UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 

Federal Mining Plan Modification 

Environmental Assessment 

Musselshell County and Yellowstone County, Montana 

Federal Coal Lease MTM 97988 

May 11, 2018

U.S. Department of the Interior

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Western Region

1999 Broadway, Suite 3320

Denver, CO 80202

PH: 303-293-5000

FAX: 303-293-5032
Table of Contents

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ...........................................................................................1

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

1.2 Regulatory Framework and Necessary Authorizations..........................................................4

1.3 Purpose and Need...........................................................................................................................4

1.4 Issues Identification .........................................................................................................................5

1.5 Public Comment ..............................................................................................................................7

1.6 Crosswalk of Resource Areas......................................................................................................7

1.7 Consultation and Coordination....................................................................................................8

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES....................................................9

2.1 Existing Condition ...........................................................................................................................9

2.1.1 Mining Plan and Mining Operations.................................................................................. 10

2.1.2 Surface Facilities Area ......................................................................................................... 10

2.1.3 Other Surface Facilities....................................................................................................... 11

2.1.4 Subsidence and Associated Surface Repairs................................................................... 13

2.1.5 Hydrological Impacts and Mitigation................................................................................ 15

2.1.6 Mining-Related Stipulations and Mitigation Measures.................................................. 15

2.1.7 Coal Loadout ........................................................................................................................ 15

2.1.8 Coal Destinations................................................................................................................. 16

2.2 Description of Alternatives........................................................................................................ 17

2.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................ 17

2.2.2 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................. 18

2.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study ......................................................................... 20

2.3.1 Subsurface Gas Control...................................................................................................... 21

2.3.2 Avoidance of Impacts to Surface Resources, Features, and Uses............................. 21

2.3.3 Alternative Land Uses......................................................................................................... 22

2.3.4 Conditioning Mining on Domestic Sale of Coal ............................................................ 22

2.3.5 Carbon Offsets..................................................................................................................... 22

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT..............................................................................23

3.1 Transportation & Electrical Transmission............................................................................... 23

3.1.1 Vehicle Transportation ....................................................................................................... 23

3.1.2 Electrical Transmission ....................................................................................................... 24

3.1.3 Rail Transportation.............................................................................................................. 24

3.2 Air Quality...................................................................................................................................... 27

3.2.1 Mining...................................................................................................................................... 27

3.2.2 Rail Transport....................................................................................................................... 28

3.2.3 Seaport Handling .................................................................................................................. 29

3.2.4 Ocean Transport.................................................................................................................. 29

3.2.5 Overseas Combustion ........................................................................................................ 29

3.3 Climate............................................................................................................................................ 30

3.3.1 Background............................................................................................................................ 30

3.3.2 GHG Emissions..................................................................................................................... 31

3.3.3 Climate Change .................................................................................................................... 32

3.3.4 Applicable Regulations and Policies.................................................................................. 33

3.4 Water Resources.......................................................................................................................... 33

3.4.1 Groundwater............................................................................................................................... 34

3.4.2 Springs..................................................................................................................................... 34

3.4.3 Surface Water....................................................................................................................... 35

3.4.4 Hydrologic Conditions Surrounding the Existing WDA............................................. 35

3.4.5 Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands.......................................................................... 36

3.4.6 Spring and Well Impact Mitigation.......................................................................................... 36

3.5 Soil.................................................................................................................................................... 36
Table of Contents

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA ii

3.6 Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................... 37

3.7 Wildlife............................................................................................................................................ 37

3.8 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species............................................................ 39

3.9 Cultural and Paleontological Resources.................................................................................. 40

3.10 Noise & Vibration......................................................................................................................... 41

3.10.1 Mine Vicinity.......................................................................................................................... 41

3.10.2 Rail Transport Corridor..................................................................................................... 42

3.11 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................................ 43

3.11.1 Local Economy.......................................................................................................................... 43

3.11.2 Population. ................................................................................................................................. 44

3.11.3 Employment........................................................................................................................... 44

3.11.4 Housing................................................................................................................................... 44

3.11.5 Local Government Facilities and Services...................................................................... 44

3.12 Environmental Justice................................................................................................................... 45

3.13 Visual Resources........................................................................................................................... 46

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................47

4.1 Transportation & Transmission ...................................................................................................... 49

4.1.1 Direct & Indirect Effects..................................................................................................... 49

4.1.2 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 52

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................. 53

4.2 Air Quality...................................................................................................................................... 53

4.2.1 Direct & Indirect Effects........................................................................................................... 53

4.2.2 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 55

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................. 56

4.3 Climate............................................................................................................................................ 56

4.3.1 Direct & Indirect Effects........................................................................................................... 56

4.3.2 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 57

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................. 58

4.4 Water Resources.......................................................................................................................... 58

4.4.1 Direct & Indirect Effects..................................................................................................... 58

4.4.2 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 59

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................. 60

4.5 Soil.................................................................................................................................................... 60

4.5.1 Direct & Indirect Effects..................................................................................................... 60

4.5.2 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 61

4.5.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................. 61

4.6 Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................... 61

4.6.1 Direct & Indirect Effects..................................................................................................... 61

4.6.2 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 62

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................. 63

4.7 Wildlife............................................................................................................................................ 63

4.7.1 Direct & Indirect Effects..................................................................................................... 63

4.7.2 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 65

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................. 67

4.8 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species............................................................ 67

4.8.1 Direct & Indirect Effects..................................................................................................... 67

4.8.2 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 67

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................. 67

4.9 Cultural and Paleontological Resources.................................................................................. 68

4.9.1 Direct & Indirect Effects..................................................................................................... 68

4.9.2 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 69

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................. 69

4.10 Noise & Vibration......................................................................................................................... 69

4.10.1 Direct & Indirect Effects..................................................................................................... 69
Table of Contents

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA iii

4.10.2 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 72

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................. 72

4.11 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................................ 72

4.11.1 Direct & Indirect Effects..................................................................................................... 72

4.11.2 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 73

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................. 74

4.12 Environmental Justice................................................................................................................... 74

4.12.1 Direct & Indirect Effects..................................................................................................... 74

4.13 Visual Resources .............................................................................................................................. 74

4.13.1 Direct & Indirect Effects..................................................................................................... 74

4.13.2 Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................ 76

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................. 76

4.14 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 76

4.15 Unavoidable Adverse Effects......................................................................................................... 76

TABLES

Table 1.6-1 Resource areas analyzed.................................................................................................8

Table 2.1-1 Annual saleable coal production. ............................................................................... 10

Table 2.1-2 Domestic coal sales (tons) between 2012 and 2016............................................. 16

Table 2.2-1 Comparative Summary of the Proposed Action and No Action 

Alternative Relative to the Existing Condition....................................................... 19

Table 3.2-1 Total Estimated Emissions from Mining, Transport, and Combustion of 

5.96Mt of Saleable Coal in 2016. ............................................................................... 27

Table 3.3-1 Estimated GHG Emissions from Mining, Transporting, and Combusting Coal 

from the Mine in 2016.................................................................................................. 32

Table 4.1-1 Comparison of Baseline, No Action Alternative and Proposed Action 

Features. .......................................................................................................................... 49

Table 4.15-1 Unavoidable Adverse Effects of the Proposed Action.......................................... 77

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – FIGURES ............................................................................................. A1

Figure 1.0-1 Project Location

Figure 1.0-2 Mining Plan

Figure 2.1-1 Surface Facilities Area

Figure 2.1-2 Projected Surface Disturbance

Figure 2.1-3 Rail Transport Route

Figure 3.4-1 Hydrology Monitoring Stations

Figure 3.4-2 Mammoth Coal Drawdown

Figure 3.4-3 Deep Underburden Drawdown

Figure 3.7-1 Raptor Nests and Grouse Leks

Figure 4.4-1 Simulated Drawdown at End of Mining

Figure 4.4-2 Water Levels Scenario 1 50 years After Mining

Figure 4.4-3 Water Levels Scenario 2 50 years After Mining

Figure 4.4-4 Drawdown Scenario 1 50 years After Mining

Figure 4.4-5 Drawdown Scenario 2 50 years After Mining
Table of Contents

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA iv

APPENDIX B – AIR QUALITY..................................................................................... B1

1.0 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................................B1

1.1 Mining......................................................................................................................................B1

1.2 Rail Transport.......................................................................................................................B5

1.3 Seaport Handling ..................................................................................................................B9

1.4 Ocean Transport................................................................................................................B12

1.5 Overseas Combustion ......................................................................................................B12

2.0 Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................B15

2.1 Direct & Indirect Effects.............................................................................................................B15

2.2 Cumulative Effects..............................................................................................................B20

APPENDIX C - AIR EMISSIONS.................................................................................. C1

1.0 Pollutant Emissions...................................................................................................................... C1

1.1 Mine Operations ................................................................................................................. C1

1.2 Rail Transport...................................................................................................................... C2

1.3 Seaport Operations............................................................................................................ C3

1.4 Ocean Transport................................................................................................................. C4

1.5 Overseas Combustion ....................................................................................................... C5

2.0 Greenhouse Gas Emissions....................................................................................................... C6

2.1 Mine Operations ................................................................................................................. C6

2.2 Rail Transport...................................................................................................................... C6

2.3 Seaport Operations............................................................................................................ C6

2.4 Ocean Transport................................................................................................................. C6

2.5 Coal Combustion................................................................................................................ C7

APPENDIX D - CLIMATE CHANGE........................................................................... D1

1.0 Recent Conditions and Trends................................................................................................. D1

2.0 Projected Climate Conditions and Effects............................................................................. D3

2.1 Global Projections .............................................................................................................. D4

2.2 National Projections........................................................................................................... D4

2.3 Montana Projections........................................................................................................... D5

2.4 Social Cost of Carbon........................................................................................................ D6

APPENDIX E - HYDROLOGY.......................................................................................E1

1.0 Existing Condition ........................................................................................................................ E1

1.1 Groundwater.................................................................................................................................. E2

1.2 Springs..................................................................................................................................... E4

1.3 Surface Water....................................................................................................................... E5

1.4 Hydrologic Conditions Surrounding the Existing WDA............................................. E6

1.5 Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands.......................................................................... E7

1.6 Spring and Well Impact Mitigation............................................................................................. E7

2.0 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives....................................................................... E8

2.1 Direct & Indirect Effects..................................................................................................... E8

2.2 Cumulative Effects..............................................................................................................E14

APPENDIX F – WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST...................................................................F1
Table of Contents

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA v

APPENDIX G – SOCIOECONOMICS.........................................................................G1

1.0 Current Socioeconomic Conditions....................................................................................... G1

1.1 Local Economy..................................................................................................................... G1

1.2 Population. ............................................................................................................................ G3

1.3 Employment.......................................................................................................................... G3

1.4 Housing.................................................................................................................................. G4

1.5 Environmental Justice Populations .................................................................................. G4

2.0 Regional Economic Analysis ...................................................................................................... G5

APPENDIX H – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION..................................H1

Consultation & Coordination................................................................................................................ H1

Preparers and Contributors.................................................................................................................. H1

Distribution of the EA............................................................................................................................. H2

APPENDIX I – PUBLIC COMMENT RESPONSE........................................................I1

APPENDIX J – ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND REFERENCES....................J1

1.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations...................................................................................................... J1

2.0 References....................................................................................................................................... J5
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 Introduction

Signal Peak Energy, LLC (SPE) owns and operates the Bull Mountains Mine No.1 underground 

coal mine (Mine) located in the Bull Mountains of south central Montana (Appendix A, 

Figure 1.0-1). The Mine is located in Musselshell and Yellowstone counties between the 

Musselshell and Yellowstone rivers, approximately 30 miles north of Billings and 20 miles 

southeast of Roundup, Montana. The vast majority of coal is mined using the longwall method, 

the remaining development coal is mined using the room-and-pillar method. All coal is washed 

to improve coal quality and shipped from an onsite rail car loading facility (tipple).

On March 19, 2008, SPE filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to 

lease approximately 2,679.76 acres of Federal coal (MTM 97988) in sections 4, 8, 10, 14, and 

22, Township 6 North, Range 27 East, Musselshell County, under the Lease by Application 

(LBA) regulations (43 CFR § 3425.1) and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Appendix A, Figure

1.0-2). BLM processed the lease application in accordance with regulations found at 43 CFR 

Subpart 3425 for LBA. The Environmental Assessment (EA) titled Bull Mountains Mine No. 1, 

Federal Coal Lease MTM 97988, Musselshell County, Montana, EA No. DOI-BLM-MT-C010-

2009-0010-EA (BLM 2011), hereafter “BLM Coal Lease EA”, was prepared to satisfy BLM’s 

requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The US Department of the 

Interior (DOI), Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) served as a 

cooperating agency for the BLM Coal Lease EA. The BLM Coal Lease EA evaluated the 

application as it would be processed under the following Federal authorities:

• Mineral Leasing Act, 1920 (MLA), as amended;

• NEPA, 1969;

• Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act, 1976 (FCLAA);

• Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, 1977 (SMCRA); and,

• Energy Policy Act, 2005.

Both the BLM Coal Lease EA and this Federal Mining Plan Modification EA incorporate prior 

analyses including the Bull Mountains Exchange Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

(BLM 1990) and the Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 EIS (MDSL 1992), which analyzed the effects of 

proposed mining and connected actions.

The BLM Coal Lease EA analyzed potential impacts associated with leasing five tracts of Federal

coal totaling 2,679.76 acres that would allow the Mine to continue producing coal instead of 

ceasing production as recoverable private coal reserves are exhausted. The BLM Coal Lease EA

addressed two alternatives, the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. Under the No 

Action Alternative, current and future mining activities approved by the Montana Department 

of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) would continue on private lands and appropriate mitigation 

measures would be implemented to reduce or mitigate effects of mining on the environment.

Under the Proposed Action, the subject Federal coal would be mined according to the Life of 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 2

Mine (LOM) plan and the same mitigation measures that apply to the No Action Alternative 

would be applied to the lease areas.

On April 15, 2011, based upon a review of the BLM Coal Lease EA, BLM’s Billings Field Office 

issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) of implementing the proposed leasing action.

The FONSI was based on the information contained in the BLM Coal Leasing EA and 

consideration of the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) criteria for significance (40 CFR 

§ 1508.27). The BLM determined that: 1) the implementation of the Proposed Action would not 

have significant environmental impacts; 2) the Proposed Action is in conformance with the 

Billings Resource Management Plan; and 3) the Proposed Action does not constitute a major 

Federal action having significant effect on the human environment; therefore, an EIS was not 

required.

The State of Montana has a Federally-approved coal regulatory program (hereafter “Montana 

State program”) administered by MDEQ. The Mine permit (C1993017) was approved by 

MDEQ in 1993 in accordance with the Montana Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act 

(MSUMRA). Mining and reclamation methods specified in the permit are consistent with 

requirements of SMCRA (30 USC, Chapter 25) and the implementing Federal regulations (30 

CFR Chapter VII) as required by the Montana cooperative agreement with OSMRE (30 CFR §

926.30). 

On October 4, 2012, MDEQ approved SPE’s application for Amendment 2 to the Mine permit 

to include a portion of the Federal coal lease area and adjacent private lands and coal. On 

August 2, 2013, the DOI’s Assistant Secretary, Lands and Mineral Management (ASLM) signed a 

mining plan approval document authorizing mining of 140 acres of Federal coal lands within the 

Amendment 2 boundary as described below (see Appendix A, Figure 1.0-2 inset detail).

Township 6 North, Range 27 East, PMM, Musselshell County, Montana 

Sec. 8, SW1⁄4 SW1⁄4 and portions* of SE1⁄4 SW1⁄4, N1⁄2 SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4 NW1⁄4, and 

SW1⁄4 SE1⁄4, Containing 140 acres more or less. 

*portions include areas south and west of the Amendment 2 State permit boundary.

On October 5, 2012, SPE submitted a Permit Application Package (PAP) for Mine permit 

Amendment 3 to include the remainder of proposed future mining. MDEQ reviewed the permit 

application under the Montana State program, the Federal lands program (30 CFR Chapter VII, 

Subchapter D), and the Montana cooperative agreement (30 CFR § 926.30). Pursuant to the 

Montana State program and the cooperative agreement, MDEQ approved the permit 

application for Amendment 3 on October 18, 2013. The current State-approved Mine permit 

boundary (Appendix A, Figure 1.0-2) includes the LOM area previously analyzed in the BLM 

Coal Lease EA, including the existing 140-acre mining plan and the proposed mining plan 

modification. The permit boundaries of Amendment 2 and Amendment 3 referred to in this EA 

and shown in figures reflect the permit boundary both before and after Amendment 3 approval. 

All lands within the Mine permit boundary (including Amendment 2 and Amendment 3) are 

collectively referred to as the “permit area”.

On November 22, 2013, SPE submitted a mining plan modification for Federal Lease MTM 

97988 that would allow coal development and mining operations at the Bull Mountains Mine 

No. 1 in the remaining Federal coal lands as described in the Amendment 3 PAP. Federal coal 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 3

lands included in lease MTM 97988 and proposed for mining, but not included in the existing 

mining plan, are identified below:

Township 6 North, Range 27 East, PMM, Musselshell County, Montana 

Sec. 4, lot l, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, and S1⁄2; 479.76 acres 

Sec. 8, NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, and S1⁄2; 460.00 acres 

Sec. 10, W1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4 NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4, and S1⁄2 600.00 acres

Sec. 14, SW 1⁄4 NE 1⁄4, NW 1⁄4 and S 1⁄2; 520.00 acres

Sec. 22, W1⁄2 and SE1⁄4. 480.00 acres

Total 2,539.76 acres

OSMRE prepared the 2015 Mining Plan Modification EA analyzing potential impacts associated 

with the proposed mining plan modification. A FONSI was signed on January 27, 2015. OSMRE 

prepared a mining plan decision document (MPDD), and the ASLM approved the mining plan 

modification on February 24, 2015. SPE continued mining in accordance with the Mine permit 

and approved mining plan modification and crossed the Amendment 2 boundary into the 

Amendment 3 area in approximately May 2015 in association with the East Mains development

(see Appendix A, Figure 1.0-2 inset).

On August 14, 2017, the District Court for the District of Montana identified deficiencies in

OSMRE’s NEPA analysis, vacated and set aside the 2015 Mining Plan Modification EA, and 

remanded the matter back to OSMRE for further action (see Montana Environmental Information 

Center v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining et al., Case 9:15-cv-00106-DVM (D. Mont. Aug. 14, 2017)).

The court further ordered that mining of the Federal coal within the Amendment 3 permit area

be enjoined pending compliance with NEPA. Subsequent orders dated October 31, 2017 and 

November 3, 2017 (see Case 9:15-CV-00106-DWM, ECF Nos. 99 and 103) allow limited 

development work displacing and storing no more than 170,000 tons of Federal coal in Section 

8. That coal must be stockpiled and stored at the Mine and cannot be sold or shipped pending 

compliance with NEPA.

This EA has been prepared to address the August 14, 2017 ruling and satisfy OSMRE’s 

responsibilities under NEPA. In complying with those responsibilities, OSMRE does not 

reevaluate potential impacts previously analyzed as part of the BLM Coal Lease EA, which 

included analysis of all Federal coal lands identified in the proposed mining plan modification. 

Rather, this EA considers potential changes to the extent or nature of those impacts, based on 

the current Mine permit approved by the Montana State program, and new information specific 

to this action. Because the BLM Coal Lease EA thoroughly described the environmental setting 

of the Mine’s LOM area (now the “permit area” or all lands within the “permit boundary”) and 

mining operations, it is incorporated by reference in this EA. The BLM Coal Lease EA is 

available at the following link. 

https://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/bullMountainsMine.shtm#documents.

