight, creating a feed-back spiral of more blooms, absorbing more sunlight, warming the water 

further, and promoting more blooms.51 

(50) See generally EPA, Impacts of Climate Change. 

(51) See Id. 

Warmer temperatures reduce the viscosity of water, increasing the speed at which small aquatic organisms can 

vertically migrate.52 This makes it easier for the small, toxic, cyanobacteria to float to the surface to form the 

dangerous blooms.53 

(52) See Id. 

(53) See Id. 

While algal blooms are not new, there has been a worldwide increase in their frequency, severity and geographic 

distribution, in concert with the rise in global temperatures.54 Significant outbreaks have occurred in the last few 

years in Ohio, Florida, New York, and Utah. Last year, a mass of record breaking warm water triggered a bloom 

that extended from southern California to Alaska, damaging the entire marine food web throughout the West 

Coast, especially the crab industry.55 The bloom was 40 miles wide and 650 ft deep in some places.56 Marine 

scientists said last year’s toxic algal bloom was “unprecedented” and “diagnostic of what we can expect more of 

in the future.”57 The EPA notes that these blooms are now a serious environmental problem plaguing all 50 

states, not just those on the coasts.58 

(54) See Id. 

(55) Mapes, Lynda V., Toxic Algae Creating Deep Trouble on West Coast, The Seattle Times, November 15th, 

2015, 

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/toxic-algae-creating-deep-trouble-on-west-coast/ (last 

visited July 28th, 2016). 

(56) See Id. 

(57) See Id. 

(58) See generally U.S. EPA, Nutrient Pollution Sources and Solutions. 

The blooms also have a significant economic impact. In 2000, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 

estimated that the annual economic cost to the US economy at that time was about $450 million dollars.59 That 

figure would be markedly increased today. 

(59) See Anderson, Estimated Annual Economic Impacts at 4. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-52

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to oceans: Oceans have absorbed the vast bulk of warming to date, and will continue to suffer 

increasingly severe impacts on temperature, acidity, circulation, and marine ecosystems from climate change.60 A 

recent survey of science regarding climate change impacts to the world’s oceans finds that:

Marine ecosystems are centrally important to the biology of the planet, yet a comprehensive understanding of 

how anthropogenic climate change is affecting them has been poorly developed. Recent studies indicate that 

rapidly rising greenhouse gas concentrations are driving ocean systems toward conditions not seen for millions of 

years, with an associated risk of fundamental and irreversible ecological transformation. The impacts of 

anthropogenic climate change so far include decreased ocean productivity, altered food web dynamics, reduced 

abundance of habitat-forming species, shifting species distributions, and a greater incidence of disease. Although 

there is considerable uncertainty about the spatial and temporal details, climate change is clearly and 

fundamentally altering ocean ecosystems. Further change will continue to create enormous challenges and costs 

for societies worldwide, particularly those in developing countries.61 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-869 

Scoping Report 

(60) See National Climate Assessment at 558-59. 

(61) Ove Hoegh-Guldberg et al., The Impact of Climate Change on the World’s Marine Ecosystems, Science 328, 

1523 (2010), DOI: 10.1126/science.1189930 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-53

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report on Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability similarly 

summarizes the state of scientific research on foreseeable impacts to marine systems and reaches the following 

conclusions: 

Due to projected climate change by the mid 21st century and beyond, global marine-species redistribution and 

marine-biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity 

and other ecosystem services (high confidence). Spatial shifts of marine species due to projected warming will 

cause high-latitude invasions and high local-extinction rates in the tropics and semi-enclosed seas (medium 

confidence). Species richness and fisheries catch potential are projected to increase, on average, at mid and high 

latitudes (high confidence) and decrease at tropical latitudes (medium confidence). . . . The progressive expansion 

of oxygen minimum zones and anoxic “dead zones” is projected to further constrain fish habitat. Open-ocean net 

primary production is projected to redistribute and, by 2100, fall globally under all RCP scenarios. Climate change 

adds to the threats of over-fishing and other nonclimatic stressors, thus complicating marine management 

regimes (high confidence). 

For medium- to high-emission scenarios (RCP 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5), ocean acidification poses substantial risks to 

marine ecosystems, especially polar ecosystems and coral reefs, associated with impacts on the physiology, 

behavior, and population dynamics of individual species from phytoplankton to animals (medium to high 

confidence). Highly calcified mollusks, echinoderms, and reef-building corals are more sensitive than crustaceans 

(high confidence) and fishes (low confidence), with potentially detrimental consequences for fisheries and 

livelihoods. . . . Ocean acidification acts together with other global changes (e.g. warming, decreasing oxygen 

levels) and with local changes (e.g. pollution, eutrophication) (high confidence). Simultaneous drivers, such as 

warming and ocean acidification, can lead to interactive, complex, and amplified impacts for species and 

ecosystems.62 

(62) IPCC, 2014: Summary for Policymakers 17, in: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. 

Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, 

T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, 

P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 

York, NY, USA, pp. 1-32.

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-55

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts from Ocean Acidification: The ocean’s absorption of anthropogenic CO2 has already resulted in more 

than a 30% increase in the acidity of ocean surface waters, at a rate likely faster than anything experienced in the 

past 300 million years, and ocean acidity could increase by 150% to 200% by the end of the century if CO2 

emissions continue unabated.64 Ocean acidification negatively affects a wide range of marine species by hindering 

the ability of calcifying marine creatures to build protective shells and skeletons and by disrupting metabolism and 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-870 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

critical biological function.65 The adverse effects of ocean acidification are already being observed in wild 

populations, including reduced coral calcification rates,66 reduced shell weights of foraminifera in the Southern 

Ocean,67 and mass die-offs of larval Pacific oysters in the Pacific Northwest.68 

Coral reef ecosystems, which are estimated to harbor one-third of marine species and which support the 

livelihoods of a half billion people, are particularly threatened by ocean acidification. Some corals are already 

experiencing reduced calcification.69 Due to the synergistic impacts of ocean acidification, mass bleaching, and 

other stresses, reefs are projected to experience “rapid and terminal” declines worldwide at atmospheric CO2 

concentrations of 450ppm.70 Prominent coral scientists have called for reducing atmospheric CO2 to less than 

350 ppm to protect coral reefs from collapse.71 

Numerous U.S. and international scientific and policy bodies have identified ocean acidification as an urgent threat 

to ocean ecosystems, food security, and society.72 The United Nations Environment Program concluded that 

ocean acidification’s impact on marine organisms poses a threat to food security and the billions of people that 

rely on a marine-based diet.73 Moreover, a recent study estimated that the damage our oceans will face from 

emissions-related problems will amount to $428 billion a year by 2050 and nearly $2 trillion per year by the 

century’s end.74

(64) Orr, J. C., V. J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S. C. Doney, R. a Feely, A. Gnanadesikan, N. Gruber, A. Ishida, F. 

Joos, R. M. Key, K. Lindsay, E. Maier-Reimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray, A. Mouchet, R. G. Najjar, G.-K. Plattner, K. 

B. Rodgers, C. L. Sabine, J. L. Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R. D. Slater, I. J. Totterdell, M.-F. Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, and 

A. Yool. 2005. Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying 

organisms. Nature 437:681–6; . Feely, R., S. Doney, and S. Cooley. 2009. Ocean acidification: Present conditions 

and future changes in a high CO2 world. Oceanography 22:36–47; Hönisch, B., A. Ridgwell, D. N. Schmidt, E. 

Thomas, S. J. Gibbs, A. Sluijs, R. Zeebe, L. Kump, R. C. Martindale, S. E. Greene, W. Kiessling, J. Ries, J. C. Zachos, 

D. L. Royer, S. Barker, T. M. Marchitto, R. Moyer, C. Pelejero, P. Ziveri, G. L. Foster, and B. Williams. 

2012. The geological record of ocean acidification. Science 335:1058–63. 

(65) Fabry, V., B. Seibel, R. Feely, and J. Orr. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem 

processes. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65:414–432; Feely et al 2009; Kroeker, K.J, R.L. Kordas, R. Crim, I.E. 

Hendriks, L. Ramajo, G.S. Singh, C.M. Duarte, and J-P Gattuso. 2013. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine 

organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interactions with warming. Global Change Biology 19: 1884-1896. 

(66) De’ath, G., J. M. Lough, and K. E. Fabricius. 2009. Declining coral calcification on the Great Barrier Reef. 

Science 323:116–119. 

(67) Moy, A. D., W. R. Howard, S. G. Bray, and T. W. Trull. 2009. Reduced calcification in modern Southern 

Ocean planktonic foraminifera. Nature Geoscience 2: 276-280 

(68) Barton, A., B. Hales, G. G. Waldbusser, C. Langdon, and R. A. Feely. 2012. The Pacific oyster, Crassostrea 

gigas, shows negative correlation to naturally elevated carbon dioxide levels: Implications for near-term ocean 

acidification effects. Limnology and Oceanography 57:698–710. 

(69) Cooper, T. F., G. De’Ath, K. E. Fabricius, and J. M. Lough. 2008. Declining coral calcification in massive 

Porites in two nearshore regions of the northern Great Barrier Reef. Global Change Biology 14:529–538; 

Gledhill, D. K., R. Wanninkhof, F. J. Millero, and M. Eakin. 2008. Ocean acidification of the greater Caribbean 

region 1996–2006. Journal of Geophysical Research 113:C10031; De’ath et al. 2009; Bates, N., A. Amat, and A. 

Andersson. 2010. 

Feedbacks and responses of coral calcification on the Bermuda reef system to seasonal changes in biological 

processes and ocean acidification. Biogeosciences 7:2509–2530. Human-caused climate change is already causing 

widespread damage from intensifying global 

food and water insecurity, the increasing frequency of heat waves and other extreme weather 

(70) Veron, J. E. N., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, T. M. Lenton, J. M. Lough, D. O. Obura, P. Pearce-Kelly, C. R. C. 

Sheppard, M. Spalding, M. G. Stafford-Smith, and A. D. Rogers. 2009. The coral reef crisis: the critical importance 

of<350 ppm CO2. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58:1428–36. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-871

Scoping Report 

(71) Veron et al. 2009; Frieler, K., M. Meinshausen, A. Golly, M. Mengel, K. Lebek, S.D. Donner, and O. HoeghGuldberg. Limiting global warming to 2oC is unlikely to save most coral reefs. Nature Climate Change. Published 

Online. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1674. 

(72) NRC. 2010. Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean. National 

Academies Press; UNEP. 2010. UNEP Emerging Issues: Environmental Consequences of Ocean Acidification: A 

Threat to Food Security; Rogers, A. D., and D. d’A. Laffoley. 2011. International Earth system expert workshop 

on ocean stresses and impacts Summary Report. IPSO Oxford. 

(73) UNEP 2010. 

(74) Noone, K., R. Sumaila, and R. Diaz. 2012. Valuing the Ocean : Executive Summary, Stockholm Environment 

Institute. Stockholm Environment Initiative 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-7 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to wildlife: “Over the 21st century, changes in climate will cause some species to shift north and to 

higher elevations and fundamentally rearrange U.S. ecosystems. Differential capacities for range shifts and 

constraints from development, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and broken ecological connections will 

likely alter ecosystem structure, function, and services, leading to predominantly negative consequences for 

biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem goods and services.”25

(25) Final Endangerment Finding at 66,498see also Third National Climate Assessment at 195-219.

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-70

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Impacts of Coal Mining on Species and Habitats

There are myriad environmental impacts from mining coal, transporting it by rail, burning it, and disposing of the 

resulting waste, all which must be fully analyzed in the EIS. Exploiting coal resources causes a broad array of 

environmental harms through contamination of air, surface and groundwater, and publicly owned lands.240 The 

EIS must include an analysis of impacts to biological, marine, and aquatic resources on both public and private 

lands and waters affected by coal mining, transportation and combustion ? that is, in the areas where mining of 

the coal takes place, through rail or other corridors, through the loading and shipping of the coal, to its final 

destination, burning, and disposal. Such resources include marine and terrestrial mammals, game and non-game 

resident and migratory bird species, raptors, songbirds, amphibians, reptiles, fisheries, aquatic invertebrates, 

wetlands, and vegetative communities ? including species listed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

For species protected under the ESA, BLM must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under § 7 of the Act to determine whether BLM regulated coal mining 

activities will adversely affect these species or their designated critical habitat.241 Because this programmatic 

decision implicates a significant share of not only domestic but global greenhouse gas emissions whose effects 

occur globally, the relevant “action area” for purposes of consultation is global.

The BLM must ensure that up-to-date information on all potentially impacted flora and fauna is made available in 

the Draft PEIS, so that adequate impact analyses can be completed and to ensure robust public participation. 

Habitat degradation, fragmentation, and loss must all be assessed, along with any resulting impacts to wildlife and 

marine species. Cumulative impacts, such as increased wildlife mortality from mining related activities (including, 

but not limited to, increased human conflicts, habitat loss, and increased hunting pressure), transport of coal, 

pollution from coal combustion, and coal combustion waste disposal, must be fully analyzed. Impacts to wildlife 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-872 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

migration corridors must also be evaluated. 

The PEIS must also consider all potential water quality impacts (e.g., increased sediment loads, possible spills, coal 

dust impacts, mercury deposition, changes to alluvial groundwater quality, degradation of drinking well water) and 

water quantity impacts (e.g., drawdown of aquifers, diversions or diminutions of surface flow, hydrologic changes 

affecting seeps and springs, drinking water impacts), as well as impacts to water resources that would be 

expected from burning the coal and disposing of coal combustion waste, whether domestically or overseas, and 

the impacts that potential alterations in water quality and quantity will have on listed species. 

Transportation of coal over long distances also has significant environmental impacts, including the fossil fuel 

consumption of moving large volumes of material over long distances. Data shows that open coal trains lose huge 

volumes of coal dust during transportation. Such discharges add to air quality problems along the rail route, and 

cause contamination of waterbodies and other habitat areas. According to BNSF studies, 500 to 2,000 lbs of coal 

can be lost in the form of dust for each rail car, and coal trains are typically composed of at least 120 cars per 

train. In other studies, again according to BNSF, as much as three percent of the coal in each car (around 3,600 

lbs per car) can be lost in the form of dust.242 This is a huge volume of coal that will escape into the air and 

water, potentially affecting many listed species and essential habitat areas, which must be fully analyzed in the EIS. 

Moreover, as with the greenhouse gas impacts, this analysis must be viewed in the context of all existing and 

reasonably foreseeable similar impacts. 

The PEIS’s analysis of coal dust should also include a discussion of the efficacy of surfactants to control coal dust, 

potential impacts of the use of surfactants to control dust emissions, as well as consequences from not using 

surfactants. Although use of surfactants in some contexts is common, their efficacy and safety for use on coalcarrying trains is unproven. Further, surfactants contain myriad undisclosed chemicals, many of whose biological 

and ecological effects have not yet been adequately studied. Surfactants could cause a number of potential harms, 

including: danger to human health during and after application; surface, groundwater and soil contamination; air 

pollution; changes in hydrologic characteristics of the soils; and impacts on native flora and fauna populations. See 

Environmental Protection Agency, Potential Environmental Impacts of Dust Suppressants: Avoiding another 

Times Beach § 3 (May 30-31, 2002). 

The net results of the impacts of coal mining have been significant water pollution, loss of natural areas, and great 

reductions in biological diversity in mined places. We thank BLM for recognizing that the current implementation 

of the Federal coal program has failed to protect our waterways, wildlife, and natural ecosystems from coal 

mining and related pollution. We provide the following information to support the need for more protective 

regulations to ensure that mining operations are conducted so as to minimize disturbances and adverse impacts 

on fish, wildlife, and related environmental values. 

(240) See generally Paul R. Epstein et al, Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal in “Ecological Economics 

Reviews,” Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1219: 73-98 (2011); Jayni Foley Hein and Peter Howard, Illuminating the Hidden 

Costs of Coal (Dec. 2015); A Hidden Cost of Coal, Northern Plains Resource Council; Exporting Powder River 

Basin Coal: Risks and Costs, Western Organization of Resource Councils (Sept. 2011). 

(241) 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). 

(242) Hearing Transcript, July 29, 2010, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Association – Petition for Declaratory 

Order, Surface Transportation Board, Docket No. FD 35305, at 42:5-13.

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-72

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-873

Scoping Report 

Home to the greatest freshwater biological diversity in the U.S., Appalachia is a true species hot spot. Yet, coal 

mining is contributing to the alarming loss of biological diversity in the Appalachian Mountains. This has been 

evidenced by the vast upswing in aquatic dependent species requiring ESA protection in the southeast region. The 

USFWS’s findings in protecting such species illustrate that coal mining is a significant threat leading to species 

listings. Further, already listed species in the region are also experiencing ongoing declines due to downstream 

impacts from surface mining, such as sedimentation, and existing regulations are utterly failing to protect species 

from these impacts. 

For example, in listing the Cumberland darter as endangered, the USFWS found that sediment/siltation is “the 

most common stressor of aquatic communities in the upper Cumberland River basin” and the “primary source of 

sediment” is “resource extraction” – i.e., coal mining and logging.259 The USFWS identified “water quality 

degradation” and the addition of “high concentrations of dissolved metals and other solids that lower stream pH 

or lead to elevated levels of stream conductivity” as another “significant threat” to the Cumberland darter.260 

Likewise, in listing the blackside dace, the USFWS recognized “that impacts associated with the development of 

[coal and timber] resources in the past has caused the loss of many blackside dace populations.”261

Coal mining was also identified as a threat to, and among the reasons for listing, rayed bean and snuffbox mussels. 

The USFWS found that “low pH commonly associated with coal mine runoff can reduce glochidial encystment 

rates, thus impacting mussel recruitment” and that adverse impacts from heavy-metal-rich drainage from coal 

mining and associated sedimentation have been documented in portions of historical rayed bean and snuffbox 

habitat in the upper Ohio River system in western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and southeastern Ohio. Likewise, 

coal mining has impacted rayed bean habitat in the upper Tennessee River system, Virginia, and snuffbox habitat 

in eastern Kentucky (lower Ohio and Mississippi River systems in southeastern Illinois and western Kentucky; 

upper Cumberland River system in southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee; and upper Tennessee 

River system in southwestern Virginia).262 

Similar conclusions were reached in listing the sheepnose and spectaclecase mussels.263 Water quality 

degradation from surface coal mining also contributed to the need to list the diamond darter in West Virginia, 

264 the addition of the Kentucky arrow darter to the candidate list,265 and the proposed listing for the Big Sandy 

and Guyandotte River crayfishes.266 

The biological impacts of coal mining are not limited to the Powder River Basin. These impacts are felt in coal 

mining areas throughout our country. For example, recent coal leasing proposals in Utah also highlight the ongoing failure to address impacts to species, including greater sage-grouse and Utah prairie dog, that are vulnerable 

to habitat loss.267 Thus, coal mining activities are impacting species that have been recognized as vulnerable to 

such activities across the country, and efforts to mitigate these impacts have not been successful. 

This is due to the basic fact that effectively mitigating the impacts of coal mining is fundamentally not possible. 

Surface coal mining is accomplished by logging or clearing the mine site, then removing overburden from the coal 

seam and then blasting and removing the coal. This includes strip mining and open pit mining practices, as well as 

mountain top removal mining, wherein excess mining waste is dumped into fills in nearby hollows or valleys, 

smothering streams and habitat. Surface coal mining requires large areas of land to be disturbed, destroying 

mountains and forest habitat, and results in deposition of sediment and heavy metals into water bodies, which 

results in adverse impacts on streams and local biodiversity.268 It is the height of human arrogance to suggest 

that these impacts can be sufficiently mitigated. Rather, it is clear that the lost functions and values of the areas 

decimated by coal mining are near impossible to recover. 

(259) Endangered status for the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, and 

Laurel Dace, Final Rule. 76 Fed. Reg. 48,722, 48,732 (2011). Although federal coal holdings are not as pervasive as 

in the Powder River Basin, federal coal leases affect Cumberland Basin waters and species. See BLM and USFS, 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-874 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Environmental Assessment, Bledsoe Coal Lease. 

(260) 76 Fed. Reg. at 48,732. 

(261) Determination of threatened species status for the blackside dace, Final Rule. 52 Fed. Reg. 22,580 (1987). 

(262) Determination of endangered status for the rayed bean and snuffbox mussels throughout their ranges. 77 

Fed. Reg. 08632 (2012) (internal citations omitted). 

(263) Determination of endangered status for the Sheepnose and Spectaclecase mussels throughout their range, 

final rule. 77 Fed. Reg. 14914 (2012). In addition, the FWS designated 27 miles of the main stem of the Big South 

Fork and 9 miles of the New River in Tennessee as critical habitat for three endangered mussels: Cumberland 

elktoe, oyster mussel, and Cumberlandian combshell. 60 Fed. Reg. at 53,148. 

(264) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). (2013). Endangered species status for diamond darter, final rule. 78 FR 

45079 (“While the overall percentage of the entire Elk River watershed subjected to mining activities may be 

small, watersheds of some Elk River tributaries, such as Leatherwood Creek, are highly dominated by mining 

activity and include mining permits encompassing 81 to 100 percent of the subwatersheds (WVDEP 2011b, p. 37). 

Mining is 

likely a significant factor affecting the water quality of streams, such as Leatherwood Creek, that are principle 

tributaries to the Elk River. The effects of these mining activities conducted both within the Elk River mainstem 

and in Elk River tributaries, coupled with the effects from other activities described in Factor A, are continuing 

threats to the diamond darter.”). 

(265) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS. (2010). Candidate Notice of Review. 75 Fed. Reg. 69,224 (“The 

subspecies’ habitat and range have been severely degraded and limited by water pollution from surface coal 

mining and gas-exploration activities; removal of riparian vegetation; stream channelization; increased siltation 

associated with poor mining, logging, and agricultural practices; and deforestation of watersheds. The threats are 

high in 

magnitude because they are widespread across the subspecies’ range. In addition, the magnitude (severity or 

intensity) of these threats, especially impacts from mining and gas- exploration activities, is high because these 

activities have the potential to alter stream water quality permanently throughout the range by contributing 

sediment, dissolved metals, and other solids to streams supporting Kentucky arrow darters, resulting in direct 

mortality or 

reduced reproductive capacity. The threats are imminent because the effects are manifested immediately and will 

continue for the foreseeable future.”). 

(266) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2015). Endangered species status for the Big Sandy and Guyandotte River 

Crayfishes, proposed rule. 80 Fed. Reg. 18,726 (“Coal mining—The past and ongoing effects of coal mining in the 

Appalachian Basin are well documented, and both underground and surface mines are reported to degrade water 

quality and stream habitats. Notable water quality changes associated with coal mining in this region include 

increased concentrations of sulfate, calcium, and other ions (measured collectively by a water’s electrical 

conductivity); increased concentrations of iron, magnesium, manganese, and other metals; and increased alkalinity 

and pH, depending on the local geology. The common physical changes to local waterways associated with coal 

mining include increased erosion and sedimentation, changes in flow, and in many cases the complete burial of 

headwater streams. These mining-related effects are commonly noted in the streams and rivers within the ranges 

of the Big Sandy and the Guyandotte River crayfishes. The response of aquatic species to coal mining-induced 

degradation are also well documented, commonly observed as a shift in a stream’s macroinvertebrate (e.g., insect 

larva or nymphs, aquatic worms, snails, clams, crayfish) or fish community structure and resultant loss of sensitive 

taxa and an increase in tolerant taxa. As mentioned above, coal mining can cause a variety of changes to water 

chemistry and physical habitat; therefore, it is often difficult to attribute the observed effects to a single factor. It 

is likely that the observed shifts in community structure (including the extirpation of some species) are, in many 

cases, a result of a combination of factors.” (internal references omitted)). 

(267) BLM, Alton Coal Lease Tract Lease By Application, Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, DOI-BLM-UT-C040-2015-011-EIS (June 2015). 

(268) See e.g. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, DRAFT STREAM PROTECTION RULE 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-875

Scoping Report 

STATEMENT 4-95 (2015) (stating that the removal of trees and habitat fragmentation associated with coal mining 

“may cause species to become threatened or endangered, and can contribute to species extinction”); Id. at 4-113 

(“The negative effects of mining on specific features of habitats (soils, topography, water quality, and vegetation) 

may make it more difficult for wildlife species to reestablish after a mining disturbance and may increase the 

proliferation of non-native species on reclaimed landscapes.”); Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. Jewell, 62 F. 

Supp. 3d 7, 16 (D.D.C. 2014) (noting that “[d]irect effects of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on 

threatened, endangered, or proposed species or critical habitat consists [sic] primarily of habitat alteration by 

land clearing and earthmoving operations.... If a species of concern lacks individual mobility, land clearing and 

excavation activities may result in a direct take”).

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-73

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is well-established that programmatic decisions are subject to the ESA’s consultation requirement.289 A 

programmatic decision to continue or modify the federal coal leasing program is an “agency action” for purposes 

of the ESA. The ESA defines agency action as “any action authorized, funded, or carried out” by a federal agency. 

16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). The phrase is further defined in ESA regulations as “all activities or programs of any kind 

authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. These include: 

“(b) the promulgation of regulations” and “(d) actions directly or indirectly causing modifications to the land, 

water or air.” Id.

289 See, e.g., New Mexico v. Bureau of Land Management, 565 F.3d 683, 689, n.1 (10th Cir. 2009) Conner v. 

Burford, 848 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1988); Lane County Audubon Society v. Jamison, 958 F.2d 290 (9th Cir. 1988); 

Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1994); Silver v. Babbitt, 924 F.Supp. 976 (D. Ariz. 1995) 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-74

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 10 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The indirect effects of coal leasing and mining include atmospheric emissions of mercury from coal combustion. 

Mercury is a potent and widely distributed neurotoxin with serious adverse health effects on human health and 

development as well as the behavior, reproduction, and survival of threatened and endangered species. The 

United Nations estimates that 26% of global mercury emissions (339-657 metric tons/ year) come from the 

combustion of coal in power plants.294 A recent decision held that agencies must consider the indirect effects of 

even microscopic levels of mercury from coal leasing, mining and combustion decisions: 

(294) J. Pacyna, et al., Study on Mercury Sources and Emissions and Analysis of Cost and Effectiveness of Control 

Measures: “UNEP Paragraph 29 Study”, UNEP (Nov. 2010).

“the record reveals that even microscopic changes in the amount of mercury deposition can have significant 

impacts on threatened and endangered species in the area impacted by the Four Corners Power Plant. See AR 1-

2-14-1990 (concluding that a .1% increase in mercury deposition in the basin is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the Colorado pikeminnow). Given the potentially significant impacts of mercury pollution, OSM's 

failure to discuss or analyze the deleterious impacts of combustion-related mercury deposition in the area of the 

Four Corners Power Plant is troubling.295”

(295) Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, 82 F.Supp. 3d 1201, 1215 (D. Colo. 2015). 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-876 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

The deposition of mercury and selenium within the Colorado River Basin continues to threaten both human 

health and endangered species, including the four Colorado River endangered fish. Current scientific information 

indicates continuing mercury and selenium contamination in the Colorado River Basin, which has the potential to 

detrimentally affect these species. 

Consumption through the food chain is the primary mechanism of bioaccumulation of mercury in the endangered 

fish, and particularly affects the Colorado pikeminnow’s diet as the largest of the endangered Colorado River fish 

(Herrmann et al. 2016 at 204). Sources of mercury include high levels of atmospheric mercury deposition called 

“cold condensation” from coal-fired power plant emissions (Id. at 205). This atmospheric deposition and 

watershed runoff is the most prevalent source of mercury in the Colorado River, but mercury pollution from old 

gold smelters in the Basin have also infiltrated this river system through decades of runoff from smaller tributaries 

(Id. At 215). In Grand Canyon, there is a high concentration of mercury in the atmosphere due to emissions from 

the coal burning Navajo Generating Station in Page, Arizona, resulting in direct negative effects on the 

endangered fishes’ habitat in the lower Colorado River Basin (Walters 2015 at 2385). 

Mercury contamination is especially concerning because all four species depend on aquatic invertebrates as a food 

source. Other piscivorous animals and non-native fish that prey on these juvenile fish, in turn, accumulate 

mercury, which continues up the food chain, bioaccumulating in adult fish. Concentrations of mercury exceeding 

8 micrograms (μg/g) in fish organs or eggs may result in reproductive dysfunction and abnormalities (Herrmann et 

al. 2016 at 204). Walters et al. (2015) found that mean mercury concentrations for three native species and three 

non-native species from a Colorado River sample site exceeded the risk threshold for piscivorous mammal 

consumption (Id. at 2390). 

Because of the scale of the federal coal leasing program (over 40% of U.S. coal production), BLM must quantify, 

consider, and consult on, the indirect mercury emissions from combustion of coal, its contribution to global 

mercury atmospheric concentrations and deposition rates, and its ensuing effects on sensitive, threatened, and 

endangered species, including the four Colorado River listed fish. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-75

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The ESA was enacted, in part, to provide a “means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and 

threatened species depend may be conserved...[and] a program for the conservation of such endangered species 

and threatened species.”296 Section 2(c) of the ESA establishes that it is “the policy of Congress that all Federal 

departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their 

authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.”297 The ESA defines “conservation” to mean “the use of

all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.”298 Similarly, Section 7(a)(1) 

of the ESA directs that the Bureau and other federal agencies shall use their programs and authorities to 

conserve endangered and threatened species.299 

To fulfill the purposes of the ESA, federal agencies are required to “insure that any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by such agency...is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or 

threatened species or result in the adverse modification of habitat of such species... determined...to be 

critical.”300 When an agency action “may affect listed species or critical habitat” the agency must consult with 

expert wildlife agencies, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, using the “best scientific 

and commercial data available.”301 ESA consultation serves as an essential function to guide federal actions and 

identify mitigation to avoid harming listed species. Through consultation, the Services may specify reasonable and 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-877

Scoping Report 

prudent alternatives that will avoid jeopardizing listed species and “suggest modifications” to the action to “avoid 

the likelihood of adverse effects” to the listed species.302

Here, the Bureau must consult on the federal coal leasing program to ensure that coal leasing does not further 

imperil endangered species. Agencies are required to consult on programs that manage federal lands and leasing, 

including this coal leasing program.303 The ESA expressly and broadly requires an agency to comply with Section 

7 for “any action” it authorizes or funds.304 “Action” is broadly defined to include ““all activities or programs of 

any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part” by federal agencies and includes actions that may 

directly or indirectly cause modifications to the land, water, or air.”305

(299) 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(1). 

(300) 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) (Section 7 consultation). 

(301) 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). 

(302) 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b); 50 C.F.R. § 402.13. 

(303) See e.g., Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. United States Dep't of Agric., 459 F. Supp. 2d 874, 912 (N.D. Cal. 2006) 

(finding that the Forest Service violated the ESA by failing to consult on the effects of the State Petitions Rule 

(which replaced the Roadless Rule) and noting that “[t]he fact that consultation would only address impacts at 

the programmatic level does not excuse the need to do so); aff’d sub nom Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. USDA, 575 F.3d 

999 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Conner v. Bufford, 848 F.2d 1441,1453-54 (9th Cir. 2012). 

(304) 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) (emphasis added); Pac. Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(“there is little doubt that Congress intended to enact a broad definition of agency action in the ESA”). 

(305) 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (emphasis added). 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-76

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

NMFS’ 2015 Final Recovery Plan for Elkhorn and Staghorn Coral includes a recovery criterion with specific 

targets for ocean temperature and ocean acidification conditions that must be achieved for these corals to 

survive and recover.306 As noted in the Final Recovery Plan, meeting this criterion is consistent with a return to 

an atmospheric CO2 concentration of less than 350 ppm, as concluded by numerous scientific studies that have 

examined coral species viability in response to ocean warming and ocean acidification.307 Recognizing the 

responsibility of all federal agencies to promote listed species’ conservation, the Final Recovery Plan further 

includes a recovery criterion calling for the adoption of “adequate domestic and international regulations and 

agreements” to abate threats from increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.308 The plan also includes a 

recovery action to “develop and implement U.S. and international measures to reduce atmospheric CO2 

concentrations to a level appropriate for coral recovery.”309

(306) NMFS. 2015. Recovery Plan for Elkhorn (Acropora palmata) and Staghorn (A. cervicornis) Corals. Prepared 

by the Acropora Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. See Recovery 

Criterion 5: “Sea surface temperatures across the geographic range have been reduced to Degree Heating 

Weeks less than 4; and Mean monthly sea surface temperatures remain below 30°C during spawning periods; and 

Open ocean 

aragonite saturation has been restored to a state of greater than 4.0, a level considered optimal for reef growth.” 

(307) These studies include: (1) Veron et al. (2009) which recommends an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 

less than 350 ppm to protect coral reef health, and suggests a target of 320 ppm which is the level that pre-dates 

the onset of mass bleaching events; (2) Donner (2009) which suggests an atmospheric CO2 concentration target 

below 370 ppm to avoid degradation of coral reef ecosystems; (3) Simpson et al. (2009) which correlates a 

Caribbean open-ocean 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-878 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

aragonite saturation state of 4.0, which is recommended by the plan, with an atmospheric CO2 level at 340 to 

360 ppm; and (4) Frieler et al. (2012) which shows that limiting warming to ~1oC above pre-industrial levels is 

needed to protect Caribbean coral reefs from degradation. A 1oC target is consistent with an emissions 

trajectory that peaks in the next few years at 400 ppm, declines sharply thereafter (~6% decline per year), and 

returns atmospheric CO2 to 

below 350 ppm in the early 2100s (Hansen et al. 2013). 

(308) See Recovery Criterion 8. 

(309) See Recovery Action 9. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-77

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the 2015 Draft Polar Bear Conservation Plan acknowledges that the polar bear cannot be recovered without 

decisive action to mitigate the primary threat to the species—greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions driving sea-ice 

loss: 

The single most important step for polar bear conservation is decisive action to address global warming 

(Amstrup et al. 2010, Atwood et al. 2015), which is driven primarily by increasing atmospheric concentrations of 

greenhouse gases. Short of actions that effectively addresses the primary cause of diminishing sea ice, it is unlikely 

that polar bears will be recovered.310 

The best-available science on polar bear viability and sea-ice loss under climate change indicates that returning 

the atmospheric CO2 concentration to ~350 ppm is needed for polar bear survival and recovery. Amstrup et al. 

(2010), published in the journal Nature, provides the best available science on the greenhouse gas emissions 

pathways and atmospheric concentrations needed for polar bear recovery. This study found that polar bear 

probability of persistence increases when greenhouse gases are reduced significantly in the near future, and that 

the best possible on-the-ground management to reduce other threats plays an important, although secondary, 

role in increasing persistence probabilities.311 Importantly, Amstrup et al. (2010) showed that the commitment 

scenario—in which CO2 stays at a constant level of 368 ppm and radiative forcing remains at ~2.2 watts/m2 —is 

consistent with polar bear recovery in all ecoregions. These findings are compatible with studies that have found 

that returning the atmospheric CO2 concentration to between 350 and 400 ppm by 2100, and subsequently 

below 350 ppm, is needed to recover Arctic sea ice.312 

(310) U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 2015. Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Conservation Management Plan, Draft. U.S. Fish 

and 

Wildlife, Region 7, Anchorage, Alaska. 59 pp, at 6. 

(311) Amstrup, S.C. et al. 2010. Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and increase polar bear 

persistence. 

Nature 468: 955-960. Because sea-ice habitat decreases relatively linearly with increases in mean global 

temperature rise in their models, the study concluded that the loss of sea-ice habitat and corresponding “declines 

in polar bear distribution and numbers are not unavoidable” if immediate and rapid GHG reductions were to be 

implemented, thus emphasizing the need for rapid, decisive action on emissions reductions. 

(312) Hansen, J. et al. 2008. Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? Open Atmospheric Science 

Journal 2:217-231; Hansen, J. et al. 2013. Assessing "dangerous climate change": required reduction of carbon 

emissions to protect young people, future generations and nature. PLoS ONE 8: e81648. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-879

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-15

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM through the PEIS, and any needed RMP amendments or revisions, should ensure sage-grouse are 

sufficiently protected through protections for PHMA and SFA, including making appropriate unsuitability 

determinations to close areas to leasing. 

Comment Number: 0002485_Brooke_20160728-1 

Organization1:Black Warrior River 

Commenter1:Nelson Brooke 

Other Sections: 8.4 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A recent lease of 160 acres was awarded to Narley Mine No. 3, operated by Best Coal, Inc. That surface mine 

has discharges through six sediment basins to an unnamed tributary to Trouble Creek, which flows into Trouble 

Creek, and then into the Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River in Jefferson County, AL. This stretch of the 

Locust Fork is federal ESA Critical Habitat for six species of freshwater mussels, and is also home to the 

Endangered Cahaba Shiner, the Endangered plicate rocksnail, the Threatened flattened musk turtle, and the 

Candidate Black Warrior Waterdog, among other rare aquatic species. Alabama is number one in the U.S. for 

aquatic biodiversity, and the Locust Fork is a key priority watershed for rare species habitat, reintroductions, and 

recovery. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-28

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition, energy dense coal power plants provide protection for wildlife by avoiding bird and bat kills attributed 

to wind turbine blades and increased predatory bird kill rates of ground level wildlife. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-43

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 8.9 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining in Wyoming has a temporary impact on livestock and wildlife grazing and management. Wyoming 

surface coal operators reclaim lands in a timely manner and in compliance with the permitted mine and 

reclamation plans. Wyoming has primacy from the OSMRE for regulating compliance of these mining operations. 

Mine and reclamation acres for coal operations in Wyoming as of January 1, 2016 are: 169,639 disturbed acres, 

90,214 acres (53%) in active mining/facilities or partially reclaimed; 79,425 acres (47%) reclaimed through final 

seeding; and 38,000 acres (22%) in agricultural or hay production. Wyoming operators have received national 

recognition for their excellence in reclamation in 7 out of the past 10 years and range from shrub establishment 

to stream channel design and function. Wyoming has been and continues to be a national leader in reclamation of 

disturbed lands and places high importance on returning reclamation to livestock grazing, agricultural production 

and wildlife habitat in a timely manner. 

Successful reclamation in Wyoming is at least two times more productive than pre-mine native rangeland and 

provides a valuable mechanism for carbon capture and sequestration which must be evaluated by BLM in the 

PEIS. See Wick, et al., Aggregate and organic matter dynamics in reclaimed soils as indicated by stable carbon 

isotopes, Soil Biology and Chemistry, pp. 1-9 (2008); (WY0-02814 to 02822); and Stahl, et al., Accumulation of 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-880 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

organic carbon in reclaimed coal mine soils of Wyoming (2003); (WY0-02824 to 02836). Reclamation of surface 

mines can provide an avenue for atmospheric C02 to be captured as organic carbon in the soil and vegetative 

community. See Ganjegunte, et al., Accumulation and composition of total organic carbon in reclaimed coal mine 

lands, Land Degradation and Development, 20: 156-175 (2008); (WY0-02838 to 02857); and Miyamoto, et al., 

Long-term effects of mechanical renovation of a mixed-grass prairie: II. Carbon and Nitrogen Balance, Arid Land 

Research and Management. 18:141-151 (2004); (WY0-02869 to 02880). Reclaimed surface mine soils not only 

capture significant levels of carbon but also provide higher levels of organic nutrient storage, and thus vegetative 

biomass, allowing for additional carbon capture. These factors show the importance and benefits reclamation, and 

subsequent management of soil and vegetation has on the carbon cycle. Id.; (WY0-02869 to 02880); McDermot 

c, Elavarthi S., Rangelands as carbon sinks to mitigate climate change: A review, Earth science & climate change, 

5:8 1-12 (2014); (WY0-02882 to 02893); and Rhoades et al., Carbon Sequestration of Surface Mine Lands, 

Department of Forestry, University of Kentucky, Department of Soil Science, North Carolina State University; 

(WY0-02895 to 02916). 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-45

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Although the WGFD would like to see more of a shrub component in the final reclamation standards, coal mine 

reclamation is seen as extremely successful by the WGFD under the current process. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-46

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In Wyoming, coal operations tend not to interfere with big game species. See Medcraft, J.R. and W. R. Clark, Big 

Game Habitat Use on Diets on a Surface Mine in Northeastern Wyoming, Journal of Wildlife Management, 

50:135-142 (1986); (WY0-03052 to 03060); and Garno, R.S. and S. Anderson, Use of Reclaimed Mine Lands by 

Pronghorn and Mule Deer, Intermountain Journal of Sciences, Vol 8 4:213-222 (2002); (WY0-03062 to 03068). 

Coal operations may temporarily impact small mammals. See Hingten, T.M. and W.R. Clark, Small Mammal 

Recolonization of Reclaimed Coal Surface-mined Land in Wyoming, Journal of Wildlife Management, 48:1255-

1261 (1984); (WY0-03070 to 03076). When new or large expansions of coal operations are proposed, the 

WGFD recommends that an evaluation of delineated big game migration corridors be considered if applicable to 

the mine area and appropriate considerations taken when leasing or expanding the mine to protect migration 

corridors. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-47

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service coordinates an extensive and highly successful raptor program for nest removal 

and nest structure placement in coal country. This program alleviates most concerns with raptor-related impacts. 

For example, the North Antelope Rochelle Mine's commitment to protect raptors through successful 

implementation of this program was recognized by OSMRE through a National Award for Excellence in Surface 

Mining in 2012. "The company surveyed raptor populations, identified potential disturbances for nesting raptors, 

and developed multiple plans to mitigate those impacts. The company moved several nesting locations, built 

special nesting towers for raptors, and successfully maintained viable eagle, hawk, owl and kestrel populations." 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-881

Scoping Report 

OSMRE National Award for Excellence in Surface Mining, North Antelope Rochelle Mine (2012); [19] (WY0-

03858 to 03861). 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-76

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM requires management directions for Greater sage-grouse in Approved RMP amendments and revisions 

be applied to new permits and leases. The DEQ, LQD also requires that new permits comply with Wyoming 

Executive Order 2015-4, Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection. (WY0-03078 to 03122).Both of these 

management directives minimize potential impacts to Greater sage-grouse habitat and breeding cycles and will 

limit "claims" to areas that cannot be developed without very limited impacts to Greater sage-grouse. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has found "the core area strategy...if implemented by all landowners via 

regulatory mechanisms, would provide adequate protection for sage-grouse and their habitats in [Wyoming]." 75 

Fed. Reg. 13910, 13974 (March 23, 2010). Further, in a November 10, 2010 letter to Ryan Lance, Deputy Chief of 

Staff, Office of the Governor (WY)- the FWS made the following statement: "The provisions for conservation of 

Federal trust species, including candidates such as the Greater sage-grouse, under SMCRA and its implementing 

regulations, are sufficient for conservation of this species." See Hicks, S., U.S. Department of the Interior- Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Letter to Ryan Lance (Nov. 10, 2010); (WY0-03125). Now that the BLM has revised its 

RMPs in Wyoming to incorporate Wyoming's core area strategy, the FWS has found that the "adoption of the 

[core area strategy] into Federal land plans provides additional assurances that protections of Core Areas will be 

achieved on all lands, regardless of land ownership." Notice of 12-month petition finding, 80 Fed. Reg. 59858, 

59883 (Oct. 2, 2015). 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-1 

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

V. BLM MUST COMPLY WITH ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 

FEDERAL COAL PROGRAM The BLM is obligated to conserve species listed under the Endangered Species Act 

(“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1536. Under section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies must “insure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out by such agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 

species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species 

which is determined ... to be critical.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). 311 Because alternatives to be considered in the 

PEIS “may affect” threatened or endangered species and their critical habitat, 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a), BLM is 

required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (together, 

“Services”) under ESA section 7 to avoid adversely affecting these resources. Under ESA section 7, an agency 

undertaking an action determines, usually with the assistance of the Services, whether listed species or designated 

critical habitat exist in the area affected by the action. BLM has recognized the importance of engaging with the 

Services early in this process. 312 If the agency(s) identify resources protected by the ESA, they proceed to 

formal consultation over the proposed action unless it is determined that the potential effects of the action are 

insignificant, discountable or wholly beneficial to listed species and their habitat. Working with the Services, the 

action agency develops a Biological Assessment that describes how the proposed action may affect threatened 

and endangered species and critical habitat. The Services (either or both, as appropriate) evaluate the effects of 

the proposed action on listed species and critical habitat, which is communicated in a Biological Opinion (“BO”). 

The BO may identify reasonable and prudent alternatives for the proposed action that would avoid jeopardizing 

species listed under the ESA. 311 See also BLM Manual 6840.1E3 (committed to “ensuring that actions are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or destroy or 

adversely modify designated critical habitat”). 312 BLM Manual 6840.1F. 81 The threshold for effects that trigger 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-882 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

ESA section 7 consultation is low, and is met when an action “may affect” threatened or endangered species and 

their critical habitat. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a); see also Western Watershed Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472, 

498 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted) (describing “may affect” threshold); Pacific Rivers Council v. Shepard, No. 

03:11-CV-00442-HU, 2011 WL 7562961, at *9 (D. Or. Sept. 29, 2011), report and recommendation adopted as 

modified, No. 03:11-CV-442-HU, 2012 WL 950032 (D. Or. Mar. 20, 2012)) (affirming “how low the threshold is 

for triggering such consultation” ). The “may affect” standard is broadly interpreted, and includes proposed 

actions that may indirectly affect listed species, and regardless of whether a species or habitat occurs on BLM 

lands. 313 ESA regulations define “effects of the action” as: Effects of the action refers to the direct and indirect 

effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are 

interrelated or interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline. The 

environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other 

human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that 

have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions which 

are contemporaneous with the consultation in process. Indirect effects are those that are caused by the 

proposed action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur. Interrelated actions are those that 

are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those 

that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. The Services have 

clarified that “[a]ny possible effect, whether beneficial, benign, adverse or of an undetermined character, triggers 

the formal consultation requirement.” The federal coal program meets these criteria for triggering ESA section 7 

consultation. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-41

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to Wildlife NEPA requires BLM’s PEIS to identify and evaluate all impacts of the federal coal leasing 

program on wildlife. Specifically, this includes not only the direct impacts of coal 150 See National Climate 

Assessment and Development Advisory Committee, CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES at 

83. 151 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Indicators in the United States – Ocean Acidity, 

at https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/acidity.html (last visited July 21, 2016); National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Contour Charts, at 

http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/contour/ (last visited July 21, 2016); Government Accountability 

Office, Climate Change, at 7. 152 PMEL Carbon Program, What is Ocean Acidification?, at 

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/CO2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F (last visited July 21, 2016); National 

Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee, CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED 

STATES at 583. 153 National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee, CLIMATE CHANGE 

IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES at 20 154 Id. at 48-49. 155 National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Sanctuaries and Climate Change, at 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/climate/welcome.html (last visited July 21, 2016). 156 See id. 157 

National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee, CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE 

UNITED STATES, at 70. 46 leasing and coal mining on public land, but also the indirect and cumulative impacts to 

wildlife due to transporting and burning the coal. BLM summarized many of the direct impacts of surface coal 

mining on wildlife in its Final EIS for the Powder River Basin Wright Area lease in 2010: They include road kills by 

mine-related traffic, direct losses of less mobile wildlife species, restrictions on wildlife movement created by 

fences, spoil piles and pits, displacement of wildlife from active mining areas (including abandonment of nests or 

nesting and breeding habitat for birds), increased competition between animals in areas adjacent to mining 

operations, and increased noise, dust, and human presence. Habitat for aquatic species would also be lost during 

mining operations. Displaced animals [may] find equally suitable habitat that is not occupied by other animals, or 

occupy poorer quality habitat than that from which they were displaced. 158 These same direct impacts can be 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-883

Scoping Report 

expected for all surface coal mines on federal land and must be analyzed in the PEIS. BLM has recognized similar 

impacts post-mining, including an overall “decrease in carrying capacity for some species and a decrease in 

vegetation diversity.”159 

However, in the past BLM excluded consideration of a host of indirect impacts that are the reasonably 

foreseeable consequences of federal coal leasing. These include: 

Impacts to wildlife from transportation infrastructure, primarily railroads, used to transport federal coal either to 

power plants in the U.S. or to export facilities. Impacts to wildlife caused by the ports – existing and proposed –

that could receive shipments of federal coal for export. 

Increased dust along the entire route of the railroad, as well as the route of connecting railroads that will 

experience more train traffic made up largely of coal trains. 

Increased air and water pollution resulting from increased shipments of and mining of coal resulting from 

activities from the mine site to the port. 

Increased GHG emissions from enabling the extraction and combustion of federal coal. The PEIS must examine 

these impacts wherever they may occur. 158 Bureau of Land Management, Wright Area FEIS, at ES-52 (July 

2010); see also Alton Coal Tract Lease by Application Draft Environmental Impact Statement, at ES-14 (“Direct 

and indirect impacts from either action alternative would include habitat fragmentation, alteration, loss, and 

displacement due to surface disturbance, noise, ground vibration, night lighting, and increased risk of vehicle 

mortality associated with coal-haul trucks.”). 159 Bureau of Land Management, Wright Area FEIS, at ES-52. 47 

The PEIS must also examine the impacts the federal coal leasing program has on wildlife in the context of climate 

change, which exacerbates many of the stressors on wildlife that coal mining directly causes. Climate change 

poses a direct threat to wildlife and communities. If carbon pollution continues unabated, scientists predict that 

higher temperatures will lead to the extinction of 50% of species around the globe. 160 With a warming world 

come habitat shifts, and many wildlife species are finding themselves without suitable habitat to occupy. The latest 

National Climate Assessment report shows that wildlife and communities are already feeling the impacts of 

climate with rising seas, heavier precipitation, changes in growing seasons, fewer cold snaps, decreased snow 

pack, increased incidence of pests, devastating wildfires and droughts, and other significant impacts. 161 Plant and 

animal species are shifting their entire ranges in search of colder locales, in many cases two-to-three-times faster 

than scientists anticipated. 162 Due to irreversible changes, cold-water fish such as trout are already disappearing 

from streams, big game populations such as moose are being pushed out of their historic range, and certain 

wetland habitats are vanishing. 163 In the Western United States, climate change-related stresses, including 

severe droughts, have driven mule deer population declines. 164 Vulnerability of these and other large ungulates 

are expected to increase as “human development causes additional impacts to wildlife habitat” and “these 

populations are forced to exist on less habitat or lower quality habitat [than] has existed in the past.”165 Of 

course, the impacts of climate change are not limited to wildlife in the interior West. Among other problems 

facing coastal areas, rising sea levels increase salinity intrusion into freshwater ecosystems, such as the Everglades, 

which provide important habitat for birds, fish, and other wildlife. Freshwater wetlands that offer important 

foraging habitat for wading birds 160 International Panel on Climate Change, 4th Assessment Report, available at 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf (last visited July 28, 2016) 161 See National Climate 

Assessment and Development Advisory Committee, CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES at 

7. 162 National Wildlife Federation, Wildlife in a Warming World (2013), available at 

http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Reports/NWF_Wildlife-Warming- World_Report_web.ashx 

(last visited July 27, 2016). 163 Lisa Eby, et al., Evidence of Climate-Induced Range Contractions in Bull Trout 

Salvelinus confluentus in a Rocky Mountain Watershed U.S.A., PLOS ONE (2014), available at 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0098812 (last visited July 28, 2016). 164 

Clay Schwartz, Studies, states seek to halt mule deer population decline, BILLINGS GAZETTE, October 17, 2013 

available at http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/studies-states-seek-to- halt-mule-deer-populationdecline/article_e6a17e99-01dd-50ed-9edb-f39c976d9db3.html (last visited July 28, 2016); Ellenberger and Byrne 

(2015) (Exhibit ) at 3. 165 Ellenberger and Byrne (2015) (Ex. 20) at 3. 48 and other wildlife may decrease. 166 In 

the Chugach National Forest in Alaska, Forest Service researchers predict that “changes in climate could result in 

salmon that are smaller and face more to their survival, according to Forest Service researchers. These projected 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-884 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

climate impacts may affect various users, including residents in the region who rely on snow-based tourism and 

salmon for their livelihoods and Alaska Native residents in the region who rely on forest resources for 

subsistence hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering.”167 Accordingly, all of the direct consequences to wildlife of 

mining federal coal—including habitat loss, displacement, and restrictions on movement, among others—will be 

worsened as a result of climate change. In light of the direct devastation coal mining has on lands, water, and 

wildlife near mined areas, and the indirect but equally destructive impacts to these resources due to greenhouse 

gas emissions from burning federal coal, the PEIS must examine whether federal coal leasing may be accomplished 

in a manner consistent with BLM’s mandate to protect these resources for future generations. 

Comment Number: 0002942_Harbine-53

Organization1:Earthjustice 

Commenter1:Jenny Harbine 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to Public Lands and Land Uses The direct and indirect harm to public lands and land uses from the 

federal coal leasing program are substantial, unavoidable, unnecessary, undue, and unacceptable under FLPMA, 

which governs the Department’s management of federal coal resources. Between 5 and 8.4 million acres have 

been disturbed by surface mining in the United States. 115 Coal mining companies currently have control of 

federal coal underlying nearly half a million acres of public and private lands, 116 approximately 80 percent of 

which will be strip-mined. 117 These lands are closed to the public—and all non-mining uses—during active 

mining. Barred public uses include outdoor recreation, hunting, grazing and agriculture. While some mined land 

may be reclaimed, some of it is permanently altered and rendered unsuitable for pre-mine uses. 118 In addition 

to these direct impacts to lands from coal mining, greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal and 

consequential climate disruption wreak havoc on ecosystems, not just within the mining area but on all lands. The 

federal government manages approximately 30 115 Sourcewatch, The footprint of coal, available at 

://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_footprint_of_coal#How_much_land_has_been_dist 

urbed_by_all_surface_mining_in_the_United_States (last visited July 19, 2016). 116 Bureau of Land Management., 

Total Federal Coal Leases in Effect, Total Acres Under Lease, and Lease Sales by Fiscal Year Since 1990, available 

at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/coal_and_non-energy/coal_lease_table.html (last visited July 19, 

2016) (306 federal coal leases covering 482,691 acres in 2015). 117 White House Fair Return Report, at 22. 118 

See infra § II.E, detailing unmet reclamation obligations. 41 percent—650 million acres—of our nation’s land along 

with offshore marine resources. 119 On federal public lands, including lands managed by BLM, the Forest Service, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, the effects of climate change are already being felt and will 

only increase as our climate continues to respond to growing concentrations of greenhouse gases in our 

atmosphere. 120 Climate change, spurred by fossil fuel combustion including burning of federal coal, catalyzes or 

exacerbates many harms to lands across the country, including federal public lands. For example, a combination 

of climate change factors including drought and high temperatures has set off a recent historical trend of more 

frequent and larger wildfires, a trajectory that is expected to continue as the impacts of climate change become 

more severe. 121 The impacts of more wildfires are not limited to the physical destruction of the fires 

themselves. Wildfires may also cause respiratory difficulties and lung disease in humans, and the ash from the fire 

may adversely affect water supplies. 122 Additionally forest fires can be worsened by the presence of increased 

insect populations and their adverse effects on timber. These insect populations are expected to grow in the 

areas most at risk for fire, particularly high-altitude forests. 123 In fact, climate change is expected to cause 

changes to insect populations in various regions of the country. 124 For example, milder winters will result in 

higher populations of less frost-resistance 119 U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-13-253, Climate 

Change: Various Adaptation Efforts Are Under Way at Key Natural Resources Management Agencies, at 2 

(2013), http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654991.pdf, attached as Ex. 31. 120 The Interior Department’s website 

acknowledges that “[c]limate change affects every corner of the American continent. It is making droughts drier 

and longer, floods more dangerous and hurricanes more severe,” and that “[t]he impacts of climate change are 

forcing [the Interior Department] to change how we manage these resources. Climate change may dramatically 

affect water supplies in certain watersheds, impact coastal wetlands and barrier islands, cause relocation of and 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-885

Scoping Report 

stress on wildlife, increase wildland fires, further spread invasive species, and more.” See 

https://www.doi.gov/climate (last visited July 27, 2016). 121 The National Science and Technology Council, 

Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, 

Wildland Fire Science and Technology Task Force Final Report, November 2015, 6; U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, Climate Change - Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the Effects on Federal 

Land and Water Resources, August 2007, 5-6. As climate change creates longer fire seasons, the damages caused 

by wildfires also increase. A. L. Westerling, H.G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, & T. W. Swetnam, Warming and Earlier 

Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity, 313-5789 SCIENCE, 940-943 (2006). 122 See U.S. Forest 

Service, Forests to Faucets, at http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/FS_Efforts/forests2faucets.shtml (last 

visited July 21, 2016). 123 J. M. Schmid & D. L. Parker, Fire and Forest Insect Pests, at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr191/rm_gtr191_232_233.pdf (last visited July 21, 2016); E. E. Strange & 

M. P. Ayres, Climate Change Impacts: Insects, 11-10 ELS (2010). 124 See U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

Climate Change, at 6. 42 species, which in turn can negatively affect local vegetation, agriculture, and even other 

insect populations that usually might rise during the spring in areas traditionally prone to colder winters. 125 

Climate change has also been linked to insect migrations, which can cause issues with invasive populations as they 

expand beyond their historical ranges due to climatological changes. 126 These migrations can be detrimental to 

local vegetation, which can in turn affect entire ecological systems. 127 Climate disruption’s effects on vegetation 

are not limited to the effects of changing insect populations. Changing temperatures are expected to increase the 

range of many invasive weed species across a variety of landscapes. 128 As one example, invasive weeds from 

California have been discovered advancing into northern Nevada as temperatures have increased. 129 In the 

Eastern U.S., some invasive species are projected to migrate all the way from Pennsylvania to Maine to by 2084 

under current climatological patterns. 130 As these invasive plant species spread they will cause millions, if not 

billions, of dollars in damage and may outcompete to destroy local vegetation and crops. 131 As these processes 

unfold and ecosystems are altered, vulnerable species will face an increased risk of extinction as even minor 

changes to their habitat might offset population growth. 132 These types of changes can also have adverse effects 

on shorelines, as critical vegetation is reduced and natural barriers to erosion are weakened, dilemmas that are 

only further compounded by climate change’s impact on rising sea levels. 133 125 J.S. Bale, G. J. Masters, et al., 

Herbivory in Global Climate Change Research: Direct Effects of Rising Temperature on Insect Herbivores, 8-1 

GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 1-16 (2002). 126 C. Parmesan, Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent 

Climate Change, 37-1 ANNUAL REVIEW OF ECOLOGY, EVOLUTION, AND SYSTEMATICS (2006); Logan & 

Powell, Ghost Forests, Global Warming, and the Mountain Pine Beetle, 47 AM ENTOMOL, 160-173 (2001). 127 

See S. Mainka & G. Howard, Climate Change and Invasive Species: Double Jeopardy, 5 INTEGRATIVE 

ZOOLOGY, 102-111 (2010). 128 A. McDonald, S. Riha, et al., Climate Change and the Geography of Weed 

Damage: Analysis of U.. Maize Systems Suggests the Potential for Significant Range Transformations, 130 

AGRICULTURE, ECOSYSTEMS, AND ENVIRONMENT, 131-140 (2009); Government Accountability Office, 

Climate Change, at 6. 129 . Bradley, M. Oppenheimer, et al., Climate change and plant invasions: restoration 

opportunities ahead?, 15-6 GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 1511-1521 (2009). 130 See A. McDonald, Climate 

Change and the Geography of Weed Damage. 131 See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The Cost of Invasive 

Species, at https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/PythonPDF/CostofInvasivesFactSheet.pdf (last visited July 21, 2016). 

