Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

Prepared in cooperation with the 

US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

and Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining

US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

PROGRAM SUPPORT DIVISION

1999 BROADWAY, SUITE 3320

DENVER, CO 80202

PHONE 303-293-5000

FAX 303-293-5032

Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 i

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need............................................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background....................................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action .......................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Issues ................................................................................................................................................. 5

Chapter 2 Alternatives......................................................................................................................................7

2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 No Action .......................................................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences........................................................11

3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Affected Environment.................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1 Regional Air Quality...................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.2 Regulatory Requirements............................................................................................................... 12

3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................................................ 15

3.3.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................................. 15

3.3.2 No Action....................................................................................................................................... 19

3.4 Cumulative Effects......................................................................................................................... 19

3.4.1 Proposed Action............................................................................................................................. 21

3.4.2 No Action....................................................................................................................................... 22

Chapter 4 Consultations and Coordination ..................................................................................................23

References ........................................................................................................................................................25

List of Tables

Table 1. Annual Coal Production at the Sufco Mine .............................................................................8

Table 2. Shipments from the Sufco Mine to United States Power Plants (Short Tons) ........................8

Table 3. Triennial Emissions Inventory (Tons Per Year) for Sevier County (2014)...........................12

Table 4. Large Industrial Source Emissions by Facility (Tons Per Year) - 2014................................12

Table 5. Reported Total Annual Emissions (Tons) .............................................................................15

Table 6. Annual Sufco Mine Emissions from Truck Transportation of Coal......................................16

Table 7. Estimated Annual Employee and Delivery Traffic Emissions..............................................17

Table 8. Estimated Indirect Range of Emissions from Coal Combustion (Tons Per Year) ................18

Table 9. Mercury Produced from Coal Combustion............................................................................19

Table 10. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions with Air and Emissions Effects.........20

Table 11. Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Since the Greens Hollow FEIS Record of Decision.......21

Table 12. Additional Estimated Indirect Emissions from Coal Combustion (based on Tons Per 

Year) ...............................................................................................................................22

Table 13. List of Preparers...................................................................................................................23

List of Figures
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

ii April 2018

Figure 1. Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract Location Map.......................................................3

Appendices

Appendix A Response to Comments
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 iii

Acronyms Used in the EA

(acronyms used in comments not included)

ASLM Assistance Secretary of Lands and Minerals

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

DAQ Division of Air Quality

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality (Utah)

DOGM Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (Utah)

EA Environmental Assessment

EIA Energy Information Agency (US Department of Energy)

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FONNSI Finding of No New Significant Impact

HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants

IWG Interagency Working Group

MRP Mine and Reclamation Plan

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOx nitrogen oxides

OSMRE Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

PAP Permit Application Package

PM10 Particulate Matter smaller than 10 microns

PM2.5 Particulate Matter smaller than 2.5 microns

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

SCC Social Cost of Carbon

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

iv April 2018

SO2 sulfur dioxide

TBtu Trillion British thermal units

USC United States Code

VOC volatile organic carbons
April 2018 1

Chapter 1

Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

Canyon Fuel Company, LLC, operator of the Sufco Mine in Utah, submitted a permit application 

package (PAP) to the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (DOGM) on April 21, 2017, to modify 

its approved Mine and Reclamation Plan (MRP) to add the federal coal included in the Greens 

Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102 (Figure 1). DOGM implements the Utah Coal Rules 

(Utah Administrative Code R645) following the terms of the Federal Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) under the oversight of the United States Department of the 

Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) via the permanent 

program for Utah (30 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 944) (OSMRE, 1994). The OSMRE is 

required to evaluate the PAP before Canyon Fuel Company may conduct underground mining and 

reclamation operations to develop the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102. 

OSMRE is the agency responsible for making a recommendation to the United States Department of 

the Interior Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management (ASLM) to approve, disapprove, 

or approve with conditions the proposed mining plan modification. 

As a federal agency, OSMRE is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),

therefore, must conduct an environmental review, in form of either adoption of a prior NEPA 

document for the same project that the environmental effects of the proposed action, supplementing 

a prior NEPA document to assess the effects of the proposed actions for the same project, or creation 

of a new NEPA analysis, before proceeding with the federal action of making a recommendation to 

the ASLM regarding the mining plan modification. The OSMRE has prepared this supplemental 

environmental assessment (EA) in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9[c][1], because of new 

circumstances identified regarding how OSMRE characterizes air emissions in light of recent 

litigation (see Section 1.5) and based on new information provided in the PAP and additional 

information collected by OSMRE that is relevant to environmental concerns and have a bearing on 

the proposed action or its impacts. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9[c][2], OSMRE determined 

that the preparation of the supplemental EA would further the purposes of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321)

by providing additional information on air emissions, which as shown in Chapter 5 as an important

resource to the public, to “enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources 

important to the Nation”. The new or updated information included in the PAP consisted of annual 

production data (5.5 to 6.3 million tons per year) and identification of no additional surface facilities 

(no powerline or vent shaft) that were previously identified in the Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Leasing and Underground Mining of the Greens Hollow Federal Coal 

Lease Tract UTU-84102 (referred to as the Greens Hollow FSEIS throughout this EA). Based on the 

new information obtained by OSMRE and the reduction of surface disturbing activities analyzed 

under the Proposed Action it was determined to prepare a supplemental EA. The supplemental EA 

focuses on only those sections that required updating and does not repeat the information from the 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

2 April 2018

Greens Hollow FSEIS. The supplemental EA provides evidence for determining whether to prepare 

an EIS or Finding of No New Significant Impact (FONNSI) statement1. 

NEPA requires federal agencies to disclose the potential environmental impacts of projects they 

authorize. Additionally, NEPA requires agencies to make a determination as to whether the analyzed 

actions would “significantly” affect the environment. “Significantly” is defined by NEPA and is 

found in regulation 40 CFR 1508.27. If OSMRE determines that this project would have significant 

effects following the analysis in the EA, then an environmental impact statement (EIS) would be 

prepared. If the potential effects are not determined to be “significant”, a FONNSI statement would 

document the reason(s) why implementation of the selected alternative would not result in 

significant environmental effects. 

This EA is tiered to the descriptions and environmental analysis contained in the Greens Hollow 

FSEIS (BLM and Forest Service, 2015). The FSEIS adequately analyzed potential environmental 

consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternatives based on information available to the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) at the time the FSEIS was 

prepared. The following resource area impacts were analyzed: geology, mining, subsidence, and 

seismicity (FSEIS Section 4.2); surface and ground water resources (FSEIS Section 4.3); aquatic and 

terrestrial wildlife resources (FSEIS Section 4.4); vegetation resources (FSEIS Section 4.5); heritage 

resources (FSEIS Section 4.6); paleontological resources (FSEIS Section 4.7); socioeconomics 

(FSEIS Section 4.8); recreation resources (FSEIS Section 4.9); visual resources (FSEIS Section 

4.10); rangeland resources (FSEIS Section 4.11); roadless resources (FSEIS Section 4.12); and air 

quality (FSEIS Section 4.13). The FSEIS is incorporated by reference into this supplemental EA in 

accordance with 40 CFR 46.135 and available (along with associated documents) at:

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=9252

9.

The Forest Service, Manti-La Sal National Forest, BLM, Price Field Office, and the Utah DOGM 

are cooperating agencies in the preparation of this supplemental EA. The Forest Service and BLM 

were co-lead agencies on the Greens Hollow FSEIS with Forest Service issuing consent to BLM 

decision to offer a federal coal lease with conditions. Both agencies are serving as cooperating 

agencies on this EA due to their special expertise and jurisdiction related to the Proposed Action. 

Utah DOGM is serving as a cooperating agency on this EA because they have the authority and 

responsibility to make decisions to approve surface and underground coal mining permits and 

regulate coal mining in Utah under Utah Administrative Code R645-301. The Utah DOGM will 

review the Permit Application Package (PAP) specifying the mining and reclamation methods to be 

employed in the permit amendment. Once Utah DOGM finds the PAP administratively complete, 

the PAP will be submitted to OSMRE for review. The Utah DOGM will continue to work with the 

permittee to finalize the PAP. Utah DOGM will issue their findings and recommendations to 

OSMRE and, if deemed appropriate, issue the permit to the permittee.

 

1 A finding of no significant impact other than those already disclosed and analyzed in the EIS to which the EA is tiered 

may be called a “finding of no new significant impact” (43 CFR 46.140(c)). 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 3

Figure 1. Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract Location Map
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

4 April 2018

1.2 Background

The Sufco underground coal mine, in Sevier County, Utah has been in operation since 1941. The 

Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102 is under National Forest lands managed by the 

Manti-La Sal and Fishlake National Forests. The coal resources are also federal resources and are

managed by the BLM. On January 4, 2017, the BLM sold the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease 

Tract UTU-84102 to the highest bidder, which was Canyon Fuel Company (BLM, 2017). Prior to 

the lease sale, the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service conducted an EIS, supplemental EIS, and made 

their respective decisions. The Forest Service consented to the leasing of the Greens Hollow Federal 

Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102 on October 5, 2015 and the BLM issued the lease March 14, 2017.

OSMRE participated as a cooperating agency along with Utah DOGM.

The Greens Hollow FSEIS decisions approved the sale of the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease 

Tract UTU-84102, approximately 6,175 acres, for production of federal coal reserves, along with 

conditions to protect the environment which were included as lease stipulations. The lease sale made 

approximately 56.6 million tons of recoverable coal available. Additional background information is 

available in the Greens Hollow FSEIS Section 1.2.

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of the action (to make a recommendation to the ASLM to approve, disapprove, or 

approve with conditions the proposed mining plan modification) is established by the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920 and the SMCRA, which requires the evaluation of Canyon Fuel Company’s

PAP before they may conduct underground mining and reclamation operations to develop the 

Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102 30 CFR Part 746: 30 United States Code 

(USC)/208(c). OSMRE is the agency responsible for making a recommendation to the ASLM to 

approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions, the proposed mining plan modification. The ASLM 

will decide whether the mining plan modification is approved, disapproved, or approved with 

conditions. If the ASLM approves this action, operations at current production rates would continue 

at the Sufco Mine for approximately 9 to 10 years. The need for the action is to allow Canyon Fuel 

Company, LLC the opportunity to exercise its valid rights granted under the Greens Hollow Federal 

Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102 to extract coal from their federal lease under the Mineral Leasing Act.

1.4 Regulatory Framework

The extensive regulatory framework for management of coal leasing, mining, reclamation, and 

environmental protection are described in detail in Section 1.5.2 of the Greens Hollow FSEIS (BLM 

and Forest Service, 2015). The major regulations (statutes) relevant to OSMRE’s evaluation of the 

Proposed Action are:

• Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 

1975, which authorizes the leasing of coal reserves and conditions of the leasing; and

• SMCRA, which provides a framework under which coal mining and surface uses are managed.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 5

1.5 Issues

In accordance with 40 CFR 1501.1 and 1506.3, OSMRE has identified the following environmental 

issues, that are deserving of further study, to supplement the existing analysis completed in the 

Greens Hollow FSEIS for the proposed action and the no action alternatives.

• Non-greenhouse gas emissions from mining (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5)

and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)), described in section 3.3.1.1;

• Emissions from the transportation of coal to the Hunter Power Plant, described in Section 

3.3.1.2;

• Emissions from employee transportation, described in Section 3.3.1.3;

• Emissions from coal combustion, described in Section 3.3.1.4; and

• Mercury emissions from coal combustion in Section 3.3.1.5.

April 2018 7

Chapter 2

Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

This section presents the description of the Proposed Action for which the issues identified in Section 

1.5 are analyzed, along with the description of the No Action alternative for effects comparison 

purposes.

2.2 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is for the OSMRE to submit a mining plan decision document to make a 

recommendation to the Department of the Interior, Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals

Management. The mining plan modification incorporates the revisions to the MRP submitted to Utah 

DOGM and is substantially similar to Alternative 3 selected by the Forest Service and BLM in their 

respective Record of Decision documents (Forest Service, 2015; BLM, 2016).

The modifications from the currently approved mining plan are:

• Add the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102 (6,175 acres, 56.6 million tons);

• A ventilation and escape way shaft facility may be required to safely mine the Greens Hollow 

Federal Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102. Such a shaft has not been permitted, nor has it been 

proposed; and

• Extend the Sufco Mine life by 9 to 10 years, depending on the production rate (the Greens Hollow 

FSEIS projects 8.8 years extra mine life).

The mining plan modification would not change several aspects of the ongoing mining activity that may 

affect air and emissions:

• Mining will continue to be by underground longwall and room-and-pillar methods;

• Coal production would stay within the limits established by the Air Quality Approval Order which 

is up to 10 million tons of coal. Coal production from 2017 through 2021 is predicted to range 

from approximately 5.5 million to 6.3 million tons2per year; and

• The Sufco Mine will continue to be considered a minor source of air emissions according to the 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

Table 1 shows the recent annual coal production at the Sufco Mine. Table 2 shows the amount of coal 

that was shipped and which power plants the coal was shipped to in the recent past. Coal that was not 

shipped to power plants was shipped to US industrial sites (Drysdale, 2018). In 2015 and 2016, all of the 

 

2 The Greens Hollow FSEIS used a slightly higher production rate of 6.43 million tons per year which estimated an 8.8-year 

mine life. This supplemental EA uses a range instead of a single rate. As shown in Table 1, production has decreased slightly 

since the Greens Hollow FSEIS analysis. In several locations in the Greens Hollow FSEIS, there was either 6.43 million tons 

per year, 7 million tons per year, or 10 million tons per year depending on the resource. These different rates were deliberate 

to indicate the “conservative” impacts on economics and air quality. 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

8 April 2018

coal from the Sufco Mine was used in the US. Coal production reported for any given year is not always 

shipped during that year. Coal may be stored and shipped later (referred to as “drawdown”). 

Table 1. Annual Coal Production at the Sufco Mine

2015a 2016a 2017b

Production (short tons) 6,024,483 5,375,171 5,883,975

Average Number of Employees 369 370

Sources: 

a (EIA, 2016a)

b (Drysdale, 2018)

Table 2. Shipments from the Sufco Mine to United States Power Plants (Short Tons)

Plant 2015 2016

1 2017

Hunter 1,238,753 21,846 -

Hunter Sales Reported as Hunter Prep Plant 1,112,409 2,042,898 2,379,466

Huntington 1,042,569 984,094 112,942

Intermountain Power Project 1,957,865 1,902,571 1,797,596

Total Shipped to Power Plants 5,351,596 4,951,409 4,290,004

Production (short tons) 6,024,483 5,375,171 5,883,975

Not shipped to Power Plants 672,887 423,762 1,593,971

Percent (%) of Sufco Coal Shipped to United States Power Plants 89% 92% 73%

Other Industrial 672,887 491,9112

Source: (EIA, 2016b; Drysdale, 2018)

1Note that data for the most current time periods (2016) typically represent preliminary estimates based on samples collected by the 

surveys. After the end of a calendar year, the estimates are replaced by actual values from a final data collection, except in the case of 

missing values. The number of missing values (non-responses) are typically minimal. 

2 Domestic shipments exceeded production in 2016 as a result of inventory drawdown (Drysdale 2018).

In 2014, the Norwest Report evaluated potential market conditions (domestic and international markets)

for the Greens Hollow, Flat Canyon, and Long Canyon tracts for the BLM. The report used 

representative destinations, but did not provide exact buyer locations or transportation routes that would 

allow for an in-depth analysis to be conducted. According to the report, “the results of the analysis 

clearly show that exports from these tracts (Greens Hollow, Flat Canyon, and Long Canyon) are 

unlikely because domestic markets offer a much higher selling price at the mine gate...In that case 

(Greens Hollow Tract), the net selling price for export coal is near or below zero” (Norwest 

Corporation, 2014).

Indirect air emissions from the Proposed Action were estimated for activities that are reasonably 

foreseeable, and included; coal transport (where a destination and quantity of delivered coal is known), 

mine worker commutes, and downstream coal combustion (see Section 3.3).
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 9

2.3 No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, the OSMRE would not recommend approval of the mining plan

modification. The ASLM would deny the action and as a result, the coal reserves in the Greens Hollow 

Federal Coal Least Tract UTU-84102 would not be recovered. DOGM would still have authority to 

approve the significant permit revision (to include the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract UTU84102 into its state SMCRA permit), however, as stated above, mining would not occur within the 

Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102. Assuming an approval authorizing mining in the 

tract was not later obtained the Sufco Mine would continue to operate and mine coal until its other 

reserves run out in about 2020. 

April 2018 11

Chapter 3

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the existing conditions of the issues shown in Section 1.5, then evaluates the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that would likely occur as a result of implementing the Proposed 

Action and No Action. Impacts are described by level of significance:

• Minor Impact: Impacts that potentially could be detectable but slight. 

• Negligible Impact: Impacts in the lower limit of detection of an impact that could cause an 

insignificant change or stress to an environmental resource or use. 

• No Impact: No discernible or measurable impacts.

3.2 Affected Environment

The air quality evaluation conducted for the Greens Hollow FSEIS included a review of the Manti-La 

Sal Coal Tracts Air Quality Evaluation Muddy Creek Technical Report (Marquez Environmental 

Services, Inc., 2004), the area of significant impacts based on stationary and mobile sources, and 

potential receptors within a 100-kilometer (62-mile) radius of the surface facility. The analysis provided 

in this supplemental EA is provided to supplement the information and analysis contained within the 

Greens Hollow FSEIS. 

The air quality of a region is determined by the topography, meteorology, location of air pollutant 

sources, and type, quantity, and combination of air pollutants. The calculated or measured 

concentrations of various pollutants are compared to established standards to evaluate the impact of a 

given source and to evaluate regional air quality. 

3.2.1 Regional Air Quality

Air quality in the region is affected by emissions from the Sufco Mine, trucks used in hauling the coal, 

and two power plants in the area: the Hunter Power Plant located near Castle Dale, Utah and the 

Huntington Power Plant located in Huntington Canyon, Utah. Additionally, potential local sources of air 

pollution include minor point sources, automobiles, trains, generators, and wood stoves/fireplaces (in the 

winter). These sources typically generate carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) and other nitrous oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and particulate matter less than 10 

microns (PM10). Ozone may also form when nitrogen oxides (NOx) and VOCs react with sunlight.

Utah’s air monitoring network includes monitoring stations throughout Utah (DAQ, 2016a) and 

monitors conditions where there is a concern based on the annual emissions inventory. Table 3 presents 

the results of the 2014 triennial inventory (most recently available) reported for Sevier County, Utah.

There are no stations in Sevier and Sanpete counties, Utah because air quality is in compliance with the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and, there is no indication from the emissions 

inventory that there is a concern.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

12 April 2018

Table 3. Triennial Emissions Inventory (Tons Per Year) for Sevier County (2014)

County CO NOX PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOCs

Sevier County 9,058 2,012 7,512 1,092 36 16,843

Sanpete County 6,847 1,175 5,430 813 14 14,835

Source: Table 4 (DAQ, 2016a).

The analysis area is classified as a Class II area for all criteria pollutants. The only Class I area within 

100 kilometers of the project area is Capitol Reef National Park which is located approximately 27 miles 

from the project area. Numerous air pollutant sources are located in the area that could impact the Class 

I area. Table 1.3 of the Air Quality Summary Report (Marquez Environmental Services, Inc., 2004), in 

the Greens Hollow FSEIS, outlines the point source emissions from numerous sources near Capitol Reef 

National Park. The largest contributors to air pollutant emissions in the region are power plants and 

generating stations. 