This EA was prepared in accordance with the requirements of NEPA and the CEQ regulations 

implementing NEPA. OSMRE is the lead Federal agency responsible for development of this EA 

because it makes a recommendation to the ASLM about whether the proposed mining plan 

modification should be approved, disapproved, or approved with conditions. As such, this EA 

follows OSMRE’s 516 DM 13, which is the DOI manual guiding OSMRE’s implementation of the 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 4

NEPA process. The BLM is a cooperator in preparation of this EA and has provided technical 

review and assistance in the analysis.

1.2 Regulatory Framework and Necessary Authorizations

OSMRE is responsible for reviewing plans to operate and reclaim a coal mine on lands 

containing leased Federal coal and is the lead agency for this EA. Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 746, 

OSMRE prepares and submits to the Secretary of the Interior a MPDD recommending 

approval, disapproval or conditional approval of the proposed mining plan modification. 

Pursuant to 30 CFR § 746.13, the recommendation is based, at a minimum, upon:

• The PAP, including BLM’s resource recovery and protection plan (R2P2);

• Information prepared in compliance with NEPA, including this EA;

• Documentation assuring compliance with the applicable requirements of Federal laws, 

regulations and executive orders (EOs) other than SMCRA;

• Comments and recommendations or concurrence of other Federal agencies and the 

public;

• Findings and recommendations of the BLM with respect to the R2P2, Federal lease 

requirements, and the MLA;

• Findings and recommendations of MDEQ with respect to the PAP and the Montana 

State program; and

• The findings and recommendations of OSMRE with respect to the additional 

requirements of 30 CFR Chapter VII, Subchapter D.

In a memorandum dated September 13, 2013, the BLM found that maximum economic 

recovery of the Federal coal would be achieved by mining as described in the PAP and 

recommended approval of the R2P2.

Upon review of OSMRE’s recommendation and supporting documentation, including this EA, 

the Secretary of the Interior will make a decision on the MPDD approving, approving with 

conditions or denying the mining plan modification. Such approval would supplement the 

August 2, 2013 mining plan approved for the Mine. 

1.3 Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the action is established by MLA and the implementing Federal regulations, 

which require evaluation of the PAP before SPE may take any action on the Federal leasehold 

that might cause a significant disturbance of the environment, which includes conducting

underground mining and reclamation operations in the Amendment 3 area of Federal coal lease 

MTM 97988. 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 approved, the MPDD would allow SPE to conduct coal mining and 

reclamation operations within the Amendment 3 area of the Federal coal lease and 

economically recover Federal, State, and private coal reserves through a logical mining unit.

The need for this action is to provide SPE the opportunity to exercise its rights granted by the 

BLM under Federal coal lease MTM 97988 to access and mine the Federal coal reserves located 
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 5

in the tract and approved by MDEQ as Amendment 3 to the state Mine permit. ASLM approval 

of the Federal mining plan modification is required to mine Federal coal reserves in the 

Amendment 3 mining area. 

1.4 Issues Identification 

While the BLM Coal Lease EA evaluated mining of the same parcels described in the PAP, 

additional analysis is needed to satisfy NEPA requirements. The August 14, 2017 US District 

Court ruling determined that OSMRE’s 2015 Mining Plan Modification EA was deficient, 

requiring further analysis of several issues to comply with NEPA. The EA must also evaluate 

mine permit revisions approved or proposed since the BLM Coal Lease EA was prepared and 

incorporate the most recent data available to support the analysis.

OSMRE conducted a scoping process from October 20 to November 20, 2017 during which 

public comments were solicited to identify issues of concern. OSMRE published legal notices in 

the Billings Gazette on October 20, 2017 and the Roundup Record Tribune on October 25, 2017.

The notices described the project in summary form and informed the public that scoping 

comments would be accepted until November 20, 2017. Public outreach letters describing the 

EA and soliciting scoping comments were mailed on October 20, 2017 to State, county, and city 

governments; adjacent landowners; and other interested parties. OSMRE also sent letters of 

notification to tribes/tribal representatives via certified letters on October 20, 2017. OSMRE 

made a project website available that provided project information and comment opportunities 

available at https://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/bullMountainsMine.shtm. 

While many issues may be mentioned during scoping, not all issues raised warrant analysis in an 

EA. Issues are analyzed in this EA when: 1) an analysis of the issue is necessary to make a 

reasoned choice between alternatives, 2) the issue is associated with a potentially significant 

effect, requiring additional analysis, or 3) the issue was specifically identified in the August 14, 

2017 US District Court Ruling vacating OSMRE’s 2015 Mining Plan Modification EA. 

Issues analyzed in this EA include:

• Increased noise and vibration from rail traffic;

• Increased rail traffic effects on rail congestion;

• Coal dust effects on rail safety and the environment (e.g., air, soil, water);

• Potential disproportionate impact of rail transport on environmental justice populations;

• Effects of non-greenhouse gas emissions from coal mining, transport, and combustion;

• Effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from coal mining, transport, and combustion 

on climate and resultant climate change effects on all resources, including the economy;

• Impacts of surface facilities and operations such as waste disposal areas (WDAs) and 

boreholes;

• Future groundwater conditions following subsidence and pooling in the mine “gob”;

• Impacts to water quality and water supply for agricultural and domestic uses;

• Impacts to springs, streams, ponds and wetlands; 

• Ability to mitigate hydrologic impacts and replace affected water supplies with water of 

comparable quantity and quality;

• Impacts of subsidence on vegetation, soil, hydrology, and wildlife;
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 6

• Reclaimability of subsidence cracks and long-term stability;

• Hazards to people, livestock and wildlife posed by subsidence cracks;

• Effects to local, State, and Federal government, the economy, and local services;

• Aesthetic impacts including subsidence and associated reclamation effects on the 

landscape and lighting effects on night skies;

• Mine impacts to species listed as threatened or endangered, candidates for listing, or

proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or their habitats;

• Mine impacts to migratory birds, including bald and golden eagles;

• Mine impacts on noxious weed distribution;

• Noise impacts from Mine fan operation; and,

• Dust generation from Mine vehicles and construction operations.

Several of these issues were previously evaluated by the BLM Coal Lease EA and 2015 Mining 

Plan Modification EA (since vacated), including GHG emissions associated with coal transport 

and combustion and related climate effects. Socioeconomic impacts, while analyzed previously, 

have been included for further analysis as part of this EA to address updated conditions.

Impacts of non-greenhouse gas emissions from transport and combustion were not previously 

analyzed, nor were other issues specific to coal transport by rail, including train noise and 

vibration, effects of coal dust emissions, rail safety and grade crossing delay and safety. Those 

previously unanalyzed topics were specifically identified in the August 14, 2017 US District 

Court Order vacating the 2015 Mining Plan Modification EA, necessitating their consideration in 

this EA. 

While rail transport and combustion are foreseeable and may occur indirectly as a result of 

Mine operations, US-based rail transportation is outside the jurisdiction of OSMRE and subject 

to a broad range of rules and regulations set by other Federal and State agencies. As detailed in 

Section 3.1, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) has jurisdiction over railroad rate and 

service issues, authority to investigate rail service matters of regional and national significance, 

and rail restructuring transactions. STB regulations preempt State and local laws (e.g., noise 

ordinances) that would otherwise manage or govern rail transportation. Given their

jurisdiction, STB thresholds for environmental analysis are adopted as basis for analysis in this 

EA for all rail transport related issues associated with coal transport.

Outside of the US, coal transport and combustion activities are governed by the receiving

countries and international organizations that similarly implement regulations and/or adopt 

standards to prevent unacceptable impacts within their jurisdictions. 

Comments also identified alternatives to the Project that could be analyzed. These alternatives 

included: subsurface gas control to reduce GHG emissions, reduced mining levels to avoid 

impacts to surface features, uses or resources, and alternative land uses that support economic 

diversification and transition. These alternatives and reasons for dismissing or carrying them 

forward for analysis are addressed in Chapter 2 (see Section 2.2.3). 

All comments received have been considered in preparation of this document.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 7

1.5 Public Comment

OSMRE announced the availability of the EA on their Initiatives webpage and published a Public 

Notice for the EA and unsigned FONSI in Billings Gazette and the Roundup Record-Tribune on 

March 13, 2018. Public outreach and Tribal consultation letters were also sent out to interested 

parties, stakeholders and tribes that could be affected by the project on March 13, 2018. The 

EA and unsigned FONSI were provided to the public for review and comment for a 30-day 

period, ending on April 11, 2018. Two hundred and sixty (260) letters were received. OSMRE 

evaluated and considered these letters before the EA was finalized. Of the 260 letters, 14 were 

considered substantive. Within the 14 letters, 151 individual comments were categorized based 

on issues discussed. Of the 151 individual comments, 10 were on climate change, 37 were on 

hydrology, 31 were on the Social Cost of Carbon tool, 23 were on rail related topics, and the 

remaining 50 comments were on other topics. OSMRE prepared responses to substantive 

comments as presented in the Public Comment Response in Appendix. OSMRE did not 

provide specific individual responses if similar arguments were made by another party and 

responded to by the agency.

1.6 Crosswalk of Resource Areas

Table 1.6-1 identifies the location of resource areas presented in the BLM Coal Lease EA and 

lists their location in this EA, where present. Not all resource areas are considered and brought 

forward for analysis in this EA because OSMRE determined that their effects had been 

sufficiently documented in the BLM Coal Lease EA and FONSI or that new information would 

not affect the decision-making process. Information presented in the BLM Coal Lease EA

adequately described the affected environment of several resources brought forward for 

analysis; therefore, those sections of the BLM Coal Lease EA are incorporated by reference 

into this EA in their entirety and are not reiterated.
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 8

Table 1.6-1. Resource areas analyzed.

Resource 

Area

BLM Coal 

Lease EA

Affected 

Environment

BLM Coal 

Lease EA

Environmental 

Consequences

Current 

EA 

Not 

Further

Analyzed

Current 

EA

Brought 

Forward 

For 

Analysis

Current EA 

Affected 

Environment

Current EA 

Environmental 

Consequences

Topography 

and 

Physiography

3.1 4.1.1 & 4.2.1 X

Geology and 

Minerals 3.2 4.1.2 & 4.2.2 X

Paleontology 3.2 4.1.2 & 4.2.2 X 3.9 4.9

Air Quality 1 3.3.1 4.1.3 & 4.2.3 X 3.2 4.2

Climate 1 3.3.2 4.1.3 & 4.2.3 X 3.3 4.3

Water 

Resources 3.4 4.1.4 & 4.2.4 X 3.4 4.4

Soils 3.5 4.1.5 & 4.2.5 X 3.5 4.5

Vegetation 3.6 4.1.6 & 4.2.6 X 3.6 4.6

Wildlife 3.7 4.1.7 & 4.2.7 X 3.7 4.7

Threatened or 

Endangered 

Species and 

Special Status 

Species

3.8 4.1.8 & 4.2.8 X 3.8 4.8

Ownership and 

Use of Land 3.9 4.1.9 & 4.2.9 X

Cultural 

Resources 3.1 4.1.10 & 4.2.10 X 3.9 4.9

Visual 

Resources 3.11 4.1.11 & 4.2.11 X 3.13 4.13

Noise and 

Vibration 2

3.12 4.1.12 & 4.2.12 X 3.10 4.10

Transportation 

Facilities 3

3.13 4.1.13 & 4.2.13 X 3.1 4.1

Hazardous and 

Solid Waste 3.14 4.1.14 & 4.2.14 X

SocioEconomics 3.15 4.1.15 & 4.2.15 X 3.11 4.11

Environmental 

Justice 3

3.16 4.1.16 & 4.2.16 X 3.12 4.12

(1) Current EA addresses coal transport and combustion.

(2) Current EA includes noise and vibration related to rail transportation.

(3) Current EA includes rail transportation.

1.7 Consultation and Coordination

A description of consultation and coordination conducted during preparation of this EA is 

provided in Appendix H. The appendix also includes a list of preparers and contributors and 

information regarding distribution of the EA.
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 9

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Under NEPA requirements, the agency must evaluate the environmental impacts of a 

reasonable range of alternatives that meet the project purpose and need. The DOI’s NEPA 

regulations and CEQ’s NEPA guidance define reasonable alternatives as those that are 

“technically and economically practical or feasible and meet the purpose and need of the 

proposed action” (43 CFR § 46.420). 

The Proposed Action and No Action Alternative analyzed in this EA are consistent with the 

Proposed Action and No Action Alternative analyzed by the BLM Coal Lease EA (2011), but 

they have been updated to reflect the following factors:

• Onsite mining and related activities conducted since the BLM Coal Lease EA was 

prepared have changed the existing environmental condition; 

• Since the BLM Coal Lease EA was prepared, revisions to the State-approved Mine

permit have been approved by MDEQ as proposed by SPE;

• The State-approved Mine permit now includes the entire area previously identified as 

the unpermitted “Life of Mine” (LOM) in the BLM Coal Lease EA;

• The status of mining has been updated to reflect mining since the BLM Coal Lease EA

was prepared, through December 31, 2016;

• The mining schedule is updated to reflect the anticipated mining schedule beginning 

January 1, 2017; and,

• Information pertaining to coal sales, loadout, transport, and combustion are included.

The Proposed Action and No Action Alternative reflect continuation of existing mining. 

Descriptions of both alternatives follow the description of the existing conditions (i.e., recent 

and ongoing Mine activities) in the following sections. Alternatives considered and dismissed are 

discussed at the end of this chapter. The descriptions herein are consistent with the PAP (SPE 

2017a) and are supported by supplemental information provided by SPE (2017b, 2017c, 2018a, 

2018b).

2.1 Existing Condition

The BLM Coal Lease EA Section 2.1 presented a thorough description of the existing condition 

to support the analysis presented therein and is incorporated by reference. The BLM Coal 

Lease EA is available to the public at: 

https://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/bullMountainsMine.shtm#documents. 

The following updates to the existing condition, including permitted ongoing mining operations, 

are the most notable since the BLM Coal Lease EA was prepared and are presented to support 

the analysis in this EA. Unless otherwise noted, this description reflects conditions as of January 

1, 2017 and is consistent with the 2016 annual mine report (i.e., report period ending 

December 31, 2016).
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 10

2.1.1 Mining Plan and Mining Operations

Underground mining and reclamation activities have continued at the Mine since the BLM Coal 

Lease EA was prepared and Federal coal lease MTM 97988 was granted. The current 

underground mine plan (Appendix A, Figure 1.0-2) identifies the area mined through 

December 31, 2016.1 As a result of two amendments and several incidental boundary changes, 

the permit area includes 14,916 acres, which is not substantially different than the LOM area 

analyzed in the BLM Coal Lease EA. The existing Federal mining plan associated with coal lease 

MTM 97988 allows mining of 140 acres containing 0.9 million tons (Mt) of Federal coal. As of 

October 2017, MDEQ holds $15.7 million in a reclamation bond payable to both the State of 

Montana and the United States.

SPE currently employs 260 people and estimates that 2017 production was approximately 6.2

Mt of saleable coal. In future years, SPE is capable of producing up to 10 million tons per year 

(Mtpy) of saleable coal, but it is not known if the maximum rate of production will be achieved.

All mined tons must be ‘washed’ in a coal processing facility. Saleable tons (i.e., shipped tons) 

have consistently represented 70 percent of mined tons (i.e., raw tons). The remaining 30 

percent is coal processing waste rock (CPW) that is transferred to the existing waste disposal 

area (here after WDA #1). While the Montana Air Quality Permit (MAQP #3179-12; MDEQ 

2016b) authorizes mining up to 15 Mtpy of raw coal, SPE is only capable of mining 14.3 Mtpy of 

raw coal, which at the 70 percent recovery, yields 10.0 Mtpy of saleable coal. This production 

rate has not yet been achieved at the Mine. All royalties are paid based on saleable tons. Total 

saleable coal production for the past five years is provided in Table 2.1.1.

Table 2.1-1. Annual saleable coal production.

Year Saleable Coal

(Millions of Tons)

2012 5.72

2013 7.50

2014 8.03

2015 6.49

2016 5.96

2017 6.2 (estimate)

Source: SPE 2018a

Approximately 109.7 Mt of saleable coal remain in the Mining Plan Area after December 31, 

2016. SPE continues to mine using the longwall and room-and-pillar mining methods described 

in the BLM Coal Lease EA.

2.1.2 Surface Facilities Area

The majority of the surface activities related to underground mining occur within the Surface 

Facilities Area (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-1). The Surface Facilities Area encompasses 553 

acres of existing disturbance and includes the mine portals, run of mine (i.e., raw) and clean coal 

 

1 The most recent annual reporting data available at the time this analysis was prepared reflect conditions through December 

31, 2016. Although more recent information was available for some resources, data was not consistently available across 

aspects of mining. Data current as of December 31, 2016 provide a snapshot for consistent representation of the existing 

condition.
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 11

stockpiles, coal processing facilities, coal loadout facility and railroad loop, WDA #1, mine shop 

and offices, associated surface water control facilities, and other associated facilities.

Waste Disposal Areas

Waste disposal operations are conducted as described in the BLM Coal Lease EA except for 

minor changes in waste handling. In 2010, SPE revised the State-approved Mine permit and 

received a beneficial use determination to allow for addition of fly ash (received from 

Yellowstone Energy) to accelerate drying of the CPW. MDEQ reviewed a chemical analysis of 

representative fly ash and concluded that the addition of ash to the CPW would not pose a risk 

to surface water, groundwater, or other environmental conditions. The addition of a 

dewatering plate press for fine CPW material has substantially reduced the use of fly ash in 

WDA #1 since those new facilities became operational in 2015.

WDA #1 has a total capacity of 44 Mt. In 2017, MDEQ approved WDA #2 which is permitted 

to be constructed southeast of WDA #1 and across Fattig Creek Road. WDA #2 would have a 

capacity of 24.5 Mt. The combined permitted capacity of WDA #1 and WDA #2 would be

sufficient to store coal waste from the permitted LOM operations. 

Coal storage

In 2014, SPE submitted an application to the MDEQ Coal Program and MDEQ Air Program to 

expand coal Stockpile 1A east of the Mine office and north of Fattig Creek Road (Appendix A, 

Figure 2.1-1, easternmost coal stockpile). The MAQP (MDEQ 2016b) was revised to address 

emissions associated with this stockpile in October 2014.

Mine Ventilation Fan

One fan is currently installed in the Surface Facilities Area over the East Mains and just north of 

Longwall Panel 4. This fan operates continuously to ventilate the underground mine. The fan is 

installed on a large borehole pad; such pads are discussed in Section 2.1.3.

2.1.3 Other Surface Facilities

Since 2011, SPE has added several facilities not contemplated at the time the BLM Coal Lease 

EA was prepared. The most notable facilities are identified in this section, all of which are 

subject to the requirements of the State-approved Mine permit (C1993017) (SPE 2017a) which 

specifies environmental protection measures and reclamation requirements. A total of 51 acres 

were disturbed through 2016 in association with these surface facilities outside the Surface 

Facilities Area. 

Air Portal

This supplemental support facility consists of a highwall, pad, and a portal constructed at the 

south end of Panel 3. This mine entry provides critical ventilation to the underground workings 

(Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2). Although the air portal may be used for infrequent access to the 

underground mine or delivery of equipment and supplies, it does not serve as a primary entry 

to the underground mine. Delivery of equipment and supplies through the air portal rarely 

occurs. 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 12

Borehole Pads

Borehole Pads are necessary at various locations above the mine entries to provide surface 

support to underground operations. In Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2, pads are located at end of 

linear disturbances overlying the underground mine plan area. These facilities consist of one or 

multiple boreholes (borehole types described below) from the surface into the mine entries. 