132 T. A. Crowl, et al., The Spread of Invasive Species and Infectious Disease as Drives of Ecosystem Change, at 

6-5 FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 238-246 (2008). 133 Rusty Feagin, Douglas 

Sherman, & William Grant, Coastal Erosion, Global Sea-level Rise, and the Loss of Sand Dune Plant Habitats, at 3-

7 FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT (2005). 43 The true problem with these and other 

harmful impacts to land from climate change is that they are not finite; as climate change worsens, so too will the 

adverse impacts to the land and its fauna. As the GAO recognized, climate change “poses significant financial risks 

to the federal government ... in its role as the manager of large amounts of land and other natural 

resources.”134 As such, proactive and imminent actions are required in order to avoid, reduce, and/or mitigate 

long-term damage to land resources. 135 Already, federal land management agencies have begun developing 

strategies to identify, monitor, and adapt to resource changes brought about by climate disruption. 136 In 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-886 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

evaluating needed reforms to the federal coal leasing program, the PEIS must examine these impacts from climate 

change on federal public lands and land management, which continued coal leasing will only worsen. 

Comment Number: 002501_Ring_20160728-2 

Organization1:Climate911 

Commenter1:Wendy Ring 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

A failure to protect our public lands. 

Our public lands are already heavily impacted by drought, wildfire, pine bark beetles, and elevated temperatures 

resulting from climate change. Increasing emissions from coal would accelerate these adverse impacts. This is 

incompatible 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.”

Comment Number: 003057_Angerhofer_1072016-1 

Commenter1:Cindy Angerhoffer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Mountaintop removal for coal destroys crucial habitat for migratory songbirds and other animals and blights some 

of the most beautiful areas of the country 

Comment Number: 003070_Frazier_1072016-1 

Commenter1:Adrian Frazier 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Plants take in as much oxygen as they put out through cellular metabolism. Unfortunately because of ocean 

acidification we have killed off half of the total population of photo-plankton on earth and if we lose the other half 

due to negligence the human race as well as almost every other animal on earth will suffocate (more like falling 

asleep and not waking up) due to a lack of oxygen 

Comment Number: Dvorak_DvorakRaftingFishing_20160623-4 

Organization1:Dvorak Rafting and Fishing Expeditions 

Commenter1:Bill Dvorak 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Wildlife and fish need it [bonding] to be funded as most coal extraction takes place on prairies, ranchland, and 

valuable wildlife habitat 

Comment Number: WO_CoalPEIS_0003062_Hoy_G-1 

Commenter1:Judy Hoy 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Antelope and mule deer populations are in decline because of the destruction of their habitat. Also, many 

ordinary citizens depend on the meat of these animals harvested during the season to feed their families. Coal 

mining and damage that it does to the habitat necessary for these wild ungulates to live is very detrimental to 

everyone except mining companies. 

Comment Number: 0000725_Kirchner_NWF-2 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Jane Kirchner 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The presence of acid-forming materials exposed as a result of mining can affect aquatic wildlife by eliminating 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-887

Scoping Report 

habitat and by causing direct destruction of some species. Lesser concentrations can suppress productivity, 

growth rate and reproduction of many aquatic species. Acids, dilute concentrations of heavy metals, and high 

alkalinity can cause severe damage to wildlife in some areas. The duration of acidic-waste pollution can be long; 

estimates of the time required to leach exposed acidic materials in the Eastern United States range from 800 to 

3,000 years. This is way beyond a business life-cycle calculation. 

Comment Number: 0000725_Kirchner_NWF-3 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Jane Kirchner 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Mule deer, pronghorn antelope, sage grouse, elk and hundreds of bird species including eagles make their home 

in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana. The National Wildlife Federation and Natural Resources 

Defense Council commissioned a study of the health of wildlife in this major coal producing region . This region is 

also the location of the nation's largest surface coal mine. More than 70% of the mule deer and pronghorn herds 

evaluated were found to be unhealthy. Notably, of the mule deer herds evaluated, the only one that was found to 

be healthy was the one living in an area without any energy development within its boundaries 

Comment Number: 0000864_Szollosi-1 

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Frank Szollosi 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There is increased pressure on wildlife and habitat, especially from fossil fuel extraction. According to your own 

data, BLM data, in 2010, 2011, the eastern state's office leased 460,000 acres of public land for fossil fuel 

extraction which was up 71 percent from previous five years. 

Issue 14 - Other Resource Impacts 

Total Number of Submissions: 28 

Total Number of Comments: 33 

Comment Number: 00000186_ GELLERT_20160517-4 

Commenter1:Paul Gellert 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need to consider the ecosystem risks at local, regional, and broader, even global, scales. 

Comment Number: 00000298_ SHAKESPEAR _20160519-1 

Organization1:Canyon Fuel Company Sufco Mine 

Commenter1:Wyatt Shakespear 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

coal mining provides responsible stewardship of our federal lands, benefiting wildlife grazing as well as other 

stakeholders 

Comment Number: 00000339 _Newman_20160519-1 

Commenter1: Newman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-888 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

As federal leases become unaffordable, companies are going to relocate to state and private leases, in which they 

are mostly eastern, which have a higher sulfur, higher ash, and lower BTU 

Comment Number: 00000343 _ Salvato _20160519-1 

Commenter1:Bobbie Bryant-Salvato 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Bryce Canyon is known for its beautiful night skies and it is a night skies sanctuary. BLM admits there will be a 

detrimental impact on these skies from increased lighting and air pollution at this 24- hour mine operation, which 

will be located ten miles from Bryce. 

Comment Number: 00000356 _ Provost _20160519-6 

Commenter1:Craig Provost 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It's also important to note that many of the properties being considered are so close or adjacent to our beautiful 

national parks, which are the source of millions of dollars to the tourism industry of our state. 

Comment Number: 0000071_Quinn_ 20160517-1 

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Commenter1:Casey Quinn 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

An anchor of the regional economy, agricultural operations like L.J. are plagued by uncertainty over the longterm 

availability of adequate grass and water. Continued mine expansions in the near reclamation of lands in the State 

of Wyoming magnify this uncertainty. Less than one percent of disturbed acres have achieved final reclamation 

and bond release. One of the breakdowns in the implementation of our surface mining laws is the failure to force 

these companies to release mine lands and return them to agriculture production. L.J. hopes the Department of 

Interior will consider these issues and develop solutions to them during the scope of the programmatic coal 

review. 

Comment Number: 0000502_Rourke_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Chuck Rourke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Reclaimed lands are producing more pound of forage per acre than native which translates to less acres per 

animal units and more pounds of livestock produced 

Comment Number: 0000611_Leahy_NMWF-1 

Organization1:New Mexico Wildlife Federation 

Commenter1:Todd Leahy 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal combustion, without corresponding sequestration technologies, destabilizes and degrades the conditions 

that make other uses possible. Given the long-term atmospheric impact of carbon dioxide, the effects of mining 

public coal today will affect public lands for centuries; damaging recreation opportunities, water supplies, wildfire 

resilience, and even other extractive uses such as timber and grazing. A disparity exists between the high, longterm costs of coal usage and the low, short-term windfalls from sale. The BLM must consider this disparity when 

making its decisions. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-889

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0001109_MADSON_MtnPact_20160621-2 

Organization1:The Mountain Pact 

Commenter1:Diana Madson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal production is on the decline in the U.S. and it's time to catalyze the transition toward more sustainable and 

diverse. Economies. We need to empower our economy to invest in a new path of cleaner, renewable energy. 

And I thank the Obama Administration for making the $75 million available in grants for economic and workforce 

development in communities hit by the coal downturn. 

Comment Number: 0001127-1 

Organization1:Association of Northwest Steelheaders 

Commenter1:Bob Rees 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And when you're taking into account all the different environmental impacts that happen with coal consumption 

and coal mining, I urge you to better understand and take into account the effects of ocean acidification. I first 

learned about the effects of ocean acidification from Oregon's cleanest estuary, Netarts Bay, where my neighbors 

had an oyster hatchery, yet they witnessed an 80 percent mortality for their juvenile oysters because at Oregon's 

cleanest estuary was receiving the Pacific Ocean water that was highly acidic and detrimental to their product. 

Comment Number: 0002225_Wheeler_20160519-4 

Commenter1:Ray Wheeler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Direct visual, dust and traffic effects on high value recreational areas such as Bryce Canyon National Park 

Comment Number: 0002225_Wheeler_20160519-6 

Commenter1:Ray Wheeler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

heavy averse impacts on Highway 89 of 300 trucks a day, or a large coal truck every 7 minutes, on Highway 89, a 

major arterial access road to our "Golden Circle of national parks 

Comment Number: 0002436-6 

Commenter1:Sharon St Joan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The mysterious “hoodoo” rock formations of Bryce Canyon lie just ten miles from the site, near Alton, being 

proposed for more coal mining. Visitors to Bryce Canyon would no longer be able to look out over a clear vista 

of hills stretching all the way to the horizon, but instead would see heavy machinery at work destroying the lands 

below them. 

Comment Number: 0002436-7 

Commenter1:Sharon St Joan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In the state of Utah, tourism brings in far more revenue and creates far more jobs that does the coal industry. If 

we preserve the natural environment, these areas will continue to be places of beauty for tourists and visitors 

who are drawn here from all over the world, on into the future. If these areas are ruined and destroyed, as is 

now happening, this will simply lead us to a dead--end, with no future. If we rely on a death- dealing industry, such 

as coal, instead of a life–sustaining industry such as tourism, then when the coal is gone, and when the coal 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-890 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

companies have all gone bankrupt, as is already beginning to happen, we will be left with nothing. There will then 

be no jobs, no income, and no wild lands either 

Comment Number: 0002444_Rait_20160727-3 

Organization1:The Pew Charitable Trusts 

Commenter1:Ken Rait 

Other Sections: 11 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In conducting the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) of the federal coal leasing program, the 

Pew Charitable Trusts recommends that BLM consider the potential impacts new policy direction will have on 

the agency’s mission to manage the lands with wilderness characteristics as part of BLM’s multiple use mission. 

Pristine BLM lands provide a range of uses and benefits in addition to their value as settings for solitude or 

primitive and unconfined recreation. These lands are some of our nation’s most sought after hunting and fishing 

grounds, most popular mountain biking trails, home to an extensive network of ungulate migration corridors, 

essential habitat for imperiled species like the greater sage grouse and habitat for 450 listed species. The 

protection of these values deserves consideration when reforming the federal coal leasing program on BLM lands. 

Recreation on natural BLM-managed lands has a significant positive impact on rural economies across the West. 

A study conducted by the independent firm ECONorthwest and commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts 

recently highlighted this value, finding non-motorized recreation on the 246 million acres of our nation’s land 

overseen by the Bureau of Land Management supports 25,000 jobs and generates $2.8 billion for the U.S. 

economy. (See: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2016/03/31/the-economic-valueofquiet-recreation-on-blm-lands) 

Comment Number: 0002461_breen_20160728-4 

Organization1:The WIlderness Society 

Commenter1:Katie Breen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal reform is vital to our land use and stewardship. Americans are increasingly valuing public lands for access to 

recreation, family time and enjoyment. Studies show time and again the number of visitors to our public lands is 

steadily increasing. Better managing our coal program ensures protection for the wild places we recreate. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-20

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While the majority of federal coal is developed from large surface mines, federal coal is also mined underground. 

Underground mining creates different impacts, including first and foremost subsidence of surface lands after 

mining occurs. These cracks can pose a safety hazard to surface users, from small cracks that can break the legs 

of horses, cattle, and wildlife that step into them, to larger cracks that can render surface lands uncrossable for 

some distance. Some ranchers in Montana have measured subsidence cracks that are up to 15 feet wide. These 

issues can be compounded when cracking occurs on steep slopes, which increases the risk of slope failure, 

rockfalls, and landslides. In addition, subsidence cracks can damage springs and streams, draining surface water 

resources that are beneficial to agriculture and wildlife. The PEIS should analyze subsidence problems on 

previously leased acreage and disclose impacts. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-40

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-891

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to climate change impacts, federal coal leasing and subsequent mining creates significant – and in many 

cases irreversible – impacts to air and water resources, wildlife habitat, and ecosystems in the areas where mining 

occurs. Federal coal is mined through the large strip mines of the Powder River Basin, as well as underground 

and longwall mines in other parts of the Western U.S. All coal mines create impacts, which must be addressed in 

the PEIS. 

Comment Number: 0002467_Fettus_20160728-8 

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Geoffrey Fettus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Subsidence: Underground mines that exploit federal coal have caused land subsidence, impacting surface owners 

and adjacent landowners. For instance, in the Bull Mountains of Montana, Signal Peak Energy’s longwall mine, has 

caused subsidence cracks over a quarter-mile long. 

Comment Number: 0002471_Reed_20160728-10

Organization1:High Country Conservation Advocates 

Commenter1:Matt Reed 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to public lands forests dying from beetle proliferation and other stressors, wildfires are a growing 

factor on the landscape, affecting ecology, communities and budgets. The U.S. Forest Service is spending more 

than 50 percent of its budget to suppress the nation's wildfires.19 Simultaneously, more than 40 percent of our 

nation’s coal is being mined on public lands. The continued leasing of federal lands for coal will only continue to 

have disastrous impacts in the form of wildfires and budget problems. Over the past 100 years, southwestern 

Colorado temperatures have increased, and modeled climate projections for the region include warmer and 

longer frost-free summers, snowline moving up in elevation, earlier snowmelt, and consequently, a longer fire 

season.20 Fire has always been a reality on the western landscape, but a changing climate is exacerbating the 

situation. 

(19) See http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/forest-service-report-rising-firefighting-costs-raises-alarms (last visited 

July 28, 2016). 

(20) Supra note 7, at 2. 

Comment Number: 0002477_Saul_20160728_CBD_UPHE-6 

Organization1:Center for Biological Diversity 

Commenter1:Michael Saul 

Other Sections: 6 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Impacts to energy, infrastructure, and settlements: “Changes in extreme weather events threaten energy, 

transportation, and water resource infrastructure. Vulnerabilities of industry, infrastructure, and settlements to 

climate change are generally greater in high-risk locations, particularly coastal and riverine areas, and areas whose 

economies are closely linked with climate-sensitive resources. Climate change will likely interact with and 

possibly exacerbate ongoing environmental change and environmental pressures in settlements, particularly in 

Alaska where indigenous communities are facing major environmental and cultural impacts on their historic 

lifestyles.”24

(24) Final Endangerment Finding at 66,498 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-892 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-14

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should fully consider LWCs and the potential impact of the federal coal program on these lands, 

including requiring updated inventory and evaluation of opportunities for protection of LWC prior to leasing. The 

important values of lands with wilderness characteristics s are generally not present on other lands. The BLM 

should ensure the federal coal mining program seeks to protect these values. 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-65

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Master Leasing Plans are created at a smaller landscape level to manage oil and gas development, focusing on 

areas where there are likely impacts to and potential conflicts with other resources. See, Handbook H-1624-1 

(Planning for Fluid Mineral Resources), Chapter V. MLPs incorporate a number of tools to reduce conflicts and 

guide development to appropriate areas that could be incorporated into the Coal PEIS, including: 

· Identifies resource condition objectives to provide standards for subsequent development and reclamation; 

these may apply to management for air quality, wildlife habitat, riparian areas. H-1624-1.V.C.1. Setting standards 

prior to approving coal leasing and development will enable BLM to identify and address potential impacts. 

· Incorporates resource protection measures to reduce environmental impacts and help achieve resource 

condition objectives. These measures may include closing areas to leasing, phased leasing, or other lease 

stipulations or conditions of approval restricting the timing, location, or method of operations; or conditions of 

approval. H-1624-1.V.C.2. In practice, these measures have included prioritizing mineral leasing in areas with high 

development potential and minimal resource conflicts, and using phased leasing and development, which can be 

accomplished through identifying areas to be leased in order and by using limitations on the amount of cumulative 

surface disturbance that can occur and requiring reclamation prior to additional development. These types of 

approaches could be used as part of managing both leasing and development in the Coal PEIS. 

· Extends to BLM surface and split estate lands. See, Instruction Memorandum 2010¬117. The Coal PEIS can and 

should address leasing and development of federal coal resources including where BLM may not manage the 

surface. 

· Extends to both new and existing leases. H-1624-1.V.C.2. The Coal PEIS can and should incorporate protective 

measures, including mitigation, which will apply to new leases and approvals of development on existing leases. 

Most of these key concepts are embedded in coal regulations and policy already, including the unsuitability 

criteria, multiple use considerations, special stipulations for leases, and “due regard” language in standard lease 

terms and the regional leasing framework. 

Comment Number: 0002484_Ross_20160728_PLS-2 

Organization1:Public Land Solutions 

Commenter1:Katie Ross 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The end result of this review should contain a strong standard to ensure that any disturbance to recreation areas 

is minimized to the greatest extent possible and that operators continuously improve the effectiveness of 

environmental mitigation standards. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-893

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-51

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Agriculture is Wyoming's third largest economic driver and important to our custom and culture. Loss of forage 

during mining and early stages of reclamation (when grazing is not permitted) can negatively affect livestock 

operations. Reclamation in accordance with Wyoming standards however generally leaves agricultural landscapes 

in a more productive state post-mining. The State recommends that livestock grazing be considered, including any 

effects that may result from mining and associated operations throughout the coal mining lifecycle- mining to 

post-mine life. 

Comment Number: 0002505_Brooke_20160729-4 

Organization1:Black Warrior River Keeper 

Commenter1:Nelson Brooke 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition to our reservations about how the BLM Federal Coal Leasing Program handled the recent lease to 

Best Coal Inc. for Narley Mine No. 3, Black Warrior Riverkeeper has some additional concerns about the 

program’s impact throughout the state of Alabama. While we were unable to obtain any detailed maps of federal 

coal holdings in Alabama from the regional office, we have serious concerns about the potential for coal being 

leased in or near our National Forests. We call on the BLM to forbid leases in or near Bankhead National Forest 

– home of the beloved Sipsey Wilderness, and in or near the Oakmulgee District of the Talladega National 

Forest. Both of these public lands are loved and used by Alabamians and visitors, and they need to remain wild 

places, without the scars of a coal mine on the natural environment, Alabama’s rich cultural heritage, and local 

communities. 

Comment Number: 0003087_Stewart_H_06182016-1 

Organization1:Friends of the Earth 

Commenter1:Mary Stewart 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the damage to public lands by destroying the land for future use. In some cases, such a Bryce Canyon, the value 

for vacationers, the source of income for the community, depends on the view toward the horizon, not just the 

view a few feet ahead. 

Comment Number: 0020016_Willims_20160712-4 

Commenter1:Raymond Willims 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should study health impacts, land, air, and water impacts, etc. 

Comment Number: 0020019_Lane_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Ian Lane 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM should look at the associated costs of leasing (mining) coal. They include affects on water, air, health. 

Comment Number: 0020057_Hepler_20160830-1 

Commenter1:Winifred Hepler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-894 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

I call attention to the terrific misconception that "clean coal" production (sequestering the carbon air pollution) is 

at all possible due to the fact that extraction remains a total disaster, considering the loss of trees, the water 

pollution from overburden filling of headwater streams, the erosion and possible slides from (following) the 

removal of roots, the leaching of toxins from disturbed land and the disappearance of wildlife habitat and the 

increase of greenhouse gas from the absence of forest cover. 

Comment Number: 003068_Good_1772016-1 

Commenter1:Albert Good 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Accessing bituminous coal, in particular mountaintop removal, involves severe ecological degradation, not to 

mention preventing other more sustainable uses of public land such as recreation, wildlife habitat, CO2 

absorption from trees, etc. Accessing anthracite coal is often not much better. Both lead to acid mine drainage, 

destruction of land for tailings disposal, visual pollution, degradation of infrastructure from heavy equipment and 

truck traffic, and acid mine drainage causing downgradient damage that may extend off of federally owned land. 

Not only that, the impact on the U.S. and global environment when the coal is burned is no longer viable on this 

planet. The CO2 released clearly contributes to global warming, as well as immediate and long-term health 

effects on humans and other animals. A side effect of accessing coal is the venting of methane, exacerbating global 

warming 

Comment Number: 000001239_ RECKLE_20160623-4 

Commenter1:Eric Reckle 

Commenter Type: Individual 

Classification: Substantive 

Comment Category: 

Current Task: Analyze Assigned/Due: 

Other Sections: 8.12 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

let's see addressed is the fact that any methane vent -- we have to watch out how we put those in, especially if 

above-ground area is a wilderness area. I think I'd look at that in terms of how we, how we put that vent in if it's 

a wilderness area above ground. 

Comment Number: 000001262_Eaton_20160623-1 

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 

Commenter1:Pam Eaton 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need to adjust the way we manage our public lands, not only to adapt to the changing energy landscape --

and it is changing. And it's not going back. But, also to reflect the uses of our land that the American people 

value. A report released just last week by the Department of Interior found that our parks, wildlife refuges and 

other public land supported 443 million recreational visits last year and generated $45 billion dollars in economic 

output. Our public lands have a very important role to play in the -- in our economy. Our public lands and the 

resources they providebelong to all of us. And they should be managed for our benefit now and for future 

generations. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-895

Scoping Report 

Issue 15 - Renewable Energy 

Total Number of Submissions: 121

Total Number of Comments: 128 

Comment Number: 0000739_Blair_20160628-1 

Commenter1:David Blair 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If we quit subsidizing coal which has been subsidized in this country for hundreds of years and subsidize 

renewables, we can change everything. Net zero houses ARE possible and with them we majorly diminish the 

need for coal. 

Comment Number: 0000862_Martin-2 

Commenter1:Robin Martin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I implore the BLM to consider utilizing the land for cleaner, more sustainable energy options that provide 

environmental and economic opportunities for future generations 

Comment Number: 0000010_Swingle_20160526_Oral-3 

Commenter1:Rocky Swingle 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Examining how BLM's decisions to lease taxpayer-owned coal affect wind and solar generation 

Comment Number: 00000116_Johnson_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Alan Johnson 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In fact, as Robert Bryce senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research stated in his February 2012 

paper, "The High Cost of Renewable-Electricity Mandates," he states: "The renewable industry has received over 

twice in tax credits than other energy producers are paying in taxes. In fact, where the cost for coal averages $38 

per million BTUs, the same million BTUs from onshore wind power could cost between 75 and $138. And for 

solar-generated electricity, the cost rises to 242 to $455 for the same million BTUs. The only way renewable 

energy appears to be competitive is to receive subsidies and credits." The problem, as my wife and I talked about, 

is the tax credits do not build an education program for future generations. However, taxes paid by coal 

companies do. Tax credits for the renewable energy industry do not build infrastructure, provide parks, 

recreation opportunities, or many of other things that communities enjoy. Coal mining does. 

Comment Number: 00000140_Punteney_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Shawnna Puntene 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Fossil fuels compromise 80 percent of the world's energy use. Our industries are the cleanest in the world and 

have allowed all of us to live better and longer lives. I don't understand why wind energy is not held to the same 

standard as ours. I recently heard and read that exemptions will be made for the wind industry killing thousands 

of birds, not 11 as was stated earlier, but 4,200 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-896 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000164_ LEVENSHUS_20160517-5 

Organization1:Sierra Club 

Commenter1:Jonathan Levenshus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

And, finally, please examine how BLM's decision to lease taxpayer-owned coal affects wind and solar generation. 

The cost of these clean resources are plummeting, and in many parts of the country are now less expensive than 

fossil fuels. 

Comment Number: 00000169_ HILL_20160517-2 

Organization1:Kentuckians for the Commonwealth 

Commenter1:Joanne Golden Hill 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Destroying our land and health for dirty coal plants like this one is slowing the low cost, clean energy resources, 

like wind and solar. This is worse than climate destruction and polluting our communities' air and waterways. By 

keeping dirty fuels in the ground and generating electricity with clean energy, we can avoid the pollution costs 

and the health risks associated with coal. 

Comment Number: 00000190_ KELLY_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Amy Kelly 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

currently less than three percent of BLM's solar-eligible land is actually being used for solar. Solar energy zones 

have been created, and those could power approximately seven million homes. So, I just think that is a great 

effort that could be expanded with the moratorium of coal leasing on our public lands. 

Comment Number: 00000195_ SCOTT_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Robert Scott 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

look at using that -- the land that could be used -- that is for coal mining for solar farms. Instead of -- You know, 

instead of subsidizing (Inaudible) manufacturing and continuing with the coal mining and fossil fuel, how about 

subsidizing solar 

Comment Number: 00000303_ ZUEKERMAN _20160519-1 

Commenter1:Paul Zuekerman 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

we must make greater strides toward moving solar to its logical place as a prominent form of energy in Utah and 

relegate coal to the rank of alternative source 

Comment Number: 00000343 _ Salvato _20160519-3 

Commenter1:Bobbie Bryant-Salvato 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text:

My hope is that the Federal Government and the State of Utah will look at alternative forms of clean energy that 

will increase employment in rural Utah as a demand for coal decreases, give these clean industry businesses the 

same advantages on federal lands that we have given the coal industry for decades 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-897

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00000351 _ Carson _20160519-1 

Organization1:Skyline Mine 

Commenter1:Jared Carson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

One of the problems with renewables is they're inconsistent, they're intermittent. 

Comment Number: 00000356 _ Provost _20160519-4 

Commenter1:Craig Provost 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Now, they can shift their skills to many different areas, including the new solar power, whatever, but being more 

environmentally-friendly and even the tourist industry, as they said. So Utah has plenty of sunshine and has the 

potential to provide energy without the harmful effects on the environment that coal has been getting the rap for. 

Comment Number: 00000357 _ Walsh_20160519-1 

Organization1:Sierra Club (National) 

Commenter1:Elizabeth Walsh 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our members have worked tirelessly to protect wild places, such as Escalante Grand Staircase National 

Monument to the proposed Bears Ears Monument in Utah. Our Utah members and those from across the 

country come to places like these to hike, camp, and to be inspired by nature. To protect these places for future 

generations, the Sierra Club is committed to slowing climate change and has spent countless volunteering staff 

hours advocating for a just transition to clean energy resources and a rapid transition away from our dependency 

on coal. And by "just," I mean providing new opportunities for coal workers and their families in a clean energy 

future. 

Comment Number: 00000357 _ Walsh_20160519-6 

Organization1:Sierra Club (National) 

Commenter1:Elizabeth Walsh 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There are many viable clean energy alternatives to coal, especially in sunny Utah, that have much lower 

environmental and health impacts on us, wildlife, and future generations of both. 

Comment Number: 00000366 _ Brady _20160519-3 

Organization1:Emery County 

Commenter1:Keith Brady 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am not against alternative forms of electrical generation, but no matter how much we wish for it, America is 

nowhere near ready to convert strictly to renewables. Renewables are just not as efficient as fossil fuels at 

generating these base loads and general electricity. 

Comment Number: 0000283_ King_20160519-2 

Commenter1:Bill King 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT, have confirmed what many in the energy 

world already knew: Without government support or high taxes green energy will never be able to compete with 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-898 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

conventional, more reliable fossil fuel power plants. Their study concluded that the government should make 

green energy only work when energy prices are extremely high. 

Comment Number: 0000364_Albury_20160519-2 

Commenter1:Kathryn Albury 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It's much more responsible to use our precious energy dollars to invest in sustainable sources of energy that do 

not emit greenhouse gases. These technologies are already well- developed. We can build sustainable energy as 

the current coal mines and other fossil fuel mines are being depleted and achieve a smooth transition to 

sustainable energy. 

Comment Number: 0000505_Still_Sierra Club_20160517-1 

Organization1:Sierra Club 

Commenter1:Mandy Still 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

please consider reducing our dependence on the substance by diverting coal funding toward alternative fuel 

sources, such as Thorium nuclear power and fission. 

Comment Number: 0000530-1 

Organization1:Keystone Green Team 

Commenter1:Margaret Graham 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In addition given the acceleration of global warming and climate changes, it is more environmentally imperative 

that we switch to alternate sources - e.g., wind farms are replpacing coal mining in Wyoming. 

Comment Number: 0000573-1 

Commenter1:Keith Ervin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please study and environmental alternative of rapid transition to a renewable-energy electric grid, including leases 

of BLM lands for solar, wind, and geothermal power. 

Comment Number: 0000585-1 

Commenter1:Maris Abelson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The U.S. currently uses 3,819 terawatts of electricity. Our country's wind energy potential is 89,000 terawatts 

(N1S 106(27): 10933-10938), and our solar energy potential is 116,146 terawatts 

(nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51946.pdf). We've lost 40% of the ocean-based oxygen since the 1960s. 

Instead of the 5.3 trillion dollars spent to subsidize fossil fuels each year, we should save our planet by investing in 

wind and solar, and provide job training in these industries for communities impacted by moving past fossil fuels! 

Comment Number: 0000625-2 

Commenter1:Ty Gardiner 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Despite $39 billion dollars in Annual Government subsidies, Solar produced, half percent 0.5% of Electricity in the 

US in 2015. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-899

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0000666-2 

Commenter1:Tom Peeso 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

1. Economic impact of electric power cost rising three fold or more if solar or wind replace coal energy. Study & 

Release Impartially ASAP! 

2. Release the true economic and environmental impact of wind energy. The special treatment of industry. 

-Highlight cost to wildlife 

-Highly subsidizes, no royalties, low rents on land In leasing program BLM must evaluate costs, impacts, returns of 

alternative energies. 

Comment Number: 0000765_Jahshan_NRDC_20160623-2 

Organization1:Natural Resources Defense Council 

Commenter1:Amanda Jahshan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The solar industry now employs over 200 thousand people—vastly more than the coal industry. Reforms should 

also better reflect these kinds of changes that we are seeing our nation make regarding where and how we 

should get our energy to secure a more sustainable future for generations that follow. To that end, we need to 

ensure that clean, inexpensive energy sources are able to compete instead of focusing on flooding the market 

with subsidized coal sold at cut-rate prices. 

Comment Number: 0000773_Stevens_20160519-1 

Commenter1:Wayne Stevens 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Instead of opening public lands to coal extraction, these lands could be opened for commercial renewable energy 

production sites. This would leave hundreds of thousands acres of vegetation to remove carbon dioxide from the 

air, limit methane gas from coal mining from getting into the atmosphere, and leave lands for wildlife, recreation, 

and tourism. More than sixty percent of Scotland’s power comes from wind turbines. Most of Morocco’s 

electrical power is produced from solar energy. The United States could do the same, if the government opened 

lands for renewable energy sites. 

Comment Number: 0000778-3 

Organization1:Bowie Resources 

Commenter1:Jeff Erickson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining produces taxes. Solar, wind farms and biomass fuel are subsidized by the government, making an 

unfair economic decision for the public users. 

Comment Number: 0000788-1 

Commenter1:Ben Heaps

Comment Excerpt Text: 

If there wasn't coal we would have to use solar pannels which don't provide enough electricity. 

Comment Number: 0000797_Nehring_Voices for UT Children_20160519 -2 

Organization1:Voices for Utah Children 

Commenter1:Lincoln Nehring 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-900 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Acknowledging that a national transition to renewable energy will take time and concerted effort,is nonetheless 

critical that the shift away from fossil fuels be facilitated as expeditiously as possible-beginning with the most toxic 

and carbon intensive types. 

Comment Number: 0000815-2 

Organization1:Dugout Canyon Mine 

Commenter1:William King 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have confirmed what many in the energy world 

already knew: Without government support or high taxes, green energy will never be able to compete with 

conventional, more reliable fossil fuel power plants. The study concludes that the government could make green 

energy competitive by offering enormous amounts of taxpayer support. The study confirms that green energy can 

only work when energy prices are extremely high. The International Energy Agency estimate that developing 

wind and solar power enough to substantially impact global warming could cost up to $16.5 trillion. Windmills, 

solar panels, and ethanol could not compete with coal, natural gas, and oil without mandates and subsidies even 

when the price of the conventional fuels are relatively high. Now that prices for fossil fuels have plummeted, very 

little new renewable energy capacity will be installed unless the mandates and the subsidies are raised even 

higher. 

Comment Number: 0000829-4 

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy (UCARE) 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

UCARE has seen cost-shifting by the fossil fuels industry in utility rate cases, where coal-driven utilities use 

antiquated state regulatory systems to overstate the value of their coal assets while undervaluing renewable 

energy. Federal coal leasing enables this bias toward fossil fuels to the detriment of renewables, such as wind and 

solar. The BLM should look at how underpriced coal reduces the competitiveness of renewable energy fuels and 

the appeal of energy efficiency measures. 

Comment Number: 0000831-1 

Commenter1:Sharon St. Joan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

How can we afford to invest in clean energy? 

By cutting out subsidies to the fossil fuel industry - estimated at $20 billion a year - we can invest instead in a just 

transition on two fronts. 

First - programs for new, clean, healthy, good-paying jobs, for re-training and assistance for workers and their 

families. Secondly, we need to invest in clean energy - solar and geo-thermal energy. 

Comment Number: 0000840-1 

Commenter1:Craig J. Provost

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The continued use of coal mining only worsens the problems with our environment. Although coal mining has 

been important for income for some of our hard working population, we should focus on helping them to shift 

their skills to other important and growing areas of power production, such as wind and solar power, which are 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-901

Scoping Report 

more environmentally friendly. Utah has plenty of sunshine and has the potential to provide energy without the 

harmful effects on the environment that coal has. 

Comment Number: 0001144-1 

Organization1:Northeern Cheyenne Reservation 

Commenter1:Cierra Headswift 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Eco-Cheyenne installed a solar system on an Northern Cheyenne elder's home. That project was the first of 

many in the transition to solar sustainability. So there are cleaner and healthier ways to have energy. 

Comment Number: 0001165-2 

Commenter1:Pat Freiberg 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Ultimately, cheap coal has driven us into this corner and I believe we must find a way to hold the coal industry 

responsible for the environmental and health destruction that it causes. Once the true cost of coal is reflected in 

the marketplace, renewable energy will be better able to thrive. 

Comment Number: 0001199_Stiller_20160621-1 

Organization1:Nature's Stewards 

Commenter1:Grace Stiller 

Other Sections: 8.1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal government should continue investing in clean energy and stop subsidizing private companies to take 

coal from public lands. Please keep it in the ground. 

Comment Number: 0001199_Stiller_20160621-2 

Organization1:Nature's Stewards 

Commenter1:Grace Stiller 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I was raised during the era where the phrase "give peace a chance" was real popular, so I'm asking you to give 

peace a chance with the environment. Let's stop waging war by strip mining and allowing those leases to 

continue. And I'd like to change that phrase for the next generation which are the millennials and they are 

educated, they care about environmental sciences. One of the kids that went through our program got a degree 

in physics. Solar -- will take solar cells. This phrase should be, give alternative -- give alternative power a chance. 

Comment Number: 0001200_Giddings_20160621-1 

Commenter1:Frans Giddings 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

When I was a kid I was taught that a savings account was for extreme emergencies. Well, I've heard a lot of talk 

about how we have to continue to use coal and other fossil fuels because we don't have alternatives and what are 

we gonna do? And I know right now we do have alternatives, and as people have said, there are other coal 

sources that are still being utilized. 

Comment Number: 0002001_Stevens_20160607-5 

Commenter1:Wayne Stevens 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-902 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

One coal miner stated that renewable energy was more polluting than coal. In reality, over the life span of solar 

panels and wind driven turbines, renewable is less polluting. The pollution caused by renewable is limited to 

production, “up front” and then again when the useful life span has ended. During their life span, several decades, 

solar or wind generators produce little or no pollution nor greenhouse gases. 

Comment Number: 0002031_Brown_20160607-3 

Organization1:Cloud Peak Energy Resources, LLC 

Commenter1:Brad Brown 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

There are jobs in alternative energy systems but we have not come up with a strategy, never mind a plan & 

funding for a new energy transmission system. 

Comment Number: 0002040_Helming_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Gary Helming 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Alternative energy has its pluses, but it requires heavy subsidies and regulations to make it feasible. Utilities 

would have pursued it aggressively decades ago, if it were an economical and technically feasible source of large 

scale energy. 

Comment Number: 0002054_Petersen_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Robert Petersen 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Montana has enormous wealth in the form of renewable energy and enabling 20th Century technology is stifling 

the development of 21st Century innovation. 

Comment Number: 0002057_Rich_20160619-1 

Commenter1:Janis Rich 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal is a 19th century product that no longer works in our society. Our funds need to go to R&D of clean 

energy programs, such as solar and wind, and not to private coal companies that continue destroy the earth. 

Comment Number: 0002065_Triolo_20160621-1 

Commenter1:Joe Triolo 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We need to move full bore toward a renewable energy infrastructure, and help the formerly extractive 

communities around the country to become part of the manufacturing and maintenance required to support it. 

Comment Number: 0002085_Knaphus_20160626-1 

Commenter1:Simon Knaphus 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM leasing program needs to be transformed into a clean energy program. BLM can lease land for wind 

farms and solar farms. It can use the income from those agreements to upgrade the grid and fast track 

development of renewable energy technology and programs. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-903

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002086_Knowles_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Randall Knowles 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Since solar and wind are heavily subsidized they will NEVER enjoy a LONG TERM success in the United States 

Comment Number: 0002099_Notkin_20160611-2 

Organization1:KnowWho Services 

Commenter1:Debbie Notkin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

the right to mine publicly-owned coal how your agency’s policies regarding taxpayer-owned coal affect wind and 

solar generation 

Comment Number: 0002099_Notkin_20160611-4 

Organization1:KnowWho Services 

Commenter1:Debbie Notkin 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

what your agency could do to promote and support clean energy 

Comment Number: 0002103_Phillips_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Thomas Phillips 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The latest Electric Power Monthly report released late last month by the U.S. Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) reveals that: 

* Wind and solar energy generation increased 32 percent while 

* Coal-fired power generation plunged 24.2 percent 

Comment Number: 0002105_Raines_20160622-1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Get coal out of equation Montana needs to switch to renewable energy 

Comment Number: 0002113_Sauber_20160622-1 

Commenter1:Mike Sauber 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please immediately start the transition to renewable and energy conservation jobs for those in the coal industry 

and stop coal mining altogether. 

Comment Number: 0002118_Spiess_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Gretchen Spiess 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our business relies on the weather. Temperatures have skyrocketed, winds that were out of the west are now 

out of the east or the north. Look at aviationweather.gov/adds/winds/ Aviation Winds/Stream and see for 

yourself. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-904 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002123_Thweatt_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Dick Thweatt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our governments should incentivize renewable energy and assist people employed in the coal industry to find 

new homes and employment. 

Comment Number: 0002125_Turnquist_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Debra Turnquist 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Clean energy such as wind and solar should be used. 

Comment Number: 0002151_Cinnamon_20160629-1 

Organization1:Unacceptable Risk Film 

Commenter1:Sophia Cinnamon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

we need to continue to make the transition to clean, renewable energy. We have the power to change the 

trajectory of climate change by supporting clean and renewable energy. This review process is needed to make 

smart choices about where we invest in energy for our future and accelerate our transition to clean energy. 

Comment Number: 0002166_Pasta_20160629-2 

Commenter1:Diane Pasta 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The land can be leased for clean energy programs such as for wind farms and solar farms. That would produce 

income to support renewable energy technology and programs, sustainable jobs, and a more stable climate for 

our collective future. Public land management programs need to address the current realities involving climate 

disruption. Eliminating the coal program will greatly benefit the county by helping the US meet its Paris 

commitments, provide health benefits of not burning coal, and stimulate job growth in the renewable energy 

sector. 

Comment Number: 0002168_Kohler_20160629-3 

Commenter1:Bernard Kohler 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is time to adopt policies that move the world toward renewable energy sources. 

Comment Number: 0002172_Adamek_20160627-1 

Commenter1:Cari Adamek 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

According to the EIA, coal is still responsible for generating 33% of U.S. electricity 

(https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3). And natural gas is used to generate another 33%. While it 

would be nice to be getting all our energy from totally renewable and clean sources, they currently only make up 

7%. Adding in hydropower only brings us up to 13%. 

Comment Number: 0002172_Adamek_20160627-5 

Commenter1:Cari Adamek 

Comment Excerpt Text: 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-905

Scoping Report 

Use of coal has dropped dramatically while use of natural gas has grown dramatically. So it appears to me that 

natural gas is making up most of the difference, not renewables. We can’t suddenly cut our use of electricity nor 

can we force renewables to grow fast enough to replace coal in a short time frame — not without some real pain 

in the economy anyway. 

Comment Number: 0002175_Woodcock_20160627-3 

Organization1:MSU Department of American Studies 

Commenter1:Jennifer Woodcock-Medicine Horse 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

renewable energy sources are or can be replacing coal, oil, and gas in our economy 

Comment Number: 0002177_Williams_20160629-1 

Commenter1:Donna Williams 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We are rich in wind energy. Other states are flocking here to develop wind energy. Judith Gap, home to the first 

commercial-scale wind farm in Montana, producing over 50 MW, is owned by Invenergy, an international 

company headquartered in Chicago. 

(http://meic.org/issues/montana­clean­energy/montana­renewable­energy­projects/, ) Clearwater Energy’s 

300-megawatt wind farm near Forsyth is being developed by Orion Renewable Energy Group, of Oakland, CA. 

WINData’s 10­megawatt wind farm outside of Fairfield is supported by Wind Power of San Francisco. The 

Greycliff wind project, a 20-megawatt farm located in Sweetgrass County, was co-developed by National 

Renewable Solutions based in Minnesota. 

(http://billingsgazette.com/news/wind-farm-developers-face-strong-regulatory-headwinds-press-on/article_bedb94

82-2d6b-5d0a-af34-dcde17b47b7f.html, Billings Gazette, Tom Lutey, Aug 7, 2015) while the New Colony wind 

project in Wheatland County is 25 megawatts. Both projects are expected to begin delivering power to 

NorthWestern in 2015 and both will be at least 50 percent owned by Montana interest, keeping even more 

economic benefits in Montana. 

(http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/guest-view-wind-energy-is-driving-economic-development-in-mo

ntana/article_b1c45a70-60a3-50f2-a551-2c8890fcf886.html, Billings Gazette, Guest View by Jeff L. Fox, Mar 20, 

2015)

Spion Kop is a proposed wind generation facility in Cascade County near Raynesford, Montana. NorthWestern 

Energy recently received pre-approval from the Montana Public Service Commission to purchase Spion Kop from 

Colorado--based Compass Wind. When it is built, the 40-megawatt facility will be the largest wind generation 

facility owned directly by a Montana utility 

(http://meic.org/issues/montana-clean-energy/montana-renewable-energy-projects/ ) Spion Kop project, 

developed by Denver-based Compass Energies, is the first wind farm owned by the regulated utility. (Great Falls 

Tribune, July 10, 2013) 

Comment Number: 0002179_Hughey_20160624-2 

Commenter1:Ben Hughey 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The BLM leasing program needs to be transformed into a clean energy program. BLM can lease land for wind 

farms and solar farms. It can use the income from those agreements to upgrade the grid and fast track 

development of renewable energy technology and programs. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-906 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002182_Jenkins_20160622-2 

Commenter1:Helen Pent Jenkins 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As a Montanan I know that the future is in renewable energy. 

Comment Number: 0002185_Leidecker_20160512-2 

Commenter1:Jodie Leidecker 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I encourage you to do everything possible to move toward cleaner, renewable energy sources. 

Comment Number: 0002187_Moore_20160517-1 

Commenter1:Oliver and Donna Moore 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

As we hear discussion of wind and solar energy taking the place of some of the sources, we realize that neither is 

dependable enough to provide the heating, cooling, business, home, or agricultural needs of Wyoming, as well as 

the rest of the country that depends on our production. Being realistic makes us wonder what the country, 

counties, and states would do without what we have. 

Comment Number: 0002188_Horwitz_20160517-1 

Organization1:Electrogrip 

Commenter1:Chris Horwitz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While coal is in decline and these corporate profits are falling and the coal companies failing, it's my hope that the 

BLM will assist the nation in avoiding propping up failing and short-term efforts to keep coal tenuously viable; and 

instead be moving forward to support wind farm and solar PV installations on its land and phase out coal leasing 

entirely. 

Comment Number: 0002188_Horwitz_20160517-2 

Organization1:Electrogrip 

Commenter1:Chris Horwitz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The old coal lands may well provide good bases for PV and wind installations, since their remediation is never as 

complete as one would like. Jobs for such growing industries and sources of energy are more plentiful than in 

coal extraction. 

Comment Number: 0002189_Jozwik_20160517-12

Commenter1:Darryl Jozwik 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL SUBSTITUTION EFFECTS FROM ANY CHANGES IN FEDERAL COAL 

PRODUCTION – MINIMAL, NO RENEWABLES CAN PROVIDE AMOUNT OF ENERGY NEEDED. 

Comment Number: 0002197_Wise_20160519-6 

Organization1:Kiewit Mining Group Inc. 

Commenter1:Dirk Wise 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Evaluate the availability, and pricing of Federal coal impacts electricity generation in the US particularly in light of 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-907

Scoping Report 

regulatory influences, and what other sources of energy supply(including efficiency) are projected to be available.- 

I pretty much gave my opinion of this in 3a, alternative energy is too expensive at this time and should not be 

supported by the government when the return is so little. If alternative energy is so viable then take away the 

subsidies and see if it survives. Coal is reliable and cheap and we have plenty of it in this country...If there is 

concern for great environmental impact(climate change) then let’s provide substantial funding to help improve it. 

Comment Number: 0002207_Campbell_20160622-2 

Commenter1:Cate Campbell 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The energy needs of our country can be met with a sustained focus on renewables and natural gas. 

Comment Number: 0002215_Pierce_20160622-2 

Commenter1:Jerry Pierce 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Filling our countryside up with the so called green energy sites isn't the answer either and they aren't all that 

efficient as well. 

Comment Number: 0002263_Davidheiser_20160710-1 

Organization1:German House 

Commenter1:James Davidheiser 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

1) disclose how federal coal leasing affects the amount of solar and wind generated energy that is available 

Comment Number: 0002290_ Schimpff_20160711-1 

Commenter1:Alan Schimpff 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We Need Renewable Energy like Wind, Solar Panels, Etc. along with solar incentives. 

Comment Number: 0002300_Csenge_20160710-1 

Commenter1:Rich Csenge 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

quickly re­direct BLM policy for developing our nation’s energy supplies toward the clean renewable sources of 

solar and wind. 

Comment Number: 0002305_Bowers_20160705-1 

Commenter1:Sheila Bowers 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

We no longer need new leases and old leases should be phased out while the DOE, EPA, FHA and other sister 

agencies to the DOI work harder on local, democratically owned energy efficiency, rooftop solar and storage, 

and dynamic, 21st century microgrids and load balancing. 

Comment Number: 0002311_Costello_20160721-3 

Commenter1:Lauri Costello 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

coal workers could be transitioned to sustainable fuel industries 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-908 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0002316_Boeschenstein_CoGovernments_20160722-1 

Organization1:City of Grand Junction 

Commenter1:Bennett Boeschenstein 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Coal mining has played a significant role in our state for decades, and most likely will continue to be a part of our 

energy landscape for years to come. But how America is getting its energy is changing. Renewable energy now 

accounts for more than 10% of the nation’s energy, and this year natural gas provided more electricity than coal 

for the first time in history. 

Comment Number: 0002322_Gordon_20160722-2 

Commenter1:Thomas Gordon 

Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Give the coal companies tax breaks or special incentives to develop other sources of power. I have no objection 

to them making profits. For instance, geothermal energy extraction could be expanded on lands the coal 

companies already lease. Make clauses in existing leases to take advantage of this energy source. Once power 

extraction is established, royalties could be increased in relation to profit margins. The problem of depth to get 

to geothermal energy is now eliminated to a large degree by advances in drilling technology. 

Comment Number: 0002326_Moench_20160724_UtahPhysicHealthyEnviron-34

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment 

Commenter1:Malin Moench 

Other Sections: 16 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Continuing such subsidies will also artificially widen the permanent damage that strip mining does to the 

rangelands and aquifers of the PRB. 

Comment Number: 0002329_Segger_20160724_CambellCntyWY-4 

Organization1:County and Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Campbell County, Wyoming 

Commenter1:Carol Seeger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In analyzing whether taxpayers are getting a fair return with regard to the production of coal, it cannot be 

overlooked that other energy sources such as wind and solar are heavily subsidized; almost ten times as much as 

fossil fuels. These subsidies for other energy sources need to be considered in determining whether a fair return 

is being received by taxpayers because taxpayers are financing the subsidies 

Comment Number: 0002343_Camasta _20160726-1 

Commenter1:Cory Camasta 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Please halt investments in coal and invest instead in sustainable, clean energy 

Comment Number: 0002347_Matney _20160607-1 

Commenter1:Barry Matney 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

-People spoke of the beauty of the mountains being taken away by strip mining – have they given thought to what 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-909

Scoping Report 

would happen to those mountains if wind farms were to be placed in these areas? Come to Buchanan County in 

SW Virginia and tell me where you would be a wind farm without destroying the very things a majority of the 

people spoke for. 

Comment Number: 0002376_Custer_20160721-1 

Organization1:Montana House of Representatives 

Commenter1:Geraldine Custer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Recently at an energy conference Karen Herbert, the CEO and president of the US Chamber of Commerce 

Institute for 21st Century Energy, spoke to us. She said that by 2050 there 

will be an increase in energy needs of 84% and there will be 2 billion more people on the planet, yet the 

encouraging thing was that she said that the energy spectrum in 2050 would be similar to what it is now 

with coal still being the #1 producer of energy. So with that being said, that gives me some 

encouragement that we just need to get on some of these regulations and do things a little bit better. 

Comment Number: 0002388_Shaw_20160721-1 

Commenter1:Lori Shaw 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

People with anti-coal agendas claim to be very concerned about the effect that coal mining has on our earth, but 

at the same time they don't like to think about the impact that rare earth metal mining has on our planet as 

well. The list of rare earth metals required to create solar panels and wind turbines is a long one. It includes 

metals like Lithium, Platinum, and Tellurium (a metal that is more rare than gold.) A tiny amount of neodymium is 

needed to create the ear-buds of your smartphone, but for a high-performance wind turbine they can need about 

two tons of it. How are energy sources that require the mining of these substances sustainable or even 

renewable? The answer is that they are not. (See articles 1 &2) 

By stifling the coal industry and attempting to embrace these so-called "renewable" energy sources, we are 

essentially trading the mining of one thing for the mining of another. The difference is that wind and solar 

energy are less reliable and much more expensive. (See article 3) 

In the hundreds of years we have before coal reserves are said to run out I am sure that technological advances 

in wind and solar energy will be made. That is what humans are good at. Nevertheless, the technology for 

CONSISTENT wind and solar energy currently isn't there yet. Trying to force that unreliable technology on our 

society before it is ready for it (or even able to afford it for that matter) is as shortsighted as it is unethical. 

Comment Number: 0002436-9 

Commenter1:Sharon St Joan 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

do whatever is in your power to make a just and speedy transition to clean energy. This will be possible by 

eliminating the hidden subsidies to the fossil fuel energy and by requiring existing coal and other fossil fuel 

companies to pay their fair share of taxes. With these hidden subsidies, estimated at around 19 billion dollars a 

year, eliminated, it will be possible to make significant investments in clean energy (also to bring about the 

technical innovations required for solar power to eliminate toxicity and, in the case of wind, to construct wind 

mills that do not cause bird deaths). 

Comment Number: 0002441_Hyche_20160724-2 

Commenter1:Roe Hyche 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Why is the USA not protecting the livelihood of our workers? Natural gas is also nonrenewable, but less dirty; 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-910 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

perhaps it could fill in the void during the transition from coal to clean energy; and only temporarily. If the 

government needs to make money, they should spend the time figuring out how to do it without spoiling the 

communities and the environment. Even some clean energy sources could be placed on federal lands and while 

that brings in BLM funds, it will not spoil the land as much as coal mining. Nor will renewable sources run out like 

coal and natural gas. 

Comment Number: 0002449_Lyon_20160727_NWF-58

Organization1:National Wildlife Federation Action Fund 

Commenter1:Jim Lyon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The federal coal program must be reformed to allow from a just transition to cleaner sources of energy. With 

the future of coal declining and the market for coal drying up, it is important that the federal coal leasing program 

take into account the concerns of communities that will be most impacted by the shift away from coal. This 

means, as recommended above, protecting resources these communities must depend on long-term, like water. 

It means ensuring that the destruction from coal mines is cleaned up and mine sites are reclaimed. BLM should 

identify regional mitigation strategies to avoid, minimize, and when unavoidable, compensate for resource impacts 

at regionally selected mitigation sites. The mitigation strategy should include identifying areas that are sources or 

sinks for carbon. BLM should further direct funding and revenue decisions should be made in a manner that 

assists these communities in a shift to a healthy, prosperous and just post-coal economy.

Comment Number: 0002453_Cook_20160727-2 

Organization1:Rio Blanco County 

Commenter1:Katelin Cook 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Instead of increasing fees, raising royalty rates and placing counterproductive restrictions on this industry that has 

been a part of the United States energy portfolio for generations, governmental efforts should be focused on 

promoting technology to make fossil fuel production and utilization cleaner and more efficient. This is the existing 

model for renewable energy efforts, and at this point in time the world is decades away from having 

infrastructure in place for renewable energy that is affordable and reliable. 

Comment Number: 0002464_Connelly_20160728_WyCoaltLocalGov-23

Organization1:Coalition of Local Governments

Commenter1: Kent 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Federal government’s focus on substantially disrupting coal mining development is contradictory to its public 

promotion of wind and solar energy development. There is concern about the environmental impacts of coal 

mining, but the Federal government ignores the loss of habitat that occurs from the development of wind and 

solar farms, as well as the number of bird mortalities that occur from wind farms. For example, the Blythe Solar 

Power Project in California requires 4,070 acres of public land for its plant and the Tule Wind Project requires 

12,200 acres of public land for the operation of its wind farm. There are also estimates that around 140,000 to 

328,000 birds are killed annually by wind turbines. See Scott R. Loss, Tom Will, Peter P. Marra, Estimates of Bird 

Collision Mortality at Wind Facilities in the Contiguous United States, 168 Biological Conservation 201 (Dec. 

2013). 

Comment Number: 0002480_Culver_20160728_TWS-64

Organization1:The Wilderness Society 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-911

Scoping Report 

Commenter1:Nada Culver 

 Other Sections: 2 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The Solar PEIS ultimately made a number of decisions that can and should be considered for updating the 

agency’s approach to leasing in the Coal PEIS, including: 

· Identifying Solar Energy Zones (SEZ) that are “relatively large areas that provide highly suitable locations for 

utility-scale solar development: locations where solar development is economically and technically feasible, where 

there is good potential for connecting new electricity-generating plants to the transmission distribution system, 

and where there is generally low resource conflict.” Solar Final PEIS, pp. ES-7 – ES-11. Similarly, the Coal PEIS 

could identify areas that are “highly suitable” for coal in terms of having high resource potential and low resource 

conflicts, while also being economically and technically feasible. 

· Identifying exclusion areas from solar development, which “allows the BLM to support the highest and best use 

of public lands by avoiding potential resource conflicts and reserving for other uses public lands that are not well 

suited for utility-scale solar energy development.” Solar Final PETS, p. ES-7. These areas are significant because of 

“the size and scale of utility-scale solar energy development (typically involving a single use of public lands).” Id. 

Instead of leaving the vast majority of lands open to coal leasing, the BLM can and should identify categories of 

lands that should be excluded, especially since coal mining also limits the use of land to a single use. 

· Identifying variance lands that could be made available subject to a stringent process and showing of need in 

case the SEZs are “insufficient to accommodate demand.” Solar Final PEIS, p. ES-14.

· Incorporating programmatic design features that would be incorporated into all future development in order 

“to avoid or reduce adverse impacts.” Solar Final PETS, p. ES-6. Similarly, incorporating mandatory best practices 

for coal development could reduce environmental impacts. 