Coal is currently mined at the Sufco Mine under an air quality permit issued by the Utah DEQ, Division 

of Air Quality (DAQ) approval order DAQE-AN106650014-13 (DAQ, 2013). The allowable emissions 

from this source, as stated in the approval, and permitted air quality emissions sources (DEQ, 2017)

located in Sevier County are presented in Table 4. 

Table 4. Large Industrial Source Emissions by Facility (Tons Per Year) - 2014 

Site Name2 CO NOX PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOCs

Sufco Mine1 15.59 65.70 20.29 10.15 5.25 4.83

United States Gypsum Company 12.72 12.80 9.25 4.53 0.86 5.54

Western Clay Company 7.42 15.82 29.07 13.83 1.14 2.60

Hales Sand & Gravel Inc. 1.55 6.63 2.26 0.82 1.09 0.22

Georgia Pacific Gypsum - Sigrud Plant 0.02 0.04 2.47 0.94 0.00 0.00

Source: 

1

(DAQ, 2013)

2

(DEQ, 2017)

3.2.2 Regulatory Requirements

Federal actions must meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and must not cause or contribute to a 

violation of applicable air quality standards. The DAQ is the delegated authority for implementing the 

Clean Air Act in Utah and has developed a State Implementation Plan, outlining the requirements and 

regulations that the state will follow to assure that it is and will remain in compliance. There are no 

county or local air quality requirements. The Greens Hollow FSEIS describes regulatory requirements 

for the Proposed Action, including the NAAQS, clean air designations, and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD). The section below addresses HAPs and how they relate to the Proposed Action. 

3.2.2.1 Hazardous Air Pollutants

The Clean Air Act enacted the New Source Performance Standards and National Emissions Standards 

for HAPs for specific types of equipment located at new or modified stationary pollutant sources. The 

New Source Performance Standards regulations limit emissions from source categories to minimize the 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 13

deterioration of air quality. Stationary sources are required to meet these limits by installing newer 

equipment or adding pollution controls to older equipment that reduce emissions below the specified 

limit. The Proposed Action would not include equipment that is subject to these regulations. The New 

Source Performance Standards and National Emissions Standards for HAPs will apply to final coal 

combustion. 

Unlike criteria pollutants, there are no NAAQS for HAPs. Although, these pollutants are also regulated 

under the Clean Air Act, the approach taken is focused on restricting or limiting emission of pollutants, 

setting emission standards and control requirements, and requiring record keeping and reporting of 

emissions to demonstrate on-going compliance with applicable limits and requirements. 

HAPs are defined in 40 CFR 61 as pollutants that cause or may cause cancer or serious health impacts 

such as birth defects. There are currently 187 listed HAPs (EPA, 2005). The majority of HAPs originate 

from stationary sources (factories, refineries, power plants) and mobile sources (cars, trucks, buses), as 

well as indoor sources (building materials and cleaning solvents). Specific permitting requirements are a 

function of the type of source or activity to be permitted, the type(s) of pollutants, and the quantity of 

pollutants to be emitted. Sources that have the potential to emit greater than 10 tons per year of any one 

HAP; or more than 25 tons per year of all HAPs in aggregate; are classified as major sources. Sources 

are considered minor if they are less than the limits for major sources. 

Social Cost of Carbon

A protocol to estimate what is referenced as the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) associated with 

greenhouse gas emissions was developed by a federal Interagency Working Group (IWG), to assist 

agencies in addressing Executive Order (EO) 12866 which requires federal agencies to assess the cost 

and the benefits of proposed regulations as part of their regulatory impact analyses. The SCC is an 

estimate of the economic damages associated with an increase in carbon dioxide emissions and is 

intended to be used as part of a cost-benefit analyses for proposed rules. As explained in the Executive 

Summary of the 2010 SCC Technical Support Document “the purpose of the [SCC] estimates...is to 

allow agencies to incorporate the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into costbenefit analysis of emissions.” Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 

Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 February 2010 (withdrawn by EO13783). While the 

SCC protocol was created to meet the requirements for regulatory impact analyses during rulemakings, 

there have been requests by public commenters or project applicants to expand the use of SCC estimates 

to project-level NEPA analyses.

The decision was made not to expand the use of the SCC protocol for the Greens Hollow Supplemental 

EA for a number of reasons. Most notably, this action is not a rulemaking for which the SCC protocol 

was originally developed. Second, on March 28, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13783 

which, among other actions, withdrew the Technical Support Documents upon which the protocol was 

based and disbanded the earlier Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. The 

Order further directed agencies to ensure that estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases used in 

regulatory analyses “are based on the best available science and economics” and are consistent with the 

guidance contained in OMB Circular A-4, “including with respect to the consideration of domestic 

versus international impacts and the consideration of appropriate discount rates” (EO 13783, Section 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

14 April 2018

5(c)). In compliance with OMB Circular A-4, interim protocols have been developed for use in the 

rulemaking context. However, the Circular does not apply to project decisions, so there is no Executive 

Order requirement to apply the SCC protocol to project decisions.

Further, NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis (40 CFR § 1502.23), although NEPA does 

require consideration of “effects” that include “economic” and “social” effects. 40 CFR § 1508.8(b). 

Without a complete monetary cost-benefit analysis, which would include the social benefits of the 

proposed action to society as a whole and other potential positive benefits, inclusion solely of a SCC 

cost analysis would be unbalanced, potentially inaccurate, and not useful in facilitating an authorized 

official’s decision. Any increased economic activity, in terms of revenue, employment, labor income, 

total value added, and output, that is expected to occur with the proposed action is simply an economic 

impact, rather than an economic benefit, inasmuch as such impacts might be viewed by another person 

as negative or undesirable impacts due to potential increase in local population, competition for jobs, 

and concerns that changes in population will change the quality of the local community. 

Economic impact is distinct from “economic benefit” as defined in economic theory and methodology, 

and the socioeconomic impact analysis required under NEPA is distinct from cost-benefit analysis, 

which is not required. 

Finally, the SCC, protocol does not measure the actual incremental impacts of a project on the 

environment and does not include all damages or benefits from carbon emissions. The SCC protocol 

estimates economic damages associated with an increase in carbon dioxide emissions - typically 

expressed as a one metric ton increase in a single year - and includes, but is not limited to, potential 

changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, and property damages from increased flood risk 

over hundreds of years. The estimate is developed by aggregating results “across models, over time, 

across regions and impact categories, and across 150,000 scenarios” (Rose, 2014). The dollar cost figure 

arrived at based on the SCC calculation represents the value of damages avoided if, ultimately, there is 

no increase in carbon emissions. But the dollar cost figure is generated in a range and provides little 

benefit in assisting the authorized officer’s decision for project level analyses. For example, in a recent 

environmental impact statement, OSM estimated that the selected alternative had a cumulative SCC 

ranging from approximately $4.2 billion to $22.1 billion depending on dollar value and the discount rate 

used. The cumulative SCC for the no action alternative ranged from $2.0 billion to $10.7 billion. Given 

the uncertainties associated with assigning a specific and accurate SCC resulting from 9 to 10 additional 

years of operation under the mining plan modification, and that the SCC protocol and similar models 

were developed to estimate impacts of regulations over long time frames, this EA quantifies direct and 

indirect greenhouse gas emissions and evaluates these emissions in the context of U.S. and State/County 

emission inventories as discussed in Section 3.3 of the EA.

To summarize, this supplemental EA does not undertake an analysis of SCC because 1) it is not engaged 

in a rulemaking for which the protocol was originally developed; 2) the IWG, technical supporting 

documents, and associated guidance have been withdrawn; 3) NEPA does not require cost-benefit 

analysis; and 4) because the full social benefits of coal-fired energy production have not been 

monetized, and quantifying only the costs of greenhouse gas emissions but not the benefits would yield

information that is both potentially inaccurate and not useful.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 15

3.3 Direct and Indirect Effects

The following sections address potential impacts from the Proposed Action on ambient air quality, 

specifically non-greenhouse gas emissions from mining, emissions from transportation of coal, 

employee transportation, and emissions including mercury emissions from coal combustion. 

3.3.1 Proposed Action

Non-Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Mining

Criteria Pollutants

The Proposed Action would utilize existing surface facilities and coal movement operations at the Sufco 

Mine. The emission rates for the existing mining operation were included in the Greens Hollow FSEIS. 

The reported total annual emissions are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Reported Total Annual Emissions (Tons) 

PM10 NOX CO SOX VOCs

24.1 62.0 17.7 4.7 4.7

Source: (Cirrus, 2004)

PM2.5

Particulate matter (PM) is the general term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found 

in the air. Airborne PM comes from many different sources. Primary particles are released directly into 

the atmosphere from sources such as cars, trucks, heavy equipment, forest fires, and other burning 

activities. Primary particles also consist of crustal material from sources such as unpaved roads, stone 

crushing, construction sites, and metallurgical operations. Secondary particles are formed in the air from 

reactions involving precursor chemicals (EPA, 2017a). 

PM10 (PM less than 10 microns) included PM2.5 (PM less than 2.5 microns). A 2006 study (Krause & 

Smith, 2006) showed that generally the PM2.5 accounted for 29.2 percent of PM10 in surface coal mines. 

Using this percentage, the estimated PM2.5 emission rate would be 7.04 tons per year (also see Table 4). 

This is considered to be a conservative estimate as the mining associated with the Proposed Action is 

underground rather than on the surface. PM10 emissions in Table 5 are from mining activities including 

excavation, hauling, and reclamation.

Emissions of criteria pollutants and PM2.5 impacts under the Proposed Action would be considered 

minor because concentrations would not exceed the NAAQS and short term because they would only 

occur during mining operations. 

Emissions from Transport of Coal to Hunter Power Plant

As an example of emissions from hauling coal by diesel truck from the Sufco Mine, the haul to Hunter 

Power Plant was used to calculated using the EPA’s Diesel Emissions Quantifier (EPA, 2017). The 

Hunter Power Plant has been the recipient of the largest portion of Sufco’s coal recently (Table 2). The 

diesel calculator does not calculate PM10, SO2 or VOCs, so the EPA’s MOVES program was used to 

calculate these emissions. The calculator and MOVES uses the number of vehicles, annual miles, annual 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

16 April 2018

idle time, and age of vehicle to make the calculation. The results are shown in Table 6. The calculations 

were generated using the following assumptions:

• The fleet is on-road, Class 8 combination long haul truck.

• The Sufco Mine reports there were 14,388 average trips per month for the most recent 3- month 

period reported.

• Default annual fuel usage generated by the calculator is 17,349 gallons per truck.

• Round trip distance is 72 miles for 12,431,232 miles traveled per year (14,388 trips per month for 

12 months at 72 miles each).

• Annual truck idle time is 520 hours (an average of 2 hours per day for 260 working days).

• Average truck was made in 2010 and will be replaced in 2020.

• It is uncertain where the coal will be shipped. Table 6 also indicates the emissions per mile for 

Sufco coal shipped by diesel truck, based on the analysis described above.

Table 6. Annual Sufco Mine Emissions from Truck Transportation of Coal

Annual Results (tons) PM10 PM2.5 NOx CO SO2 VOCs

Baseline of Entire Fleet 0.971 0.487 23.471 4.910 0.236 2.164

Annual Emissions per mile 0.013 0.007 0.326 0.038 0.003 0.030

The estimated emission rates presented in Table 6 would be emitted during the transport of coal via 

Sufco Mine diesel trucks from the Sufco Mine to the Hunter Power Plant for an additional 1.2 years 

under the Proposed Action. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have a short-term, negligible effect 

on air quality.

Black carbon is a form of particulate air pollution that can be emitted through gas and diesel engines, 

coal-fired power plants, and other sources that burn fossil fuel. It comprises a significant portion of PM. 

Black carbon emissions from diesel tailpipe emissions are an expected by-product from haul trucks used 

during coal mining operations. The level of emissions from diesel tailpipe emissions are largely 

dependent upon the content of the diesel fuel used and, therefore black carbon emissions from the 

Proposed Action have not been quantified as part of this analysis, although PM concentrations were 

calculated and reported in Section 4.13.1.1 in the Greens Hollow FSEIS and reported in Table 5 above 

in this supplemental EA. Black carbon is an unregulated pollutant; however, the EPA regulates diesel 

fuel quality.

Compared to the emissions inventory for Sevier County, Utah shown in Table 3, the emissions from 

truck transportation are negligible.

Emissions from Employee Transportation

Emissions from employee or delivery traffic have been estimated in Table 7. Emissions are generally 

limited to gasoline or diesel vehicles. Table 3.21 in the Greens Hollow FSEIS explains the criteria 

pollutants and the NAAQS.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 17

Table 7. Estimated Annual Employee and Delivery Traffic Emissions 

Vehicle 

Type

Daily 

Trips2

Daily 

Average 

Miles3

Workdays 

per 

Year4

CO2

Emission 

Factor 

(pounds 

per mile)

Methane 

Emission 

Factor 

(pounds 

per mile)

N2O 

Emission 

Factor 

(pounds 

per mile)

CO2

(pounds)

CH4

(pounds)

N2O 

(pounds)

Commuting to Mine (Monday – Friday)

Car 65 30 260 0.802 0.068 0.071 406,614 34,476 35,997

Passenger 

Vans1

6 30 260 1.14 0.079 0.104 53,352 3,697 4,867

Bus 6 30 260 0.236 0.001 0.001 11,045 47 47

Commuting to Salina Bus Stop (Monday – Friday)

Car 193 15 260 0.802 0.068 0.071 603,665 51,184 53,442

Commuting to Mine (Saturday – Sunday)

Car 13 30 104 0.802 0.068 0.071 32,529 2,758 2,880

Passenger 

Vans1

2 30 104 1.14 0.079 0.104 7,114 493 649

Bus 2 30 104 0.236 0.001 0.001 1,473 6 6

Commuting to Salina Bus Stop (Saturday – Sunday)

Car 65 15 104 0.802 0.068 0.071 81,323 6,895 7,199

Total Annual Emissions (pounds) 1,197,115 99,556 105,087

Total Annual Emissions (Tons) 598.56 49.78 52.54

Source: (EPA, 2008)

1Considered equivalent to light-duty truck emission factor.

2Provided by Sufco Mine.

3Estimated from proximity to nearby communities, actual mileage unknown. 

4Based on 52-week calendar year.

The impacts from vehicles under the Proposed Action by extending current operations at the Sufco Mine 

through 2028 would be short term because they would only occur during mining operations and, would 

have minor impacts when compared to air quality in the region (see Table 4) and would not exceed any 

of the NAAQS. 

Emissions from Coal Combustion

As discussed in the Greens Hollow FSEIS, burning of coal is an indirect impact that is a reasonable 

progression of the mining activity. The Hunter Power Plant is again used to reflect effects from coal 

combustion because of proximity, it has historically received 38 to 40 percent of Sufco Mine coal and it 

is forecast to operate fairly far into the future (to 2042). Permitted air quality emissions from the Hunter 

Power Plant are presented in Table 8. In the past, Hunter and other power plants and industrial facilities

have received coal from the Sufco Mine. Intermountain Power Plant is slated for closure in 2025 or 

conversion to gas (Power Engineering, 2017). Actual future coal consumers and quantities are not 

known at this time and would be too speculative to predict due to fluctuations in coal market conditions. 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

18 April 2018

Impacts from coal going to other locations would be too speculative to quantify and therefore would not 

be meaningful to the decision maker.

The Hunter Power Plant burns approximately 4.5 million tons per year of coal (PacifiCorp, 2011). For 

purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that emissions from the Hunter Power Plant will be at 

their maximum permitted level when burning 4.5 million tons of coal per year. Additionally, because the 

Hunter Power Plant has historically been one of the largest consumer of coal from the Sufco Mine, 

emission rates calculated from the Hunter Power Plant have been applied to all indirect emissions from 

the Proposed Action. In actuality, the various control technologies that may or may not be utilized by 

operators of facilities that ultimately burn the coal will cause emission rates to vary. 

Based on the permitted emissions data presented in Table 8, and the reported 4.5 million tons of coal 

burned per year, emission rates have been extrapolated and used to estimate the indirect emissions from 

the Proposed Action. The estimated range of emissions due to the Proposed Action are presented in 

Table 8. The estimates provided are for information purposes only, as the end users of the coal produced 

from the Proposed Action are unknown at this time, and the rate at which the coal is burned is also 

unknown. Table 4.13 of the Greens Hollow FSEIS includes potential greenhouse gas emissions from 

combustion of coal, reporting 21.8 million metric tons per year of CO2. Based on this yearly estimate, 

the total for coal produced for 8.8 years would be 191.8 million metric tons of CO2.

Table 8. Estimated Indirect Range of Emissions from Coal Combustion (Tons Per Year) 

Coal Burned CO NOX PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

4.5 Million Tons (current) 4,343.40 11,491.17 747.44 426.03 3,939.31 125.93

5.5 Million Tons 5,308.60 14,044.76 913.54 520.70 4,814.74 153.91

6.3 Million Tons 6,080.76 16,084.64 1,046.42 596.44 5,515.03 176.30

Source: (PacifiCorp, 2011; DEQ, 2017).

Mercury Emissions from Coal Combustion

The final destination of the coal from the Proposed Action varies, so again, the Hunter Power Plant is 

used for the disclosure of impacts. Ultimately, the actual mercury emissions from the Proposed Action

will depend on the final destination and emissions control technology and permit requirements at those 

facilities. Hunter Power Plant’s Title V air permit 1500101002 (DAQ, 2016b) limits emissions of 

mercury to no greater than 1.2 pounds per TBtu and requires monitoring, record keeping, and reporting 

to demonstrate continuous compliance. Because the effects would be within the air permit limits, which 

are set to be protective of the environment, the impacts from mercury emissions would be negligible.

The mercury content of the Blackhawk Formation coal (which is what Sufco mines) is 3.7 pounds per 

trillion British thermal unit (TBtu) (Tabet, et al., 2009). The Btu content of bituminous coal is about 24 

million Btu per ton of coal. Table 9 shows the calculated mercury present in coal consumed annually at 

the Hunter Power Plant and the total coal that would be mined from the Greens Hollow lease. The 

indirect mercury emissions from combustion of the coal cannot consider specific control strategies and 

equipment. Mercury emissions from burning coal depends on control strategies and equipment used to 

minimize emissions and the quality and characteristics of the coal. 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 19

Table 9. Mercury Produced from Coal Combustion

Million Tons of Coal TBtu 

Generated

Mercury (3.7 pound 

per TBtu)

2011 Source1 Pounds 

Total Suspended Particle

4.5 Annual consumed at Hunter 108.0 399.6 8.45

56.6 Total 1,358.4 5026.08 106.28a

Notes:

1 Hunter Power Plant Source (DEQ, 2017)

a Calculated amount (annual 8.45 : 4.5 tons annually X 56.6 tons total)

Power plants can emit mercury into the atmosphere with coal combustion which can then affect the 

quality of surface water as it settles into streams and lakes through deposition or precipitation. Mercury 

can go through a series of chemical transformations that convert it to a highly toxic form, which may 

concentrate in fish and birds (Irwin, 2007). However, mercury contamination through atmospheric 

deposition is extremely difficult to determine as atmospheric mercury can be derived from any number 

of local, regional, or global sources. The Hunter Power Plant is used as the representative user of coal 

from the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102 and actual buyers and combustion 

locations would vary depending on coal market conditions. Thus, it is not possible to determine how 

much mercury emissions would be deposited into surface water or where it would be deposited as an 

indirect impact of mining the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102 at the Sufco Mine.