Construction of these pads provides laydown areas for equipment and materials. Typical 

equipment may include mine pickups, forklift, pumps, trash bins, portable toilets, high pressure 

air compressors, electrical distribution and related equipment, generators, bulk rock dust bins, 

pallets of bagged materials, and other necessary support material(s). Surface installations may 

include semi-permanent (concrete) foundations for high capacity air compressors, electrical 

sub-stations, storage hoppers and batch systems, fuel storage, and other necessary equipment.

All borehole pads in use for extended time periods have detailed designs in the State-approved 

mine permit. Terminals and pads are reclaimed when no longer needed. 

Boreholes

Three types of boreholes are typically used to support underground workings; (1) emergency 

breathable air boreholes, (2) utility boreholes, and (3) mitigation boreholes. Each type is 

described in more detail below (not shown on figures). All boreholes are installed with casing 

as required to control surface water and groundwater inflow. All boreholes include caps when 

not actively injecting or supplying materials into underground workings. When the boreholes 

are no longer needed, SPE abandons each according to applicable regulations and procedures. 

• Emergency Breathable Air Boreholes have been constructed at the direction of the 

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) to provide breathable air to 

underground workings. Breathable air boreholes are typically not required by MSHA 

when other rescue equipment such as rescue chambers are provided at specific 

underground locations. 

• Utility Boreholes are constructed to provide surface access to the underground 

workings. This access may include injection or supply of pumpable cribbing material, 

rock dust, communications, electricity, neet oil, concrete, compressed air, or other 

material or equipment essential to on-going operations. Typically, Utility Boreholes are 

approved as part of the construction of a Borehole Pad. 

• Mitigation Boreholes are constructed to maintain compliance with MSHA ventilation 

and/or roof control plans, or other site-specific MSHA plans. Mitigation boreholes may 

be constructed for injection of nitrogen or other inert gas, breathable air or concrete. 

Mitigation boreholes may also include MSHA-directed boreholes for monitoring 

underground conditions with testing equipment such as air sampling equipment or 

thermal cameras. These boreholes typically require a developed pad. 

Powerlines

Powerlines are currently installed in the Surface Facilities Area and extend to a borehole pad at 

the north end of Panel 6 (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-1).
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 13

Roads

A combination of secondary and tertiary roads are constructed in the Mine permit area

(Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2). Secondary roads (typically 20-foot lane width) are used for 

access to mine facilities such as the train loadout, conveyors, substations, well pads, and major 

borehole pads. SPE salvages and stores in stockpiles a minimum of 6 inches of the first lift soil, 

where available, during construction of secondary roads outside the Surface Facilities Area 

(Appendix A, Figure 2.1-1). Tertiary roads (typically 15-foot-wide lane width) are used 

infrequently in the Surface Facilities Area and for temporary activities elsewhere in the permit 

area, such as installing boreholes, emergency surface support facilities, or reclamation activities. 

Tertiary roads outside the Surface Facilities Area are temporary. SPE salvages soil by 

windrowing or storing a minimum of 6 inches of the first lift soil where available. Dust 

suppressants (e.g., water) are applied to all active roadways and parking areas to control dust 

emissions, as necessary.

Borehole pads, boreholes, associated roads and other small surface support facilities are 

required with the development of longwall panels. Traffic to the general location of these large 

borehole pads or other surface support facilities normally use secondary roads. Tertiary roads 

branch off from secondary roads to actual boreholes and surface support facilities. If boreholes 

can be safely constructed by driving on existing ground, then tertiary roads are not 

constructed. 

As mining of Panel 2 began, ventilation and roof control concerns required unanticipated 

surface disturbances at the southern end of the Panel. In addition to the normal disturbances 

associated with subsidence crack repair, borehole pads and large laydown areas were 

constructed for injection of inert gas into the longwall gob. Since completion of Panel 2, SPE has 

revised its mine roof control and mine ventilation plans to minimize the likelihood of future 

disturbances associated with inert gas injections. As a result, Panels 3, 4, and 5 did not require 

similar surface disturbances. While SPE anticipates no future surface disturbances similar to 

those that were created at the southern end of Panel 2, a secondary road from Old Divide 

Road to the southern portion of the permit area (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2, labeled “South 

Dunn Mtn Access Rd”) was permitted to support surface activities related to potential 

subsidence repair and borehole installations. This road may be extended eastward along the 

southern portion of the Mining Plan Area if necessary. For purposes of this EA, the road 

extension is not analyzed because it is not considered reasonably foreseeable and would be 

subject to additional review by MDEQ if proposed in the future.

2.1.4 Subsidence and Associated Surface Repairs

Within the areas planned for longwall mining, the overburden is greater than 200 feet thick and 

varies based on the Mammoth coal structure and surface topography (SPE 2017a, Map 304(6)-

3). In proposed mining areas of the Federal coal lease, overburden thickness ranges from 

approximately 200 feet (Sections 4 and 8) to 800 feet (Section 22). Surface monitoring indicates 

that subsidence is occurring as predicted and described in the State-approved Mine permit and 

BLM Coal Lease EA. The maximum elevation changes in Longwall Panels 1 through 5 ranged 

from 8 to 9 feet, with most areas subsiding less than 6 feet. The angle of draw is less than 

previously estimated and typically does not extend beyond the panel width; reducing the area of 

subsidence relative to that considered in the BLM Coal Lease EA. 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 14

Subsidence features generally include minor surface cracks (typically less than 6 inches in width) 

that do not require repair, but subsidence features requiring mitigation do occur. Subsidence 

mitigation efforts completed since longwall mining began in December 2009 are concentrated in 

areas of steep slopes (surface gradient exceeding 60 percent), in areas over the start or finish of 

a longwall panel, and in areas of shallow cover. The largest subsidence features to date have 

occurred at the south ends of Panels 4 and 5 (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2). Features at these 

locations were not only located over the start line of the longwall panel but also in areas of 

steep slopes. These features were successfully repaired and reclaimed within 3 months. 

While subsidence features were smaller at the south end of Panel 2 (relative to Panels 4 and 5), 

more surface disturbance was required in association with crack sealing to improve air quality 

in the underground mine as required by MSHA. The ventilation system has been changed to 

address mine safety concerns and avoid the need for future crack sealing.

Subsidence repair activities conducted by SPE were necessary on 14 acres of the total 3,533 

acres of surface area over the first five longwall panels (see Table 2.2-1 later in this chapter). 

Efforts completed to date are compliant with regulations pertaining to subsidence control (i.e., 

ARM 17.24.911). Over 99 percent2of the subsided land area required no mitigation. SPE has 

also entered into private agreements with landowners about surface access and repair activities. 

To date, subsidence features resulting from mining have been reclaimed as necessary to 

eliminate hazards and restore the pre-mining land use. Where disturbance necessary for repair 

exceeds the disruption due to the feature, no repairs are made unless the features are 

inconsistent with State regulations pertaining to subsidence control (ARM 17.24.911). If 

subsidence features substantially disrupt surface or groundwater hydrologic balance, those 

impacts are mitigated using methods described in the permit. Similarly, if subsidence features 

such as cracks concentrate flow and lead to excessive erosion, they are corrected in 

accordance with the State-approved Mine permit and applicable regulations. Although some 

minor cracks have been repaired (e.g., overlying Panels 3 and 4), due to the disturbance 

necessary for repair, minor surface cracks (generally less than 6 inches in width) or cracks on 

slopes greater than 20 percent are not typically repaired unless directed by MDEQ. 

Where repairs are undertaken, the method varies according to the specific feature and specific 

site condition. In general, topsoil is salvaged and replaced where possible or steps are taken to 

avoid displacement or loss of topsoil into the crack. Cracks of sufficient width and length upgradient of a drainage path are repaired to prevent excess loss of topsoil into the crack. Heavy 

equipment is required for most repairs. The method of repair and type of equipment used are 

selected to minimize damage to the land caused by access routes, material storage, or incidental 

activities.

Repair of cracks generally does not begin until mining of the next adjacent panel is complete to 

ensure full subsidence has occurred and allow time for cracks to revert back to pre-subsidence 

condition without intrusive repair. Exceptions include situations where repair is needed to 

facilitate mining or where delaying the repair has the potential to exacerbate erosion or 

negatively affect water resources. To the extent possible, before extensive surface disruption, 

 

2

14 acres of subsidence repairs divided by 3,533 mined = 0.3%
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 15

MDEQ and SPE conduct a survey of the surface above the panel to be repaired to establish 

agreement on which features are to be repaired and the methods to be used.

2.1.5 Hydrological Impacts and Mitigation

SPE continues to monitor wells, springs, ponds, and streams to identify potential impacts as 

described in the State-approved Mine permit (SPE 2017a, Appendices 314-3, 314-4). If the 

beneficial use of the water right is adversely impacted, SPE is required to mitigate those impacts 

(SPE 2017a, Appendix 313-2). Mitigation may be temporary, interim, or permanent, depending 

on type of impact. Permanent mitigation, if necessary, could include installation of replacement 

water sources. In addition to money bonded for temporary and interim mitigation, the bond 

also includes a $250,000 “trust fund” (SPE 2017a, Appendix 313-1, page 313-1-42) to cover 

potential long-term costs associated with maintenance and operation of any necessary water 

replacement facilities. Although this trust fund is included as part of the bond, the amount 

would not be “released back to [SPE] upon mine shutdown, but [would] instead perpetually 

exist for benefit of impacted surface owners(s)”. Through December 31, 2017, after eight years 

of longwall mining, mitigation has only been necessary for one spring. SPE has proposed a sitespecific mitigation plan for Spring 17145, which ceased flowing after being undermined in 2013 

and again in 2014. The plan is currently under review by MDEQ (hydrology is discussed further 

in Section 3.4 and Appendix E).

2.1.6 Mining-Related Stipulations and Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures incorporated as State-approved Mine permit conditions were summarized 

in the BLM Coal Lease EA (see Section 2.1.3) and further discussed in the context of resourcespecific impacts (see Chapter 4). Additional coal lease stipulations pertaining to cultural 

resources, paleontological resources, public land survey monument protection, resource 

recovery and protection, and multiple mineral development were also presented in the BLM 

Coal Lease EA (see Chapter 4). The mitigation measures and stipulations presented in the 

BLM Coal Lease EA remain in effect. Mitigation measures necessary to supplement previously 

identified measures are discussed in association with anticipated impacts in Chapter 4 of this 

EA. 

2.1.7 Coal Loadout

Coal is loaded on trains owned and operated by BNSF Railway (BNSF) at the mine tipple in the 

Surface Facilities Area. Trains typically have 125 cars with a total train capacity of 15,250 tons of 

saleable coal. This equates to approximately 1.1 loaded trains per day for the 5.96 Mt shipped in 

2016. Based on the annual production rates (Table 2.1-1), average loaded trains per day in the 

past five years ranged from a low of approximately 1.0 in 2012 to a high of 1.4 in 2014, equating 

to between 2.0 and 2.8 trains for round-trip travel (empty and full).

As part of the coal loadout process, SPE profiles (i.e., shapes) loaded coal to improve 

aerodynamics and then applies a biodegradable in-transit dust suppressant agent (i.e., topper 

agent) to loaded coal cars to reduce coal dust emissions during transport. Profiling and 

application of the suppressant agent are coal dust mitigation requirements imposed by BNSF 

(2015a, 2017b) to reduce coal dust emissions. These measures are expected to continue for 

the LOM.
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 16

The tipple and rail loop are within the Mine permit boundary. After loading coal on trains, the 

coal and rail operations are no longer subject to the control of SPE and are outside of OSMRE’s 

jurisdiction. Rail transport is further discussed in Section 3.1.

2.1.8 Coal Destinations

Coal sales are typically spot sales or short-term contracts rather than long-term contracts. 

Over the last 3 years, and for the foreseeable future, the vast majority of coal was and will be 

shipped to overseas destinations. Over 96 percent of SPE shipments are expected to be sent 

overseas, mainly to electric power generation facilities in Japan and the Republic of Korea 

(ROK). No more than 4 percent of shipped coal is expected to be used domestically. Historic 

locations for domestic locations are shown in Table 2.1-2. Domestic locations for future 

shipments are unknown at this time, and it would be too speculative to complete any further 

analysis due to changes in coal market conditions.

Table 2.1-2. Domestic coal sales (tons) between 2012 and 2016.

U.S. Power Plant Destination 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

FirstEnergy East Lake (Ohio) 207,371 -- -- -- --

FirstEnergy Lake Shore (Ohio) 13,538 -- -- -- --

Valley (Wisconsin) 384,458 -- 246,445 -- --

Alma (Wisconsin) -- 30,136 -- -- --

TES Filer City Station (Michigan) -- -- 64,300 155,224 144,402

Source: USEIA2017a

Notes: The U.S. coal data are collected and prepared for release by the Office of Oil, Gas, and Coal Supply 

Statistics, US Energy Information Administration (USEIA). The data are compiled from the following EIA 

survey source: Form EIA-923, "Power Plant Operations Report" and the US Department of Labor, Mine 

Safety and Health Administration, Form 7000-2, "Quarterly Mine Employment and Coal Production 

Report." Data for the most current time periods 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. Normally, all data are final by the fall following the data collection year. For example, 

data for 2012 should be final by the fall of 2013.

Coal exports to Japan and the ROK are shipped through Westshore Terminal (Westshore), 

which is part of the Roberts Bank port at Port Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 

After leaving the Mine permit boundary, coal is first hauled southwest along a 30-mile rail spur

(Class III short line)3(MDT 2017) to Broadview, Montana. At Broadview, the rail joins a Class I 

railroad4(MDT 2017) between the cities of Laurel and Great Falls, Montana and is thereby 

connected to the railway system with alternative routes that may be used in response to 

weather, maintenance issues, or other factors (BNSF 2017a). Most coal transported to 

Westshore is expected to be hauled along BNSF’s Main Line5(identified as “Main Coal Line” in 

BNSF 2013), a Class I railroad the nearest segment of which is at Laurel, Montana, 

approximately 27 miles southwest (33 miles by rail) of Broadview (Appendix A, Figure 1.0-

1). The Main Line between Laurel and Westshore traverses Montana, Idaho, Washington, and 

 

3

Short Line railroads operate over a relative short distance relative to larger, national railroad networks. 

4 The railroad at Broadview is a Class I railroad connecting Great Falls to Laurel, Montana and would be 

considered a “main line”, but, for purposes of this analysis, the term “Main Line” is reserved for the “Main Coal 

Line”.

5 The Main Line joined at Laurel is a Class I railroad identified as the Main Line for Coal Transport by BNSF (2015).
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 17

British Columbia (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-3). In total, the rail transport route between the 

Mine and Westshore Terminal is estimated to be 1,390 miles one-way. 

At Westshore, coal is loaded onto ocean-going vessels for overseas transport to ports in the 

ROK and Japan. The average ocean transport distance between Westshore and possible coal 

ports in the ROK and Japan is estimated to be approximately 5,300 miles (4,600 nautical miles)

one-way (MarineTraffic 2017). Specific customers, combustion locations/facilities, and ports 

used are not known and would be too speculative to analyze further.

2.2 Description of Alternatives

A description of the alternatives analyzed by this EA are included in this section and 

summarized in Table 2.2-1, with reference to the existing condition. Features identified in the 

description of each alternative are shown on the Mining Plan Map (Appendix A, Figure 1.0-

2), Facilities Area Map (Figure 2.1-1), and Surface Disturbance Map (Figure 2.1-2).

2.2.1 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed mining plan modification would not be 

approved by the ASLM, and 1,725.0 acres of Federal coal lands, 28.5 Mt of saleable Federal coal 

and 58.3 Mt of saleable private and State coal would not be mined. The mining term would be 

shortened approximately 9 years relative to the Proposed Action (Table 2.2-1).

SPE would continue to mine approximately 2.5 years (from 2017 to mid-2019) to recover the 

22.9 Mt of saleable coal remaining within the permit area that is economically recoverable 

without accessing the additional 1,725.0 acres of Federal coal. Longwall mining would end at the 

north end of Panel 7; where Panel 7 intersects the southern boundary of Section 8 (Appendix 

A, Figure 1.0-2). Mining rates would vary from year to year but would be up to 10 Mtpy of

saleable coal. The presence of Federal coal would prevent completion of mining in Panel 7. At 

the estimated recovery ratio of 70 percent, 6.9 Mt of CPW would be generated and deposited 

in WDA #1. The remaining capacity of WDA #1 is adequate to contain all waste generated 

under the No Action Alternative.

Under the No Action Alternative, SPE would conduct development work in the Federal coal 

located in Section 8 (Appendix A, Figure 1.0-2), as allowed by the October 31, 2017 and 

November 3, 2017, US District Court Orders (see Section 1.0) The amount of Federal coal 

displaced by the development work in Section 8 would not exceed 170,000 tons, and any 

Federal coal mined would be stockpiled and stored at the Mine and would be neither sold nor 

shipped. If the Proposed Action is not implemented as discussed in Section 2.2.2, stockpiled 

coal would likely be put back in the mine during reclamation.

Mining and associated operations under the No Action Alternative would disturb an estimated 

73 additional acres in association with surface facilities and subsidence repairs (Table 2.2-1). 

Subsidence features and associated repairs would not be as extensive as those at the end of 

Panels 4 and 5 and are expected to be similar to Panel 6 because the longwall panel start lines 

would not be located in areas of steep slopes. Preliminary locations of boreholes and associated 

pads are within the Mine permit area (as reflected in Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2), but the 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 18

actual locations would depend on site conditions and would be subject to change. Surface 

disturbances would also be subject to existing access agreements with surface owners. 

Final locations of all future boreholes and associated pads and roads would be permitted as a 

revision to the State-approved Mine permit. Since the Borehole Pads were originally permitted, 

changes to underground procedures (i.e., pumpable cribs are no longer used) have eliminated 

the need for the mid-panel large borehole pads and their associated access roads. It is 

anticipated that future mid-panel pads would not be constructed, but they would remain 

permitted and bonded so that they may be constructed if needed (SPE 2018a).

New powerlines would originate along existing transmission routes and connect to borehole 

facilities. SPE anticipates that very few boreholes would require power; therefore, few new 

powerlines would be constructed. However, a new powerline is anticipated along the north 

end of the mine panels to provide power to several borehole pads over the mine workings in 

the East Mains. A new ventilation fan may be constructed on one of these pads and a potential 

location is shown in Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2. Associated powerline locations have not 

been identified. Any additional powerlines or surface disturbance activities would be subject to 

review by MDEQ as part of the Mine permit.

Under the No Action Alternative, another air portal with similar function is planned for the 

south end of Panel 7 (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2) to replace the existing air portal at the 

south end of Panel 3 (see Section 2.1.3 above). This new air portal would be constructed in 

early 2018 following approval by MDEQ. The associated State permit revision materials have 

been submitted to MDEQ (minor revision 247) and include a revision to the Mine permit 

boundary to include approximately 20 additional acres. After Panel 6 is mined out in 2018, the 

existing air portal and associated facilities would be reclaimed in accordance with the Mine 

permit.

At the conclusion of mining, Mine facilities would be removed and all surface disturbances 

would be reclaimed in accordance with the Mine permit (SPE 2017a). Reclamation is estimated 

to take approximately 16 months after the end of mining (SPE 2017a, Figure 313-1).

2.2.2 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would authorize SPE to continue coal mining on approximately 1,835 

acres of Federal coal lands in the Mining Plan Area. Mining would continue for approximately 9 

additional years beyond the No Action Alternative (until mid-2028). Relative to the No Action 

Alternative, an additional 86.8 Mt of saleable coal would be produced, including 28.5 Mt of 

saleable Federal coal. Mining and associated operations are projected to disturb 401 more acres 

as compared to the No Action Alternative, associated with surface facilities and subsidence 

repairs (Table 2.2-1). The Proposed Action would not result in an increase in annual 

production, only an increase in the number of years production would continue within the Mine

permit area. In connection with Federal coal mining, SPE would continue to mine adjacent 

private and State coal. Mining rates would vary from year to year, but would be up to 10 Mtpy 

of saleable coal and would average approximately 9.6 Mtpy of saleable coal from 2017 to 2028. 