· Setting out a mitigation framework and incorporating the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, minimization and 

offset/compensation and preparation of regional mitigation strategies through the following actions: 

o “Avoidance will be achieved through siting decisions and the identification of priority SEZs.”

o “Minimization will be achieved through the application of design features and adherence to applicable federal, 

state, and local laws and regulations such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA).”

o “For those impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized, the BLM will determine, in consultation with affected 

stakeholders, if measures to offset or mitigate adverse impacts would be appropriate.”

o “BLM proposes to establish regional mitigation plans that will facilitate 

development in SEZs. As envisioned, these regional mitigation plans will simplify and improve the mitigation 

process for future projects in SEZs.” Solar Final PEIS, p. ES-6. Mitigation should similarly be incorporated into the 

Coal PEIS, including a regional mitigation strategy to evaluate and design needed mitigation at the programmatic 

level. 

Comment Number: 0002488_Sanderson_20160728-14

Organization1:Colorado Mining Association 

Commenter1:Stuart Sanderson 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

By systematically and incrementally increasing the cost to operate, and reducing lands available for mineral leasing, 

the Federal government is essentially “closing-the-door” on coal. Coal is a necessary part of our Nation’s energy 

portfolio, maintaining access to affordable energy is of the utmost importance-this necessarily includes the need 

for coal. This is particularly important due to the recent finalization of the BLM and United States Forest Services’ 

greater sage-grouse land use plan amendments, which closed 24.2 million acres to solar and wind energy 

development. (4) Much like coal resources, land available for renewable energy resides predominantly in the 

West. As such, the practical effect of these closures means that there is even more of a need to foster 

development of coal resources, because the Eastern portion of this nation will not be able to offset these 

closures to renewable energy in the West. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-912 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

(4) See Generally, FR Notice of Availability: https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-24213; FR Notice of Availability: 

https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-24208. 

Comment Number: 0002493_Mead_20160728_GovWY-17

Organization1:Office of Governor Matthew H. Mead 

Commenter1:MATTHEW H. MEAD 

Other Sections: 8.5 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Order No. 3338 suggests that the BLM's PEIS should examine where to lease federal coal and proposes as an 

example the BLM's Solar PEIS (Western Solar Plan) which "amended land use plans across six southwestern 

states and established preferred locations for solar development." Order, p. 7. The BLM must consider its 

current and adequate regulatory process to examine preferred locations for coal development, including coal 

planning completed as part of the Resource Management Plan (RMP) process. The BLM's coal planning process 

includes, but is not limited to, a screen for coal development potential, unsuitability, multiple use and surface 

ownership consultation. In Wyoming, this was recently completed as part of the revision to the BLM's Buffalo 

RMP. 

The use of twenty unsuitability criteria at 43 C.F.R § 3461.5 represent only one of five screens employed by BLM 

to determine "where and where not" to lease coal. The other four found at 43 C.F.R. § 3420.1-4(e)(1) through 

(4) are the principal decisions used to determine which lands are suitable for further consideration. These 

screening criteria have been and continue to be more than adequate to identify the most appropriate locations 

for federal coal leasing.If the BLM is intent on considering the Western Solar Plan, the BLM must consider that 

coal resource development is confined to the location of commercial quantities and qualities of coal. Solar 

resources are presumably more widespread across the landscape, which allows a greater degree of flexibility in 

establishing preferred locations for development. 

Comment Number: 0002509_Iverson_20160728-3 

Commenter1:Kathryn Iverson 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

Most importantly, this undercuts the cost of renewable and clean energy. We cannot afford to continue such a 

disastrous policy. 

Comment Number: 0002511_Krieger_20160727-4 

Organization1:Washington Environmental Council 

Commenter1:Emily Krieger 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Examine how the leasing of taxpayer owned land effects the production and cost of wind and solar as a viable 

source of energy. 

Comment Number: 0002513_Lish_20160707-5 

Commenter1:Christopher Lish 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Examining how the Bureau of Land Management’s decisions to lease taxpayer-owned coal affect wind and solar 

generation; 

Comment Number: 0003004_MasterFormD_TheSierraClub-4 

Organization1:The Sierra Club 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-913

Scoping Report 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Examining how BLM’s decisions to lease taxpayer-owned coal affect wind and solar generation 

Comment Number: 0003032_Bernath_J_06112016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Emery Bernath 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Today's technology makes coal a clean and viable fuel. Windmills kill over 30 million birds/bats etc each year - 

besides they look horrible and if the gov't wouldn't subsidize the industry they would go under - which wouldn't 

make me shed a single tear - stop wasting our tax money and keep coal as primary fuel. 

Comment Number: 0003033_Brooks_J_06042016-1 

Commenter1:Scott Brooks 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It's possible to burn cola cleanly and without undesirable environmental effects. It's even cleaner then wind and 

solar whose infrastructure cost would be very expensive and intrusive. The only viable alternative on the horizon 

is 4th and 5th gen nuclear. 

Comment Number: 0003038_Cummins_J_06062016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Tim Cummins 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We should continue to strive to research alternative and renewable sources of energy, and to ensure we do the 

best we can to reclaim the mines to places that are productive to man, wildlife, and the environment. 

Comment Number: 0003041_Goins_06052016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Denise Goins 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Before you destroy an industry, make certain alternatives are viable, affordable, & accessible--none of which is 

currently the case! 

Comment Number: 0003042_Greene_J_06092016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Eric Greene 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Solar and wind power generation is nice but not yet economical and affordable yet. 

Comment Number: 0003045_Jazwick_J_06032016-1 

Organization1:Keep Electricity Affordable 

Commenter1:Kindra Jazwick 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I ask you consider how removing coal from the power supply would possibly permantly disfigured the landscape. 

If there are no coal 

mines,the power must come from wind or solar, both of which will add disfiguring eyesores of turbines or panels 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-914 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

to our public lands. Then those lands will no longer be available for recreation. When coal mines are finished, 

they leave the land in as good as or better condition than before they mined. 

Comment Number: 0003049_Bowers_20160729-1 

Commenter1:Sheila Bowers 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I am requesting that you immediately stop leasing them to rapacious Big Energy companies of all types - coal, oil, 

gas, solar, wind, transmission, pipelines, etc. We no longer need new leases and old leases should be phased out 

while the DOE, EPA, FHA and other sister agencies to the DOI work harder on local, democratically owned 

energy efficiency, rooftop solar and storage, and dynamic, 21st century microgrids and load balancing. The 19th 

Century Big Centralized Energy model is an embarrassment to America, not to mention a devastating 

environmental and economic blight on our once-great nation. We want to save, store, and produce our OWN 

energy where and when it is needed, and do not want OUR open spaces destroyed for dirty profiteering by 

energy companies. They are critically needed as carbon sinks, oxygen and clean air generation, not to mention 

our sanity and the biodiversity that the planet depends upon. To be clear, Big Solar, Big Wind and Big 

Transmission are as unacceptable as Big Gas, Oil and Coal. 

Comment Number: 0003052_Lambeth_20160729-1 

Commenter1:Larry Lambeth 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Clean energy can improve our health, environment and economy. Clean energy can employ more people than 

the fossil fuels industry and avoids all the pollution involved in exploration, extraction, transport and combustion. 

Comment Number: 0003053_Brexel_20160729-1 

Commenter1:Charles Brexel 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

In 2015, about 90% of all installed, new electrical power in the world was solar and wind power. Electric power 

companies, in the US and all over the world, are already purchasing or installing only new solar and wind power, 

rather than natural gas or coal power, mainly because solar and wind power are cheaper to purchase or install. 

So, we no longer have the demand or the need to burn any more natural gas or coal for power. 

Comment Number: 0003054_Weir_20160729-1 

Commenter1:Scott Weir 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I urge you to do everything in your power to minimize the use of coal starting immediately, by assisting your 

sister agencies in promoting the rapid development of renewable energy resources Such development require 

strict regulation of the ability of state PUCs to restrict such development compatible with rapid restructuring of 

the transmission grid (and transmission pricing once again) to accommodate both the rapid variability of 

renewables and the limitations of existing base load plants to vary output rapidly. 

Comment Number: 0020006_Cowden_20160712-4 

Commenter1:Rhonda Cowden 

 Comment Excerpt Text: 

We have solar power roof tops capable of producing 23% of all electricity in Tennessee with 16,000 mw of solar 

panels. There is Shelby Farms Solar Farm. We have 29 power producing damns throughout the Tennessee River 

System. Recently added Arcadia Wind Power, and nuclear energy available. Clean sources of energy available. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-915

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-15

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should analyze state and regional energy portfolios as well as plans for achieving renewable energy 

standards. This analysis may reveal the extent to which continued reliance on coal inhibits the development of 

clean energy sources. 

Comment Number: 0020012_Holmes_UCARE_20160712-6 

Organization1:Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy 

Commenter1:Stanley Holmes 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The PEIS should examine how coal-driven utilities, such as PacifiCorp (d.b.a. Rocky Mountain Power) use 

antiquated state regulatory systems to overstate the value of their coal interests while, at the same time, 

undervaluing renewable energy. The BLM should look at how underpriced coal both reduces the competitiveness 

of renewable energy resources and the appeal of energy efficiency measures. 

Comment Number: 0020023_Baer_20160712-1 

Commenter1:Carl Baer 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It is imperitive the America makes the transition to renewable and cleaner energy sources, but coal will continue 

to be an important domestic energy source in the interim. 

Comment Number: 0020027_Harris_20160722-3 

Commenter1:Mark Harris 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Our public lands should be preserved or used for clean energy production 

Comment Number: 0020058-1 

Commenter1:Wayne Stevens 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Instead of opening public lands to coal extraction, these lands could be opened for commercial renewable energy 

production sites. 

Comment Number: 000001205_Justman_20160623-2 

Organization1:Mesa County 

Commenter1:John Justman 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We are all short of money on all government levels. It's interesting to me that recently in the paper there was an 

article how in some part of Canada when they went away from coal, their electric rates went up 300 percent. 

Germany had a project here a few years ago where they got rid of their nuclear and coal plants and were going 

to rely on wind and solar. And now they have energy poverty where people pay 10 percent of their household 

income for their energy bill -- for their household [indiscernible]. And that is not going to work well. Why do 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-916 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

you think BMW relocated their manufacturing plant to America? Energy cost. The more energy we consume, the 

higher your standard of living. 

Comment Number: 000001206_Davis_20160623-1 

Organization1: 

Commenter1:Glen Davis 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

But, let's just suppose that we don't 

renew that lease up there and they don't have their coal. How many hours a day will it take -- two, three, four --

that you'll be offline? There's nothing to replace that. We cannot store electricity from solar. We can't store it 

from wind. Now, we can cut back on power production when it's up and spinning and going. And they talk about 

environment. Have you ever seen one of these solar farms? I mean it's horrible. 

Comment Number: 000001207_Willett_20160623-1 

Organization1:House District 54 

Commenter1:Yeulin Willett 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We don't know what the long term affects of huge solar arrays are or wind turbines. We don't know the 

economic viability. 

Comment Number: 000001215_ BURRITT _20160623-1 

Commenter1:Brad Burritt 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

While coal will remain an important energy source for Colorado and the country for some time, we have 

modern technologies, including renewable energies, that need to be included in planning the country's energy 

future. As you consider what changes to make to the Federal Coal Program, I hope you'll look to places like 

Delta County and our County Commissioners for ideas on how Interior can be a partner to local communities 

and who have been reliant on coal for generations. 

Comment Number: 000001230_ NORRIS_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Weston Norris 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The time will come when a shift from the current energy sources will happen. This will happen by changing the 

way we use our current sources and adding resources as they become available. But, that shift should come in a 

natural progression as it has in the past. Forcing or trying to control this progression can only hinder that 

process; and I believe will have dire consequences. 

Comment Number: 000001238_ CINNAMON_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Sophia Cinnamon 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We know carbon pollution is accelerating climate change, and the burning of coal is the single largest source of 

carbon emission. As Coloradans, we need to continue to make the transition to clear, renewable energy. This 

review process is needed to make smart choices about where we invest in energy for our future and accelerate 

our transition to clean energy. 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-917

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 000001250_ SEGO_20160623-3 

Commenter1:Jeff Sego 

Other Sections: 1 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

I realize there will be a time for renewable energy. But, currently, it's not reliable or in great abundance. And it's 

certainly not cheap. For anybody here that doubts that, read up on the Ivan Solar Project south of Las Vegas; and 

you'll know what I'm saying as far as not reliable and not cheap. Renewables may be the future, but we're not 

there yet. We need coal to help continue to bridge the energy gap until we get there. 

Comment Number: 000001258_Inouye_20160623-1 

Commenter1:David Iouye 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Second, the science of energy generation is changing rapidly. I think we've reached a tipping point in terms of the 

balance between renewable energy and fossil fuels. And that needs to be taken into account in your deliberations. 

Comment Number: 000001288_Stein_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Joe Stein 

Other Sections: 11 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Opponents of the coal moratorium correctly argue that the coal industry provides jobs and economic 

benefits to working class towns that need it. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 

56,700 Americans are employed in coal mining; down from 80,000 in 2014. These workers are drawn to coal 

because jobs are a plenty. The U.S. still gets one-third of its energy from coal. Coal companies claim that we 

cannot replace the jobs that they provide with jobs in the green industry. The data says something different. 

Worldwide, there are more jobs in renewables than coal mining, oil, and gas combined. As fossil fuels dry up, 

workers are turning to the solar sector. There are already twice as many solar workers in the U.S. as there are 

coal miners. 31,000 new solar jobs were created in 2014 alone. With wise policies centered around green energy 

subsidies, we could create thousands of jobs, effectively nullifying the job loss experienced during the inevitable 

and necessary divestment from fossil fuel based energy. 

Comment Number: 00001268_Ortiz_20160623-3 

Organization1:Western Slope Conservation Center 

Commenter1:Karen Ortiz 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The North Fork also possesses a wealth of renewable energy sources, like micro-hydro, solar, and biomass. We 

would welcome an opportunity to pilot some innovative ways to leverage those sources of energy from our --

for our homes, farms, businesses, governments, and community centers. This could similarly diversify our 

economy, create new jobs, and realize the mass potential for renewable energy 

Comment Number: 00001272_Armstrong_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Jeremiah Armstrong 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

One glaring example of this failure of the alternative energy source is the $2.2 billion Ivanpah solar power 

project. This was funded by taxpayer money in California' Mojave Desert. And it's supposed to be generating 

more than a million megawatt hours of electricity each year. But, 15 months after starting, the plant is producing 

only 40 percent of that. Again, we see the hypocrisy from this, this administration. This doesn't seem to be about 

revenue. It seems about -- be about destroying and damaging America's energy infrastructure. One big 
D. Comments by Issue Category 

D-918 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017 

Scoping Report 

miscalculation that this particular power plant is -- that it requires far more steam to run smoothly and efficiently 

than originally thought. According to a document filed with the California Energy Commission, instead of ramping 

up the plant each day before sunrise by burning about one hour's worth of natural gas to generate the steam, 

Ivanpah needs more than four times that help from natural -- from fossil fuels to get going. Another unexpected 

problem is not enough sun. Some of the studies and weather predictions overestimated the amount of sun. It had 

more cloud cover. It doesn't work when the sun's not shining. Ivanpah isn't the only solar project struggling to 

energize the grid. According to greentechmedia.com, 64 worldwide solar companies have either gone bankrupt 

or closed their doors. Even with over $40 billion subsidized dollars, they can't make it and compete with coal 

energy. 

Comment Number: 00001282_Seiter_20160623-1 

Commenter1:Jake Seiter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

It has been stated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service that the Ivanpah Facility kills one bird every two 

minutes. So, if you do the math and you extrapolate that out to a year, that equals out to 131,400 birds killed by 

one power -- solar power plant per year. 

Comment Number: 00001282_Seiter_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Jake Seiter 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

Now, I also want to include in that the cost of building and operating one of these plants is $2.2 billion, not 

including the subsidies that we've already heard about today, that they are given to operate. So, now if you take 

the 60 [solar] plants required, that accounts to $132 billion that it costs to run these plants and to build them. 

Now, that does not include the tax incentives. And I think that's something that needs to be looked at. 

Comment Number: 00001283_Unknown_20160623-2: 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

We can look to several countries around to see how their experiment with green energy has gone. According to 

the Institute of Energy Research, which stated, in Sweden without government subsidiaries, wind turbine owners 

have dismantled about 50 turbines and selling them abroad. In Germany, on May 8th, 2016, the power grid was 

almost fried because the problem with wind and solar is that the intermittent; and, thus, it's uncontrollable by the 

system operator. The German government has paid wind farms $548 million last year to cut their power in order 

to prevent damage to its electric grid because of the damaging effects of renewable energy has on German's grid, 

according the Daily Collar [phonetic]. Denmark's government abandoned plans to build five offshore wind 

turbine farms Friday admit fears that its electricity produced, that it would become too expensive for Danish 

consumers. 

Comment Number: 00001285_Abshire_20160623-2 

Commenter1:Jim Abshire 

Comment Excerpt Text: 

The State of California has lost over 700,000 manufacturing jobs in recent years due to the implementation of the 

renewable portfolio standard. California's industrial electricity rates are 62 percent above the U.S. average. The 

government has spent billions of dollars, taxpayer dollars, to subsidize renewable energy. Even though their own 

estimates project that this will only supply 10 percent of the energy demands by the year 2040. That's three 

percent over today's total. That's a pretty dismal rate of return, considering 65 percent of all Federal subsidies go 

towards renewables 
D. Comments by Issue Category

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS D-919

Scoping Report 

Comment Number: 00001286_LeValley_20160623-3

Organization1:Delta County

Commenter1:Robbie LeValley

Comment Excerpt Text:

Also, in that Programmatic EIS, we specifically ask -- Delta County asks that the interconnectness between what 

the coal mine produces and what the solar energy and micro-hydro and methane and all of that need for their 

infrastructure, also be included in that EIS. There are several things that the coal mine produces for the 

renewable industry
D. Comments by Issue Category

D-920 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix E

Annotated Bibliography
This page intentionally left blank.
January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-1

Scoping Report 

APPENDIX E

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

The BLM received approximately 449 comments, which included data for 

consideration or citations to references for review. In addition, many 

commenters attached reference material, white papers, or other data to their 

submissions for review. To facilitate searching for citations of interest, this 

annotated bibliography contains a table with the citation and identifies the 

relevant issue topics from the NOI. This table is followed by full publication 

information and a brief overview of the content of each document. 
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-2 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

This page intentionally left blank.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-3

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Abbey, R. 2011. US DOI. January 28, 2011, letter. X

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2014. 2005 

ATSDR Substance priority list.

X

Ahlstedt, S. A., et al. 2005. Long-Term Trend Information for 

Freshwater Mussel Populations at Twelve Fixed-Station Monitoring 

Sites in the Clinch and Powell Rivers of Eastern Tennessee and 

Southwestern Virginia, 1979-2004. 

X

Allen, P. G., et al. 2016. “Stop selling off federal coal at taxpayer 

expense.” 

X X X

AEMA. 2016. Comments on proposed amendments to Resource 

Management Planning Regulations (BLM 2.0).

X

Amstrup, S. C., et al. 2010. “Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce 

sea-ice loss and increase polar bear persistence.”

X

Anderson, S. 2015. Letter to D. Berry, Colorado Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, on Alpha Natural Resources 

self-bonding. 

X

Anderson, D. M., et al. 2000. Estimated Annual Economic Impacts 

from Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the United States. 

X X X

Anderson, K., et al. 2011. “Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: 

Emission scenarios for a new world.”

X

Anderson, R. M., et al. 1991. “Recent catastrophic decline of mussels 

(Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Little South Fork Cumberland River, 

Kentucky.”

X

Anderson, S. 2010. Sage-grouse RMP Amendments Scoping 

Comments. 

X

Anonymous. No date. US coal in the 21st century: Markets, 

bankruptcy, finance and law.

X

Applied Analysis. 2016. Energy and Energy-Related Mining in Utah. X

Argonne National Laboratory. 2015. GREET model. X

Associated Press. 2016. “More coal mine layoffs in Wyoming.” X

Australian Broadcasting Corp. 2016. Linc Energy executives under 

investigation, may be charged over alleged land contamination.

X X

Backlund, P., et al. US Climate Change Science Program. “The Effects 

of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water 

Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States.”

X X X

Baris, I., et al. 1987. “Epidemiological and environmental evidence of 

the health effects of exposure to erionite fibres: A four-year study in 

the Cappadocian region of Turkey.” 

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-4 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Barnett, A. G., et al. “Air pollution and child respiratory health: A 

case-crossover study in Australia and New Zealand.”

X

Barrasso, J. 2016. US Senate, Washington, DC. July 14, 2016. X

Barraza-Villareal, A., et al. 2008. “Air pollution, airway inflammation, 

and lung function in a cohort study of Mexico City schoolchildren.”

X

Barton, A., et al. 2012. “The Pacific oyster, Crassostrea Gigas, shows 

negative correlation to naturally elevated carbon dioxide levels: 

Implications for near-term ocean acidification effects.”

X

Bates, N. R., et al. 2010. “Feedback and responses of coral 

calcification on the Bermuda reef system to seasonal changes in 

biological processes and ocean acidification.”

X

Baugher, M., et al. 1995. BLM press release: Interior Established 

Royalty Policy Committee, names members and sets first meeting for 

Denver.

X

Becker, D. A., et al. 2015. “Impacts of mountaintop mining on 

terrestrial ecosystem integrity: Identifying landscape thresholds for 

avian species in the central Appalachians, United States.”

X

Beehive Collective. 2016. X

Bernhardt, E. S., et al. 2011. “The environmental costs of 

mountaintop mining valley fill operations for aquatic ecosystems of 

the central Appalachians.”

X

Bernhardt, E. S., et al. 2012. “How many mountains can we mine? 

Assessing the regional degradation of central Appalachian rivers by 

surface coal mining.”

X

Bernstein, A. S. 2011. “Climate change and children’s health.” X

Bernstein, M. A., et al. 2005. Regional Differences in the PriceElasticity of Demand for Energy.X X

Black, D., et al. 2005. “The economic impact of the coal boom and 

bust.”

X

Black, G. 2011. “Coal on a roll: Plundering America to power the 

Asian boom.”

X X X

Bloomberg New Energy Finance. 2016. Sustainable Energy in America 

Factbook.

X X

Blumm M., et al. 2012. “The overlooked role of the National 

Environmental Policy Act in protecting the western environment: 

NEPA and the Ninth Circuit.”

X X

BNSF Railway. 2011. Coal Cars. X

BNSF Railway. 2011. Coal Dust Frequently Asked Questions. X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-5

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Boden, T., et al. 2015. Ranking of the world’s countries by 2013 total 

CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and gas 

flaring.

X X

Bohan, S. 2012. EPA Compliance and Review Program, Denver, 

Colorado.

X

Bonogofsky, et al. 2015. Undermined Promise II. X X

Boucher, D., et al. 2015. “Halfway there? What the land sector can 

contribute to closing the emissions gap.”

X

Bounds, W. J., et al. 2007. “Arsenic addition to soils from airborne 

coal dust originating at a major coal shipping terminal.”

X

BP (British Petroleum). 2016. BP Statistical Review of World Energy 

June 2016

X

Bradbury, J., et al. 2013. WRI, Clearing the air: Reducing upstream 

GHG emissions from US natural gas systems.

X

Brigham, M., et al. 2003. Mercury in Stream Ecosystems—New 

Studies Initiated by the US Geological Survey.

X

Bruckner, T., et al. 2014. Energy Systems. “Climate change 2014: 

Mitigation of climate change.”

X

Brunner, D. J., et al. 1999. “Effective gob well flaring.” X X

Bryce, R. 2012. The High Cost of Renewable-Electricity Mandates. X

Bucks, D. 2013. “Federal coal: Déjà vu all over again.” X

Bucks, D. R. 2015. Oversight Hearing, Ensuring Certainty for Royalty 

Payments on Federal Resource Production.

X

Bucks, D. R. 2016. Public Management of Federal Coal in the Public 

Interest.

X X

Burakowski, E., et al. 2012. Climate Impacts on the Winter Tourism 

Economy in the United States.

X X

Burger, M., et al. 2016. Downstream and Upstream Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions: The Proper Scope of NEPA Review.

X X

Burger, M. 2016. A Mitigation-Based Rationale for Incorporating a 

Climate Change Impacts Fee into the Federal Coal Leasing Program.

X X

Burke, R. A., et al. 2014. “Impacts of mountaintop removal and valley 

fill coal mining on C and N processing in terrestrial soils and 

headwater streams.”

X

Burkhead, N. M., et al. 2001. “Effects of suspended sediment on the 

reproductive success of the tricolor shiner, a crevice-spawning 

minnow.”

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-6 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Burt, E., et al. 2013. Scientific Evidence of Health Effects from Coal 

Use in Energy Generation

X

Burtraw, D., et al. 2014. Comments to the US Environmental 

Protection Agency on Its Proposed Clean Power Plan.

X

Cal/EPA, et al. No date. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust. X

Caldeira, K., et al. July 27, 2016. X

Caldwell et al. 2009. “Total blood mercury concentrations in the US 

population: 1999-2006.”

X

California, State of. 2007. Settlement Agreement, ConocoPhillips 

Company and Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

X

Cantwell, M. 2016. Letter to Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, 

regarding self-bonding under SMCRA.

X

Cantwell, M. 2016. The Coal Cleanup Taxpayer Protection Act of 

2016

X

Cantwell, M., et al. 2016. Letter to Comptroller General requesting 

investigation of self-bonding practices by coal companies.

X

Carbon Tracker Initiative. 2015. Assessing Thermal Coal Production 

Subsidies.

X X

Carbon Tracker Initiative. 2015. The $2 trillion stranded assets 

danger zone: How fossil fuel firms risk destroying investor returns.

X

Carbon Tracker Initiative. 2016. Enough Already: Meeting 2 [degrees] 

C PRB [Powder River Basin] Coal Demand without Lifting the 

Federal Moratorium.

X

Carnegie Institution. 2008. “Jet streams are shifting and may alter 

paths of storms and hurricanes.”

X

Center for American Progress. Cutting Subsidies and Closing 

Loopholes in the US Department of the Interior’s Coal Program.

X X

Center for American Progress. 2014. Modernizing the Federal Coal 

Program.

X

Center for Biological Diversity. 2015. Grounded: The President’s 

Power to Fight Climate Change, Protect Public Lands by Keeping 

Publicly Owned Fossil Fuels in the Ground.

X X

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 2016. X

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 2016. US Drought Monitor. X

Center for Health, Environment and Justice. 2015. Health Impacts of 

Mountaintop Removal Mining.

X

Center for Health and the Global Environment. 2011. Mining Coal 

Mounting Costs: The Life Cycle Consequences of Coal.

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-7

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. Coal Dust. X

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. 2016. Internet 

website.

X

Chen, I., et al. 2011. “Rapid range shifts of species associated with 

high levels of climate warming.”

X

Chen, Y., et al. 2004. “Influence of relatively low level of particulate 

air pollution on hospitalization for COPD in elderly people.”

X

Cheng, M. 2013. “WHO agency: Air pollution causes.” X

Christian, M., et al. 2015. Despite Its Cost Edge, PRB Coal 

Production Fell Almost 10%.

X

Cimons, M. 2016. Keep It in the Ground. X

Clark, J. 1996. X

Clean Air Task Force. 2001. Cradle to Grave: The Environmental 

Impacts from Coal.

X

Clean Air Task Force. 2013. Comparison of CO2 Abatement Costs. X

Clean Energy Action. 2009. Coal: Cheap and abundant – or is it? 

What Americans should stop assuming that the US has a 200-year 

supply of coal.

X

Clean Energy Action. 2013. Trends in US Delivered Coal Costs, 

October.

X

Clement, J.P., et al. 2014. A Strategy Improving the Mitigation Policies 

and Practices of the Department of the Interior Energy and Climate 

Change Task Force. 

X

Climate Accountability Institute. 2016. Scientist Support Ending Coal 

Leasing on Public Lands to Protect Climate, Public Health, and 

Biodiversity.

X X X

Climate Accountability Institute. 2015. Memorandum to the Center 

for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth – USA.

X X

Climate Action Tracker. 2016. Internet website. X

Climate Advisors. 2016. Finalized Policies Get US Halfway to Meeting 

Climate Goal.

X

Climate Interactive. No date. Climate Scoreboard UN Climate Pledge 

Analysis.

X

CO2 Now. 2016. Annual Global Carbon Emissions. X

Cohan, D. 2016. “When coal companies go bankrupt, the mining 

doesn’t always stop.”

X

Colorado Energy Office. 2016. Coal Mine Methane in Colorado 

Market Research Report. 

x
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-8 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. 2016. Month 

Coal Summary Report. 

X

Colorado Mining Association. 2015. 2015 Colorado Coal Report 

Production and Employment.

X

Commission on Fair Market Value Policy for Federal Coal Leasing.

1984. Fair Market Value Policy for Federal Coal Leasing.

X

Committee Majority Staff. 2016. Hearing entitled “A Review of EPA’s 

Regulatory Activity During the Obama Administration: Energy and 

Industrial Sectors.”

X

Considine, T. J. 2013. “Powder River Basin coal: Powering America.” X

Cooper, T. F., et al. 2008. “Declining coral calcification in massive 

porites in two nearshore regions of the northern Great Barrier 

Reef.”

X

Council on Environmental Quality. 2014. Revised Draft Guidance for 

Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews.

X

Crowl, T. A., et al. 2008. “The spread of invasive species and 

infectious disease as drivers of ecosystem change.”

X X

Dale Jones, E. B., et al. 1999. “Effects of riparian forest removal on 

fish assemblages in southern Appalachian Streams.”

X

Davenport, C. 2014. “Climate change deemed growing security 

threat by military researchers.”

X

de Hartog, J. J., et al. 2009. “Effects of fine and ultrafine particles on 

cardiorespiratory symptoms in elderly subjects with coronary heart 

disease: The ULTRA study.”

X

De’ath, G., et al. 2009. “Declining coral calcification on the Great 

Barrier Reef.”

X

DeForest, C. E. 1999. Watershed Restoration, Jobs-in-the-Woods, 

and Community Assistance: Redwood National Park and Northwest 

Forest Plan.

X

Dingell, D. 2015. Letter to L. Gohmert, Chair of Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations for House Committee on Natural 

Resources

X

Dingell, D., et al. 2016. Letter to Sally Jewell, Secretary of the 

Interior, re: Coal Self-bonding

X

Donner, S. D. 2009. “Coping with commitment: Projected thermal 

stress on coral reefs under different future scenarios.”

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-9

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Donoghue, A. M. 2004. “Occupational health hazards in mining: An 

overview.”

X

Douberly, E. 2013. “Fire protection guidelines for handling and 

storing [Powder River Basin] coal.”

X

Doug. 2009. Work safety blog. Internet website. X

Doyle Trading Consultants. 2016. Coal Industry Turns the Corner. X

Dubas, G., et al. 2010. Assessment of Water Quality Impacts from 

Coalbed Methane-Produced Water Discharge in the Purgatoire River 

Watershed.

X

Earthjustice. No date. Coal Mines Clouding America’s Air. Internet 

website.

X X

Eby, L. A., et al. 2014. “Evidence of climate-induced range 

contractions in bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in a Rocky Mountain 

watershed, USA.”

X

EcoShift Consulting. 2016. Over-leased: How production horizons of 

already leased federal fossil fuels outlast global carbon budgets.

X X

Ecosystem Marketplace. 2015. Converging at the Crossroads, State of 

Forest Carbon Finance.

X X

Ecosystem Marketplace. 2016. Not so niche: Co-benefits at the 

Intersection of Forest Carbon and Sustainable Development

X

Ecotrust. No date. Oregon’s Restoration Economy, Investing in 

natural assets for the benefit of communities and salmon.

X X

Ellenberger, J. H., et al. 2015. Population Status and Trends of Big 

Game and Greater Sage-Grouse in Southeast Montana and Northeast 

Wyoming.

X

Energy Venture Analysts. 2015. Coal Sales Prices used for Valuation 

and Payment of Federal Royalties.

X

Epstein, A. No date. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. Internet 

website.

X

Epstein, P. R., et al. 2011. “Full cost accounting for the life cycle of 

coal.”

X

Erickson, P., et al. 2014. “Impact of the Keystone XL pipeline on 

global oil markets and greenhouse gas emissions.”

X X

Erickson, P., et al. 2016. How would phasing out US federal leases for 

fossil fuel extraction affect CO2 emissions and 2 [degree] C goals?

X X

Espey, J. A., et al. 2004. “Turning on the lights: A meta-analysis of 

residential electricity demand elasticities.”

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-10 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Esposito, V., et al. 2011. “Climate change and ecosystem services: 

The contribution of and impacts on federal public lands in the United 

States.”

X

Esteves, A. M., et al. 2012. “Social impact assessment: The state of the 

art.”

X

Ewing, S. A., et al. 2010. “Pb isotopes as an indicator of the Asian 

contribution to particulate air pollution in urban California.”

X

EOPOTUS. 2016. The Economics of Coal Leasing on Federal Lands: 

Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers.

X X

EOPOTUS. 2013. The President’s Climate Action Plan. Internet 

website.

X

Ezzati et al. 2004. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks. X

Fabry, V. J., et al. 2008. “Impacts of ocean acidification on marine 

fauna and ecosystem processes.”

X

Farrell, C. 2012. “A just transition: Lessons learned from the 

environmental justice movement.”

X

Feely, R. A. 2009. “Ocean acidification: Present conditions and future 

changes in a high-CO2 world.”

X

Ferret.com.au. 2014. Article: Addressing a noxious issue—making 

blasting safer. Internet website.

X X

Finkelman, R. B. 2004. “Potential health impacts of burning coal beds 

and waste banks.”

X X

Finkelman, R. B., et al. 2002. “Health impacts of coal and coal use: 

Possible solutions.”

X

Fisher, J. et al. 2010. “Co-benefits of energy efficiency and renewable 

energy in Utah.”

X

Flegal, A., et al. 1992. “Lead levels in pre-Industrial humans.” X

Flegal, A., et al. 1992. “Current needs for increased accuracy and 

precision in measurements of low levels of lead in blood.”

X

Folder. Various dates. Letters from citizen Groups. X

Folder. Various dates. Letters regarding coal leasing delays X

Foti, R., et al. 2013. “Signs of critical transition in the Everglades 

wetlands in response to climate and anthropogenic changes.”

X

Fox, P. 2015. Environmental, Health and Safety Impacts of the 

Proposed Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal.

X

Friedmann, J. No date. An open letter to the US coal industry. X

Frieler, K., et al. 2013. “Limiting global warming to 2 degrees C 

unlikely to save most coral reefs.”

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-11

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Fuchs, B. 2016. Internet website. X

Funes, Y. 2016. “What leaving fossil fuels behind can do for 

inequality.”

X X

Funk, J., et al. 2014. “Rocky Mountain forests at risk: Confronting 

climate-driven impacts from insects, wildfires, heat, and drought.”

X X

Garfin, G., et al. 2013. Assessment of Climate Change in the 

Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National 

Climate Assessment.

X

Geiling, N. 2016. The Plan To Revive Big Coal’s Fortunes Isn’t 

Panning Out.

X

Geiser, M. et al. 2005. Ultrafine Particles Cross Cellular Membranes 

by Nonphagocytic Mechanisms in Lungs and in Cultured Cells.

X

Gerarden, T., et al. 2016. Federal Coal Program Reform, the Clean 

Power Plan, and the Interaction of Upstream and Downstream 

Climate Policies.

X X

Gerking, S., et al. Mineral Tax Incentives, Mineral Production And the 

Wyoming Economy.

X X

Gerking, S., et al. 2008. What explains the increased utilization of 

Powder River Basin coal in electric power generation?

X

Gilber, R. et al. 1988. “Radionuclide transport from soil to air, native 

vegetation, kangaroo rats and grazing cattle on the Nevada test site.”

X

Gillette News Record. 2008. Nitrogen dioxide from mine blast 

causes orange cloud. Internet website.

X

Gillingham, K. 2016. Future Direction of Coal Markets: A Focus on 

Federal Coal Policy.

X X X

Gillis, J. 2013. “Global temperatures highest in 4,000 Years.” X

Gillis, J. 2016. “Climate model predicts west Antarctic ice sheet could 

melt rapidly.”

X

Gledhill, D. K., et al. 2008. “Ocean Acidification of the Greater 

Caribbean Region 1996–2006.”

X

Glick, P. 2006. Fueling the Fire: Global Warming, Fossil Fuels and the 

Fish and Wildlife of the American West.

X

Glustrom, L. 2013. Warning: Faulty Reporting of US Coal Reserves. X

Godby, et al. 2015. The Impact of the Coal Economy on Wyoming. 

Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy.

X X

Gohlke, J. M., et al. 2011. “Estimating the global public health 

implications of electricity and coal consumption.”

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-12 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Golder Associates. 2012. Environmental Assessment: Bledsoe Coal 

Lease Kyes-53865.

X X

Gomez, J. 2014. United States Government Accountability Office. X

Grandjean, et al. 2014. “Neurobehavioural effects of developmental 

toxicity.”

X

Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the 

Environment. 2014. Closing Coal: Economic and Moral Incentives.

X

Greenpeace. 2016. Internet website. X

Greenpeace. No date. Leasing Coal, Fueling Climate Change: How 

the Federal Coal Leasing Program Undermines President Obama’s 

Climate Plan.

X X

Greenpeace USA. 2016. Corporate Welfare for Coal: The Biggest 

Coal Mining Companies Depend on Subsidized Federal Coal, even as 

They Attack Federal Climate and Clean Air Policies.

X

Grijalva, R., et al. 2016. Letter to Secretary Jewell on Coal Reforms. X

Gruenspecht, H. 2016. Coal in the United States: Recent 

Developments and Outlook.

X

Gutierrez, S. 2011. “Getting there: How long can trains legally block 

intersections?”

X

Haggerty, J., et al. 2016. “Does local monitoring empower fracking 

host communities? A case study from the gas fields of Wyoming.”

X X

Haggerty, M. 2015. The Impact of Federal Coal Royalty Reform on 

Prices, Production, and State Revenue.

X

Haggerty, M. N., et al. 2015. “Energy development opportunities and 

challenges in the rural West.”

X

Hansen, J., et al. 2008. “Target atmospheric CO2: Where should 

humanity aim?”

X

Harbine, J., et al. 2015. Earthjustice and Sierra Club Environmental 

Law Program, Bozeman, Montana, and San Francisco, California.

X

Hare, W. L., et al. 2011. “Climate hotspots: Key vulnerable regions, 

climate change and limits to warming.”

X

Harrigan, R. J., et al. 2014. “A continental risk assessment of West 

Nile Virus under climate change.”

X

Harvard School of Public Health. 2012. Internet website. X X

Headwater Economics. 2015. An Assessment of US Federal Coal 

Royalties, Current Royalty Structure, Effective Royalty Rates, and 

Reform Options.

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-13

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Headwater Economics. 2015. The Impact of Federal Coal Royalty 

Reform on Prices, Production, and State Revenue.

X

Heede, R., et al. 2016. “Potential emissions of CO2 and methane from 

proved reserves of fossil fuels: An alternative analysis.”

X

Hein, J. 2015. Harmonizing Preservation and Production June 2015. 

Institute for Policy Integrity. Internet website.

X

Hein, J. 2016. Priorities for Federal Coal Reform—Twelve Policy and 

Procedural Goals for the Programmatic Review.

X X

Hein, J., et al. 2015. Reconsidering Coal’s Fair Market Value. NYU 

Institute for Policy Integrity.

X X

Hein, J., et al. 2015. Illuminating the Hidden Costs of Coal: How the 

Interior Department Can Use Economic Tools to Modernize the 

Federal Coal Program.

X X

Hein, J., et al. 2015. Reconsidering Coal’s Fair Market Value. The 

Social Costs of Coal Production and the Need for Fiscal Reform.

X X

Heron, E. 2014. Linc Energy charged with causing serious 

environmental harm, April 12.

X

Higginbotham, et al. 2013. Coal Train Pollution Signature Study. 

Briefing paper prepared for the Coal Terminal Action Group Dust 

and Health Committee.

X

Hill, J. 2012. Internet website. X

Hitt, N. P., et al. “Temporal changes in taxonomic and functional 

diversity of fish assemblages downstream from mountaintop mining.”

X

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., et al. 2010. “The impact of climate change on 

the world’s marine ecosystems.”

X

Hönisch, B., et al. 2012. “The geological record of ocean 

acidification.”

X

Hood River News. 2013. “Another voice: Coal transport comments 

needed now.”

X

Houp, R. E. 1993. “Observations on long-term effects of 

sedimentation on freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Uniondae) in the 

north fork of the Red River, Kentucky.”

X

Howard, P. 2016. The Bureau of Land Management’s Modeling 

Choice for the Federal Coal Programmatic Review.

X

Howarth, et al. 2013. Risk mitigation and the social cost of carbon. X

Hulac, et al. 2016. Arch Coal paid execs $8M in bonuses on eve of 

bankruptcy. Internet website.

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-14 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

ICF International. 2016. Federal Coal Leasing Reform Options: Effects 

On CO2 Emissions And Energy Markets--Summary Of Modeling 

Results Final Report.

X

IHS. 2014. IHS Study: Diversity of United States Power Supply Could 

be Significantly Reduced in Coming Decade. Internet website.

X

Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. 2012. The 

Great Giveaway: An analysis of the United States’ Long-Term Trend 

of Selling Federally Owned Coal for Less than Fair Market Value.

X

Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. 2015. Executive 

summary of testimony by Tom Sanzillo.

X X

Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. 2016. 

Comments on the Department of the Interior Notice of Intent to 

Conduct a Programmatic Environmental Impact Sate of Federal Coal 

Leasing Programs.

X X

Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. 2016. Internet 

website.

X

Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. 2015. Internet 

website.

X

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. 2013. 

Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis - Under Executive Order 12866.

X

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. X

IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and 

Vulnerability—Summary for Policymakers.

X

IPCC. 2014. Summary for Policymakers, Contribution to Working 

Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the International Panel 

on Climate Change.

X

IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. X

IPCC. 2014. “Energy Systems.” In: “Climate change 2014: Mitigation 

of climate change.”

X

ICMM. 2011. “Fugitive methane emissions in coal mining.” X

IEA. 2015. World Energy Outlook 2015. Internet website. X

IEA. 2015. World Energy Outlook 2015. Internet website: X

IMCC. 2014. Self-Bonding Survey. X

Ives, M. 2013. Internet website. X X

Jacobson M., et al. 2011. “Providing all global energy with wind, 

water, and solar power.

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-15

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Jacquet, J. B. 2014. A Short History of Social Impact Assessment. X

Jacquet, J. B. 2014. The Battlement Mesa Health Impact Assessment: 

A Case Study and Oral History of Process and Lessons Learned.

X

Jenkinson, J. J. 2005. “Specific gravity and freshwater mussels.” X

John T. Boyd Company. 2011. Powder River Basin Coal Resource and 

Cost Study.

X X

Johnson, L., et al. “The social cost of carbon in US regulatory impact 

analyses: An introduction and critique.”

X

Jones & DeMille Engineering. 2016. CIB Funded Projects. X

Jones, C., et al. 2009. “Committed terrestrial ecosystem changes due 

to climate change.”

X

Jones, G. 2011. National IQ and National Productivity: The Hive Mind 

Across Asia.

X

Joo, N., et al. 2014. 5 Things You Should Know about Powder River 

Basin Coal Exports. Internet website.

X X

Kalderia, K., et al. 2016. Carnegie Institution for Science. X X

Katestone Environmental. 2011. NSW Coal Mining Benchmarking 

Study: International Best Practice Measures to Prevent and/or 

Minimise Emissions of Particulate Matter from Coal Mining.

X

Keith, D. 2013. A Case For Climate Engineering. X

Kiesecker, J. M., et al. 2011. “Energy by design: Making mitigation 

work for conservation and development.”

X

Kitzhaber J. A., et al. 2013. Letter to CEQ re: coal leasing costs. X X

Kreiger, E. et al. 2016. The Clean Power Plan in Pennsylvania: 

Analyzing Power Generation for Health and Equity.

X X

Kroeker, K. J., et al. 2013. “Impacts of ocean acidification on marine 

organisms: Quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming.”

X

Krupnick, A., et al. 2015. Putting a Carbon Charge on Federal Coal: 

Legal and Economic Issues.

X X

Krupnick, A., et al. 2015. Should We Price Carbon from Federal 

Coal?

X

Krupnick, A., et al. 2016. Applying EIA’s National Energy Modeling 

System to US Coal Projections: Strengths and Weaknesses for BLM’s 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

X X

Kuykendall, T. 2016. Headwinds Facing US Coal. SNL Energy. X

Kuykendall, T., et al. 2016. Companies recently filing bankruptcy 

produce more than 2/3 of PBR coal.

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-16 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Kuykendall, T., et al. 2016. Headwind that pushed coal to bankruptcy 

potentially changing course. SNL Energy

X X

Labor Network for Sustainability and Strategic Practice. Year 

unknown. “Just Transition”—Just What Is It? An Analysis of Language, 

Strategies, and Projects.

X

Laks, D. 2009. “Assessment of chronic mercury exposure within the 

US population, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 

1999–2006.”

X

Langham, et al. 2015. National Audubon Society, New York, New 

York.

X

Lashof, D. A., et al. 2007. “Coal in a Changing Climate.” X

Lattanzio R. K. 2015. Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Assessment of Coal 

and Natural Gas in the Power Sector.

X

Lazarus, M., et al. 2015. “Supply-side climate policy: The road less 

taken.”

X

Lee-Ashley, M., et al. 2015. Cutting Subsidies and Closing Loopholes 

in the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Coal Program.

X

Lemly, A. D. 2009. “Aquatic hazard of selenium pollution from coal 

mining.”

X

Leong, C. 2001. “Retrograde degeneration of neurite membrane 

structural integrity of nerve growth cones following in vitro exposure 

to mercury.”

X

Leonhardt, D. 2015. “There’s a formula for deciding when to extract 

fossil fuels.”

X

Lepeule, J. 2012.“Chronic exposure to fine particles and mortality: An 

extended follow-up of the Harvard six cities study from 1974 to 

2009.”

X

LeResche, B. 2014. Letter to Wyoming DEQ on Linc Aquifer 

Exemption.

X

Levin and Forbes. 2014. Visualizing the Global Carbon Budget (blog). X

Lewtas, J. 2007. “Air pollution combustion emissions: 

Characterization of causative agents and mechanisms associated with 

cancer, reproductive, and cardiovascular effects.”

X X

Lifson, T. 2014. “Debunking the 97% ‘consensus’ on global warming.” X

Lin, J., et al. 2014. “China’s international trade and air pollution in the 

United States.”

X

Live Science. 2016. Internet website. X X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-17

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Loarie, J. 2012. AERMOD Modeling of Air Quality Impacts of the 

Proposed Morrow Pacific Project.

X

Lockwood, A. H., et al. 2009. Coal’s Assault on Human Health. X

Logan, J. A., et al. 2001. “Ghost forests, global warming, and the 

mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).”

X

Lombardi, K. 2016. Former cleanup workers blame illnesses on toxic 

coal ash exposures. Internet website.

X

Loss, S. R., et al. 2013. Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind 

facilities in the contiguous United States.

X X

Louie, E. P., et al. 2016. “Retraining investment for US transition from 

coal to solar photovoltaic employment.”

X

Luber, G., et al. 2014. “Human health.” X

Lucchini, R., et al. 2012. “Inverse association of intellectual function 

with very low blood lead but not with manganese exposure in Italian 

adolescent.”

X

Luppens, J., et al. 2015. Assessment of Coal Geology, Resources, and 

Reserve Base in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana.

X

Lynch, P. 2016. 2016 climate trends continue to break record. X

Lyon, A. G., et al. 2003. “Potential gas development impacts on sage 

grouse nest initiation and movement.”

X

MacDougall, A. H., et al. 2012. “Significant contribution to climate 

warming from the permafrost carbon feedback.”

X

Machol, B., et al. 2013. “Economic value of US fossil fuel electricity 

health impacts.”

X X

Maclean, I. M., et al. 2011. “Recent ecological responses to climate 

change support predictions of high extinction risk.”

X

Madsen, T., et al. 2016. “We have the power: 100% renewable energy 

for a clean, thriving America.

X

Mahaffey, K. 2004. “Blood organic mercury and dietary mercury 

intake: National health and nutrition examination survey, 1999 and 

2000.”

X

Mahaffey, K. 2004. Methyl Mercury: Epidemiology Update. EPA. San 

Diego, California.

X

Map of Powder River Basin Overburden Depths. 2006. X

Mapes, L. 2016. Toxic Algae Creating Deep Trouble on West Coast. X

Marcott, S., et al. 2013. “A reconstruction of regional and global 

temperature for the past 11,300 years.”

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-18 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Markandya, A., et al. 2007. “Electricity generation and health.” X

Markey, E. J., et al. 2014. Summary of GAO Report on Federal Coal 

Leasing Feb. 4.

X X

Marten, A., et al. 2011. Estimating the Social Cost of non-CO2 GHG 

Emissions: Methane and Nitrous Oxide.

X

Marten, A., et al. Incremental CH4 and N2O mitigation benefits 

consistent with the US Government’s SC-CO2 estimates.

X X

May, H. 2012. Utah asthma action plan: Avoid pollution. X

Mccabe, et al. “Recent declines in western US snowpack in the 

context of twentieth-century climate variability.”

X

McDonald, A., et al. 2009. “Climate change and the geography of 

weed damage: Analysis of US maize systems suggests the potential for 

significant range transformations.”

X

McGlade, C., et al. 2015. “The geographical distribution of fossil fuels 

unused when limiting global warming to 2 degrees C.”

X

McKenzie, et al. 2004. “Climate change, wildfire, and conservation.” X

McKibben, B. 2016. “Global warming’s terrifying new chemistry.” X

McKinsey & Company. 2013. Pathways to a low-carbon economy: 

Version 2 of the global greenhouse gas abatement cost curve.

X

McKitrick, R. 2016. Internet website. X

Mehl, C. 2015. Know Your Economy: Economic Tools Updated for 

Every County.

X

Meinshausen, M., et al. 2009. “Greenhouse-gas emission targets for 

limiting global warming to 2 degrees C.”

X

Melillo, J. M., et al. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States: The Third National Climate Assessment.

X

Miller, R., et al. 2000 The Role of Fire in Juniper and Pinyon 

Woodlands: A Descriptive Analysis.

X

Ministry of Municipal Affairs British Columbia. 1999. Public Private 

Partnership a Guide for Local Government. 

X

Montana DEQ. 2011. A review of the rationale for EC and SAR 

Standards, Aug. 5, 2011.

X

Montana DEQ. No Date. Rule 17.24.1116: Bonding: Criteria and 

Schedule for Release of Bond.

X

Moore, F. C., et al. 2015. Temperature impacts on economic growth 

warrant stringent mitigation policy.

X X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-19

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Moran, C., et al. 2013. Independent scientific panel report on 

underground coal gasification pilot trials.

X

Morgan, Morgan. 2016. Comments on Petition to Initiate Self-Bonding 

Rulemaking, Docket ID: OSM-2016-0006.

X

Morris, A. C. 2016. “Build a better future for coal workers and their 

communities.”

X

Morton, T. 2016. Update: Peabody, Arch Cut Nearly 480 Jobs At 

North Antelope, Black Thunder Mines.

X

Mountain Pact. 2016. How Federal Coal Reform Could Help 

Mountain Communities Mitigate the Costs of Climate Change.

X X

Moy, A. D., et al. 2009. Reduced Calcification in Modern Southern 

Ocean Planktonic Foraminifera.

X

Muller, N. Z., et al. 2011. “Environmental accounting for pollution in 

the United States economy.”

X X

Mullins, N. 2016. “A coal miner’s goodbye.” X

Multnomah County Health Department. 2013. The Human Health 

Effects of Rail Transport of Coal Through Multnomah County, 

Oregon, Mar. 1, 2013.

X X

Multnomah County Health Department. 2013. The Human Health 

Effects of Rail Transport of Coal Through Multnomah County, 

Oregon: A Health Analysis and Recommendations for Further Action.

X

Mulvaney, D., et al. 2015. The Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

from US Federal Fossil Fuels.

X

Mulvaney, D., et al. 2016. Over-Leased: How Production Horizons of 

Already Leased Federal Fossil Fuels Outlast Global Carbon Budget.

X X

Muncy, B. L., et al. 2014. “Mountaintop removal mining reduces 

stream salamander occupancy and richness in southeastern Kentucky 

(USA).”

X

Munthe, J., et al. 2010. Study on Mercury Sources and Emissions, and 

Analysis of Cost and Effectiveness of Control Measures: UNEP 

Paragraph 29 Study.

X

Murdoch, P. S., et al. 2000. “Potential effects of climate change on 

surface-water quality in North America.

X

Mutter, J. et al. 2010. “Does inorganic mercury play a role in 

Alzheimer’s disease? A systematic review and an integrated molecular 

mechanism.”

X

NAACP. Year unknown. Equity in Building Resilience in Adaptation 

Planning.

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-20 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

NASA. 2016. Internet website. X

NASA. 2016. Internet website. X

National Center for Environmental Health. 2005. “Blood lead 

levels—United States, 1999-2002.”

X

National Center for Environmental Health. 2013. “Blood lead levels 

in children aged 1–5 years — United States, 1999–2010.”

X

National Climate Assessment. 2016. Internet website. X

National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2014. Life Cycle Analysis of 

Natural Gas Extraction and Power Generation.

X X

NMFS and US DOI, FWS. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Determination of Nine Distinct Population Segments of Loggerhead 

Sea Turtles as Endangered or Threatened.

X

NMFS. 2015. Recovery Plan for Elkhorn Coral (Acropora Palmata) and 

Staghorn Coral (A. Cervicornis).

X

National Mining Association. 2016. Federal Coal Leasing Moratorium: 

An Examination of the Reasons Driving a Disruptive Policy.

X

NOAA. 2015. Interagency Cooperation—Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as Amended; Incidental Take Statements. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC.

X

NOAA. 2016. Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts. X

NOAA. 2016. Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Contour Charts. X

NOAA. 2016. What Is Ocean Acidification? X

National Research Council. 1990. Surface Coal Mining Effects on 

Ground Water Recharge.

X

National Research Council. 2010. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced 

Consequences of Energy Production and Use.

X X

National Research Council. 2000. Ocean Acidification: A National 

Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean.

X

National Research Council. 2000. Toxicological Effects Of Methyl 

Mercury.

X

NWF. 2013. Wildlife in a Warming World: Confronting the Climate 

Crisis.

X

NWF. 2014. Issue Brief: Accounting for Carbon Pollution from Coal 

Mining on Federal Lands.

X

NWF. 2014. Issue Brief: Accounting for Carbon Pollution from Coal 

Mining on Federal Lands.

X X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-21

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

NWF, et al. Losing Ground: Energy Development’s Impacts on 

Wildlife, Landscapes, and Hunting Traditions of the American West.

X

NWF, et al. 2015. Undermined Promise II X

NWF. Wildlife in Hot Water: America’s Waterways and Climate 

Change.

X

Nelson, R. 1984. “The Making of federal coal policy.” X

New Mexico EMNRD. 2016. FAQ - Coal Mine Reclamation Program. X

New Scientist. 2007. Climate Myths Special. May 16, 2007. X

Newcombe, C. P, et al. 1991. “Effects of suspended sediments on 

aquatic ecosystems.”

X

Newcombe, C. P., et al. 1996. “Channel suspended sediment and 

fisheries: A synthesis for quantitative risk and impact.”

X

Newton, T. J., et al. 2007. “Contaminant sensitivity of freshwater 

mussels: Lethal and sublethal effects of ammonia to juvenile Lampsilis

mussels (Unionidae) in sediment and water-only exposures.”

X

NextGen Climate. 2016. Our Air Health and Equity Impacts of 

Ohio’s Power Plants.

X

Nichols, J., et al. July 28, 2016. WildEarth Guardians, Denver, 

Colorado.

X

Noone, K., et al. 2012. Valuing the Ocean: Draft Executive Summary. X

North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 2016. the State of 

North America’s Birds 2016.

X

Northern Plains Resource Council. 2011. A Hidden Cost of Coal: 

Exporting Our Coal to Asia.

X

Office of Inspector General. 2013. Coal Management Program, US 

Department of the Interior CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012.

X X

Office of Inspector General. 2013. Letter to Senator Wyden 

regarding coal leasing program.

X

Office of Management and Budget. 2014 Technical Support 

Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for 

Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866.

X

Office of Natural Resources Revenue. 2015. Consolidated Federal Oil 

& Gas and Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Reform.

X X

Office of Natural Resources Revenue. 2016. Statistical Information 

Site. Internet website.

X

Office of the Press Secretary. 2015. Remarks by the President at the 

Glacier Conference, Anchorage, Alaska.

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-22 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Office of the Press Secretary. 2016. North American Climate, Clean 

Energy, and Environment Partnership Action Plan.

X

Office of the Secretary of the Interior. 2011. Press release: Interior 

Releases Report Highlighting Impacts of Climate Change to Western 

Water Resources.

X

Office of the Secretary of the Interior. 2015. Press release: Secretary 

Jewell Offers Vision for Balanced, Prosperous Energy Future.

X

Ogle, R. S., et al. 1988. “Bioaccumulation of selenium in aquatic 

ecosystems.”

X

OIG Report No. CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012. 2013. Coal Management 

Program, US Department of the Interior.

X

Onederra, I., et al. 2012. “Understanding main causes of nitrogen 

oxide fumes in surface blasting.”

X

Orr, J. C., et al. 2005. “Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the 

twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms.”

X

Painter, T., et al. 2010. “Response of Colorado River runoff to dust 

radiative forcing in snow.”

X X

Palmer, M. A., et al. “Restoration as mitigation: Analysis of stream 

mitigation for coal mining impacts in southern Appalachia.”

X X

Parmesan, C., et al. 2003. “A globally coherent fingerprint of climate 

change impacts across natural systems.”

X

Partnership for a Secure America. 2016. Internet website. X

Paterson, L. 2016. “More coal layoffs in Wyoming.” X

Paz, S. 2015. “Climate change impacts on West Nile virus 

transmission in a global context.”