3.3.2 No Action

Under the No Action, the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102 coal would not be 

produced, shipped, or burned. Therefore, there would be no additional impacts on air quality. As Sufco 

is an operating coal mine with coal reserves to mine through 2020, the direct and indirect impacts of the 

No Action would be similar to those discussed in Section 3.3.1 for criteria pollutants, greenhouse gas 

emissions, and mercury emissions, except they would conclude in 2020 instead of extending another 9 

to 10 years.

Based on the No Action Alternative for two years of operation:

• Annual criteria pollutant emissions Table 5;

• Annual estimated emissions from transportation of coal Table 6;

• Annual estimated emissions from employee transportation Table 7); 

• Annual emissions of criteria pollutants from coal combustion Table 8); and 

• Mercury emissions from coal combustion at the Hunter Power Plant would be 16.9 pounds over 

2 years (see Table 9).

3.4 Cumulative Effects

When considering which actions had or will have cumulative effects, activities that are completed and 

reclaimed are assumed to not be producing cumulative impacts on air or emissions. Air quality and 

emissions impacts from those activities have already dissipated or are reflected in the current air quality,

but cannot be differentiated individually from projects within or even outside of the cumulative impacts 

analysis area. For this reason, only current and reasonably foreseeable actions that will be occurring 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

20 April 2018

during the same time frame as the mining and use of the coal from the Greens Hollow Federal Coal 

Lease Tract UTU-84102 are considered in the cumulative impacts analysis. For example, it is assumed 

that coal mined prior to 2017 has been consumed.

In evaluating the potential cumulative impacts of the alternatives when combined with the effects of the 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the Table 2.1 in the Greens Hollow FSEIS listed 

actions considered. Actions identified in the Greens Hollow FSEIS that have cumulative effects on air 

and emissions are summarized below in Table 10. These actions are also included in the cumulative 

impacts analysis for this supplemental EA. The Table 2.1 in the Greens Hollow FSEIS indicated which 

past and present actions were having residual effects and on which resources these residual effects were 

occurring. Actions which did not list residual effects that may affect air were eliminated from Table 9.

After the Greens Hollow FEIS Record of Decision, additional actions have been proposed that may have 

cumulative air and emissions impacts. These actions are shown in Table 11. Construction of roads and a 

new transmission line are considered reasonably foreseeable. However, specific details regarding the 

construction design, timing, and equipment needed for these actions is unknown and would be too 

speculative to quantify associated impacts.

Table 10. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions with Air and Emissions 

Effects

Actions Dates Residual, Current, and Future Effects

Ongoing Actions

Minerals

Oil and gas leases ongoing Closest is 15 miles. No incremental impacts

due to distance from Proposed Action.

Vent fan operating in the North Fork of Quitchupah 

Canyon.

1996 to 

present

Fan site includes 0.70 acres of disturbance. 

Continual noise is produced by the fan.

Link Canyon power line and substation. 2000 to 

present

Current facility includes 0.25 acres of 

disturbance.

Link Canyon intake ventilation breakout and access. 2003 to 

present

Current structure encompasses 0.38 acres of 

disturbance.

Recreation and Transportation

Vehicle (passenger, off-highway vehicle, snowmobile)

access for Christmas tree cutting, firewood gathering, 

grazing management, mining, recreation, hunting, timber

and private land access.

Ongoing Emissions from vehicles.

Future Actions

Minerals

Seven exploratory drill holes to determine geologic 

factors. Drill holes would be considered a cumulative 

action since their authorization occurs independently.

Each drill pad is approximately .006 acres for a 

total permitted disturbance of 0.042 acres. In 

sensitive areas or areas of extreme terrain, 

helicopter assisted drilling may be used. Drill 

holes will be plugged, reclaimed, and 

revegetated. Exposed soil that could contribute 

PM would be short-term until the pads are 

revegetated.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 21

Actions Dates Residual, Current, and Future Effects

Vehicle access and road use for construction and 

maintenance of an electrical power line to supply the 

Sufco Mine and the vent fan. Access would be via 

existing National Forest System roads (no new road 

construction).

Emissions from vehicle access to the vent shaft 

site(s) would be required on a daily basis.

The Sufco Mine has decided not to construct a previously approved coal segregation facility which was 

considered in the cumulative impacts analysis in the Greens Hollow FSEIS. Associated air quality 

impacts from additional disturbance will not occur.

Table 11. Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Since the Greens Hollow FEIS Record of 

Decision

Actions Dates Residual, Current, and Future Effects

Minerals

South Fork Lease Modifications 2018-

2019

Emissions from 6.35 million tons of coal 

mined, transported, and combusted.

3 Right 4 East Panel Amendment (Quitchupah Lease)

(received by Utah DOGM 24-Jan-2017). Includes mining 

part of the Quitchupah Tract which was previously 

approved but not mined. The panel orientation has been 

modified. No additional surface disturbance would occur.

2017-

2021

Emissions from 2.01 million tons of coal 

mined, transported, and combusted.

4 Right 4 East Panel Amendment (received by Utah 

DOGM 26-Oct-2017). Includes mining part of the 

Quitchupah Tract which was previously approved but not 

mined. No additional surface disturbance would occur.

2017-

2021

Emissions from1.67 million tons of coal 

mined, transported, and combusted.

3.4.1 Proposed Action

Vehicle use for recreation and management of National Forest resources is ongoing, and not increasing 

above previous levels that are reflected in the current condition. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, these 

ongoing activities are not adversely affecting air quality to the degree that air quality standards for 

criteria pollutants are not being met.

Emissions from ongoing and future mining listed in Table 11 (including drilling and ventilation) would 

contribute additional cumulative effects in the cumulative impacts analysis area during the same time 

frame as the Proposed Action, however, as described in Section 3.3.2, the impacts are not additive due to 

atmospheric dissipation.

The combined amount of coal added to the Sufco Mine mining plan that is reasonably foreseeable is

10.03 million tons, the total of the three proposed mining actions. Based on the annual production rate of 

5.5 million to 6.3 million tons per year identified in Section 2.2, this amount of coal would extend the 

Sufco Mine life by 1.5 to 1.8 years. The amount of non-greenhouse gas emissions annually reported in 

Table 5 from mining would continue for 1.5 to 1.8 years. Likewise, the annual rate of PM2.5 emissions 

from mining (7.04 tons per year, see Section 3.3.1.1) would continue for the same amount of time. The 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

22 April 2018

annual emissions from employees and delivery traffic are reported in Table 7. Emissions from 

employees and delivery traffic would continue at the same rate for the extended 1.5 to 1.8 years. 

Indirect emissions from the combustion of coal mined from the reasonably foreseeable actions has been 

estimated below. 

Combustion of the 10.03 million tons of coal that would be mined in the reasonably foreseeable future 

(as identified in Table 11) are shown in Table 12.

Table 12. Additional Estimated Indirect Emissions from Coal Combustion (based on 

Tons Per Year) 

Coal Burned CO NOX PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

10.03 Million Tons 9,680.956 25,612.54 1,665.961 949.5735 8,780.284 280.684

3.4.2 No Action

As the No Action would have no additional direct or indirect effects on air quality or emissions. 

Cumulative effects would be the same as the Proposed Action until the mine closed in 2020 including 

vehicle use for recreation and National Forest management (described in Section 3.2.1), annual 

emissions from employees and delivery traffic (Table 7), and ongoing and future mining as shown in 

Table 12.
April 2018 23

Chapter 4

Consultations and Coordination

This supplemental EA was prepared by the people listed in Table 13.

Table 13. List of Preparers

Name Role

Gretchen Pinkham Project Manager

Nicole Caveny Mining Plan Decision Document Manager

Cameo Flood Project Description

Chris Hayes Air Quality

April 2018 25

References

BLM and Forest Service, 2015. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Leasing 

and Underground Mining of the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102. Sanpete 

and Sevier Counties, Utah. [Online] 

Available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/nepa/65045/128886/156785/0529_February_2015_Greens_Hollow_Final_SEIS_

201502_508_Compliant_UTU-84102.pdf

BLM, 2016. Record of Decision. Decision to Hold Competitive Lease Sale: Greens Hollow Federal 

Coal Lease Tract. August 12. [Online] 

Available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/nepa/65045/78669/90280/Signed_ROD_DOI-BLM-UT-070-2008-

14_on_Green_Hollow_dtd_8-12-1608122016085733.pdf

BLM, 2017. Press release: BLM conducts coal lease sale for Greens Hollow Tract. January 4. [Online] 

Available at: https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-conducts-coal-lease-sale-for-greenshollow-tract-Jan2017

Cirrus, 2004. Coal tract evaluations on the Manti-La Sal Nationals Forest; Muddy Creek Technical 

Reports. Preapared for the Manti-La Sal National Forest, Price, UT., Logan, Utah: Cirrus 

Ecological Solutions, LC.

DAQ, 2013. Approval Order: Approval order modification to add a second emergency generator. 

January 28. [Online] 

Available at: 

http://168.178.3.241:8080/DAQ_NOI/DocViewer?IntDocID=62666&contentType=application/p

df

DAQ, 2016a. Utah Division of Air Quality 2016 Annual Report. [Online] 

Available at: https://documents.deq.utah.gov/air-quality/annual-reports/DAQ-2017-001541.pdf

DAQ, 2016b. Title V Operating Permit. Permit Number 1500101002. March 3, Salt Lake City: State of 

Utah.

DEQ, 2017. 2014 Statewide Point Sources by County. [Online] 

Available at: 

https://deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/air/emissionsinventories/inventories/docs/pointsources-by-county.pdf

Drysdale, M., 2018. Greens Hollow Supplemental EA - Canyon Fuel Comapny, LLC Comments, 

submitted to OSMRE. Minneapolis, MN: Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Council.

EIA, 2016a. Annual Sufco Mine Production. [Online] 

Available at: 

https://www.eia.gov/beta/coal/data/browser/#/mine/4200089?freq=A&start=2001&end=2015&ct

ype=linechart<ype=pin&pin=&maptype=0&linechart=COAL.MINE.PRODUCTION.4200089

-BIT-UND.A&columnchart=COAL.MINE.PRODUCTION.4200089-BIT-UND.A
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification 

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

26 April 2018

EIA, 2016b. Coal Shipments from Sufco Mine. [Online] 

Available at: 

https://www.eia.gov/coal/data/browser/#/shipments/mine/4200089?freq=A&start=2001&end=20

16&ctype=<ype=pin&pin=&maptype=0&linechart=COAL.MINE.PRODUCTION.4200089-

BIT-UND.A&columnchart=COAL.MINE.PRODUCTION.4200089-BIT-UND.A

EPA, 2005. Initial list of hazardous air pllutants with modifications. [Online] 

Available at: https://www.epa.gov/haps/initial-list-hazardous-air-pollutants-modifications

[Accessed 16 November 2017].

EPA, 2008. Optional emissions from commuting, business travel and product transport. May. [Online] 

Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1001177.PDF?Dockey=P1001177.PDF

EPA, 2017a. Ambient Concentrations of Particulate Matter. [Online] 

Available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator.cfm?i=9

[Accessed 16 November 2017].

EPA, 2017. Diesel Emissions Quantifier. [Online] 

Available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/quantifier/index.cfm?action=results.quantify

[Accessed 21 November 2017].

EPA, 2017. Diesel Emissions Quantifier. [Online] 

Available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/quantifier/index.cfm?action=results.quantify

[Accessed 21 November 2017].

Forest Service, 2015. Record of Decision. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Leasing and Underground Mining of the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102. 

October 5. [Online] 

Available at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/nepa/65045/129247/157193/0580_2015_October_5_Greens_Hollow_Forest_Serv

ice_ROD-151005Final.pdf

Irwin, B. B. a. M., 2007. Basic Mercury Data & Coal Fired Power Plants. [Online] 

Available at: https://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/energy/assets/pdfs/cctr/outreach/Basics2-

Mercury-Mar07.pdf

[Accessed March 2016].

Krause, M. & Smith, S., 2006. Final - Methodology to calculate particulate matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 

significance thresholds. October. [Online] 

Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/particulate-matter-(pm)-2.5-significance-thresholds-and-calculationmethodology/final_pm2_5methodology.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Marquez Environmental Services, Inc., 2004. Mant-La Sal Coal Tracts air quality evaluation Muddy 

Creek technical Report. February, Golden Colorado: Marquez Environmental Services, Inc..

Norwest Corporation, 2014. Coal market Analysis. October 9, Salt Lake City, Utah: Norwest 

Corporation.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environ

April 2018 27

OSMRE, 1994. Federal Register Notice. Register Volume 59, Number 145. 30 CFR Part 944.. [Online] 

Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1994-07-29/html/94-18529.htm

PacifiCorp, 2011. Hunter Power Plant. [Online] 

Available at: 

https://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pacificorp/doc/Energy_Sources/EnergyGeneration_Fac

tSheets/RMP_GFS_Hunter.pdf

[Accessed 16 November 2017].

Power Engineering, 2017. Utah's Largest Coal Plant to Claose, Convert by 2025. [Online] 

Available at: http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2017/05/utah-s-largest-coal-plant-to-closeconvert-by-2025.html

[Accessed 12 December 2017].

Rose, S., 2014. Understanding the social cost of carbon: A technical assessment. December 8. [Online] 

Available at: https://www.usea.org/sites/default/files/event-/SRose%20-

%20Understanding%20the%20SCC%20-%20USEA%20Dec%202014%20pdf.pdf

Tabet, D. E., Hucka, B. P., Quick, J. C. & Wakefield, S. I., 2009. Available coal resource for the Salina 

Canyon and southwestern part of the Wasatch Plateau coalfields, Sevier County, Utah. [Online] 

Available at: https://ugspub.nr.utah.gov/publications/special_studies/ss-129.pdf

Appendix A

Response to Comments

April 2018 A-1

Response to Comments

A legal notice announcing the availability of the Greens Hollow Supplemental EA was published in the Richfield Reaper newspaper 

on January 4, 2018 and the Sun Advocate newspaper on January 9, 2018. A letter announcing the availability was sent to everyone on 

the mailing list (either hard copy or email), and the following tribes: Eastern Shoshone Tribe; Goshute Indian Tribe; Hopi Tribe; 

Laguna Pueblo Tribe; Navajo Nation; Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah; Pueblo of Jemez; Pueblo 

of Luguna; Pueblo of Zuni Tribe; Santa Clara Pueblo Tribe; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes; Southern Ute Tribe; Ute Indian Tribe; Ute 

Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New 

Mexico and Utah ; Ute Mountain Ute Tribe; White Mesa Ute Tribe; and Zia Pueblo Tribe.

Three letters were received. Substantive comments and OSMRE’s responses to those comments are in Table A-1. Comments on the 

Draft EA and FONNSI and Responses.

Number Commenter Comment Response

1-1 Sam Baker To Whom it May Concern,

I am fully in favor of granting SUFCO’s permit for the greens hollow tract. 

Having worked in the coal industry in neighboring Colorado and as mining 

engineering graduate I have the utmost confidence in both OSM and SUFCO’s 

abilities to protect the environment while producing energy and providing jobs. 

Our modern mining methods and laws ensure that coal production can be done 

safely and responsibly in Utah and the rest of the country.

Comment noted.

2-1 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

On behalf of Canyon Fuel Company, LLC ("CFC"), I am pleased to submit 

comments on the Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Mining Environmental 

Assessment ("Greens Hollow EA") prepared by the Office of Surface Mining, 

Reclamation, and Enforcement ("OSMRE"), dated December 2017. Following a 

brief discussion of CFC's interest in the Greens Hollow EA, CFC's comments are 

organized by Section of the published document.

Comment noted.

2-2 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

CFC's Interest

As identified in the Greens Hollow EA, CFC is the owner and operator of the 

Sufco Mine and the applicant for the proposed mining plan modification. Equally 

importantly, CFC is the lessor of the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract 

UTU-84102. As acknowledged in Section 1.3 of the Greens Hollow EA, CFC 

thus possesses valid existing rights and obligations to mine the Greens Hollow 

Tract. These rights and obligations constrain OSMRE's discretion in reviewing 

the proposed mining plan modification. OSMRE correctly states that it has broad 

authority to "approve, disapprove, or approve with modifications" the proposed 

mining plan modification, but OSMRE does not have the authority to disapprove 

Comment noted.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-2 April 2018

or require modifications to the proposed mining plan modification based on 

environmental impacts that are necessarily incident to the granting of a federal 

coal lease, such as the downstream combustion of the federal coal. Consequently, 

OSMRE has no legal duty to examine such impacts. DOT v. Public Citizen, 541 

U.S. 742 (2004). Case law to the contrary outside of the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, see the recent Signal Peak Energy decision (D. Mont. CV 15-106-MDWM, Order of August 14, 2017), is not binding on OSMRE.1 At the same time, 

analysis of such impacts is not legally prohibited, and as discussed below, CFC 

does not object to the analysis in this specific instance.

2-3 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Section 1.1 - Introduction

The Greens Hollow EA makes the following statement:

As a federal agency, OSMRE is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA), and therefore must conduct an environmental review, in form of 

either adoption of a prior NEPA document for the same project, supplementing a 

prior NEPA document for the same project, or creation of a new NEPA analysis, 

before proceeding the federal action of making a recommendation to the ASLM 

regarding the mining plan modification. The OSMRE has prepared this 

supplemental environmental assessment (EA), based on new information 

provided in the PAP.

This statement could be interpreted as a broad statement of law regarding mining 

plan modifications generally, and the statement omits that NEPA analyses are not 

required for all federal actions, including minor mine permitting actions. The 

statement's use of the term "project" could also be confusing. CFC therefore 

recommends clarifying the statement as follows:

As a federal agency, OSMRE is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA) for all major federal actions significantly impacting the human

environment. OSMRE has determined that the proposed mining plan modification 

is a major federal action. OSMRE therefore must conduct an environmental 

review, in form of either adoption of a prior NEPA document for the same project

that adequately analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed action.

supplementing a prior NEPA document as necessary to assess the effects of the 

proposed action, for the same project, or creation of a new NEPA analysis, before 

proceeding with the federal action of making a recommendation to the ASLM 

regarding the mining plan modification. The OSMRE has prepared this 

supplemental environmental assessment (EA), based on new information 

provided in the PAP and additional information collected by OSMRE.

OSMRE agrees that the suggested 

language is correct in part and has 

modified Section 1.1 Introduction 

with language similar to the suggested 

language. OSMRE does not agree that 

the Proposed Action constitutes a 

major federal action significantly 

impacting the human environment and 

therefore that language was not 

included.

2-4 Michael Drysdale Figure 1 The legend did not clearly identify the 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-3

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Figure 1 provides a location map that requires a correction. The Legend describes 

various areas outlined or colored in blue as the "Sufco Mine Permit Boundary." 

Under Utah's permitting regulations, permit areas are surfaces that are disturbed 

and subject to reclamation (hence the small and isolated character of the permitted 

areas). Of these, the "fish-shaped" area in T21S RSE, Sections 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 

and 14 is technically not part of the Sufco Permit boundary and should be deleted 

from Figure 1. There is some water management occurring in that area but no 

surface disturbance and no reclamation, and it is not part of Sufco's Permit.

permit boundary displayed. Figure 1

has been updated as specified.