Although there are no existing sales contracts in place, SPE expects that nearly all coal would 

continue to be sold to customers in the ROK and Japan. 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 19

Table 2.2-1. Comparative Summary of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Relative to 

the Existing Condition

Condition Evaluated Units Existing

Condition1

Additional2

Under No 

Action3

Additional2

Under 

Proposed 

Action

Difference

Saleable coal to be mined Mt2 22.9 109.7 86.8

Saleable Federal coal to be mined Mt2 1.7 30.2 28.5

Federal coal lands in the Mining 

Plan Area acres 140 2679.76 2539.76

Federal coal lands to be mined acres 110 1,835 1,725.0

Remaining mining term years 2.5 11.5 9

Annual Mine Production 

(maximum) Mt 10 10 same

Annual Average Coal shipment 

(maximum)

loaded 

trains per 

day

1.8 1.8 same

Surface Facilities Area acres 553 21 337 316

Air Portals acres 5 1 1 0

Subsidence Repairs4acres 14 5.6 25.2 19.6

Total Subsidence Area acres 3,533 1,400 6,296 4,896

Borehole Pads number 19 15 39 24

acres 21 17 50.8 33.8

Roads

(Outside of Facilities Area)

miles 6.9 7.6 16.5 8.9

acres525 28 60 32

Total Disturbance6acres 618 73 474 401

(1) Existing condition as of January 1, 2017. Estimates related to future mining tons and acres do not include a comparison 

of tons or acres mined to date.

(2) Estimated quantities after January 1, 2017. Saleable tones are 70 percent of mined tons.

(3) Saleable Federal coal to be mined (tons) and Federal coal lands to be mined (acres) under the No Action Alternative 

do not include mining of raw coal from Section 8 as allowed by the October 31, 2017 US District Court Order as that 

coal would not be sold under the No Action Alternative.

(4) 14 Acres Repair in first 3,533 Acres Subsidence Area so used 0.004 acres Subsidence Repair per acre of Subsidence 

Area to estimate.

(5) 25 Acres in first 6.9 miles of road equates to approximately 3.7 acres per mile (nearly 31 ft average width). These 

values were used to estimate the additional acreages for future roads. 

(6) Total disturbance may not precisely match the total of component values due to rounding of acreage values.

Waste Disposal

Approximately 32.9 Mt of additional CPW would be generated as a result of the Proposed 

Action, relative to the No Action Alternative. The additional volume of CPW would require 

construction of WDA #2 encompassing approximately 287 acres south and east of Fattig Creek 

Road in the Surface Facilities Area (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-1). Although WDA #2 is 

currently approved in the Mine permit (SPE 2017a), it would only be constructed if the 

Proposed Action is undertaken.

As approved, WDA #2 would be constructed, operated, and reclaimed in a manner comparable 

to existing WDA #1. Surface water control facilities would be constructed and soil and other 

suitable cover materials would be stockpiled before placing CPW. CPW would be transferred 

from the coal processing facilities via conveyor over Fattig Creek Road where it would be 

handled in the same manner as WDA #1. Equipment would access WDA #2 from WDA #1 via 

a private at-grade crossing of Fattig Creek Road. CPW would eventually fill the basin in which 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 20

WDA #2 is constructed and fly ash (received from Yellowstone Energy) would be used to 

accelerate drying of the CPW. Dust suppressants would be applied to WDA #2 to control dust 

emissions, as necessary. At the conclusion of mining, WDA #2 would be covered with 

stockpiled soil and cover material and associated disturbances would be reclaimed to a 

combination of grazing land, wildlife habitat, and pastureland consistent with pre-mine land uses.

Other Facilities and Disturbances

Relative to the No Action Alternative, an estimated 24 additional borehole pads and 8.9 miles 

of roads may be constructed (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2), resulting in an estimated 66 acres 

of additional disturbance. 

Preliminary locations of boreholes and associated pads and access roads (Appendix A, Figure

2.1-2) are identified in the Mine permit area, but the actual locations would depend on site 

conditions and surface access agreements and are subject to change. Borehole pad and road 

locations (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2) are preliminary. Consistent with the No Action 

Alternative, SPE anticipates that most of the pads and roads would not be necessary under the 

Proposed Action, potentially resulting in as little as 20 acres of disturbance associated with 

these features. All future boreholes and associated pads and roads would be permitted as a 

revision to the State-approved Mine permit.

As mining progresses to the east, a ventilation shaft and fan may be installed at a pad location 

above the East Mains. A possible fan location is shown in Section 8 on Figure 2.1-2, but the 

actual location may be different. Additional powerlines would likely be required to some of the 

borehole pads to power ventilation fans, but the locations of those powerlines are not known 

at this time. New powerlines would originate from existing powerlines and connect to 

borehole facilities. SPE anticipates that few boreholes would require power; therefore, few new 

lines would be constructed. However, a new powerline is anticipated along the north end of 

the mine panels to power a ventilation fan installed on one or two additional large borehole 

pads over the East Mains. Any additional powerlines or surface disturbance activities would be 

subject to review by MDEQ.

Relative to the No Action Alternative, approximately 19.6 additional acres are expected to be 

disturbed in association with subsidence repairs, the majority of which would occur near the 

panel ends. Subsidence features and associated repairs would not be as extensive as those at 

the end of Panels 4 and 5 as longwall panel start lines would not be located in areas of steep 

slopes.

Following mining, reclamation activities would be conducted in accordance with the Mine 

Permit and would take approximately 16 months (SPE 2017a, Figure 313-1).

2.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study

If an alternative is considered during the environmental analysis process, but the agency decides 

not to analyze the alternative in detail, the agency must identify those alternatives and briefly 

explain why they were eliminated from detailed analysis (40 C.F.R. § 1502.14). An alternative 

may be eliminated from detailed analysis if: 
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 21

• It is ineffective (does not respond to the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action); 

• It is technically or economically infeasible (considering whether implementation of the 

alternative is likely, given past and current practice and technology); 

• It is inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of the area (such 

as, not in conformance with the BLM’s Resource Management Plan); 

• Its implementation is remote or speculative; 

• It is substantially similar in design to an alternative that is analyzed; and/or, 

• It would result in substantially similar impacts to an alternative that is analyzed. 

Alternatives specific to this EA that were considered, but that are not analyzed in detail, are 

discussed below.

2.3.1 Subsurface Gas Control

Public comments received during the scoping period suggested an alternative that requires 

additional subsurface gas controls and mitigations. OSMRE has not brought forward this 

alternative for full analysis because methane content is only present at trace levels (near zero).

In contrast to many of the thicker coal seams of the Fort Union Formation in the Powder River 

Basin to the east and south, the Mammoth coal seam of the Bull Mountains has a relatively low 

content of coalbed methane. The underground workings in the Mammoth coal seam are 

monitored for methane to ensure mine safety. While trace readings of methane have been 

occasionally detected over the past two decades, the methane content has historically been 

zero (Ochsner 2014).

With historically only trace levels of methane in the coal seam, there is no development of 

coalbed methane as a marketable commodity in this area, and the Bull Mountains Mine has had 

no need to develop any methane drainage strategies for mine operations. The mine employs 

basic mine ventilation systems through the longwall operations and development entries. The 

principal function of the ventilation fans is to provide fresh air for safe mining operations, not to 

vent methane. These operations do not require the gob vents and methane drainage vents that 

are found at many underground coal mines in other regions. Based on this information, 

methane from the mine does not substantially contribute to GHG emissions.

2.3.2 Avoidance of Impacts to Surface Resources, Features, and Uses

Public scoping comments suggested that OSMRE should consider alternatives that would avoid 

mining under areas that are potentially of high impact to surface resources, features, or uses. 

MSUMRA (82-4-228, Montana Code Annotated (MCA)) and Montana’s regulations (ARM 

17.24.1141) contain provisions for designation of land unsuitable for coal mining. No such 

unsuitable lands are located in the Mine permit area as determined with the State program’s 

approval of the Mine permit (SPE 2017a, Volume 5, Section 1141). Additionally, neither 

significant or unique scenic and/or geologic features (ARM 17.24.304(c)) nor special, 

exceptional, critical, or unique characteristics (ARM 17.24.304(d)) are present in the Mine 

permit area (SPE 2017a, Addendum 1). 

The PAP contains an inventory of the Amendment 3 mining area and measures that would be 

employed to mitigate impacts, including reclamation techniques. Impacts and proposed 

mitigation measures are evaluated in the BLM Coal Lease EA and this EA, and no impacts were 

identified that would require mitigation beyond that described in the Mine permit. Mining to
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 22

date has not caused impacts to surface resources, features, or uses beyond those allowed by 

the Mine permit and MSUMRA. Therefore, this alternative was not brought forward for analysis 

because avoidance of certain areas would not reduce environmental impacts less than the 

Proposed Action. 

2.3.3 Alternative Land Uses 

Comments were submitted during the public scoping period asking OSMRE to consider 

alternative uses of the land and industries, besides mining, that would be environmentally and 

economically more stable and lead to economic diversification and transition in the region. 

Examples included a focus on renewable/clean energy development/activities, education and 

training, recreation and tourism, other non-fossil fuel sectors which could support economic 

diversification and transition. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it 

would be inconsistent with the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action and its 

implementation would be too remote and speculative (Section 1.2).

2.3.4 Conditioning Mining on Domestic Sale of Coal

Public comments were submitted during the comment period stating that OSMRE should 

consider conditioning mining on domestic sale of the coal to support domestic energy security. 

It is not OSMRE’s policy to direct or enforce where the coal produced from the Mine is sold 

and combusted. OSMRE analyzed the reasonably foreseeable coal destinations as outlined in 

Section 2.1.8. It would be highly speculative to make any predictions regarding domestic sales 

now or in the future due to changing coal market conditions. OSMRE analyzed the reasonably 

foreseeable destinations of the coal based on historic sales and information provided from 

Operator regarding potential future sales under the Proposed Action Alternative.

2.3.5 Carbon Offsets

Public comments were submitted suggesting that OSMRE should analyze an alternative that 

requires SPE to purchase carbon offsets in order to limit the direct, cumulative, and connected 

climate impacts of its mining operation. The creation of carbon offset markets or opportunities 

for carbon offset projects is beyond the scope of the EA and is not currently an OSMRE policy. 

Cap and trade legislation—the premise for carbon credits-- should be developed at the 

National or State level. This policy development is not appropriate at the project level. The 

federal agencies are not involved in any financial investment decisions that SPE makes as a 

corporation. Since no cap has been established, there is no need to require purchase of carbon 

credits as mitigation measure for this leasing analysis. This is outside the scope of the project 

because we are not setting policy for coal production in the United States.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 23

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This chapter discusses the existing conditions of the physical, biological, cultural, and human 

resources that could be affected by implementation of the Proposed Action and No Action 

Alternative described in Chapter 2 as they relate to the approval of the Federal mining plan 

modification for the Bull Mountains Mine No. 1. Aspects of the affected environment described 

in this chapter relate to the issues presented in Chapter 1. Elements of the environment 

specified by statute, regulation, EO or the Standards for Public Land Health are described and 

analyzed in this section except where the BLM Coal Lease EA previously concluded they were 

not present. 

Where baseline information pertaining to the Mine and presented in the BLM Coal Lease EA

has not substantively changed it is incorporated by reference; a crosswalk between the BLM 

Coal Lease EA and this EA is presented in Table 1.4-1. More recent information pertaining to 

the baseline and existing condition at the Mine is presented in this chapter, where available, 

along with baseline data supporting analysis of coal transport and combustion which occur 

indirectly as a result of mining. Unless otherwise noted, the baseline condition described in the 

BLM Coal Lease EA (Appendix A) has not substantively changed, no new data are available, or 

the condition has only been minimally affected as a result of current mining operations and 

further presentation of information would not affect the decision-making process.

3.1 Transportation & Electrical Transmission

3.1.1 Vehicle Transportation

As discussed in the BLM Coal Lease EA, the Mine is accessed from public roads including US 

Highway 87, Old Divide Road, and Fattig Creek Road (Appendix A, Figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-

2). Mine employees travelling to work and other Mine-related traffic use these roads. Portions 

of the Mine permit area away from public roads are accessed via existing ranch trails and Mine 

roads (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2). Mine roads recently constructed within the permit 

boundary are discussed in Section 2.1.3. 

Level of service (LOS) is a term used to qualitatively describe the operating conditions of a 

roadway based on factors such as speed, travel time, maneuverability, delay, and safety. LOS is 

designated with a letter, A to F, with A representing the best operating conditions (free flowing 

traffic) and F the worst (completely congested) (Highway Capacity Manual in San Mateo County 

2013, Table 3-1). Highway 87 between Billings and Roundup is a two-lane Principal Arterial 

highway, which would have a design capacity of 2,800 cars per hour (Highway Capacity Manual 

in San Mateo County 2005, page B-2) and a LOS target grade B (MDT 2016).

The highest annual average daily traffic (AADT) in the past 5 years at two daily count stations 

nearest to the Mine had rates equating to 120 cars per hour (MDT 2016). This equates to LOS 

Grade A (San Mateo County 2005, Table B-3); therefore, Highway 87 is judged to meet its 

target LOS. The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) redesigned and improved the 

intersection of Highway 87 and the southern terminus of Old Divide Road in 2015 to address a 

cluster of accidents at that location. No further upgrades or major maintenance projects are 

planned on Highway 87 (Nelson 2018).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 24

The AADT on Old Divide Road at the southern US Highway 87 intersection was estimated at 

239 vehicles per day in 2016 (MDT 2018), a large portion of which is expected to be Minerelated. Old Divide Road and Fattig Creek Road are classified as local roads and as such are not 

graded as to LOS. The Musselshell County Road Department judges the roads adequate to 

meet the traffic demands of residents and Mine employees, although they note that heavy 

equipment being hauled from Billings to the Mine have adversely impacted the road. In March 

2017, the County received a grant from the Montana Federal Lands Access Program to reseal 

and repave Old Divide Road from the northern to the southern intersection with Highway 87, 

as well as the segment of Fattig Creek Road from Old Divide Road to the Mine entrance 

(Kenner 2018). 

3.1.2 Electrical Transmission

Electricity is currently supplied to the Mine by existing overhead transmission lines. With the 

exception of electrical distribution lines in the Surface Facilities Area, most of which is 

associated with Mine-related facilities, no other electrical transmission lines are present in the 

Mine permit area. In the Mine vicinity, other distribution lines provide power to local 

residences and farmsteads, including most of the dwellings shown on Appendix A, Figure 

2.1-2.

3.1.3 Rail Transportation

Regulatory Environment

Railroads are regulated by two separate Federal agencies, each with their own responsibilities.

• Surface Transportation Board (STB) – STB is an independent adjudicatory and 

economic-regulatory agency charged by Congress with resolving railroad rate and 

service disputes and reviewing proposed railroad mergers. STB has jurisdiction over 

railroad rate and service issues and rail restructuring transactions (e.g., mergers, line 

sales, line construction, and line abandonments) and also has authority to investigate rail 

service matters of regional and national significance. STB regulations preempt State and 

local laws (e.g., noise ordinances) that would otherwise manage or govern rail 

transportation.

• Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) – As part of the US Department of 

Transportation (USDOT), FRA formulates and enforces rail safety regulations, 

administers rail funding, and researches rail improvement strategies and technologies. 

FRA also facilitates national and regional rail planning to maintain current services and 

infrastructure and also expand and improve the rail network. For example, the 

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 requires states to develop 

FRA-accepted State rail plans and encourages State involvement in rail policy, planning, 

and development. For the most part, all railroad operational procedures are subject to 

FRA regulations, including highway-railroad crossing signals, train speeds, train horn use, 

and track condition.

STB and FRA conduct reviews required by NEPA and consider environmental impacts before

making final decisions pertaining to actions under their jurisdiction. STB’s Office of 

Environmental Analysis is responsible for directing the environmental review process, 

conducting independent analysis of all environmental data, and making environmental 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 25

recommendations to the STB. STB's environmental rules are found at 49 CFR Part 1105. FRA 

conducts environmental reviews according to FRA's Environmental Procedures (FRA 1999).

In addition to the regulations administered by STB and FRA, railroad activities must comply 

with other Federal laws pertaining to environmental protection such as the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) and Clean Air Act (CAA) administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Coal Transport Routes and Rail Traffic

As discussed in Section 2.1.8, coal from the Mine is shipped to markets by railroad, beginning 

with the 30-mile Class III (MDT 2017) short line rail spur connecting the tipple in the Surface 

Facilities Area to the BNSF railroad at Broadview, Montana (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-3). 

Loaded and empty coal trains travelling to and from the Mine comprise all traffic on the rail 

spur (e.g., 2.1 trains round trip in 2016).

From Broadview, trains travel a Class I railroad (MDT 2017) to Laurel, Montana where they 

join the Main Line (“Main Coal Line” in BNSF 2013) at the Mossmain Junction (Appendix A, 

Figure 2.1-3). Train count data reported for a rail crossing (088439S) near Acton, Montana, 

midway on the Broadview to Laurel (Mossmain) segment, estimated 6 trains per 24-hour 

period in 2013 (USDOT 2016). Based on the production rates and train size presented in 

Section 2.1.7, round-trip rail traffic associated with the Mine averaged approximately 2.7

trains per day in 2013. This suggests that rail traffic excluding the Mine-related rail traffic was 

approximately three trains per day in 2013 and that Mine-related traffic in the past five years 

may comprise approximately half of traffic on that segment.

The Main Line between Laurel and Westshore Terminal traverses Montana, Idaho, Washington 

and enters British Columbia (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-3). Recent baseline traffic (average 

number of trains per day) estimates of train traffic on the US segments range from 14.5 (2012 

estimate for Mossmain Junction to Sandpoint, Idaho [STB 2015a]) trains per day to 70 (2015 

estimate for segments in Washington east of Spokane [Cowlitz County and WDOE 2017])

trains per day. The portion of existing rail traffic related to the Mine’s coal transport (2.1 trains 

per day in 2016) is highest from Laurel, Montana to Sandpoint, Idaho. Mine-related rail traffic on 

that segment is estimated to be less than 15 percent of all rail traffic. 

Rail segment utilization, the ratio of demand to available capacity, is a metric related to rail 

congestion where utilization near or over 100 percent may cause delays. Recent State rail plans 

report that utilization of Main Line segments in Montana (MDT 2010) and Washington 

(WSDOT 2014) is less than 100 percent. In Idaho, several segments with an estimated 48 trains 

per day in 2012 are above their 39 train capacity (ITD 2013). However, according to the Idaho 

Department of Transportation (2013), despite deficiencies, double-track segments in northern 

Idaho provide a “comfortable [level of service] under current conditions.” Coal from all 

sources is a substantial portion of statewide rail freight tonnage in all three states: 71 percent in 

Montana (MDT 2010), 14 percent in Idaho (ITD 2013) and 12 percent in Washington (WSDOT 

2014).

Montana, Idaho, and Washington rail plans analyze the current capacity of the lines in each state 

relative to forecasted conditions extended to 2035 or 2040, which is beyond the estimated 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 26

Mine life (i.e., 2028 under the Proposed Action). Rail plans project increased rail traffic and 

utilization on all Main Line segments. 

• Montana Main Line utilization will not exceed 100 percent by 2035 (MDT 2010).

• Idaho Main Line utilization in 2040 (ITD 2013):

o Montana border to Sandpoint (Ponderay) – 90 percent;

o Sandpoint to the Washington border – 270 percent.