X

Penfold, M. 2014. Letter to BLM. X

Peters, A. 2009. Air Quality and Cardiovascular Health Smoke and 

Pollution Matter.

X X

Peters, K. 1992. “The Clean Air Act and the Amendments of 1990.” X

Petty, J. T., et al. 2010. “Landscape indicators and thresholds of 

stream ecological impairment in an intensively mined Appalachian 

watershed.”

X

Pfister, T., et al. 2014. “Projections of future summertime ozone over 

the US.”

X

Physicians for Social Responsibility. 2009. Coal’s Assault on Human 

Health, Nov. 18.

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-23

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Pond, G. J. 2010. “Patterns of Ephemeroptera taxa loss in Appalachian 

headwater streams (Kentucky, USA).”

X

Pond, G. J., et al. 2008. “Downstream effects of mountaintop coal 

mining: Comparing biological conditions using family- and genus-level 

macroinvertebrate bioassessment tools.”

X

Pope, A., III. 2000. “Epidemiology of fine particulate air pollution and 

human health: Biologic mechanisms and who’s at risk?”

X X

PRBRC and WORC. No date. When Is Federal Coal Leasing 

Contrary to the Public Interest?

X

PRBRC and WORC. No date. Abuse of Taxpayer-Owned Powder 

River Basin Coal.

X X

PRBRC, et al. 2015. Letter to Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement re: Stream Protection Rule, Washington DC.

X X X

PRBRC, et al. 2016. Comments on Proposed Self-Bonding Rule 

Changes, Docket ID: OSM-2016-0006. 

X

PRBRC, et al. 2016. Letter to Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement re: Proposed Self-Bonding Rule Changes, 

Washington DC.

X

Power, T. M. 2011. The Greenhouse Gas Impact of Exporting Coal 

from the West Coast: An Economic Analysis. Power Consulting, 

Missoula, Montana.

X X

Power, T. M., et al. 2013. The Impact of Powder River Basin Coal 

Exports on Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

X X

Power, T., et al. 2010. Comments on the Greenhouse Gas Impacts 

and the Modeling of Coal Flows in the Millennium Bulk Terminals 

Longview SEPA Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

X

Power, T., et al. 2015. Assessing the Ability of Contemporary Models 

to Calculate the GHG Implications of Federal Coal Leasing Decisions 

and Other Federal Energy Management Decisions.

X X

Power, T., et al. 2016. Economic Consequences of the Federal Coal 

Leasing Program: Improving the Quality of the Economic Analysis.

X X

Queensland DNRM. 2013. Healthy Headwaters Coal Seam Gas 

Water Feasibility Study: Assessing the Salinity Impacts of Coal Seam 

Gas Water on Landscapes and Surface Streams.

X

Rasker, R., et al. 2009. “The economic importance of air travel in 

high-amenity rural areas.”

X

Raupach, M. R., et al. 2014. “Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon 

emissions.”

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-24 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Ray, K. 2016. “Colorado’s worst methane polluter is an Arch Coal 

mine.”

X

Real, E., et al. 2007. “Processes influencing ozone levels in Alaskan 

forest fire plumes during long-range transport over the North 

Atlantic.”

X X

Regan, C. 2016. US Coal: Pushed to the Margins. Bloomberg New 

Energy Finance.

X

Rehbach, S., et al. 2015. Downsizing the US coal industry: Can a slowmotion train wreck be avoided?X X

REMI and Synapse. 2014. The Economic, Climate, Fiscal, Power, and 

Demographic Impact of a National Fee-and-Dividend Carbon Tax.

X

Research Council of Norway. 2010. Persistent organic pollutants in 

large concentrations in Arctic areas: Fires spread environmental 

toxins over the Arctic.

X

Rice, D. 2016. “Global temperatures soar for record 12th straight 

month.”

X

Rich, H. 2013. Internet website. X

Rieman, B. E., et al. 2007. “Anticipated climate warming effects on 

bull trout habitats and populations across interior Columbia River 

Basin.”

X

Riordan, M. 2014. “Don’t sell cheap US coal to Asia.” X

Robert Scribbler. 2013. Internet website. X

Robert Scribbler. 2014. Internet website. X

Robert Scribbler. 2014. Internet website. X

Rocky Mountain Climate Organization. 2008. Hotter and Drier: The 

West’s Changed Climate.

X

Rocky Mountain Institute. 2010. Internet website. X X

Roessler. 2006. Las Vegas and the Groundwater Development 

Project Where does it start? Where will it end?

X

Rogelj, J., et al. 2015. “Energy system transformations for limiting endof-century warming to below 1.5 degree C.”X

Rogelj, J., et al. 2015. “Paris agreement climate proposals need a 

boost to keep warming well below 2 degrees C.”

X

Rogers, A. D., and D. A. Laffoley. 2011. International Earth System 

Expert Workshop On Ocean Stresses And Impacts: Summary 

Report. IPSO Oxford.

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-25

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Root, T. L., et al. 2003. “Fingerprints of global warming on wild 

animals and plants.”

X

Roth, S. 2016. “Sally Jewell: ‘Keep it in the ground’ protests ‘naïve’. X X

Rucker, P. 2012. “Coal export trade raises alarms for western state.” X

Rucker, P. 2016. “Arch Coal asks US bankruptcy court to ease its 

cleanup.”

X X

Rucker, P. “US taxpayers due to subsidize Koch-controlled coal 

mine.”

X

S&P Global Platts. 2015. “PRB coal producers must cut production to 

boost prices: Analyst.”

X

S&P Global Platts. 2016. “PRB coal stockpiles at roughly 102 days, 35 

days above average: UP.”

X

Sanzillo, T. 2012. The Great Giveaway: An Analysis of the United 

State’s Long-Term Trend of Selling Federally Owned Coal for Less 

than Fair Market Value. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial 

Analysis.

X

Sanzillo, T. 2016. Comments on the Department of Interior (DOI) 

Notice of Intent to Conduct a Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement of Federal Coal Leasing Programs.

X

Schaeffer, M., et al. 2013. Adequacy and Feasibility of the 1.5 Degree 

C Long-Term Global Limit.

X

Schleussner, C-F., et al. 2016. “Differential climate impacts for policyrelevant limits to global warming: The case of 1.5 degrees C and 2 

degrees C.”

X

Schlissel, D. 2016. “A Sustained Coal Recovery? When You Get 

There, There’s No There There.”

X X

Schmid, M., et al. No date. Fire and Forest Insect Pests. X

Schulte Roth & Zabel. 2016. Labor Liabilities in Coal Bankruptcies. X

Schuman, G. E., et al. 2000. Sagebrush Establishment on Mined Lands: 

Ecology and Research.

Schwartz, C. 2013. “Studies, states seek to halt mule deer population 

decline.”

X

Sheffield, P. E., et al. 2011. “Global climate change and children’s 

health: Threats and strategies for prevention.”

X X

Shelanski, H., et al. 2015. Estimating the Benefits from Carbon 

Dioxide Emissions reductions.

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-26 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Shi, G., et al. 2012. “Estimating Elasticity for residential electricity 

demand in China.”

X X

Shindell, D. T. 2015. “The social cost of atmospheric release.” X X

Shoemaker, J. K., et al. 2013. “What role for short-lived climate 

pollutants in mitigation policy?”

X

Shubert, J., et al. 1978. “Combined effects in toxicology: A rapid 

systematic testing procedure—cadmium, mercury, and lead.”

X

Sierra Club, et al. 2014. 1004-AE23 Waste Mine Methane Capture, 

Use, Sale, or Destruction, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

79 Fed. Reg. 23923 (April 29, 2014). 

X

Sierra Club, et al. 2015. Comments on Draft Stream Protection Rule. X

Sierra Club, et al. 2015. Comments on Proposed ONRR Rule: 

Consolidated Federal Oil and Gas and Federal and Indian Coal 

Valuation Reform, Docket No. ONRR-2012-0004 Regulation 

Identifier Number: 1012-AA13.

X

Sierra Club, et al. 2016. Comments to Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement on Petition to Initiate Self-Bonding 

Rulemaking, Docket ID: OSM-2016-0006.

X

Sierra Club. 2014. Comments on the Interagency Working Group’s 

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 

Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (Docket No.OMB2013-0007-0083).

X

Sierra Club. 2016. Keep it in the Ground. X X

Sightline Institute. 2014. Unfair Market Value. Internet website. X

Simmons, E., et al. 2015. Potential Climate Change Impacts and the 

BLM Rio Puerco Field Office’s Transportation System: A Technical 

Report.

X X

Simpson, D. A. 2011. Letter to T. Sturdevant, Washington State 

Department of Energy.

X

Simpson Weather Associates. 1993. Norfolk Southern Rail Emission 

Study.

X X

Smh.com.au. 2014. Mine blast gone wrong spews toxic cloud. X

Smith, J. B., et al. 2009. “Assessing dangerous climate change through 

an update of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) 

‘’Reasons For Concern.”

X

SourceWatch. 2016. Internet website. X

SourceWatch. 2016. The Footprint Of Coal. X X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-27

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Spath, P. L., et al. 1999. Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-Fired Power 

Production (No. NREL/TP-570- 25119).

X X

Spracklen, D., et al. 2008. “Impacts of climate change from 2000 to 

2050 on wildfire activity and carbonaceous aerosol concentrations in 

the western United States.”

X

Spross, J. 2013. Would Limiting Carbon Emissions Destroy The 

Economy?

X X

Squillace, M. 2009. The Strip Mining Handbook. X X

Squillace, M. 2013. The Tragic Story of the Federal Coal Leasing 

Program.

X X

Squillace, M. 2016. Testimony of Professor Mark Squillace, University 

of Colorado Law School before the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Mineral Resources of the House NRC On HR 5259.

X X

Squillace, M. No date. Reclamation Liability under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA).

X X

Squillace, M., et al. 2012. NEPA, Climate Change, and Public Lands 

Decision-Making. 

X

Stanford School of Earth, Energy, and Environmental Sciences. No 

date. OPGEE: The Oil Production Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Estimator.

X

Stephens, C., et al. 2002. Worker and Community Health Impacts 

Related to Mining Operations Internationally. Mining, Minerals, and 

Sustainable Development.

X

Stevenson, A. 2016. Taxpayer Exposure to Bankrupt Coal. X

Stock J., et al. 2106. Federal Coal Program Reform, the Clean Power 

Plan, and the Interaction of Upstream and Downstream Climate 

Policies.

X

Stockholm Environment Institute. 2015. Supply-side climate policy: 

the road less taken.

X

Stockholm Environment Institute. 2016. How would phasing out US 

federal leases for fossil fuel extraction affect CO2 emissions and 2 C 

goals?

X

Storrow, B. 2016. “Wyoming’s two largest coal mines announce 

layoffs.”

X

Storrow, B. 2016. “The prospects for coal exports are dimming, but 

politics have little to do with it.”

X

Stratus Consulting. 2010. Potential Environmental Impacts of the 

Proposed CIRI Underground Coal Gasification Project.

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-28 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Stratus Consulting. 2015. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fossil 

Energy Extracted from Federal Lands and Waters: An Update.

X

Stratus Consulting. 2015. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fossil 

Energy Extracted from Federal Lands and Waters: Final Report.

X

SFAA. 2016. Comments regarding Surety Bonds. X

Sustainable Systems Research, LLC. 2015. Technical Memorandum on 

Air Quality, Climate Change, and Environmental Justice Issues from 

Oakland Trade and Global Logistics Center.

X X

Sutherland, A. B., et al. 2007. “Effects of increased suspended 

sediment on growth rate and gill condition of two southern 

Appalachian minnows.”

X

Sutherland, A. B., et al. 2008. “Effects of suspended sediment on 

whole-body cortisol stress response of two southern Appalachian 

minnows.

X

Svoboda, L. August 7, 2007. X

Svoboda, L. October 27, 2007. X

Swain, D., et al. 2013. “The extraordinary California drought of 

2013/2014: Character, context, and the role of climate change.”

X

Swain, D., et al. 2013. Federal Coal Leasing: Fair Market Value and a

Fair Return for the American Taxpayer.

X

Sweetwater County. 2002. Sweetwater County Comprehensive Plan. X

Synapse Energy Economics. 2012. Comparing the Hidden Costs of 

Power Generation Fuels.

X X

Terhorst, J., et al. Effect of Coal-Fired Power Generation on Visibility 

in a Nearby National Park.

X

Thakar, N., et al. 2014. Federal Coal Leasing in the Powder River 

Basin A Bad Deal for Taxpayers.

X

The Global Commission. 2016. X

The Mountain Pact. 2016. How Federal Coal Reform Could Help 

Mountain Communities Mitigate the Costs of Climate Change.

X

The New York Times. 2016. “Global Temperatures Are on Course 

for Another Record This Year”.

X

The Pew Charitable Trusts. 2016. The Economic Value of Quiet 

Recreation on BLM Lands.

X

The Wilderness Society. 2014. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 

Fossil Fuel Energy Extracted from Federal Lands and Waters: An 

Update.

X

Thomas, C. D., et al. 2004. “Extinction risk from climate change.” X X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-29

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Tilman, D. 2000. “Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity.” X

Tran, K. T. 2012. AERMOD Modeling of Air Quality Impacts of the 

Proposed Morrow Pacific Project.

X

Tsoar, H., et al. 1987. “Dust transport and the question of desert 

loess formation.”

X

Uinta County. 2011. Uinta County Comprehensive Plan. X

Union of Concerned Scientists. 2011. Climate Change and Your 

Health—Rising Temperatures, Worsening Ozone Pollution.

X X

Union of Concerned Scientists. 2012. Climate Change and Your 

Health—After The Storm: The Hidden Health Risks of Flooding in a 

Warming World.

X X

Union of Concerned Scientists. No date. Internet website. X X

United Nations. 2009. Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its 

Fifteenth Session, Held in Copenhagen from December 7 to 19, 2009.

X

United Nations. 2010. Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its 

Sixteenth Session, Held in Cancun from November 29 to December 

10, 2010.

X

United Nations. 2010. Environmental Consequences of Ocean 

Acidification: A Threat to Food Security.

X

United Nations. 2015. The Emissions Gap Report 2015: A UNEP 

Synthesis Report.

X

United Nations. 2015. Conference of the Parties Twenty-First 

Session, Paris, November 30 to December 11, 2015, Adoption of the 

Paris Agreement.

X

United Nations. 2015. Intended Nationally Determined 

Contributions.

X

United Nations. 2015. Subsidiary Body for Scientific and 

Technological Advice Forty-Second Session, June 1 to 11, 2015.

X

US Bankruptcy Court. 2016. Notice of Filing of Executed 

Agreements Comprising Resolution of Reclamation Obligations for 

Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.

X

US BLS. 2016. Quarterly census of employment and wages, private, 

NAICS 2121 coal mining, all counties in Wyoming.

X

US Census Bureau. 2016. Country Business Patterns (CBP). X

US Climate Change Science Program. 2006. Methane as a 

Greenhouse Gas.

X

US Congress. 1920. Mineral Leasing Act. X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-30 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

US Congress. 1984. Environmental Protection in the Coal Leasing 

Program.

X

US CEA. 2016. The Economics of Coal Leasing on Federal Lands: 

Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers.

X

US Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. 1931. United States 

ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 US 414.

X

US Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Declaration of 

Christopher B. Field. USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1586661 

Filed: December 3, 2015.

X

US Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Declaration of 

Thomas Michael Power. USCA Case #1:11-cv-01481-RJL Document 

#38-7 Filed: December 13, 2012.

X

USDA, FS. 2012. Rulemaking for Colorado Roadless Areas 

Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement.

X

USDA, FS. 2014. Pawnee National Grassland Oil and Gas Leasing 

Analysis Final Environmental Impact Statement.

X

USDA, FS. 2015. Rulemaking for Colorado Roadless Areas 

Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

X

USDA, FS. 2016. Forests to Faucets. X

US DOC, BEA. 2016. Regional Economic Accounts. X

US DOE. 2014. Addendum to Environmental Review Documents 

Concerning Exports of Natural Gas.

X

US DOE. 2014. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting 

Liquefied Natural Gas.

X X

US DOE, EIA. 2012. Annual Energy Review 2011. X

US DOE, EIA. 2012. Fuel Competition in Power Generation and 

Elasticities of Substitution.

X

US DOE, EIA. 2013. Future power market shares of coal, natural gas 

generators depend on relative fuel prices.

X X

US DOE, EIA. 2015. Annual Energy Outlook with Projections to 

2040.

x

US DOE, EIA. 2015. Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced from Federal and 

Indian Lands, FY 2003 Through FY 2014.

X

US DOE, EIA. 2015. Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO). X

US DOE, EIA. 2015. Annual Coal Report 2013. X X X

US DOE, EIA. 2015. Scheduled 2015 capacity additions mostly wind 

and natural gas; retirements mostly coal.

x
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-31

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Average utilization for natural gas combinedcycle plants exceeded coal plants in 2015.x

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Annual Energy Outlook 2016 Early Release: 

Annotated Summary of Two Cases.

X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Annual Energy Outlook 2016, Coal Production: 

Northern Appalachia.

X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Annual Energy Outlook 2016, Total Energy 

Supply, Disposition, and Price Summary.

X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Internet website. X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Internet website. X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Annual Energy Outlook 2016 with projections to 

2040.

X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Quarterly coal production lowest since the early 

1980s.

X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Form EIA-923 detailed data. X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Coal made up more than 80% of retired 

electricity generating capacity in 2015.

x

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Internet website. X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Internet website. X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients. X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Primary Energy Consumption by Source. X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Annual Coal Distribution Report 2014. X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Internet website. X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Internet website. X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Internet website. X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Internet website. X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Internet website. X

US DOE, EIA. 2016. Internet website. X

US HHS. 2007. Public Health Statement Lead. X

US HHS. 2010. Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional 

Data for 2009.

X

US DOI. 2015. 9 animals that are feeling the impacts of climate 

change.

X

US DOI. 2015. Internet website. X

US DOI. 2016. Secretary Jewell Launches Comprehensive Review of 

Federal Coal Program.

X X

US DOI, BLM. 1969. Planning for Fluid Mineral Resources. X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-32 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

US DOI, BLM. 2008. Manual 6840 – Special Status Species 

Management.

X

US DOI, BLM. 2009. West Antelope II Coal Lease Application Final 

EIS Volume I.

X

US DOI, BLM. 2010. Record of Decision for the Belle Ayr North 

Lease by Application.

X

US DOI, BLM. 2011. Record of Decision Environmental Impact 

Statement for the North Porcupine Coal Lease Application.

X

US DOI, BLM. 2011. Record of Decision Environmental Impact 

Statement for the South Porcupine Coal Lease Application.

X

US DOI, BLM. 2011. Record of Decision for the South Hilight Field 

Coal Lease Application.

X

US DOI, BLM. 2011. Alton Coal Tract Lease by Application Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement.

X

US DOI, BLM. 2013. Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics 

Strategic Plan 2012–2022.

X

US DOI, BLM. 2014. Waste Mine Methane Capture, Use, Sale, or 

Destruction; Advanced Notice of Proposed rulemaking.

X X

US DOI, BLM. 2014. Climate Change Adaptation Plan. X

US DOI, BLM. 2014. Climate Change Adaptation Plan. X

US DOI, BLM. 2014. Gunnison Sage-Grouse Habitat Management 

Policy on Bureau of Land Management-Administered Lands in 

Colorado and Utah.

X

US DOI, BLM. 2015. Environmental Assessment for the Little Willow 

Creek Protective Oil and Gas Leasing.

X

US DOI, BLM. 2015. Letter to Governor Hickenlooper re: Royalty 

Reduction Rate for Oxbow Mine.

X

US DOI, BLM. 2015. Total Federal Coal Leases in Effect, Total Acres 

Under Lease, and Lease Sales by Fiscal Year Since 1990.

X

US DOI, BLM. 2015. Authorization to Pay Advance Royalty in Lieu of 

Continued Operation Granted.

X

US DOI, BLM. 2016. Regulatory Impact Analysis for Revisions to 43 

CFR, Part 3100 (Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing) and 43 CFR, Part 

3600 (Onshore Oil and Gas Operations), Additions of 43 CFR, Part 

3178 (Royalty-Free Use of Lease Production) and 43 CFR, Part 3179 

(Waste Prevention and Resource Conservation).

X

US DOI, BLM. 2016. Waste Prevention, Production Subject to 

Royalties, and Resource Conservation.

X X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-33

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

US DOI, BLM. 2016. Internet website. X

US DOI, BLM. 2016. Internet website. X

US DOI, BLM. 2016. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

on Federal Coal Program.

X

US DOI, BLM. 2016. Internet website. X

US DOI, BLM. 2016. Coal Operations. X X

US DOI, BLM. 2016. Notice of Intent to Prepare a Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement to Review the Federal Coal Program 

and to Conduct Public Scoping Meetings.

X

US DOI, Bureau of Reclamation. 2016. Reclamation: SECURE Water 

Act Section 9503(c) - Reclamation Climate Change and Water.

x

US DOI, FWS. 1987. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Determination of Threatened Species Status for the Blackside Dace.

X

US DOI, FWS. 1996. Formal Section 7 Biological Opinion and 

Conference Report on Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation 

Operations under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977.

X

US DOI, FWS. 2011. Endangered Status for Five Southeastern Fish 

Species.

X

US DOI, FWS. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Determination of Endangered Status for the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox 

Mussels Throughout Their Ranges.

X

US DOI, FWS. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Determination of Endangered Status for the Sheepnose and 

Spectaclecase Mussels Throughout Their Range.

X

US DOI, FWS. 2012. The Cost of Invasive Species. X

US DOI, FWS. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Endangered Species Status for Diamond Darter.

X

US DOI, FWS. 2015. Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Conservation 

Management Plan, Draft.

X

US DOI, FWS. 2016. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Threatened Species Status for the Big Sandy Crayfish and Endangered 

Species Status for the Guyandotte River Crayfish.

X

US DOI, NPS. 2010. Understanding the Science of Climate Change 

Talking Points—Impacts to Arid Lands Natural Resource Report 

NPS/NRPC/NRR—2010/209.

X

US DOI, NPS. 2015. Adapting to Climate Change in Coastal Parks. 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—2015/961.

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-34 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

US DOI, Office of the Secretary. 2016. Press Release: Interior 

Department Releases Report Underscoring Impacts of Climate 

Change on Western Water Resources.

X

US DOI, OSM. 2014. EA For Proposed Revision and Renewal of 

Permit WA0007D for Resumption of Mining.

X X X

US DOI, OSM. 2015. Bull Mountains Mine No. 1: Federal Mining Plan 

Modification Environmental Assessment

X X X

US DOI, OSM. 2015. Bull Mountains Mine No.1 Federal Mining Plan 

Modification Environmental Assessment.

X

US DOI, OSM. 2015. Stream Protection Rule Environmental Impact 

Statement.

X

US DOI, OSM. 2016. Spring Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease MTM 

94378 Mining Plan Modification Environmental Assessment.

X

US Departments of Interior, Energy, and Agriculture. 2007. Inventory 

of Assessed Federal Coal Resources and Restrictions to Their 

Development.

X

US DOI, Secretary of the Interior. 2016. Order No. 3338: 

Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to 

Modernize the Federal Coal Program.

X

US Department of State. 2016. X X

US Department of State. Background Briefing on the Paris Climate 

Agreement.

X

United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 2015. Civil 

Action No. 14-1993 (RBW).

X X

US District Court for the District of New Mexico. 2016. Wild Earth 

Guardians vs. US Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement and San Juan Mining. Civ. No. 1:14-cv-00112-RJ-CG.

X

US EPA. 1998. Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from 

Electric Utility Steam Generating Units—Final Report to Congress.

X X

US EPA. 1999. Climate Change and Public Lands. X

US EPA. 2002. Clinch and Powell Valley Watershed Ecological Risk 

Assessment.

X

US EPA. 2008. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen 

– Health Criteria.

X

US EPA. 2008. Integrated Science Assessment For Sulfur Oxides –

Health Criteria.

X

US EPA. 2009. Integrated Science Assessment For Particulate Matter. X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-35

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

US EPA. 2011. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 

1990 to 2020.

X X

US EPA. 2011. The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on 

Aquatic Ecosystems of the central Appalachian coalfields.

X

US EPA. 2012. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating 

Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric 

Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units; Final Rule.

X

US EPA. 2013. Impacts of Climate Change on the Occurrence of 

Harmful Algal Blooms.

X

US EPA. 2015. Regulatory Impact Analysis For The Clean Power Plan 

Final Rule.

X X X

US EPA. 2015. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 

1990-2013.

X

US EPA. 2015. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Emission 

Standards for New and Modified Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas 

Sector.

X

US EPA. 2015. Social Cost of Carbon. X X

US EPA. 2015. Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for 

New and Modified Sources.

X

US EPA. 2015. Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of 

Global Action.

X

US EPA. 2016. Nutrient Pollution: Sources and Solutions. X

US EPA. 2016. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 

1990 – 2014.

X

US EPA. 2016. Internet website. X

US EPA. 2016. Internet website. X

US EPA. July 2016. Internet website. X

US EPA. September 2016. Internet website. X

US EPA. 2016. Climate Change Indicators: Ocean Acidity. X

US EPA. 2016. Coal Mine Methane – What EPA is Doing. X

US EPA. 2016. Natural Disasters: Flooding. X

US EPA. 2016. Water And Climate Change Research. X

USGS. 1920. Title 30-Mineral Lands and Mining. X

USGS. 1998. A Digital Database of Coal Ownership Status. X

USGS. 2012. Assessment of Coal Geology, Resources, and Reserves 

in the Montana Powder River Basin.

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-36 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

USGS. 2013. Assessment of Coal Geology, Resources, and Reserve 

Base in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana.

X

USGS. 2014. Modeling Uncertainty in Coal Resource Assessments, 

with an Application to a Central Area of the Gillette Coal Field, 

Wyoming. Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5196 US.

X

USGS. 2015. Coal Geology and Assessment of Coal Resources and 

Reserves in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana. 

Professional Paper 1809.

X

USGS. 2015. Geospatial Data for Coal Beds in the Powder River 

Basin, Wyoming and Montana.

X

USGS. 2015. Energy Resources Program - Coal Assessments. X

USGS. 2016. Internet website. X

USGS. 2016. Groundwater And Drought. X

US GAO. 1979. Issues Facing the Future of Federal Coal Leasing. X

US GAO. 2012. Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, 

More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public 

Information.

X

US GAO. 2013. Climate Change. X

US GAO. 2013. Coal Leasing—BLM Could Enhance Appraisal 

Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More 

Public Information.

X

US GAO. 2014. BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More 

Explicitly Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public 

Information.

X

US GAO. 2014. Regulatory Impact Analysis. Development of the 

Social Cost of Carbon Estimates.

X

US HOR, Office of the Law Revisions Counsel. 1976. 43 US Code, 

Section 1701.

X

US HOR, Office of the Law Revisions Counsel. 1990. Title 42. The 

Public Health and Welfare.

X X

US HOR, Office of the Law Revisions Counsel. 1996. Title 30. 

Mineral Lands and Mining.

X

US HOR, Office of the Law Revisions Counsel. 2005. 30 US Code, 

Section 20. Leases and Exploration.

X

US Office of Federal Register, et al. Code of Federal Regulations. 

1983. Minerals Management.

X

US Office of the Inspector General. 2013. Coal Management 

Program, US Department of the Interior.

X X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-37

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

US Office of the President. 2013. The President’s Climate Action 

Plan.

X

US Office of the President. 2014. Climate Action Plan Strategy to 

Reduce Methane Emissions.

X

US Office of the President. 2014. The Cost of Delaying Action to 

Stem Climate Change.

X

US Office of the President. 2016. Leaders’ Statement on a North 

American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership.

X X

US Office of the President. 2016. The Economics of Coal Leasing. X

US Office of the President. 2016. US-Canada Joint Statement on 

Climate, Energy, and Arctic Research.

X

US Senate. 2016. Concerns about the Economics of Coal Leasing on 

Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers.

X X

United States of America. 2015. US Cover Note, INDC and 

Accompanying Information.

X

UCAR. 2001. Internet website. X

University of Oxford. 2016. Internet website. X X

Unofficial Networks. 2016. Internet website. X

Utah Department of Health. 2016. Utah Asthma Program. X

van Breevoort, P., et al. 2015. Climate Action Tracker—The Coal 

Gap: Planned Coal-Fired Power Plants Inconsistent with 2 Degrees C 

and Threaten Achievement of INDCs.

X

Vannote, R. L., et al. 1982. Fluvial processes and local lithology 

controlling abundance, structure, and composition of mussel beds.

X

Vano, J., et al. 2014. “Understanding uncertainties in future Colorado 

River streamflow.”

X

Vaughan, A. 2016. “Abolition of DECC ‘major setback for UK’s 

climate change efforts.”

X

Veron, J. E. N., et al. 2009. The coral reef crisis: The critical 

importance of <350 ppm CO2.

X

Vine, D. 2016. Achieving the United States’ Intended Nationally 

Determined Contribution.

X

Vulcan, Inc. 2016. Federal Coal Leasing Reform Options: Effects on 

CO2 Emissions and Energy Market.

X X

Vulcan, Inc. 2016. Internet website X

Wagner, J. C., et al. 1985. “Erionite exposure and mesotheliomas in 

rats.”

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-38 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Walker, J., et al. 1998. Long-Term Stewardship at the Nevada Test 

Site.

X

Walters, D., et al. 2015. Mercury and Selenium Accumulation in the 

Colorado River Food Web, Grand Canyon, USA.

X

Warren, M. L., et al. 2004. “Spatio-temporal patterns of the decline of 

freshwater mussels in the Little South Fork Cumberland River, USA.”

X

Warren, R., et al. 2010. Increasing impacts of climate change upon 

ecosystems with increasing global mean temperature rise.

X

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2009. Health Effects and 

Economic Impacts of Fine Particle Pollution in Washington.

X X

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2011. Letter to Wyoming 

BLM Director Donald A. Simpson on the South Hilight field coal lease 

application.

X

Washington State Department of Ecology, et al. 2011. Letter to 

Lands and Minerals Management and the BLM.

X X

Weitzman, M. L. 2010. GHG Targets as Insurance against 

Catastrophic Climate Damages.

X

Welch, R. December 4, 2015. Bureau of Land Management, 

Lakewood, Colorado.

X

Westerling, A., et al. 2003. “Climate and wildfire in the western 

United States.”

X X

Westerling, A., et al. 2006. “Warming and earlier spring increase 

western US forest wildfire activity.”

X

Whatcom Docs. 2016. Position Statement and Appendices: Coal 

Train Facts.

X

Whitaker, M., et al. 2012. “Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of 

coal-fired electricity generation.”

White House. 2013. Executive Order. Preparing the United States 

for the Impacts of Climate Change.

X

White House. 2013. Internet website. X

White House. 2015. Statement by the President on the Keystone XL 

Pipeline.

X X

White House. 2015. Internet website. X

White House. 2016. Internet website. X X

The White House Office of the Press Secretary. 2014. US-China Joint 

Announcement on Climate Change.

X

Whiteside, T., et al. Heavy Traffic Still Ahead. X

Whitney, E. 1999. Beware of Orange Clouds. X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-39

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Wickham, J. D., et al. 2007. “The effect of Appalachian mountaintop 

mining on interior forest.”

X

Wiener, J., et al. 1990. “Partitioning and bioavailability of mercury in 

an experimentally acidified Wisconsin lake.”

X

WildEarth Guardians, et al. 2010. Petition for Rulemaking Under the 

Clean Air Act to List Coal Mines as a Source Category and to 

Regulate Methane and Other Harmful Air Emissions from Coal 

Mining Facilities Under Section 111.

X

Wilhelm, S. 2014. “Coal trains kill cold trains: Fruit delivery service 

shuts down as rail congestion heats up.”

X

Williams-Derry, C. 2016. Unfair Market Value II. Coal Exports and 

the Value of Federal Coal.

X

Williams-Derry, C. No date. The Rise and Fall of the Asian Coal 

Bubble.

X

Wilson, R., et al. 2015. Analysis of the Tongue River Railroad Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement.

X X

Wong, L. D., et al. 2016. The incompatibility of high-efficient coal 

technology with 2 [degrees] C scenarios.

X

Wood Mackenzie. 2016. Executive Summary: Impact of a Federal 

Coal Lease Program Reset. 

X

WORC. 2014. Heavy Traffic Ahead, February; Heavy Traffic Still 

Ahead, July.

X X

WORC et al. 2015. Letter to BLM on the Buffalo PRMP/EIS. X

WORC, et al. Undermined Promise II, 2015. Internet website. X X

World Bank Group. No Date. Coal Mining and Production. Internet 

website.

X X

World Health Organization. 2007. Exposure to Mercury: A Major 

Public Health Concern.

X

World Health Organization. 2011. Tackling the Global Clean Air 

Challenge.

X X

World Health Organization. 2016. Arsenic. X

World Resources Institute. 2003. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol for 

Project Accounting.

X

WWC Engineering. 2010. Wright Area Coal Lease Applications Final 

Environmental Impact Statement.

X X

Wyden, R. No date. Fact Sheet: Federal Coal Royalties and Their 

Impact on Western States.

X

Wyden, R. Various dates. Wyden correspondence, 2013-2014. X
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-40 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Appendix E

Summary Table

Reference

NOI Topic Areas

How, when, and where to leaseFair ReturnClimate impacts

Other impacts

Socioeconomic considerationsExportsEnergy needs

Wyden, R., et al. 2013. Letter to Ken Salazar, Department of the 

Interior regarding coal royalties.

X

Wyoming DEQ. 2016. Permit termination for Medicine Bow Fuel and 

Power Coal to Liquid Project.

X

Wyoming DEQ. 2015. Letter to Alpha Coal West regarding selfbonding.X

Wyoming Mining Association. 2016, The 2015-2016 Concise Guide 

to Wyoming Coal.

X X

Wyoming Mining Association. 2016. Internet website X

Yager, L. 2009. United States Government Accountability Office, 

Washington, DC.

X

Yale University. 2016. Internet website. X

Young, P., et al. 2012. “Isocyanic acid in a global chemistry transport 

model: Tropospheric distribution, budget, and identification of 

regions with potential health impact.”

X

Yuen, A. 2016. Coal: A Duel Between Policy and Markets. X

Zamor, R. M., et al. 2007. “Turbidity affects foraging success of driftfeeding rosyside dace.”X

Zimmerman, G., et al. 2015. Ensuring Taxpayers Receive a Fair Share 

for American’s Public Resources. 

X

Zubets-Anderson, A. 2016.Coal in the 21st Century: Bankruptcy and 

Financing Rating Agency’s Perspective.

X X

Zukoski, E. 2010. Comments of Colorado Wild et al. on Federal Coal 

Lease Modifications COC-1362 and COC-67232.

X

Zukoski, E. BLM Must Reject Mountain Coal Company’s Sep. 2014 

Request for Royalty Relief on Federal Coal Leases C-1362 and COC67232.

X

Zukoski, E. 2016. Recent Arch Coal Actions Further Undermine 

Mountain Coal Company’s September 2014 Request for Royalty 

Relief on Federal Coal Leases C-1362 and COC-67232.

X
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-41

Scoping Report 

Abbey, R. 2011. US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. January 28, 2011, letter.

A letter from the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, to Jeremy Nichols 

denying a request to reclassify the Powder River Basin as a coal production region and to establish a 

carbon fee and global warming impact fund.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2014. 2005 ATSDR Substance priority 

list. Internet website: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov.

Chart from the Agency for Toxic Substances. Includes the 2005 ATSDR Substance Priority List, with the 

2005 rank, substance name, total points, 2003 rank, and CAS RN. Significant, because arsenic, lead, and 

mercury rank top three.

Ahlstedt, S. A., et al. 2005. Long-Term Trend Information for Freshwater Mussel 

Populations at Twelve Fixed-Station Monitoring Sites in the Clinch and Powell Rivers of 

Eastern Tennessee and Southwestern Virginia, 1979-2004. USFWS.

Report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service looking at the impacts of coal mining on water quality in the 

Clinch and Powell Rivers, which contain 14 federally protected mussels and 4 fish, along with another 3 

mussel species that are candidates for federal listing.

Allen, P. G., and M. Cantwell. 2016. “Stop selling off federal coal at taxpayer expense.” The 

Seattle Times. June 20, 2016. Internet website: http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/stopselling-off-federal-coal-at-taxpayer-expense/.

This news article urges readers to attend public meetings and speak out against selling federal coal at 

taxpayer expense.

American Exploration & Mining Association. 2016. Comments on proposed amendments 

to Resource Management Planning Regulations (BLM 2.0). Spokane, Washington. 

Unique comments in response to the BLM’s notice of proposed amendments to its resource 

management planning regulations, published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9674).

Amstrup, S. C., et al. 2010. “Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and 

increase polar bear persistence.” Nature Vol. 468.

Research letter contending that greenhouse gas mitigation could lead to retention of more sea ice 

habitat, meaning that polar bears could persist throughout the century in greater numbers and in more 

areas.

Anderson, S. 2015. Letter to D. Berry, Colorado Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, on Alpha Natural Resources self-bonding. Powder River Basin Resource 

Council.

Letter requests information on the status of permits and requirements for financial sureties, in light of 

Alpha Natural Resources bankruptcy filing in August 2015.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-42 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Anderson, D. M., et al. 2000. Estimated Annual Economic Impacts from Harmful Algal 

Blooms (HABs) in the United States. WHOI-2000-11, Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution.

Technical report funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National 

Science Foundation about the significant and expanding threat to human health, fisheries resources, and 

economies throughout the United States and the world from blooms of toxic or harmful microalgae, 

commonly called “red tides.”

Anderson, K., and A. Bows. 2011. “Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: Emission scenarios 

for a new world.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 369:20–44.

Paper focuses on how the Copenhagen Accord’s goal of keeping global temperature increases below 2 

degrees Celsius is now likely unachievable, due to rapid emission growth in nations such as China and 

India, along with a lack of cumulative emission budgets and mitigation strategies.

Anderson, R. M., et al. 1991. “Recent catastrophic decline of mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) 

in the Little South Fork Cumberland River, Kentucky.” Brimleyana 17 (the Journal of the 

North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences).

Journal article summarizing the results of fieldwork on the Little South Fork Cumberland River in 1987, 

where two federally endangered species were found to have been extirpated from certain river 

segments, possibly due to increased coal mining in the area.

Anderson, S. 2010. Sage-grouse RMP Amendments Scoping Comments. Sheridan, 

Wyoming. August 30, 2010.

Letter with comments on the scope of the proposed RMP amendments and associated environmental 

impact statement for the Casper, Kemmerer, Pinedale, Rock Springs, Newcastle, and Rawlins Field 

Offices from the Powder River Basin Resource Council.

Anonymous. No date. US coal in the 21st century: Markets, bankruptcy, finance and law.

Report with information on coal industry bankruptcies and bankruptcies in general.

Applied Analysis. 2016. Energy and Energy-Related Mining in Utah. Utah Governor’s Office 

of Energy Development. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

This report by the Utah governor’s office reviews and analyzes the economic and fiscal impacts sourced 

to Utah’s energy sector, including mining development. It concludes that the industry provides a 

significant portion of the state’s jobs, personal income for its residents, economic activity, and public 

revenues.

Argonne National Laboratory. 2015. GREET model. Internet website: 

https://greet.es.anl.gov.

Greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in transportation model.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-43

Scoping Report 

Associated Press. 2016. “More coal mine layoffs in Wyoming.” Washington Times. June 15, 

2016. Internet website: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/15/more-coalmine-layoffs-in-wyoming/.

This news article discusses layoffs from Buckskin Mine in Wyoming.

Australian Broadcasting Corp. 2016. Linc Energy executives under investigation, may be 

charged over alleged land contamination, May 18. Internet website: http://mobile.abc.net

.au/news/2016-05-18/linc-energy-queensland-government-investigates-possible-charges/

7425174.

Article from Australian public broadcasting related to Linc Energy executives and contamination charges. 

Linc executives may be charged for contaminating swaths of prime agricultural land next to its 

underground coal gasification plant in Queensland.

Backlund, P., et al. US Climate Change Science Program. The Effects of Climate Change on 

Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States.

Chapter 3 on land resources, forests, and arid lands, from assessment on the effects of climate change. 

Full report not found.

Baris, I., et al. 1987. “Epidemiological and environmental evidence of the health effects of 

exposure to erionite fibres: A four-year study in the Cappadocian region of Turkey.” 

International Journal of Cancer 39:10-17.

Abstract of article from the International Journal of Cancer on the epidemiological and environmental 

evidence of health effects from exposure to erionite fibers. The study took place over the span of four 

years in the Cappadocian region of turkey. It was done in response to a noticed high incidence of 

malignant mesotheliomas in areas with exposure to naturally occurring erionite fibers.

Barnett, A. G., et al. “Air pollution and child respiratory health: A case-crossover study in 

Australia and New Zealand.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

171:1272–1278. 

Journal article on a study of the urban centers of Australia and New Zealand showing a strong and 

consistent association between hospital admissions for asthma in children and outdoor air pollutants, 

such as nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide.

Barrasso, J. 2016. US Senate, Washington, DC. July 14, 2016.

Letter to Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell from Senator Barrasso and others asking to alleviate the 

coal leasing moratorium.

Barraza-Villareal, A., et al. 2008. “Air pollution, airway inflammation, and lung function in 

a cohort study of Mexico City schoolchildren.” Environmental Health Perspective 116 (6).

Journal article on a study of Mexico City schoolchildren showing acute airway inflammation and 

decrease in lung function when exposed to fine particulates (PM2.5) from air pollution.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-44 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Barton, A., et al. 2012. “The Pacific oyster, Crassostrea Gigas, shows negative correlation to 

naturally elevated carbon dioxide levels: Implications for near-term ocean acidification 

effects.” Limnology and Oceanography 57(3):698–710.

Journal article on oysters showing the negative effects of ocean acidification from elevated carbon 

dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Bates, N. R., et al. 2010. “Feedback and responses of coral calcification on the Bermuda 

reef system to seasonal changes in biological processes and ocean acidification.” 

Biogeosciences 7:2509–2530.

Journal article on the impacts of ocean acidification on coral, demonstrating that the Bermuda coral reef 

has had a 50 percent reduction in calcification rates, compared to pre-industrial times.

Baugher, M., and De Rocco, T. 1995. BLM press release: Interior Established Royalty Policy 

Committee, names members and sets first meeting for Denver. For release August 1, 

1995.

News release from the Secretary of the Interior notifying the creation of the Royalty Policy Committee 

for the Minerals Management Advisory Board and the members being appointed.

Becker, D. A., et al. 2015. “Impacts of mountaintop mining on terrestrial ecosystem 

integrity: Identifying landscape thresholds for avian species in the central Appalachians, 

United States.” Landscape Ecology 30:339-356.

Journal article on how avian species have a range of responses, primarily negative, to reclaimed land 

resulting from mountaintop removal/valley fill coal mining in central Appalachia.

Beehive Collective. 2016. Internet website: www.beehivecollective.org. 

Website with studies on global and local issues related to coal.

Bernhardt, E. S., and M. A. Palmer. 2011. “The environmental costs of mountaintop 

mining valley fill operations for aquatic ecosystems of the central Appalachians.” Annals of 

the New York Academy o1f Sciences 1223:39-57.

Journal article on the impacts of mountaintop mining with valley fill on southern Appalachian forests and 

their endemic species, such as aquatic salamanders and mussels.

Bernhardt, E. S., et al. 2012. “How many mountains can we mine? Assessing the regional 

degradation of central Appalachian rivers by surface coal mining.” Environmental Science & 

Technology

Journal article on the negative impacts of alkali mine drainage from surface coal mines on regional river 

networks in central Appalachia.

Bernstein, A. S. 2011. “Climate change and children’s health.” Current Opinion in Pediatrics

23:221-226.

Journal article on how climate change could impact children’s health.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-45

Scoping Report 

Bernstein, M. A., and J. Griffin. 2005. Regional Differences in the Price-Elasticity of Demand 

for Energy. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California. 

Report on the Department of Energy (DoE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), 

which has a portfolio of energy efficiency research and development programs intended to spur 

development of energy-efficient technologies. It estimates the benefits of its programs by analyzing their 

effects, using the DoE’s National Energy Modeling System, a complex model of the US energy system.

Black, D., T. McKinnish, and S. Sanders. 2005. “The economic impact of the coal boom and 

bust.” The Economic Journal 115(503):449-476.

Peer-reviewed journal article examines the impact of the coal boom in the 1970s and the subsequent 

coal bust in the 1980s on local labor markets in Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. 

Addresses two main questions: How were non-mining sectors affected by the shocks to the mining 

sector, and how did these effects differ between sectors producing local goods and those producing 

traded goods. Finds evidence of modest employment spillovers into sectors with locally traded goods 

but not into sectors with nationally traded goods. 

Black, G. 2011. “Coal on a roll: Plundering America to power the Asian boom.” Onearth 

Natural Resources Defense Council. Fall 2011.

The article describes the practices of extracting coal in the Powder River Basin and other areas at low 

domestic royalty rates and exporting it to lucrative Asian markets.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance. 2016. Sustainable Energy in America Factbook. 

Bloomberg. Factbook for 2016. 

Records and highlights the important developments that transpired in US energy over the prior 12 

months. It also provides a look back over the past seven years, and in some cases decades, to show 

trends.

Blumm M., and K. Mosman. 2012. “The overlooked role of the National Environmental 

Policy Act in protecting the western environment: NEPA and the Ninth Circuit.”

Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, May 29, 2012.

The paper discusses recent NEPA case law and explores treatment of range of alternatives, including in 

the Ninth Circuit’s Kootenai Tribe case. It held that “The NEPA alternatives requirement must be 

interpreted less stringently when the proposed agency action has a primary and central purpose to 

conserve and protect the natural environment, rather than to harm it . . . [c]ertainly, it was not the 

original purpose of Congress in NEPA that government agencies in advancing conservation of the 

environment must consider alternatives less restrictive of developmental interests.”

BNSF Railway. 2011. Coal Cars. Internet website: Http://www.Bnsf.Com/Customers/

Equipment/Coal-Cars/. 

BNSF Railway specifications for the coal cars used across its system.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-46 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2011. Coal Dust Frequently Asked Questions. Internet website: Http://www.coal

trainfacts.org/docs/BNSF-Coal-Dust-Faqs1.pdf. 

BNSF Railway answers to frequently asked questions about the effects of coal dust.

Boden, T., and B. Andres. 2015. Ranking of the world’s countries by 2013 total CO2

emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring. Internet website: 

Http://Cdiac.Ornl.Gov/Trends/Emis/Top2013.Tot. 

Ranking of the world’s countries by 2013 total CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement 

production, and gas flaring.

Bohan, S. 2012. EPA Compliance and Review Program, Denver, Colorado. July 11, 2012.

Response Letter addressed to Ms. Hazelhurst, the Acting Forest Supervisor Grand Mesa, Umcompahgre 

and Gunnison National Forest from the EPA Region 8. Contains comments on the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Federal Coal Lease Modifications of West Elk Mine. Topic of focus is 

greenhouse gas mitigation.

Bonogofsky, A., A. Jahshan, H. Yu, D. Cohn, and M. MacDonald. 2015. Undermined 

Promise II. National Wildlife Federation. Denver, Colorado.

This joint publication by two conservation orgnaizations analyzes the status of coal surface mine 

reclamation in five western states and updates the 2007 report, Undermined Promise.

Boucher, D., and K. Ferretti-Gallon. 2015. “Halfway there? What the land sector can 

contribute to closing the emissions gap.”

This article discusses agreements on large reductions in global warming emissions to help prevent the 

world impacts caused from climate change. It also discusses mitigations they plan to achieve in the 

2020s.

Bounds, W. J., and K. H. Johannesson. 2007. “Arsenic addition to soils from airborne coal 

dust originating at a major coal shipping terminal.” Water Air Soil Pollution 185:195-207.

Journal article on how airborne dust from coal shipping is contributing additional arsenic to local soils in 

Norfolk, Virginia.

BP (British Petroleum). 2016. BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2016. BP, 

London, England. 

High-quality objective and globally consistent data on world energy markets. The review is one of the 

most widely respected and authoritative publications in the field of energy economics, used for 

reference by the media, academia, world governments, and energy companies. A new edition is 

published every June.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-47

Scoping Report 

Bradbury, J., et al. 2013. WRI, Clearing the air: Reducing upstream GHG emissions from 

US natural gas systems. Internet website: http://www.wri.org/publication/clearing-air

Natural gas production in the United States has increased rapidly in recent years, growing by 23 percent 

from 2007 to 2012. Advances combining horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have enabled 

producers to access vast supplies of natural gas deposits in shale rock formations. This phenomenon has 

helped to reduce energy prices. However, fugitive methane emissions from natural gas extraction and 

processing contribute to global warming. Reducing fugitive methane would make natural gas a cleaner 

energy source than coal.

Brigham, M., et al. 2003. Mercury in Stream Ecosystems—New Studies Initiated by the US 

Geological Survey. Fact Sheet 016-03, US Department of the Interior and US Geological 

Survey.

Fact sheet by the US Geological Survey studying mercury in the environment and how it enters the 

environment.

Bruckner, T., I. A. Bashmakov, and Y. Mulugetta. 2014. Energy Systems. “Climate change 

2014: Mitigation of climate change.” Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York, USA.

This report addresses issues related to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from the 

energy supply sector.

Brunner, D. J., and K. Schultz. 1999. “Effective gob well flaring.” Paper presented at the 

International Coalbed Methane Symposium.

Article providing details on a safe and controlled system of gob well flaring, intending to persuade against 

venting gas from gob wells into the atmosphere. Gob well flaring provides environmental, safety, and 

financial benefits to mining operations. The article provides a mining operation in Australia as an 

application of gob well flaring.

Bryce, R. 2012. The High Cost of Renewable-Electricity Mandates. Manhattan Institute. 

Report about the unaccounted for costs of renewable electricity mandates that states did not account 

for when making them.

Bucks, D. 2013. “Federal coal: Déjà vu all over again.” November 25, 2013.

The paper argues that federal coal policy represents broken promises to the public, similar to broken 

promises to Native Americans in the Powder River Basin area.

Bucks, D. R. 2015. Oversight Hearing, Ensuring Certainty for Royalty Payments on Federal 

Resource Production. Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources, United States House of Representatives. Washington, 

DC.

This is a testimony from Dan R. Bucks, Former Director of the Montana Department of Revenue, urging 

action to ensure a fair return on natural resources.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-48 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2016. Public Management of Federal Coal in the Public Interest. 

This report, by the Former Montana Director of Revenue, is a response to the request for comments by 

the BLM on the scope and analysis to be undertaken for the federal coal programmatic environmental 

impact statement (PEIS) established under Secretarial Order 3338. In substantive terms, this report 

presents a pathway for the PEIS to evaluate and prepare for the successful implementation of new public 

management systems for the federal coal program

Burakowski, E., and M. Magnusson. 2012. Climate Impacts on the Winter Tourism 

Economy in the United States. National Resource Defense Council, Washington, DC. 

NRDC funded study to help policymakers understand both the ski and snowmobile industries’ current 

economic scale, as well as the potential economic impacts that climate change may cause.

Burger, M., and J. Wentz. 2016. Downstream and Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

The Proper Scope of NEPA Review. Columbia Law School .Internet website: 

http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2016/04/05/upstream-and-downstreamgreenhouse-gas-emissions-from-fossil-fuel-production-and-transportation-new-workingpaper-examines- scope-of-federal-analysis-required-under-nepa/.

Article from Columbia Law School examining the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and NEPA 

review. Examines whether and how agencies should account for emissions from activities that occur 

“downstream” of the proposed action, such as from the combustion of fossil fuels and emissions from 

activities that occur “upstream” of the proposed action, such as from the extraction of fossil fuels. This 

article argues that such emissions do typically fall within the scope of indirect and cumulative impacts 

that must be evaluated under NEPA. It provides recommendations on how agencies should evaluate 

such emissions in environmental review documents.

Burger, M. 2016. A Mitigation-Based Rationale for Incorporating a Climate Change 

Impacts Fee into the Federal Coal Leasing Program. Sabin Center for Climate Change 

Law, New York, New York.

Paper by the Columbia Law School that develops an argument for using a mitigation-based rationale to 

deliver a climate change impacts fee on coal extracted from federal lands. It provides suggestions for 

how the Department of the Interior and the BLM can approach an analysis of the possibility in its 

programmatic environmental impact statement.

Burke, R. A., et al. 2014. “Impacts of mountaintop removal and valley fill coal mining on C 

and N processing in terrestrial soils and headwater streams.” Water Air Soil Pollution

185:195-207.

Journal article on the significant impacts of mountaintop removal and valley fill in coal mining on the 

carbon and nitrogen processing in soils, stream sediments, and stream water in Appalachia.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-49

Scoping Report 

Burkhead, N. M., et al. 2001. “Effects of suspended sediment on the reproductive success 

of the tricolor shiner, a crevice-spawning minnow.” Transaction of the American Fisheries 

Society 130(5):959-968.

Journal article on the impacts of excessive sedimentation in rivers and creeks on the reproductive 

success of the tricolor shiner and other benthic-spawning fishes in the southeastern United States.

Burt, E., et al. 2013. Scientific Evidence of Health Effects from Coal Use in Energy 

Generation. School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago.

This document includes scientific evidence of health effects from the use of coal for energy generation. It 

is a resource for those interested in evidence from the health research literature addressing the health 

effects of the use of coal, focusing primarily on air emissions from coal combustion.

Burtraw, D., et al. 2014. Comments to the US Environmental Protection Agency on Its 

Proposed Clean Power Plan. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. 

Comments to the US EPA on its Clean Power Plan proposal.

Cal/EPA and The American Lung Association of California. No date. Health Effects of 

Diesel Exhaust. Cal/EPA’s Office Of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the 

American Lung Association of California.

Factsheet describing the adverse effects of diesel exhaust due to particulates identified as toxic air 

contaminants by the California Air Resources Board.

Caldeira, K., et al. July 27, 2016. Carnegie Institution for Science.

Comment letter submitted and signed by group of scientists expressing the opinion that there should 

not be coal leasing on public lands. They write to urge the Department of the Interior to take 

meaningful action by ending federal coal leasing, extraction, and burning. They cite many sources and 

offer scientific information supporting limiting coal, which they propose is done by ending federal coal 

leasing.

Caldwell et al. 2009. “Total blood mercury concentrations in the US population: 1999-

2006.” Int J Hyg Environ Health 212:588-598.

Article describing the distribution and demographic characteristics of total blood mercury levels in the 

US general population. Article also breaks down age, gender, and racial distribution. They found that 

mercury levels were highest in women and white children.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-50 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

California, State of. 2007. California, State of. 2007. Settlement Agreement, 

ConocoPhillips Company and Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Internet website: 

http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/ConocoPhillips_Agreement.pdf. 

Settlement agreement between ConocoPhillips Company and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General 

of California, on behalf of the People of the State of California, to go forward with the Clean Fuels 

Expansion Project, designed to use the heavy gas oil that is already produced at the Rodeo Refinery to 

instead produce cleaner burning gasoline and diesel fuels. Agreement includes ConocoPhillips 

permanently surrendering its operating permit for plant, conducting a facility-wide energy efficiency 

audit, and doing a greenhouse gas emission audit. 

Cantwell, M. 2016. Letter to Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, regarding self-bonding 

under SMCRA. United States Senate.

Letter from Senator Cantwell expresses concern over misuse of self-bonding provisions under the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, which provide a loophole to leave taxpayers 

responsible for reclamation costs in the event of a coal company bankruptcy and requests investigation 

and increased enforcement.

Cantwell, M. 2016. The Coal Cleanup Taxpayer Protection Act of 2016. US Senate 

Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, Washington, DC.

Summary of proposed Coal Cleanup Taxpayer Protection Act of 2016.

Cantwell, M., and R. Durbin. 2016. Letter to Comptroller General requesting investigation 

of self-bonding practices by coal companies. United States Senate.

The letter from Senators Cantwell and Durbin requests the US Comptroller to initiate an investigation 

into self-bonding under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, in light of the 

bankruptcies of Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources.

Carbon Tracker Initiative. 2015. Assessing Thermal Coal Production Subsidies. September 

2015. Internet website: http://www.carbontracker.org/report/coal-subsidies/.

Report presents a framework for assessing thermal coal production subsidies in a 2035 framework. It 

evaluates supply and demand in the Powder River Basin and Australia and finds substantial subsidies in 

the Powder River Basin.

. 2016. Enough Already: Meeting 2 [degrees] C PRB [Powder River Basin] Coal 

Demand without Lifting the Federal Moratorium. July 2016. Internet website: 

http://www.carbontracker.org/report/enough-already-2c- powder-river-basin-coal-demandfederal-moratorium/.

In this paper, potential coal supply from the Powder River Basin is compared with a demand profile 

restricting global warming to a two degrees Celsius outcome, in line with the upper limit at the recent 

agreement in Paris. Demand for coal over the period is found to be far outweighed by supply from 

existing leases alone, meaning that no new federal acreage in the Powder River Basin needs be leased by 

the federal government through the end of 2040, and the moratorium should be extended.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-51

Scoping Report 

Carbon Tracker Initiative. 2015. The $2 trillion stranded assets danger zone: How fossil 

fuel firms risk destroying investor returns. Internet website: 

http://www.carbontracker.org/report/stranded-assets-danger-zone/. 

Website discussing 2 trillion dollars worth of assets/natural resources that need not be used in order to 

stay under 2 degrees Celsius of global warming.

Carnegie Institution. 2008. “Jet streams are shifting and may alter paths of storms and 

hurricanes.” Science Daily, April 17, 2008.

Article with materials provided by the Carnegie Institution. Examines the shift in Earth’s jet streams, 

believing that it may be in response to global warming. The shifting jet streams have implications for the 

frequency and intensity of future storms, particularly hurricanes.