2-5 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Section 1.2 - Background

Because Section 1.2 is concise, it may be useful for readers to expressly point out 

that additional background information is available in the Greens Hollow FSEIS.

To further emphasize that the Greens 

Hollow FSEIS addresses impacts 

analysis, Section 1.2- Background was

updated to further describe the 

connection between the two NEPA 

documents.

2-6 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Section 1.3 - Purpose and Need for Action

Section 1.3 contains the following statement:

If the ASLM approves this action, operations would continue at the Sufco Mine 

for up to 8.8 years.

Because market conditions and demand for coal fluctuates, and there may be 

future proposed actions, the Greens Hollow EA should not overstate the precision 

of forecasts of the life of future operations. CFC recommends that the statement 

be amended as follows:

If the ASLM approves this action, operations at current rates of production would 

continue at the Sufco Mine for approximately 9-10 years. 

This revision would also be consistent with the "depending on the production 

rate" qualifier and duration stated in Section 2.2.

The estimated life-of-mine is slightly 

adjusted in the Greens Hollow 

Supplemental EA from the Greens 

Hollow FSEIS, therefore Section 1.3 

Purpose and Need was updated to 

include the suggested statement.

2-7 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Section 1.4 - Regulatory Framework

It may be helpful to clarify that the "major regulations" referenced in Section 1.4 

are statutes.

Section 1.4 – Regulatory Framework 

was updated to include statues.

2-8 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Section 1.5 - Issues

It is not correct to assert that the listed issues "have not been covered" by a prior 

environmental review. To the contrary, in the Greens Hollow FSEIS, BLM 

discussed each of the listed issues, and provided rational, non-arbitrary, and 

legally sufficient reasons for the scope of examination devoted to each subject. 

This does not preclude OSMRE from looking further into each issue, but OSMRE 

should not state or imply that the issues were not considered in the Greens Hollow 

OSMRE agrees that the Greens 

Hollow FSEIS considered the issues, 

thus, Section 1.5-Issues. Statement 

was updated to clarify that issues were 

considered in the Greens Hollow 

FSEIS.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-4 April 2018

FSEIS.

2-9 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Section 1.5 - Issues

In addition to the listed issues, CFC recommends that an additional issue be 

listed:

"Combustion effects arising from the No Action Alternative, as identified in the 

decision WildEarth Guardians v. United States Bureau of Land Management, 870 

F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2017)." ("Wright Area"). The reason for identifying this 

issue is further discussed in Section

3.3.2.

Section 1.5 Issues were not changed 

because they apply to all the 

alternatives, however, the description 

of the impacts was revised slightly to 

reflect the ongoing impacts that would 

result from the No Action. See 

response to comment 2-19.

2-10 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Section 2.2. - Proposed Action

Section 2.2 at page 6 and Table 2 summarize Sufco production for the past 

several years, and provides Energy Information Agency ("EIA") data on 

shipments to U.S. power plants.

The Greens Hollow EA assumes that all other Sufco production was exported. 

This misinterprets the EIA data in two important respects. First, Sufco has 

shipped substantial quantities of coal over the past two years to the Hunter Coal 

Preparation Plant, which commenced operations in 2015. This coal is then used at 

Hunter. Table 2 omits shipments to the Hunter Coal Preparation Plant, 

undercounting the amount of Sufco coal that has gone to Hunter. Second, the EIA 

does not report data on shipments to industrial customers, again undercounting 

shipments to domestic consumers. A corrected Table 2 for the years 2015-2016 is 

set forth below:

Sufco Mine - Sales History

Plant 2015 2016

Carbon

Hunter 1,238,753 21,846

Hunter Sales Reported as Hunter Prep Plant 1,112,409 2,042,898

Huntington 1,042,569 984,094

lntermountain Power Project 1,957,865 1,902,571

North Valmy

Reid Gardner

Sheldon

Total Shipped to Power Plants 5,351,596 4,951,409

Table 2 has been updated.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-5

Production (Short Tons) 6,024,483 5,375,171

Not Shipped to Power Plants 672,887 423,762

Percent(%) of Sufco Coal Shipped to United States 

Power Plants

88.8% 92.1%

Other Industrial 672,887 491,911*

2-11 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

After correction, it is clear that very little Sufco coal is exported. In fact, Sufco's 

entire production for 2015 and 2016 was consumed domestically. (*Domestic 

shipments actually exceeded production in 2016 as a result of inventory 

drawdown).

It is also important to note that this is not necessarily a prediction of the future 

disposition of coal from the Greens Hollow Tract. As CFC has previously 

explained, CFC blends its coals from multiple mines to provide optimal service to 

its customers. Whether any Greens Hollow coal would be exported was depend 

on the specific mix of then-available coals and customer needs. Overall, however, 

it is fair to conclude that much less coal from Sufco was be exported over the near 

term than is conveyed in the Greens Hollow EA, and both the table and text 

should be corrected accordingly.

Table 2 and surrounding text has been 

updated.

2-12 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Section 2.3 - No Action Alternative

Section 2.3 describes the No Action Alternative as resulting in an essentially 

permanent denial. There are many reasons why the No Action Alternative could 

be selected, many of which would only result in a temporary denial. 

Consequently, CFC recommend the following edits:

Under the No Action Alternative the OSMRE would not recommend approval of 

the mining plan decision document. The ASLM would deny the action and as a 

result, the coal reserves in the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Least Tract UTU84102 would not be recovered until such time as an approval could be obtained.

DOGM would still have authority to approve the significant permit revision (to 

include the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102 into its state 

SMCRA permit), however, as stated above, mining would not occur within the 

Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract UTU-84102. Assuming an approval 

authorizing mining in the tract was not later obtained, the Sufco Mine would 

continue to operate and mine coal until its other reserves run out in about 2020.

OSMRE agrees that Sufco could 

submit an amended application that 

could be reviewed and approved in the 

future. Text was modified to convey 

this possibility.

2-13 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Section 3.2.2.1 - Hazardous Air Pollutants

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are not HAPs, but a discussion of the 

social cost of carbon ("SCC") is located in Section 3.2.2.1. This should be 

relocated to its own section.

This formatting error was corrected. 

Social Cost of Carbon was intended to 

be its own section (3.2.2.2).
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-6 April 2018

2-14 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Sections 3.3.1.2 and 3.3.1.4 - Emissions of Transport and Combustion of Coal 

at Hunter

Power Plant

The Greens Hollow EA discusses in several locations that it is estimating coal 

transport emissions to the Hunter Power Plant, and provides the calculations in 

Section 3.3.1.2. In Section 3.3.1.4 OSMRE explains that Hunter is chosen as a 

"representative" plant for purposes of calculating emissions from coal 

combustion. It appears that was also true, but unstated, with regards to coal 

transportation. Section 3.3.1.2 should make that clear.

Text in Sections 3.3.1.2 and 3.3.1.4 

was clarified that Hunter is a plant 

used for calculating emissions related 

to coal combustion and transportation.

2-15 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

In addition, it is important to be clear in both this section and everywhere else that 

Hunter is used as a representative facility because the future mix of trips and 

destination facilities for Greens Hollow tract coal is not known, especially in light 

of CFC's fuel-blending practices. (This fundamental uncertainty was a major 

reason why the BLM appropriately decided not to estimate transport and nonGHG combustion emissions in the Greens Hollow FSEIS). OSMRE attempts to 

address this uncertainty in Section 3.3.1.4, but the discussion could be clearer. 

When OSMRE states that "any other potential end users are unknown" (p. 15), it 

is not so much that Hunter is known and others are not, but rather the quantities of 

Greens Hollow tract coal going to any specific end user (Hunter or otherwise) 

cannot be forecast with any reliability. OSMRE has selected Hunter as 

"representative" because it is close, has historically received a large fraction of 

Sufco coal, and is forecast to operate fairly far into the future. To the extent the 

Hunter example provides value, it is principally to show the relative magnitude of 

historical effects. The specific calculations have no value as a predictive exercise 

of future quantities and effects associated with Greens Hollow tract coal.

The Section concludes with the following statement:

The Hunter Power Plant would likely continue as one end user of coal from the 

Proposed Action. The Hunter Power Plant is anticipated to continue operations 

for the life of the facility; therefore, regional impacts to ambient air quality from 

the combustion of coal within the region would be generally the same for the 

Proposed Action.

In accordance with NEPA, OSMRE 

must disclose potential impacts based 

on available information. OSMRE 

chose to evaluate the Hunter Power 

Plant as the receiver of Sufco coal in 

the future, which is reflected in the 

text of Section 3.3.1.2. OSMRE 

agrees that the final destination(s) of 

coal from the Greens Hollow tract is 

uncertain, which is also disclosed in 

section 3.3.1.2. This section also 

states that Hunter is used to present 

potential effects of the Proposed 

Action to aid the decision-maker. The 

analysis has been expanded to include 

the “per mile” emissions so reviewers 

can see how distance affects the 

emissions. The statements referred to 

by the commenter have been removed 

to avoid confusion and additional text 

explaining the analysis approach has 

been added to Section 3.3.1.2. 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-7

2-16 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

This should be clarified and expanded upon as follows:

The Hunter Power Plant would likely continue as one end user of coal from the 

Proposed Action. The Hunter Power Plant is anticipated to continue operations 

for the life of the facility; therefore, regional impacts to ambient air quality from 

the combustion of coal within the region would be generally the same as between 

the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives. The potential consequences of 

the No Action Alternative on net coal combustion are discussed in more detail in 

Section 3.3.2.

The statements referred to by the 

commenter have been removed to 

avoid confusion and additional text 

explaining the analysis approach has 

been added to Section 3.3.1.2. No 

additional edits similar to those 

suggested were included in the EA 

because while the No Action and 

Proposed Action are similar they 

represent differences in the amount of 

time coal is mined and therefore 

impacts are distinguishable. 

2-17 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Section 3.3.1.5 - Mercury Emissions from Coal Combustion

OSMRE's discussion of the uncertainties regarding mercury emissions is 

generally correct. However, for consistency with the remainder of the document 

in the use of Hunter as a representative facility, OSMRE should report Hunter's 

actual mercury emissions since Hunter came into compliance with the Mercury 

Air Toxics Rule, rather than theoretical emissions based on the mercury content 

of the coal. At a minimum, the 1.2 lbs/Tbtu rate should be included in Table 9 

along with the 3.7 lbs/Tbtu rate. This is what is actually emitted and potentially 

relevant to decision makers.

Section 3.3.1.5 Mercury Emissions

Table 9 has been updated with 

Hunter’s actual emissions and 

calculated total for all of Greens 

Hollow coal. The 1.2 pounds per TBtu 

is included in the text above the table 

as a standard.

2-18 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Section 3.3.1.5 - Mercury

Emissions from Coal Combustion

CFC also recommends that the following statement be added. "Whether approval 

of the mining plan modification would contribute to net combustion of coal, and 

therefore net combustion of mercury, is discussed in Section 3.3.2."

Additional text was added to Section 

3.3.2 (No Action) to reflect that the 

No Action would have similar effects 

as the proposed action, but for a 

shorter period. Including the text 

suggested in the analysis of the 

proposed action would be inconsistent 

with the rest of the document, which 

does not discuss the ongoing 

emissions from power plants without 

the approval of the Greens Hollow 

mining plan modification.

2-19 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Section 3.3.2 - No Action Alternative

The Greens Hollow EA provides a very brief discussion of the environmental 

consequences of the No Action Alternative, stating that the No Action Alternative 

will result in no mining and therefore no impacts. This conclusion is correct with 

respect to direct impacts, but further discussion is warranted as to indirect 

Additional qualification and 

references to the life of mine without 

the modification have been added to 

Section 3.3.2. OSMRE discloses both 

direct and indirect impacts from 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-8 April 2018

impacts associated with the No Action Alternative. Specifically, in Wright Area, 

the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that, in the context of a coal leasing 

action, the BLM erred in assuming that selection of the No Action Alternative 

would have no effect on net coal combustion. As the Tenth Circuit explained, the 

failure to lease coal could have an impact on net supply and demand, and 

therefore net coal combustion. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit remanded the 

leasing decisions to the BLM to conduct supplemental analysis, which is ongoing.

There are a number of important distinctions between leasing and mine plan 

review, and between the Wright Area decisions and Greens Hollow, which will be 

discussed below.

However, because the Tenth Circuit decision is recent and from a federal 

appellate court, and the Tenth Circuit has not addressed OSMRE's duties to 

analyze the indirect combustion effects of a mine plan modification, an express 

discussion of these issues would be prudent in the final EA and/or Record of 

Decision.

mining, transportation, and coal 

combustion under the Proposed and 

No Action Alternatives.

As outlined in the Wright Area 10th

Circuit Court decision, OSMRE does 

not use “perfect substitution” in its 

analysis.

OSMRE discloses both direct and 

indirect impacts from mining, 

transportation, and coal combustion 

under the Proposed and No Action 

Alternatives. 

This presents a conservative range of 

potential impacts associated with the 

approval or disapproval of coal to help 

the decision maker draw a distinction 

between the alternatives. 

It is always possible that other 

suppliers would pick up the coal that 

is not brought to market from the 

Greens Hollow lease under a No 

Action Alternative, but that would

depend on the highly variable coal 

market making any assumptions and 

analysis too speculative.

OSMRE is not required to complete a 

cost-benefit analysis under CEQ’s 

NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 

CFR 1502.23. 

2-20 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Leasing v. Mine Planning

As previously noted, leasing and mining plan modifications are inherently 

different exercises. Leasing is highly discretionary with the Secretary of the 

Interior. In contrast, once a lease issued, both the lessor and federal government 

have rights and obligations to diligently develop the leased coal. As a matter of 

law, this precludes OSMRE from selecting the No Action Alternative on the basis 

of the effects of coal combustion.

Wright Area v. Greens Hollow

Impacts related to the No Action 

Alternative are described in Section 

3.3.2.

OSMRE is the agency responsible for 

making a recommendation to the 

ASLM and can recommend that the 

mining plan modification not be 

approved to the ASLM.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-9

In the Wright Area FEIS, the BLM did not attempt to assess the end-users of the 

Wright Area coal or their sensitivity to differing leasing outcomes. In contrast, in 

the Greens Hollow FSEIS, and in the draft EA, the BLM and OSMRE identified 

the historically and currently largest consumers of Sufco coal, including the 

Hunter, Huntington, and lntermountain power plants.

The BLM, and now OSMRE in the Greens Hollow EA, made specific 

determinations regarding the lifespan of these facilities. In each case the lifespan 

was determined to be independent of the proposed action See, e.g., Greens 

Hollow EA at 15. Because of this difference, BLM and OSMRE were justified in 

concluding that selection of the No Action Alternative was not likely to affect net 

coal combustion.

While this conclusion may by itself be a sufficient reason for not conducting 

further analysis of the indirect coal combustion effects of the No Action 

Alternative, it is also true that Hunter, Huntington, and lntermountain are not the 

sole consumers of Sufco coal, and their relative future consumption of Greens 

Hollow coal may differ from historic patterns.

Consequently, it is also prudent to more generally assess the sensitivity of the 

market for Greens Hollow coal. Recent analyses by the Forest Service and SLM 

for the West Elk Mine provide useful information for such an exercise.

The West Elk Example

The West Elk Mine is located near Somerset, Colorado. West Elk coal is very 

similar in characteristics to what is known to date about Greens Hollow coal (i.e., 

high BTU, low ash, low mercury, low sulfur "compliant" and "super-compliant" 

coal), and therefore they will be competing in similar markets. Indeed, the Forest 

Service and BLM specifically identified Uinta Basin coal as being highly 

comparable to West Elk coal, and a competitor for the Hunter, Huntington, and 

lntermountain facilities. See the Colorado Roadless Rule Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement ("CRR FSEIS") at App. C, Tables E-1, E-9.

The CRR FSEIS is available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE 

DOCUMENTS/fseprd525072.pdf. As part of the repromulgation of the North 

Fork Exception to the Colorado Roadless Rule following the Colorado federal 

district court's decision in High Country Conservation Alliance, the Forest 

Service and BLM analyzed the sensitivity of the market for West Elk coal to 

changes in coal supply. After conducting extensive modeling as part of the 

rulemaking process, the Agencies determined that the market for West Elk (and 

Uinta Basin) coal is especially "inelastic," meaning that demand for coal (and 

resulting combustion) was not significantly affected by changes in supply. The 

Agencies specifically noted that there was low capability in the Western Electric 

OSMRE does not assert that selection 

of the No Action Alternative “was not 

likely to affect net coal combustion” 

and the EA states that air quality 

impacts would continue through 2020 

under the No Action Alternative. See 

response to 2-19.

OSMRE is aware of the Colorado

Roadless Rule Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement coal 

analysis. OSMRE is not required to 

conduct a coal market analysis and it 

is considered to be out of scope for 

this EA. 

OSMRE discloses the potential 

impacts associated with the Proposed 

and No Action alternatives and does 

not make any assumptions about the 

future coal market conditions as those 

would be too speculative. This EA’s 

analysis is not similar to the analysis 

in the Wright Area case because 

OSMRE does not assume that the coal 

market will adjust and substitute the 

coal reserves lost if OSMRE approves 

a No Action Alternatives. OSMRE

analyzes potential impacts under both 

the Proposed and No Action 

alternatives with and without the coal 

reserves.

Also, the amount of coal from the two 

mines in the Wright Area case 

comprised approximately 19% of the 

annual domestic coal production 

whereas coal from Greens Hollow on 

an annual basis would equal 

approximately 6 million tons. This 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-10 April 2018

Coordinating Council NERC Region (the region that Sufco and other Uinta Basin 

producers principally supply) to readily switch from coal to natural gas. CRR 

FSEIS App. C at Table C-18. The Agencies' methodology and market conclusions 

are set forth in detail in Appendix C to the CRR SFEIS. OSMRE may rely on the 

West Elk modeling to conclude that selection of the No Action Alternative for 

Greens Hollow would be unlikely to have a significant effect on net coal 

combustion.

would equal <1% of the annual 

domestic coal production using those 

values outlined in the Wright Area 

decision (see footnote 2). Therefore, 

due to the large difference in tonnages 

it is not appropriate to have the same 

level of analysis.

2-21 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Rationale for No Action

An important issue that was not addressed in the Wright Area decision is that the 

No Action Alternative is never selected in a vacuum, but rather for specifically 

stated reasons. Because coal combustion is an indirect effect of coal mining, and 

the ample federal reserves of comparable Uinta Basin or Colorado Plateau coal, 

the impact of the denial of Greens Hollow Mine Plan Modification will depend 

critically on the reasons given by OSMRE. For example, certain commenters 

urged rejection of the Greens Hollow lease application out of concern for alleged 

impacts to Greater Sage Grouse. If OSMRE denied the mine plan modification 

for that reason, that would inform the coal market that there might a be a (short or 

long term) problem at Sufco, but it would not signal to the market that is likely to 

be significant interruption in coal supply (i.e., the loss of Greens Hollow coal can 

be readily balanced by expanded production and leasing elsewhere). Conversely, 

if OSMRE denied the mine plan modification because of concerns about coal 

combustion, that would send a strong shock to the market, because it would 

potentially signal a broader curtailment of federal coal leasing and production.