• Washington Main Line utilization in 2035 (WSDOT 2014):

o Idaho border to Spokane – 150 percent utilization;

o Spokane to Pasco estimated – 170 percent utilization;

o Pasco to Vancouver – 140 percent utilization; and,

o Vancouver to US-Canada Border – most segments near 100 percent utilization.

Rail plans’ analyses are based on anticipated freight and passenger rail growth relative to 

capacity. The volume that can be accommodated depends not only on infrastructure, but also 

on the railroad’s scheduling strategy, use of technology (e.g., signal timing optimization and 

signal coordination to improve efficiency) and many other business decisions (WSDOT 2014). 

Projected volumes do not take into account productivity improvements that may be achieved 

with longer trains, or other strategies continuously explored by railroad operators to improve 

operations and throughput. “Because capacity is dynamic, it should not be used as a sole 

measure for decision making” (WSDOT 2014). In Washington and Idaho, it is anticipated the 

railroads and other infrastructure owners will address key capacity issues by implementing 

capacity and efficiency improvements (WSDOT 2014, ITD 2013). 

Coal Dust Effects on Railroads

Coal dust, a form of particulate matter, originates from loaded coal trains during transit. BNSF 

has conducted research since 2005 about the impacts of coal dust escaping from loaded coal 

cars on rail lines in the Powder River Basin (PRB). Results of these studies show that potential 

deposition of coal dust poses a threat to the stability of the track structure and the operational 

integrity of its lines in, and close to, the mines in the PRB (BNSF 2017b). 

In March 2011, STB confirmed that coal dust is a “particularly harmful contaminant” that can 

degrade the integrity of railroad ballast, which distributes the load from the rail ties (STB 2011). 

Coal dust can interfere with the normal drainage of the ballast, causing tracks to be less stable 

and potentially increasing the risk of train derailments on heavily used rail.

Item 100 of BNSF Price List 6041-B (BNSF 2015a, 2017c) contains BNSF's coal dust mitigation 

requirements; also known as the Coal Loading Rule. The current Coal Loading Rule has been in 

effect since October 2011 and requires all shippers loading coal at any Montana or Wyoming 

mine to take measures to load cars in such a way that ensures coal dust losses in transit are 

reduced by at least 85 percent compared to cars where no remedial measures have been taken. 

The Coal Loading Rule also has a "safe harbor" provision stating that a shipper will be deemed 

to be in compliance with BNSF's Coal Loading Rule if it loads cars in compliance with BNSF's 

published Load Profile Template and applies an approved in-transit dust suppressant agent to 

the loaded cars in the specified manner. Alternatively, the BNSF allows coal shippers to use 

other methods to reduce dust emissions if the shipper is able to show that its methods reduce 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 27

emissions of fugitive coal dust by at least 85 percent. In May 2015, the STB issued a decision 

which affirmed the reasonableness of the Coal Loading Rule and upheld its enforceability (STB 

2015b). 

3.2 Air Quality

Unless otherwise noted, baseline air quality described herein reflects 2016 conditions, including 

direct effects from mining and indirect effects of rail transport, seaport handling, ocean 

transport, and combustion (referred to as “segments”) of 5.96 Mt of saleable coal shipped in 

2016 (see Table 2.1-1). Air quality considerations, baseline conditions, and applicable 

regulations and jurisdictions differ for each “segment” from mining to combustion. Relevant 

information is summarized in this section with additional supporting detail provided in 

Appendix B. Estimated emissions from all segments in 2016 are summarized in Table 3.2-1. 

Details regarding information sources and assumptions used to calculate emissions on a 1.0 Mt 

basis are provided in Appendix C. 

Table 3.2-1. Total Estimated Emissions from Mining, Transport, and Combustion of 5.96Mt of 

Saleable Coal in 2016.

Segment 

PM10 

(tons) 

PM2.5

(tons) 

NOx

(tons) 

SOx

(tons) 

CO

(tons) 

VOC

(tons) 

Pb

(lbs) 

Hg

(lbs) 

As

(lbs) 

Mining 236 32 47 16 63 15

Rail Transport 45 42 1,622 2 386 78

Seaport Handling 20 4 31 1 9 2

Ocean Transport 698 642 5,238 4,941 472 202

Coal Combustion (high range) 890 861 578 2,367 30 4 30 30 26

Coal Combustion (low range) 1,751 1,363 23,095 11,834 373 52 592 182 520

PM10 = particulate matter < 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter <2.5 microns; NOx = nitrogen oxides; SOx = sulfur 

oxides; CO = carbon monoxide, VOC = volatile organic compounds; Pb = lead; Hg = mercury; As = arsenic.

3.2.1 Mining

Regulatory Setting

Under the CAA, EPA has established concentration levels for common air pollutants judged 

“necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health” and “necessary to 

protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects” (40 CFR § 50.2(b)). 

These pollutants, referred to as “criteria pollutants,” include: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone, lead, and particulate matter with aerodynamic 

diameters less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10) and less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5).

Federal concentration thresholds for criteria pollutants; or National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), as well as Montana’s Ambient Air Quality Standards (MAAQS) are 

presented in Appendix B.

As described in Appendix B, Musselshell and Yellowstone Counties, within which the Mine is 

located, are designated “unclassifiable/attainment” for all criteria pollutants. The Mine does not 

meet applicability criteria for rules related to Class I areas, including regional haze; the Title V 

Operating Permit Program; the Prevention of Significant Deterioration New Source Review. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 28

Mine-Related Emissions

Based on information included in SPE’s Application for Modification to Air Quality Permit 

#3179 (SPE 2014a), the Mine’s annual PM10 emission rate is estimated to be approximately four

times greater than the rate for any other criteria pollutant. Approximately 98 percent of minerelated PM10 emissions results from fugitive sources, such as haul truck traffic and wind erosion 

of exposed surfaces, which tend to concentrate air quality impacts locally. Until recently, SPE 

was required to operate three monitoring stations at two sites (two stations co-located) 

proximal to the Mine (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-1) to measure concentrations of PM10. In 

February 2017, MDEQ allowed SPE to discontinue this monitoring effort based on the fact that 

in the preceding seven years none of the monitoring stations measured a PM10 MAAQS or 

NAAQS exceedance attributed to Mine operations (MDEQ 2017a). The Mine is subject to 

several opacity limits which effectively limit fugitive dust emissions and is subject to the Federal

Coal Preparation and Processing Plants New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR Part 60, 

Subpart Y). 

SPE (2014a) estimated the Mine’s potential maximum annual emissions of criteria pollutants of

concern. Appendix C summarizes the results of those estimates and the portion attributed to 

each 1.0 Mt of saleable coal produced for reference in this analysis. Table 3.2-1 and 

Appendix B presents estimated annual emissions (tons per year) from Mine operations in 

2016, which produced 5.96 Mt of saleable coal. 

3.2.2 Rail Transport

Sections 2.1.7 and 3.1 describe the rail transport route considered in this analysis. From the 

Mine, coal is hauled approximately 1,390 miles (one way) through Montana, Idaho, and 

Washington to Westshore Terminal at the Port of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Under the CAA, EPA has sole authority to adopt and enforce locomotive emission standards 

(CARB 2006). Additional details regarding Federal locomotive emission-related standards and 

other State and local considerations are provided in Appendix B.

Baseline criteria air pollutant emission rates for each 1.0 Mt of coal transported by rail between 

the Mine and Westshore Terminal were estimated using methods described in Appendix C.

Those estimated emissions were used to estimate the total emissions from transporting 5.96 

Mt of saleable coal in 2016 (Table 3.2-1 and Appendix B). Emission rates for each pollutant 

are estimated in tons per year (2016) as well as average pounds per mile (lbs/mile) over the 

2,780 miles trains travel round-trip, with the latter reflecting the transitory and distributed 

nature of locomotive emissions.

In addition to potential impacts related to rail safety as discussed in Section 3.1, coal dust is 

identified as having potential to affect human health and environmental quality. Particulate 

emissions (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects 

(EPA 2017a), and trace elements in coal could potentially affect the environment where coal 

dust deposition occurs. Appendix B summarizes existing literature and information pertaining 

to coal dust emissions, including generation, dispersion, and deposition, as well as human health 

and ecological concerns.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 29

3.2.3 Seaport Handling

As discussed in Section 2.1.7, nearly all coal from the Mine is shipped overseas from 

Westshore Terminal. Context on the existing regulatory environment and existing conditions 

associated with Westshore Terminal are provided in Appendix B.

In 2013, an air quality study was conducted to evaluate local and regional baseline conditions 

and potential environmental impacts related to Westshore Terminal’s proposed port 

improvement and expansion project (Westshore Terminal LP 2013). Appendix C discusses 

emissions estimates from that study and presents estimated port-wide criteria pollutant 

emissions attributed to handling 1.0 Mt of coal based on existing port capacity and emission 

rates as this reflects the more conservative (i.e., highest) estimated emission rates of the two 

scenarios (Westshore Terminal LP 2013). These emission rates were used to estimate 

emissions attributed to transferring 5.96 Mt of coal from the Mine in 2016 (Table 3.2-1 and 

Appendix B). 

3.2.4 Ocean Transport

Appendix B summarizes the existing regulatory structure related to oceanic transport, 

including relevant regulations contained within the United Nations International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships; 

known as MARPOL 73/78. 

Appendix C presents estimated criteria pollutant emissions from ocean transport of 1.0 Mt of 

coal. Estimates reflect round-trip travel assuming the same emissions in both directions (i.e., 

emissions occurring over 10,600 miles, in sum, to and from Westshore Terminal and Japan or 

the ROK). Estimated baseline criteria air pollutant emissions from ocean transport of 5.96 Mt 

of coal in 2016 are presented in Table 3.2-1 and Appendix B. Emission rates for each 

pollutant are estimated in total tons as well as lbs/mile, with the latter reflecting the transitory 

and distributed nature of cargo vessel emissions.

3.2.5 Overseas Combustion

As discussed in Section 2.1.7, nearly all coal is sold to power generators in the ROK and 

Japan. These countries therefore comprise the affected environment for analysis of overseas 

combustion effects on air quality. Appendix B outlines the regulatory framework implemented 

by each country to maintain or improve air quality by limiting pollutant emissions from 

industrial and other emitting sources. 

Appendix C presents estimated emissions of criteria pollutants and heavy metals hazardous 

air pollutants (HAPs) (i.e., lead, mercury and arsenic), generated from combusting 1.0 Mt of 

coal at utility-scale power plants in the ROK and Japan (separately or collectively). Estimated 

ranges of baseline pollutant emissions from combusting 5.96 Mt of coal in 2016 are presented in 

Table 3.2-1 and Appendix B.

Effects of most industrial source air pollutants are limited to the immediate area or, at most, 

the region surrounding the source. However, mercury emissions can also have a global effect. 

Exposure to mercury threatens human health, with developing fetuses and young children most 

at risk. Mercury pollution can also harm wildlife and ecosystems (EPA 2017b). Estimated 2010 

mercury emissions from the US, Japan and ROK are summarized in Appendix B.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 30

3.3 Climate

The Mine’s climate is discussed in Section 3.1 of the BLM Coal Lease EA and notable recent 

precipitation patterns are discussed in Section 3.4 (Hydrology) of this EA. This section 

primarily addresses global climate conditions and trends in relation to climate change, 

previously discussed in Section 3.3.2 of the BLM Coal Lease EA. 

3.3.1 Background

Though the terms “global warming” and “climate change” are often used interchangeably, they 

are two distinct concepts. In general, the causes and effects of climate change can be depicted 

as a chain of events: GHG emissions and other climate drivers → global warming → climate 

change → environmental effects. Essentially, GHG emissions and other factors contribute to 

climate change in the form of global warming, then climate change contributes to environmental 

effects around the globe. 

GHGs & Global Warming 

The term “global warming” refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected, in global 

surface temperature (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC 2014). Through 

complex interactions on a global scale, the emissions of GHGs, along with other climateinfluencing environmental factors, cause a net warming of the atmosphere. GHGs impede the 

escape of reflected solar radiation and heat from the Earth’s surface back into space, creating a 

“greenhouse effect”.

At the global scale, key GHGs emitted by human activities include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous 

oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gasses (F-gasses) (EPA 2018a). Anthropogenic GHG emissions 

since the pre-industrial era have driven large increases in the atmospheric GHG concentrations. 

Human activities are responsible for almost all of the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere over 

the last 150 years (IPCC 2007 in EPA 2018a).

Climate Change

Climate is defined as the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a 

period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation (MerriamWebster 2014). The US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP 2017) defines climate 

change as:

“Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or 

longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in 

temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of 

severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system.”

EPA (2016a) notes that warmer temperatures are one of the most direct signs that the climate 

is changing. Concentrations of heat-trapping GHGs are increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. In 

response, average temperatures at the Earth’s surface are increasing and are expected to 

continue rising. However, because climate change can shift wind patterns and ocean currents 

that drive the world’s climate system, some areas are warming more than others, while other 

areas have experienced cooling.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 31

3.3.2 GHG Emissions

Total GHG emissions are expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions and are 

calculated based on how long each GHG remains in the atmosphere, on average, and how 

strongly it absorbs energy (Global Warming Potential, or GWP) (see Appendix C). GHGs 

with a higher GWP absorb more energy per pound than gases with a lower GWP, and thus 

contribute more to global warming (EPA 2018a). 

According to the EPA (2016a), increasing emissions of GHGs due to human activities 

worldwide have led to a substantial increase in atmospheric concentrations of GHGs. Every 

country emits GHGs into the atmosphere, meaning the root cause of climate change is truly 

global in scope. However, some countries produce far more GHGs than others, and several 

factors—such as economic activity (including the composition and efficiency of the economy), 

population, income level, land use, and climatic conditions—can influence any given country’s 

emissions levels. Tracking GHG emissions worldwide provides a global context for 

understanding the US’ and other nations’ roles in climate change.

Global Emissions

Global anthropogenic GHG emissions totaled approximately 54,000 Mt of CO2e (Mt-CO2e) in 

2010 (IPCC 2014). Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels comprise the largest source of 

anthropogenic GHG emissions and have significantly increased since 1900 (EPA 2018a). Since 

1970, CO2 emissions have increased by about 90 percent, with emissions from fossil fuel 

combustion and industrial processes contributing approximately 78 percent of the total GHG 

emissions increase from 1970 to 2011. Agriculture, deforestation, and other land-use changes 

have been identified as the second-largest contributors (IPCC 2014 in EPA 2018a).

US Emissions

EPA (2018a) reports that since 1990, annual US GHG emissions have increased by 

approximately 4 percent; with annual variations attributable to changes in the economy, the 

price of fuel, and other factors. In 2015, approximately 7,261 Mt-CO2e were emitted in the US. 

Primary sources of those emissions (percent of 2015 total noted) included electricity 

production (29 percent), transportation (27 percent), industry (21 percent), commercial and 

residential (12 percent), and agriculture (9 percent).

While activities and land uses can act as a source of GHG emissions, land areas can also act as a 

sink, absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere (EPA 2018a). In the US, since 1990, managed forests 

and other lands have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit. In 2015, GHG 

emissions were partly offset by carbon sequestration in forests, trees in urban areas, 

agricultural soils, landfilled yard trimmings and food scraps, and coastal wetlands, which, in 

aggregate, offset nearly 12 percent of US emissions (EPA 2017c).

Montana Emissions

In 2007, Montana’s estimated anthropogenic GHG emissions and sinks (carbon storage) were 

estimated for the period from 1990 to 2020 (CCS 2007). In 2005, activities in Montana 

accounted for approximately 40.7 Mt-CO2e emissions, less than 1 percent of US emissions 

estimated over that same year. CCS (2007) projects that Montana’s gross GHG emissions will 

climb to 46.3 Mt-CO2e by 2020, with transportation projected to be the largest contributor to 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 32

future emissions growth, followed by emissions associated with fossil fuel production and 

electricity use. 

Mine-Related Emissions

Table 3.3-1 summarizes direct and indirect GHG emissions resulting from all activities related 

to mining, transporting, and combusting coal from the Mine, most of which are outside the 

jurisdiction of OSMRE. Over 97 percent of this total estimate is associated with overseas 

combustion. Appendix C describes calculations, data, and additional assumptions underlying 

estimates for each segment, which are consistent with the assumptions used to calculate nonGHG emissions as discussed in Section 3.2.

Table 3.3-1. Estimated GHG Emissions from Mining, Transporting, and Combusting Coal from the Mine in 2016.

Segment GHG Emissions

(Mt-CO2e)

Mining Operations <0.1

Rail Transport 0.2

Port Operation <0.1

Ocean Vessel Transport 0.2

Overseas Combustion 12.7

Total GHG Emissions in 2016 (5.96Mt saleable coal) 13.0

Total GHG Emissions Per 1.0 Mt of Saleable Coal 2.2

3.3.3 Climate Change

Recent findings and predictions regarding climate change and its effects on a global, national and 

regional (Montana) scale are presented in the following reports: The IPCC report titled Climate 

Change 2014: Synthesis Report, the Fourth National Climate Assessment (USGCRP 2017), and 

Montana Climate Assessment (Whitlock et al 2017). Each of these three documents introduced 

below are hereby incorporated by reference and findings and predictions are summarized in 

Appendix D.

• The IPCC is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. IPCC’s fifth 

assessment report (IPCC 2014) presents details pertaining to observed climate changes and 

their causes; future climate changes, risks and impacts; future pathways for adaptation, 

mitigation and sustainable development; and adaptation and mitigation

(http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml).

• As a key part of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, the US Global Change Research 

Program (USGCRP) oversaw production of a report describing the state of science relating 

to climate change and its physical impacts. USGCRP (2017) concluded that the climate of 

the US is strongly connected to the changing global climate, and highlights a range of past, 

current and projected climate changes both in the US and globally to illustrate these 

conclusions (https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf).

• Regional considerations regarding climate changes in Montana over the period of 1950 to 

2015 is presented in the Montana Climate Assessment (Whitlock et al. 2017). Major findings 

focus on spatial and temporal changes in temperature and precipitation across the State; 

including a focus on historic trends between 1950 and 2015 and projected changes into the 

future. The report also focuses on effects on water, forests, and agriculture, which have 

been, and will continue to be affected by changes in climate (http://montanaclimate.org/).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 33

3.3.4 Applicable Regulations and Policies

As presented in Section 3.3.2, over 97 percent of GHG (i.e., CO2e) emissions related to SPE’s 

mining activities are attributed to overseas combustion. Only mining activity (less than 0.1 

percent of GHG emissions) is under the jurisdiction of OSMRE. Regulating combustion and 

associated emissions would fall to the country in which those activities occur, as discussed 

below.

In the US, there are no specific regulations or thresholds pertaining to GHG emissions although 

improvements in mining equipment and locomotive engine efficiency are expected to reduce 

emissions over time. In Canada, the province of British Columbia charges a carbon tax on 

gasoline, diesel, and natural gas that has reduced emissions despite population growth and 

increased economic activity (British Columbia 2018). Canada has also published a regulatory 

framework for establishing a clean fuels standard, which will include methods to reduce carbon 

intensity of a range of fuels based on life-cycle emission. A draft regulation based on the 

framework is expected by the end of 2018 (Canada 2017).

GHG emission rates from ocean transport should decrease over time. In 2011, IMO enacted 

legally binding energy efficiency requirements requiring ships built after 2012 to limit CO2

emissions to a design-specific Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) value. EEDIs will be 

reduced every five years until 2025. Existing ships must prepare and maintain a Ship Energy 

Efficiency Management Plan based on IMO technology and operating guidelines (IMO 2011).