Center for American Progress. Cutting Subsidies and Closing Loopholes in the US 

Department of the Interior’s Coal Program. January 6, 2015. Internet website: 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2015/01/06/103880/cutting-subsidiesandclosing-loopholes-in-the-u-s-department-of-the-interiors-coal-program/.

White paper examining how coal companies have learned to maximize subsidies by shielding themselves 

from royalty payments through increasingly complex financial and legal mechanisms. States that reform is 

urgently needed to cut these subsidies and to close loopholes that disadvantage other coal producing 

regions and distort US energy markets.

. 2014. Modernizing the Federal Coal Program. December 2014. Internet website: 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2014/12/09/102699/modernizingthe- federal-coal-program/.

Paper finds that the royalty rate significantly undervalues coal and recommends a task force or 

commission to determine fair market value and assess the social cost of carbon.

Center for Biological Diversity. 2015. Grounded: The President’s Power to Fight Climate 

Change, Protect Public Lands by Keeping Publicly Owned Fossil Fuels in the Ground. 

September 2015. Internet website: 

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/keep_it_in_the_ground/pdfs/Grounded.pdf.

This report details the legal authority by which the president can immediately stop new federal fossil fuel 

leasing in the United States, thereby keeping up to 450 billion tons from the global pool of potential 

greenhouse gas pollution. This is equivalent to 13 times the global carbon emissions in 2013 or the 

annual emissions from 118,000 coal-fired power plants. The president can do this now, without 

Congress, either independently or in the context of a binding international agreement. This report 

details the existing executive authority under the three major statutes that govern extraction of federal 

fossil fuels: the Mineral Leasing Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act.

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 2016. Internet website: http://www.c2es.org. 

Coal facts website.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-52 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2016. US Drought Monitor. Internet website: http://www.c2es.org/scienceimpacts/extreme-weather/drought. 

website showing the extent of drought conditions across the US, including the potential impacts to 

agriculture, transportation, wildfire, and energy.

Center for Health, Environment and Justice. 2015. Health Impacts of Mountaintop 

Removal Mining. Internet website: http://chej.org/2013/04/26/health-impacts-ofmountaintop-removal-mining/.

This is the introduction page that summarized the health impacts of mountaintop removal mining. It is 

written be an advocacy organization with a focus on environmental health.

Center for Health and the Global Environment. 2011. Mining Coal Mounting Costs: The 

Life Cycle Consequences of Coal. Harvard Medical School. Boston, Massachusetts.

Report detailing the cost to the environment and human health of using coal as energy. Provides 

statistics that expand on the argument. Document also provides visual aids to the coal life cycle.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. Coal Dust. Internet website: Http://

www.Cdc.Gov/Niosh/Npg/Npgd0144.Html. 

Pocket guide to the chemical hazards associated with coal dust.

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. 2016. Internet website: 

www.emdat.be. 

Database of information on disasters around the globe. 

Chen, I., et al. 2011. “Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate 

warming.” Science 333

Journal article detailing how the distribution of many terrestrial organisms are shifting in latitude or 

elevation in response to changing climate.

Chen, Y., et al. 2004. “Influence of relatively low level of particulate air pollution on 

hospitalization for COPD in elderly people.” Inhalation Toxicology 16:21-25.

Journal article describing the association of low levels of particulate matter air pollution on 

hospitalization of elderly people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Cheng, M. 2013. “WHO agency: Air pollution causes.” USA Today. Internet website: 

http://usat.ly/1aRY2oY.

Website article on air pollution in London, in response to International Agency for Research on 

Cancer’s declaration that air pollution is a carcinogen. This was the first time air pollution in its entirety 

has been classified as cancer causing.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-53

Scoping Report 

Christian, M., and H. Fawad. 2015. Despite Its Cost Edge, PRB Coal Production Fell Almost 

10%. SNL Energy. 

Article with details on the state of coal production in the Powder River Basin area. Production is falling, 

despite coal cost advantage over other US coal areas.

Cimons, M. 2016. Keep It in the Ground. Greenpeace International.

Report examining the coal, oil, and natural gas deposits around the world that pose the greatest risk to 

the climate if burned for fuel. Includes an overview of efforts by fossil fuel companies and their political 

allies to develop these resources.

Clark, J. 1996. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 

Letter with the biological opinion of the US Fish and Wildlife Service in regard to surface mining and 

Endangered Species Act consultation.

Clean Air Task Force. 2001. Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal. June 

2001. Internet website: 

http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Cradle_to_Grave.pdf.

Report discusses pollution from electric power, especially coal. The process of mining and combusting 

coal releases numerous toxic pollutants into the soil, air, water, and human bodies. The report discusses 

the toxins found in coal products and the health hazards associated with them and recommends cleaner 

coal production.

. 2013. Comparison of CO2 Abatement Costs in the United States for Various Low 

and No Carbon Resources.

This is a report that uses levelized costs of electricity to assess the abatement costs of low to no carbon 

resources.

Clean Energy Action. 2009. Coal: Cheap and abundant - or is it? Why Americans should 

stop assuming that the US has a 200-year supply of coal.

The report evaluates the practicality of accessing coal reserves that are deeply buried or on federal land. 

It and concludes that rather than having a 200-year supply of coal, the United States has a much shorter 

planning horizon for moving beyond coal-fired power plants; the planning horizon could be as short as 

20-30 years.

. 2013. Trends in US Delivered Coal Costs, October. Internet website: 

https://cleanenergyaction.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/us_coal_costs-2004-2012.pdf.

The report tracks coal costs from 2004, when the price decline began to reverse, through 2012, 

showing upward trends in price in each coal-producing state.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-54 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Clement, J. P., et al. 2014. A Strategy for Improving the Mitigation Policies and Practices of 

the Department of the Interior Energy and Climate Change Task Force.

Report on the challenges and opportunities associated with developing and implementing an effective 

mitigation policy. It describes key principles and actions necessary to successfully shift from project-byproject management to consistent, landscape-scale, science-based management of the lands and 

resources for which the Department of the Interior is responsible.

Climate Accountability Institute. 2015. Memorandum to the Center for Biological 

Diversity and Friends of the Earth – USA.

Monograph presenting the results of an analysis of the oil, natural gas, and coal produced by private 

companies that have leases on federal lands for fiscal years 2003 through 2014. It estimates the emission 

of carbon dioxide that results from the marketing and end-use of the carbon fuels made available 

through federal leases.

Climate Accountability Institute. 2016. Scientists Support Ending Coal Leasing on Public 

Lands to Protect the Climate, Public Health, and Biodiversity. Internet website: 

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/energy/dirty_energy_developme

nt/coal/pdfs/16_7_26_Scientist_sign-on_letter_Coal_PEIS.pdf.

This is a letter from a group of scientists to Sally Jewell, Neil Kornze, and Mitchell Leverette stating 

support for ending the federal coal leasing program on public lands.

Climate Action Tracker. 2016. Internet website: Http://Climateactiontracker.Org/

Countries/USA. 

Website tracking the United States intended nationally determined contribution to reduce net 

greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate Advisors. 2016. Finalized Policies Get US Halfway to Meeting Climate Goal. 

Internet website: http://www.climateadvisers.com/2025_target_updated/. 

Article discussing historic climate agreement, emission regulations, and how that will help the United 

States reach climate goals.

Climate Interactive. No date. Climate Scoreboard UN Climate Pledge Analysis. Internet 

website: Https://www.Climateinteractive.Org/Programs/Scoreboard/. 

Website showing the progress that national contributions to the United Nations climate negotiations 

will make, assuming no further action after the end of the country’s pledge period.

CO2 Now. 2016. Annual Global Carbon Emissions. Internet website: Https://www.Co2.

Earth/Global-Co2-Emissions?. 

Website showing the annual global carbon emissions and their sources.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-55

Scoping Report 

Cohan, D. 2016. “When coal companies go bankrupt, the mining doesn’t always stop.” The 

Hill, Washington, DC. 

News article about the recent bankruptcies in the US coal industry and how coal companies going 

bankrupt does not mean mining stops and the negative impacts this situation can cause.

Colorado Energy Office. 2016. Coal Mine Methane in Colorado Market Research Report. 

March 2016.

Market research report by Ruby Canyon Engineering to identify opportunities to use coal mine methane 

as a fuel source to generate electricity. Coal mine methane is considered to be eligible as a renewable 

energy source. Three main points are investigated: assessment of current coal mine methane 

opportunities in Colorado, analysis of potential market size in Colorado, and identification of key 

barriers. The study concludes that there are 89 megawatts of energy potential from Colorado mines and 

that there is opportunity in methane-to-energy projects there.

Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. 2016. Month Coal Summary Report. 

Colorado. Internet website: 

http://mining.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/07Summary16.pdf.

This is a datasheet of production, workers, and other statistics from each mine in Colorado, as prepared 

by the state regulatory agency.

Colorado Mining Association. 2015. 2015 Colorado Coal Report Production and 

Employment. Colorado Mining Association Denver, Colorado.

Coal report with information on production and employment related to coal in Colorado.

Commission on Fair Market Value Policy for Federal Coal Leasing. 1984. Fair Market Value 

Policy for Federal Coal Leasing. Commission on Fair Market Value Policy for Federal Coal 

Leasing, Washington, DC. February 1984.

Report on finding fair market value policy recommendations for the federal coal leasing program. The 

Commission on Fair Market Value Policy for Federal Coal Leasing, an interagency governmental 

commission, produced a report as mandated by the 1983 Supplemental Appropriations Act (PL 98-63). 

The report outlines the commission’s recommendations for enhancing management of the federal coal 

leasing process and improving the prospects for the nation to recover a fair market value for leased coal 

reserves.

Committee Majority Staff. 2016. Hearing entitled “A Review of EPA’s Regulatory Activity 

During the Obama Administration: Energy and Industrial Sectors.”

Meeting agenda to the hearing entitled “A Review of EPA’s Regulatory Activity During the Obama 

Administration: Energy and Industrial Sectors.”
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-56 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Considine, T. J. 2013. “Powder River Basin coal: Powering America.” Natural Resources

2013(4):514-533.

Journal article details that the Powder River Basin produces a huge amount of coal that powers the 

United States and makes the case that the economic nature of the coal reserves is beneficial for the 

United States.

Cooper, T. F., et al. 2008. “Declining coral calcification in massive porites in two nearshore 

regions of the northern Great Barrier Reef.” Global Change Biology 14:529–538.

Journal article describing how recent increases in sea water temperatures have led to unprecedented 

declines in coral calcification on the northern Great Barrier Reef.

Council on Environmental Quality. 2014. Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments 

and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate 

Change in NEPA Reviews. CEQ, Washington, DC. Federal Register 79(247):77802-77831.

Federal Register notice that the Council on Environmental Quality is publishing revised draft guidance on 

how National Environmental Policy Act analysis and documentation should address greenhouse gas 

emissions and the impacts of climate change.

Crowl, T. A., et al. 2008. “The spread of invasive species and infectious disease as drivers of 

ecosystem change.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6(5):238-246.

Journal article on how climate change, land use, and transport vectors interact in complex ways to 

determine the spread of native and nonnative invasive species and pathogens and their effects on 

ecosystem dynamics. Understanding the interactions of invasive species, disease vectors, and pathogens 

with other drivers of ecosystem change is critical to human health and economic well-being.

Dale Jones, E. B., et al. 1999. “Effects of riparian forest removal on fish assemblages in 

southern Appalachian Streams.” Institute of Ecology and Program in Conservation 

Ecology and Sustainable Development.

Paper looking at deforestation of riparian zones and how removing the forest leads to shifts in the 

structure of stream fish assemblages, due to decreases in fish species that do not guard hidden eggs or 

that depend on swift, shallow water and increases in fishes that guard their young in pebble or pit nests 

or that live in slower, deeper water.

Davenport, C. 2014. “Climate change deemed growing security threat by military 

researchers.” The New York Times. May 13, 2014.

The New York Times investigating the threat climate change poses on national security and global political 

conflict. Mentions building political support for President Obama’s climate change agenda, which includes

a regulation to cut pollution from coal-fired power plants. The ways in which climate change is affecting 

military policy include increasing global instability, opening the Arctic, raising sea level, and increasing 

extreme storms. The article calls climate change a “threat multiplier” and a “catalyst for conflict.”
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-57

Scoping Report 

de Hartog, J. J., et al. 2009. “Effects of fine and ultrafine particles on cardiorespiratory 

symptoms in elderly subjects with coronary heart disease: The ULTRA study.” American 

Journal of Epidemiology 157(7).

Journal article summarizing the results of the ULTRA Study, which looked at the association between 

fine and ultrafine particulate air pollution and cardiorespiratory health. Researchers concluded some 

negative effects to the cardiac system do occur, mostly from PM2.5.

De’ath, G., et al. 2009. “Declining coral calcification on the Great Barrier Reef.” Science

333:116-119.

Journal article describing how coral calcification at the Great Barrier Reef has been reduced recently 

due to declining pH of the upper sea water layers from absorption of increasing atmospheric carbon 

dioxide.

DeForest, C. E. 1999. Watershed Restoration, Jobs-in-the-Woods, and Community 

Assistance: Redwood National Park and Northwest Forest Plan. Spokane, Washington.

This report distills the legacies of the Redwood National Park expansions legislation and compares them 

with the Northwest Forest Plan. It also highlights information gaps about the efficacy of watershed 

restoration, worker retraining, and community redevelopment funding.

Dingell, D. 2015. Letter to L. Gohmert, Chair of Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations for House Committee on Natural Resources.

The letter urges an investigation into the practice of self-bonding by coal companies, especially the use 

of subsidiary companies to meet self-bonding requirements, which puts taxpayer dollars at risk when 

coal companies lack sufficient funds for reclamation.

Dingell, D., et al. 2016. Letter to Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, re: Coal Selfbonding. US House of Representatives. June 10, 2016.

US Representatives express concern over practice of self-bonding among coal companies after Peabody 

Energy becomes the third major coal producer to file for bankruptcy protection, after Arch Coal and 

Alpha Natural Resources. Taxpayers are at risk of having to shoulder reclamation costs at these mines 

as a result of lax enforcement of self-bonding rules. The Department of the Interior is urged to 

strengthen self-bonding requirements and discourage the practice.

Donner, S. D. 2009. “Coping with commitment: Projected thermal stress on coral reefs 

under different future scenarios.” PLOS ONE 4(6).

Journal article about how mass coral bleaching can occur due to periods of anomalously warm ocean 

temperatures, which can occur from human-caused climate change, and how greenhouse gas mitigation 

altering the near-term forecast for coral reefs would be limited by time lags in physical climate response.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-58 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Donoghue, A. M. 2004. “Occupational health hazards in mining: An overview.”

Occupational Medicine 54:283-289.

Review article outlining the physical, chemical, biological, ergonomic, and psycho-social occupational 

health hazards of mining and associated metallurgical processes, including exposure to coal dust and 

crystalline silica.

Douberly, E. 2013. “Fire protection guidelines for handling and storing [Powder River 

Basin] coal.” Power Magazine.

The Powder River Basin Coal Users’ Group has developed recommended fire-prevention 

practices/guidelines for plants that burn Powder River Basin coal by itself or in blends. The guidelines are 

not equipment-specific, because the physical layouts of coal-handling facilities vary significantly and 

because all fires are unique. The guidelines are not comprehensive; their purpose is to recommend 

general practices.

Doug. 2009. Work safety blog. Internet website: http://www.blog4safety.com/2009/10/

dangerousjobcoalmining/.

Blog post informing on coal mining accidents. Describes coal mining as one of America’s top ten most 

dangerous jobs. Discusses precautions that are being taken to improve safety in coal mining and details 

on what makes the job so dangerous.

Doyle Trading Consultants. 2016. Coal Industry Turns the Corner. Doyle Trading 

Consultants, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

Report with overview of coal industry, capital structures reset, and conclusion. 

Dubas, G., and D. Mallory. 2010. Assessment of Water Quality Impacts from Coalbed 

Methane-Produced Water Discharge in the Purgatoire River Watershed. Metro State 

College of Denver, ENV 4970.

Metro state study examines extraction of coal bed methane (CBM) and water quality impacts. States 

that CBM brings large volumes of water, containing solutes or suspended sediments, to the surface. The 

produced water is usually disposed of by being discharged into surface waters. This study in the 

Purgatoire River watershed found that CBM water discharge may slightly increase salinity downstream 

from CBM production sodium concentrations, which may result in ecosystem degradation and water 

management issues for downstream users.

Earthjustice. No date. Coal Mines Clouding America’s Air. Internet website: Earthjustice

.org/news/press/2011/coal-mines-clouding-america-s-air.

Article states that a group of conservation organizations has sued the US EPA over its failure to protect 

public health from air pollution from coal mines. The EPA has set clean air standards for coal-fired 

power plants, coal processing plants, and gravel mines, but not for coal mines. Emissions include 

methane, nitrogen dioxide, volatile organics, and particulate matter.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-59

Scoping Report 

Eby, L. A., et al. 2014. “Evidence of climate-induced range contractions in bull trout 

(Salvelinus confluentus) in a Rocky Mountain watershed, USA.” PLOS ONE 9(6).

Journal article on how bull trout are moving to higher, cooler thermal refuges as water temperatures 

increase in the Rocky Mountains of the United States, as a result of climate change and global warming.

EcoShift Consulting. 2016. Over-leased: How production horizons of already leased federal 

fossil fuels outlast global carbon budgets. July 2016. Internet website: 

www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/keep_it_in_the_ground/pdfs/Over-leased-ReportEcoShift.pdf.

Report documents that already leased federal coal will last through 2041, beyond the time frame needed 

for steep carbon cuts. Argues that no new federal coal should be leased to meet global climate 

objectives.

Ecosystem Marketplace. 2015. Converging at the Crossroads, State of Forest Carbon 

Finance.

This paper discusses the convergence of avoided deforestation shifts toward payments for results and 

the ramp up in payments for emissions reductions.

. 2016. Not so niche: Co-benefits at the Intersection of Forest Carbon and 

Sustainable Development.

Report on small developments and projects in the forest marketplace and tracked impacts and cobenefits.

Ecotrust. No date. Oregon’s Restoration Economy, Investing in natural assets for the 

benefit of communities and salmon. Internet website: https://ecotrust.org/media/WWRIRestoration-Economy-Brochure.pdf

This report discusses restoring watersheds as a starting point for a different kind of economic 

prosperity. It was prepared by Ecotrust, a conservation organization.

Ellenberger, J. H., and A. E. Byrne. 2015. Population Status and Trends of Big Game and 

Greater Sage-Grouse in Southeast Montana and Northeast Wyoming. 

Consultant report analyzing status and trends in populations of big game and greater sage-grouse 

populations in southeast Montana and northeast Wyoming. Harvest data were used for analysis, from 

1980 through 2012. Deer and pronghorn populations appear vulnerable, while elk appear less so. In 

Montana, greater sage-grouse populations appeared stable, while in Wyoming their numbers had 

declined significantly.

Energy Venture Analysts. 2015. Coal Sales Prices used for Valuation and Payment of 

Federal Royalties. Energy Ventures Analysis, Inc. Arlington, Virginia. 

Peer review of previous studies by Headwaters Economics. Concludes that Headwaters studies were 

flawed and of poor quality.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-60 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Epstein, A. No date. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. Internet website:

http://industrialprogress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Moral-Case-for-FossilFuels.pdf.

This report discusses the perception of the fossil fuel industry and suggests that we refute the central 

idea that fossil fuels destroy the planet. It was prepared by Center for Industrial Progress, a for-profit 

think-tank.

Epstein, P. R., et al. 2011. “Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal.” Annals of the New 

York Academy of Sciences 1219:73-98.

Journal article about the hazards of coal and the resultant waste stream, including estimates of the costs 

of coal’s externalities to the US public, where, if these costs were included, would double to triple the 

price of coal to make wind, solar, and other forms of nonfossil fuel power generation economically 

competitive.

Erickson, P., and M. Lazarus. 2014. “Impact of the Keystone XL pipeline on global oil 

markets and greenhouse gas emissions.” Nature Climate Change DOI: 10.1038.

Article detailing how energy transportation structures shape energy systems, specifically discussing the 

Keystone XL pipeline.

. 2016. How would phasing out US federal leases for fossil fuel extraction affect CO2

emissions and 2 [degree] C goals? Stockholm Environment Institute working paper.

Working document for the Stockholm Environment Institute that looks into US fossil fuel production, 

detailing recent trends and outlook, the 2 degree Celsius global warming cap, the effect of federal leasing 

decisions on fossil fuel production, and reductions in CO2 emissions from restricted leasing. Paper 

examines the potential emissions implications of a supply-side measure under consideration in the 

United States: ceasing to issue new leases for fossil fuel extraction on federal lands and waters, and 

avoiding renewals of existing leases for resources that are not yet producing. The analysis finds that 

under such a policy, US coal production would steadily decline, moving closer to a pathway consistent 

with a global 2 degree Celsius temperature limit.

Espey, J. A., and M. Espey. 2004. “Turning on the lights: A meta-analysis of residential 

electricity demand elasticities.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 36(1):65-81.

Journal article on how price and income elasticities of residential demand for electricity from previous 

studies are used as the dependent variables, with data characteristics, model structure, and estimation 

technique as independent variables. The findings of this research can help better inform public policy 

makers, regulators, and utilities about the responsiveness of residential electricity consumers to price 

and income changes.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-61

Scoping Report 

Esposito, V., et al. 2011. “Climate change and ecosystem services: The contribution of and 

impacts on federal public lands in the United States.” USDA Forest Service Proceedings 

RMRS-P-64.

Paper completed to contribute to better understanding of how US conservation lands may be affected 

by climate change. Outlines a method and preliminary estimates of the value of ecosystem services 

harbored or produced in abundance on those lands, as well as how that value may change under climate 

change scenarios.

Esteves, A. M., D. Franks, and F. Vanclay. 2012. “Social impact assessment: The state of 

the art.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(1):34-42. DOI:10.1080/14615517.2012

.660356

Peer-reviewed journal article. analyzes the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats facing 

Social Impact Assessment (SIA). Article asserts that the SIA community needs to revisit core concepts, 

such as culture, community, power, human rights, gender, justice, place, resilience, and sustainable 

livelihoods. It is incumbent on SIA practitioners to educate proponents, regulators, and colleagues about 

these concepts and to embed them into practice norms. Stronger engagement with the emerging trends 

of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC); human rights impact assessment; social performance 

standards; supply chain management; governance; local content; and economic development will 

improve the relevance and demonstrable value of SIA to all stakeholders. 

Ewing, S. A., et al. 2010. “Pb isotopes as an indicator of the Asian contribution to 

particulate air pollution in urban California.” Environmental Science & Technology

44(23):8911-8916.

Journal article testing whether lead isotope ratios in airborne particles can be used to directly evaluate 

the Asian contribution to airborne particles of human origin in western North America.

Executive Office of the President of the United States. 2016. The Economics of Coal 

Leasing on Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers. White House, 

Washington, DC.

This report focuses on the issue of whether the federal coal leasing program provides a fair return to 

the taxpayer and draws on relevant academic research to provide an economic perspective. A review of 

the coal leasing program indicates that it has been structured in a way that misaligns incentives going 

back decades, resulting in a distorted coal market with an artificially low price for most federal coal and 

unnecessarily low government revenue from the leasing program.

. 2013. The President’s Climate Action Plan. Internet website: https://www.white

house.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf. 

President Obama’s climate action plan to cut carbon pollution in the United States, to prepare the 

United States for the impacts of climate change, and to lead international efforts to combat global 

climate change and prepare for its impacts.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-62 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Ezzati et al. 2004. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks. Volume 1. World Health 

Organization. Geneva.

Book produced by the World Health Organization on disease and mortality rates. Includes topics on 

how to reduce risk and the role and relative magnitude of diseases and injuries. Intended to guide policy 

and programs.

Fabry, V. J., et al. 2008. “Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem 

processes.” ICES Journal Of Marine Science 65(3):414-432.

Journal article analyzing the effects of ocean acidification and the synergistic impacts of other 

anthropogenic stressors, which provide great potential for widespread changes to marine ecosystems.

Farrell, C. 2012. “A just transition: Lessons learned from the environmental justice 

movement.” Duke Forum for Law and Social Change 4:45 (2012).

Article examining the role of the Environmental Justice Movement in the fossil fuel economy. It points 

out how the fossil fuel economy has disproportionately impacted low-income communities and 

communities of color. The article uses two case studies to explore the role of environmental justice 

approaches in a just transition to a green economy. Three main points are highlighted: the need for 

environmental policy transformation, the necessity for communities to be engaged in the change, and the 

need for a holistic approach in designing the transition.

Feely, R. A. 2009. “Ocean acidification: Present conditions and future changes in a highCO2 world.” Oceanography 22(4).

Journal article about the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the global ocean with resultant fundamental 

changes in seawater chemistry that could have dramatic impacts on biological ecosystems in the upper 

ocean.

Ferret.com.au. 2014. Article: Addressing a noxious issue—making blasting safer. Internet 

website: http://www.ferret.com.au/articles/in-focus/addressing-a-noxious-issue-makingblasting-safer-n2506747

The article discusses episodes of nitrogen dioxide exposure from blasting at coal mines. Nitrogen 

dioxide can form nitric acid in lungs and has required hospitalization of miners. Investigations are 

underway on how to minimize the formation of the gas in blasting operations.

Finkelman, R. B. 2004. “Potential health impacts of burning coal beds and waste banks.” 

International Journal of Coal Geology 59:19-24.

Journal article on the uncontrolled release of pollutants from burning coal beds and waste banks, which 

present potential environmental and human health hazards. Emissions of large volumes of greenhouse 

gases from burning coal beds possibly contribute to climate change, which alters ecosystems and 

patterns of disease occurrence across the globe.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-63

Scoping Report 

Finkelman, R. B., et al. 2002. “Health impacts of coal and coal use: Possible solutions.”

International Journal of Coal Geology 50:425-443.

Journal article considering several studies on the connection between human health and potential 

environmental problems—particularly related to coal—by cooperators in the geoscience and medical 

disciplines.

Fisher, J. et al. 2010. “Co-benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy in Utah.”

Synapse. 

Report discussing current energy generation in Utah and future directions with economic values.

Flegal, A., and D. Smith. 1992. “Lead levels in pre-Industrial humans.” New England Journal 

of Medicine 326:1293-1294.

Article detailing the concentration of lead in the blood and bones of humans, comparing pre-Industrial 

humans to modern humans.

. 1992. “Current needs for increased accuracy and precision in measurements of 

low levels of lead in blood.” Environmental Research 50:125-133.

Abstract from article assessing the need for increased accuracy and precision in measurements of low 

levels of lead in blood. Provides information on current methods and reasons why they are inadequate. 

Blames analytical limitations on contamination bias during sample collection. Suggests that trace metalclean procedures be adopted.

Folder. Various dates. Letters from citizen Groups. 2012-2015.

Folder containing 21 letters from citizen groups.

Folder. Various dates. Letters regarding coal leasing delays. April 2015, November 2013, 

and November 2015.

Folder containing three subfolders: April 2015 Leasing Delays FOIA response, Nov 2013 Leasing Delays 

FOIA, Nov 2015 Leasing Delays FOIA response. Seventeen total documents on coal lease delays.

Foti, R., et al. 2013. “Signs of critical transition in the Everglades wetlands in response to 

climate and anthropogenic changes.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

110(16):6296-6300.

Journal article focusing on the Everglades National Park and assessing the impact of changes in the 

hydrologic regime, as well as habitat loss, on the spatial configuration of vegetation species.

Fox, P. 2015. Environmental, Health and Safety Impacts of the Proposed Oakland Bulk and 

Oversized Terminal. Prepared for the Sierra Club. September 21, 2015.

Report prepared for the Sierra Club by a consulting engineer on the proposed Oakland bulk and 

oversized terminal. The author concludes that many adverse impacts would result if coal were imported 

at the proposed terminal and that none of these impacts were anticipated in the CEQA review of this 

project.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-64 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Friedmann, J. No date. An open letter to the US coal industry. Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory. 

Open letter to US coal industry from Dr. Julio Friedmann, Senior Advisor for Energy Innovation at the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Letter is an indictment of the path that the US coal industry 

has taken and suggests that a low-carbon pathway should be pursued.

Frieler, K., et al. 2013. “Limiting global warming to 2 degrees C unlikely to save most coral 

reefs.” Nature Climate Change (3):165-170. Internet website: 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n2/pdf/nclimate1674.pdf.

This report provides a comprehensive global study of coral bleaching in terms of global mean 

temperature change, based on an extended set of emissions scenarios and models. It is from a peerreviewed scientific journal.

Fuchs, B. USDA. 2016. Internet website: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/.

USDA website with drought monitor map that refreshes daily. Color coded to show areas from 

abnormally dry through exceptional drought. Shows the most drought in California and in the South.

Funes, Y. 2016. “What leaving fossil fuels behind can do for inequality.” Yes! Magazine, 

2016. Bainbridge Island, Washington.

Essay about the reliance and negative impacts of fossil fuel booms and that the transition to more energy 

efficient and renewable choices needs to happen to help solve inequality impacts.

Funk, J., and S. Saunders. 2014. “Rocky Mountain forests at risk: Confronting climatedriven impacts from insects, wildfires, heat, and drought.” Union of Concerned Scientists 

and Rocky Mountain Climate Organization. September 2014.

The report describes threats to the forests of the Rocky Mountain region from tree-killing insects, 

wildlife, and heat/drought stress. These stresses are influenced by global warming, which is bringing 

hotter and drier conditions, thereby amplifying other stresses.

Garfin, G., A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy, eds. 2013. Assessment of 

Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National 

Climate Assessment. A report by the Southwest Climate Alliance. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. 531 pp.

Technical report published as one of a series of technical inputs to the National Climate Assessment 

2013 report. Report is an assessment of climate change for the Southwest region of the United States.

Geiling, N. 2016. The Plan To Revive Big Coal’s Fortunes Isn’t Panning Out. Think 

Progress.

New article about the difficulties faced in exporting Powder River Basin coal to foreign markets and the 

changing conditions that lead to it
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-65

Scoping Report 

Geiser, M. et al. 2005. Ultrafine Particles Cross Cellular Membranes by Nonphagocytic 

Mechanisms in Lungs and in Cultured Cells. Environmental Health Perspectives. 113: 1555-

1560.

Journal article investigating ultrafine particles in lungs and their toxic potential. Study was done using rats 

and aerosol inhalation. The results agreed with human studies that inhalation of ultrafine carbon 

particles affected pulmonary diffusing capacity.

Gerarden, T., W. S. Reeder, and J. H, Stock. 2016. Federal Coal Program Reform, the 

Clean Power Plan, and the Interaction of Upstream and Downstream Climate Policies. 

The Harvard Project on Climate Agreements. Discussion Paper 16-82. June 2016.

Paper studying government coal leasing and the interaction between specific upstream policy, 

incorporating a carbon adder into federal coal royalties, and downstream emissions. The paper offers 

statistics and models to provide quantitative results.

Gerking, S., et al. Mineral Tax Incentives, Mineral Production And the Wyoming Economy.

University of Wyoming.

Report that presents economic models for analyzing effects of tax incentives and environmental 

regulations as well as the relationship between mineral production and the Wyoming economy on a 

larger scale

Gerking, S., and S. F. Hamilton. 2008. What explains the increased utilization of Powder 

River Basin coal in electric power generation? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 

90(4):933-950.

This article examines possible explanations for increased utilization of Powder River Basin coal in 

electric power generation that occurred over the last two decades. Did more stringent environmental 

policy motivate electric power plants to switch to less polluting fuels? Or, did greater use of Powder 

River Basin coal occur because relative price changes altered input markets in favor of this fuel. A key 

finding is that factors other than environmental policy such as the decline in railroad freight rates 

together with elastic demand by power plants were major contributors to the increased utilization of 

this fuel. Peer-reviewed journal article.

Gilber, R. et al. 1988. “Radionuclide transport from soil to air, native vegetation, kangaroo 

rats and grazing cattle on the Nevada test site.” Health Phys. 55: 869-87.

Abstract from journal article on studies conducted at two nuclear fission sites and two nonnuclear sites. 

The sites were reviewed on soil particle-size distribution and physical-chemical characteristics of 

radioactive particles investigating the transfer of transuranic radionuclides.

Gillette News Record. 2008. Nitrogen dioxide from mine blast causes orange cloud. Internet 

website: http://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/article_6ba2343a-63ff-5dce-a987-

2c426e41339c.html?mode=print.

News report of a blasting explosion at an Australian mine causing release of nitrogen dioxide and fuel 

oil, toxic to humans. The company stated it has rules to limit blasts to minimize exposure to local 

residents.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-66 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Gillingham, K. 2016. Future Direction of Coal Markets: A Focus on Federal Coal Policy. 

Yale University.

Presentation from Yale University with focus on coal in the market system. It gives overview of DOI 

PEIS Process, Fair Return, and Climate Change

Gillis, J. 2013. “Global temperatures highest in 4,000 Years.” The New York Times. March 7, 

2013.

Article on global temperatures being higher than any time in the last 4,000 years. The article reports 

that scientists expect this to get worse, and human activity is to blame. Brings up the point that living 

things can adapt to change, but the rate of change is what poses a challenge.

. 2016. “Climate model predicts west Antarctic ice sheet could melt rapidly.” The

New York Times, March 30, 2016.

News article about a new model suggesting that the West Antarctic ice sheet is vulnerable to global 

warming and could have catastrophic impacts within the next 100 years on society

Gledhill, D. K., et al. 2008. “Ocean Acidification of the Greater Caribbean Region 1996–

2006.” Journal of Geophysical Research 113.

Journal article about the uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the ocean and resultant acidification 

and decrease in carbonate mineral saturation state, which could affect some of the most fundamental 

biological and geochemical processes of the sea in coming decades.

Glick, P. 2006. Fueling the Fire: Global Warming, Fossil Fuels and the Fish and Wildlife of 

the American West. National Wildlife Federation. 

Document on global warming being driven by burning coal, oil and gas. Includes facts about the effects of 

climate change, and the expansion of oil and gas development

Glustrom, L. 2013. Warning: Faulty Reporting of US Coal Reserves. A Report by Clean 

Energy Action. 

Article investigating remaining US coal deposits. Using geological and financial data they believe that 

there is reason to believe that we are reaching the end of US coal deposits. Addresses the public 

opinion that the United States has a “200 year supply of cheap coal.”
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-67

Scoping Report 

Godby, et al. 2015. The Impact of the Coal Economy on Wyoming. Center for Energy 

Economics and Public Policy. February 2015.

Paper examining the impacts of coal economy in Wyoming. This study addresses this information gap by 

describing the importance of the coal sector to Wyoming’s economy today. It documents the risks and 

challenges facing the coal industry in the future due to market conditions and regulatory threats, and 

using the most recent data available, conducts an impact analysis to determine how these risks could 

affect the Wyoming economy and state revenues through 2030. The potential impacts of proposed 

carbon regulations introduced by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan are 

also estimated, as are the potential impacts that large-scale international coal exports could have on 

Wyoming’s economy. This report concludes with analysis of the policy choices Wyoming faces in 

response to these market challenges.

Gohlke, J. M., et al. 2011. “Estimating the global public health implications of electricity 

and coal consumption.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119(6):821-826.

Journal article about how increased electricity consumption in countries with infant mortality of less 

than 100 in 1,000 live births does not lead to greater health benefits, whereas coal consumption has 

significant detrimental health impacts.

Golder Associates. 2012. Environmental Assessment: Bledsoe Coal Lease Kyes-53865. 

Golder Associates, Inc., Lakewood, Colorado.

Environmental assessment for the Bledsoe Coal lease in Kentucky, which presents an analysis for 

offering KYES-53865 for leasing by the BLM with consent by the USFS Daniel Boone National Forest. 

Includes affected environment and environmental consequences related to this potential lease, and, 

more generally, the issues around coal leasing and impacts related to coal mining.

Gomez, J. 2014. United States Government Accountability Office. Office of Public Affairs, 

Washington, DC. July 24, 2014.

GAO report describes the participating entities and processes and methods the Interagency Working

Group on Social Cost of Carbon used to develop the 2010 and 2013 estimates. GAO reviewed 

executive orders, Office of Management and Budget guidance, the Technical Support Document, its 

2013 update, and other key documents.

Grandjean, and Landrigan, P. 2014. “Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity.”

Lancet Neurol. 13:330-338

Article from the University of Southern Denmark on neurodevelopmental disabilities and their relation 

to industrial chemicals. Article proposes a global prevention strategy, where untested chemicals should 

not be presumed to be safe for brain development, so all chemicals in use and new chemicals must be 

tested for developmental neurotoxicity.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-68 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. 2014. Closing 

Coal: Economic and Moral Incentives. May 2014. Internet website: http://www.lse.ac.uk/

GranthamInstitute/wp- content/uploads/2014/05/Closing-Coal-economic-and-moralincentives.pdf

This paper makes the case for implementing climate change policy to close the global coal industry. Coal 

is singled out because of its high emissions intensity, low rents per unit value, local environmental costs, 

and sheer scale. Direct supply policy—the sequenced closure of coal mines—may lead to less policy 

leakage across countries and time than other policies, based on demand or price management.

Greenpeace. 2016. Internet website: http://issuu.com/greenpeaceinternational/docs/energyrevolution-2015-full-hr/1?e=2537715/30188730.

Greenpeace website on the energy revolution. Contains an interactive 364-page document called Energy 

[R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook 2015. 100% energy for all. Provides a guide to what 

they believe the future of energy should look like and how to get there.

. No date. Leasing Coal, Fueling Climate Change: How the Federal Coal Leasing 

Program Undermines President Obama’s Climate Plan. 

Paper analyzing the issue of how a federal program that increases the supply of coal, as with BLM leasing 

public lands, would be reconciled with President Obama’s Climate Action Plan and what are the 

potential impacts of carbon pollution from these leases.

Greenpeace USA. 2016. Corporate Welfare for Coal: The Biggest Coal Mining Companies 

Depend on Subsidized Federal Coal, even as They Attack Federal Climate and Clean Air 

Policies. March 2016. Internet website: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/corporatewelfare- for-coal/.

Greenpeace paper examines federal subsides for coal.

Grijalva, R., et al. 2016. Letter to Secretary Jewell on Coal Reforms. Washington, DC. 

Internet website: http://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/letter-to-secretary-jewellon-coal-reforms

House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Energy and 

Mineral Resources Subcommittee Ranking Member Alan S. Lowenthal (D-Calif.) sent a letter to Interior 

Secretary Sally Jewell to thank her for reviewing the Interior Department’s broken coal leasing program 

and to highlight issues that still need to be addressed, including an accurate accounting of the program’s 

climate and environmental impacts.

Gruenspecht, H. 2016. Coal in the United States: Recent Developments and Outlook. US 

Energy Information Administration, New York, New York. 

Presentation given by the US Energy Information Administration on the current and future outlook of 

coal in the United States.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-69

Scoping Report 

Gutierrez, S. 2011. “Getting there: How long can trains legally block intersections?” Seattle 

Post Intelligencer. May 31, 2011.

Newspaper article about the length of time that trains can legally at-grade crossings, which is no more 

than 10 minutes, per Washington State laws.

Haggerty, J., and K. McBride. 2016. “Does local monitoring empower fracking host 

communities? A case study from the gas fields of Wyoming.” Journal of Rural Studies

43:235-247.

Peer-reviewed journal article that evaluates an experimental approach to monitoring and mitigating 

social and economic impacts of high volume hydraulic fracking (HVHF) development in Wyoming, 

between 2005 and 2009. Concludes that a community-based approach to planning and impact 

assessment can be effective as a response to HVHF development, provided there is adequate scaffolding 

in the form of technical and financial assistance and supporting meta-governance. The intensity of HVHF 

development creates special problems that can be mitigated by well-supported community-based and 

participatory processes to social and economic impact assessment. 

Haggerty, M. 2015. The Impact of Federal Coal Royalty Reform on Prices, Production, and 

State Revenue. Headwaters Economics, Bozeman, Montana.

This report presents data and analysis that evaluate the revenue, price, and production implications of 

federal royalty reform on coal deliveries to the domestic power sector. The report models three 

scenarios for how the final rule could be implemented: 1.) valuing coal based on the first arm’s length 

sale price, 2.) valuing coal based on delivered prices, net of transportation costs, and 3.) valuing coal 

based on delivered prices, net of transportation costs, which are capped at 50 percent of the value of 

coal. Report published by Headwaters Economics, an independent nonpartisan research firm.

Haggerty, M. N., and J. H. Haggerty. 2015. “Energy development opportunities and 

challenges in the rural West.” In Bridging the Distance: Common Issues of the Rural West (D. 

B. Danbom, editor). University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Hansen, J., et al. 2008. “Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?” The Open 

Atmospheric Science Journal Vol. 2.

Journal article arguing if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to the one that civilization 

developed on and that life on Earth is adapted to, then paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate 

change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but 

likely less than that.

Harbine, J., and N. Shoaff. 2015. Earthjustice and Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, 

Bozeman, Montana, and San Francisco, California. May 8, 2015.

Comments submitted on behalf of Earthjustice, Sierra Club, and 350 Colorado, regarding proposed 

regulatory changes on the collection of royalties from coal, oil, and gas production on public lands by the 

Office of Natural Resource Revenue. The organizations express support for ONRR’s efforts, urging 

them to adopt the additional reforms described in this letter for the sake of the taxpayer.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-70 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Hare, W. L., et al. 2011. “Climate hotspots: Key vulnerable regions, climate change and 

limits to warming.” Regional Environmental Change 11(1):1–13.

Journal article offering an overview of the latest scientific findings in the context of risks and 

uncertainties and assessing some key vulnerabilities that might lead to dangerous climate change in four 

areas: adverse declines in regional food and water security, loss of arctic sea ice with projected 

extinction of species, large-scale sea level rise, and loss of coral reef systems.

Harrigan, R. J., et al. 2014. “A continental risk assessment of West Nile Virus under 

climate change.” Global Change Biology 20:2417-2425.

Journal article looking at how global climate change could increase the areas of suitable habitat for the 

disease and how to tailor mitigation to these new regions.

Harvard School of Public Health. 2012. Internet website: http://www.chgeharvard.org/

resource/exploretruecostscoal.

Interactive website model produced by the Harvard School of Public Health on the topic of The 

Measurable, Economic, and Qualitative Cost of Coal. Expands on energy use in the United States. 

Produced as a supplement to the report Full Cost Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal. Allows for 

expansion on topics specific to coal, such as subsidies, climate change, and transport.

Headwater Economics. 2015. An Assessment of US Federal Coal Royalties, Current 

Royalty Structure, Effective Royalty Rates, and Reform Options. January 2015. Internet 

website: http://headwaterseconomics.org/energy/coal-royalty-valuation.

Paper that provides an overview of government-owned coal reserves by analyzing how revenues from 

federal coal are obtained, estimating current effective rates, reviewing problems with the current 

system, and assessing policy reform.

. 2015. The Impact of Federal Coal Royalty Reform on Prices, Production, and State 

Revenue. May 2015.

This report presents data and analyses that evaluate the revenue, price, and production implications of 

federal royalty reform on coal deliveries to the domestic power sector. It models three scenarios for 

how the final rule could be implemented: 1.) valuing coal based on the first arm’s length sale price, 2.) 

valuing coal based on delivered prices, net of transportation costs, and 3.) valuing coal based on 

delivered prices, net of transportation costs. The report reviews anticipated changes in revenue, 

production, and price.

Heede, R., and N. Oreskes. 2016. “Potential emissions of CO2 and methane from proved 

reserves of fossil fuels: An alternative analysis.” Global Environmental Change. January 

2016: 12-20.

Journal article analyzing the potential emissions of CO2 and methane from the proved reserves, as 

reported by the world’s largest producers of oil, natural gas, and coal, with a focus on the 70 companies 

and eight government-run industries that produced 63 percent of the world’s fossil fuels, from 1750 to 

2010.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-71

Scoping Report 

Hein, J. 2015. Harmonizing Preservation and Production June 2015. Institute for Policy 

Integrity. Internet website: Hein_2015_DOI_LeasingReporthttp://policyintegrity

.org/publications/detail/harmonizing-preservation-and-production/.

The report focuses on a deficiency in the federal management of natural resources: The terms of federal 

leases do not require developers to internalize the environmental and social costs of fossil fuel 

extraction. In line with their statutory mandates, the BLM and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

must account for these social and environmental costs when leasing and managing federal natural 

resources to ensure a fair return to taxpayers.

. 2016. Priorities for Federal Coal Reform—Twelve Policy and Procedural Goals for 

the Programmatic Review. Institute for Policy Integrity. New York University School of 

Law.

This report highlights twelve policy and procedural recommendations for the review of the federal coal 

program. The programmatic EIS, conducted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

must be prepared carefully, transparently, and by using the best economic and modeling tools available. 

The analysis should provide accurate information on how different royalty rates and coal production 

scenarios would affect greenhouse gas emissions, revenue, jobs, and energy markets—particularly 

substitution among energy resources. Interior should pay particular attention to policy changes that it 

can implement now, without the need for new legislation, in order to secure a more fair return and 

manage federal energy production to meet twenty-first century needs.

Hein, J., and P. Howard. 2015. Reconsidering Coal’s Fair Market Value. NYU Institute for 

Policy Integrity. Oct. 2015. Internet website: http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/

Coal_fair_market_value.pdf.

This report describes how the federal coal leasing program is not structured to ensure that taxpayers 

receive “fair market value,” as the law requires, for coal extracted from public lands. Recent 

investigations have shown that coal companies exploit loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of 

royalties, costing taxpayers up to $1 billion each year in lost revenue. Outdated fiscal policies fail to 

remedy uncompetitive bidding practices or properly account for coal’s export value. And the 

Department of the Interior’s fiscal terms do not account for the prevalent environmental externalities 

and option values associated with coal production that impose uncompensated costs on the public.

. 2015. Illuminating the Hidden Costs of Coal: How the Interior Department Can 

Use Economic Tools to Modernize the Federal Coal Program. Institute For Policy 

Integrity, New York University School of Law.

Paper analyzing how current regulations about coal leasing and industry interactions have deprived state 

and federal governments of billions of dollars. It provides common sense, market-based reforms to the 

federal coal leasing program.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-72 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2015. Reconsidering Coal’s Fair Market Value. The Social Costs of Coal Production 

and the Need for Fiscal Reform. Institute for Policy Integrity. New York University School 

of Law. 

This report suggests that a robust definition of “fair market value” should include the market price of 

the coal resource, the option value of mining that resource, and the social cost of mining—the cost to 

American taxpayers—of mining on public lands, due to environmental and social externalities. This 

definition would be consistent with the Department of the Interior’s dual mandate to earn a fair return 

on development of energy resources and to preserve and protect the environment for future 

generations.

Heron, E. 2014. Linc Energy charged with causing serious environmental harm, April 12.

Linc Energy charged with causing serious environmental harm at its underground coal gasification plant 

in Queensland, Australia.

Higginbotham, et al. 2013. Coal Train Pollution Signature Study. Briefing paper prepared 

for the Coal Terminal Action Group Dust and Health Committee. August 2013.

Paper on monitoring particle pollution levels in residential areas to find the particulate profile of coal 

trains and the increase in particulate matter with the addition of coal trains. Results of the study were 

that all coal train signatures were associated with a significant increase in particle pollution levels. The 

paper calls out these levels as alarming and asks for further studies.

Hill, J. 2012. Internet website: https://youtu.be/Qpup5VTUkr0

Video of speech given by Dr. Michelle Hofmann at the Utah Clean Air Conference. Dr. Hofmann is 

medical director of the Primary Children’s Medical Center at Riverton Hospital, as well as a professor at 

the University of Utah. She advocates for air quality standards.

Hitt, N. P., and D. B. Chambers. “Temporal changes in taxonomic and functional diversity 

of fish assemblages downstream from mountaintop mining.” Freshwater Science 33(3):915-

926.

Journal article on mountaintop coal mining and how it impacts fish assemblages, particularly how effects 

on water quality can limit the quality and availability of benthic macroinvertebrate prey.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., et al. 2010. “The impact of climate change on the world’s marine 

ecosystems.” Science 328:1523-1528.

Journal article on how rising greenhouse gas concentrations and anthropogenic climate change are 

leading to decreased ocean productivity, altered food web dynamics, reduced abundance of habitatforming species, shifting species distributions, and a greater incidence of disease.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-73

Scoping Report 

Hönisch, B., et al. 2012. “The geological record of ocean acidification.” Science 3335:1058-

1063.

Journal article on the geological record and its long-term evidence of a variety of global environmental 

perturbations, including ocean acidification. Also considers the associated biotic responses, including a 

review of events exhibiting evidence for elevated atmospheric CO2, global warming, and ocean 

acidification over the past ~300 million years.

Hood River News. 2013. “Another voice: Coal transport comments needed now.” January 

11, 2013.

Newspaper article about comments needing to be submitted on the proposed shipping of coal to Asia 

through the Columbia River Gorge to the Gateway Pacific Terminal in Bellingham, Washington.

Houp, R. E. 1993. “Observations on long-term effects of sedimentation on freshwater 

mussels (Mollusca: Uniondae) in the north fork of the Red River, Kentucky.” Transactions of 

the Kentucky Academy of Science 54(3-4):93-97.

Study comparing historical data for mussels in the Red River. Concludes that many mussel species are 

intolerant of chronic sedimentation and are being impacted or extirpated.

Howard, P. 2016. The Bureau of Land Management’s Modeling Choice for the Federal Coal 

Programmatic Review. NYU Institute for Policy Integrity. June 10, 2016. Internet website: 

http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/BLM_Model_Choice.pdf

Paper examines modeling choices for coal program reform. There are multiple power sector models 

available to the BLM for analyzing the effect of current and alternative coal regulations and leasing 

policies during preparation of its programmatic EIS. This document lays out model selection criteria to 

assist the BLM in weighing the benefits and costs of these available models. It and offers 

recommendations for model selection, highlighting the tradeoff between model complexity and 

transparency.

Howarth, R. B., M. D. Gerst, and M. E. Borsuk. 2013. Risk mitigation and the social cost of 

carbon. Global Environ. Change (2013). Internet website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j

.gloenvcha.2013.11.012

Article looking into the social cost of carbon, using a stochastic climate-economy model that has been 

adapted to account for the costs of greenhouse gas emission reductions, the relationship between those 

emissions and future mean global temperature, and the economic impacts of climate change. This study 

shows contrast with the findings of previous studies by showing that the social cost of carbon is 

dependent on the time path for emissions. The study models that the social cost of carbon is $25,700 

per metric ton when emissions are unregulated and $4 per ton as the stringency of control measures is 

successively increased. The results suggest even more so that there is no perfectly defined value for 

carbon emissions.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-74 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Hulac, B., and D. Brown. 2016. Arch Coal paid execs $8M in bonuses on eve of bankruptcy. 

Internet website: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060034093.

This website article discusses CEOs from Arch Coal getting paid more than $8 million in bonuses the 

day before the company filed for bankruptcy.

ICF International. 2016. Federal Coal Leasing Reform Options: Effects On CO2 Emissions 

And Energy Markets--Summary Of Modeling Results Final Report. Vulcan, Inc. Report.

Report modeling the potential impacts of changes to the federal coal royalty system using a variety of 

possible scenarios of coal prices and Clean Power Plan implementation.

IHS. 2014. IHS Study: Diversity of United States Power Supply Could be Significantly 

Reduced in Coming Decade. Internet website: http://press.ihs.com/pressrelease/Energy

powermedia/ihsstudydiversityunitedstatespowersupplycouldbesignificant.

Article on IHS study of the diversity of US power supply declining in coming decades. Points to the 

importance of diversity in the power sector and how it is at risk. The research was supported by the 

Edison Electric Institute, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and the Institute for 21st Century Energy.

Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. 2012. The Great Giveaway: An 

analysis of the United States’ Long-Term Trend of Selling Federally Owned Coal for Less 

than Fair Market Value.

Report examining the coal leasing fair market value appraisal program of the BLM.

. 2015. Executive summary of testimony by Tom Sanzillo. September 21, 2015.

Testimony from Finance Director for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. Provides 

a basic background on the status of US and global coal markets pertaining to potential exports out of 

the Oakland Army Base Redevelopment Project, as well as comments on the financial risks of the 

introduction of coal for the Oakland Army Base Redevelopment Project.

. 2016. Comments on the Department of the Interior Notice of Intent to Conduct a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Sate of Federal Coal Leasing Programs.

Letter suggesting wholesale alternatives to the federal coal lease program, which include recommending 

that the Department of the Interior eliminate the current fair market value criteria and replace it with a 

new partnership model between government agencies and private industry, operating under new rules 

to protect the interest of US taxpayers.

. 2016. Internet website: http://ieefa.org/category/subject/powder-river-basin-coal/. 

List of all work related to Powder River Basin done by IEEFA

Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. 2015. Internet website: 

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx. 

Website with all nationally determined contributions compiled in one place.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-75

Scoping Report 

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. 2013. Technical Update of the 

Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis - Under Executive Order 12866. US 

Government, Washington, DC.

Document provides an update of the SCC estimates, based on new versions of each IAM (DICE, PAGE,

and FUND). It does not revisit other interagency modeling decisions, such as those regarding the 

discount rate reference case socioeconomic and emission scenarios, or equilibrium climate sensitivity. 

Improvements in the way damages are modeled are confined to those that have been incorporated into 

the latest versions of the models by the developers themselves in the peer-reviewed literature.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis 

Report. 

Report providing an integrated view of climate change that summarizes observed changes in climate and 

their effects on natural and human systems; assesses the causes of the observed change; presents 

projections of future climate change and related impacts under different scenarios; discusses adaptation 

and mitigation options over the next few decades; and assesses the relationship between adaptation and 

mitigation.

. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability—Summary for 

Policymakers.

Report evaluating how patterns of risks and potential benefits are shifting, due to climate change, and 

considering how impacts and risks related to climate change can be reduced and managed through 

adaptation and mitigation.

. 2014. Summary for Policymakers, Contribution to Working Group III to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York, USA.

This report assesses literature on the scientific, technological, environmental, economic, and social 

aspects of mitigating climate change and builds on previous versions of the report. It was prepared by 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific and intergovernmental body under 

the auspices of the United Nations

. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. 

Report that confirms human influence on the climate system is clear and growing, with impacts observed 

across all continents and oceans. Findings also state that the more human activities disrupt the climate, 

the greater the risks of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems and longlasting changes in all components of the climate system.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-76 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2014. “Energy Systems.” In: “Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change.” 

Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Report on energy systems in climate change. Addresses issues related to the mitigation of greenhouse 

gas emissions from the energy supply sector, which is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas, 

including renewable energy and decarbonizing of electricity generation to reduce air pollution.

International Council on Mining & Metals. 2011. “Fugitive methane emissions in coal 

mining.” Climate Change. London, United Kingdom.

This report discusses the challenges in estimating and measuring fugitive emissions and placing a carbon 

price on coal mining.

International Energy Agency. 2015. World Energy Outlook 2015. Internet website: 

http://www.iea.org/publications/scenariosandprojections/. 

This website discusses new policy scenario, current policies scenario, 450 scenario, and energy 

technology perspectives.

. 2015. World Energy Outlook 2015. Internet website: http://www.worldenergy

outlook.org/media/weowebsite/2015/WEO2015_Chapter01.pdf. 

This edition of the World Energy Outlook presents an assessment of the prospects for global energy 

markets to 2040 and draws out implications for energy security. (Only the introduction is available 

online, and the full report can be ordered here: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/weo2015/.)

Interstate Mining Compact Commission. 2014. Self-Bonding Survey.

State-by-state review of the extent of self-bonding for reclamation.

Ives, M. 2013. Internet website: 

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/boom_in_mining_rare_earths_poses_mounting_toxic_risks/261

4/.

Paper examines the rare earth metals mining and environmental impacts. The mining of rare earth 

metals, used in everything from smart phones to wind turbines, has long been dominated by China. But 

as mining of these key elements spreads to countries like Malaysia and Brazil, scientists warn of the 

dangers of the toxic and radioactive waste generated by the mines and processing plants.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-77

Scoping Report 

Jacobson M., and M. Delucchi. 2011. “Providing all global energy with wind, water, and 

solar power. Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, 

and materials.” Energy Policy 39(2011):1154–1169.

Article analyzing the feasibility of providing worldwide energy from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS). 

The study is done in two parts, first discussing WWS sources, demand, and availability and second 

addressing variability, economics, and policy of WWS energy. The authors suggest producing all new 

energy with WWS by 2030 and replacing the existing energy by 2050 discussing political and social 

barriers to this transformation. The cost of using WWE they state should be similar to current energy 

sources.

Jacquet, J. B. 2014. A Short History of Social Impact Assessment. Department of Social 

and Rural Studies, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota.

A white paper from a faculty member at South Dakota State University, Department of Social and Rural 

Studies. Paper briefly outlines the social impact assessment and provides history of application in NEPA, 

oil and gas, international contexts, and new applications. Beginning in the early 1970s, a formalized set of 

practices and procedures called Social Impact Assessment (SIA) emerged to document and predict the 

socioeconomic impacts from large-scale projects. While originally focused primarily on impacts on such 

variables as population, employment, and housing, the scope of social and economic variables analyzed 

through SIA has greatly expanded,

. 2014. The Battlement Mesa Health Impact Assessment: A Case Study and Oral 

History of Process and Lessons Learned. Department of Social and Rural Studies, South 

Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota.

Paper outlines the Garfield County, Colorado, Health Impact Assessment (HIA) for Battlement Mesa, 

the first HIA of its kind in the area of oil and natural gas development. This paper offers an in-depth case 

study of the Battlement Mesa HIA, focusing less on the controversial findings of the report and instead 

concentrating on the historical context, the regulatory process, and the project design and 

implementation of the HIA. A white paper from a faculty member at South Dakota State University, 

Department of Social and Rural Studies.

Jenkinson, J. J. 2005. “Specific gravity and freshwater mussels.” Freshwater Mollusk 

Conservation Society Symposium.