This dynamic squarely presents the question whether OSMRE could or would 

deny the mine plan modification on the basis of the effects of coal combustion. In 

addition to the fact coal supply is fundamentally the domain of the Secretary in 

leasing policy rather than OSMRE in enforcing SMCRA and other federal 

statutes, an individual mine plan modification decision is a uniquely poor (and 

perhaps illegal) mechanism in which to signal a change in federal coal supply 

policy. Policy changes should be developed through programmatic changes or 

rulemakings rather than individual applications. To make policy through 

individual applications would be highly prejudicial to both the individual 

applicant and the industry generally.

For these reasons, it is highly unlikely (and perhaps illegal) that OSMRE would 

select the No Action Alternative on the basis of the effects of coal combustion. If 

the No Action Alternative was selected, it would be because of site-specific 

OSMRE is the agency responsible for 

making a recommendation to the 

ASLM and can recommend that the 

mining plan modification not be 

approved to the ASLM. The rational 

for making that decision would be 

supported by the NEPA analysis and 

decision document.

OSMRE discloses the potential 

impacts associated with the Proposed 

and No Action alternatives and does 

not make any assumptions about the 

future coal market conditions as those 

would be too speculative.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-11

concerns that are unlikely to affect net coal combustion.

OSMRE should consider and discuss all of these issues and reasons, to ensure that 

any obligation that might later be determined to arise under the Wright Area 

decision is satisfied.

2-22 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Section 3.4 - Cumulative Effects

Table 10 identifies two ventilation shafts as "reasonably foreseeable future 

actions" that "could be necessary." As stated elsewhere, CFC presently believes 

that additional ventilation shafts was not be necessary, and has not identified 

locations in the event that one or both do become necessary. CFC does not object 

to referencing the ventilation shafts, but they are too uncertain and unlikely at this 

point to be fairly described as "reasonably foreseeable" under NEPA 

nomenclature.

Based on the uncertainty, the 

ventilation shaft has been removed 

from Table 10.

2-23 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Section 3.4.1 - Proposed Action(s)

On page 19, the EA should state more clearly the 10.03 million tons of coal 

referenced is the total of the three proposed mining actions described in Table 11, 

and correct the "Error!"

message in the text.

The referenced text was revised to 

reflect the three projects.

The error message has been corrected.

2-24 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

Section 3.4.2 - No Action

The discussion in this section should cross-reference the expanded No Action 

discussion in Section 3.3.2.

Discussion was cross reference 

Section 3.3.2.

2-25 Michael Drysdale

Dorsey & Whitney 

LLP

CFC thanks OSMRE for its significant efforts to date in preparing the Greens 

Hollow EA and associated documentation, and looks forward to prompt 

finalization of the EA and ROD, and issuance of the mine plan modification. Let 

us know if you have any questions about any of the foregoing comments.

Comment noted.

2-26 Michael Drysdale

Additional Follow Up 

Comment Email 

2/5/2018

In the email referenced below I transmitted Canyon Fuel Company LLC’s 

comments on the Greens Hollow Mining Plan Modification Supplemental 

Environmental Assessment. One comment that is not in the letter, but CFC would 

also to like to OSMRE to consider, concerns the emissions inventories for Sevier 

and Sanpete Counties. These are discussed in Section 3.2.1-Regional Air Quality, 

and Table 3. The text and Table 3 present the 2014 triennial emissions inventory 

for Sevier county, but not Sanpete County. CFC believes that there is an 

inventory for Sanpete County as well, see hhps://documents.deq.utah.gov/airquality/annual-reports/DAQ-2018-001005.pdf. Assuming there was no technical 

reason to exclude the Sanpete County inventory, CFC recommends that the 

Sanpete County data also be presented in the final document. Thank you.

Table 3 was updated to include 

Sanpete County.

3-1 WildEarth Guardians, As a threshold issue, we are first concerned that the modification proposal is While a challenge to the BLM 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-12 April 2018

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

based on an invalid federal lease, and modification of a mining plan for an invalid 

lease would be in violation of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

(“SMCRA”).

compliance with NEPA and the 

Administrative Procedures Act in 

approving the Greens Hollow Lease is 

pending, BLM’s sale of the lease has 

not been stayed or enjoined. 

Accordingly, the lease is in effect and 

it is appropriate for OSMRE to tier to 

the EIS. CEQ encourages tiering to 

reduce redundancy in analysis. Per the 

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.20 and 1508.28), 

tiering is appropriate when proceeding 

from a broader environmental impact 

statement on a specific action to an 

analysis at a later stage, so that the 

agencies can focus on the issues 

which are ripe for decision and 

exclude from consideration issues 

already decided.

3-2 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental

Law Program

In addition to the underlying lease’s non-compliance with SMCRA, we are 

concerned that OSM is using a Supp. EA to correct deficiencies in a Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“FSEIS”), which is not provided 

for in the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) regulations. Using an EA 

or Supp. EA to correct an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) or FSEIS is 

expressly prohibited in NEPA regulations and guidance, and therefore presents an 

immovable obstacle to the approval of this proposed modification.

OSMRE prepared a supplemental EA 

based on new circumstance and new 

information as described in Section 

1.1. It was not prepared to, as the 

commenter states, “correct 

deficiencies” in the Greens Hollow 

FSEIS. Text has been updated to 

clarify using an EA to supplement an 

EIS and why this is appropriate. 

The preparation of an EA or 

supplemental EA in this case is not 

prohibited under CEQ’s NEPA 

implementing regulations or guidance 

because OSMRE is not, as the 

commenter states, correcting an EIS 

or FSEIS. See footnote 1 in Section 

1.1 “A finding of no significant impact 

other than those already disclosed 

and analyzed in the EIS to which the 

EA is tiered may be called a “finding 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-13

of no new significant impact” (43 

CFR 46.140(c)).” An EA is the 

appropriate form of NEPA when the 

effects are not significant. Also see 

Section 1.1 for DOGM’s coal 

program. 

3-3 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Moreover, aside from using an incorrect process to supplement an FSEIS, we are 

further concerned that OSM seems to assume its Supp. EA is sufficient to patch 

the holes of its faulty air quality and climate analysis in the prior FSEIS, while 

also tiering to the insufficient FSEIS. While it is appropriate in some instances to 

tier an EA to a prior EIS, this is only the case when the EIS is proper and 

complete. OSM cannot have it both ways; either the FSEIS is insufficient and 

needs to be supplemented, or the FSEIS is complete and can be tiered to. While it 

seems that OSM understands its analysis in the prior FSEIS were insufficient, 

OSM has not provided sufficient additional analysis to fill in the gaps.

Finally, even while ignoring that an incomplete FSEIS cannot be tiered to, OSM 

attempts to paper over its poor analysis using a Supp. EA and still ends up 

stopping short of the hard-look, high-quality analysis that NEPA requires.

Guardians, CBD, and Sierra Club urge OSM to halt its review, or to disapprove of 

the mining plan modification. OSM must reject the preparation of an EA and 

move to conduct a full EIS, consistent with § 102(2)(C) of NEPA. See 42 USC 

4332(2)(C).

See response to comment 3-2. 

OSMRE completed a “hard look” of 

the new issues described in Section 

1.5. A “hard look” included review of 

new and previously available data, 

performing calculations to disclose 

potential air emissions from mining 

operations, employee vehicle use, 

transportation, and coal combustion, 

and analyzing available data on 

mercury emissions.

The use of a supplemental NEPA 

analysis does not render the prior 

NEPA analysis insufficient or 

inadequate. A supplemental NEPA 

analysis as outlined in 40 CFR 1502.9 

can be prepared based on new 

circumstances and information, when 

substantial changes are made to the 

Proposed Action, and when an agency 

determines that the purposes of the 

Act will be furthered by doing so. The 

rational for supplementing the Greens 

Hollow FSEIS is provided in Section 

1.1.

Tiering to the Greens Hollow FSEIS 

is appropriate under 40 CFR 1502.20 

which states that, “Agencies are 

encouraged to tier their environmental 

impact statements to eliminate 

repetitive discussions of the same 

issues and to focus on the actual 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-14 April 2018

issues ripe for decision at teach level 

of environmental review.” The 

supplemental EA focuses on those 

issues that required updated and tiers 

to the Greens Hollow FSEIS 

regarding other resource area 

analyses. 

As further described in 40 CFR 

1508.28, “Tiering is appropriate when 

the sequence of statements or analyses 

(b) from an environmental impact 

statement on a specific action at an 

early stage (such as need and site 

selection) to a supplement (which is 

preferred) or a subsequent statement 

or analysis at a later stage (such as 

environmental mitigation). In this case 

the early stage is leasing and OSMRE 

is taking the preferred approach of 

supplementing for an analysis at a 

later stage which is the mining plan 

modification which includes any lease 

or permit stipulations and/or 

mitigation.

An EIS is not required as no new 

significant impacts were determined 

in the supplemental EA’s analysis. 

Rationale and findings are included in 

the FONNSI.

3-4 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

1. OSM Cannot Approve a Modification Because the Greens Hollow Lease is 

Invalid

As a threshold matter, we are concerned that this modification relates to a federal 

lease that was not legally approved. Specifically, the BLM was prohibited from 

approving the Greens Hollow lease because it was legally required to declare the 

lease area unsuitable, in accordance with Sage Grouse management direction, in 

addition to BLM’s own coal regulations, 43 C.F.R. § 3461.5(o). In fact, 

Guardians, Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Trust, and CBD currently have an appeal 

before the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”) challenging the BLM’s legal 

See response to comment 3-1.

A Coal Unsuitability Criteria 

Assessment was completed on the 

Greens Hollow. Lands were 

determined to not be unsuitable. Per 

43 CFR 3461.1, coal deposits that 

would be mined by underground 

mining methods shall not be assessed 

as unsuitable where there would be no 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-15

basis for approving the lease. See IBLA 2016-0279. Under SMCRA, before 

leasing federal lands for surface coal mining, the agency “shall” determine 

whether the lands must be considered “unsuitable” and prohibited from leasing. 

43 C.F.R. § 3461.3-1(a). When the BLM did not, and instead approved the 

Greens Hollow lease despite legal prohibitions, the lease became invalid and 

illegal. As contended in WildEarth Guardians, et al. Statement of Reasons, in 

authorizing the sale and issuance of the Greens Hollow coal lease, the BLM 

violated the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (“FLPMA”) and 

implementing regulations by failing to comply with applicable Resource 

Management Plan (“RMP”) direction regarding sage grouse conservation, as well 

as related coal leasing regulations. See WildEarth Guardians, et al., Statement of 

Reasons, Appeal of the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease, UTU-084102, IBLA 

2016-0279 (8/15/2017) (Statement of Reasons challenging the BLM’s ROD 

authorizing the s sale of the Greens Hollow Lease) (Exhibit 1).

surface coal mining operations. (As 

stated in Section 1.2.5 and Appendix 

A of the Greens Hollow FSEIS, 

“BLM used the unsuitability criteria 

as described in 43 CFR, Subpart 3461, 

and Table C-1and C-2 of the Manti-La 

Sal Land and Resource Management 

Plan (LRMP) to determine the 

suitability of National Forest lands for 

coal leasing. The determination of 

coal mining suitability within the 

Sage-Grouse Management Area 

(SGMA) was assessed under Criterion 

Number 15. Under Criterion Number 

15, federal lands which the surface 

management agency and the state 

jointly agree are fish and wildlife 

habitat for residents species of high 

interest to the state and which are 

essential for maintaining these priority 

wildlife species should be considered 

unsuitable. It is important to note that 

an exception can be made and a lease 

may be issued if, after consultation 

with the state, the surface 

management agency determines that 

all or certain stipulated methods of 

coal mining will not have a significant 

long-term impact on the species being 

protected. 

The Greens Hollow proposed federal 

coal lease tract lies within the Parker 

Mountain – Emery SGMA established 

by Utah's Conservation Plan for 

Greater Sage-grouse. Currently, 

greater sage-grouse and underground 

coal mining coexist within the SGMA. 

Specifically, the greater sage-grouse 

lek in the immediate area of the lease 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-16 April 2018

tract, named Wildcat Knolls, has 

experienced underground coal mining 

directly underneath the lek, with no 

measureable effect upon the 

population attending the lek. 

Therefore, it was determined with the 

concurrence of other federal and state 

agencies, that underground coal 

mining below the SGMA, in the 

Greens Hollow tract would not affect 

sage-grouse habit and would not have 

a significant long-term impact on the 

greater-sage grouse (BLM and Forest 

Service 2015)." 

(BLM and Forest Service, 2015).

3-5 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

OSM’s recommendation as to whether to approve, disapprove, or conditionally 

approve a mining plan modification must be based on, among other criteria, 

“[d]ocumentation assuring compliance with the applicable requirements of other 

Federal laws, regulations and executive orders other than the Act.” Id. at § 

746.13(c). Under SMCRA implementing regulations, the Secretary of the Interior 

can only approve mining of “leased Federal coal.” 30 C.F.R. § 746.11(a). Here, 

OSM had an independent duty to verify that federal coal was validly leased prior 

to recommending any approval of a mining plan or mining plan modification. In 

this case, because the BLM was required to designate the Greens Hollow Lease 

area “unsuitable” for mining, it is not validly leased federal coal. Where there is 

no validly leased federal coal, neither OSM nor the Secretary have any legal 

authority to take any action under 30 C.F.R. § 746 to review a mining plan or 

mining plan modification. Moreover, the Mineral Leasing Act and SMCRA 

bestow upon the Secretary full discretion to reject mining plans or to condition 

their approval. See 30 U.S.C. § 207(c); see also 30 C.F.R. § 746.14.

See response to comment 3-1 and 3-4.

3-6 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Because the BLM was required to declare the Greens Hollow lease unsuitable, it 

is therefore not a valid lease, and OSM may not recommend approval, based 

noncompliance with required laws. OSM must, at a minimum, delay their 

decision until the pending IBLA case is resolved.

See response to comment 3-1 and 3-4.

3-7 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

2. OSM Must Conduct a Full Environmental Impact Statement Analysis

We are additionally extremely concerned OSM is preparing an EA to supplement 

its insufficient analysis in its 2015 FSEIS. This is an improper use of an EA, and 

See response to comments 3-2 and 33.

BLM, USFS, and Utah DOGM 

participated as cooperating agencies 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-17

Club Environmental 

Law Program

illegal under NEPA. A full EIS, not an EA, is required here to analyze the 

significant impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future impacts in 

the region as a result of the proposal. It appears that BLM may be acting as a 

cooperating agency in this Supp. EA only to address deficiencies in its own 

FSEIS.1 OSM must prepare an independent analysis of the effects of coal mining 

for the Greens Hollow Lease.

because of their special expertise and 

jurisdiction related to the Proposed 

Action. Additional language regarding 

cooperating agencies can be found in 

Section 1.1.

3-8 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

a. OSM’s Decision to Issue an Supp. EA is Unsupported by NEPA

There are several issues with OSM’s decision to issue a Supp. EA to avoid 

preparing its own EIS or a Supplemental EIS.

First, this decision is not supported by Interior Department NEPA regulations,

which

state:

An environmental assessment may be prepared, and a finding of no significant 

impact reached, for a proposed action with significant effects, whether direct, 

indirect, or cumulative, if the environmental assessment is tiered to a broader 

environmental impact statement which fully analyzed those significant effects.

43 C.F.R § 46.140. Here, Bowie’s 2015 FSEIS was insufficient to comply with 

NEPA requirements. Its insufficiency is acknowledged with the mere presence of 

this Supp. EA. OSM even acknowledges the 2015 FSEIS’s shortcomings in its 

current Supp. EA, identifying specific areas that were not previously analyzed in 

the FSEIS, including: 1) non-greenhouse gas emissions from mining, 2) emissions 

from transport to the Hunter Power Plant, 3) emissions from Employee 

Transportation, 4) emissions from coal combustion, and 5) mercury emissions 

from coal combustion. Supp. EA § 1.5. This is further supported by the pending 

court case disputing the analysis and insufficient assessment of the FSEIS. See

IBLA 2016-0279. Thus, while an EA may tier to a prior EIS, it may only do so 

when the underlying EIS offers complete analysis. Here, it is clear the underlying 

FSEIS analysis is incomplete as the case arguing currently sits fully briefed, the 

extent of which will be more fully understood once the IBLA has ruled on the 

merits.

1 A in a Notice of Supp. Authority on 1/26/2018 in the pending ardians, et al., 

IBLA No. 2016-0279, (Exhibit 2).

See response to comments 3-2 and 3-

3. This EA tiers to the EIS which is 

appropriate according to 40 CFR 

1508.28 because the EA is “a 

subsequent statement or analysis at a 

later stage...” and excludes “from 

consideration issues already decided 

or not yet ripe.”

See response to comment 3-1.

3-9 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Second, not only does this Supp. EA tier to an insufficient FSEIS, the use of a 

Supp. EA as created here, may not supplement an insufficient FSEIS. The use of 

this Supp. EA, then, is invalid at the outset. It is instructive to look to the BLM’s 

NEPA Handbook for guidance on this issue, which states that “[s]upplementation 

is a process applied only to draft and final EISs, not EAs.” H-1790-1-National 

The EA was prepared in accordance 

with OSMRE’s NEPA Handbook and 

NEPA implementing regulations. The 

CEQ NEPA implementing regulations 

does not prohibit the use of a 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-18 April 2018

Environmental Policy Act Handbook, available at: 

https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/366/NEPAHandbook_H-1790_508.pdf p. 

29 (excerpt attached as Exhibit 3). attached as Exhibit 3). Nowhere does NEPA 

provide that an EIS may be supplemented with an EA. Further, while tiering to an 

FSEIS or prior EIS is supported in some instances, the Handbook states that, 

when tiering to an EIS, “[i]f there are new circumstances or information that 

would result in significant effects of an individual action not considered in the 

EIS, tiering to the EIS cannot provide the necessary analysis to support a FONSI 

for individual action[.]” BLM NEPA Handbook, § 5.2.2 at 27. Thus, OSM’s 

Finding of No New Significant Impact (“FONNSI”) based on tiering to an EIS 

(let alone an insufficient one) is wholly in violation of NEPA. Further, OSM’s use 

of a Supp. EA to fills gaps in an FSEIS is unsupported by, and in violation of, 

NEPA.

supplemental EA. The use of 

supplemental EAs tiering to EISs is 

common practice among Federal 

agencies including but not limited to 

the Department of Energy, 

Department of Defense, Federal 

Aviation Administration, and Federal 

Emergency Management Agency.

OSMRE’s NEPA analyses are not 

subject to conformance with another 

agency’s NEPA handbook. 

A FONNSI can be issued in 

accordance with 43 CFR 46.140(c).

A supplemental EA was prepared 

based on new circumstances and 

information as described in Section 

1.1, not due to insufficient analysis in 

the Greens Hollow FSEIS.

See also response to comment 3-2 and 

3-3.

3-10 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

To its credit, OSM does appear to acknowledge the 2015 FSEIS shortcomings, 

what OSM does not appear to understand, however is that an EA or Supp. EA 

cannot tier to a deficient EIS or FSEIS, nor can it serve to “fix” deficiencies in an 

EIS or FSEIS. If an FSEIS is inadequate, then the proper means of doing this is 

through a revised or Supp. EIS, not through an EA or Supp. EA. Put another way, 

if an EIS or FSEIS fails to disclose significant impacts, an EA cannot be the 

vehicle for disclosing those impacts under NEPA, only an EIS can be utilized to 

analyze and assess significant environmental impacts under NEPA. See 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1502.3.