The ROK and Japan have both submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contribution 

(INDC) GHG emissions reduction plans for achieving United Nations Framework Convention 

on Climate Change objectives (Japan 2015 and ROK 2015). The ROK plans to reduce GHG 

emissions by 37 percent from the “business-as-usual” level by 2030 (ROK 2015). This reduction 

is in accordance with ROK’s Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth which “creates 

the legislative framework for emissions reduction targets, cap-and-trade, carbon tax, carbon 

labelling, carbon disclosure, and the expansion of new and renewable energy” (LSE 2018). Japan 

plans to reduce GHG emissions by 26 percent by 2030 compared to 2013 levels. This goal is 

supported by Japan’s Strategic Energy Plan developed by the Agency for Natural Resources and 

Energy (JANRE 2014).

In addition, Canada, ROK and Japan are all a party to, and have ratified the Paris Agreement 

(entered into force in 2016) which requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts through 

“nationally determined contributions” to respond to the threat of climate change and 

strengthen these efforts in the years ahead (UNFCC 2018). 

3.4 Water Resources

The existing conditions of surface and groundwater resources in the Mine permit area and 

vicinity are described in this section, with additional detail presented in Appendix E. While 

hydrologic conditions continue to fluctuate in response to variable precipitation patterns, the 

baseline hydrologic condition in areas unaffected by mining is consistent with that previously 

presented in Section 3.4 of the BLM Coal Lease EA. Additional details about the hydrologic 

systems and water uses are presented with other baseline data in the Mine permit (SPE 2017a, 

Section 304).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 34

As described in Appendix E, hydrologic monitoring has continued in accordance with Mine 

permit requirements; the findings of which are presented in Annual Hydrology Reports (AHRs) 

submitted to MDEQ. Locations of active hydrologic monitoring stations (SPE 2017a, see 

Appendix 314-4) are shown in Appendix A, Figure 3.4-1, and all stations specifically 

referenced in this EA or Appendix E are labeled. SPE has also prepared updated descriptions 

of probable hydrologic consequences (PHCs), and new cumulative hydrologic impact 

assessments (CHIAs) have been prepared by MDEQ. Data (through September 2017) and 

interpretations most relevant to OSMRE’s decision are summarized in this EA. 

3.4.1 Groundwater

Geology of the Mine permit area is discussed in the BLM Coal Lease EA (Section 3.2) and a 

detailed stratigraphic column is presented in the PAP (SPE 2017a, Map 304(6)). Conditions in 

four hydrogeologic units (alluvium, overburden, Mammoth coal, and underburden) are 

summarized below and discussed in detail in Appendix E. Although a majority of the alluvial 

monitoring wells are typically dry and there is no evidence that dewatering associated with 

mining has affected observed changes in water levels in the alluvial deposits in the Mine vicinity 

for data extending from inception of mining in 2003 into 2017 are generally more responsive to 

natural climate events as compared to mining activity. Although alluvial wells have exhibited 

changes in water quality in recent years, most of those changes commenced after a large 

precipitation event in 2011 and are likely a result of natural processes rather than response to 

mining activities. Total dissolved solids (TDS) levels have for the most part decreased or 

stabilized since 2011, with the exception of three alluvial wells located along the main stem of 

Rehder Creek downgradient of the Mine (Appendix E, Section 1.1).

Some overburden wells located above or proximal to areas undermined and subsided have 

shown declines in water levels in response to mining activities, which fractured the overburden 

interval 5 hydrologic unit, creating a localized mining-related water level depression. There have 

been increases of conductivity, TDS and sulfate in some overburden wells, but all changes thus 

far are within MDEQ-7 numeric water quality standards. 

Mammoth coal water levels in the vicinity of longwall mining have declined in response to mine 

dewatering. There have been no exceedances of MDEQ-7 numeric water quality standards for 

monitored parameters between 2003 and September 2017 (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-4, Tables 

314-4.6 and 314-4.7). 

Water levels in upper portions of the underburden (i.e., shallow underburden) have declined in 

the vicinity of active mining in response to mine dewatering. There have been no persistent 

trends in groundwater quality in the upper underburden at wells within the area mined to date, 

but there have been observed increases in TDS in some wells outside the area mined.

Underburden groundwater classification has remained within the historically observed range for 

each well.

3.4.2 Springs

Appendix E, Section 1.2 contains a detailed description of observations at springs 

undermined to date. Spring 17185 showed a brief cessation in flow as longwall mining in Panel 3 

passed underneath but commenced flowing at normal rates within two weeks after mining was 

complete suggesting that strata bounding/underlying this spring “resealed” after subsidence. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 35

Observations at spring 17145 indicate that cessation of flow is associated with mining, and SPE 

has proposed a site-specific mitigation plan that is currently under review by MDEQ. On April 

17, 2018 SPE notified MDEQ that spring 17145 had resumed flow (SPE 2018c). On April 12, 

2018 the flow was recorded as 3gpm. As stated in the correspondence, “SPE will continue to 

monitor Bull Spring (17145) according to the Monitoring and Quality Assurance Plan.” Spring 

17275, overlying Panel 4 (Appendix A, Figure 3.4-1), showed a possible water quality 

response to longwall mining. Additional data are needed to evaluate long-term effects to 17145 

and 17275. The remaining undermined springs generally continue to exhibit flows within 

historical (pre-mining) ranges6. Based upon water quality data collected to date, there is no 

evidence of changes in water quality associated with mining activity at any springs other than 

17275. Two new springs that feed ponds (1701S and 1702S, Appendix A, Figure 3.4-1) have 

emerged after longwall mining undermined and subsided the surrounding terrain. 

3.4.3 Surface Water

The majority of stream channels located in the permit boundary are ephemeral7; hence, they 

are normally dry and flow only in response to substantial rainfall and runoff events, the most 

notable of which occurred in response to high precipitation in May and June 2011 (Catena and 

Nicklin 2012). Short segments of streams, which exhibit perennial or intermittent flow 

characteristics as a result of spring discharges, are referred to as perennial and intermittent 

stream reaches. Some perennial and intermittent stream reaches were identified in the baseline 

monitoring and discussed in the BLM Coal Lease EA. Perennial and intermittent stream reaches 

dependent upon spring flow sources may be affected by mining and may require mitigation 

measures presented in the Mine permit (SPE 2017a, Appendix 313-3). Detailed analysis and 

establishment of typical numeric baseline streamflow conditions are precluded due to 

predominantly ephemeral conditions, which in combination with periodic sampling frequencies 

also result in high variability in available water quality monitoring data (MDEQ 2016a). 

Additional details about surface water are presented in Appendix E.

3.4.4 Hydrologic Conditions Surrounding the Existing WDA

Monitoring wells downgradient of WDA#1 (BMP052 and BMP033) have exhibited elevated 

levels of radium and fluoride most likely due to the use of deep Madison well water for coal 

processing, but concentrations would not cause impacts to downstream surface or 

groundwater resources as no human health standards have been exceeded (MDEQ 2017b, 

Section 9.2.3.1). Since construction of WDA #1 and an associated sediment pond, several 

discharge events have occurred following significant precipitation events or to facilitate pond 

sediment cleanout in preparation for significant precipitation events. Pond discharge tends to be 

 

6 Conclusive evaluations cannot be completed for two springs undermined by longwall mining (17165 and 17415) due to the 

lack of consistent and comparable historical data (Catena and WET 2018); therefore, it is possible that mining related impacts 

have occurred at these two springs (MDEQ 2016a).

7 In the EA, we use the use the term “stream” when discussing ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial surface water channels. 

The State of Montana uses the term “stream” when describing intermittent and perennial surface-water channels; however, 

when describing an ephemeral surface-water channel they use the term “ephemeral drainageway” instead of the term 

“ephemeral stream.” Although, the terms have different words, they mean the same thing under Montana and Federal 

regulations; therefore, for the purpose of clarity and simplicity, we have used the word “stream” in the EA when describing 

ephemeral surface-water channels.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 36

small in comparison to Rehder Creek’s overall flow rate, and there is no evidence that surface 

disturbance has adversely impacted surface water resources off the permit area (MDEQ 2017b, 

Section 9.2.3.1).

3.4.5 Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands

Wetlands have not been formally delineated in the Mine permit area. The BLM Coal Lease EA

describes wetlands as occurring in association with springs. Historically flowing channel 

segments and sites exhibiting wetland characteristics have primarily been found in association 

with monitored springs and ponds and occur on the surface overlying the underground mine 

plan (existing and proposed mining) (Appendix A, Figure 3.4-1). The US Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) has not made an official determination as to whether water courses or 

wetlands occurring within the permit area are jurisdictional under Section 404 of the CWA. If 

jurisdictional waters of the US are present, such features would most likely occur along stream

channels and would include connected wetlands. 

3.4.6 Spring and Well Impact Mitigation

The Mine permit specifies mitigation measures to be employed in response to observed effects 

to water resources. SPE has constructed a well for mitigation of Spring 17145, previously used 

for livestock watering, and has proposed a site-specific mitigation plan that is currently being 

reviewed by MDEQ. Additional monitoring will be conducted to assess long-term spring effects 

and the need for permanent mitigation. One stock water well (BMP064) was abandoned before

mining and has been replaced by a well in the same aquifer. No other water resources have 

required mitigation in accordance with permit requirements. 

3.5 Soil

Soil conditions in the Mine permit area are presented in Section 3.5 of the BLM Coal Lease EA. 

A soil survey was completed for the proposed location of WDA #2 and associated facilities 

since the BLM Coal Lease EA was prepared. No other new soil data was collected since the 

BLM Coal Lease EA was prepared.

Map units in the WDA #2 survey area are dominated by the Cabba, Macar, Doney, Shambo, 

and Straw soil series [SPE 2017a, Addendum 15, Section 304(1)(k)]. Salvage depths in the 

survey area transition from rock outcrops (no salvage) and shallow soils (<20 inches) on ridges, 

hilltops, and convex slopes to moderately-deep (20-40 inches) and deep (40-60+ inches) soils 

on lower hillslopes, swales, concave slopes, and valley bottoms. 

Due to the limited quantity of topsoil and subsoil available for salvage relative to the four-foot 

cover requirement, other suitable materials consisting of unconsolidated or weakly 

consolidated weathered bedrock underlying subsoil were identified and verified as suitable for 

use as a soil substitute. The soil balance prepared for the WDA #2 footprint (SPE 2017a, 

Volume 2, Section 313, Table 313-2H), including salvage of topsoil, subsoil, and deeper suitable 

materials indicated cover materials available for salvage exceeds the volume required to replace 

four feet of cover on the WDA #2 during reclamation. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 37

3.6 Vegetation

Existing vegetation communities and conditions described in Section 3.6 of the BLM Coal Lease 

EA are generally unchanged, except where mining activity has resulted in disturbances. 

Vegetation cover varies from ponderosa pine and Rocky Mountain juniper forests on uplands, 

rock outcrops, and ravines at higher elevations, to sagebrush and mixed prairie grassland 

communities on benches, slopes, and drainages where soils are deeper. A total of 618 acres 

was disturbed through the end of 2016, a portion of which has been reclaimed. As required by 

the State-approved Mine permit, SPE (2017a) conducts contemporaneous reclamation after 

facilities are no longer needed. Reclamation practices include revegetating disturbances with 

species adapted to the area, compatible with surrounding vegetation communities, and capable 

of supporting the post-mining land use.

SPE conducts monitoring of hydrophytic vegetation communities along 62 transects at 37 sites 

associated with spring discharge points, riparian areas, and associated wetlands in the Mine

permit area. The purpose of monitoring is to establish a record of site conditions before mining 

for comparison after mining to assess potential effects. Data collected since the BLM Coal 

Lease EA was prepared includes annual photographs of fixed transects and periodic semiquantitative community descriptions (Catena 2011a, 2012a, 2013a, 2014a, 2015a, 2016a, 2017a).

Species occurring along these transects include a variety of wetland indicator species as well as 

other riparian and upland plant species [SPE 2017a, Addendum 13, Section 304(1)(i)(Part 4), 

2007 study, Appendix A]. Species composition varies in response to changes in annual 

precipitation, spring or seep discharge, livestock use, and other factors.

Eight noxious weeds have been identified in the permit area since the BLM Coal Lease EA was 

prepared, including six State-listed species (spotted knapweed, hound’s tongue, Canada thistle, 

salt cedar, whitetop, leafy spurge) (MDA 2017) and two County-listed species (black henbane 

and common mullein) (Musselshell County 2018, Yellowstone County 2018). SPE controls 

noxious weeds on company-owned private surface. SPE also controls noxious weeds on other 

surface in the permit area where noxious weeds can reasonably be attributed to activities of 

SPE. Other surface owners are responsible for noxious weed control elsewhere in the Mine 

permit area. SPE controls noxious weeds with herbicide in accordance with Weed Management 

Plans approved by the Yellowstone County Weed District and Musselshell County Weed 

District (SPE 2014b, 2014c).

No other vegetation inventories have been completed at the Mine since the BLM Coal Lease 

EA was prepared.

3.7 Wildlife

Section 3.7 of the BLM Coal Lease EA presents a comprehensive discussion of wildlife use in 

the Mine permit area and vicinity as documented during historical Mine baseline studies and 

subsequent monitoring. Annual wildlife monitoring has been completed each year since the BLM 

Coal Lease EA was prepared. Appendix F presents a list of wildlife species and the year or 

survey period during which they were recorded in the Mine vicinity. The list also includes 

species that are expected to occur in the area but have not yet been recorded. As discussed in 

the BLM Coal Lease EA, many species occurring at the Mine are migratory birds protected 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 38

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), including Bald and Golden Eagles, which are also 

protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA).

Annual wildlife monitoring conducted since the BLM Coal Lease EA was prepared (Catena 

2011b, 2012b, 2013b, 2014b, 2015b, 2016b, 2017b, 2018) documented raptor nests and sharptailed grouse leks in the permit area and vicinity (Appendix A, Figure 3.7-1). In April 2017, 

one confirmed active eagle nest and one probable eagle nest were discovered, as noted below.

Rehder Road Nest:

This nest is outside the permit boundary, approximately 1.6 miles northwest of the 

Surface Facilities Area. It was used by golden eagles in 2017.

Dunn Mountain Nest: 

This nest is on the south side of Dunn Mountain, inside the permit boundary, 

approximately 0.5 miles northeast of the existing air portal. This nest is not new but was 

previously unrecorded. The location, size, and materials used for construction suggest 

that it is a golden eagle nest. It was not used in 2017, but golden eagles were observed

in the nest vicinity in April 2017 and exhibited territorial behavior, suggesting territory 

occupancy.

Bald eagles typically nest adjacent to large bodies of water (Buehler 2000), which do not occur 

in the immediate vicinity of the Mine. The nearest reported bald eagle nests are at least 12 

miles north of the Mine permit boundary, along the Musselshell River (MTNHP 2013). While 

bald eagles have been observed during historical monitoring (see Appendix F), they are only 

expected to occur during migration periods or winter months. Considering this, impacts to bald 

eagles, if any, would not rise to the level of significance and are not further specifically discussed 

in this EA.

The State-approved Mine permit and associated mining regulations specify mitigation measures 

for wildlife, including minimization of disturbance, reclamation of habitats and raptor-safe 

powerline construction. The measures specified in the permit and enforced by MDEQ ensure 

compliance with MBTA and BGEPA and the ESA (further discussed in Section 3.8), thereby 

reducing potential impacts to those protected wildlife species. The US Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) has not issued golden eagle management guidelines. However, SPE will notify the 

MDEQ and comply with siting recommendations, seasonal restrictions, and distance buffers 

specified in the 2010 Montana Bald Eagle Management Guidelines: An Addendum to Montana 

Bald Eagle Management Plan (1994) (MBEWG 2010). In addition, SPE would comply with the 

Service’s May 2007, National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, which contains additional 

information on protecting bald eagles from disturbance due to human activity (USFWS 2007).

Approved measures include:

• Minimizing surface disturbing activities (e.g., soil salvage, road and drill pad construction, 

grubbing, logging) during the April through July time period. If surface disturbing 

activities are scheduled during the April through July time period, SPE will make the area 

unsuitable for ground nesting (e.g., mow, blade, etc.) before the nesting period.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 39

• Ensuring searches for raptor nests are conducted before initiating disturbance during 

raptor nesting season. Searches will be conducted within the proposed disturbance area 

with an additional 500-foot buffer zone.

• Conducting regular discussions with equipment operators, supervisors, and contractors 

to maintain awareness for the commitment to minimize surface disturbances, especially 

during the April through July time period.

• Locating and operating access and haul roads to avoid or minimize impacts to important 

fish and wildlife species or species protected by State or Federal law.

Montana mining regulations require SPE to report bald or golden eagle roost sites, seasonal 

concentration area, or breeding territory to MDEQ and USFWS to ensure mining activities do 

not result in take.

3.8 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species

No confirmed observations of species listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under 

the ESA have been recorded in the Mine permit area during the historical wildlife surveys. 

However, the list of historical species observations (Appendix F) includes a 2006 acoustic 

detection of northern myotis (a.k.a. northern long-eared bat, Myotis septentrionalis, ESA-listed as 

threatened). The Mine is well outside of the known and predicted range of northern long-eared 

bat (USFWS 2018a, MTNHP & MFWP 2018), suggesting the record most likely is a 

misidentification. Currently, the occurrence of northern long-eared myotis in Montana is 

considered accidental (MTNHP & MFWP 2018). OSMRE makes a finding of "no effect" for this 

species as a result of no species present and lack of suitable habitat.

The BLM Coal Lease EA previously found that while black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) and 

whooping crane (Grus americana) have potential habitat in Musselshell and Yellowstone 

Counties, it is not expected that either species would occur in the Federal coal lease tracts.

Red knot (Calidris contutus) is listed as threatened and may occur in the counties affected by the 

Proposed Action. Red knot is migratory through Montana, but Montana is outside the primary 

migratory pathways of the species (MTNHP and MFWP 2018). OSMRE-Western Region makes 

a finding of "no effect" for these species as a result of no species present and lack of suitable 

habitat.

Greater Sage-grouse

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) may occur in the Mine permit area or vicinity 

but has not been observed during historical monitoring (1989-2016), which included spring lek 

surveys (Catena 2016b). Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) reports no leks within 5 

miles of the Mine permit boundary (MFWP 2017). 

Montana’s Governor recently issued two EOs (EO 10-2014 and 12-2015) concerning 

conservation of sage-grouse habitat (Montana Office of the Governor 2014, 2015). The orders

define suitable habitat as being “within the mapped occupied range of sage-grouse.” The 

description of suitable habitat indicates there is generally five percent or greater canopy cover 

of sagebrush; or that sagebrush canopy cover may be less than five percent when complimented 

by other shrubs suitable for sage-grouse cover requirements, and in moist meadows containing 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 40

forbs for brood-rearing within 300 yards of suitable sagebrush cover. Introduced species such 

as alfalfa may be important on these sites where native forbs are not available.

Southern portions of the Mine permit area are within “general” habitat for greater sage-grouse,

and the nearest core area is approximately 15 miles north of the permit boundary (MFWP 

2015). Habitat mapping of the Mine area in 2007 showed the vicinity of Dunn Mountain, 

including the general habitat in the area that would be affected by the Proposed Action and No 

Action Alternative, as being dominated by ponderosa pine forest and savanna, interspersed with 

small patches of grassland (SPE 2017a, Section 304(1)I, Vegetation Surveys). There were no 

mapped patches of shrublands, including sagebrush, in those sections. Silver sagebrush, 

skunkbrush sumac, and western snowberry occur in the understory of ponderosa pine, savanna, 

grasslands, and areas where the forest canopy has been opened by fire. Historical distribution 

of greater sage-grouse in Montana did not include the core of the Bull Mountains (MFWP 

2000), likely due to tree cover that sage-grouse avoid. Ponderosa pine invasion of peripheral 

areas that may once have been sage-grouse habitat and are currently mapped as “general” 

habitat (MFWP 2015), including the permit area, probably no longer provide suitable habitat. 