Handout about the specific gravity (SG) of native mussels and how their SG allows them to maintain a 

position in surrounding substrate with similar SG; thus, changes to substrate SG can affect the mollusk 

distribution.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-78 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

John T. Boyd Company. 2011. Powder River Basin Coal Resource and Cost Study. Denver, 

Colorado. 

The report addresses the availability of resources and the cost of recovery of those resources and 

forecasts Free on Board mine prices for coal from 2011 through 2040. The study is based on 

information available in the public domain, and on Boyd’s extensive familiarity and experience with 

Powder River Basin operations

Johnson, L., and C. Hope. “The social cost of carbon in US regulatory impact analyses: An 

introduction and critique.” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 2:205-221.

Abstract on article that estimates the values from the models produced in the US government’s 

published social cost of carbon article. These new values are calculated using a range of discount rates 

and methods considered more appropriate for the long-term scale of climate change, and a method that 

assigns “equity weights,” based on relative income levels between regions.

Jones & DeMille Engineering. 2016. CIB Funded Projects. 

List of Commercial International Bank funded projects.

Jones, C., et al. 2009. “Committed terrestrial ecosystem changes due to climate change.” 

Nature Geoscience 2:484-487.

Journal article about how some aspects of the Earth’s system, such as global mean temperatures and sea 

level rise due to thermal expansion or the melting of large ice sheets, continue to respond long after the 

stabilization of radiative forcing. A climate-vegetation model of the terrestrial biosphere shows 

significant inertia in its response to climate change and can continue to change for decades after climate 

stabilization; therefore, subsequent policy development must include this response in order to avoid it.

Jones, G. 2011. National IQ and National Productivity: The Hive Mind Across Asia. Asian 

Development Review. George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia. 

Article arguing that human capital spillover is the cause of cognitive skills having a modest influence on 

individual wage but strong correlation with national outcomes. Uses arguments for intelligence influence 

on decision-making.

Joo, N., et al. 2014. 5 Things You Should Know about Powder River Basin Coal Exports. 

Internet website: 

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/08/PowderRiver-factsheet.pdf. 

Fact sheet provided by the Center for American Progress on the massive climate impacts of low-cost 

coal mined in the Powder River Basin and how, as a result of federal policies, the Powder River Basin 

coal is selling at below market rates.

Kalderia, K., et al. 2016. Carnegie Institution for Science. July 27, 2016.

Letter from a group of scientists to the Department of the Interior, asking for the ending of coal leasing 

on public lands to protect the climate, public health, and biodiversity
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-79

Scoping Report 

Katestone Environmental. 2011. NSW Coal Mining Benchmarking Study: International 

Best Practice Measures to Prevent and/or Minimise Emissions of Particulate Matter from 

Coal Mining. Prepared for Office of Environment and Heritage. Milton, Queensland, 

Australia.

This report reviews and compares international best practice measures to prevent and/or minimize 

particle emissions from all activities associated with New South Wales coal mines. It was prepared by a 

government organization.

Keith, D. 2013. A Case For Climate Engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

This book provides a clear and accessible overview of what the costs and risks might be and how 

climate engineering might fit into a larger program for managing climate change. Abstract only.

Kiesecker, J. M., et al. 2011. “Energy by design: Making mitigation work for conservation 

and development.” Chapter 9 of Energy Development and Wildlife Conservation in Western 

North America.

Chapter exploring the prospect of a mass extinction event that threatens 10 to 30 percent of all 

mammal, bird, and amphibian species from anthropogenic stressors, such as invasive species, 

overexploitation, pollution, and climate change. Habitat destruction is by far the most influential factor in 

this unprecedented loss of biodiversity. Thus, given the importance of economic development for 

improving human well-being, it is therefore crucial that we have substantial improvement in our ability 

to balance development needs with environmental conservation.

Kitzhaber J. A., and J. Inslee. 2013. Letter to CEQ re: coal leasing costs.

Letter requests reevaluation of coal leasing costs to incorporate greenhouse gas and other air quality 

effects before building proposed terminals in Washington and Oregon for international export of coal.

Kreiger, E. et al. 2016. The Clean Power Plan in Pennsylvania: Analyzing Power 

Generation for Health and Equity. PSE Healthy Energy, Oakland, California. 

Report analyzes the health, environmental, and equity dimensions of the Clean Power Plan. Assesses the 

socioeconomic and environmental health burdens and hazards for populations living near plants 

regulated under the Clean Power Plan. Models the potential public health impacts of fine particulate 

matter attributable to combustion at Pennsylvania’s power plants. Findings point to where carbon 

emission reductions may have the greatest public health benefits and help identify where increased or 

decreased power generation may add to or alleviate burdens on vulnerable communities.

Kroeker, K. J., et al. 2013. “Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: 

Quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming.” Global Change Biology 19(6):1884-

1896.

Journal article on how ocean acidification represents a threat to marine species worldwide, and a 

synthesis of 228 studies shows decreased survival, calcification, growth, development, and abundance in 

response to acidification, when the broad range of marine organisms is pooled together.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-80 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Krupnick, A., et al. 2015. Putting a Carbon Charge on Federal Coal: Legal and Economic 

Issues. Resources For the Future Mar. Internet website: http://www.rff.org/research/

publications/putting-carbon-charge-federal-coal-legal-and- economic-issues

The paper considers the legal and economic feasibility of imposing an “upstream” CO2 charge on coal 

production at its extraction site. Specifically, it focuses on leased coal from federal lands managed by the 

BLM. Such a carbon charge is designed to embody the cumulative life cycle externalities from coal 

mining to combustion (or other “downstream” utilization). Legal analysis concludes that the BLM has the 

statutory and regulatory authority to impose such a charge and that it would be best to add it to the 

royalty rate. But a large fee that would dramatically reduce revenues could invite judicial concern. 

Furthermore, production on state, private, and tribal lands (60 percent of total production) would not 

be subject to the charge and so could ramp up in response to the economic disadvantage the charge 

would cause for coal on federal lands.

Krupnick, A., N. Richardson, J. Darmstadter, and K. McLaughlin. 2015. Should We Price 

Carbon from Federal Coal? Resource for the Future. Washington, DC. Internet website: 

http://www.rff.org/research/publications/should-we-price-carbon-federal-coal

This article discusses whether the BLM should impose an upstream carbon charge on coal production. It 

was prepared by Resources for the Future, which conducts economic research and objective analysis to 

help leaders craft smarter policies about natural resources, energy, and the environment.

Krupnick, A., et al. 2016. Applying EIA’s National Energy Modeling System to US Coal 

Projections: Strengths and Weaknesses for BLM’s Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement. Resources for the Future.

This policy brief explores the strengths and weakness of the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) 

National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), paying special attention to its application in long-term 

policymaking. The goal of the paper is to provide insight into how NEMS can contribute to the BLM’s 

programmatic environmental impact statement for federal coal leasing.

Kuykendall, T. 2016. Headwinds Facing US Coal. SNL Energy. March 29, 2016.

Article forecasting what coal industry may look like in the future. Abstract only. 

Kuykendall, T., and A. Cotting. 2016. Companies recently filing bankruptcy produce more 

than 2/3 of PBR coal. April 13, 2016. Internet website: 

https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-36118340-12086.

This article details coal companies that mine the Powder River Basin filing for bankruptcy. It was 

prepared for S&P global market intelligence, an organization providing market analysis.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-81

Scoping Report 

. 2016. Headwind that pushed coal to bankruptcy potentially changing course. SNL 

Energy. April 29, 2016.

Article describes recent trends in the metallurgical coal market. Met coal prices have been on a steady 

decline until the most recent quarter, driven in part by China’s reduced demand for steel. Article 

provides case study for Peabody Coal, which recently entered into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and is 

significantly exposed to met and thermal coal. Article published by SNL Energy, a part of S&P Global 

Market Intelligence, a consulting firm.

Labor Network for Sustainability and Strategic Practice. Year unknown. “Just 

Transition”—Just What Is It? An Analysis of Language, Strategies, and Projects

Collaborative report defining “just transition,” as it relates to the economic transition, including energy, 

a carbon-neutral economy, communications, manufacturing, transportation, health care, and waste 

management. The report includes 17 interviews on the “just transition” framework.

Laks, D. 2009. “Assessment of chronic mercury exposure within the US population, 

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2006.” Biometals 22:1103-1114.

Abstract on study that assesses chronic mercury exposure within the US population. Results provide 

evidence that I-Hg deposition in the human body is a cumulative process and is associated with 

significant biological markers. There is a time-dependent rise in the populations risk for associated 

disease.

Langham, et al. 2015. National Audubon Society, New York, New York.

The National Audubon Society has completed a continental analysis of how North America’s birds may 

respond to future climate change. Using extensive citizen science data and detailed climate layers, they 

developed models that characterize the relationship between the distribution of each species and 

climate. Then, they used the models to forecast species distributions to future periods, based on climate 

estimates described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Lashof, D. A., et al. 2007. “Coal in a Changing Climate.” Natural Resources Defense 

Council issue paper.

Paper examining the changing climate for coal production and use in the United States and China, the 

world’s two largest producers and consumers of coal. Emissions from both countries are far higher than 

from any other country and will together constitute more than 60 percent of global CO2 emissions from 

coal. While imperfect and unable to make coal “clean,” technologies ready for widespread commercial 

application can dramatically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, mercury, sulfur, and nitrogen oxides to 

reduce the resultant air pollution and global warming effects.

Lattanzio R. K. 2015. Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Assessment of Coal and Natural Gas in 

the Power Sector. Congressional Research Service.

Report compares coal and natural gas environmental and economic impacts, finding that natural gas 

produces 40 to 60 percent of the CO2 emissions of coal. However, the fugitive emission of methane 

greatly increases the greenhouse gas potential of natural gas. The comparative life-cycle emissions of 

both existing and advanced natural gas technology may be comparable to coal-fired technology.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-82 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Lazarus, M., et al. 2015. “Supply-side climate policy: The road less taken.” Working paper 

2015-13. Stockholm Environment Institute, Seattle, Washington.

Paper explores reasons why supply-side policies have not been pursued and why they deserve more 

attention. It provides a typology of supply-side policies and frameworks for assessing their effectiveness, 

efficiency, and feasibility. It finds that supply-side policies, such as removal of producer subsidies, 

compensation of resource owners for leaving fuels unburned, or outright restrictions on resource 

development, could bring important benefits.

Lee-Ashley, M., and N. Thakar. 2015. Cutting Subsidies and Closing Loopholes in the U.S. 

Department of the Interior’s Coal Program. Center for American Progress. Internet 

website: 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2015/01/06/103880/cuttingsubsidies-and-closing-loopholes-in-the-u-s-department-of-the-interiors-coal-program/.

This report investigates coal companies maximizing subsidies on federal lands through increasingly 

complex financial and legal mechanisms. The report calls for reform to cut subsidies and close loopholes. 

Center for American progress is a Washington D.C. based think-tank.

Lemly, A. D. 2009. “Aquatic hazard of selenium pollution from coal mining.” Chapter 6 in 

Coal Mining: Research, Technology, and Safety. Nova Science Publishers, New York, New 

York. 

Chapter on how selenium, an element found in coal that can leached out during coal processing, can be 

mobilized and spread to nearby surface waters, leading to bioaccumulation in food chains, with possibly 

toxic consequences.

Leong, C. 2001. “Retrograde degeneration of neurite membrane structural integrity of 

nerve growth cones following in vitro exposure to mercury.” Neuroreport 12:733-737.

Abstract of study presenting whether mercury ions could affect membrane dynamics of neurite growth 

cone morphology and behavior. Results conclude that mercury works as a potential etiological factor in 

neurodegeneration.

Leonhardt, D. 2015. “There’s a formula for deciding when to extract fossil fuels.” New York 

Times. New York, New York.

News article published about using a formula to decide when to extract fossil fuels. Uses the social cost 

of carbon method.

Lepeule, J. 2012.“Chronic exposure to fine particles and mortality: An extended follow-up 

of the Harvard six cities study from 1974 to 2009.” Environmental Health Perspectives

12:965-970.

Article taking epidemiological studies that have reported associations between fine particles and 

mortality and adding 11 years of follow-up, incorporating recent lower exposures to fine particles. 

Article concludes that further public policy efforts that reduce fine particulate matter air pollution are 

likely to have continued public health benefits.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-83

Scoping Report 

LeResche, B. 2014. Letter to Wyoming DEQ on Linc Aquifer Exemption. Powder River 

Basin Resource Council, WORC.

Letter writer argues against allowing an aquifer exemption for Linc Energy’s proposed underground coal 

gasification project in Wyoming. The exemption would contaminate groundwater in the region.

Levin and Forbes. 2014. Visualizing the Global Carbon Budget (blog). World Resources 

Institute. Internet website: http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/03/visualizing-global-carbonbudget.

Online article, evaluating the global carbon budget. Provides a visual aid, describing what the carbon 

budget is, impacts we are seeing today, what would happen if we do not stick to the budget, and ways 

that we can meet the budget.

Lewtas, J. 2007. “Air pollution combustion emissions: Characterization of causative agents 

and mechanisms associated with cancer, reproductive, and cardiovascular effects.” 

Mutation Research 636:95-133.

Journal article about combustion emissions that account for over half of the fine particle (PM2.5) air 

pollution and most of the primary particulate organic matter. Studies have shown that short- and longterm exposures to combustion emissions and ambient fine particulate air pollution are associated with 

measures of genetic damage and increased risks of all causes of mortality, cardiopulmonary mortality, 

and lung cancer mortality over the long-term.

Lifson, T. 2014. “Debunking the 97% ‘consensus’ on global warming.” American Thinker 4, 

February 2014.

Blog that disputes the consensus in the scientific community about the validity of climate change.

Lin, J., et al. 2014. “China’s international trade and air pollution in the United States.” 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(5):1736-1741.

Journal article about China, the world’s largest emitter of anthropogenic air pollutants, and how Chinese 

pollutants are transported via the atmosphere to other countries, including the United States. As the 

United States outsourced manufacturing to China, sulfate pollution in 2006 increased in the western 

United States but decreased in the eastern United States, reflecting the competing effect between 

enhanced transport of Chinese pollution and reduced US emissions.

Live Science. 2016. Internet website: www.livescience.com. 

Article that details the greenhouse gas emissions tied to solar power generation.

Loarie, J. 2012. AERMOD Modeling of Air Quality Impacts of the Proposed Morrow Pacific 

Project. Prepared for the Sierra Club. October 2012.

Document on the Marrow Pacific Project in Oregon, presenting the methods and results of modeling 

analysis of air quality impacts. The regulatory dispersion model AERMOD is used to predict project 

impacts of criteria pollutants. The results state that the proposed Marrow Pacific Project will cause 

adverse air quality impacts.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-84 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Lockwood, A. H., et al. 2009. Coal’s Assault on Human Health. Physicians for Social 

Responsibility.

Report on how coal pollutants affect all major body organ systems and contribute to four

of the five leading causes of mortality in the United States (heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic 

lower respiratory diseases). Each step of the coal lifecycle—mining, transportation, washing, combustion, 

and disposing of post-combustion wastes—impacts human health.

Logan, J. A., and J. A. Powell. 2001. “Ghost forests, global warming, and the mountain pine 

beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae).” American Entomologist 47(3):160-173.

Journal article on how outbreaks of the mountain pine beetle are an important part of ecological cycles 

in western pine forests and have provided researchers with insights into both the beetle’s and the 

forest’s evolutionary adaptability.

Lombardi, K. 2016. Former cleanup workers blame illnesses on toxic coal ash exposures. 

Internet website: 

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/07/20/19962/formercleanupworkersblameillnessestoxi

ccoalashexposures.

Article from Kingston, Tennessee, on toxic exposures to arsenic, lead, and mercury, substances 

concentrated in coal ash that workers are exposed to in Tennessee Valley Authority power plant. 

Specifically details the experience of Mr. Wilkinson, who worked to help clean up a massive coal-ash 

spill, and mentioning thousands of others like him.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. Marra. 2013. Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind 

facilities in the contiguous United States. Biological Conservation 168 (2013) 201-209. 

Internet website: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320713003522.

This journal article discusses bird fatalities from collisions with US wind turbines annually. It was 

produced by a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Louie, E. P., and J. M. Pearce. 2016. “Retraining investment for US transition from coal to 

solar photovoltaic employment.” Energy Economics. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2016.05.016.

Paper provides an analysis of the cost to retrain current coal workers for solar photovoltaic (PV) 

industry employment in the United States. The current coal industry positions are determined, the skill 

set is evaluated, and the salaries are tabulated. For each type of coal position, the closest equivalent PV 

position is determined and then the retraining time and investment are quantified. These values are 

applied on a state-by-state basis for coal producing states employing the bulk of coal workers as a 

function of time, using a reverse seniority retirement program for the current American collection of 

coal-powered plants. The results show that a relatively minor investment in retraining would allow most 

coal workers to switch to PV-related positions even in the event of the elimination of the coal industry.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-85

Scoping Report 

Luber, G., et al. 2014. “Human health.” Chapter 9 of Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States. National Climate Assessment.

Chapter noting that climate change threatens human health, including impacts from increased extreme 

weather, wildfire, decreased air quality, threats to mental health, and illnesses transmitted by food, 

water, and disease carriers, such as mosquitoes and ticks. Climate change will amplify existing health 

threats, although public health actions can do much to protect people from some of these impacts, and 

responding to climate change provides opportunities to improve human health and well-being across 

many sectors.

Lucchini, R., et al. 2012. “Inverse association of intellectual function with very low blood 

lead but not with manganese exposure in Italian adolescent.” Environmental Res. 118:65-71.

Abstract on pediatric lead exposures impact on the cognitive function and behavior and co-exposure to 

manganese possibly enhancing neurotoxicity. Results find that even low levels of lead exposure have 

significant negative impacts on cognitive function in adolescents. At low levels manganese did not cause 

cognitive effects.

Luppens, J., and D. Scott. 2015. Assessment of Coal Geology, Resources, and Reserve Base 

in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana. United States Geological Survey.

Fact sheet from the USGS about the general state of coal in the Powder River Basin.

Lynch, P. 2016. 2016 climate trends continue to break record. NASA. Internet website: 

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records/

NASA website article using satellite image data to explain that climate change is breaking records in the 

arctic. It is warmer than ever, with an expectation of more warming to come. This warming is causing 

ice melt that is noticeable in the images the article provides. Gives indications of the direction of NASA 

research in the future and on operation Ice Bridge.

Lyon, A. G., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. “Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse 

nest initiation and movement.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(2):486-491. Internet website: 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3784329?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

This report discusses the decline of the greater sage-grouse and how natural gas development would 

impact the population. Wildlife Society Bulletin a peer-reviewed publication of the wilderness society.

MacDougall, A. H., et al. 2012. “Significant contribution to climate warming from the 

permafrost carbon feedback.” Nature Geoscience 5:719-721.

Journal article on how permafrost soils contain almost twice the present atmospheric carbon pool. As 

these soils thaw owing to climate warming, respiration of organic matter within these soils will transfer 

carbon to the atmosphere, potentially leading to a positive feedback, leading to significant warming, even 

under less intensive emissions trajectories.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-86 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Machol, B., and S. Rizk. 2013. “Economic value of US fossil fuel electricity health impacts.” 

Environmental International 52:75-80.

Journal article about how fossil fuel energy has several externalities not accounted for in the retail price, 

including associated adverse human health impacts, future costs from climate change, and other 

environmental damages. Includes quantification of the economic value of health impacts associated with 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors (NOx and SO2) on a per kilowatt-hour basis.

Maclean, I. M., and R. J. Wilson. 2011. “Recent ecological responses to climate change 

support predictions of high extinction risk.” Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences Early Edition. Pp. 1-6.

Journal article analyzing empirical support for extinction risk for many species as a result of climate 

change using a global and multitaxon metaanalysis. Mean extinction probability by 2100 across studies 

making predictions of the future effects of climate change was 10 percent across taxa and regions and 

empirical evidence gave a mean probability of 14 percent. 

Madsen, T., et al. 2016. “We have the power: 100% renewable energy for a clean, thriving 

America.” Environment America Spring 2016.

Report on the shift to renewable energy in America. The report details the course for 100 percent 

renewable energy in order to benefit the climate, environment, health, and economy.

Mahaffey, K. 2004. “Blood organic mercury and dietary mercury intake: National health 

and nutrition examination survey, 1999 and 2000.” Environmental Health Perspectives

112:562-570.

Article on blood organic mercury concentrations among women. Compares concentrations in different 

ethnicities and looks at how a diet containing fish impacts concentrations.

Mahaffey, K. 2004. Methyl Mercury: Epidemiology Update. EPA. San Diego, California.

Presentation for the Fish Forum with an epidemiology update on methyl mercury. Slide 9 was cited in 

the comment.

Map of Powder River Basin Overburden Depths. 2006.

Map showing Powder River Basin overburden.

Mapes, L. 2016. Toxic Algae Creating Deep Trouble on West Coast. Internet website: 

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/toxic-algae-creating-deep-troubleon-west-coast/. 

Newspaper article about a toxic algae bloom off the west coast of the United States in 2015 that shut 

down certain fisheries seasons for months due to the neurotoxin produced by Psuedo-nitzschia.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-87

Scoping Report 

Marcott, S., et al. 2013. “A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 

11,300 years.” Science 339:1198-1201.

Abstract from article about regional and global temperatures for the past 11,300 years. This is done so 

that current trends can be compared to historical trends. The constructed record of global mean 

surface temperatures provides patterns of warming and cooling. Results find that current global 

temperatures are higher than those during 90 percent of the entire Holocene.

Markandya, A., and P. Wilkinson. 2007. “Electricity generation and health.” Lancet 

370:979-990.

Journal article reviewing the current body of knowledge regarding the health effects of different 

methods of generating electricity.

Markey, E. J., and P. DeFazio. 2014. Summary of GAO Report on Federal Coal Leasing 

Feb. 4. Internet website: http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/markeyreport-on-public-coal-leasing-shows-taxpayers-losing-money.

A review by Senator Markey’s office found that for every cent per ton that the BLM undervalues federal 

coal, there is nearly a $7 million loss to American taxpayers.

Marten, A., and S. Newbold. 2011. Estimating the Social Cost of non-CO2 GHG Emissions: 

Methane and Nitrous Oxide. US EPA, Washington, DC. 

In this paper a simplified integrated assessment model gets used that combines MAGICC and (elements 

of) DICE to estimate the social costs of the three most important greenhouse gases—CO2, CH4, and 

N2O—for 2010 through 2050.

Marten, A., E. Kopits, C. Griffiths, S. Newbold, and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and 

N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government’s SC-CO2 estimates. Climate 

Policy 15(2):272-298. Internet website: 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2014.912981.

This article discusses the social costs of non-CO2 GHGs and develops a set of social cost estimates. 

Climate Policy is an international, peer-reviewed journal on responses to climate change

May, H. 2012. Utah asthma action plan: Avoid pollution. Internet website: 

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/54743373-78/asthma-utah-healthquality.html.csp.

News article from The Salt Lake Tribune, detailing Utah’s asthma action plan, which emphasizes limiting 

exposure to pollution.

Mccabe, and K. Wolock. “Recent declines in western US snowpack in the context of 

twentieth-century climate variability.” EPA. Earth Interactions 13:1-15.

Article that looks at monthly snow accumulation and a melt model to determine the impact of changing 

winter temperatures. Findings include higher temperatures and lower snow water equivalent.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-88 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

McDonald, A., et al. 2009. “Climate change and the geography of weed damage: Analysis of 

US maize systems suggests the potential for significant range transformations.” Agriculture, 

Ecosystems and Environment 130:131-140.

Journal article about how global warming will impact cropping systems and cause significant geographic 

range transformations among damaging endemic weeds, thereby resulting in new vulnerabilities to exotic 

weed invasions. To anticipate these changes and to devise management strategies for proactively 

addressing them, it is necessary to characterize the environmental conditions that make specific weed 

species abundant and competitive, and therefore damaging particular crops.

McGlade, C., and P. Ekins. 2015. “The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when 

limiting global warming to 2 degrees C.” Nature 517:187-204. January 2015.

Research letter informing on the role of fossil fuels in global warming and the suggested limits on 

reserves, such as coal reserves, to meet the target of a global temperature increase not exceeding 2 

degrees C. The letter writer addresses the IPCC’s suggested carbon budget and the implications that it 

would have on future use of fossil fuels. The writer concludes that a transformation in the understanding 

of fossil fuel is necessary in order to keep temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius.

McKenzie, et al. 2004. “Climate change, wildfire, and conservation.” Conservation Biology

18:890-902.

Article on climate change’s impact on wildfires. The article determines that climate change will extend 

fire seasons, as well as increase amplitude and duration of extreme fire weather. These results will 

depend on management of vegetation structure and fuels.

McKibben, B. 2016. “Global warming’s terrifying new chemistry.” The Nation, March 23, 

2016.

Article explaining the rise in natural gas as coal declines, replacing the greenhouse gas CO2 with the 

greenhouse gas methane. The article’s intent is to bring attention to methane as a harmful gas. The main 

point of this article is that global warming cannot just be about carbon dioxide any longer\, and that 

natural gas is not a solution for coal.

McKinsey & Company. 2013. Pathways to a low-carbon economy: Version 2 of the global 

greenhouse gas abatement cost curve. Internet website: http://www.mckinsey.com/

business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/pathways-to-a-lowcarbon-economy. 

This report builds on the 2007 report and includes an updated assessment of the development of lowcarbon technologies and macro-economic trends and more detailed understanding of abetment potential 

in different regions and industries.

McKitrick, R. 2016. Internet website: http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/junkscience-week-whats-the-right-price-for-carbon-take-a-guess-everyone-else-is.

Online article on how the price of carbon is estimated.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-89

Scoping Report 

Mehl, C. 2015. Know Your Economy: Economic Tools Updated for Every County. 

Headwaters Economics blog. Internet website: http://headwaterseconomics.org/economicdevelopment/trends-performance/insights-economic-tools-updated/.

Internet website providing tools to query economic data and trends for every county in the country. 

Headwaters Economics is an independent, nonpartisan research firm.

Meinshausen, M., et al. 2009. “Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming 

to 2 degrees C.” Nature 458:1158-1163.

Journal article providing a comprehensive probabilistic analysis aimed at quantifying greenhouse gas 

emission budgets for 2000-2050 that would limit warming throughout the twenty-first century to below 

2 degrees C, based on a combination of published distributions of climate system properties and 

observational constraints.

Melillo, J. M., et al. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National 

Climate Assessment. US Global Change Research Program. 

Report that assesses the science of climate change and its impacts across the United States, now and 

throughout this century. It integrates findings of the US Global Change Research Program with the 

results of research and observations from across the United States and around the world, including 

reports from the US National Research Council. Documents climate change impacts and responses for 

various sectors and regions, with the goal of better informing public and private decision-making at all 

levels.

Miller, R., and R. Tausch. 2000 The Role of Fire in Juniper and Pinyon Woodlands: A 

Descriptive Analysis.

Article expanding on the increase in both distribution and density of juniper and pinyon across the 

Intermountain West. Historically, juniper and woodlands have been treated to control expansion, but 

for wildlife and environmental concerns, this suppression has stopped. This causes risk for large crown 

fires and tree-dominated woodlands becoming difficult and expensive to fix.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs British Columbia. 1999. Public Private Partnership a Guide for 

Local Government. 

This guidebook is designed to assist local governments considering taking advantage of 1998 

amendments to the Municipal Act that expand opportunities for public-private partnerships for the 

delivery of public facilities and services.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-90 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 2011. A review of the rationale for EC and 

SAR Standards, Aug. 5, 2011. Internet website: 

http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Energy/CoalbedMethane/Documents/FinalRationale.pdf.

The report reviews standards for electrical conductivity (EC) and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) in 

water in the Tongue and Powder River basins of Montana. The board determined that rules were 

necessary to ensure that the designated uses of these waters for agricultural purposes would be 

protected during the development of coal bed methane (CBM). Water produced during CBM 

development has an average EC value of 2,200 Siemens per centimeter and a SAR value often greater 

than 40. These values, especially the SAR values, are well above almost all of the ambient water quality 

values of the rivers and streams in CBM country. In addition, the SAR value of CBM water is well above 

the value that will adversely impact irrigated agriculture.

. No Date. Rule 17.24.1116: Bonding: Criteria and Schedule for Release of Bond. 

Internet website: http://www.mtrules.org/gateway/ruleno.asp?RN=17.24.1116.

This rule details the release of bond, including schedule and criteria. It was prepared by a state 

environmental organization.

Moore, F. C., and D. B. Diaz. 2015. Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant 

stringent mitigation policy. Nature Climate Change, advance online publication.

Journal article comparing the costs of greenhouse gas mitigation with damages from climate change to 

evaluate the social welfare implications of climate policy proposals and inform optimal emissions 

reduction trajectories.

Moran, C., et al. 2013. Independent scientific panel report on underground coal gasification 

pilot trials. Queensland Independent Scientific Panel for Underground Coal Gasification.

The panel report evaluates the feasibility of commercial scale underground coal gasification technology 

and concludes that pilot studies should not be allowed to progress to commercial scale until safe 

decommissioning processes are verified.

Morgan, Morgan. 2016. Comments on Petition to Initiate Self-Bonding Rulemaking, 

Docket ID: OSM-2016-0006. Sierra Club Environmental Law Program. 

Comments submitted by Staff Attorney, Peter Morgan, of the Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 

on behalf of Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Appalachian Citizens Law Center, Appalachian Voices, Coal River 

Mountain Watch, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, 

Statewide Organizing for Community empowerment, Tennessee Clean Water Network, West Virginia 

Highlands Conservancy, and West Virginia Rivers Coalition.

Morris, A. C. 2016. “Build a better future for coal workers and their communities.” 

Climate and Energy Economics discussion paper. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.

This report addresses concerns for coal workers and communities in a changing coal landscape and 

uncertain future. The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, 

DC.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-91

Scoping Report 

Morton, T. 2016. Update: Peabody, Arch Cut Nearly 480 Jobs At North Antelope, Black 

Thunder Mines. K2radio, Wyoming.

Due to several factors. Peabody Energy and Arch Coal had to let go several hundred workers.

Mountain Pact. 2016. How Federal Coal Reform Could Help Mountain Communities 

Mitigate the Costs of Climate Change. July 2016. 

Report produced by the Mountain Pact, a 501c3 nonprofit coalition of mountain communities in the 

American West, seeking to address the impacts of climate change. Mountain communities are 

experiencing first hand the costs of climate change. Greenhouse gases from coal are a major contributor 

to climate change and associated costs. The report recommends that in order to ensure a fair return to 

taxpayers and improve economic efficiency, the royalty rate on federal coal should incorporate costs 

related to climate impact mitigation and adaptation.

Moy, A. D., et al. 2009. Reduced Calcification in Modern Southern Ocean Planktonic 

Foraminifera. Nature Geoscience, advance online publication.

Journal article about how reduced calcification from acidified sea water—a result of anthropogenic 

carbon dioxide concentrating in the oceans—has decreased the shell weights for planktonic foraminifer. 

These single-celled calcite-secreting organisms are between 25 and 50 percent of the total open-ocean 

marine carbonate flux. They influence the transport of organic carbon to the ocean interior; therefore, a 

possible decline in the abundance of foraminifera caused by acidification could affect both marine 

ecosystems and the oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Muller, N. Z., R. Mendelsohn, and W. Nordhaus. 2011. “Environmental accounting for 

pollution in the United States economy.” American Economic Review 101:1649–1675. 

August 2011.

Economic review presenting framework to include environmental externalities into a system of national 

accounts. This study looks at air pollution with an integrated-assessment model to quantify the damages 

of air pollution for each industry. The results of this study are that many industries have air pollution 

damages larger than their value added, the greatest loss found in coal-fired electric generation.

Mullins, N. 2016. “A coal miner’s goodbye.” Yes! Magazine, 2016. Bainbridge Island, 

Washington.

Essay of the author’s life of working in a coal mine and then life after leaving the coal mine.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-92 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Multnomah County Health Department. 2013. The Human Health Effects of Rail 

Transport of Coal Through Multnomah County, Oregon, Mar. 1, 2013. Internet website: 

http://media.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/other/Coal%20Report%20.pdf.

The Multnomah County (Oregon) Health Department found that “coal dust may travel approximately 

500 meters to 2 kilometers (1⁄3 to 11⁄4 miles or 1,640.42 feet to 6,561.68 feet) from the tracks, 

depending on weather conditions and train speed.” The study found that coal dust from rail transport 

has the potential to result in growth and development problems, heart and lung problems, cancers, and 

safety-related injury and death. It also identified that “coal dust may contain traces of heavy metals, such 

as lead, mercury, chromium, and uranium that are toxic to the human nervous system. Children are 

particularly vulnerable to heavy metals . . .” and that the populations living within 500 meters of the rail 

lines in the county are “communities of color, children, older adults, and people earning low incomes.”

. 2013. The Human Health Effects of Rail Transport of Coal Through Multnomah 

County, Oregon: A Health Analysis and Recommendations for Further Action. Health 

Assessment and Evaluation/Office of Policy and Planning Multnomah County Health 

Department.

Report evaluating the health risk associated with coal rail transport through Multnomah County, 

Oregon. Potential environmental effects of concern related to coal transportation included emission of 

particulate matter in the form of coal dust and diesel locomotive exhaust, along with adverse health 

effects, such as heart and lung problems, cancers, and growth and development problems.

Mulvaney, D., et al. 2015. The Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions from US Federal Fossil 

Fuels. EcoShift Consulting. August 2015. Internet website: 

http://www.ecoshiftconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/Potential-Greenhouse- GasEmissions-U-S-Federal-Fossil-Fuels.pdf.

The report estimates the greenhouse gas emissions from the volume of leased and unleased federal 

fossil fuels. The estimated volume of these resources is used to compute the life-cycle greenhouse gas 

emissions associated with developing fossil fuels—including emissions from extraction, processing, 

transportation, and combustion. Results indicate that a cessation of new federal fossil fuel leasing could 

keep up to 450 Gt CO2e from the global pool of potential future greenhouse gas emissions. This is 

equivalent to 13 times the global carbon emissions in 2014 or annual emissions from 118,000 coal-fired 

power plants.

Mulvaney, D., et al. 2016. Over-Leased: How Production Horizons of Already Leased 

Federal Fossil Fuels Outlast Global Carbon Budget. Center for Biological Diversity, Friends 

of the Earth, and Ecoshift Consulting.

Report concluding that existing federal leases will still be producing fossil fuels long after global carbon 

budgets have been exhausted. As previous studies suggest, federal fossil fuel leasing policy should be 

aligned with US climate goals. The analysis strongly suggests that staying within the global carbon 

budgets will likely require not only ending new federal leases but keeping significant amounts of already 

leased federal fossil fuels in the ground.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-93

Scoping Report 

Muncy, B. L., et al. 2014. “Mountaintop removal mining reduces stream salamander 

occupancy and richness in southeastern Kentucky (USA).” Biological Conservation 180:115-

121.

Journal article about mountaintop removal coal mining with valley fills (MTR/VF) in central Appalachia, 

which threatens the integrity of stream ecosystems. Numerous mechanisms may be responsible for 

decreased occupancy and species richness at MTR/VF streams, although water chemistry may be 

particularly important. Results indicate that MTR/VF operations lead to significant decreases in 

salamander occupancy and species richness.

Munthe, J., et al. 2010. Study on Mercury Sources and Emissions, and Analysis of Cost and 

Effectiveness of Control Measures: UNEP Paragraph 29 Study. Division of Technology, 

Industry and Economics, Chemicals Branch, Geneva, Switzerland.

Report providing an overview of mercury emissions to air, control options in selected sectors, and their 

efficiencies and costs. It is prepared with the intention of supporting the ongoing negotiation process to 

prepare a global legally binding instrument on mercury. Provides an evaluation of global emission trends, 

including a harmonization of data and improved completeness of previously published inventories from 

1990 to 2005.

Murdoch, P. S., et al. 2000. “Potential effects of climate change on surface-water quality in 

North America.: Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36(2):347-366.

Journal article about how changes in climate can have a significant effect on surface water quality and 

exceed ecosystem thresholds, which leads to chronic water quality changes.

Mutter, J. et al. 2010. “Does inorganic mercury play a role in Alzheimer’s disease? A 

systematic review and an integrated molecular mechanism.” J Alzheimer’s Dis. 22:357-374.

The abstract of article looking at the roll of inorganic mercury in Alzheimer’s disease. This article 

conducts a systematic review using a comprehensive search study, screening other studies by protocol. 

Article urges industrial and medical usage of mercury to be eliminated as soon as possible.

NAACP. Year unknown. Equity in Building Resilience in Adaptation Planning.

Report by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the equity in climate 

adaption planning and resilience indicators. Includes list of social, cultural, economic, and political factors 

that are considered preexisting vulnerabilities or assets to the results of climate change.

NASA. 2016. Internet website. http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/.

NASA website on global climate change. Provides facts and details on future effects of climate change. 

Also provides user with more climate change-related articles. Main focus of the page is on the noticeable 

effects of global climate change.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-94 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2016. Internet website. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/.

Website with biography on Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt. Provides links to his research, articles, and press 

release. Dr. Schmidt is known for his role in the GISS Model E Earth System Model, investigating past, 

present, and future climate change.

National Center for Environmental Health. 2005. “Blood lead levels—United States, 1999-

2002.” CDC. MMWR 50:513-516.

Online article from the CDC on the adverse health effects caused by lead exposure. Examines 

intellectual and behavioral defects in children and hypertension and kidney disease in adults. Provides 

specific statistics on percent increases and lead levels.

. 2013. “Blood lead levels in children aged 1–5 years — United States, 1999–2010.” 

CDC. MMWR. 62:245-248.

Update on previous statistics detailing the harm lead in the blood can cause. Provides statistics and 

details on how levels of lead in the blood were monitored. Determines lead to be harmful in the blood, 

with highest levels found in non-Hispanic black children.

National Climate Assessment. 2016. Internet website: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

report.

Interactive website from the US Global Change Research Program. Breaks down the National Climate 

Assessment, allowing you to easily move between sections. Subdivided by response strategies, regions, 

sectors, and climate facts, with full report also available.

National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2014. Life Cycle Analysis of Natural Gas 

Extraction and Power Generation. US Department of Energy.

Although natural gas has lower greenhouse gas emissions than coal during combustion, life cycle analysis, 

including fugitive methane emissions, also makes a substantial contribution to global warming. Methane 

recapture technology can reduce leakage rates. Natural gas is evaluated as an energy source based on 

environmental, economic, and social considerations.

National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered and 

Threatened Species; Determination of Nine Distinct Population Segments of Loggerhead 

Sea Turtles as Endangered or Threatened. Department of Commerce, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. Federal Register 76(184):58868-58952.

Federal Register notice for the National Marine Fisheries Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

publishing a determination of threatened or endangered status for nine distinct population segments of 

loggerhead sea turtles.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-95

Scoping Report 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2015. Recovery Plan for Elkhorn Coral (Acropora 

Palmata) and Staghorn Coral (A. Cervicornis). Southeast Regional Office, Saint Petersburg, 

Florida.

Recovery plan for the elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) and the staghorn coral (A. cervicornis), which 

were listed by NMFS as threatened species under the ESA on May 9, 2006. Section 4(f) of the ESA 

directs NMFS and USFWS to develop and implement recovery plans for species under their jurisdiction, 

leading to the development of this document by the Acropora Recovery Team, which included coral 

scientists and management experts from state, territorial, and federal government agencies and the 

nongovernmental sector.

National Mining Association. 2016. Federal Coal Leasing Moratorium: An Examination of 

the Reasons Driving a Disruptive Policy. Washington, DC. 

The National Mining Association, with the assistance of Norwest, evaluated the claims that the current 

coal leasing program is not delivering fair value to the taxpayers. as well as the policy suggestions 

advocated to address the purported shortcomings. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2015. Interagency Cooperation—

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended; Incidental Take Statements. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC. Federal Register 80(90):26832-

26845.

Federal Register listing detailing how the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service are amending the incidental take statement provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973. The two primary purposes of the amendments are to address the use of surrogates to 

express the amount or extent of anticipated incidental take and to refine the basis for development of 

incidental take statements for programmatic actions.

. 2016. Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts. Internet website: 

https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/. 

Website with interactive GIS feature, showing the results of coastal flooding impacts from 1 to 6 feet of 

sea level rise.

. 2016. Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Contour Charts. Internet website: 

http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/contour/. 

Website showing sea surface temperatures across the globe, with specific details on the coastlines of the 

United States.

. 2016. What Is Ocean Acidification? Internet website: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov

/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F. 

Website explaining ocean acidification, which results when carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed by 

seawater and chemical reactions occur that reduce seawater pH, carbonate ion concentration, and 

saturation states of biologically important calcium carbonate minerals.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-96 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

National Research Council. 1990. Surface Coal Mining Effects on Ground Water Recharge. 

Committee on Ground Water Recharge in Surface-Mined Areas, Water Science and 

Technology Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems.

The report interprets groundwater recharge for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement. The report concludes that groundwater recharge capacity refers to ability of soils to allow 

runoff infiltration and that no single technique for assessing recharge can be required in Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act. Additional research is recommended to improve understanding of 

recharge pre- and post-mining.

. 2010. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and 

Use. Washington, DC.

Report on external effects of energy production, both beneficial and negative, in the decision-making 

process. This is a study requested by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The committee was 

asked to evaluate and define external costs and benefits associated with the production, distribution, and 

use of energy and not reflected in market prices or policy, related to health, environment, security, and 

infrastructure.

. 2000. Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a 

Changing Ocean. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Report examining the anticipated consequences of ocean acidification due to rising atmospheric carbon 

dioxide levels on fisheries, protected species, coral reefs, and other natural resources in the United 

States and internationally. Recommends priorities for a national research, monitoring, and assessment 

plan to advance understanding of the biogeochemistry of carbon dioxide uptake in the ocean and the 

relationship to atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, and to reduce uncertainties in projections of 

increasing ocean acidification and the potential effects on living marine resources and ocean ecosystems.

. 2000. Toxicological Effects Of Methyl Mercury. National Academy Press, 

Washington, DC.

Report on the impacts of methyl mercury (MeHg), a by-product of emissions from coal-fired power 

plants as mercury (Hg) breaks down. Methyl Mercury bioaccumulates up the food chain and can lead to 

high concentrations in predatory fish. Because of these concerns, Congress directed the EPA to 

contract with the National Research Council to prepare recommendations on the appropriate reference 

dose for Hg exposure, which this report presents.

National Wildlife Federation. 2013. Wildlife in a Warming World: Confronting the Climate 

Crisis. National Wildlife Federation, Reston, Virginia. 48 pp.

Report on how plants, fish, and wildlife in the United States are facing a crisis from climate change and 

how wildlife conservation will require preparing for and manage climate change impacts.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-97

Scoping Report 

National Wildlife Federation. 2014. Issue Brief: Accounting for Carbon Pollution from Coal 

Mining on Federal Lands. Internet website: http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/GlobalWarming/Policy-Solutions/2014/nwf_issue_briefs_layout_web.pdf.

This report discusses the carbon implications of US coal leasing policies on federal lands and coal 

exports. The National Wildlife Federation is a conservation organization.

National Wildlife Federation and Natural Resources Defense Council. Losing Ground: 

Energy Development’s Impacts on Wildlife, Landscapes, and Hunting Traditions of the 

American West. Denver, Colorado, and Bozeman, Montana.

This report details game species in the American West losing ground and habitat to energy 

development. National Wildlife Federation and Natural Resources Defense Council are conservation 

organizations.

National Wildlife Federation, et al. 2015. Undermined Promise II

Joint publication of the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the 

Western Organization of Resource Councils. This report is an update of Undermined Promise: 

Reclamation and Enforcement of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 1977-2007. Discusses 

reclamation and bonding, water, wildlife, inspections and enforcement, and recommendations for 

reform.

National Wildlife Federation. Wildlife in Hot Water: America’s Waterways and Climate 

Change. Internet website: http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Water/2015/NWFReport_Wildlife-In-Hot-Water.pdf.

This report examines how climate change is affecting and is expected to affect the nation’s waterways 

and wildlife. The National Wildlife Federation is a conservation organization.

Nelson, R. 1984. “The Making of federal coal policy.” Busi. Hist. Rev. 58

Abstract only. Makes claim that federal coal leasing has failed due to conflicting ideologies.

New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department. 2016. FAQ - Coal Mine 

Reclamation Program.

Online document detailing the coal mine reclamation program and answering commonly asked 

questions.

New Scientist. 2007. Climate Myths Special. May 16, 2007.

Blog post with information on why climate change is a myth and resources that assert that claim.

Newcombe, C. P, and D. D. Macdonald. 1991. “Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic 

ecosystems.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11(1):72-82.

Journal article providing managers with a formula to calculate the effects of suspended sediments on fish 

and aquatic ecosystems by looking at the concentration of sediments and duration of exposure.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-98 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Newcombe, C. P., and J. O. Jensen. 1996. “Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: A 

synthesis for quantitative risk and impact.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management

16:693-727.

Journal article with a meta-analysis of 80 published and adequately documented reports on fish 

responses to suspended sediment in streams and estuaries, showing a formula to calculate the range of 

effects, from no effect to sublethal and lethal.

Newton, T. J., and M. R. Bartsch. 2007. “Contaminant sensitivity of freshwater mussels: 

Lethal and sublethal effects of ammonia to juvenile Lampsilis mussels (Unionidae) in 

sediment and water-only exposures.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26(10):2057-

2065.

Journal article on the sensitivity of two juvenile unionid mussels (Lampsilis cardium and L. higginsii) to 

ammonia and sediment, demonstrating that juvenile freshwater mussel growth is sensitive to ammonia 

toxicity and that growth should be measured via sediment tests.

NextGen Climate. 2016. Our Air Health and Equity Impacts of Ohio’s Power Plants. PSE 

Healthy Energy.

This report is based on a comprehensive public health and environmental hazard analysis authored by 

the energy, science, and policy institute, PSE Healthy Energy. The study examines demographic, social, 

and economic characteristics of communities located near fossil fuel plants, as well as the environmental 

health burdens and environmental hazards these neighborhoods face. The study models the national, 

regional, and local public health impacts of particulate matter associated with combustion at Ohio’s 

power plants in 2015.

Nichols, J., and A. Paul. July 28, 2016. WildEarth Guardians, Denver, Colorado.

Comments in response to the March 30, 2016 notice of intent to prepare a programmatic 

environmental impact statement to review the federal coal program consistent with Secretarial Order 

3338, issued on January 15, 2016. See 81 Fed. Reg. 17,720 (March 30, 2016). Expounds on comments 

made at hearings.

Noone, K., et al. 2012. Valuing the Ocean: Draft Executive Summary. Stockholm 

Environment Institute, Sweden.

Executive summary identifying the six major threats to the ocean from anthropogenic climate change: 

ocean acidification, ocean warming, hypoxia, sea level rise, pollution, and overuse of marine resources. 

Also looks at how these threats can combine to have even more adverse impacts as these threats can 

combine to be multiple stressors.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 2016. the State of North America’s Birds 

2016. Environment and Climate Change Canada: Ottawa

Infographic on North American birds and their habitats and how climate change will threaten them.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-99

Scoping Report 

Northern Plains Resource Council. 2011. A Hidden Cost of Coal: Exporting Our Coal to 

Asia. Northern Plains Resource Council, Billings, Montana.

Paper examining the costs of expanded coal strip mining and exports on the communities of Montana, 

particularly given the increasing amounts of coal exports to Asia.

Office of Inspector General. 2013. Coal Management Program, US Department of the 

Interior CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012. US Office of the Inspector General, Washington, DC

Report to determine if the Department of the Interior’s coal leasing process obtains a fair return for the 

public’s coal; assesses the effectiveness of the department’s coal lease inspection and enforcement 

program; and assesses whether the department is sufficiently addressing financial concerns about venting 

methane gas from coal mines.

. 2013. Letter to Senator Wyden regarding coal leasing program.

The letter addresses Sen. Wyden’s questions regarding violations in selling coal below fair market value 

and safeguards to avoid future violations.

Office of Management and Budget. 2014 Technical Support Document: Technical Update 

of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 

Submitted on behalf of Sierra Club. February 26, 2014

Comments by the Sierra Club on the Interagency Working Group’s Technical Support Document on 

the Social Cost of Carbon.

Office of Natural Resources Revenue. 2015. Consolidated Federal Oil & Gas and Federal & 

Indian Coal Valuation Reform. Federal Register 80(3):608-675.

ONRR proposed to change government regulations governing valuation for royalty purposes of oil and 

gas produced from federal onshore and offshore leases and coal produce from federal and Indian leases.

. 2016. Statistical Information Site. Internet website: http://statistics.onrr 

.gov/Default.aspx

Provides the following datasets, which are available for download or query: disbursement data, reported 

revenue data, and production data.

Office of the Press Secretary. 2015. Remarks by the President at the Glacier Conference, 

Anchorage, Alaska. Internet website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2015/09/01/remarks-president-glacier-conference-anchorage-ak. 

President Obama addresses Alaskan and indigenous communities about climate change and impacts in 

Arctic regions.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-100 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Office of the Press Secretary. 2016. North American Climate, Clean Energy, and 

Environment Partnership Action Plan. Internet website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2016/06/29/north-american-climate-clean-energy-and-environmentpartnership-action.

This website details the partnership of North American leaders to implement a plan to advance clean 

and secure energy, to drive down short-lived climate pollutants, to promote clean and efficient 

transportation, to protect nature and advance science, and to show global leadership in addressing 

climate change.

Office of the Secretary of the Interior. 2011. Press release: Interior Releases Report 

Highlighting Impacts of Climate Change to Western Water Resources. Internet website: 

https://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Interior-Releases-Report-Highlighting-Impacts-ofClimate-Change-to-Western-Water-Resources.

This press release for the US Department of the Interior announces a report that assesses climate 

change risks and how these risks could impact water operations, hydropower, flood control, and fish 

and wildlife in the western United States.

Office of the Secretary of the Interior. 2015. Press release: Secretary Jewell Offers Vision 

for Balanced, Prosperous Energy Future. Internet website:

https://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/secretary-jewell-offers-vision-for-balancedprosperous-energy-future. 

Press release about the remarks Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell presented at the Center for 

Strategic and International Studies on March 17, 2015. She laid out the Department of the Interior’s 

priorities for strengthening the US economy with a balanced, prosperous energy future over the next 

two years.

Ogle, R. S., K. J. Maier, P. Kiffney, M. J. Williams, A. Brasher, L. A. Melton, and A. W. 

Knight. 1988. “Bioaccumulation of selenium in aquatic ecosystems.” Lake and Reservoir 

Management 4(2):165-173. Internet website: 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07438148809354824.

This peer-reviewed journal article investigates how elevated levels of selenium have degraded several 

ecosystems.

OIG Report No. CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012. 2013. Coal Management Program, US 

Department of the Interior. June 11, 2013. Internet website: https://www.doioig.gov/

reports/coal-management-program- us-department-interior.

The federal government and state and local beneficiaries are losing significant revenue due to the 

undervaluation of taxpayer-owned coal. Based on a small review sample, the report preparers estimated 

at least $60 million has been lost.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-101

Scoping Report 

Onederra, I., et al. 2012. “Understanding main causes of nitrogen oxide fumes in surface 

blasting.” Mining Technology September 2012.

Post-blast fumes are a direct product of the detonation process, which can be easily identified as the 

resultant yellow to orange post-blast clouds. There is general agreement that the conditions leading to 

fumes are associated with fuel deficiencies or incomplete detonation of the explosives. From a practical 

perspective this can be due to one or a combination of factors, such as explosives characteristics, 

confinement effects, ground conditions, inappropriate blast design parameters, explosives selection, onbench practices, and potential contamination of explosives in the blast hole.

Orr, J. C., et al. 2005. “Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and 

its impact on calcifying organisms.” Nature 437:681-686.

Journal article on ocean acidification and how key marine organisms—such as corals and some 

plankton—will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons if this trend 

continues. Using a variety of models of the ocean-carbon cycle, results seem to indicate that conditions 

detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries, as suggested 

previously.

Painter, T., et al. 2010. “Response of Colorado River runoff to dust radiative forcing in 

snow.” PNAS 107:17125-17130.

Study that uses the variable infiltration capacity model with post- and pre-disturbance of dust on albedo 

to estimate the runoff from the Upper Colorado River Basin. The authors find that peak runoff occurs 

earlier with dust loading. This they suggest could be avoided with mitigation through surface stabilization 

in the deserts.

Palmer, M. A., and K. L. Hondula. “Restoration as mitigation: Analysis of stream 

mitigation for coal mining impacts in southern Appalachia.” Environmental Science and 

Technology 48:10552-10560.

Journal article on compensatory mitigation, which is commonly used to replace aquatic natural 

resources being lost or degraded, and the relative success of stream mitigation. Provides a synthesis of 

information about 434 stream mitigation projects in Appalachia. Overall, the data show that mitigation 

being implemented in southern Appalachia for coal mining are not meeting the objectives of the Clean 

Water Act to replace lost or degraded stream ecosystems and their functions.

Parmesan, C., and G. Yohe. 2003. “A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change 

impacts across natural systems.” Nature 421:37-42.

Journal article exploring systematic trends across diverse species and geographic regions in response to 

climate change. Shows that recent biological trends match climate change predictions and that climate 

change is already affecting living systems.

Partnership for a Secure America. 2016. Internet website: 

http://www.psaonline.org/2015/10/22/republicans-democrats-agree-u-s-security-demandsglobal-climate-action/. 

Website with signatories and a statement that US security needs action on climate change.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-102 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Paterson, L. 2016. “More coal layoffs in Wyoming.” Inside Energy News. Internet website: 

http://insideenergy.org/2016/04/28/more-coal-layoffs-in-wyoming/.

This article discusses more layoffs from Wyoming coal mines, specifically from Alpha Natural Resources. 

Inside Energy is collaborative journalism initiative among public media, funded by a grant from the 

Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Paz, S. 2015. “Climate change impacts on West Nile virus transmission in a global 

context.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Vol. 370.

Journal article about West Nile virus (WNV) and how weather conditions have direct and indirect 

influences on WNV vector competence (the ability to acquire, maintain and transmit the virus) on the 

vector population dynamic and on the virus replication rate in the mosquito, which are mostly weather 

dependent. The importance of temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, and winds as drivers in 

WNV epidemiology is increasing under conditions of climate change.

Penfold, M. 2014. Letter to BLM. Our Montana, Inc.

The letter discusses rights of surface owners to consent to coal strip mining on their property and 

supports extending this right of consent to privately held coal transferred from federal ownership.

Peters, A. 2009. Air Quality and Cardiovascular Health Smoke and Pollution Matter. 

Circulation. 120: 924-927.

Article comparing cigarette smoke and ambient particulate matter. This article estimates the cumulative 

dose of different degrees of smoking and cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality, attempting to 

find a scale to compare.

Peters, K. 1992. “The Clean Air Act and the Amendments of 1990.” Santa Clara High 

Technology Law Journal 8(1):233-242.

Law journal note provides brief overview of the provisions of the Clean Air Act.

Petty, J. T., et al. 2010. “Landscape indicators and thresholds of stream ecological 

impairment in an intensively mined Appalachian watershed.” Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society 29(4):1292-1309.

Journal article on the development of an index of mining intensity (MI) that could be used to predict 

stream water quality and biological conditions; to quantify the extent to which geology and the 

geographic position of mines modulate the effects of mining on in-stream conditions; and to identify 

thresholds of MI that produce quantifiable changes to benthic macroinvertebrate communities.

Pfister, T., et al. 2014. “Projections of future summertime ozone over the US.” Journal of 

Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 119: 5559-5582.

Study using a regional coupled chemistry-transport model to assess changes in surface ozone over 

summertime in the United States between the present and 2050.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-103

Scoping Report 

Physicians for Social Responsibility. 2009. Coal’s Assault on Human Health, Nov. 18. 

Internet website: http://www.psr.org/news-events/press-releases/coal-pollution-damageshuman-health.html

Policy paper examining the impacts from pollutants emitted during coal combustion; pinpoints negative 

health consequences at each step of the coal life cycle.

Pond, G. J. 2010. “Patterns of Ephemeroptera taxa loss in Appalachian headwater streams 

(Kentucky, USA).” Hydrobiologia 641:185-201.

Journal article about how expected mayfly communities are disappearing from streams where mining 

disturbance and residential development has occurred, and that, because of the long-term impacts 

incurred by both land uses, recovery is uncertain.

Pond, G. J., et al. 2008. “Downstream effects of mountaintop coal mining: Comparing 

biological conditions using family- and genus-level macroinvertebrate bioassessment 

tools.” Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27(3):717-737.

Journal article on how surface coal mining with valley fills has impaired the aquatic life in numerous 

streams in the central Appalachian Mountains. Four lines of evidence indicate that mining impairs 

biological condition of streams, a shift in species assemblages, loss of Ephemeroptera taxa, changes in 

individual metrics and indices, and differences in water chemistry. Results show that mining has had 

subtle to severe impacts on benthic macroinvertebrate communities.

Pope, A., III. 2000. “Epidemiology of fine particulate air pollution and human health: 

Biologic mechanisms and who’s at risk?” Environmental Health Perspectives 108:713-723.

Article that summarizes the epidemiology of the health effects of fine particulate air pollution. Provides 

opinion that there are adverse health effects of particulates on susceptible populations.

Powder River Basin Resource Council and Western Organization of Resource Councils. No 

date. When Is Federal Coal Leasing Contrary to the Public Interest?

Final paper discussing coal leasing not being in the public’s interest. Points out that the BLM has not 

defined “public interest” by rule or handbook. Proposes that the lack of guidance and criteria from the 

BLM on the issue of what coal leases are in the public interest has prevented decision-making. Asks that 

guidance be developed.

. No date. Abuse of Taxpayer-Owned Powder River Basin Coal.