See response to comment 3-7. 

OSMRE does not acknowledge that 

the FSEIS has any shortcomings as 

alleged by the commenter. OSMRE is 

preparing a supplemental EA based on 

new circumstances and information as 

described in Section 1.1 that was not 

previously available to BLM or USFS.

The analysis in the EA did not show 

significant impacts that would require 

an EIS. The unsigned FONNSI 

published with the EA provides 

rationale supporting the FONNSI.

3-11 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

b. An EIS is Warranted Because the Impacts are Significant

Outside of the improper patchwork NEPA process, OSM further violated NEPA 

by failing to adequately analyze and assess the reasonably foreseeable impacts of 

issuing the Greens Hollow coal lease. Such reasonably foreseeable impacts 

See response to comment 3-2 and 3-9. 

OSMRE’s NEPA analyses are not 

subject to conformance with another 

agency’s NEPA handbook.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-19

Law Program include coal combustion impacts, coal transport impacts, and coal export impacts. 

The BLM Handbook states that, “[a]n EIS would need to be prepared for the 

individual action only if there are significant effects that have not been analyzed 

in the broader EIS.” BLM NEPA Handbook, § 5.2.2. at 27.

Section 3.3.1 of the EA includes 

discussion of coal combustion and 

coal transportation related impacts.

See Table 2 and Section 2.2 for 

information on historic coal buyers.

3-12 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Here, there are significant impacts related to the mining of the Greens Hollow 

tract that were not considered in the 2015 FSEIS. Expanded mining poses 

significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impact to air quality, water quality, 

and special status species in the region. Further, the Supp. EA unfortunately falls 

short of adequately addressing several potentially significant impacts related to 

the mining of the Greens Hollow tract, including a number of potentially 

significant impacts that we flagged in earlier Statement of Reasons in our pending

case. See Statement of Reasons. Accordingly, in addition to the reasons above, 

tiering would not be allowed in this instance. Given this, an EIS or a Supp. EIS 

must be prepared, not a Supp. EA.

See response to comment 3-2 and 3-3. 

The Proposed Action analyzed in this 

EA does not analyze expanded mining 

operations from that previously 

analyzed in the Greens Hollow FSEIS. 

OSMRE, as evidenced in this EA and 

FONNSI, did not find significant 

impacts related to the Proposed or No 

Action Alternatives. 

3-13 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Regardless, an EIS is compelled based solely on the Interior Department’s 

Departmental Manual, 516 DM 13. The Manual states that, approval of a mining 

plan requires an EIS where “[t]he environmental impacts of the proposed mining 

operations are not adequately analyzed in an earlier environmental document 

covering the specific leases or mining activity,” “[t]he area to be mined is 1280 

acres or more, or the annual full production level is 5 million tons or more,” and 

“[m]ining and reclamation operations will occur for 15 years or more.” 516 DM 

13.4(A)(4). Upon review of available information, it appears that all three criteria 

are met. Additionally, OSM acknowledges that the FSEIS was indeed inadequate, 

and failed to adequately analyze the reasonably foreseeable impacts of mining the 

Greens Hollow lease.

See response to comment 3-2 and 3-3.

The environmental impacts of the 

proposed mining operations are 

adequately analyzed in the FSEIS. A 

supplemental EA was prepared by 

OSMRE in response to new 

circumstances and information 

specific to our agency needs as 

described in Section 1.1.

The Proposed Action does not meet 

the scenario described in the 

Departmental Manual 516 DM 13, 

which requires all three criteria to be 

met to initiate an EIS. OSMRE 

determined that the environmental 

impacts of the proposed mining 

operations is adequately analyzed in a 

previous environmental document 

covering the Greens Hollow tract 

lease, see Greens Hollow FSEIS. 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-20 April 2018

Departmental Manual 516 13 also 

explicitly recognizes that OSMRE 

may choose not to prepare an EIS for 

any of the listed actions “If for any of 

these actions it is proposed not to 

prepare an EIS, an EA will be 

prepared and handled in accordance 

with Section 1501.4(e)(2))”.

3-14 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Here, the area to be mined is 6,557 acres, well over the required 1,280, and the 

annual production level is approximately 6 million tons per year, over the 

required minimum 5 million tons. Additionally, if the mining proposal is 

approved, it will continue the life of the Sufco mine almost 9 years, until 2028, 

after which it is reasonably foreseeable that reclamation would last for another 6 

years or more. Thus, under the Interior Department’s Manual, an EIS or Supp. 

EIS is required, not a Supp. EA.

See response to comment 3-13.

3-15 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Sufco Mine produces about 6 million tons of coal each year, making it the largest 

mine in Utah. By allowing for coal mining on the lease modification and ongoing 

mining on the existing lease, the Agencies’ decisions will, in effect, authorize 

myriad other indirect impacts, including connected road construction and

maintenance, truck traffic, the operation and maintenance of coal processing 

facilities on site, the disposal of mine waste, the development of mine ventilation 

systems, and other impacts. If OSM does not believe that the proposed activities 

are significant in terms of the context of the area that may be impacted, then OSM 

must explain why and include an explanation as to the thresholds upon which it 

based its assessment. Here, the Supp. EA fell short of proper analysis when it 

determined that proposed impacts were insignificant. Here the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts of coal mining and combustion associated with the proposed 

Sufco coal mine expansion will undoubtedly have a significant effect on the 

environment. To this end, it does not appear that an Supp. EA or a FONNSI is 

warranted. We again urge OSM to prepare an EIS or Supplemental EIS for the 

modification and comply with the relevant procedures governing the preparation. 

The Secretary of the Interior has discretion to disapprove mining plans 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, meaning rejection is wholly 

authorized.

The degree and significance of 

impacts are described in the FONNSI, 

which found the Greens Hollow 

mining plan modification “will have 

no new significant effect on the quality 

of the human environment individually 

or cumulatively with other actions 

within the region, that has not already 

been analyzed in the Greens Hollow 

FSEIS.”

As stated in the EA Section 3.3.1.4, 

the exact destination of the coal 

produced under the Proposed Action 

is unknown and would be too 

speculative to analyze any indirect 

impacts associated with exact 

transportation routes. The EA 

discloses potential emissions from 

vehicles in Section 3.3.1.2. The 

operations of coal processing facilities 

at the mine and disposal of mine 

waste (i.e. waste rock disposal sites) 

are analyzed as part of the 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-21

Alternatives from the Greens Hollow 

FSEIS and thereby incorporated by 

referenced into this EA. As explained 

in Section 3.4 of this EA, the vent 

shaft is no longer being proposed as a 

reasonably foreseeable action for mine 

ventilation and therefore did not 

warrant further analysis.

See response to comment 3-2 and 3-3.

3-16 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

If OSM decides to continue to process the proposed mining plan modification, 

despite the legal barriers, we request the Agency address the following issues:

3. The Supp. EA Fails to Fully Analyze and Assess the Direct and Indirect 

Impacts of Mining the Greens Hollow Tract

The Supp. EA falls short of adequately addressing a number of potentially 

significant impacts related to the mining the Greens Hollow tract, including a 

number of potentially significant impacts that we flagged in our earlier appeal of 

the FSEIS. See IBLA 2016-0279.

See response to comment 3-15 and 3-

13.

OSMRE, as evidenced by the EA and 

FONNSI, determined that the 

Proposed Action (direct and indirect) 

would not result in significant 

impacts. Impacts were adequately 

analyzed presenting quantitative 

emissions data and comparing those 

against Federal standards, such as the 

NAAQS. 

3-17 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

NEPA is our “basic national charter for protection of the environment.” 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1500.1(a). The law requires federal agencies to fully consider the environmental 

implications of their actions, considering “high quality” information, “accurate 

scientific analysis,” “expert agency comments,” and “public scrutiny,” prior to 

making decisions. Id. at 1500.1(b). This consideration is meant to “foster 

excellent action,” meaning decisions that are well-informed and that “protect,

restore, and enhance the environment.” Id. at 1500.1(c). The U.S. Supreme Court 

has called the disclosure of impacts the “key requirement of NEPA” and held 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. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 96 (1983). NEPA 

regulations require agencies to provide “a clear basis for choice among options 

by the decision maker and the public.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14.

Comment noted.

3-18 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

To fulfill the goals of NEPA, federal agencies are required to analyze the 

“effects” of their actions on the human environment in an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 

1502.16(d). To this end, OSM must analyze the “direct,” “indirect,” and 

“cumulative” effects of its actions, and assess their significance. 40 C.F.R. §§ 

1502.16(a), (b), and (d).

Direct, indirect (EA Section 3.3) and 

cumulative effects (EA Section 3.4) 

are analyzed in this EA as well as in

the Greens Hollow FSEIS. The degree 

and significance of impacts are 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-22 April 2018

described in the EA and FONNSI.

3-19 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Unfortunately, as described in detail below, the Supp. EA, and tiered FSEIS, fails 

to adequately describe air quality impacts, climate impacts, and other related 

direct and indirect impacts that will occur from the mining, transportation, and 

combustion of Greens Hollow coal. OSM did not present sufficient information to 

justify a FONNSI. Therefore, OSM must fully analyze and assess the surface 

impacts of mining the proposed lease. We impress upon OSM to fully analyze 

and assess the impacts of mining to the following:

The degree and significance of 

impacts are described in the EA and 

FONNSI.

Section 3.3.2 of the EA includes 

analysis of air quality impacts related 

to mining, transportation, and 

combustion of coal.

3-20 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

a. Impacts to Air Quality

OSM was required to sufficiently analyze and address impacts to air quality 

related to the combustion of coal from the Greens Hollow Tract, and failed to do

so. The FONNSI, in fact, indicated that impacts on air quality due to mining the 

Greens Hollow Tract would be “minor and short term.” FONNSI at 4. However, 

without undertaking a full analysis, there is no way to determine whether these 

impacts would indeed be insignificant (or “minor and short term”). In fact, in this 

Supp. EA, OSM acknowledged that the FSEIS for the Greens Hollow coal lease 

did not fully analyze and assess environmental impacts related to air emissions 

from the transportation of coal to the Hunter coal-fired power plants, as well as 

greenhouse gas and mercury emissions from coal combustion. See Statement of 

Reasons at 4.

See response to comments 3-3 and 3-

7.

Section 3.3.2 of the EA presents 

updated analysis related to new 

information obtained by OSMRE. ...

OSMRE does not consider the FSEIS 

inadequate, only that new issues and 

new information were identified 

relevant to OSMRE’s federal action.

3-21 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

OSM was required to fully analyze and assess direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts to air quality, including impacts to air quality in the context of all 

NAAQS, prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD”) increments for Class I 

and II areas, and visibility impacts to Class I areas. Here, OSM identified five 

areas which were “deserving of further study” which had not been covered by a 

prior analysis. Supp. EA §1.5. As mentioned previously, these areas were: nongreenhouse gas emissions from mining, emissions from transportation of the coal 

to the Hunter Power Plant, employee transportation emissions, coal combustion 

emissions, and mercury emissions. Id. While OSM acknowledges that the FSEIS 

is lacking in air quality analysis, the Supp. EA still does not sufficiently analyze 

the full impacts to air quality.

See response to comments 3-7, 3-20,

and 3-22 through 3-31. 

OSMRE fully analyzed those issues 

identified in Section 1.5 of this EA in 

the context of direct and indirect (EA 

Section 3.3) and cumulative impacts 

(EA Section 3.4). 

Emissions presented in this EA and 

the Greens Hollow FSEIS are 

analyzed in the context of NAAQS 

(EA Section 3.3.1 and FSEIS 

4.13.3.1). 

Emissions from the Proposed Action 

would be below the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

threshold of 250 tons per year, so PSD 

requirement do not apply as explained 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-23

and thereby incorporated by reference 

in the Greens Hollow FSEIS (FSEIS 

Section 3.13.2.3 and 4.13.3.2).

Potential visibility impacts to Class I 

areas is explained and thereby 

incorporated by reference in the 

Greens Hollow FSEIS which states 

that the visibility screening analysis 

indicates that visibility in the Capitol 

Reef National Park Class I area would 

not be impacts from operations of the 

Greens Hollow tract (FSEIS Section 

3.13.4.1 and 4.13.3.4). 

OSMRE does not consider the FSEIS 

inadequate, only that new issues and 

new information were identified 

relevant to OSMRE’s federal action.

3-22 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

We are primarily concerned that current monitoring for the area is not even 

occurring. While the Supp. EA states that emissions from the mine are not 

contributing to ozone exceedances, this statement does not represent an accurate 

assessment when monitoring stations are not even placed in Sevier or Sanpete 

county. See Supp. EA § 3.3. What’s more, the Supp. EA did not contain any 

expression of whether the mileage of the air quality monitoring system to the 

mine would cause an impact to the monitoring results. Because no state 

monitoring stations exist near the project area, background air quality levels, 

therefore, are based on data from surrounding areas and information provided by 

the state. Utah DEQ 2008. Thus, OSM must undertake its own modeling analysis 

and assessment to comply with NEPA. Additionally, OSM did not analyze 

quantified fugitive emissions from particulate matter from excavation, hauling, 

and reclamation activities.

To determine which areas need 

monitoring, Utah DAQ evaluates the 

emissions inventory. Areas that have 

high emissions are monitored. In 

Utah, this includes areas that also 

have documented poor air quality 

such as Salt Lake City. See Section 

3.2.1.

OSMRE is not required to complete 

monitoring or modeling effort if 

existing data is available to 

characterize the affected environment

and monitoring and/or modeling is not 

required for the decision maker to 

make a reasoned choice (40 CFR 

1502.22). 

Section 3.3.1 of the EA discusses 

PM2.5.

3-23 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

1. Coal Transport

OSM was required to explain how its analysis concluded that coal transport 

impacts were insignificant, and failed to do so. OSM dismissed coal trucking data 

OSMRE has determined that the EA

has adequately demonstrated that the 

foreseeable effects of implementing 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-24 April 2018

Club Environmental 

Law Program

as insignificant compared to the rest of the county. In the FSEIS, the agency did 

not deny that greenhouse gas emissions would be released, both directly from 

mining operations, including trucking, and indirectly from coal combustion, and 

that these emissions would contribute to climate change. See FSEIS at 285. 

However, the agency stopped short of a full analysis when it denied the impacts 

of daily trucking from the mine to Hunter Power Plant and their contribution to 

climate change and air quality.

The comparison of a mine’s impacts to the rest of Sevier County does not give 

automatic conclusion to its insignificance under NEPA. Rather, the agency should 

have taken the extra step to establish a well-known baseline for comparison, and 

then compared. Here, the mine-to-county comparison is arbitrary and unsupported 

by NEPA.

the Sufco mining plan and those 

effects would not significantly affect 

the quality of the human environment.

The uncertainty regarding future 

combustion locations and the exact 

transportation routes to ship the coal 

to those destinations, make analysis of 

truck and/or train traffic too 

speculative. Therefore, transportation 

related impacts could occur 

throughout the county and a 

comparison to local county emissions 

is an appropriate measure to 

determine significance.

GHG emissions resulting from 

mining, processing, shipping, and 

combusting coal are disclosed in 

Section 3.3.1 of the EA. 

3-24 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Further, the agency only looked at the impacts of coal hauling from the mine to 

one particular power plant nearby. This is not sufficient to meet NEPA’s “hard 

look” requirement.

As explained in Section 3.3.1.4, the 

use of the Hunter Power Plant was to 

reflect potential impacts from coal 

hauling and combustion. Actual future 

consumers of the coal produced under 

the Proposed Action are unknown at 

this time and would be too speculative 

to predict due to uncertainties in the 

coal markets. 

OSMRE determined that it would not 

be useful to the decision maker nor is 

it necessary to determine significance 

to present emissions from every 

potential or previous buyer of coal 

from SUFCO and chose to analyze 

potential impacts from one likely 

buyer, Hunter Power Plant as 

presented in Section 3.3.1.4 thereby 

meeting the NEPA “hard look” 

standard.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-25

See also the response to comment 2-

15.

3-25 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Additionally, in order for coal extraction impacts to be fully addressed, the 

agency must analyze other impacts that occur day-to-day. For example, there is 

no disclosure of CO2 emissions associated with heavy equipment that will be 

required to construct roads, the new ventilation shaft, new fan shaft, and the new 

transmission line. Until these deficiencies are corrected, the agency continues to 

fall short of the analysis required by NEPA.

The emissions are regulated on an 

annual basis, regardless of the hours 

per day the mine operates. See Section 

3.3.1.

Construction of roads, and a new 

transmission line are considered 

reasonably foreseeable in Section 3.4. 

However, specific details regarding 

the construction design, timing, and 

equipment needed for these actions is 

unknown and would be too 

speculative to quantify associated 

impacts.

Ventilation shafts are no longer 

considered reasonably foreseeable 

(Section 3.4).

3-26 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

2. Coal Combustion

OSM was required to analyze the eventual combustion of such coal, in relation to 

air quality. In 2017, Sufco coal was burnt at Huntington, Hunter, and 

Intermountain Power Project generating stations. OSM must examine the impact 

of these generating stations on air quality, especially as it relates to death and 

disease attributable to fine particle pollution. While the following data is several 

years old, it points to the incredible health impact that coal combustion has on the 

community surrounding the generating station:

Type of Impact Annual 

Incidence

Valuation

Deaths 12 $86,000,000

Heart attacks 18 $2,000,000

Asthma attacks 260 $14,000

Hospital admissions 8 $190,000

Chronic bronchitis 8 $3,700,000

Asthma ER visits 10 $4,000

As explained in Section 3.3.1.4, 

theuse of the Hunter Power Plant was 

to reflect potential impacts from 

hauling and combustion actual future 

consumers of the coal produced under 

the Proposed Action are unknown and 

would be too speculative to predict 

due to uncertainties in the coal 

markets. 

Any existing impacts at the generating 

stations listed by the commenter 

would fall under other state and 

federal agencies jurisdiction.

OSMRE determined that it would not 

be useful to the decision maker to 

present emissions from every potential 

or previous buyer of coal from 

SUFCO and therefore OSMRE 

analyzed potential impacts from one 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-26 April 2018

Clean Air Task Force, "Find Your Risk from Power Plant Pollution". Here, OSM 

found that these impacts were “negligible”, against the weight of evidence of 

significant health impacts. In order to fully analyze and assess the impacts to 

health and air quality, OSM must complete a modeling analysis, especially 

considering local residents’ health.

likely buyer, Hunter Power Plant as 

well as presenting a per-mile value 

which can be extrapolated if the 

public choses to..

Health and air quality modeling is 

outside the scope of the analysis and 

would not be useful to the decision 

maker since OSMRE was able to 

determine through a quantitative 

analysis that air emissions would not 

be significant and under the NAAQS 

which were created to protect human 

health. Since future coal consumers 

are unknown any related impacts at 

the power plant or industrial facility 

would be too speculative to quantify, 

regulated by other permitting 

agencies, and outside of OSMRE’s 

jurisdiction.

3-27 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Further, a recent study found a new toxin existing in coal combustion emissions. 

Nature

Communications 8, Article number: 194(2017) doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00276-2, 

available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00276-2. The study 

suspected that in the U.S., scrubbers capture the material, reducing its prevalence, 

however, there is no monitoring of this particular harmful toxin, which 

contributes to the estimated 3 million air-pollution related deaths worldwide. 