There are no reported observations of sage-grouse within the Mine permit area between 1989 

and 2016 (Catena 2017b), and there are no reported leks near the Mine permit area.

Approximately 24 miles of the rail spur between the Mine and Broadview traverses general 

habitat for greater sage-grouse (MFWP 2015). No wildlife monitoring was conducted specific to 

the spur. For the area within 5 miles of the spur, MFWP (2017) reports two historical lek 

locations last surveyed in 2001. At that time, one lek (1.7 miles from the spur) was confirmed 

inactive and status of the other lek (1.2 miles from the spur) was unconfirmed. Based on these 

data, OSMRE concludes that while greater sage-grouse may be present in habitats near the 

spur, impacts to this species resulting from coal transport along the spur do not have potential 

to be significant and are not further discussed in this EA.

In the event that any listed threatened or endangered species are found in the permit area, 

State regulations (ARM 17.24.751) require SPE to promptly report the discovery to MDEQ and 

the USFWS to ensure mining operations do not adversely affect the species. 

3.9 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

The BLM Coal Lease EA (2011) described the historical context of the Mine vicinity and 

summarized findings of surveys conducted on tracts overlying the Federal coal lease area and 

other portions of the Mine permit area. No documented sites were determined to be eligible 

for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); however, one site (24ML667)

was listed as unevaluated (required further evaluation) because of the potential for deeply 

buried cultural deposits. 

Federal coal lease special stipulations (Appendix A in BLM 2011) and the State-approved Mine

permit require SPE to conduct Class III cultural resources inventories (i.e., surveys) before

disturbances. Six additional resource studies have been conducted in the Mine permit area and 

vicinity since 2010 as summarized below. 

• Ferguson (2010) recorded 15 sites (3 previously investigated) on 1,518 acres overlying 

Panel 1 and portions of Panels 2 through 4. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 41

• Meyer (2012a) reported finding 63 sites on 3,025 acres overlying portions of Panel 3, 

most of Panels 4 through 5, and the western portion of Panel 6.

• Meyer (2014) reported 50 isolated finds on 3,572 acres overlying Panels 6 (eastern 

portion) through Panel 9 and two areas in the vicinity of the Surface Facilities Area.

• Martinson (2010) reported finding two sites on 16 acres proposed to be developed for 

an intake air portal and associated access road. 

• Meyer (2012b) reported 11 sites and 17 isolated finds on 460-acres (80 of which were 

not investigated due to steep terrain) associated with an access road and associated 

stockpiles on the south side of Dunn Mountain.

• Aaberg and Crofutt (2014) surveyed 3,247 acres in two blocks mostly outside of the 

area to be affected by mining. The survey reported findings at 50 sites (including 19 

previously recorded), 11 of which are in the Mine permit area. 

No sites identified to date were determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. Nine sites in the 

permit area must be avoided by surface-disturbing activities pending further evaluation and final 

determinations of eligibility for listing in the NRHP, including the following.

• One lithic scatter site (24ML850) overlying Panel 3 consists of extensive deposits near a 

spring (Ferguson 2010);

• Three sites overlying Panel 4 (24YL1046 and 24YL1047) and Panel 7 (24YL1055) are 

large and unusual cairns (Meyer 2012a);

• One site (24ML478) northwest of the existing Surface Facilities Area is unevaluated 

pending further investigations (Aaberg & Crofutt 2014); and,

• Four camps or suspected camps overlying Panel 8 (24ML667, 24ML940, and 24ME 949) 

and Panel 11 (24ML942) occupy well-developed terraces with moderate to high 

potential of harboring a subsurface component (Meyer 2014). 

The remaining sites are recommended as ineligible for listing in the NRHP and further 

treatment, consideration and avoidance are not necessary. The area east of longwall Panel 9 has 

not yet been surveyed for cultural resources and per BLM lease stipulations and State-approved 

Mine permit, Class III surveys would take place before the area is mined.

The BLM Coal Lease EA (Section 3.2) concluded that surficial geology is comprised of the Fort 

Union Formation which is expected to yield plant and invertebrate remains. Vertebrate remains 

are less-likely to be encountered.

3.10 Noise & Vibration

3.10.1 Mine Vicinity

Noise levels in the mining area continue to be affected by ongoing Mine operations. The BLM 

Coal Lease EA reported heavy equipment operation noise levels ranging from 72 to 95 Aweighted decibels (dBA) near the preparation facility to an ambient noise level of about 35 to 

40 dBA in surrounding rural areas unaffected by Mine activity. While the ambient condition in 

the vicinity of the Surface Facilities Area has not been measured, it is expected to be 

comparable to that discussed in the BLM Coal Lease EA. The noise level in the Surface Facilities 

Area is generally continuous but varies in intensity depending on the extent of activity, while 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 42

conditions outside of the Surface Facilities Area have a combination of intermittent and 

continuous effects on sound levels.

Vehicles typically have short-term effects, while construction equipment may work in an area 

for hours to days. In the vicinity of drillhole pads, the duration may be longer (days or weeks)

while drilling occurs. Noise level varies by the receptor location but may be comparable to the 

Surface Facilities Area in the immediate vicinity of the equipment. The existing ventilation fan

over the East Mains, just north of Panel 4, generates approximately 103 dBA of noise as 

measured in close proximity, which is reduced to 75 dBA at the fence of the pad located 

approximately 150 feet away (Weber 2014).

3.10.2 Rail Transport Corridor

Noise and vibration are traditionally linked in environmental impact assessments for rail 

because the two disciplines are perceived to have many physical characteristics in common. For 

example, noise can be generated by vibration of surfaces. Railroad operation noise is composed 

of wayside noise, meaning diesel locomotive engine and wheel/rail noise, and horn noise, which 

includes locomotive warning horns sounding at at-grade rail/roadway crossings. Wayside noise 

is primarily a function of train speed, train length, track construction, and number and type of 

locomotives. (STB 2015a, Chapter 7). Vibration relates to motion described in terms of 

displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration caused by trains radiates energy into the 

adjacent soil in the form of different types of waves that propagate through the various soil and 

rock strata to nearby structures and other receptors. 

Existing Regulations and Guidelines

A number of Federal noise and vibration statutes, regulations, and guidelines are applicable to 

rail transport, including the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C.§ 4910), STB and FRA 

regulations and guidance, and EPA’s Railroad Noise Emission Standards (40 C.F.R. Part 201), 

Federal Transit Authority (FTA) assessment methods, and noise limits related to occupational 

safety. Freight railroads are exempt from State and local noise ordinances so as not to impede 

interstate commerce.

Thresholds and Basis for Analysis

Because OSMRE does not regulate rail traffic (see Section 3.1), for associated environmental 

impacts, the EA relies upon STB regulations, which only require analysis of noise where rail 

traffic increases at least 100 percent (i.e., doubles) or increases by at least 8 trains per day on 

any segment (49 CFR Part 1105.7e(6)). Where such thresholds are exceeded, noise effects are 

compared to two additional thresholds: (a) an increase in noise exposure as measured by a daynight noise level (Ldn) of 3 dBA or more; or (b) an increase to a noise level of 65 Ldn or more.

Ldn is defined as a receiver's cumulative noise exposure from all events over a full 24 hours and 

generally recognized as the standard by which to assess transit noise associated with residential 

land uses (FTA 2006). FTA (2006) also specifies human annoyance criteria for residences 

related to the frequency of events (e.g., frequency of train passage), whereby doubling the 

number of events is required for a significant increase for heavily used rail corridors (more than 

12 trains per day) (FTA 2006, Page 8-5).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 43

Baseline noise and vibration conditions associated with existing rail traffic along the rail lines 

would vary depending upon the day and the location. Existing conditions are assumed to be in 

conformance with Federal regulations for the purposes of this EA. 

3.11 Socioeconomics

The BLM Coal Lease EA presented a history and description of the existing condition to 

support the analysis presented therein. Recent data including 2015 population and employment 

estimates and recent (2016) mine-related revenue data are presented to update information 

presented in the BLM Coal Lease EA. The Study Area for Socioeconomics includes both 

Musselshell and Yellowstone counties as these are the counties where mining operations occur 

and where employees reside. State and Federal revenues from mining activities are also 

discussed. Additional details regarding current socioeconomic conditions are presented in 

Appendix G.

3.11.1 Local Economy 

The local economy in Musselshell County and rural portions of adjacent Yellowstone County is 

dominated by mine and ranching-related employment. Yellowstone County is the State's major 

retail and wholesale trade, financial, energy, transportation, and medical center. A comparison 

of county business patterns, including number of business establishments, paid employees and 

annual payroll is summarized in Appendix G, Table G-1. 

Economies of both counties are affected by Mine payroll, local business transactions, 

infrastructure investments, community foundation contributions, coal board grant eligibility and 

awards, royalties and taxes. A summary of payrolls, expenditures, tax revenues (hereafter 

collectively referred to as “revenues”) for 2016 and associated rates are provided in Appendix 

G, Table G-2). The 2016 Mine payroll totaled approximately $31 million. SPE spends

approximately $40 million annually on local business transactions (e.g., purchases, contracting), 

approximately 90 percent of which are in Yellowstone County (SPE 2017c).

SPE (2017c) estimates approximately $500 million was spent in capital infrastructure between 

2007 and 2009 when the rail spur and facilities were constructed and longwall mining began. 

Additional infrastructure investments are made annually at a rate of approximately $35 million 

per year. As a voluntary community service organization, the Signal Peak Community 

Foundation provides $350,000 annually to fund college scholarships and projects in Musselshell 

County. Projects have included updates to the hospital, swimming pool, 4-H building and 62 

other grants (Olson 2017). 

In 2016, revenue derived directly and indirectly from taxes and royalties was paid to the Federal 

government ($0.97 million), State of Montana ($5.93 million), Musselshell County ($14.5 

million), and Yellowstone County ($58.1 million), including local governmental entities. Revenue 

sources include lease bonus bids, severance taxes, gross proceeds taxes (in lieu of county 

property tax), Montana resource indemnity trust and groundwater assessment tax, abandoned 

mine land (AML) fees, black lung tax, royalty payments, use taxes on coal-related equipment, 

and rental fees.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 44

Due to the presence of the Mine and potential growth-related issues, Musselshell County has 

applied for and received Coal Board grants funded by the Coal Severance Tax and administered 

by the Montana Department of Commerce. Grants over the past eight years have included 

infrastructure projects, school improvements, construction equipment and vehicle purchases, 

and administrative support for development of a county growth policy. Additional details are 

provided in Appendix G. 

3.11.2 Population.

The BLM Coal Lease EA presents an in-depth discussion of population fluctuations in 

Musselshell County. A comparison of 2015 census data (US Census Bureau 2000a, 2015a) to 

the data reported in the BLM Coal Lease EA identifies recent changes in populations in both 

Yellowstone and Musselshell Counties (Appendix G, Table G-3). Musselshell County 

experienced a 3.5 percent loss in population between 2000 and 2010, but increased 10 percent 

between 2010 and 2015. The approximate net change was an increase of 6.5 percent from 2000 

to 2015.

3.11.3 Employment 

Historical employment information for the Mine and the Study Area is presented in the BLM 

Coal Lease EA, where the most recent information presented therein was from 2010.

Appendix G, Table G-4 presents employment data from both 2000 and 2015, including the 

number of total employees in the civilian labor force, unemployment rates, and percent 

employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining sector for Musselshell County, 

Yellowstone County, and the State of Montana. Between 2000 and 2015 total employment in 

Montana increased by nearly 14 percent while employment in Musselshell County decreased by 

1.2 percent (26 jobs) and Yellowstone County employment increased by more than 19 percent. 

The unemployment rate in both counties and the State fell between 2000 and 2015 (US Census 

Bureau 2000b, 2015b).

3.11.4 Housing

Section 3.15.4 of the BLM Coal Lease EA presents historic information on housing in both 

Musselshell and Yellowstone counties which indicated that housing supplies were growing faster 

than the population in Musselshell County, while Yellowstone County was experiencing an 

active housing and rental market. Appendix G, Table 1-5 presents a summary of housing 

characteristics in the Study Area in both 2000 and 2015. The relative low percentage of housing 

occupied in Musselshell County and the City of Roundup indicate that there is still surplus 

housing in both jurisdictions, but especially in the Musselshell County, which is consistent with 

the findings of the BLM Coal Lease EA. Yellowstone County and the City of Billings continue to 

have an active housing market.

3.11.5 Local Government Facilities and Services 

Detailed discussions on government facilities and services in the Study Area are included in 

Section 3.15.5 of the BLM Coal Lease EA. Revenues generated by mineral production continue 

to support Musselshell County facilities and services, allowing facilities to keep pace with 

growth (Musselshell County Commissioners 2017). Improvements in Musselshell County and 

the City of Roundup since 2011 include a new elementary school, improvements to the facility 

and equipment at Roundup Memorial Healthcare, a new senior center and other improvements 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 45

funded in part by the Signal Peak Foundation and grants from the Montana Coal Board (see 

Section 3.11.1).

The BLM Coal Lease EA described existing facilities and services in 2011 as generally adequate 

for the current population. Based on the scope of improvements made in recent years, it is 

likely that current conditions meet the needs of the moderate population growth experienced 

in Musselshell County. Improvements in government facilities and services in Yellowstone 

County are paid for by increased property values and tax rates, including a number of special 

tax districts (Yellowstone County 2016).

3.12 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice is defined by EPA as, "The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of 

all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair 

treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group 

should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting 

from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of Federal, State, local, 

and tribal programs and policies" (EPA 2017d). EO 12898 titled “Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) also addresses this issue. Its purpose is to focus Federal attention on the 

environmental and human health effects of Federal actions on minority and low-income 

populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. 

Pursuant to EO 12898, CEQ prepared “Environmental Justice: Guidance under the 

Environmental Policy Act” (CEQ 1997) to assist Federal agencies with their NEPA procedures 

“so that environmental justice concerns are effectively identified and addressed.” This analysis 

was conducted with the assistance of the CEQ guidance document. The CEQ identifies groups 

as environmental justice populations when either (1) the minority or low-income population of 

the affected area exceeds 50 percent, or (2) the minority or low-income population percentage 

in the affected area is meaningfully greater than the respective minority or low-income

population percentage in the general population or appropriate unit of geographical analysis. In 

order to be classified “meaningfully greater”, county rates must be 10 percentage points above 

the State of Montana rate or an individual tract or community rate must be 10 percentage 

points above its respective county rate.

The greatest potentials for disproportional impacts to environmental justice populations are in 

proximity to the mine and along the rail route used for coal transport. As the primary authority 

with jurisdiction over rail operations, STB applies a threshold of an 8 train per day increase or 

100 percent increase (i.e., doubling) of rail traffic when determining whether to analyze 

potential effects to environmental justice populations (STB 2015a, Chapter 17). As discussed in 

Section 3.1, the percentage of rail traffic attributed to the Mine is on the spur from the Mine 

to Broadview (all traffic Mine-related) and the mainline from Broadview to Laurel

(approximately half of traffic is Mine related), beyond which Mine-related traffic is less than 15 

percent of all traffic. Supporting detail presenting census tract records within 1 mile of the Mine 

and rail segments between the Mine and Laurel are provided in Appendix G, Table G-5. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 46

3.13 Visual Resources

The BLM Coal Lease EA presents a detailed characterization of the natural features of the 

permit area in Section 3.11, Visual Resources. No geologic or unique surface features or 

National Landmarks are present in the area. The BLM Coal Lease EA does not reference a BLM 

visual resources management classification. There are no Federal, State, or county guidelines or 

regulations governing visual impacts, dark skies or the use of industrial lights (Arave 2018, 

Anderson 2018, Hagstrom 2018).

As described in Section 2.1, several facilities and structures have been built and other surface 

disturbance activities have occurred since the BLM Coal Lease EA was prepared. Facilities 

located within the Surface Facilities Area (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-1) are shielded from 

traffic on US Highway 87 by natural topography, though visible from Fattig Creek Road and Old 

Divide Road. Outside of the Surface Facilities Area, surface disturbances are associated with 

ancillary facilities (e.g., air portal, boreholes, and a ventilation fan), subsidence repair, crack 

sealing, and road construction. Disturbances on the steep south slopes of Dunn Mountain are 

visible from US Highway 87. Disturbances associated with crack sealing and subsidence repair 

have been reseeded in accordance with the State-approved Mine permit, mitigating visual 

effects. 

The Surface Facilities Area is illuminated at night (365 days a year). This lighting likely increased 

the amount of nighttime illumination visible to the scattered residences in the vicinity, affecting 

dark skies prevalent in the area before the Mine’s expanded facilities construction in 2008 and 

2009. 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 47

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter discusses potential impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative, as

described in Chapter 2. Discussion is organized by resource areas in the same order as they 

are described in Chapter 3. 

An impact or effect is defined as a modification to the environment brought about by an outside 

action. Impacts vary in significance from no change, or only slightly discernible change, to a full 

modification or elimination of the resource. Impacts can be beneficial (positive) or adverse 

(negative). Impacts are described by their level of significance (i.e., major, moderate, minor, 

negligible, or no impact). For purposes of discussion and to enable use of a common scale for all 

resources, the following terms are used to describe qualitative impacts/effects. 

• Major: Impacts that potentially could cause significant depletion, change, or stress to 

resources or stress within the social, cultural, and economic realm. 

• Moderate: Impacts that potentially could cause some change or stress to an 

environmental resource but the impact levels are not considered major. 

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

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

insignificant change or stress to an environmental resource or use. 

• No Effect/Impact: No discernible or measurable impacts.

Impacts can also be defined as direct, indirect, or cumulative. Terminology presented in this 

analysis includes the following: 

• Direct impacts are defined as those which are caused by the action and occur at the 

same time and place (40 CFR § 1508.8(a)). This primarily includes activities at the Mine.

• Indirect impacts are those are caused by the action and occur later in time or are 

farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR § 1508.8(b)). 

Indirect impacts include effects from activities after mining, including transport and 

subsequent activities and associated emissions.

• Cumulative impacts result from incremental effects of an action when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or 

other entity undertakes such other actions (40 CFR § 1508.7). Cumulative impacts

occur over the time period when the impacts of past and present actions and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions overlap with the time period during which project impacts 

would occur. 

The duration of impacts is also presented throughout this chapter, as follows: 

• Short-term impacts generally occur over a short period and revert to predisturbance conditions within a few years after mining occurs. 

• Long-term impacts are defined as those that would remain beyond mining-related 

activities (including reclamation), generally lasting the life of the alternative being 

evaluated (e.g., Federal mining plan modification approval) and beyond.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 48

Under the No Action Alternative, the mining plan modification for the Federal coal 

(MTM97988) within the Amendment 3 area would not be approved by the ASLM. Currently 

approved mining operations would continue for approximately 2.5 years from January 1, 2017 

to mid-2019 at an estimated rate up to 10.0 Mtpy, which is higher than mining rates during the 

past 5 years (range of 5.72 to 8.03 Mtpy). Mining would be conducted in accordance with the 

State-approved Mine permit (SPE 2017a) but would cease when Federal coal is encountered by 

the longwall miner at the north end of Panel 7 in Section 8 (Appendix A, Figure 1.0-2). New 

mine facilities, associated surface disturbances, and subsidence repairs would be required in 

connection with the No Action Alternative as discussed in Chapter 2. Facilities would be 

removed and disturbances would be reclaimed at the end of mining, which would take 

approximately 16 months after mining is complete.

Under the Proposed Action, the Federal mining plan modification to mine coal in the remaining 

Federal Coal Lease MTM97988 would be approved. Coal recovery would continue at a rate up 

to 10.0 Mtpy and would continue for approximately 9 years, relative to the No Action 

Alternative, ending in approximately 2028. New mine facilities, associated surface disturbances, 

and subsidence repairs would be required in connection with the Proposed Action as discussed 

in Chapter 2. Facility removal and reclamation would occur during a 16-month period after 

mining is complete, as it would for the No Action Alternative.