This fact sheet describes the export of coal from the Powder River Basin, while royalties to taxpayers 

are paid based on domestic prices.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-104 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Powder River Basin Resource Council, et al. 2015. Letter to Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement re: Stream Protection Rule, Washington DC.

Letter from 32 nonprofit groups commenting on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement proposed Stream Protection Rule (80 FR 44436 [July 27 2015]) and the accompanying 

DEIS. The rule would increase monitoring and bonding requirements for mountaintop removal mining, 

but commenters suggest it needs to clarify downstream water quality standards, increase restoration 

requirements, assess impacts on climate change, and protect watercourses.

Powder River Basin Resource Council, et al. 2016. Comments on Proposed Self-Bonding 

Rule Changes, Docket ID: OSM-2016-0006. 

Comments to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement submitted by 27 organizations, 

including the Powder River Basin Resource Council and Sierra Club. Asks Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement to use its authority to close the loopholes.

Powder River Basin Resource Council, et al. 2016. Letter to Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement re: Proposed Self-Bonding Rule Changes, Washington DC.

Letter from 32 nonprofit environmental and community groups from coal-producing areas, thanking 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement for review of self-bonding regulations under 

SMCRA. The letter requests improved enforcement and closure of the loophole of self-bonding in 

reclamation liability.

Power, T. M. 2011. The Greenhouse Gas Impact of Exporting Coal from the West Coast: 

An Economic Analysis. Power Consulting, Missoula, Montana.

Report concluding that the proposed coal export facilities in the Northwest will result in more coal 

consumption in Asia and will undermine China’s progress toward more efficient power generation and 

usage. Approving proposed coal export facilities would also undermine Washington State’s commitment 

to reducing its own share of greenhouse gas emissions.

Power, T. M., and D. S. Power. 2013. The Impact of Powder River Basin Coal Exports on 

Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Power Consulting, Missoula, Montana.

Report considering the various opinions that increased American coal production and exports will have 

no net impact on global greenhouse gas emissions, while others have argued that such exports would 

actually reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Analyzes and responds to these arguments that there

will be no net increase in global greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the expansion of Powder River 

Basin coal mining and the construction of rail and port infrastructure on the West Coast to support the 

export of that coal to Asia.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-105

Scoping Report 

Power, T., D. Power, and J. Brown. 2010. Comments on the Greenhouse Gas Impacts and 

the Modeling of Coal Flows in the Millennium Bulk Terminals Longview SEPA Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. A Report Prepared for Earthjustice and Sierra Club. 

June 10, 2016.

Comment report on the greenhouse gas impacts and the modeling of coal flows in the Millennium Bulk 

Terminals Longview SEPA Draft Environmental Impact Statement by Power Consulting, Inc., and Aesir 

Consulting, LLC. Comments focus on greenhouse gas emissions related to changes in coal and natural 

gas combustion that would be caused by the project.

. 2015. Assessing the Ability of Contemporary Models to Calculate the GHG 

Implications of Federal Coal Leasing Decisions and Other Federal Energy Management 

Decisions. A Report Prepared for Earthjustice and Sierra Club. May 21, 2015.

A report prepared by consultants familiar with power and modeling by authors familiar with the power 

industry and modeling. The report details the logistics and economics of coal, the structure of the 

National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) and its use for the coal market. Concluding that there is the 

most appropriate model for the Forest Service to use for modeling the greenhouse gas emission impacts 

of the coal mine road exemption to the Colorado Roadless Rule.

. 2016. Economic Consequences of the Federal Coal Leasing Program: Improving 

the Quality of the Economic Analysis. A Report Prepared for Earthjustice and Sierra Club. 

July 27 2016.

A report prepared by consultants familiar with power and modeling, responding to the Notice of Intent 

to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Review Federal Coal Program. The 

authors look into the promises and realities of coal mining, the economics of coal mining communities, 

economic consequences associated with Federal Land Management decisions, and the importance of 

considering economics in coal leasing policy.

Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines. 2013. Healthy Headwaters Coal 

Seam Gas Water Feasibility Study: Assessing the Salinity Impacts of Coal Seam Gas Water 

on Landscapes and Surface Streams. February 2013.

Report describes a framework to assess the salinity risk associated with the use of coal seam gas water 

for irrigation in the Queensland Murray-Darling Basin. The framework has four components—

biophysical hazard, salinity stage, current management influence, and post-irrigation land use. Salinity risk 

must be considered for any irrigation development affected by coal seam gas. 
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-106 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Rasker, R., P. H. Gude, J. A. Gude, and J. van den Noort. 2009. “The economic importance 

of air travel in high-amenity rural areas.” Journal of Rural Studies 25:343-353.

Peer-reviewed journal article tests a new county classification system to reflect differing degrees of 

access to population centers and account for the increasing importance of airports, examines the validity 

of this new classification, and tests for differences in economic performance among the three county 

types. Finds that there are three distinct Wests that can be classified using economic performance 

measures and socioeconomic characteristics: metro, isolated, and connected. The findings illustrate the 

importance of airports in rural development and the limitations facing those communities that are 

isolated from markets and population centers. 

Raupach, M. R., et al. 2014. “Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions.” Nature 

Climate Change 4:873-879.

Journal article on translating global carbon quotas to regional and national scales. For a carbon quota 

consistent with a 2 degree C warming limit (relative to pre-Industrial levels), the necessary long-term 

mitigation rates are very challenging, both because of strong limits on future emissions from the global 

carbon quota and also the likely short-term persistence in emissions growth in many regions.

Ray, K. 2016. “Colorado’s worst methane polluter is an Arch Coal mine.” Colorado 

Independent. May 3, 2016.

Article on the West Elk Mine’s methane production places blame on the lack of both state and federal 

regulations for the underground coal mines. West Elk Mine was the single largest methane polluter in 

Colorado, and there are plans to expand it, which the article points out would roll back a large portion 

of the progress made in tackling methane.

Real, E., et al. 2007. “Processes influencing ozone levels in Alaskan forest fire plumes 

during long-range transport over the North Atlantic.” Journal of Geophysical Research 112: 

D10S41.

Article investigating plumes from Alaskan forest fires to see how they influence ozone levels in the 

North Atlantic. Results found the ozone impact of Alaskan fires can be potentially significant over 

Europe.

Regan, C. 2016. US Coal: Pushed to the Margins. Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Coal report with a comprehensive look at coal in the twenty-first century. Main topics are coal 

retirements overview, wholesale power price suppression, cheap natural gas, plummeting renewables.

Rehbach, S., and R. Samek. 2015. Downsizing the US coal industry: Can a slow-motion 

train wreck be avoided? Mining & Minerals Practice. November 2015.

Report describing the US coal industry’s current state of overcapacity, or surplus in the face of falling 

demand, and long-term outstanding financial liability, including long-term debt, contractual obligations, 

asset-retirement obligations, and pension funding obligations. Outlines possible strategies for correcting 

supply-demand imbalance and reducing liability. Report produced by a management consulting firm.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-107

Scoping Report 

REMI and Synapse. 2014. The Economic, Climate, Fiscal, Power, and Demographic Impact 

of a National Fee-and-Dividend Carbon Tax. Prepared for Citizens’ Climate Lobby. 

Coronado, California. 

Report investigating the impacts of implementing a revenue-neutral carbon tax for nine regions of the 

United States. Looked at economics, climate, budget, power generation, and demographics. Results 

determine that there are probable benefits to taxing carbon dioxide emissions.

Research Council of Norway. 2010. Persistent organic pollutants in large concentrations in 

Arctic areas: Fires spread environmental toxins over the Arctic. ScienceDaily. Internet 

website: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100601072630.htm

Online article on organic pollutants in Arctic areas, specifically from forest fires and straw and stubble 

burning in North America and Eastern Europe. Specifically focuses on the environmental toxin 

polychlorinated biphenyl, and persistent organic pollutants.

Rice, D. 2016. “Global temperatures soar for record 12th straight month.” USA Today, May 

18, 2016, McLean, Virginia.

News article with information and resources stating that the average carbon dioxide and temperatures 

have increased for the last 12 months,

Rich, H. 2013. Internet website: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanysgreen-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/#3a721c7f14a6.

An article on how Chancellor Angela Merkel’s energy review and how it has affected the German 

energy sector.

Rieman, B. E., D. Isaak, S. Adams, D. Horan, D. Nagel, C. Luce, and D. Myers. 2007. 

“Anticipated climate warming effects on bull trout habitats and populations across interior 

Columbia River Basin.” American Fisheries Society 136:1552-1565. Internet website:

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/publications/fisheries/rmrs_2007_riemanb001.pdf.

This peer-reviewed scientific journal article investigates how a warming climate will influence regional 

and local bull trout distributions.

Riordan, M. 2014. “Don’t sell cheap US coal to Asia.” The New York Times. February 13, 

2014, New York, New York, p. A27.

Op-ed article written in opposition of exporting US coal to Asian markets. The author expresses 

opposition to the proposed Cherry Point shipping terminal north of Seattle, Washington, and describes 

economic and environmental impacts of coal transportation and exports.

Robert Scribbler. 2013. Internet website: 

https://robertscribbler.com/2013/07/16/drjenniferfrancistopclimatologistsexplainhowglobal

warmingwreckstheandampsuphydrologicalcycletocausedangerousweather/.

Website with information on top Climatologist Dr. Jennifer Francis and her explanation of global 

warming’s impact on the jet stream and extreme weather. Includes video on the topic.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-108 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2014. Internet website: https://robertscribbler.com/2014/01/23/arcticheatwave

torippolarvortexinhalfshatteralaskasalltimerecordhighforjanuary/.

Internet article discussing the record high temperatures in January in Alaska. Author blames the jet 

stream pattern for higher temperatures, as well as the reduction of land and sea ice. Provides NASA 

satellite image of heat wave in Alaska.

. 2014. Internet website: https://robertscribbler.com/tag/drjenniferfrancis/.

Online article linking gravity waves that interfered with atmospheric clock to climate change. Identifies 

the two climate change effects of Arctic warming—weakened zonal winds and increased wave 

amplitude—as possible causes. Provides sources and links to other opinions on the topic, as well as 

maps.

Rocky Mountain Climate Organization. 2008. Hotter and Drier: The West’s Changed 

Climate. Internet website: http://www.rockymountainclimate.org/website%20

pictures/Hotter%20and%20Drier.pdf.

This report documents that the American West has gotten hotter at a faster rate than the planet as a 

whole. Across the 11 states, temperatures from 2003 to 2007 were 1.7°F higher than the twentieth 

century average for the region. By contrast, global temperatures in that five-year period were 1.0°F 

hotter than the planet’s twentieth-century average. The report also presents similar data for each of the 

11 states and documents other ways in which the West’s climate is already changing and the impacts of 

those changes.

Rocky Mountain Institute. 2010. Internet website: 

http://www.rmi.org/RFGraphhealth_effects_from_US_power_plant_emissions.

Website with graph of the estimated health effects from US coal-fired power plant emissions. Formatted 

as a bar graph, with health effects classified into six categories: premature deaths, hospital admissions, 

heart attacks, chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, and lost work days, and reported as the estimated 

number of cases in 2010. The report also claims that the total monetary costs of the health impacts is 

over $100 billion annually.

Roessler. 2006. Las Vegas and the Groundwater Development Project Where does it start? 

Where will it end? A Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN) Report. 

Report discusses pipeline projects in Las Vegas, Tucson, and Albuquerque and the importance of water. 

Mentions the water crisis.

Rogelj, J., et al. 2015. “Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming 

to below 1.5 degree C.” Nature Climate Change 5:519-538.

Journal article on how particularly vulnerable countries may have more impacts projected for a global 

warming level of 2 degrees C. Therefore, many countries advocate limiting warming to below 1.5 

degrees C, which will require a faster scale-up of mitigation action in most sectors and energy efficiency 

and stringent early reductions.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-109

Scoping Report 

Rogelj, J., et al. 2015. “Paris agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming 

well below 2 degrees C.” Nature 534:631-639.

Journal article on the Paris climate agreement aims to hold global warming to well below 2 degrees 

Celsius and to “pursue efforts” to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Argues more can be achieved, because 

the agreement stipulates that targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are strengthened over time, 

both in ambition and scope, and that additional national, sub-national and non-state actions are required 

to maintain a reasonable chance of meeting the target.

Rogers, A. D., and D. A. Laffoley. 2011. International Earth System Expert Workshop On 

Ocean Stresses And Impacts: Summary Report. IPSO Oxford.

Workshop summary report examining the different effects we are having on the ocean, compromising 

its ability to support us. Concludes that we have underestimated the overall risks, that the whole of 

marine degradation is greater than the sum of its parts, and that degradation is now happening at a faster 

rate than predicted. The scale of the stresses on the ocean means that deferring action will increase 

costs in the future, leading to even greater losses of benefits.

Root, T. L., et al. 2003. “Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants.”

Nature 421:57-60.

Journal article about a meta-an analysis of how species have responded to climatic changes from global 

warming. These studies strongly suggest that a significant impact of global warming is already discernible 

in animal and plant populations. The synergism of rapid temperature rise and other stresses, in particular 

habitat destruction, could easily disrupt the connectedness among species and lead to a reformulation of 

species communities, numerous extirpations, and possibly extinctions.

Roth, S. 2016. “Sally Jewell: ‘Keep it in the ground’ protests ‘naïve’.” The Desert Sun. 

Internet website: http://desert.sn/2707PYX.

Article on President Obama’s Interior Secretary’s response to the “keep it in the ground” movement. 

This movement urges the federal government to stop issuing new leases for coal, oil, and gas extraction 

on public lands. Jewell comments that she agrees that a shift to renewables is needed but states that it 

will be a slow process and is not reasonable to expect 100% renewables.

Rucker, P. 2012. “Coal export trade raises alarms for western state.” Business and Financial 

News.

Western states that rely on coal revenues are concerned that royalty payments are being undervalued 

by valuing at domestic prices rather than higher international rates. Coal companies skirt the higher 

rates by selling to sister companies, which then sell abroad.

. 2016. “Arch Coal asks US bankruptcy court to ease its cleanup.” Reuters, January 

11, 2016. Internet website: http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-arch-coal-cleanupidUSL2N14V1I520160111

News article related to Arch Coal bankruptcy.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-110 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. “US taxpayers due to subsidize Koch-controlled coal mine.” Reuters. January 12, 

2016. Internet website: http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-koch-coalidUSL2N14W1JJ20160112

Online article on the $14 million refund from the Obama Administration to a coal company run by 

William Koch for closing his mine on federal land. Article discusses royalty rates of coal in detail.

S&P Global Platts. 2015. “PRB coal producers must cut production to boost prices: 

Analyst.” S&P Global Platts.

Article stating that, for coal prices to rise, production must be cut sharply in the Powder River Basin.

. 2016. “PRB coal stockpiles at roughly 102 days, 35 days above average: UP.” S&P 

Global Platts.

Article about coal stockpiles being much larger than usual, due to mild weather, market forces, and 

other reasons.

Sanzillo, T. 2012. The Great Giveaway: An Analysis of the United State’s Long-Term 

Trend of Selling Federally Owned Coal for Less than Fair Market Value. Institute for 

Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. June 2012.

Report examining the coal-leasing fair market value appraisal program. Uses the limited information that 

is currently available on the public record. Specifics of this report are from the Powder River Basin. The 

report concludes that there is no evidence that the BLM receives a market price for coal.

. 2016. Comments on the Department of Interior (DOI) Notice of Intent to 

Conduct a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement of Federal Coal Leasing 

Programs. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, Cleveland, Ohio.

Proposal commenting on programmatic environmental impact statement of federal coal lease program. 

Prepared by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

Schaeffer, M., et al. 2013. Adequacy and Feasibility of the 1.5 Degree C Long-Term Global 

Limit. Climate Action Network Europe, Brussels, Belgium.

Paper examining whether the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C is feasible or helps given 

socioeconomic and technical constraints.

Schleussner, C-F., et al. 2016. “Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to 

global warming: The case of 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C.” Earth System Dynamics 7:327-

351.

Journal article providing an assessment of key impacts of climate change at warming levels of 1.5 and 2 

degrees C, including extreme weather events, water availability, agricultural yields, sea-level rise, and risk 

of coral reef loss. Results reveal substantial differences in impacts between a 1.5 and 2 degree C

warming that are highly relevant for the assessment of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the 

climate system.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-111

Scoping Report 

Schlissel, D. 2016. “A Sustained Coal Recovery? When You Get There, There’s No There 

There.” Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. 

Report published by Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis that contains a comprehensive 

overview of the coal industry as a whole, from consumption and demand to financial viability.

Schmid, M., and D. L. Parker. No date. Fire and Forest Insect Pests. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr191/rm_gtr191_232_233.pdf. 

Paper on how fire is used to kill bark beetle infestations in logging residual or infested trees but is rarely 

used to suppress extensive infestations. Forest fires predispose stands to attack by wood boring and 

bark beetles and create stand conditions conducive to infestations in the future.

Schulte Roth & Zabel. 2016. Labor Liabilities in Coal Bankruptcies. Schulte Roth & Zabel 

Washington, DC. 

Presentation about labor issues in coal bankruptcies. Gives an overview of the industry and what 

bankruptcy is, then dives into labor issues.

Schuman, G. E., et al. 2000. Sagebrush Establishment on Mined Lands: Ecology and 

Research. Billings Land Reclamation Symposium, Billings, Montana.

This report discusses how restoring degraded big sagebrush communities and reducing further losses 

pose major challenges to landowners. It was prepared by The Wyoming Abandoned Coal Mine Land 

Research Program funded by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Abandoned Mine 

Land Division and administered by the Office of Research, University of Wyoming.

Schwartz, C. 2013. “Studies, states seek to halt mule deer population decline.” Billings, 

October 17, 2013.

Newspaper article about the decline in mule deer populations in four western US states and the efforts 

of those states to halt this decline.

Sheffield, P. E., and P. J. Landrigan. 2011. “Global climate change and children’s health: 

Threats and strategies for prevention.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119(3):291-298.

Journal article on how climate change is increasing the global burden of disease, primarily in children, and 

that further quantification of the effects of climate change on children’s health is needed globally and also 

at regional and local levels through enhanced monitoring of children’s environmental health and by 

tracking selected indicators. Climate change preparedness strategies need to be incorporated into public 

health programs.

Shelanski, H., and M. Obstefeld. 2015. Estimating the Benefits from Carbon Dioxide 

Emissions reductions. The White House. July 2, 2015.

Whitehouse summary of social cost of carbon.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-112 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Shi, G., et al. 2012. “Estimating Elasticity for residential electricity demand in China.” The 

Scientific World Journal 2012.

Article on how residential demand for electricity responds to its own price in China. Suggests potential 

to use the price instrument to conserve electricity consumption. The high-income group was found to 

be more price elastic than the low-income group, implicating a need for policy designed with an 

increasing block tariff.

Shindell, D. T. 2015. “The social cost of atmospheric release.” Climatic Change 130:313-

326.

Journal article exploring the economic damages associated with a marginal change in the atmospheric 

release of individual pollutants owing to their effects on climate and air quality. Prior studies have 

provided compelling demonstrations of the importance of links between climate change and air quality 

valuation and of the incorporation of economics into emission metrics, but typically have not fully 

represented the climate impact of short-lived emissions, especially aerosols and methane.

Shoemaker, J. K., D. P. Schrag, M. J. Molina, and V. Ramanathan. 2013. “What role for 

short-lived climate pollutants in mitigation policy?” Science 342, December 13, 2013.

Article investigating the role of Short-lived climate pollutants, such as methane, in mitigation policy. The 

article compares and contrasts these climate pollutants to long-lived climate pollutants and incorporates 

them in the plan to achieve climate goals. This article suggests methane should be discouraged.

Shubert, J., et al. 1978. “Combined effects in toxicology: A rapid systematic testing 

procedure—cadmium, mercury, and lead.” J. Toxicol Environ Health 4:763-776.

Abstract from article on the combined effects of cadmium, mercury, and lead. The article looks at the 

toxicological response of any combination of the listed toxins. Found that, generally, a combination was 

synergistic.

Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Center for Biological Diversity, Powder River Basin Resource 

Council, Western Organization. 2014. 1004-AE23 Waste Mine Methane Capture, Use, 

Sale, or Destruction, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 79 Fed. Reg. 23923 (April 

29, 2014). 

Comments submitted to the BLM on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning Waste 

Mine Methane Capture, Use, Sale, or Destruction.

Sierra Club, et al. 2015. Comments on Draft Stream Protection Rule. OSM–2010–0018. 

October 26, 2015.

Letter from the Sierra Club to the BLM, with comments on the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement’s proposed Stream Protection Rule. Urges the agency to move forward with 

implementation of the Stream Protection Rule.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-113

Scoping Report 

Sierra Club, et al. 2015. Comments on Proposed ONRR Rule: Consolidated Federal Oil 

and Gas and Federal and Indian Coal Valuation Reform, Docket No. ONRR-2012-0004 

Regulation Identifier Number: 1012-AA13. Internet website: http://www.onrr.gov/

Laws_R_D/PubComm/PDFDocs/AA13/Earthjustice-Sierra%20Club.pdf. 

Comments submitted on behalf of Earthjustice, Sierra Club, and 350 Colorado, regarding the Office of 

Natural Resource Revenue’s proposed regulatory changes on the collection of royalties from coal, oil, 

and gas produced on public lands. It addresses the closing of an accounting loophole that in recent years 

has enabled coal companies to sell federal coal to their own subsidiaries, pay royalties on the initial sale, 

then reap windfall profits when those subsidiaries sell the same coal at a much higher price without any 

additional royalty.

Sierra Club, et al. 2016. Comments to Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement on Petition to Initiate Self-Bonding Rulemaking, Docket ID: OSM-2016-0006. 

Internet website: https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/blog/Selfbonding%20comments%20to%20OSMRE_7-20-16.pdf. 

Comments to Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement regarding the inappropriateness of 

coal mines being able to self-bond, due to the high risk of insolvency within the coal mining industry, 

even when an applicant satisfies the financial criteria in the existing regulations.

Sierra Club. 2014. Comments on the Interagency Working Group’s Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 

12866 (Docket No.OMB-2013-0007-0083). Internet website: 

https://fossil.energy.gov/App/DocketIndex/docket/DownloadFile/196. 

Sierra Club comments on the Interagency Working Group’s Technical Support Document: Social Cost 

of Carbon (SCC) for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. See 78 Fed. Reg. 70,586 

(November 26, 2013) and 79 Fed. Reg. 4359 (January 27, 2014).

. 2016. Keep it in the Ground. 

Report builds on Point of No Return, a groundbreaking 2013 investigation commissioned by Greenpeace 

International and undertaken by Ecofys. Using a similar approach, this updated report reflects that a 

number of carbon threats from the 2013 report have abated, and it assesses emerging projects and 

trends that put the climate and planet at risk.

Sightline Institute. 2014. Unfair Market Value. Internet website: http://www.sightline.org/

research_item/unfair-market-value/.

The BLM’s coal valuation practices ignore added-profit from exports. By ignoring exports, the BLM has 

been selling many federal coal leases at just a fraction of their true economic value. The report is 

updated with new information on current, past, and projected coal export forecasts.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-114 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Simmons, E., et al. 2015. Potential Climate Change Impacts and the BLM Rio Puerco Field 

Office’s Transportation System: A Technical Report. Bureau of Land Management, Rio 

Puerco Field Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Report presents climate change projections from 2025 to 2055. This period is centered on 2040, with15 

years of projections on either side, to smooth the data and avoid noise from year-to-year variations. 

Focusing on the year 2040 allows the analysis to be compatible with the planning time frames for the 

RPFO TTMP and the central New Mexico region’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan time horizons.

Simpson, D. A. 2011. Letter to T. Sturdevant, Washington State Department of Energy. 

Response from BLM regarding South Hilight Coal Lease Application.

Letter from the BLM responding to Washington State Department of Energy letter stating that 

preparation of an Supplemental EIS for South Hilight was not warranted, because the connection of port 

facilities to Wyoming coal leasing was speculative.

Simpson Weather Associates. 1993. Norfolk Southern Rail Emission Study. Simpson 

Weather Associates, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Report on fugitive coal dust emissions from rail cars during transport and the primary concerns of lost 

material, thus revenue, and coal dust complaints. Results include that most coal shipments produce no 

measurable or visible dust and that coal loss from cars can be achieved through slope management of 

load top profiles and chemical binders.

Smh.com.au. 2014. Mine blast gone wrong spews toxic cloud. Internet website: 

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mine-blast-gone-wrong-spews-toxic-cloud-20140221-

335rf.html

Online article related to mine blast in Australia. The mine emitted toxic fumes of ammonium nitrate and 

fuel oil after a blast, which left people with sore throats. The blast comes after the company was earlier 

fined for a similar episode and prompted calls for stricter regulation.

Smith, J. B., et al. 2009. “Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the 

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) ‘’Reasons For Concern.’” Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences 106(11):4133-4137.

Journal article describing revisions of the sensitivities of the reasons for concern (RFCs) identified by the 

IPCC to increases in global mean temperature (GMT) and a more thorough understanding of the 

concept of vulnerability that has evolved over the past eight years. Compared with results reported in 

the IPCC Third Assessment Report, smaller increases in GMT are now estimated to lead to significant 

or substantial consequences in the framework of the five RFCs.

SourceWatch. 2016. Internet website: www.sourcewatch.org. 

Website with general information on federal coal subsidies.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-115

Scoping Report 

. 2016. The Footprint Of Coal. Internet website: 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_footprint_of_coal#How_much_land_has_been_

dist. 

Website estimating nationwide figures for the number of acres disturbed in the process of mining coal. It 

was completed by adding the now-outdated USGS figures to more current data provided by individual 

states to the US Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, as part of the annual reporting 

process required by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.

Spath, P. L., et al. 1999. Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-Fired Power Production (No. 

NREL/TP-570- 25119). National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, Colorado. Internet 

website: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/25119.pdf.

Report provides a life cycle assessment on the production of electricity from coal to examine the 

environmental aspects of current and future pulverized coal boiler systems. The authors found that CO2

accounts for 98 to 99 percent by weight of the total air emissions from each system examined. Two 

other climate change gases, methane and nitrous oxide, are also emitted from the system. Although the 

global warming potential (GWP) of these gases is much higher than that of CO2, they are emitted in 

much smaller quantities and therefore do not significantly change the GWP of the overall systems.

Spracklen, D., et al. 2008. “Impacts of climate change from 2000 to 2050 on wildfire 

activity and carbonaceous aerosol concentrations in the western United States.” Journal of 

Geophysical Research 114:D20301.

Article investigating the impact of climate change on wildfires and carbonaceous aerosol concentrations 

in the western United States from 2000 to 2050. The article uses models to determine that climate 

change will increase summertime organic carbon aerosol concentrations over the western United States 

and the elemental carbon concentrations. These changes can be traced to an increase in wildfires and 

changes in meteorology.

Spross, J. 2013. Would Limiting Carbon Emissions Destroy The Economy? Think Progress. 

Web. October 16, 2013. Internet website: https://thinkprogress.org/would-limiting-carbonemissions-destroy-the-economy-ac7c36e89872#.v9pxojuxd

Article in response to Obama asking the EPA to place limits on carbon pollution emissions from the 

nation’s power plants. This article looks at the economics behind that decision.

Squillace, M. 2009. The Strip Mining Handbook. Internet website: 

https://sites.google.com/site/stripmininghandbook/chapter-1-introduction 

This citizen’s guide includes seven chapters detailing the impacts of strip mining, The Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, permitting, and monitoring. The intent is to inform citizens about 

potential impacts of mining near their home or community.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-116 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Squillace, M. 2013. The Tragic Story of the Federal Coal Leasing Program, American Bar 

Association Natural Resources & Environment, Winter 2013. Internet website: 

http://www.eenews.net/assets/2016/01/21/document_gw_05.pdf.

Report providing a history of federal coal ownership and leasing, reviewing issues related to competition 

and fair market value and finding significant losses to taxpayers in how coal is currently leased and sold.

. 2016. Testimony of Professor Mark Squillace, University of Colorado Law School 

before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the House NRC On HR 

5259, 14th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2016.

Testimony regarding how the federal coal leasing program has never worked as it was designed: as a 

leasing program that was intended to be managed proactively by the federal government for the vast 

majority of federal coal. Instead it became a reactive program, with the federal government simply 

responding to industry applications (many of which have only one bidder and are therefore not market 

value). Provides a critique of H.R. 5259 as well.

. No date. Reclamation Liability under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 

Act (SMCRA). The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. 

Report published by The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the Center on Global Energy Policy 

at Columbia University. Discusses many different enforcements, new initiatives, requirements, bonding, 

and bankruptcy.

Squillace, M., and A. Hood. 2012. NEPA, Climate Change, and Public Lands DecisionMaking. 

Article offers the guidance that is currently lacking in federal land management agencies and other 

agencies making decisions impacting natural resource systems. It begins by describing NEPA and focusing 

especially on those legal requirements most relevant for federal land managers and other agencies 

making decisions with significant impacts on natural resources. Specifically, Part II discusses the CEQ 

regulations pertaining to programmatic assessments and tiering, uncertainty, and mitigation; Part III then 

explains the unique difficulties of applying NEPA to climate change. In particular, this part notes that 

NEPA’s cumulative impacts requirement applied literally to climate change is a seemingly impossible 

burden for land use decision-makers. Part III also addresses the inherent uncertainty related to climate 

change, how to understand that uncertainty in the context of predictive climate models, the use of 

adaptive management to respond to that uncertainty, and the different meanings of the terms adaptation 

and mitigation in the NEPA and climate change contexts. Part IIII concludes with the useful insights that 

land managers might glean from the otherwise inapplicable draft CEQ climate change guidance.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-117

Scoping Report 

Stanford School of Earth, Energy, and Environmental Sciences. No date. OPGEE: The Oil 

Production Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimator Internet website: https://pangea

.stanford.edu/researchgroups/eao/research/opgee-oil- production-greenhouse-gasemissionsestimator

Research summary, focusing on building tools to reduce the environmental impacts of energy systems, 

with an emphasis on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil energy systems. Research methods include 

engineering based life cycle assessment modeling and computational optimization. Targets include 

transportation fuels (conventional oil and oil substitutes) and carbon dioxide capture and storage.

Stephens, C., and M. Ahern. 2002. Worker and Community Health Impacts Related to 

Mining Operations Internationally. Mining, Minerals, and Sustainable Development. 

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

This is a review of literature on mining and health by mineral type, mining process, occupational 

exposures and impacts, and mining and community health impacts and policy.

Stevenson, A. 2016. Taxpayer Exposure to Bankrupt Coal. 

Report examines the taxpayers’ exposure to bankrupt coal. Discusses costs in short and long terms and 

makes suggestions for handling the industry

Stock J., et al. 2106. Federal Coal Program Reform, the Clean Power Plan, and the 

Interaction of Upstream and Downstream Climate Policies. Harvard Kennedy School. 

Internet website: http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/26766/federal_coal_

program_reform_the_clean_power_plan_and_the_interaction_of_upstream_and_down

stream_climate_policies.html.

US EPA study of the interaction between a specific upstream policy, incorporating a carbon adder into 

federal coal royalties, and downstream emissions regulation under the Clean Power Plan.

Stockholm Environment Institute. 2015. Supply-side climate policy: the road less taken.

October 2015. Internet website: http://www.sei-international.org/publications?pid=2835.

Report evaluates supply-side approaches to climate policy and finds that supply-side policies, such as 

removal of producer subsidies, compensation of resource owners for leaving fuels unburned, and 

outright restrictions on resource development, could allow for greater emission reductions at the same 

(or lower) cost than demand-side policies, such as encouraging energy conservation.

. 2016. How would phasing out US federal leases for fossil fuel extraction affect CO2

emissions and 2 C goals? May 2016. Internet website: https://www.seiinternational.org/publications?pid=2937&utm_content=bufferf4b1b&utm_medium=social&

utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer.

Report examining phasing out of federal coal leases. Concludes that this could reduce global CO2

emissions by 100 million tonnes per year by 2030 and by greater amounts thereafter. The emissions 

impact would be comparable to that of other major climate policies under consideration by the Obama 

administration. These findings suggest that policymakers should give greater attention to measures that 

slow the expansion of fossil fuel supplies.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-118 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Storrow, B. 2016. Wyoming’s two largest coal mines announce layoffs. Internet website: 

http://trib.com/business/energy/wyoming-s-two-largest-coal-mines-announcelayoffs/article_0d217a3a-5a9d-5b1d-8d0d-8a5081724bb2.html.

This article reports layoffs from the two largest coal mines in America in March 2016: Peabody Energy 

and Arch Coal.

. 2016. “The prospects for coal exports are dimming, but politics have little to do 

with it.” Casper Star Tribune, Casper, Wyoming.

Article about the diminishing market for coal affecting the potential for exports.

Stratus Consulting. 2010. Potential Environmental Impacts of the Proposed CIRI 

Underground Coal Gasification Project, Western Cook Inlet, Alaska. January 27, 2010.

Report retained by the Center for Science in Public Participation to summarize the potential 

environmental risks associated with Underground Coal Gasification and Carbon Capture and 

Sequestration in general and the Cook Inlet Region, Inc., proposed project in particular.

. 2015. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fossil Energy Extracted from Federal Lands 

and Waters: An Update Stratus Consulting, Boulder, Colorado. 

Report provides an updated analysis of the magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions currently accounted 

for from federal lands and waters. Produced by Stratus Consulting for The Wilderness Society.

. 2015. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fossil Energy Extracted from Federal Lands 

and Waters: Final Report. Stratus Consulting, Boulder, Colorado.

Report designed to develop a preliminary quantitative estimate of the magnitude of ultimate greenhouse 

gas emissions (including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) associated with these activities (i.e., 

the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted if, for example, coal mined from federal lands were combusted 

downstream in various applications, such as in coal-fired power plants). Also involved assembling 

information on the different types of indirect emissions associated with these activities (e.g., emissions 

from vehicles used at natural gas production sites).

Surety and Fidelity Association of America. 2016. Comments regarding Surety Bonds. July 

6, 2016.

The comments discuss types of reclamation bonds allowed under SMCRA and why companies with a 

history of insolvency should not be allowed to self-bond.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-119

Scoping Report 

Sustainable Systems Research, LLC. 2015. Technical Memorandum on Air Quality, 

Climate Change, and Environmental Justice Issues from Oakland Trade and Global 

Logistics Center. Prepared for Earth Justice. September 18, 2015.

Reviews potential air quality issues associated with Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal handling and 

exportation of coal. The proposed project would transport 10.5 million tons of coal from Utah to 

California, impacting Oakland directly. The study suggests that there will be significant health effects 

from the coal dust, with no found mitigation methods. Also suggested is an increase in warming caused 

by climate change from transporting the coal overseas.

Sutherland, A. B., and J. L. Meyer. 2007. “Effects of increased suspended sediment on 

growth rate and gill condition of two southern Appalachian minnows.” Environmental 

Biology of Fishes 80:389-403.

Journal article on the effects of increased suspended sediment concentration (SSC) on fish growth and 

gill condition of two stream-dwelling minnows, which have been less studied than game fish species. 

Elevated SSC exposure in these minnows significantly decreases growth rates, most likely due to 

respiratory impairment.

Sutherland, A. B., et al. 2008. “Effects of suspended sediment on whole-body cortisol stress 

response of two southern Appalachian minnows, Erimonax monachus and Cyprinella 

galactura.” Copeia 1:234-244.

Journal article on the effects of increased suspended sediment concentration (SSC) on whitetail shiners 

(Cyprinella galactura) and spotfin chubs (Erimonax monachus) and their total immunoreactive 

corticosteroid levels. Results demonstrated that exposure to SSCs greater than 100 mg/L can significant 

stress for young fish.

Svoboda, L. August 7, 2007. EPA, Denver, Colorado.

Response letter addressed to Mr. Richmond, the Forest Supervisor of Grand Mesa, Uncompaghre, and 

Gunnison National Forests from Larry Svoboda, the Colorado EPA director. Contains detailed 

comments by the EPA on the Preliminary Final EIS.

. October 27, 2007. EPA, Denver, Colorado.

Response letter addressed to Mr. Malecek, District Ranger of the Divide Ranger District. Contains EPA 

Region 8 comments on the Big Moose Vegetation Management Project on air quality, aquatic resources, 

and threatened and endangered species preliminary to the DEIS.

Swain, D., et al. 2013. “The extraordinary California drought of 2013/2014: Character, 

context, and the role of climate change.” S3-S7. American Meteorological Society. 

Stanford, California.

Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The paper contains the results of 20 

research groups that have explored 16 events that occurred in 2013. The cumulative results indicate 

that human-caused climate change greatly increased the risk for extreme heat waves assessed in the 

report. Also investigates human influence on droughts, heavy rain, and storms.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-120 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2013. Federal Coal Leasing: Fair Market Value and a Fair Return for the American 

Taxpayer. September 18, 2013. Internet website: http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/

federal-coal-leasing-fair-market-value-and-a-fair-return-for-the-american-t.

Report states that the lease-by-application system does not obtain fair market value for federal coal. The 

report recommends a reevaluation of the lease-by-application system, as well as other reforms, to 

ensure a fair return for taxpayers.

Sweetwater County. 2002. Sweetwater County Comprehensive Plan. Sweetwater County, 

Wyoming.

This plan updates and consolidates the 1977 Sweetwater County Land Use Plan, clarifies and reconfirms 

the county’s land use and development objectives, and identifies specific implementation strategies for 

pursuing county-selected priorities.

Synapse Energy Economics. 2012. Comparing the Hidden Costs of Power Generation 

Fuels. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

This report discusses indirect and external costs associated with power generation.

Terhorst, J., and M. Berkman. 2010. Effect of Coal-Fired Power Generation on Visibility in 

a Nearby National Park. Berkeley Economic Consulting, Berkeley, California, and 

Department of Mathematics, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California. 

Paper examines coal power and air quality. Finding has important implications for the methods generally 

employed to attribute visibility reductions to air pollution sources.

Thakar, N., and M. Madowitz. 2014. Federal Coal Leasing in the Powder River Basin A Bad 

Deal for Taxpayers. Center for American Progress. June 2014.

This article states that that Powder River Basin coal is a major contributor to US climate change and 

carbon pollution and discusses the costs taxpayers pay for burning this coal. This article examines the 

social costs of burning coal, finding it to exceed the market price of coal, leaving a negative net social 

benefit. The article concludes that in its current form the federal coal-leasing program in the Powder 

River Basin is a bad deal for taxpayers, highlighting problems such as subsidizes and a lack of a plan for 

change.

The Global Commission. 2016. Internet website. http://newclimateeconomy.report/

Website offering details on the members of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. 

Provides a quick glance into those that have a hand in the New Climate Economy Project.

The Mountain Pact. 2016. How Federal Coal Reform Could Help Mountain Communities 

Mitigate the Costs of Climate Change. The Mountain Pact. 

Report with data and background on the effects that climate change could have on the world. It uses an 

economic lense send the effects that coal reform could have on changing climate
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-121

Scoping Report 

The New York Times. 2016. “Global Temperatures Are on Course for Another Record 

This Year” Internet website: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/science/nasa-globaltemperatures-2016.html?_r=1.

Online article on the trends of weather patterns across the United States and a summary of statement 

from Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt.

The Pew Charitable Trusts. 2016. The Economic Value of Quiet Recreation on BLM Lands. 

Internet website: 

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/03/wli_national_quietrec_final.pdf?la=en.

This is a factsheet detailing the value of recreation on BLM-administered lands.

The Wilderness Society. 2014. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fossil Fuel Energy 

Extracted from Federal Lands and Waters: An Update. Washington, DC.

This report includes a preliminary estimate of the magnitude of ultimate GHG emissions associated with 

fossil fuels from 2008 to 2010.

Thomas, C. D., et al. 2004. “Extinction risk from climate change.” Nature 427:145-148.

Journal article assessing extinction risks for sample regions that cover some 20 percent of the Earth’s 

terrestrial surface. Estimates show the importance of rapid implementation of technologies to decrease 

greenhouse gas emissions and strategies for carbon sequestration.

Tilman, D. 2000. “Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity.” Nature 405:208-211.

Overview of biodiversity. Focuses on the effects of biodiversity on an ecosystem, effectiveness of 

strategies to preserve biodiversity, and ethics involved. Concludes that biodiversity should be faced with 

a more scientific approach.

Tran, K. T. 2012. AERMOD Modeling of Air Quality Impacts of the Proposed Morrow 

Pacific Project. AMI International, Henderson, Nevada. 

Report presenting the results of modeling analysis of air quality impacts of the proposed Morrow Pacific 

Project in Oregon. The Sierra Club asked AMI Environmental to conduct an air quality modeling 

analysis, using the regulatory dispersion model AERMOD, to predict project impacts of criteria 

pollutants, such as nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and fine particulates (PM2.5).

Tsoar, H., and K. Pye. 1987. “Dust transport and the question of desert loess formation.”

Sedimentology 34:139-153.

Paper details the variables of dust formation and how human activities can influence them.

Uinta County. 2011. Uinta County Comprehensive Plan. Uinta County, Wyoming.

This plan updates and replaces existing Uinta County comprehensive plans and reconfirms the county’s 

land use and development goals and policies.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-122 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Union of Concerned Scientists. 2011. Climate Change and Your Health—Rising 

Temperatures, Worsening Ozone Pollution. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts.

Report on the adverse effects on ground-level ozone pollution, which can exacerbate lung diseases, such 

as asthma, and how climate change and higher global temperatures have the potential to increase ozone 

pollution and increase respiratory symptoms, hospital visits for the young and old, lost school days, and 

premature mortality for most of those in the continental United States.

. 2012. Climate Change and Your Health—After The Storm: The Hidden Health 

Risks of Flooding in a Warming World. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts.

Report on the deadly and expensive effects of floods, the aftermath of which results in over half of all 

waterborne disease outbreaks, and how climate change with the potential for extreme rainfall has the 

potential for significant impacts on human health and property.

. No date. Internet website: 

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html#.V_fWLegrLcs.

Website on coal, with links to information on air pollution, waste generated, fuel supply, and water use. 

Interactive site allows readers to expand on topics.

United Nations. 2009. Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Fifteenth Session, 

Held in Copenhagen from December 7 to 19, 2009. United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Report on the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which focused on the challenge of climate change and the 

deep cuts that will be needed in global greenhouse gas emissions so as to hold the increase in global 

temperature below 2 degrees Celsius and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and 

equity.

United Nations Environment Programme. 2010. Report of the Conference of the Parties 

on Its Sixteenth Session, Held in Cancun from November 29 to December 10, 2010. 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Cancun, Mexico.

Report on the 2011 Cancun Agreement, which affirmed that climate change is one of the greatest 

challenges of our time and reaffirms that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required, 

according to science. Aims to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to hold the increase in global 

average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, above pre-Industrial levels. States that the urgent action 

to meet this long-term goal should be consistent with science and equity.

. 2010. Environmental Consequences of Ocean Acidification: A Threat to Food 

Security. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

Report on how increased carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities is 

altering the chemistry of ocean surfaces and causing them to become more acidic, thereby reducing 

carbonate ion concentrations. This change makes it difficult for certain organisms to make shells and 

reef systems that other fish and marine animals depend on, with the likely result that entire marine 

systems could be significantly impacted, including the humans who depend on them for sustenance.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-123

Scoping Report 

. 2015. The Emissions Gap Report 2015: A UNEP Synthesis Report. United Nations 

Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

Report providing a scientific assessment of the mitigation contributions from the submitted Intended 

Nationally Determined Contributions from the Paris Agreement. Report compares the resulting 

emission levels in 2030 with what science tells us is required to be on track toward the agreed on target 

of a global average temperature increase, below 2 degrees Celsius by 2100.

. 2015. Conference of the Parties Twenty-First Session, Paris, November 30 to 

December 11, 2015, Adoption of the Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change, Paris, France.

Report on the 2015 Paris Agreement that provides a framework for participating parties to deal with 

climate change. This is an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet 

and thus requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective 

and appropriate international response. This agreement is intended to accelerate the reduction of global 

greenhouse gas emissions, while acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind. 

Actions to deal with climate change should respect, promote, and consider respective obligations on 

human rights, the right to health, and the rights of indigenous peoples.

. 2015. Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. Internet website: 

http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php.

This is a database of nationally determined contributions submitted under the Paris Agreement.

. 2015. Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice Forty-Second 

Session, June 1 to 11, 2015. Report on the Structured Expert Dialogue on the 2013–2015 

Review. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Switzerland.

Report summarizing the face-to-face dialogue between over 70 experts and parties on the adequacy of 

the long-term global goal, in light of the ultimate objective of the convention, and the overall progress 

made toward achieving the long-term global goal. The goal includes a consideration of the commitments 

under the convention and a technical summary and compilation of the reports on the four sessions of 

the structured expert dialogue.

US Bankruptcy Court. 2016. Notice of Filing of Executed Agreements Comprising 

Resolution of Reclamation Obligations for Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.

Notice from bankruptcy court for Alpha Natural Resources settlement with Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement for water treatment and reclamation costs.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2016. Quarterly census of employment and wages, private, 

NAICS 2121 coal mining, all counties in Wyoming. Internet website: 

http://data.bls.gov/cew/apps/table_maker/v4/table_maker.htm#type=2&st=56&year=2013&

qtr=A&own=5&ind=2121&supp=0. 

This website is a query of US Bureau of Labor Statistics employment and wage data. Data reflects the 

2013 annual average wages of coal mining jobs in Wyoming of $82,654.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-124 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

US Census Bureau. 2016. Country Business Patterns (CBP). Internet website: 

http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html.

Website for the US Census Bureau, Country Business Patterns (CBP), an annual series that provides 

subnational economic data by industry. This series includes the number of establishments, employment 

during the week of March 12, first quarter payroll, and annual payroll.

US Climate Change Science Program. 2006. Methane as a Greenhouse Gas. Climate 

Change Program Office, Washington DC.

Report on the role of methane as a greenhouse gas, including a summary of human-influenced sources of 

methane, such as landfills, natural gas and petroleum production and distribution systems, agricultural 

activities, coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial 

processes. About 60 percent of global methane emissions come from these sources, and the rest are 

from natural sources.

US Congress. 1920. Mineral Leasing Act. US Congress, Washington, DC. 

The official Mineral Leasing Act, which pertains to mineral resources owned by the United States.

. 1984. Environmental Protection in the Coal Leasing Program. US Congress, 

Washington, DC. 

Report responds to a request by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, as mandated in 

the Conference Committee Report on the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1984. It assesses the ability of the federal coal leasing program to 

ensure the development of leases in an environmentally compatible manner. This study builds on earlier 

OTA reports: An Assessment of the Development and Production Potential of Federal Coal Leases and 

The Direct Use of Coal. It will contribute to future work on surface mine reclamation.

The assessment addresses the recent controversy surrounding the implementation of the environmental 

protection aspects of the federal coal leasing program. It discusses the adequacy of the regulatory 

provisions of the program to ensure the environmental compatibility of federal lease tracts, including the 

1982 changes in program policy and regulations. The BLM’s implementation of the leasing program 

legislation and regulations is evaluated, with emphasis on the adequacy of data and analyses to support 

land use planning and environmental impact assessment. The report assesses the characteristics of tracts 

proposed for leasing since 1979, to determine whether any of those tracts will be particularly difficult to 

develop under current environmental laws and regulations. It also assesses the potential for cumulative 

environmental impacts on the development of several lease tracts in one area. Finally, the report 

presents policy options that Congress could consider that seek to restore predictability and stability to 

the leasing program.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-125

Scoping Report 

US Council of Economic Advisors. 2016. The Economics of Coal Leasing on Federal Lands: 

Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers. US Council of Economic Advisors, Washington, DC.

This report focuses on whether the federal coal leasing program provides a fair return to the taxpayer 

and draws on relevant academic research to provide an economic perspective. A review of the coal 

leasing program indicates that the program has been structured in a way that misaligns incentives, going 

back decades, resulting in a distorted coal market with an artificially low price for most federal coal and 

unnecessarily low government revenue from the leasing program. This report examines the market 

implications of changing royalty rates.

US Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. 1931. United States ex rel. McLennan v. 

Wilbur, 283 US 414. May 1931. Internet website: 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14937211614653028640&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as

_vis=1&oi=scholarr.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Court opinion of the Act of Congress 

approved February 25, 1920, 41 Stat. 437, intended to promote certain mining operations.

. Declaration of Christopher B. Field. USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1586661 

Filed: December 3, 2015.

Declares that, with continuing climate change, the world faces increasing risks of impacts. States that any 

delay in reducing emissions adds risk of impacts. This declaration summarizes knowledge about three 

categories of risk.

. Declaration of Thomas Michael Power. USCA Case #1:11-cv-01481-RJL Document 

#38-7 Filed: December 13, 2012.

United States Court of Appeals Declaration of Natural Resource Economics specialist Thomas Power 

declares that decisions with the Powder River Basin will have significant impacts on American coal 

markets. Discusses prices and the Belle Ayr North and Caballo West coal tracts.

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2012. Rulemaking for Colorado Roadless 

Areas Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5365953.pdf. 

FEIS prepared by the USFS to promulgate a state-specific rule to manage and conserve roadless area 

characteristics on approximately 4.2 million acres of National Forest System lands in Colorado. The 

proposal responds to a recognized need to balance local, state, and national interests in providing 

management direction for Colorado roadless areas.

. 2014. Pawnee National Grassland Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

This final environmental impact statement (FEIS) has been prepared to document and disclose the 

estimated environmental impacts of a decision to make available and apply lease stipulations to National 

Forest System lands in the Pawnee National Grassland. The FEIS analyzes the potential impacts of the 

Forest-wide land availability determination by using a reasonable foreseeable development scenario. The 

FEIS also proposes lease stipulations and identifies where those stipulations would be applied on future 

leases when needed on administratively available lands.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-126 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2015. Rulemaking for Colorado Roadless Areas Supplemental Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Colorado National 

Forests, Denver, Colorado.

Supplemental draft EIS about the proposal to reinstate the North Fork Coal Mining Area (NFCMA) 

exception of the Colorado Roadless Rule (CRR) on approximately 19,700 acres in the Grand Mesa, 

Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. The proposal is a response to deficiencies outlined in a 

court case. this draft EIS supplements the 2012 final EIS for the CRR with additional analyses. Alternative 

A is the No Action Alternative; Alternative B is the proposed action and would reinstate the NFCMA 

exception, allowing temporary road construction for coal mining. Alternative C would establish the 

NFCMA but would exclude lands identified as “wilderness capable.”

. 2016. Forests to Faucets. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/FS_Efforts/forests2faucets.shtml. 

Website from the Forest Service using GIS to model and map the continental United States land areas 

most important to surface drinking water, the role forests play in protecting these areas, and the extent 

to which these forests are threatened by development, insects and disease, and wildfire.

US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2016. Regional Economic 

Accounts. Internet website: http://www.bea.gov/regional/.

The regional economic accounts talks about the geographic distribution of US economic activity and 

growth. The estimates of gross domestic product by state and state and local area personal income, and 

the accompanying detail, provide a consistent framework for analyzing and comparing individual state 

and local area economies.

US Department of Energy. 2014. Addendum to Environmental Review Documents 

Concerning Exports of Natural Gas. August 2014. Internet website: http://energy.gov/

fe/addendum-environmental-review- documents-concerning-exports-natural-gas-unitedstates.

Reviews the potential environmental impacts of natural gas production, particularly the hydraulic 

fracturing of shale formations. Finds that the current rapid development of unconventional natural gas 

resources will likely continue, with or without the export of natural gas. This is a review of the 

literature and is provides information on the resource areas potentially impacted by unconventional gas 

production (greenhouse gases).
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-127

Scoping Report 

. 2014. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas. 

Internet website: http://energy.gov/fe/downloads/life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-perspectiveexporting-liquefied-natural-gas-united-states.

This analysis determines that the use of US liquefied natural gas exports for power production in 

European and Asian markets will not increase greenhouse gas emissions, on a life cycle perspective, 

when compared to regional coal extraction and consumption for power production. Given the 

uncertainty in the underlying model data, it is not clear if there are any significant differences between 

the corresponding European and Asian cases, other than the liquefied natural gas transport distance 

from the United States and the pipeline distance from Russia. Differences between the US liquefied 

natural gas, regional liquefied natural gas, and Russian natural gas options are also indeterminate, so no 

significant change in net climate impact is anticipated from any of these scenarios.

US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2012. Annual Energy 

Review 2011. US Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC.

This annual report summarizes statistics on energy production, consumption, trade, stocks, and prices 

covering all major energy commodities.

. 2012. Fuel Competition in Power Generation and Elasticities of Substitution. US 

Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC. 

Report analyzing the competition between coal, natural gas, and petroleum used for electricity 

generation, by estimating what economists refer to as the elasticity of substitution among the fuels. The 

elasticity of substitution concept measures how the use of these fuels varies, as their relative prices 

change.

. 2013. Future power market shares of coal, natural gas generators depend on 

relative fuel prices. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/today

inenergy/detail.php?id=10951.

Website discusses how natural gas competed more effectively with coal as a fuel for electricity 

generation, as the cost of operating natural gas-fired generators fell below the cost of operating coalfired generators in some regions. Includes graphs and diagrams to illustrate the ratio of fuel costs for 

power generation, including by region, and US electrical generation by fuel, for selected cases.

. 2015. Annual Energy Outlook with Projections to 2040. DOE/EIA-0383(2015). EIA. 

Washington, DC. 

Document offering energy projections up until 2040. Intended as a starting point for analysis of potential 

changes in US energy policies, rules, and regulations. Provides conclusions about the direction of US 

energy.

. 2015. Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced from Federal and Indian Lands, FY 2003 

Through FY 2014. US Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC.

Summary report concludes that fossil fuel production on federal lands decreased by 24 trillion BTUs and 

increased by 52 trillion BTUs on Indian lands.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-128 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2015. Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO). US Energy Information 

Administration, Washington, DC.

Overview of the short-term energy outlook for the United States, including prices, production, and 

inventories.

. 2015. Annual Coal Report 2013. US Energy Information Administration, 

Washington, DC.

The Annual Coal Report provides information about US coal production, number of mines, productive 

capacity, recoverable reserves, employment, productivity, consumption, stocks, and prices to a wide 

audience, including Congress, federal and state agencies, the coal industry, and the general public.

. 2015. Scheduled 2015 capacity additions mostly wind and natural gas; retirements 

mostly coal. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/

todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20292.

Website discusses the addition of wind and natural gas and the decline of coal in 2015. Includes graphs 

and diagrams to demonstrate energy usage and types, as well as a map showing plans for types of energy 

production in the United States in 2015.

. 2016. Average utilization for natural gas combined-cycle plants exceeded coal 

plants in 2015. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/

todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25652.

Website discusses how 2015 was the first year that average capacity factor for natural gas combinedcycle plants exceeded that of coal stream plants. Includes graphs to illustrate 2005-2015 annual average 

capacity factor and distribution of annual capacity factor for coal steam and natural gas generators.

. 2016. Annual Energy Outlook 2016 Early Release: Annotated Summary of Two 

Cases. EIA, Washington, DC.

Annual energy outlook for US energy, with overview of different energy sources and summaries of two 

cases: electricity and natural gas petroleum.

. 2016. Annual Energy Outlook 2016, Coal Production: Northern Appalachia. 

Internet website: https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=95-

AEO2016&cases=ref2016~ref_no_cpp&sourcekey=0. 

Report includes a graph and table of annual coal production projections from northern Appalachia 

through 2040.

. 2016. Annual Energy Outlook 2016, Total Energy Supply, Disposition, and Price 

Summary. website: Internet website: 

https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=96-AEO2016®ion=0-0&cases=ref2016

~~ref_ref_no_cpp-d032316a.16-96-.

This website contains a graph of total energy production of crude oil and lease condensate projects 

through 2040.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-129

Scoping Report 

. 2016. Internet website: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3. 

Website with information on US energy generation, based on source.

. 2016. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/.

Table of data on electricity usage in the United States.

. 2016. Annual Energy Outlook 2016 with projections to 2040. US EIA, Office of 

Energy Analysis, Washington, DC.

This report presents long-term projects of energy supply, demand, and prices through 2040.

. 2016. Quarterly coal production lowest since the early 1980s. Internet website: 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26612. 

Article discussing coal production in recent quarters and showing that the first quarter of 2016 had the 

lowest coal production since the 1980s.

. 2016. Form EIA-923 detailed data. Internet website: 

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/.

Survey Form EIA-923 collects detailed electric power data, monthly and annually, on electricity 

generation, fuel consumption, fossil fuel stocks, and receipts at the power plant and prime mover level. 

Data available for download.

. 2016. Coal made up more than 80% of retired electricity generating capacity in 

2015. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/today

inenergy/detail.php?id=25272.

Website discusses the electrical generating capacity retired in 2015 by fuel technology. Includes graphs 

and diagrams to illustrate retired energy generating capacity, existing coal units by operating year and 

coal unit range and capacity, and coal plant operating status in selected states.

. 2016. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/coal/markets/. 

Website with information on coal markets in the United States. The Coal Markets Report summarizes 

average weekly coal commodity spot prices by coal regions in the United States.

. 2016. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/

electricity/monthly/update/archive/may2016/. 

Website with updates on the state of electricity in the United States.

. 2016. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients. US Energy Information 

Administration, Washington, DC.

This is a datasheet of carbon coefficients by volume and mass across different factors.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-130 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2016. Primary Energy Consumption by Source. Monthly Energy Review. 

Washington, DC.

This datasheet shows the consumption of fossil fuels and renewable energy by year.

. 2016. Annual Coal Distribution Report 2014. US Energy Information 

Administration, Washington, DC.

The report provides detailed information on domestic coal distribution by origin state, destination state, 

consumer category, and method of transportation. Also provided is a summary of foreign coal 

distribution by coal-producing state.

. 2016. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/. 