Roston, Eric, “Coal Plants Might be More Toxic Than We Thought.” Bloomberg 

News, 8/8/2017, available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-

08/coal-plants- might-be-even-more-toxic-than-we-thought. Thus, OSM must 

include an analysis of this particular new toxin’s prevalence in the effects of coal 

combustion. Until OSM undertakes this analysis, it is not in compliance with 

NEPA.

The study referenced was related to 

coal ash spill data from North 

Carolina related to aquatic organism 

exposure, which is outside the scope 

of the analysis for the decisions to be 

made for the mining plan as the 

Proposed Action does not involve a 

coal ash spill and is in a different 

geographic location. . The study goes 

on to state that it is an “initial 

assessment... clearly invites further 

toxicity studies.”

3-28 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

3. Mercury

OSM was required to analyze and assess the impacts of mercury from coal 

combustion. In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, coal combustion also 

releases emissions of hazardous air pollutants including mercury that deposit near 

the power plant and pose risks to both human health and the survival of 

endangered and other native fish in the Green River. As indicated in the 

Section 3.3.1.5 addresses the potential 

for mercury deposition from coal 

combustion. However, an in-depth 

analysis of potential mercury 

deposition and impacts to fish species 

is not warranted because the potential 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-27

Statement of Reasons, the FSEIS’s discussion of impacts to the listed Colorado 

pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, and bonytail are limited solely to 

discussion of water diversions, and makes no mention of the known threat to 

those species posed by mercury deposited from coal combustion. See FSEIS at 

198. Also indicated in the Statement of Reasons, because mercury accumulates in 

the environment and in organisms, the relevant concern is not the rate of 

combustion but the total pollutant contribution. While the Supp. EA 

acknowledged that atmospheric mercury from coal combustion can be converted 

to methyl mercury and bio-magnify through the food chain, any analysis stops 

there. See Supp. EA § 3.3.1.

end user of the coal from the Greens 

Hollow tract is unknown and too 

speculative to predict with any 

accuracy that would be helpful to the 

decision maker.

As stated in Section 3.3.1.5, “Because 

the effects would be within the air 

permit limits, which are set to be 

protective of the environment, the 

impacts from mercury emissions 

would be negligible.”

3-29 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

OSM states that because atmospheric deposition can be difficult to quantify it is 

“not possible” to determine how much mercury would be deposited into water 

sources, or more generally as an indirect impact of mining the Greens Hollow 

tract. Id. As indicated in the Statement of Reasons, OSM cannot ignore this 

significant impact under NEPA due to minor uncertainty regarding the precise 

destination and combustion conditions for Greens Hollow coal. See Northwest 

Envt’l Defense Ctr. v. NMFS, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1247 (D. Or. 2009) 

(“Clearly, there can be a significant impact on a species [under NEPA] even if its 

existence is not jeopardized.”) (quotation omitted).

Table 9 has been updated to include 

the mercury emissions from 

combustion of coal at the Hunter 

Power Plant.

As stated in Section 3.3.1.5, “Because 

the effects would be within the air 

permit limits, which are set to be 

protective of the environment, the 

impacts from mercury emissions 

would be negligible.”

3-30 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Mining at Sufco occurs 24 hours a day, and runs equipment which emits pollution 

24 hours a day. These impacts cannot be dismissed as “insignificant.” Until OSM 

has corrected these deficiencies in monitoring data and analyses, it cannot 

conclude the impacts will not be significant.

The emissions are regulated on an 

annual basis, regardless of the hours 

per day the mine operates. See Section 

3.3. 1. See comment response for 3-22 

on monitoring.

Rational and findings are in the 

FONNSI.

3-31 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

a. Climate Change Impacts

The Supp. EA indicates that OSM would not undertake carbon cost analysis and 

in refusing to do so, continues to fail to analyze and assess the full climate change 

impacts of approving the modification. OSM was required to analyze and assess 

the extent to which these emissions are likely to contribute to global climate 

change. In this case, it appears that any level of extended carbon dioxide 

emissions would pose significant impacts. OSM reasserts the dismissal of 

significant climate impacts by claiming that available tools are not accurate or 

sufficient enough to analyze the impacts of climate change. See FSEIS at 285; see 

See Section 3.2.2.2 for rational on 

why a social cost of carbon analysis 

was not conducted.

This approach is consistent with the 

approach that federal courts have 

upheld when considering NEPA 

challenges to BLM federal coal 

leasing decisions. See WildEarth 

Guardians v. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298, 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-28 April 2018

also Supp. EA § 3.3.1. This argument is unsupported. As asserted in our 

Statement of Reasons, there are tools available for this type of assessment, that 

are both supported by scientific evidence as well as the Department of Interior, 

and the federal courts. See Greens Hollow, Statement of Reasons at 21. However, 

at a minimum, to properly assess climate impacts under NEPA, OSM must 

analyze and assess the cost of carbon emissions using the social cost of carbon 

protocol.

309 n.5 (D.C. Circuit 2013) where the 

District of Columbia Circuit Court 

affirmed that the BLM’s 

environmental analysis of the climate 

change impacts of the leased coal was 

adequate under NEPA. The court thus 

held that “because current science 

does not allow for the specificity 

demanded by the [plaintiffs], the BLM 

was not required to identify specific 

effects on the climate in order to 

prepare an adequate EIS.”

3-32 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

In our prior Statement of Reasons, we detailed the need and appropriateness of 

carbon cost analysis and suggested the use of the widely-acknowledged “Social 

Cost of Carbon” tool. Id. In the Supp. EA, OSM provides various reasons for 

rejecting such a carbon costs analysis, namely that: 1) it is not engaged in a 

rulemaking, 2) the guidelines have been withdrawn, 3) NEPA does not require it, 

4) the inclusion of a Social Cost of Carbon analysis would be one-sided and 

uncertain.

See revised text in Section 3.2.2.2 and 

the response to comment 3-31.

3-33 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Despite its contentions, OSM must analyze and assess the climate impacts of 

mining the Greens Hollow Tract 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).” EPA, “Fact Sheet: Social Cost of Carbon”, (Nov. 

2013) at 1 (Exhibit 4). Here, the Supp. EA referenced only the increase of 

economic activity and dismissed the economic costs because they were 

“uncertain.”

See revised text in Section 3.2.2.2. 

Without a complete monetary costbenefit analysis, which would include 

the social benefits of the proposed 

action to society as a whole and other 

potential positive benefits, inclusion 

solely of a SCC cost analysis would 

be unbalanced, potentially inaccurate, 

and not useful in facilitating an 

authorized official’s decision.

3-34 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

1. Social Cost of Carbon Can be Used for Project-Level Analyses

One reason OSM gave for not using the Social Cost of Carbon is that the tool was 

designed for rulemakings and not for project-level analyses. Id. This is false; 

although often utilized in the context of agency rulemakings, the protocol has 

been recommended for use and has been used in project-level decisions. For 

instance, the EPA recommended that an EIS prepared by the U.S. Department of 

State for the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline include “an estimate of the 

‘social cost of carbon’ associated with potential increases of GHG emissions.” 

EPA, Comments on Supplemental Draft EIS for the Keystone XL Oil Pipeline 

See response to comment 3-33.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-29

(June 6, 2011) (Exhibit 5). Furthermore, although it was initially developed to 

help agencies develop regulatory impact assessments of proposed rules, the social 

cost of carbon should not be limited to this application. Such statements, 

according to Council of Environmental Quality, reflect the nature of climate 

change rather than the impact of any particular project. Consideration of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Effects in NEPA Reviews, 79 

Fed. Reg. at 77,825. Thus, OSM is not only allowed to, but required to undertake 

a balanced assessment of the costs of climate impacts, using a tool like the Social 

Cost of Carbon.

3-35 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

2. Despite Federal Withdrawal of Guidance, Social Cost of Carbon is Still 

Regarded as the Best Tool to Estimate Cost of GHG

OSM also stated it would not use the Social Cost of Carbon because the technical 

supporting documents have been withdrawn. While it is true Trump’s Executive 

Order 13783 technically disbanded the IWG in March, 2017, in a recent letter 

published in the journal, Science, scholars urged the government and private 

sector to continue using IWG’s the estimate of $50 per ton of carbon dioxide, as it 

is the “best estimate of the social cost of greenhouse gases”. Revesz, R., “Best 

Cost Estimate of Greenhouse Gases”, Science 357 (6352), 655. DOI: 

10.1126/science.aao4322 (Exhibit 6). In the letter, scholars reasoned that IWG’s 

estimated “already are the product of the most widely peer-reviewed models and 

best available data.” Id. While the IWG is no longer collected, agencies are still 

obligated to analyze the costs of GHG emissions. Specifically, federal agencies’ 

obligation to use the social cost of carbon to analyze the costs associated with 

GHG emissions through NEPA was directly affirmed by the court in High 

Country, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174. In his decision, Judge Jackson identified the 

IWG’s social cost of carbon protocol as a tool to “quantify a project’s 

contribution to costs associated with global climate change.” Id. at 1190. “The 

critical importance of [climate change] . . . tells me that a ‘hard look’ has to 

include a ‘hard look’ at whether this tool, however imprecise it might be, would 

contribute to a more informed assessment of the impacts than if it were simply 

ignored.” Id. at 1193. To fulfill this mandate, they agency must use the social cost 

of carbon to disclose the “ecological[,] . . . economic, [and] social” impacts of the 

proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b). Thus, OSM’s excuse not to use the Social 

Cost of Carbon because its working group was disbanded and support documents 

withdrawn, is insufficient as it continues to stand as the best model under NEPA.

See revised Section 3.2.2.2. Executive 

Order 13783 withdrew the Technical 

Support Documents upon which the 

protocol and directed agencies to 

ensure that estimates of the social cost 

of greenhouse gases “are based on the 

best available science and economics” 

and are consistent with the guidance 

contained in OMB Circular A-4, 

“including with respect to the 

consideration of domestic versus 

international impacts and the 

consideration of appropriate discount 

rates” (EO 13783, Section 5(c)). 

While interim protocols have been 

developed for use in the rulemaking 

context, they do not apply to project 

decisions, so there is no Executive 

Order requirement to apply the SCC 

protocol to project decisions.

3-36 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

The Social Cost of Carbon provides decision makers and the public with an 

informative, accessible mechanism for both analyzing and understanding the 

climate impacts of a proposed decision. Although OSM indicated in the Supp. EA 

See response to comment 3-35
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-30 April 2018

Club Environmental 

Law Program

that it quantified the amount of carbon emissions from mining and burning coal 

from the Greens Hollow lease, OSM has yet to take the next step of employing 

the Social Cost of Carbon to tell the public about the impact of those emissions. 

An isolated calculation of the amount of carbon emissions that would result from 

a particular project does not provide any 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 ton of carbon emissions.

3-37 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

3. NEPA Requires OSM to use the Social Cost of Carbon

An additional reason the Supp. EA provided for not using the Social Cost of 

Carbon is that NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis. See Supp. EA at 12. 

This is an incorrect assessment of what NEPA requires. NEPA specifically 

requires federal agencies to analyze and disclose the environmental effects of 

their actions, including “ecological . . . aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic 

[and] health” impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8. 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). NEPA requires OSM to use 

the social cost of carbon because it is the best tool available to analyze the 

economic and environmental impact of increased carbon dioxide emissions.

See Section 3.2.2.2. OSMRE is not 

required to use the SCC tool because 

the SCC is for a rulemaking, the IWG, 

technical supporting documents, and 

associated guidance have been 

withdrawn; NEPA does not require 

cost-benefit analysis; and the benefits 

of coal-fired energy production have 

not been monetized and quantifying 

only the costs of greenhouse gas

emissions but not the benefits would 

yield information that is both 

potentially inaccurate and not useful.

3-38 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

The requirement to analyze the social cost of carbon is also supported in federal 

case law. The courts have ruled agencies cannot ignore the effects of GHG 

emissions from mining operations or coal combustion. High Country Consv. 

Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 1190 (2014). Nor can they 

“completely [] ignore a tool in which an interagency group of experts invested 

time and expertise.” Id. at 1193. NEPA requires agencies to engage in “a 

reasonable, good faith, objective presentation of the topics,” such that it “foster[s] 

both informed decision-making and informed public participation.” Custer Cnty. 

Action Ass’n v. Garvey, 256 F.3d 1024, 1035 (10th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). 

The Social Cost of Carbon is based on generally accepted research methods and 

years of peer-reviewed scientific and economic studies. It was developed by 

experts at a dozen federal agencies and offices, and it is both widely used and

generally accepted in the scientific community. As such, it is the best tool now 

available for agencies to use in predicting and analyzing the climate impacts of 

proposed federal actions.

See response to comment 3-37 

regarding SCC. 

OSMRE does not ignore the potential 

impacts from greenhouse gas 

emissions associated with the 

Proposed and No Action Alternatives, 

see FSEIS Section 4.13.3.6 and EA 

Sections 3.3.1.2, 3.3.1.3, and 3.3.1.4.

3-39 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Here, OSM tiered to an FSEIS that did not take the hard look at climate impacts, 

specifically the Social Cost of Carbon, as required by NEPA, and further refused 

The Greens Hollow FSEIS took a 

hard look at the impacts on climate 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-31

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

to do so in its Supp. EA. change by quantifying impacts when 

possible and disclosing that which is 

unknown to the agencies in Section 

4.13.3.6, which is incorporated by 

reference and considered in the 

FONNSI. 

As stated in FSEIS Section 4.13.3.6, 

“The climate change research 

community has not yet developed 

tools specifically intended for 

evaluating

or quantifying end-point impacts 

attributable to the emissions of GHGs 

from a single source, and there is

a lack of any scientific literature to 

draw from regarding the climate 

effects of individual, facility-level

GHG emissions.”

OSMRE is not required to use the 

SCC tool as described in Section 

3.2.2.2. 

3-40 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

4. The Social Cost of Carbon Provides a Balanced Analysis

A primary reason OSM gave for not completing a social cost of carbon analysis is 

that “inclusion solely of a SCC analysis would be unbalanced, potentially 

inaccurate, and not useful.” Supp. EA at 12. The social cost of carbon provides a 

concrete assessment of a project’s social and environmental impacts and provides 

a tangible sense of the 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 that “assigning a price to carbon emissions – even a conservative price 

– makes the cost of those emissions concrete for agency decision makers.” 

Squillace, Mark & Hood, Alexander, NEPA, Climate Change, and Public Land 

Decision Making, 42 ENVTL. L. 469, 510, 517 (2012). Thus, OSM’s decision not 

to complete a social cost of carbon analysis because it does not present all the 

data is flawed in a major way. As indicated, OSM calculated the economic 

benefits of the modification, while ignoring any detriments. FSEIS at 56 (OSM 

lauded the 370 jobs the expansion would provide, and the “$1.87 billion” the 

leasing would generate). This type of one-sided analysis is a principal example of 

See response to comment 3-37. 

The Greens Hollow Supplemental EA 

and FSEIS does not claim any 

socioeconomic benefits.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-32 April 2018

the inadequate evaluation engaged in by OSM. To that end, a federal district court 

in Montana recently ruled that a NEPA analysis that included the economic 

benefits of a project was incomplete without an assessment of the carbon costs 

that would result from the development. Mont. Envtl. Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Office of 

Surface Mining, No. CV 15-106-M-DWM (D. Mont. Aug. 14, 2017) (Exhibit 7). 

To the extent that a project’s impacts can be quantified, the Social Cost of Carbon 

is the best and most rigorous tool currently available for understanding the 

damages linked to carbon emissions, rather than simply the extent of the 

emissions themselves. Thus, OSM must at least attempt to quantify the costs of its 

impacts, even with a disclaimer that there could be many more impacts that are 

not quantified.

3-41 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Further, the courts disagree that the Social Cost of Carbon is not useful. 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. Ctr. for 

Biological Diversity v. Nat’l. Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 

1203 (9th Cir. 2008). States and public interest groups challenged a rule that the 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration had proposed to create fuel economy 

standards for light trucks for, among other things, failing to monetize the benefits 

that would accrue from a decision that led to lower carbon dioxide emissions, 

while at the same time monetizing the benefits of the proposed action. Id. at 1199. 

While the agency argued, that valuing the costs of carbon emissions was too 

uncertain, the court found this argument to be arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 

1200. Similar to the Supp. EA’s stated reasoning to refuse analysis of the costs, 

the court in Nat’l. Highway noted that the agency monetized other benefits that 

were also uncertain. Id. at 1202. More recently, a federal court began its analysis 

by recognizing that a monetary cost-benefit analysis is not universally required by 

NEPA, but when an agency prepares a cost-benefit analysis, it “cannot be 

misleading”. See 52 F.Supp.3d 1174, 1182, citing 40 C.F.R. § 1502.23.

Similar to the Greens Hollow Supp. EA, in that case, the NEPA analysis included 

a quantification of benefits of the project, but did not quantify the costs, which the 

court found was arbitrary and capricious because the NEPA analysis had 

misleading economic assumptions. Id. At 1196.

See response to comment 3-33. 

The case referenced by the commenter

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat’l. 

Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 

F.3d 1172, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008) was 

for a national rulemaking regarding 

new fuel economy standards on light 

duty vehicles. The decision before 

OSMRE to make a recommendation is 

not considered a rulemaking and 

therefore would not require an SCC 

analysis.

The Greens Hollow Supplemental EA 

and FSEIS does not quantify any 

benefits associated with the 

Alternatives.

3-42 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Further, a federal district court in Montana reaffirmed the reasoning in High 

Country, indicating that a NEPA analysis that included the economic benefits of a 

project was incomplete without an assessment of the carbon costs that would 

result from the development. Mont. Envtl. Info. Ctr., CV 15-106-M-DWM. In 

agreeing with the Plaintiffs, the Court specifically mentioned the Social Cost of 

See Section 3.2.2.2 and comment 

response for 3-33

OSMRE does not quantify or 

otherwise attribute any benefits of the 

Proposed or No Action Alternatives in 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-33

Carbon as one tool to use to quantify the costs associated with the mine 

expansion. Id. at 35. Further, a D.C. Circuit Court ruled that an agency’s 

assessment of the environmental impact of pipelines was inadequate, reasoning 

that it did not contain enough information on the greenhouse-gas emissions 

resulting from burning the gas that the pipelines carry. Sierra Club, et al., v. Fed. 

Energy Regulatory Comm’n, No. 16-1329 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 22, 2017) (Exhibit 8). 

Thus, the most recent rulings indicate a robust analysis of GHG is necessary.

the EA or FSEIS therefore case, Mont. 

Envtl. Info. Ctr., CV 15-106-MDWM, is not applicable to this action. 

The case referenced by the 

commenter, Mont. Envtl. Info. Ctr., 

CV 15-106-M-DWM, does mention 

the SCC tool but does not require the 

agency to use it.

The case referenced by the 

commenter, Sierra Club, et al., v. Fed. 

Energy Regulatory Comm’n, No. 16-

1329 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 22, 2017), states 

that, “Our discussion so far has 

explained that FERC must either 

quantify and consider the project’s 

downstream carbon emissions or 

explain in more detail why it cannot 

do so.” OSMRE discloses potential 

greenhouse gas emissions in Sections 

3.3.1.2 – 3.3.1.4 of this EA and in 

Section 4.13.3.6 of the FSEIS.

The case goes on to state that, “We do 

not decide whether those arguments 

are applicable in this case as well, 

because FERC did not include them in 

the EIS that is now before us. On 

remand, FERC should explain in the 

EIS, as an aid to the relevant 

decisionmakers, whether the position 

on the Social Cost of Carbon that the 

agency took in EarthReports still 

holds, and why.” OSMRE discloses 

those arguments why an SCC analysis 

is not necessary in Section 3.2.2.2.

3-43 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

The combustion of coal from the proposed expansion will likely result in massive 

economic damages associated with climate change. Granted, there may be 

uncertainty around these numbers, however, NEPA does not allow an agency to 

forego analyzing impacts completely simply because there may be some 

See Section 3.2.2.2. Also, the Greens 

Hollow FSEIS addresses climate 

change “on the wider climate” in 

section 4.13.3.6, which is incorporated 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-34 April 2018

Law Program uncertainty, especially where the information may still be of “high quality” 

according to 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1. The court in Nat’l. Highway noted that while 

estimates of the value of carbon emissions reductions occupied a wide range of 

values, the correct value was certainly not zero. 538 F.3d 1172, 1202. OSM seems 

to understand this as the FSEIS analyzes and discloses a number of reasonably 

foreseeable impacts that are uncertain, including economic impacts, which OSM 

tiers to in its own analysis. FSEIS at 243 (that Greens Hollow coal lease “could” 

extend the life of the mine by almost 9 years and that the coal “could be 

recovered” and provide revenue). As previously argued in the Statement of 

Reasons, the agency made no effort to assess climate impacts, and just indicated it 

was not possible. Thus, as we argued before, the agency continues to fail to 

analyze climate impacts, and thus the underlying FSEIS OSM tiers to contradicts 

NEPA’s requirements that information and analysis be of “high quality.” 40 

C.F.R § 1500.1.

by reference and considered in the 

FONNSI.

The Greens Hollow Supplemental EA 

and FSEIS does not quantify any 

benefits associated with the 

Alternatives.

The case referenced by the commenter

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat’l. 

Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 

F.3d 1172, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008) was 

for a national rulemaking regarding 

new fuel economy standards on light 

duty vehicles. The decision before 

OSMRE to make a recommendation is 

not considered a rulemaking and 

therefore would not require an SCC 

analysis.

3-44 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

To this end, OSM was required to fully analyze and disclose the carbon costs of 

authorizing the proposed mining plan modification, and failed to do so. Under any 

analysis, it is unsupported that OSM could find the climate impacts of this 

proposal to be insignificant.

See response to comment 3-42.

OSMRE did analyze the potential 

impacts of climate change and 

quantified potential greenhouse gas 

emissions, see EA Sections 3.3.1.2 –

3.3.1.4 and FEIS Section 4.13.3.6. 

OSMRE determined that None of the 

newly analyzed environmental effects 

from the Proposed Action discussed in

the EA are considered to be 

significant as stated in the FONNSI.

OSMRE is not required to disclose 

carbon costs for the mining plan 

modification as explained in Section 

3.2.2.2 of the EA.

3-45 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

b. Coal Export Impacts

The Supp. EA does not sufficiently analyze the impacts of coal exports, because 

OSM believes they are “too speculative” to provide any meaningful information. 

This is an inaccurate assessment, and in fact, the report relied upon by OSM 

shows a complete disregard for any chance that Greens Hollow coal could be 

shipped abroad. Supp. EA § 2.2 (“the results of the analysis clearly show that 

Table 2 and surrounding text has been 

revised based on new information. 

Nearly all of Sufco’s coal is used 

domestically.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-35

export from [Greens Hollow] are unlikely[...]”). This is incorrect. Bowie’s 

exports from the Greens Hollow tract, and the Sufco mine are certain. In fact, 

Bowie has continued to grow its export business, recently having been entangled 

in a pacific terminal battle in Oakland, California. Bowie is currently engaged in a

pending federal case, hoping to reverse Oakland’s decision to ban coal handling 

(specifically, unloading, loading, storage and intermodal transfer within the city). 

See Maffly, Brian, “Utah’s top coal produce is fighting to reverse a California 

city’s ban on exporting coal and open new markets for local mines”, The Salt 

Lake Tribune, 1/8/2018, (Exhibit 9). The firm that would operate the Oakland 

export station is a subsidiary of Bowie. Id.

3-46 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

This is further supported, as the Supp. EA acknowledges, by the eventual closure 

date of the largest consumer of Sufco coal, Intermountain Power Project. 

O’Donoghue, Amy, “Intermountain Power Project Will Shutter Coal-Fired Power 

Plant Near Delta,” Desert News, 5/23/2017, available at: 

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865680637/Intermountain-Power- Projectwill-shutter-coal-fired-power-plant-near-Delta.html. Intermountain Power is a 

huge consumer of Sufco coal; through October of 2017, Intermountain Power 

consumed 1.6 million tons of Sufco coal, and likely thousands of tons more 

through the end of 2017.2 U.S. Dept. of Energy, The Energy Information 

Administration, Fuel Receipts and Cost Time Series File, 2017 October, EIA-923 

report. The Supp. EA acknowledges that less than half of its coal went to United 

States power plants in 2016. Despite the inevitable closure of Intermountain 

Power, its major domestic customer, Bowie feels confident that its international 

consumers will support its proposed expansion to mine coal from Greens Hollow. 

What’s more, the number of coal to domestic customers dropped significantly 

from the year prior, where almost two-thirds of the mine’s shipments when to 

domestic consumers, indicating its general downward projection. Supp. EA § 2.2, 

Table 2. This decline is a clear signal that domestic consumers will continue to 

dwindle and Bowie will have to look for other purchasers for its coal. Thus, the 

export of coal looks to be a certainty and not speculative as claimed in the Supp. 

EA.

See response to comment 3-45.

3-47 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Moreover, because Bowie is engaged in the details of this terminal project, it is 

crystal-clear that coal transport data can be quantified. For example, the news 

media has reported that 104-car unit trains, hauling more than 10,000 tons of Utah 

coal, which would take 5.2 hours to unload, would travel into the terminal every 

day. See Maffly, Brian, “Port developer attacks Oakland coal ban and city’s 

claims that Utah shipments would endanger public health”, The Salt Lake 

Tribune, 1/18/2018, (Exhibit 10). Thus, with some data extrapolation, an analysis 

Sufco’s coal in recent years and for 

the foreseeable future is shipped by 

truck. 

Table 2 and surrounding text has been 

revised based on new information. 

Nearly all of Sufco’s coal is used 

domestically.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-36 April 2018

and assessment of exporting coal would not be speculative, as OSM claims, nor 

very difficult and would provide the decision-maker would valuable information 

regarding the significant impacts of exporting coal from the Greens Hollow lease. 

While OSM may believe that the ultimate destination of the coal is uncertain, this 

does not remove the responsibility of analyzing the exporting of coal, nor does it 

absolve the agency of addressing these impacts in accordance with NEPA.

The coal terminal in Oakland has not 

received permits to construct or begun 

construction and is currently under 

litigation. Therefore, the proposed 

port could not be considered 

reasonably foreseeable.

3-48 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

When coal is burned domestically, we can be reasonably certain of the pollution 

control regulations to which it will be subject. However, there is no guarantee that 

equivalent regulations will be in place in the Asian countries where the exported 

coal will be sold and burned. As a result, the air pollution impacts of exporting 

U.S. coal may be greater than if the coal were to be burned domestically. Yet 

these impacts will not stay in Asia. Airborne transport of soot, sulfur compounds, 

mercury, ozone, and other byproducts of coal combustion can travel across the 

Pacific Ocean and affect the health of western states’ ecosystems and residents.

See response to comment 3-47. Coal 

from the Greens Hollow tract would 

be burned domestically.

3-49 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Given this, OSM was required and failed to fully analyze and assess the impacts 

of exporting coal from the Greens Hollow tract. Such an analysis and assessment 

should have considered the impacts of hauling the coal by rail through the 

western United States, the impacts of shipping it overseas to be burnt abroad, and 

the eventual combustion of the coal. To that end, OSM should have also 

addressed the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the new coal export facility in 

Oakland, California.

See response to comment 3-47. Coal 

from the Greens Hollow tract would 

be burned domestically.

3-50 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Further, the general purpose of coal mining under SMCRA is to meet the Nation’s 

energy needs. The nation’s energy needs are not met when domestic coal, a 

natural resource owned by all Americans, is shipped overseas. In light of this, 

OSM’s authority conveys full discretion upon the agency to reject this coal 

leasing. Specifically, Congress intended the MLA “to provide for a more orderly 

procedure for the leasing and development” of coal the United States owns, while 

ensuring its development “in a manner compatible with the public interest.” 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation 

omitted). As it seems that shipping domestic coal abroad for the benefit of nonAmerican citizens, to the detriment of Americans, is not compatible with the 

public interest, OSM has full authority to not recommend this modification.

See response to comment 3-47. Coal 

from the Greens Hollow tract would 

be burned domestically.

3-51 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

4. The Supp. EA Still Fails to Address the Impacts of Similar and Cumulative 

Actions

The Supp. EA indicated that there were no significant cumulative effects 

identified. Supp. EA § 3.4.1. Under NEPA, an agency must analyze the impacts 

As explained in the EA, emissions are 

regulated by annual limits, and the

cumulative effects of permitted 

emissions are reflected in the current 

air quality, which is disclosed in 

Section 3.2.1. Cumulative effects for 
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-37

of “similar” and “cumulative” actions in the same NEPA document in order to 

adequately disclose impacts in an EIS or provide sufficient justification for a 

FONNSI in an EA. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.25(a)(2) and (3). Similar actions 

include actions that, “when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed 

agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their 

environmental consequences together.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(3). Key indicators 

of similarities between actions include “common timing or geography.” Id.

We are concerned by the potentially significant cumulative impacts posed by 

nearby coal mines and associated power plants in the area. As indicated in 

WildEarth Guardians’ scoping comments for the South Fork Lease Modification, 

OSM was required to fully analyze and assess the impacts of similar federal coal 

leasing and mining approvals being undertaken throughout the region in order to 

properly account for the climate impacts of mining and the reasonably foreseeable 

impacts of combustion. See WildEarth Guardians, Scoping Comments, South 

Fork Lease Modification Environmental Assessment, 10.10.2017. Here, the U.S. 

Department of the Interior is currently weighing numerous coal decisions, similar 

to the proposed action at hand, which pose similar and cumulative impacts in 

terms of greenhouse gas emissions, climate, and other impacts, particularly in 

terms of carbon costs. Further, neither the FSEIS nor the Supp. EA accounted for 

the 65 active oil and gas wells in Sevier County alone. See Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, Data from Interactive Map, available at: 

https://enviro.deq.utah.gov/. This oil and gas development is arguably a similar 

action, the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of which must also be 

analyzed and assessed. OSM cannot justify a FONNSI unless and until it fully 

accounts for the cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

mining at Sufco mine and other nearby fossil fuel projects, including oil and gas 

development. Therefore, an EIS must be prepared to fully analyze and assess 

these impacts.

other resource areas including 

wildlife, cultural, geology, vegetation, 

visual, rangeland, and water resources 

are analyzed in Chapter 4 of the 

FSEIS and OSMRE considered the 

impacts in the FONNSI.

Section 3.4 of the EA analyzes 

potential future mining operations. 

OSMRE is unaware of any newly 

proposed oil and gas wells that would 

require additional analysis under

cumulative impacts. Any active oil 

and gas wells in the County would be 

captured as part of the baseline data 

collected and shown in Table 3 of this 

EA. Text in Section 3.4 has been 

revised to describe oil and gas wells.

Section 3.4 of this EA analyzes 

potential oil and gas development 

within the project vicinity and future 

mining development, see Tables 10 

and 11.

3-52 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

OSM acknowledges that when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, emissions at 

both a national and statewide scale are relevant for analyzing and assessing 

impacts. See Supp. EA at 41 (disclosing national greenhouse gas emissions from 

fossil fuel combustion and coal mining, as well as state-wide energy-related 

carbon dioxide emissions). As the agency explicitly states, the analysis area for 

consideration of climate impacts includes the states of Montana, Wyoming, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Id. at 29. This is 

due to the fact that, as OSM acknowledges, “climate change and global warming 

are regional and global phenomena.” Id. Here, however, the Supp. EA analyzed 

only local impacts and disregarded the impacts on the wider climate.

The Greens Hollow FSEIS addresses 

climate change “on the wider climate” 

in section 4.13.3.6, which is 

incorporated by reference.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-38 April 2018

3-53 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

As the Supp. EA is inadequate in this regard, among others, it is imperative that 

OSM analyze the impacts of mining at the Sufco consistent with the scope 

required under NEPA in order to ensure that impacts of cumulative and similar 

are fully analyzed and assessed consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a).

See response to comment 3-2 and 3-3.

Section 3.4 of the EA analyzes 

potential cumulative impacts.

3-54 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

CONCLUSION

We appreciate your time and attention to this issue. As OSM reviews and the 

Secretary weighs approval of additional mining plans, it is more important than 

ever to ensure clarity around SMCRA compliance. As explained, mining plans 

are not meant to be rubberstamped, but rather acted upon after careful 

consideration of substantive factors. The approval of mining the Greens Hollow 

tract was have devastating effects to the climate and air quality.

Comment noted.

3-55 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

Here, the Supp. EA relates to modification of an invalid lease, and should halt 

approval of the modification in its path at the outset.

See response to comment 3-1.

3-56 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

However, even if OSM disagrees, the Supp. EA still did not fully analyze the 

significant impacts of leasing and mining the lease. Specifically, OSM did not 

consider the impacts of additional CO2, methane, and other emissions from both 

the mining and the combustion of the coal. Further, the Supp. EA fails to address 

a number of potentially significant impacts, including the climate impacts related 

to the reasonably foreseeable consequence of coal combustion, air quality 

impacts, and cumulative impacts related to additional federal coal management 

decisions, including additional leasing that had occurred since the original lease 

was granted.

The EA and the Greens Hollow FSEIS 

(incorporated by reference) covers the 

analysis of mining operations, 

transportation, and combustion of coal

in Section 4.13.3.6.

Section 3.4 of the EA includes future 

coal mining operations.

3-57 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

The Supp. EA is insufficient to analyze these impacts, as only an EIS can be 

utilized to analyze and assess significant environmental impacts under NEPA. See 

40 C.F.R. § 1502.3. Thus, OSM cannot possibly determine whether or not the 

impacts of emissions are significant, because its Supp. EA analysis was woefully 

insufficient. Until the agency is able to correct these deficiencies properly, the 

analysis is insufficient to comply with NEPA. As such, Guardians, CBD, and 

Sierra Club urge OSM to halt its review, or to disapprove of the mining plan 

modification. OSM must reject the preparation of an EA and move to conduct a 

full EIS, consistent with § 102(2)(C) of NEPA. See 42 USC 4332(2)(C).

See response to comment 3-2 and 3-3. 

Along with the additional analysis in 

the Greens Hollow Supplemental EA, 

OSMRE considered all the effects 

disclosed in the Greens Hollow 

FSEIS.

3-58 WildEarth Guardians, 

Center for Biological 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Thank you. Comment noted.
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

April 2018 A-39

Diversity, and Sierra 

Club Environmental 

Law Program

4-1 The Hopi Tribe The Hopi Tribe claims cultural affiliation to earlier identifiable cultural groups in 

Utah. The Hopi Cultural Preservation Office supports the identification and 

avoidance of our ancestral sites, and we consider the archaeological sites of our 

ancestors to be Traditional Cultural Properties. Therefore we appreciate the Office 

of Surface Mining (OSM)’s, Forest Service’s and Bureau of Land Management’s 

ongoing solicitation of our input and your efforts to address our concerns.

Comment noted.

4-2 The Hopi Tribe The Hope Cultural Preservation Office has previously responded to 

correspondences on this mine and effects to cultural resources resulting from 

subsidence from underground mining. In the enclosed letter dated March 3, 2014, 

regarding SUFCO 2014 Exploration License, UTU-090269, a proposal to explore 

for coal deposits on Fishlake National Forest and Bureau of Land Management, 

Price Field Office lands in Sevier County, DOI-BLM-UT-G023-2014-0017-EA, 

we stated we previously responded to correspondences regarding SUFCO mine 

expansions in letters dated June 12, July 2, September 35, November 25, and 

December 19, 2012, and May 20, 2013. We determined that future mining as a 

result of this proposal may affect cultural resources significant to the Hopi Tribe.

In the enclosed letter dated April 7, 2014 to Manti La Sal and Fishlake National 

Forests regarding leasing of the Greens Hollow Federal Coal Leasing Tract UTU84102, we reviewed the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and 

Stated We understood the Proposed Action is likely to result in adverse effects to 

Seven National Register eligible prehistoric sites from ground subsidence 

including two sites with two rock shelters each, while Alternative 3 may 

adversely affect one legible prehistoric site.

We further state we are aware of several eligible rock shelters that were disturbed 

by subsidence in the Muddy Creek area due to underground mining activities. 

Therefore, we concluded either of the action alternatives will result in adverse 

effect to National Register eligible prehistoric sites. We acknowledge that 

Alternative 3 in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was 

developed to provide protection for important non-mineral surface resources from 

the effect of subsidence, including water and cultural resources, and concluded 

that either of the action alternatives will result in adverse effects to National 

Register eligible prehistoric sites.

In the enclosed letter dated March 30, 2015, we reviewed the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and stated we understood Alternative 3 will be approved. We 

also stated we appreciated the efforts of the Grand Canyon Trust, Utah 

BLM and Forest Service selected an 

alternative that includes a stipulation 

(#9) which will avoid subsidence of 

all but one of the eligible sites. The 

remaining site was mitigated. 

Consultation with tribes will continue 

(See Section 3.6.1.2 in the Greens 

Hollow FSEIS).
Greens Hollow Tract Mining Plan Modification Supplemental Environmental Assessment

A-40 April 2018

Environmental Congress and Center for Biological Diversity in appealing the 

initial Record of Decision. Therefore, we requested continuing consultation on 

this proposal including being provided with a copy of the proposed treatment plan

for review and comment.

We have not reviewed the supplemental environmental assessment for a federal 

mining plan modification based on new information for future mining activities 

into the 6,175 acres Greens Hollow Federal Coal Lease Tract, UTU-84102, as 

part of Canyon Fuel Company’s Sufco Mine on Fishlake and Manti-La Sal Forest 

Lands.

5-1 Six County 

Association of 

Governments

Authorized mining of recoverable coal in the Greens Hallow lease, will be part of 

Canyon Fuel Company's SUFCO Mine, also located in Sevier and Sanpete 

Counties. This industry is extremely important to the economic vitality of the Six 

County region. It creates hundreds of direct and indirect jobs, provides a 

substantial tax base, and significantly impacts the economic viability of the Six 

County area. Approval of the Greens Hollow lease extends SUFCO Mine 

operations by 8.7 years.

Comment noted.

5-2 Six County 

Association of 

Governments

We expect an immediate approval by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement (OSMRE) to begin mining operations on the Greens Hollow 

lease once the Surface Mining Control Act of 1977 (SMCRA) permit is approved 

through the regulatory authority of the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining 

(DOGMA); and, the approval of a required mining plan is approved by the 

Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management (ASLM). 

OSMRE is following the regulatory 

process as quickly as possible.

5-3 Six County 

Association of 

Governments

We feel that the previous permitting process required by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to offer the Greens Hollow lease for sale to the highest 

bidder satisfied the required public involvement process.

Comment noted.