Website with a quarterly coal report that contains information and graphs on coal production, 

importation, exportation, and type of export.

. 2016. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=24472.

Website with information on coal production and prices decline in 2015. Contains graphs with 

additional information on regional production.

. 2016. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26612. 

Website with information that quarterly coal production is the lowest since the early 1980s. This is 

mainly due to challenging market conditions. Contains graphs with information.

. 2016. Internet website: https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/coal.cfm. 

Short-term energy outlook, with information on coal in the United States.

. 2016. Internet website: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3. 

FAQ sheet for energy generation by energy source in the United States.

. 2016. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26012. 

Information that power sector coal demand has fallen in nearly every state since 2007, with maps and 

graphs that contain additional information.

US Department of Health and Human Services. 2007. Public Health Statement Lead. 

CAS#: 7439-92-1. ATSDR. Agency for Toxic Substances. Atlanta, Georgia.

Public health statement with summary chapter from the Toxicological Profile for Lead. Provides 

information on lead and the effects of exposure to it. Distinguishes between primary and secondary lead 

and what happens when it enters the environment and the body.

. 2010. Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2009. NVSS. 

United States.

Statistic report on births, marriages, divorces, and deaths for 2009 in the United States in table format.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-131

Scoping Report 

US Department of the Interior. 2015. 9 animals that are feeling the impacts of climate 

change. Internet website: https://www.doi.gov/blog/9-animals-are-feeling-impacts-climatechange.

This report details how nine specific species are feeling climate change impacts.

. 2015. Internet website: https://www.doi.gov/pmb/ocean/highlights/sealevelrisecost.

US Department of the Interior website from its “Policy Management and Budget, Conservation, External 

News” section. Includes information on the ocean, Great Lakes, and coastal activities. Website provides 

a teaser on a $40 billion of National Parks Service assets at risk from climate change. Also includes 

image of climate change-caused destruction and an external link for more information.

. 2016. Secretary Jewell Launches Comprehensive Review of Federal Coal Program. 

Internet website: https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-jewell-launchescomprehensive-review-federal-coal-program. 

This press release discusses a pause on new coal leasing while review is underway, additional 

transparency, and good government initiatives to modernize the program.

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.1969. Planning for Fluid 

Mineral Resources. Bureau of Land management, Washington, DC. 

This handbook provides detailed instructions for complying with the fluid minerals supplemental 

program guidance for resource management planning, as prescribed in BLM Manual Section 1624.2. It 

contains, among other things, procedural guidance for analyzing and documenting reasonably foreseeable 

fluid mineral development and the impacts of such development on the human environment.

. 2008. Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management. US Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.

BLM manual to provide policy and guidance for the conservation of BLM special status species and the 

ecosystems BLM-administered lands that they depend on. BLM special status species are those listed or 

proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and those requiring special management 

consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under 

the ESA, which are designated as BLM sensitive by the BLM state directors. All federal candidate species, 

proposed species, and delisted species in the five years following delisting will be conserved as BLM 

sensitive species.

. 2009. West Antelope II Coal Lease Application Final EIS Volume I. Internet 

website: 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/cfodocs/westantelope/feis.Pa

r.7431.File.dat/vol1.pdf. 

FEIS prepared by the BLM to document and disclose the results of an environmental analysis for the 

leasing of a tract of federal coal, the West Antelope II tract, to the Antelope Mine in the Wyoming 

Powder River Basin.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-132 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2010. Record of Decision for the Belle Ayr North Lease by Application. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.

Record of Decision opens the tract for competitive sale so the coal can be sold on the market.

. 2011. Record of Decision Environmental Impact Statement for the North 

Porcupine Coal Lease Application. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, DC. 

The decision is that it is in the public interest to offer the North Porcupine LBA tract, as described 

below, for competitive sale. This is so that these reserves will be available for sale in the competitive 

open coal market, so as to meet the national coal demand that is expected to exist until at least 2035.

. 2011. Record of Decision Environmental Impact Statement for the South 

Porcupine Coal Lease Application. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, DC.

The decision is that it is in the public interest to offer the South Porcupine LBA tract as described 

below, for competitive sale. This is so that these reserves will be available for sale in the competitive 

open coal market, so as to meet the national coal demand that is expected to exist until at least 2035.

. 2011. Record of Decision for the South Hilight Field Coal Lease Application. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.

The decision is to open the tract for competitive sale, so the coal can be sold on the market.

. 2011. Alton Coal Tract Lease by Application Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ut/lands_and_

minerals/coal/alton_coal_project.Par.59867.File.dat/Combined%20Alton%20DEIS.pdf.

DEIS prepared by the BLM to document and disclose the results of an environmental analysis for the 

leasing of a tract of federal coal, the Alton Coal Tract, in Utah.

. 2013. Bureau of Land Management Socioeconomics Strategic Plan 2012–2022. 

BLM/WO/GI-13/010+1131. Division of Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA, Washington, 

DC.

BLM socioeconomics strategic plan addresses the changing emphasis from natural resources to social 

and economic focus and provides a roadmap to guide the BLM’s socioeconomics program now and for 

the next 10 years.

. 2014. Waste Mine Methane Capture, Use, Sale, or Destruction; Advanced Notice 

of Proposed rulemaking. US Department of the Interior, Washington DC. Federal Register

79(82):23887-24310.

Rulemaking notice from the BLM requests comments and suggestions that might assist in the 

establishment of a program to capture, use, or destroy waste mine methane that is released into the 

mine environment and the atmosphere as a direct consequence of underground mining on federal leases 

for coal and other minerals.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-133

Scoping Report 

. 2014. Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Office of Policy Analysis and Climate 

Change Working Group. Washington, DC.

This report details the Department of the Interior’s response to climate change and adaptation policy. It 

is a summary document prepared by the DOI. Highlights the challenges posed by climate change and 

provides and an important update to the Department of the Interior’s efforts to identify priorities that 

are necessary to construct a comprehensive framework that meets this challenge head on.

. 2014. Gunnison Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Policy on Bureau of Land 

Management-Administered Lands in Colorado and Utah. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. 

This memorandum provides interim guidance for protecting important habitat across the range of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse. The Bureau of Land Management will continue to apply conservation measure to 

manage and conserve Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitat.

. 2015. Environmental Assessment for the Little Willow Creek Protective Oil and 

Gas Leasing. Department of the Interior-BLM-ID-B010-2014-0036-EA. February 10, 2015.

The purpose of this proposal is to protect the federal mineral resource from uncompensated drainage 

and surface resources from potential damage, in and near Willow Field, Payette County, Idaho.

2015. Letter to Governor Hickenlooper re: Royalty Reduction Rate for Oxbow 

Mine. Elk Mountain Mine. December 4, 2015.

Letter requesting a royalty rate reduction for the Oxbow Mine.

. 2015. Total Federal Coal Leases in Effect, Total Acres Under Lease, and Lease 

Sales by Fiscal Year Since 1990. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/coal_and_non-energy/coal_lease_table.html. 

Website providing information about the number of total federal coal leases in effect, total acres under 

lease, and the number of lease sales at the end of each fiscal year since 1990.

. 2015. Authorization to Pay Advance Royalty in Lieu of Continued Operation 

Granted. April 28, 2015.

Letter notifying that request to pay advanced royalty in lieu of continued operation is approved.

. 2016. Regulatory Impact Analysis for Revisions to 43 CFR, Part 3100 (Onshore Oil 

and Gas Leasing) and 43 CFR, Part 3600 (Onshore Oil and Gas Operations), Additions of 

43 CFR, Part 3178 (Royalty-Free Use of Lease Production) and 43 CFR, Part 3179 (Waste 

Prevention and Resource Conservation). January 2016.

Analysis examining the regulatory impacts of the BLM proposed rulemaking to update 43 CFR, Parts 

3100 and 3160 and to propose new regulations at 43 CFR, Chapter II, Parts 3178 and 3179. The 43 

CFR, Part 3610, proposed rule would require an application permit to drill for a new oil wells, in order 

to minimize the waste of natural gas from the planned well to the degree reasonably possible. Part 3179 

would modify the requirements that limit the venting and flaring of produced natural gas.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-134 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2016. Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource 

Conservation. US DOI, Washington, DC. Federal Register 81(25):6616-6686.

Federal Register notice detailing new BLM proposed regulations to reduce waste of natural gas from 

venting, flaring, and leaks during oil and natural gas production on onshore federal and Indian leases. The 

regulations would also clarify when produced gas lost through venting, flaring, or leaks is subject to 

royalties and when oil and gas production used on site would be royalty free.

. 2016. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/style/

medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/news_release_attachments.P

ar.98291.File.dat/Questions%20and%20Answers%20Coal.pdf. 

Website with a question and answer format pertaining to federal coal reforms.

. 2016. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/ne

ws_release_attachments.Par.47489.File.dat/Coal%20Reform%20Fact%20Sheet%20Final.pdf. 

Fact sheet for coal reform in the United States.

. 2016. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Federal Coal Program. 

Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/coal_and_nonenergy/details_on_coal_peis.html. 

Details some information on the programmatic environmental impact statement review process, 

including project details and public scoping meeting details.

. 2016. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/coal_and_nonenergy.html. 

Website with overview of the BLM’s coal operations.

. 2016. Coal Operations. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/coal_and_non-energy.html. 

Summarizes federal coal operationals, including how the government receives a return.

. 2016. Notice of Intent to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement to Review the Federal Coal Program and to Conduct Public Scoping Meetings. 

BLM, Washington, DC. Federal Register 81(61):17720.

This describes the program and informs the public that the BLM will be conducting public scoping 

meetings.

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 2016. Reclamation: SECURE 

Water Act Section 9503(c) - Reclamation Climate Change and Water.

Report to Congress on anticipated impacts on water resources from climate change and adaptation 

strategies. It includes a summary of hydrology, climate, impacts on water supply and demand, and 

climate monitoring for the eight major Reclamation river basins of the west.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-135

Scoping Report 

US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Species Status for the Blackside Dace. 

Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Federal 

Register 52(113):22580-22585. Asheville, North Carolina.

Federal Register notice for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, publishing a determination of threatened 

status for the blackside dace.

. 1996. Formal Section 7 Biological Opinion and Conference Report on Surface Coal 

Mining and Reclamation Operations under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 

Act of 1977. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Formal consultation between the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation and the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service. ESA Section 7 biological opinion on the proposed action to approve and conduct surface coal 

mining and reclamation under state and federal regulatory programs adopted pursuant to Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, P.L. 95-87, where such operations may adversely affect 

threatened or endangered species. As of June 1, 1996, 308 species listed as threatened or endangered 

occur in states with primacy, and 337 listed species occur in states with federal regulatory programs. 

Surface coal mining and reclamation could impact only a subset of these species.

. 2011. Endangered Status for Five Southeastern Fish Species. Internet Website: 

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2011/11-054.html.

This news release announces that the Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky 

madtom, and laurel dace are now federally listed as endangered species throughout their respective 

ranges.

. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 

Endangered Status for the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox Mussels Throughout Their Ranges. 

Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. Federal 

Register 77(30):8632-8665.

Federal Register notice of the US Fish and Wildlife Service publishing a determination of endangered 

status for rayed bean and snuffbox mussels throughout their ranges.

. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 

Endangered Status for the Sheepnose and Spectaclecase Mussels Throughout Their Range. 

Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. Federal 

Register 77(49):14914-14949.

Federal Register notice of the US Fish and Wildlife Service publishing a determination of endangered 

status for sheepnose and spectaclecase mussels throughout their range.

. 2012. The Cost of Invasive Species. US Fish and Wildlife, Region 7, Anchorage, 

Alaska. 

Fact sheet on the negative consequences of invasive species are far-reaching, costing the United States 

billions of dollars in damages every year. Invasive species are also a leading cause of population decline 

and extinction in animals.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-136 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status 

for Diamond Darter. Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington DC. Federal Register 78(144):45074-45095.

Federal Register notice of the US Fish and Wildlife Service publishing a determination of endangered 

status for the diamond darter.

. 2015. Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Conservation Management Plan, Draft. US Fish 

and Wildlife, Region 7, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Management plan developed as a practical guide to implementation of polar bear conservation in the 

United States. Articulates the conditions whereby polar bears would no longer need the protections of 

the ESA and to lay out a collective strategy that moves toward achieving those conditions. Also includes 

how to improve the status of polar bears under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

. 2016. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status 

for the Big Sandy Crayfish and Endangered Species Status for the Guyandotte River 

Crayfish. Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. 

Federal Register 81(67):20450-20481.

Federal Register notice of the US Fish and Wildlife Service publishing a determination of threatened 

species status for the big sandy crayfish and endangered species status for the Guyandotte River crayfish.

US Department of the Interior, National Parks Service. 2010. Understanding the Science 

of Climate Change Talking Points—Impacts to Arid Lands Natural Resource Report 

NPS/NRPC/NRR—2010/209. National Parks Service, Missoula, Montana.

Talking points on the impacts of climate change on arid lands from the National Parks Service. The 

document is part of a series of bioregional summaries that provide scientific findings about climate 

change. The statements are intended to be used to communicate and answer general questions on 

climate change.

. 2015. Adapting to Climate Change in Coastal Parks. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—2015/961. National Parks Service. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Report published by the National Parks Service on the challenges posed over the next century from 

warming global temperatures. The greatest challenge is rising sea level. This report looks at coastal 

parks, assessing them for exposure to sea level rise.

US Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary. 2016. Press Release: Interior 

Department Releases Report Underscoring Impacts of Climate Change on Western 

Water Resources. Internet website: https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interiordepartment-releases-report-underscoring-impacts-climate-change-western-water.

This press release announces a report that identifies climate change as a growing risk to Western water 

management.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-137

Scoping Report 

US Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 

2014. EA For Proposed Revision and Renewal of Permit WA0007D for Resumption of 

Mining: John Henry No. 1 Coal Mine. Internet website: http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/

initiatives/johnHenryMine/JHM_EA.pdf. 

EA on the proposed resumption of coal mining at the John Henry No. 1 Coal Mine in King County, 

Washington, where no coal has been mined 1999. The proposed mining would be conducted over a sixyear period, removing 740,000 short tons of minable coal reserves, and would be followed by a year of 

reclamation.

. 2015. Bull Mountains Mine No. 1: Federal Mining Plan Modification Environmental 

Assessment. Internet website: 

http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/bullMountainsMine/BullMountainsMineEA.pdf. 

EA on the Bull Mountains Mine No.1 underground coal mine in Montana. Analyzed the potential impacts 

of leasing five tracts of federal coal on 2,679.76 acres, which would allow the mine to continue 

producing coal at the current rate, instead of ceasing production as recoverable private coal reserves 

are exhausted.

. 2015. Bull Mountains Mine No.1 Federal Mining Plan Modification Environmental 

Assessment. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Denver, Colorado. 

Recommends approval, disapproval, or approval with conditions of the proposed mining plan

modification to the Assistant secretary of lands and mineral management If approved, the mining plan 

would allow the proponent to conduct coal mining and reclamation in the coal lease and to 

economically recover federal, state, and private coal reserves through a logical mining unit.

. 2015. Stream Protection Rule Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, DC.

DEIS on the proposed revisions to regulations for implementing the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). This would better protect streams, fish, wildlife, and related 

environmental values from the adverse impacts of surface coal mining operations. It would also provide 

mine operators with a regulatory framework to avoid water pollution and the long-term costs 

associated with water treatment, would more completely implement the requirements of SMCRA, 

would remedy deficiencies in existing rules, and would remove obsolete or unneeded provisions from 

existing rules.

. 2016. Spring Creek Mine Federal Coal Lease MTM 94378 Mining Plan Modification 

Environmental Assessment. Internet website: 

http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/SpringcreekMineLBA1/documents/EA0616.pdf. 

EA on the Spring Creek surface coal mine in Montana, which rectified the specific procedural 

deficiencies in the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s documentation and approval 

of the NEPA analysis for the 2012 federal mining plan modification. It also analyzed potential changes to 

the extent or nature of those potential impacts previously evaluated, based on information included in 

State Mining Permit C1979012 (2014) and new information related to the environmental consequences 

specific to this action.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-138 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

US Departments of Interior, Energy, and Agriculture. 2007. Inventory of Assessed Federal 

Coal Resources and Restrictions to Their Development. August 2007. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2007/september/NR_0709_03.html.

Based on recent United States Geological Survey assessments, federal coal resources in the United 

States total 957,000 million short tons, with the Powder River Basin containing approximately 58 

percent of these resources and accounting for approximately 88 percent of recent production.

US Department of Interior, Secretary of the Interior. 2016. Order No. 3338: Discretionary 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program. 

US Department of Interior, Washington, DC.

Secretarial Order directing the BLM to prepare a discretionary programmatic environmental impact 

statement (PEIS) that analyzes potential leasing and management reforms to the current federal coal 

program. The PEIS will help the Department of the Interior undertake a comprehensive review of the 

program and to consider whether and how the program may be improved and modernized. This would 

be done to foster the orderly development of BLM-administered coal on federal lands in a manner that 

gives proper consideration to the impact of that development on important stewardship values, while 

also ensuring a fair return to the American public.

US Department of State. 2016. Internet website: https://keystonepipelinexl.state.gov/nid/249254.htm#1. 

Website with the Record of Decision for the Keystone Pipeline, denying the presidential permit 

application.

. Background Briefing on the Paris Climate Agreement. US Department of State, 

Washington DC.

Transcript of conference call with senior Obama administration officials, briefing them just after the 

signing of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. Provides a context for the agreement, a summary of what 

was achieved, and the mechanisms for achieving the goals set forth in the agreement.

US District Court for the District of Columbia. 2015. Civil Action No. 14-1993 (RBW). 

Western Organization of Resource Council and Friends of the Earth v. Department of the 

Interior and Bureau of Land Management. August 27, 2015.

Record from United States District Judge Reggie Walton on the case of Western Organization of 

Resource Councils and Friends of the Earth v. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land 

Management for failure to supplement its environmental impact analysis of federal coal management 

program. The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

US District Court for the District of New Mexico. 2016. Wild Earth Guardians vs. US 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement and San Juan Mining. Civ. No. 1:14-

cv-00112-RJ-CG. July 18, 2016.

Court document from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico outlining a 

course case between Wild Earth Guardians (Plaintiff) and United States Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement et al. and San Juan Coal Company (Defendants) to modify a mining plan 

and allow a new environmental impact statement.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-139

Scoping Report 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions 

from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units—Final Report to Congress. EPA-453/R-98-

004a. US EPA, Office of Air Quality, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Report for Congress in response to legislative mandate from Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. This 

study investigates the hazards to public health reasonably anticipated to occur from exposure to electric 

utility steam generated emissions. Provides alternative control strategies for hazardous air pollutants and 

rulemaking activities to control hazardous air pollutants.

. 1999. Climate Change and Public Lands. US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC.

Report on how climate change could affect public lands in the United States, such as rising temperatures 

and changes in precipitation, soil moisture, and sea level.

. 2002. Clinch and Powell Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment. US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Watershed ecological risk assessment of the unique Clinch and Powell River System in southwestern 

Virginia. Strongly suggests that (1) coal mining and agricultural practices, past and present, are having 

adverse impacts on stream habitats, resulting in unacceptable losses of valuable and rare native fish and 

mussels; and (2) prompt implementation of practical risk lowering actions, such as reclaiming abandoned 

mines, preventing spills, excluding livestock from streams, and establishing riparian vegetation zones, can 

mitigate these adverse effects in the future.

. 2008. Integrated Science assessment For Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria. US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Synthesis of the most policy-relevant science forms the scientific foundation for the review of the 

primary (health-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standards for nitrous dioxide (NO2) currently set 

at 0.053 parts per million, annual average.

. 2008. Integrated Science assessment For Sulfur Oxides – Health Criteria. US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Synthesis of the most policy-relevant science to form the scientific foundation for the review of the 

primary (health-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standards for monomeric sulfur oxides (SOx).

. 2009. Integrated Science assessment For Particulate Matter. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment-RTP Division, Office of Research and Development, US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Integrated science assessment providing a review, synthesis, and evaluation of the most policy-relevant 

evidence. Communicates critical science judgments relevant to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards review. Forms the scientific foundation for the review of the primary (health-based) and 

secondary (welfare-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-140 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2011. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020. US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Report to Congress and the public, with comprehensive, up-to-date, peer-reviewed information on the 

social benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act and its 1990 amendments (CAA), including improvements 

in human health, welfare, and ecological resources, as well as the impact of the CAA’s provisions on the 

US economy. Analysis makes it clear that the benefits of the CAA exceed its costs by a wide margin, 

making it a very good investment for the nation.

. 2011. The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems of 

the central Appalachian coalfields. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

DC.

Report assessing the environmental impacts of mountaintop mines and valley fills (MTM-VFs) on streams 

in the central Appalachian coalfields. Conclusions, based on evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, 

and from the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

released in 2005, are that MTM-VFs lead directly to five principal alterations of stream ecosystems.

. 2012. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and 

Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil 

Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units; Final Rule. US EPA, Washington, DC. 

Federal Register 77(32).

EPA national emissions standards final rule.

. 2013. Impacts of Climate Change on the Occurrence of Harmful Algal Blooms. US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Report on how climate change is predicted to change many environmental conditions that could affect 

the natural properties of freshwater and marine water, favor the growth of harmful algal blooms 

(HABs), and change habitat, such that marine HABs can invade and occur in freshwater. An increase in 

the occurrence and intensity of HABs may negatively impact the environment, human health, and the 

economy for communities across the United States and around the world.

. 2015. Regulatory Impact Analysis For The Clean Power Plan Final Rule. US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Regulatory Impact Analysis discussing potential benefits, costs, and economic impacts of the Final 

Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-141

Scoping Report 

. 2015. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

This chapter summarizes the latest information on US anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission trends, 

from 1990 through 2013. To ensure that the US emissions inventory is comparable to those of other 

UNFCCC parties, the estimates presented here were calculated using methods consistent with those 

recommended in the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The structure of this report is consistent with the UNFCCC guidelines for 

inventory reporting.

. 2015. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Emissions Standards for New 

and Modified Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector. US Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina.

EPA analysis estimates regulatory impacts for 2020 and 2025. The analysis of 2020 is assumed to 

represent the first year the full suite of proposed standards is in effect and thus represents a single year 

of potential impacts. Impacts in 2025 are estimated to illustrate how new and modified sources 

accumulate over time under the proposed New Source Performance Standards The regulatory impact 

estimates for 2025 include sources newly affected in 2025, as well as the accumulation of affected 

sources from 2020 to 2024 that are also assumed to be in continued operation in 2025, thus incurring 

compliance costs and emissions reductions in 2025.

. 2015. Social Cost of Carbon. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

DC.

This report discusses using the social cost of carbon to estimate climate benefits of rulemakings.

. 2015. Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New and Modified 

Sources. Federal Register 80(181), Friday, September 18, 2015/Proposed Rules

Federal Register notice with action that proposes to amend the new source performance standards for 

the oil and gas natural gas source category by setting standards for both methane and volatile organic 

compounds. Requirements for methane emissions stems from the realization that methane is a 

greenhouse gas, and the EPA has linked it to climate change.

. 2015. Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action. United 

States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, 

DC. EPA 430-R-15-001.

Report reviews benefits of action on climate change in the United States, including avoiding extreme 

weather events, costly damages to certain sectors, and mitigation costs.

. 2016. Nutrient Pollution: Sources and Solutions. Internet website: 

https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions. 

Summary of nutrient pollution, including excessive nitrogen and phosphorus, that washes into water 

bodies and is released into the air as a result of agriculture, stormwater, wastewater, fossil fuels, and 

homes. Addresses this pollution at its source.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-142 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2016. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2014. US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Report summarizing the latest information on US anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission trends from 

1990 through 2014. This report identifies and quantifies the country’s prime anthropogenic sources and 

sinks of greenhouse gases to better address climate change.

. 2016. Internet website: https://www.epa.gov/climateindicators/climatechange

indicatorssealevel.

Website including climate change indicators, specifically sea level rise in the United States. Contains 

graph of cumulative sea level change in inches for the years 1880 to 2020. Uses data from 

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration.

. 2016. Internet website: https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coalashbasics.

Informational website on coal ash. Provides the basics on what coal is, the regulations that apply to it, 

how power plants use it, how much there is, and how the EPA regulates it. Provided in bullet point 

format for quick assessment.

. July 2016. Internet website: https://www.epa.gov/mats.

Database of Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for the United States.

. September 2016. Internet website: https://www3.epa.gov/crossstaterule/

Database of Cross-State Air Pollution Rates for the United States.

. 2016. Climate Change Indicators: Ocean Acidity. Internet website: https://www

.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-ocean-acidity. 

Website that describes changes in the chemistry of the ocean that relate to the amount of carbon 

dioxide dissolved in the water.

. 2016. Coal Mine Methane – What EPA is Doing. June 29, 2016. Internet website: 

https://www.epa.gov/epa-coalbed-methane-outreach-program/what-epa-doing

Website detailing the EPA’s Coal Bed Methane Outreach Program and efforts to reduce coal mine 

methane emissions.

. 2016. Natural Disasters: Flooding. Internet website: https://www.epa.gov/naturaldisasters/flooding.

Website that describes what to do in the event of a flooding disaster, as relates to preparedness, during 

the flood, and during recovery.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-143

Scoping Report 

. 2016. Water And Climate Change Research. Internet website: https://www.epa

.gov/water-research/water-and-climate-change-research. 

Website that describes the way the EPA conducts research to better understand the growing impacts of 

climate change on water quality and availability. This cutting-edge science helps determine and support 

new strategies for managing watersheds and wastewater, while reducing water-related energy demands.

US Geological Survey. 1920. Title 30-Mineral Lands and Mining. US Government, 

Washington, DC.

Information on conditions of lease for coal. Contains information on term of lease, annual rentals, 

royalties, readjustment of conditions, diligent development, suspension, and operation and reclamation 

plan.

. 1998. A Digital Database of Coal Ownership Status. US Geological Survey.

This database and its products are designed to help policymakers and land use planners make wise 

decisions regarding federal land use, while maintaining a healthy domestic energy industry by showing 

the coal ownership status across the United States.

. 2012. Assessment of Coal Geology, Resources, and Reserves in the Montana 

Powder River Basin. Open-File Report 2012–1113. 

Summarizes geology, coal resources, and coal reserves in the Powder River Basin assessment area in 

southeastern Montana.

. 2013. Assessment of Coal Geology, Resources, and Reserve Base in the Powder 

River Basin, Wyoming and Montana. Fact Sheet 2012–3143.

Fact sheet from the USGS on the Powder River Basin’s coal geology, resources, and reserve base.

. 2014. Modeling Uncertainty in Coal Resource Assessments, with an Application to 

a Central Area of the Gillette Coal Field, Wyoming. Scientific Investigations Report 2014–

5196 US.

Results of a study that help provide a better assessment of uncertainty than traditional qualitative 

resource classification.

. 2015. Coal Geology and Assessment of Coal Resources and Reserves in the 

Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana. Professional Paper 1809. 

Report presenting the final results of the first assessment of both coal resources and reserves for all 

significant coal beds in the entire Powder River Basin, northeastern Wyoming and southeastern 

Montana. Article estimates 304 billion short tons of underground coal resource in the Power River 

Basin.

. 2015. Geospatial Data for Coal Beds in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and 

Montana. Data Series 912. Reston, Virginia.

Report that provides geospatial data for various layers and themes in a geographic information system 

format for the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-144 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2015. Energy Resources Program - Coal Assessments. Internet website: 

http://energy.usgs.gov/Coal/AssessmentsandData/CoalAssessments.aspx. 

The USGS Energy Resources Program research efforts yield modern, digital assessments of the quantity, 

quality, location, and accessibility of the nation’s coal resources; 37 percent of electricity produced in 

the United States is generated by coal-fired plants. Understanding the amount of coal reserves that are 

economically recoverable and of sufficient quality to meet current emission standards is important to 

ensure adequate future energy supply. Regional coal assessments provide an accurate appraisal of the 

amount of US coal that is realistically available for production in the near and mid-term future.

. 2016. Internet website: http://energy.usgs.gov/Coal/

AssessmentsandData/CoalAssessments.aspx. 

Website with information on coal assessments carried out by USGS.

. 2016. Groundwater And Drought. Internet website: http://water

.usgs.gov/ogw/drought/.

Website describing how groundwater, surface water, and the integrated nature of the hydrologic system 

enable resource managers and policymakers to better prepare for and respond to drought. Provides 

groundwater data and information that resource managers and policymakers can use to prepare for and 

respond to drought.

US Government Accountability Office. 1979. Issues Facing the Future of Federal Coal 

Leasing. Report to the Congress of the United States. Publication EMD-79-47. US GAO, 

Washington, D.C.

This report identifies and analyzes a broad range of issues affecting the development and implementation 

of a sound federal coal management program, particularly the use of Western coal in meeting America’s 

energy needs. In 1979, the Secretary of the Interior announced a new federal coal program, calling for 

resumption of competitive leasing for the first time since a moratorium was imposed in 1971. Leasing 

was to resume in 1981. However, many questions remained unanswered, some of which GAO believed 

needed to be resolved before further long-term leasing could resume.

. 2012. Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly 

Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information. Report to Congress. 

December 2012. GAO-14-164SU.

GAO report examining the coal leasing process. States that, because there is typically little competition 

for federal leases, the BLM plays a critical role in ensuring that the public receives fair market value for 

the coal that is leased. However, BLM state offices differ in the approaches they use to estimate fair 

market value and the rigor of these reports. The BLM should update and ensure consistency of coal 

appraisal reports and should account for export value of coal.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-145

Scoping Report 

. 2013. Climate Change. Various Adaptation Efforts Are Under Way at Key Natural 

Resource Management Agencies. May 2013.

Study done by GAO with written comments from the Department of Agriculture, stating that the 

Forest Service agreed with the findings. The report examines steps that key federal natural resource 

management agencies have taken since 2007 to address adaptation. It also analyzes the agencies’ climate 

change adaptation guidance and planning documents and interviewed agency officials.

. 2013. Coal Leasing: BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly 

Consider Coal Exports, and Provide More Public Information. Report GAO 14-140. US 

Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.

This report examines (1) the number of tracts leased, along with the trends in associated coal 

production and revenues generated since 1990; (2) the BLM’s implementation of the process to estimate 

fair market value for coal leases; (3) the extent to which the BLM considers coal exports and domestic 

coal reserves when estimating fair market value; and (4) the extent to which the BLM communicates 

information on federal coal lease sales to the public. GAO recommends, among other things, that the 

BLM require state offices to use more than one approach to estimate fair market value, where 

practicable, to develop a mechanism to ensure that reviews of appraisal reports take place, and to take 

steps to release additional summary information on its websites, including past lease sales. 

. 2014. BLM Could Enhance Appraisal Process, More Explicitly Consider Coal 

Exports, and Provide More Public Information. Feb. 4, 2014. Internet website: 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-140.

GAO report recommends, among other things, that the BLM require state offices to use more than one 

approach to estimate fair market value, where practicable, develop a mechanism to ensure that reviews 

of appraisal reports take place, and takes steps to release additional summary information on its 

websites, including past lease sales. The Department of the Interior concurred with these 

recommendations.

. 2014. Regulatory Impact Analysis. Development of the Social Cost of Carbon 

Estimates. United States GAO, Washington, DC.

Report from the governmental advisory organization, with data and information compiled on the social 

cost of carbon. Used interagency and previously published data as a framework.

US House of Representatives, Office of the Law Revisions Counsel. 1976. 43 US Code, 

Section 1701. Congressional declaration of policy. US Congress, Washington, DC. 

Declaration of policy relating to federal lands and the management and use of such lands.

. 1990. Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare. US Government, Washington, DC. 

Instruction for creating reports related to Source reduction and Recycling data collection and EPA 

reports. Contains information on requirements, items included, provisions, and availability. Also includes 

information on how often reports need to be submitted
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-146 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 1996. Title 30. Mineral Lands and Mining. US Government, Washington, DC.

Information on the national mining and minerals policy, definition of minerals, and execution of policy 

under other authorized programs.

. 2005. Title 30. 30 US Code, Section 20. Leases and Exploration. US Congress, 

Washington, DC. 

US policy relating to leases and exploration. Contains policy information on leases for coal and 

exploration licenses.

US Office of Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, US 

Government Printing Office. Code of Federal Regulations. 1983. Minerals Management. 

Title 43, Section 3000. 

Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Subchapter C, on minerals and management. Contains rules 

and regulations by the federal agencies regarding public land.

US Office of the Inspector General. 2013. Coal Management Program, US Department of 

the Interior. Report No.: CR-EV-BLM-0001-2012. June 2013.

Report with 13 recommendations for the BLM to enhance coal sales and inspections after assessing its 

effectiveness in managing its coal program.

US Office of the President. 2013. The President’s Climate Action Plan. June 2013.

President Obama’s Climate Action Plan to cut the carbon pollution that causes climate change and 

affects public health. Three-pillared plan to cut carbon pollution, to prepare the United States for the 

impacts of climate change, and to lead international efforts to combat global climate change and prepare 

for its impacts.

. 2014. Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions. March 2014.

Climate action plan detailing strategy to reduce methane emissions. Reducing methane emissions can 

reduce climate change, and using methane can support economies while providing clean energy. This 

document details sources of methane and emission trends and lays out the strategy to reduce both 

domestic and international emissions and highlights examples of technologies and practices that are 

already helping to cut methane emissions.

. 2014. The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change. July 2014.

Report pertaining to the costs associated with climate change. Focusing on the economic costs of 

climate change, it makes a case that delaying action will result in far greater costs.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-147

Scoping Report 

. 2016. Leaders’ Statement on a North American Climate, Clean Energy, and 

Environment Partnership. Internet website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2016/06/29/leaders-statement-north-america.

Website detailing the commitment of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, President Barack Obama, and 

President Enrique Peña Nieto to a competitive, low carbon, and sustainable North American economy 

and society. Article announces goals for clean power generation and driving down short-lived climate 

pollutants.

. 2016. The Economics of Coal Leasing. Ensuring Fair Returns to Taxpayers. June 

2016.

This report informs on the coal market in the United States and provides an economic perspective on 

federal coal leasing and the effects of possible reforms. The report addresses programmatic review of 

the federal coal leasing program in 30 years, focusing on the taxpayer and concluding that there is an 

artificially low price for most federal coal. Two possible approaches are suggested to help achieve the 

ultimate goal of ensuring a fair return to the taxpayer from the federal coal leasing program.

. 2016. US-Canada Joint Statement on Climate, Energy, and Arctic Research. March 

10, 2016. Internet website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/10/uscanada-joint-statement-climate-energy-and-arctic-leadership

Website with article describing President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada 

sharing a common interest in a prosperous and sustainable North American economy by joining 

together and implementing the Paris Agreement.

US Senate. 2016. Concerns about the Economics of Coal Leasing on Federal Lands: 

Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers. July 14, 2016.

Letter signed by multiple senators that expresses concern over the report entitled “The Economics of 

Coal Leasing on Federal Lands: Ensuring a Fair Return to Taxpayers,” published by the President’s 

Council on Economic Advisers. Cites conflicts with NEPA as main concern.

United States of America. 2015. US Cover Note, INDC and Accompanying Information. 

Internet website: http://www4.unfccc.int/Submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/

United%20States%20of%20America/1/US%20Cover%20Note%20INDC%20and%20Accompa

nying%20Information.pdf. 

US transmittal to the UN Secretariat of its intended nationally determined contribution to global 

greenhouse gas emissions, with a target year of 2025.

University Cooperation for Atmospheric Research. 2001. Internet website. Internet 

website: https://www.ucar.edu/communications/staffnotes/0107/mercury.html.

Internet website containing staff notes for July 2001. This note explains research being 

done by Friedli and Radke on forest fires to determine what they have to do with mercury 

in fish.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-148 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

University of Oxford. 2016. Internet website: http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/researchprogrammes/stranded-assets/background.php. 

Website with information on stranded assets, including definitions, timelines, and several other factors.

Unofficial Networks. 2016. Internet website: http://unofficialnetworks.com/2016/07/noaagraphic-shows-record-breaking-heat-dome-affecting-north-america. 

Brief summary of report released by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration on 

the heat dome affecting North America.

Utah Department of Health. 2016. Utah Asthma Program. Internet website: 

http://www.health.utah.gov/asthma/.

This website of the Utah Department of Health includes asthma information and links to asthma 

resources.

van Breevoort, P., et al. 2015. Climate Action Tracker—The Coal Gap: Planned Coal-Fired 

Power Plants Inconsistent with 2 Degrees C and Threaten Achievement of INDCs. 

Climate Action Tracker, Berlin, Germany.

Report on how holding temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius, or below 1.5 degrees Celsius by 

2100 requires a rapid decarbonization of the global power sector. This means phasing out emissions 

from coal-fired power by 2050. If the planned new coal capacity, estimated by the Global Coal Plant 

Tracker, were to be built, it would exceed the required levels by 400 percent.

Vannote, R. L., and G. W. Minshall. 1982. Fluvial processes and local lithology controlling 

abundance, structure, and composition of mussel beds. Internet website: 

http://www.pnas.org/content/79/13/4103.full.pdf.

This report details the study of bivalve molluscan fauna in the upper 40-kilometer canyon reach of the 

Salmon River.

Vano, J., et al. 2014. “Understanding uncertainties in future Colorado River streamflow.”

American Meteorological Society. January 2014: 59-78.

This document synthesizes studies on Colorado River streamflow projections. Discusses differences in 

existing models and the implications of the models for water management. Article concludes with four 

major reasons for discrepancies in past projections of streamflow.

Vaughan, A. 2016. “Abolition of DECC ‘major setback for UK’s climate change efforts.’” 

The Guardian. Internet website: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/15/

deccabolitionmajorsetbackforukclimatechangeefforts.

Article on British efforts to combat global warming as the Department of Energy and Climate Change is 

being abolished. The article frames the abolition as a major setback. The reorganizing of departments 

has put climate change at risk of falling off of the policy agenda.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-149

Scoping Report 

Veron, J. E. N., et al. 2009. The coral reef crisis: The critical importance of <350 ppm CO2. 

Internet website: 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.434.5355&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

This study discusses how the temperature-induced mass coral bleaching is killing coral reefs on a wide 

geographic scale, due to climate change. The report discusses the importance of not rising above 350 

ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere in order to protect coral reefs.

Vine, D. 2016. Achieving the United States’ Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. 

Center for Climate And Energy Solutions. 7 pp.

Paper looks at the progress that has been achieved since 2005, the effect existing and proposed policies 

will have by 2025, as well plausible steps to fill the gap and attain the proposed emission cuts for the 

United States.

Vulcan, Inc. 2016. Federal Coal Leasing Reform Options: Effects on CO2 Emissions and 

Energy Market. Vulcan, Inc. and ICF International, Fairfax, Virginia. 

This report summarizes the results of multiple base and policy cases. The base case is the reference case

against which the policy cases are compared to assess the incremental impact of the policy.

. 2016. Internet website: http://www.vulcan.com/News/Articles/2016/Coal-LeasingReport. 

Website with news release about potential changes to US Federal Coal Leasing Program. This article 

announces a new report that analyzes effects on CO2 emissions and energy markets from coal reform.

Wagner, J. C., et al. 1985. “Erionite exposure and mesotheliomas in rats.” Br. J. Cancer

51:727-730.

Peer reviewed journal with findings of study investigating epidemiological and environmental surveys in 

the Cappadocian region of Turkey and the link between high incidence of pleural and peritoneal 

mesothelioma and villages with the zeolite fibers released from volcanoes.

Walker, J., and B. Liebendorfer. 1998. Long-Term Stewardship at the Nevada Test Site. 

Prepared for the State Tribal Government Working Group. 

Paper discusses the US Department of Energy’s long-term stewardship responsibilities at the Nevada 

Test Site. Concludes that the Department’s proposal to acquire, in perpetuity, control of certain 

selected areas is appropriate. Also determines necessary methods for the future.

Walters, D., et al. 2015. Mercury and Selenium Accumulation in the Colorado River Food 

Web, Grand Canyon, USA. US Geological Survey, Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry.

USGS report examining mercury and selenium and exposure risks to humans and wildlife in the 

Colorado River.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-150 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Warren, M. L., and W. R. Haag. 2004. “Spatio-temporal patterns of the decline of 

freshwater mussels in the Little South Fork Cumberland River, USA.” Biodiversity and 

Conservation 14:1383-1400. Internet website: 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_warren003.pdf?

This report studies the density and number of species to evaluate the probable sequence and cause of 

observed mussel declines.

Warren, R., J. Price, and A. Fischlin. 2010. Increasing impacts of climate change upon 

ecosystems with increasing global mean temperature rise. Climatic Change. Internet 

website: http://www.sysecol.ethz.ch/Articles_Reports/Wa152.pdf.

This report looks at future projected ecosystem changes related to quantified, projected, local and 

global climate changes.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2009. Health Effects and Economic Impacts of 

Fine Particle Pollution in Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, Air 

Quality Program. Internet website: 

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/0902021.pdf.

This report describes a Department of Ecology analysis to quantify the health and monetary impacts of 

fine particle pollution in the state. The analysis was done by comparing estimates of the impacts at 

existing pollution levels to estimates of health effects at a “clean air,” or background, level.

. 2011. Letter to Wyoming BLM Director Donald A. Simpson on the South Hilight 

field coal lease application. May 11, 2011.

Letter citing Secretary of the Interior Salazar’s recent announcement of coal lease sales and pending 

applications for 3.7 billion tons of Powder River Basin coal. Calls for a supplemental EIS to consider the 

impacts of exporting coal, due to the likelihood that the new coal is destined for export markets.

Washington State Department of Ecology and Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality. 2011. Letter to Lands and Minerals Management and the BLM.

The letter requests a supplemental EIS to evaluate impacts of transporting coal through Oregon and 

Washington for overseas export for the Wright Area Coal Lease and the South Hilight Field.

Weitzman, M. L. 2010. GHG Targets as Insurance against Catastrophic Climate Damages. 

National Bureau Of Economic Research. Working Paper 16136 Internet website: http://

www.nber.org/papers/w16136.

Working paper focused on the “damages function” and keeping greenhouse gas levels down to ensure 

against climate risks from high temperatures. This paper provides numerical examples of the indirect 

value of greenhouse gas concentration targets for insight and prevention of climate change temperatures 

and damages. The results find that the welfare losses from uncertainty from using a quadratic damages 

function or thin-tailed temperature distribution have been underestimated.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-151

Scoping Report 

Welch, R. December 4, 2015. Bureau of Land Management, Lakewood, Colorado.

Letter with attachments sent from the BLM to Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper. Letter states the 

proposed approval of the royalty rate reduction for up to 13.1 million tons for four years. Also contains 

attached draft decision and Form 1842-1.

Westerling, A., et al. 2003. “Climate and wildfire in the western United States.” American 

Meteorological Society BAMS 594-604.

Paper describing wildfires, causes, and trends. Also models wildfires so that several fire seasons can be 

projected ahead of time. This is the first study to consider the larger picture of wildfire for the entire 

eastern United States.

Westerling, A., et al. 2006. “Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest 

wildfire activity.” Science 313:940-943.

Article investigating the western United States forest wildfire activity’s increase in recent decades. The 

article creates a comprehensive database of large wildfires in the western United States since 1970, 

comparing it with hydroclimatic and land-surface data. Results provide details on wildfire increases on a 

timescale, with hydrological information.

Whatcom Docs. 2016. Position Statement and Appendices: Coal Train Facts. Internet 

website: www.coaltrainfacts.org/whatcom-docs-position-statement-and-appendices.

Dozens of Whatcom County, Washington, medical professionals conducted a review of the health 

impacts of coal train traffic and found significant effects associated with both diesel particulate matter 

and coal dust, including impaired pulmonary development, increased cardiopulmonary mortality, 

increased severity and frequency of asthma attacks, increased rates of heart attacks, increased cancer 

rates, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, pulmonary fibrosis, and more. They include resources from the 

American Heart Association and American Lung Association.

Whitaker, M., G. Heath, P. O’Donoughue, and M. Vorum. 2012. “Life cycle greenhouse gas 

emissions of coal-fired electricity generation.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 16:S53-S72. 

Internet website: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00465.x/pdf.

This journal article focuses on reducing variability and clarifying central tendencies in estimates of life 

cycle greenhouse gas emissions.

White House. 2013. Executive Order. Preparing the United States for the Impacts of 

Climate Change. Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DC.

Executive Order issued by President Obama to better prepare the United States for the impacts of 

climate change in the areas of policy, modernization, management, information, planning, among other 

topics.

. 2013. Internet website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-change. 

Website with complete remarks of President Obama on climate change at Georgetown University.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-152 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

. 2015. Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Office of the Press 

Secretary. November 6, 2015.

Statement declaring the Keystone XL pipeline as not in the nation’s best interest, due to lack of 

economic benefit. It would have no impact on gas prices and would not benefit energy security.

. 2015. Internet website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/

03/31/fact-sheet-us-reports-its-2025-emissions-target-unfccc.

Website with an overview of the United States commitment to cut net greenhouse gas emissions and 

the steps that have been taken to achieve that goal. The target is to cut 26 to 28 percent of emissions by 

2025.

. 2016. Internet website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/

06/29/north-american-climate-clean-energy-and-environment-partnership-action. 

Announcement of a partnership between the United States, Canada, and Mexico to protect and work 

toward a more environmentally friendly nation.

The White House Office of the Press Secretary. 2014. US-China Joint Announcement on 

Climate Change. Internet website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/

11/11/us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change. 

Press release about the November 12, 2014, meetings in Beijing, which provides a framework for 

collaborating to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Whiteside, T., and G. Fauth. Heavy Traffic Still Ahead. Prepared for Western 

Organization of Resource Councils. Billings, Montana.

Report detailing major energy companies and transportation companies proposals in the Powder River 

Basin. Examines existing Canadian export coal terminals and provides an update to Heavy Traffic Ahead 

2012, by describing the current plans for coal production and rail movements from current and 

proposed Powder River Basin mines to proposed export coal terminals.

Whitney, E. 1999. Beware of Orange Clouds. High Country News. Internet website: http://

www.hcn.org/issues/154/4970.

Article on blasting in the Powder River Basin in open pit coal mines and the clouds of toxic nitrogen 

oxide gas created.

Wickham, J. D., et al. 2007. “The effect of Appalachian mountaintop mining on interior 

forest.” Landscape Ecology 22:179-187. Internet website: 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/26001.

This report uses spatial convolution to identify the effects of mountaintop mining on interior forests.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-153

Scoping Report 

Wiener, J., et al. 1990. “Partitioning and bioavailability of mercury in an experimentally 

acidified Wisconsin lake.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 9:909-918.

Abstract of article that studied the portioning of mercury in a clear water seepage lake in Wisconsin, 

comparing it to a reference basin. Details the importance of biogeochemical cycling and uptake by fish.

WildEarth Guardians, et al. 2010. Petition for Rulemaking Under the Clean Air Act to List 

Coal Mines as a Source Category and to Regulate Methane and Other Harmful Air 

Emissions from Coal Mining Facilities Under Section 111. Denver, Colorado. 

This is a petition to the EPA to discharge its duty to confront and control the adverse air quality impacts 

of coal mines in the United States.

Wilhelm, S. 2014. “Coal trains kill cold trains: Fruit delivery service shuts down as rail 

congestion heats up.” Puget Sound Business Journal.

The article discusses congestion on rail lines from coal and oil trains that has forced shutdown of an 

express rail service transporting fruit in refrigerated cars and is curtailing delivery of produce to the 

Midwest and East Coast.

Williams-Derry, C. 2016. Unfair Market Value II. Coal Exports and the Value of Federal 

Coal. Sightline Institute. June 2016.

Report addressing the heavy reliance the coal industry has on federal coal leases that were purchased at 

low prices and expanding on the opportunity for improvement during the upcoming three-year 

moratorium on all new federal coal leases. The article concludes that the three-year break in coal leasing 

will give the government the opportunity to ensure that federal coal leasing policy represents the public 

interest.

. No date. The Rise and Fall of the Asian Coal Bubble. Sightline Institute.

Report from the Sightline Institute with information and analysis on a potential market bubble in the 

Asian coal market.

Wilson, R., et al. 2015. Analysis of the Tongue River Railroad Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement. Prepared for Sierra Club and EarthJustice. September 23, 2015.

Report from Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., prepared for Sierra Club and EarthJustice analyzing the 

Tongue River Railroad Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Addresses the proposed 42-mile rail line 

on the Powder River to transport coal. Analysis found that the DEIS lacked transparency and verifiable 

data that become problematic in the public decision-making process. The analysis also found issue with 

the Surface Transportation Board’s conclusions on greenhouse gases and climate impacts of the Tongue 

River Railroad.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-154 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Wong, L. D., D. de Jager, and P. van Breevoot. 2016. The incompatibility of high-efficient 

coal technology with 2 [degrees] C scenarios. Ecofys. April 2016.

Report examining the move toward a low-carbon economy that would be necessary to limit global 

warming to stay below 2 degrees Celsius. The report shows that high efficiency, low emissions coal-fired 

electricity generation is incompatible with the 2 degree goal, while detailing the implications of the 2 

degree scenario on coal-fired electricity, comparing IEA World Energy Outlook 2015 to IPCC 2 degree 

scenarios, and looking at planned coal capacity in relation to the those scenarios. The report details how 

coal is not compatible with the 2 degree goal, but it does not examine alternatives.

Wood Mackenzie. 2016. Executive Summary: Impact of a Federal Coal Lease Program 

Reset. 

Summary only. Highlights key issues surrounding federal coal leases and draws out implications.

WORC. 2014. Heavy Traffic Ahead, February; Heavy Traffic Still Ahead, July.

Heavy Traffic Still Ahead updates WORC’s July 2012 report, Heavy Traffic Ahead, and reevaluates the 

anticipated increase in coal train traffic in light of the current proposals for new or expanded port 

facilities in the Pacific Northwest. In addition, the update discusses the combined effects of oil trains 

traveling from North Dakota over the same routes. The report also identifies impacts on communities 

along the transport route, consequences for existing rail users, including grain shippers and passenger 

service, and how coal export could affect rail corridors already near capacity. Both reports are available 

at http://heavytrafficahead.org/.

WORC and Powder River Basin Resource Council. 2015. Letter to BLM on the Buffalo 

PRMP/EIS.

This letter discusses comments on the proposed Buffalo Field Office Resource Management Plan and 

EIS. The organizations’ comments concern lack of an alternative to encourage reclamation and to 

disclose impacts of coal and oil and gas exploration, drilling, and export.

WORC, NWF, and NRDC, Undermined Promise II, 2015. Internet website: www.under

minedpromise.org.

The report updates the analysis of the status of coal surface mine reclamation in five western states 30 

years after passage of the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). It includes an 

overview of the impacts of coal mining and reclamation practices on wildlife and the plants that they 

depend on and a case study of issues around sage-grouse habitat restoration on mined lands. Coal 

mining has trended downward since 2008, and there is a growing push for export. Enforcement of 

SMCRA is crucial to maintain environmental protections.

World Bank Group. No Date. Coal Mining and Production. Internet website: 

https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/79a98080488552b5ac5cfe6a6515bb18/coal_PPAH.pdf

?MOD=AJPERES.

This is a report on the coal mining industry, including description and practices, waste characteristics,

pollution prevention and control, target pollution loads, emission guidelines, and monitoring and 

reporting.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-155

Scoping Report 

World Health Organization. 2007. Exposure to Mercury: A Major Public Health Concern. 

World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

This report discusses the sources of mercury pollution and associated health impacts.

. 2011. Tackling the Global Clean Air Challenge. World Health Organization, 

Geneva, Switzerland.

This report details new findings on the health effects of persistently elevated levels of particle pollution.

. 2016. Arsenic. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

This report discusses the sources of arsenic exposure and associated health effects.

World Resources Institute. 2003. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol for Project Accounting. 

World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

The protocol provides specific principles and methods for quantifying and reporting greenhouse gas 

reductions, i.e., the decreases in greenhouse gas emissions, or increases in removals or storage from 

climate change mitigation projects (greenhouse gas projects).

WWC Engineering. 2010. Wright Area Coal Lease Applications Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. WWC Engineering, Sheridan, Wyoming.

FEIS assessing the environmental consequences of decisions to hold competitive, sealed-bid sales and 

issue leases for six federal coal maintenance tracts in Campbell County, Wyoming (the Powder River 

Basin) as a result of coal lease applications submitted by Ark Land Company, Jacobs Ranch Coal 

Company, and BTU Western Resources, Inc. As applied for, the Wright area coal lease-by-application 

tracts include approximately 18,021.73 acres containing approximately 2.570 billion tons of federal coal.

Wyden, R. No date. Fact Sheet: Federal Coal Royalties and Their Impact on Western 

States.

Fact sheet on royalty revenue collected by the BLM. Contains categories of Wyoming, Montana, 

Colorado, and Utah, as well as reference tables from Office of Natural Resources Revenue

. Various dates. Wyden correspondence, 2013-2014.

Folder containing nine documents with correspondence with Natural Resources Committee, incoming 

Chairman Ron Wyden.

Wyden, R., and L. Murkowski. 2013. Letter to Ken Salazar, Department of the Interior 

regarding coal royalties.

The letter writer requests Department of the Interior to provide accounting of violations of law related 

to royalty payments and steps to be taken to ensure a fair return to the public on coal sold 

internationally.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-156 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2016. Permit termination for Medicine 

Bow Fuel and Power Coal to Liquid Project. July 1, 2016.

Letter from Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality terminating a permit after failure to follow 

and abide by Industrial Sitting Council order.

. 2015. Letter to Alpha Coal West regarding self-bonding.

The letter states that Alpha Coal West does not qualify for self-bonding and needs to substitute 

corporate sureties or other credit or securities in order to continue business.

Wyoming Mining Association. 2016, The 2015-2016 Concise Guide to Wyoming Coal. 2:4-5

Informational report from the Wyoming Mining Association on Coal detailing coal production, the 

technology, revenue, and environmental impacts that coal has on Wyoming.

. 2016. Internet website: http://www.wyomingmining.org/

economics. 

Website that contains information on the economics of minerals in Wyoming. Main focuses are on 

severance tax benefits, coals economic impact, and coal mining jobs. 

Yager, L. 2009. United States Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC. July 8, 

2009.

Letter to the Committee on Finance Chairman Max Baucus regarding how greenhouse gas emissions 

pricing could affect the international competitiveness of US industries and trade measures being 

considered as part of proposed US climate change.

Yale University. 2016. Internet website: 

ttp://e360.yale.edu/slideshow/loss_of_arctic_sea_ice_already_influencing_weather/74/4/.

Website from Yale reporting on the loss of arctic sea ice and its influence on weather. Provides five 

weather map diagrams with descriptions of this trend. Fulfills the roll of visual aid for the topic of 

weather and ice melt from climate change.

Young, P., et al. 2012. “Isocyanic acid in a global chemistry transport model: Tropospheric 

distribution, budget, and identification of regions with potential health impact.” Journal of 

Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 117.

Abstract of article that conducts a study using a global transport model to estimate the distribution of 

isocyanic acid. This toxic acid can be the result of both anthropogenic and biomass burning sources. 

With a fixed heterogeneous loss rate the value of tropospheric concentrations were reduced to zero. 

The article suggests more observational data to evaluate the model.

Yuen, A. 2016. Coal: A Duel Between Policy and Markets. Citi Group Global Markets, Inc., 

Citi Research.

Report published by Citi Research with a look into the future of the coal industry for investment 

purposes. Contains data and analysis on future projections for demand on coal.
E. Annotated Bibliography

January 2017 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS E-157

Scoping Report 

Zamor, R. M., and G. D. Grossman. 2007. “Turbidity affects foraging success of driftfeeding rosyside dace.” American Fisheries Society 136:167-176. University of Georgia, 

Athens.

This article examines the effects of suspended sediment on reactive distance and prey capture success at 

spring, autumn, and summer temperatures for rosyside dace.

Zimmerman, G., C. Moser, J. Goad, M. Lee-Ashley. 2015. Ensuring Taxpayers Receive a 

Fair Share for American’s Public Resources. Center for American Progress. Washington, 

DC.

This report looks at the return that taxpayers receive from public resources and examines three guiding 

principles for fair share reforms on public lands.

Zubets-Anderson, A. 2016.Coal in the 21st Century: Bankruptcy and Financing Rating 

Agency’s Perspective. Moody’s Investor Service. 

Ratings report put out by Moody’s investor services on the state of coal in the twenty-first century. 

Headlined by unprecedented market shifts leaving many companies in industry having to declare 

bankruptcy.

Zukoski, E. 2010. Comments of Colorado Wild et al. on Federal Coal Lease Modifications 

COC-1362 and COC-67232. EarthJustice. 

Scoping letter comments submitted to Supervisor Richmond by EarthJustice on behalf of Colorado 

Wild, Wild Earth Guardians, High Country Citizens’ Alliance, Wilderness Workshop, Sierra Club, The 

Wilderness Society, and Defenders of Wildlife.

. BLM Must Reject Mountain Coal Company’s Sep. 2014 Request for Royalty Relief 

on Federal Coal Leases C-1362 and COC-67232. EarthJustice.

Letter on behalf of High County Conservation Advocates, Sierra Club, and Wild Earth Guardians urging 

the Bureau of Land Management to reject Mountain Coal Company’s request for royalty relief on 

federal coal Leases. Letter explains reasons why the organizations are against the request.

. 2016. Recent Arch Coal Actions Further Undermine Mountain Coal Company’s 

September 2014 Request for Royalty Relief on Federal Coal Leases C-1362 and COC67232. EarthJustice. 

Additional information regarding previous letter, “BLM Must Reject Mountain Coal Company’s Sep. 

2014 Request for Royalty Relief on Federal Coal Leases C-1362 and COC-67232.” This information 

relates to the $8 million dollars in bonus that Mountain Coal Company had given.
E. Annotated Bibliography

E-158 Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS January 2017

Scoping Report 

This page intentionally left blank.