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives 

are comparable to those described in the BLM Coal Lease EA, except as noted herein. In 

addition to addressing the specific issues identified in Chapter 1, this updated analysis of 

environmental consequences reflects changes to the mining operations since the BLM Coal 

Lease EA was prepared (Chapter 2) and the updated description of the affected environment 

reflecting current conditions (Chapter 3).

Effects of coal removal, subsidence, and WDA construction are discussed in the context of 

separate environmental resources, but geology, topography and physiography, and waste are 

not reiterated under separate headings. Effects of subsidence and WDA construction on 

topography and physiography are comparable to those previously described in Section 4.1.1 and 

4.2.1 of the BLM Coal Lease EA and updated acreages and locations are presented in Chapter 

2. Similarly, geologic effects related to coal removal were described in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2 

of the BLM Coal Lease EA and updated effects are discussed in the context of tons of coal 

mined and waste generated in Chapter 2 without need for further analysis. Waste disposal is 

described in Sections 4.1.14 and 4.2.14 of the BLM Coal Lease EA and effects of waste disposal 

on soil and hydrology are specifically discussed in this chapter.

Short-term effects on land uses are discussed in the context of surface disturbance and impacts 

to vegetation and hydrology. Following mining, land uses are restored in accordance with the 

MSUMRA and the Mine permit (SPE 2017a). Reclamation practices and mitigation measures 

described in the BLM Coal Lease EA and various sections of this document ensure impacts to 

land uses are not major in the long-term.

Cumulative Effects Analysis

Cumulative effects discussed in this chapter consider other activities and processes including 

agricultural activities, residential development, rangeland and forest fires, coal exploration 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 49

activities, and reasonably foreseeable future mining (i.e., reasonably foreseeable development; 

RFD). Agricultural uses and residential development would continue in the Mine permit and 

vicinity as described in the BLM Coal Use EA. Fires are expected to occur occasionally within 

the Mine permit as they have in the past. 

Cumulative effects associated rail transport and combustion are considered in the general 

context of current and anticipated conditions on a regional, national, and global scale, as 

appropriate. Specifically, cumulative effects associated with rail transportation (Section 4.1.2) 

consider recent past, existing and predicted rail traffic and conditions on rail segments between 

the Mine and Westshore Terminal, of which the existing Mine-related coal transport is a part.

Cumulative effects of all segments (mining, rail transport, seaport handling, ocean transport, and 

combustion) on air quality (Section 4.2.2) are considered in the context of other sources of 

pollution affecting ambient air quality where Mine-related emissions would occur. Similarly, 

cumulative effects on climate (Section 4.3.2) consider GHG emissions from all segments in 

the context of global GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and all other emission sources.

SPE has conducted exploration activities in the Mine permit and vicinity since 2012, completing 

82 drillholes in Yellowstone County and 137 drillholes in Musselshell County. No new roads 

have been required in association with exploration activities and all drillholes have been 

reclaimed. SPE anticipates completing approximately 5 to 10 drill location per year going 

forward to both explore the coal reserve and verify anticipated mining conditions (SPE 2018a). 

The Mine’s RFD is limited to one additional longwall panel to the northeast of Panel 14, 

hereafter referred to as “Panel 15” (Appendix A, Figure 1.0-2; SPE 2018b). While this area 

is not yet proposed for mining, it is anticipated that it would be mined in the same manner as 

other longwall panels. Panel 15 contains approximately 6.0 Mt of coal, approximately 64 

percent of which is Federal coal, and would extend mining by approximately 8 months (0.7 

years) relative to the Proposed Action (SPE 2018b). While exploration activities are ongoing, 

current information is inadequate to prepare an underground mine plan for coal resources 

other than that described herein (see Appendix A, Figure 1.0-2; consistent with the Mine 

permit, SPE 2017a) and the Panel 15 RFD. No other mining, oil and gas operations, or similar 

industries are present or planned in the vicinity of the Mine.

4.1 Transportation & Transmission

4.1.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

To aid analysis, a comparison of annual mining rates under the baseline condition, Proposed 

Action, and No Action Alternative, and associated haulage rates required to transport the

tonnage are presented in Table 4.1-1.

Table 4.1-1. Comparison of Baseline, No Action Alternative and Proposed Action Features.

Maximum Saleable 

Coal Produced

(Mtpy)

Maximum Average 

Trains Per Day, 

Roundtrip Timeframe

Baseline Condition 5.96 2.1 1 year (2016)

No Action Alternative 10.0 3.6 2.5 years (2017-2019)

Proposed Action 10.0 3.6 9 years (2019-2028)
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 50

No Action

Vehicle Transportation & Electrical Transmission

Public roads, Mine roads, and ranch trails would continue to be used under the No Action 

Alternative. As many as 7.6 miles of secondary and tertiary roads would be constructed to 

access boreholes and perform reclamation activities (see Section 2.1 and Appendix A, 

Figure 2.1-2). New buried or overhead electrical distribution lines would likely be required to 

power facilities such as ventilation fans installed at boreholes above the East Mains (Appendix 

A, Figure 2.1-2). These new transmission lines would connect to existing transmission lines in 

the Surface Facilities Area and extend from one facility (i.e., borehole pad) to the next as mining 

progresses eastward. At the conclusion of mining in 2019, roads and transmission lines would 

be decommissioned and roads would be reclaimed to the pre-mine condition unless 

landowners request that these facilities remain to support post-mine land uses. 

Maximum Mine employment could increase relative to the existing condition to achieve a 

mining rate of 10.0Mtpy, so there could be some additional demand for transportation of 

employees. In addition, minor additional traffic could occur should increases in supplies and 

services be required to support increases in Mine production, relative to the recent condition.

Layoffs could begin in 2018, which would reduce traffic related to employee transport. Mining 

operations would cease in 2019, prompting further layoffs and reducing employee and supply 

transport. Mine traffic would continue at a lower level during the reclamation phase

(approximately 16 months) and would cease entirely in the long-term when the mine is fully 

reclaimed and no employees or contractors remain. 

In the short-term, Mine-related traffic could increase and would have minor and short-term 

effects to public roads, before declining in association with Mine closure after the remaining 2.5 

years of mining. There would be no effect of traffic in the long-term as all Mine-related traffic 

would cease after the Mine is fully reclaimed. Public road improvements and Mine roads and 

electrical transmission lines retained by landowners would have minor impacts in the long-term.

Rail Transportation

Under the No Action Alternative, up to 10.0 Mt of coal (3.6 trains per day round trip) would 

be shipped by rail in 2018, declining thereafter until Mine closure in 2019. The maximum 2018 

shipment levels would represent an increase of approximately 1.5 trains per day relative to 

2016 (2.1 trains per day) (see Table 4.1) and above the range of annual average Mine-related 

rail traffic for the 2012 to 2016 period (2.1 to 2.9 trains per day). Mine-related rail traffic would 

continue to comprise 100 percent of traffic on the rail spur and may comprise more than half of 

rail traffic between Broadview and Laurel. Up to 25 percent of traffic on the Main Line between 

Laurel and Westshore Terminal would be Mine-related, and that portion would decline as Mine 

production declines and overall rail traffic continues to increase as forecasted by State rail plans 

(see Section 3.1).

STB has concluded that “the potential for adverse impacts to result from increased rail traffic 

on existing lines is usually limited to rail safety, air quality (including an increase of at least three 

trains per day in nonattainment areas), noise and vibration, grade-crossing delay and safety, and 

environmental justice” (STB 2015a, Chapter 17). STB’s threshold for environmental analysis of 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 51

air and noise is an increase of eight trains per day or a 100 percent increase in rail traffic (40 

CFR § 1105.7). STB also applies this threshold when assessing the need to evaluate freight rail 

safety, grade-crossing safety and delay, and environmental justice (STB 2015a, Chapter 17). The 

percent change in rail traffic resulting from the No Action Alternative, relative to the existing 

condition (2016), would be highest on the rail spur (potentially a 70 percent increase from 2.1 

to 3.6 trains per day) but would not exceed STB’s thresholds for analysis of these issues. 

Considering this, short-term impacts of rail traffic on rail safety and grade-crossing safety and 

delay resulting from the No Action Alternative would not be major and are not further 

analyzed. Impacts to air quality, noise and vibration, and environmental justice are discussed 

later in this chapter.

Mine-related rail transport would only occur in the short-term and would cease after mining,

thereby reducing rail segment utilization and reducing related rail transport effects to a minor 

extent. Impacts of coal dust on rail safety would be mitigated under the No Action Alternative 

through dust control and track maintenance; thereby ensuring effects are negligible in both the 

short and long-term.

Proposed Action

Vehicle Transportation & Electrical Transmission

The Proposed Action would continue to use existing public roads, Mine roads, and ranch trails 

in a manner comparable to the No Action Alternative except that mining would continue for 9 

years longer than the No Action Alternative (11.5 years in total). In addition, the Proposed 

Action may require construction of as much as an additional 8.9 miles of new Mine roads 

relative to the No Action Alternative (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2). Transmission lines would 

be constructed above the East Mains, extending from those constructed under the No Action 

Alternative to additional proposed boreholes. Construction, operation, and maintenance of the 

conveyor and the at-grade equipment crossing associated with WDA#2 (Appendix A, Figure

2.1-1) would periodically affect traffic on Fattig Creek Road. SPE would obtain the necessary 

permits or permissions from Musselshell County before constructing the crossings and would 

comply with provisions of the agreement and State-approved Mine permit pertaining to these 

facilities, ensuring that impacts to Fattig Creek Road would be minimized. Short-term effects to 

vehicle transportation on Fattig Creek Road would be minor. The conveyor and equipment 

crossings would be removed and reclaimed at the conclusion of mining, ensuring that there 

would be no long-term effects. Similar to the No Action Alternative, new transmission lines and 

Mine roads would be reclaimed unless retained at the request of landowners. 

Mine employment and coal production rates would be comparable to the No Action

Alternative, so there would be no additional demand for transportation of employees, 

contractors, or supplies, and traffic would be constant in the short-term, relative to the No 

Action Alternative. However, this level of activity and traffic would continue for an additional 9 

years, relative to the No Action Alternative, declining at the time of Mine closure and 

eventually ceasing following reclamation, as it would under the No Action Alternative.

In the short-term, Mine-related traffic would continue to have minor and short-term impacts to 

public roads before declining in association with Mine closure after the remaining 11.5 years of 

mining (9 years beyond the No Action Alternative). There would be no effect on traffic in the 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 52

long-term as all Mine-related traffic would cease after the Mine is fully reclaimed. Public road 

improvements, Mine roads, and electrical transmission retained by landowners would have 

minor long-term impacts.

Rail Transportation

Under the Proposed Action, up to 10.0 Mtpy of coal (3.6 trains per day round trip) would be 

shipped by rail in a given year, the same as the maximum shipment levels under the No Action 

Alternative, but this traffic would continue for an additional 9 years. Mine-related rail traffic 

would continue to comprise 100 percent of traffic on the spur and may comprise more than 

half of rail traffic between Broadview and Laurel. While as much as 25 percent of rail traffic 

between Laurel, Montana and Sandpoint, Idaho could be Mine-related, congestion is not 

forecasted on this segment (see Section 3.1). Between Sandpoint, Idaho and Pasco, 

Washington, where forecasted rail utilization is highest, Mine-related rail traffic would comprise 

a small portion of the traffic, which is expected to increase from 48 trains per day in 2012 to 

between 105 and 114 trains per day by 2035 (ITD 2013, WSDOT 2014). Based on these levels, 

the Proposed Action’s 3.6 trains per day round trip would represent less than 8 percent of 

current traffic (based on 48 trains per day) and approximately 3 percent of forecasted rail 

utilization (based on 105 to 114 trains per day). The portion of overall rail traffic attributed to 

the Mine would decline from the current condition as overall rail traffic continues to increase.

On rail segments in Idaho and Washington with utilization at or over 100 percent, without rail 

improvement the Proposed Action would affect forecasted congestion. However, State rail 

plans have identified the forecasted conditions and railroad improvements are expected to be 

implemented to alleviate congestion and ensure service is not adversely affected in the longterm. Improvements to railroads or their operations required to address Mine-related traffic in 

conjunction with increased traffic from other activities would be subject to approval and 

oversight by STB and FRA. As a result of these expected improvements and the small portion 

of traffic composed by Mine-related trains on highly-utilized segments, Mine-related impacts to 

rail congestion are expected to be minor in the short-term. In the long term, Mine-related rail 

transport would cease, thereby reducing rail segment utilization and reducing related rail 

transport effects to a minor extent. 

Impacts of coal dust on rail safety would be mitigated under the Proposed Action through dust 

control and track maintenance in the same manner as the existing condition (Coal Loading Rule 

and SPE’s associated coal profiling and application of a dust suppressant agent) and No Action 

Alternative, thereby ensuring impacts are negligible in both the short and long-term.

4.1.2 Cumulative Effects

US Highway 87, Old Divide Road, and Fattig Creek road will continue to receive traffic related 

to a variety of activities, including Mine operation. Increases in Mine-related traffic under the 

Proposed Action would be minor in the short-term and would continue for an additional 9 

years, relative to the No Action Alternative. During that period, transportation rates on public 

roads including US Highway 87, Old Divide Road, and Fattig Creek Road vary as they have been 

in the past. In recent years, reported AADT on US Highway 87 and Old Divide Road have 

included annual estimates substantially higher than 2016 (approximately 15 to 100 percent 

higher, respectively [MDT 2018]). 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 53

Future mining of Panel 15 (RFD, see Section 4.1) would result in the shipment of an additional 

6.0 Mt of saleable coal, extending the LOM an additional 0.7 years (SPE 2018b). The maximum 

annual rate of mining would likely be the same as the Proposed Action, therefore, traffic rates 

would not increase above past rates. When combined with foreseeable traffic conditions, the 

cumulative indirect effects on road traffic associated with both the Proposed Action and RFD of 

Panel 15 would be minor and short-term, relative to the current and recent conditions, 

although such effects would be extended for an additional 0.7 years.

STB (2015a) noted that the determining factor for the level of rail traffic from the Powder River 

Basin to the Pacific Northwest terminals is the level of export terminal growth. While other 

terminals have been proposed, necessary approvals have been denied or rejected or projects 

have been withdrawn. Given this, changes in coal port capacity affecting rail traffic on the Main 

Line are not reasonably foreseeable.

As discussed in Section 4.1, rail traffic is expected to increase along the Main Line between 

Laurel and Westshore during the life of coal transport under both alternatives. Congested 

conditions currently exist on rail segments in Idaho west of Sand Point. Changes to these 

conditions are expected to be negligible during the life of the No Action Alternative. Coal 

shipment between 2019 and 2028 under the Proposed Action, would occur during a period 

when rail traffic is anticipated to increase, which, collectively, has the potential to adversely 

affect operations (due to congestion). However, railroads and other infrastructure owners are 

anticipated to address key capacity issues by implementing capacity and efficiency improvements (ITD 

2013, WSDOT 2014); and all such changes will be subject to the review of STB and/or FRA, as 

appropriate. Based on this analysis, the indirect cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action and 

the potential RFD of Panel 15 would result in minor and short-term impacts on rail 

transportation. 

Coal dust deposits on tracks resulting from the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative as 

well as Panel 15 (RFD) would combine with dust from other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable coal haulage on the tracks. Continued implementation of BNSF’s Coal Loading Rule

(BNSF 2015a, 2017b) would minimize coal dust emissions, and ongoing track maintenance 

ensures that rail conditions do not degrade to an extent that would affect rail safety. 

Cumulative adverse impacts of coal dust from all sources on rail safety would be negligible and 

short-term.

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures

No additional mitigation measures were determined necessary to avoid unacceptable impacts.

4.2 Air Quality

4.2.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

Effects on air quality are directly related to air pollutant emission rates that are generally 

proportional to the rate of saleable coal production across all segments as presented in 

Section 3.2. Direct and indirect impacts are evaluated by quantifying annual emissions at the 

maximum rate of saleable coal production under each alternative (10.0 Mtpy) for comparison to 

Mine production in 2016 (5.96 Mt). Estimated emissions and the difference between the 

evaluated mining rates are presented for each segment (Mine operations, rail transportation, 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 54

seaport handling, ocean transport, and overseas combustion) in Appendix B, Table B-12

through B-16 (respectively). Methods used to estimate emissions are described in Appendix 

C, where annual emissions are presented on a 1.0 Mt basis. Findings of the analysis of 

alternatives are summarized below.

No Action

Mining activities under the No Action Alternative could produce and ship up to 10.0 Mt 

saleable coal annually for 2.5 years. Mining activities would continue to be controlled by the 

existing MAQP (MDEQ 2016b) and the underlying regulations which are designed to prevent 

major impacts (see Section 3.2 and Appendix B). Ambient air monitoring has demonstrated 

that the Mine’s historical impacts to local air quality have been minor with respect to applicable 

air quality standards (NAAQS and MAAQS). Although actual annual emissions from the No 

Action Alternative could increase relative to historical rates, they would not increase beyond 

levels associated with the MAQP limits which allow mining up to 15.0 Mtpy of raw coal 

(approximately 10.5 Mtpy salable coal). Therefore, the Mine operations’ direct and indirect 

impacts to air quality are expected to be minor. This conclusion is supported by MDEQ’s 

February 2017 approval to terminate local air monitoring for PM10 (MDEQ 2017a). Air quality 

impacts related to the No Action Alternative would be short-term, lasting at least 2.5 years 

while mining continues and then declining and eventually ceasing as the Mine is fully reclaimed in 

accordance with the Mine permit, which would take approximately 16 months after mining 

ends.

Rail transport emissions are presented as lbs/mile traveled, reflecting distribution of impacts 

over the 2,780 miles trains travel round-trip including rail segments that may see both loaded 

and unloaded rail traffic from both loaded and empty trains. Separate emissions are calculated 

for loaded and unloaded trains and combined to estimate total round-trip emissions 

(Appendix C). At the estimated annual criteria pollutant emission rates, impacts to air quality

from rail transport under the No Action Alternative are expected to be negligible and shortterm, lasting 2.5 years. Emissions would be distributed over long distances and transitory in 

nature. As described in Appendix B, rail routes do not encroach on any Class I areas, and

areas with historically degraded air quality are likely to have developed mitigation measures 

similar to the referenced Missoula, Montana example. In addition, coal dust-related impacts 

associated with rail transport of coal under the No Action Alternative would be negligible. 

Impacts on air quality would be short-term as the duration of mining and transport would be 

extended by 2.5 years. Coal dust deposited in soil and water would remain in the long-term.

At estimated annual criteria pollutant emission rates, impacts to air quality from seaport 

handling under the No Action Alternative are expected to be negligible and short-term, lasting 

2.5 years. As noted in Appendix B, measured ambient pollutant concentrations proximal to 

Westshore Terminal were all below the relevant air quality objectives and standards in 2014.

Existing regulations will continue to ensure that individual emitting sources produce air quality 

impacts protective of human and environmental health.

Estimated annual criteria pollutant emissions related to transporting coal from the Westshore 

Terminal to the ROK and Japan are presented as lbs/mile traveled round-trip because impacts 

are distributed over a large distance, similar to locomotive emissions, as discussed above. At 

these emission rates, impacts to air quality from ocean transport are expected to be negligible 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 55

and short-term, lasting 2.5 years. Localized impacts would be negligible as emissions would be 

distributed over long distances and transitory in nature.

Estimated annual pollutant emissions related to combusting coal for power generation in the 

ROK and Japan would be subject to air quality control laws that would ensure emissions and 

resultant air quality are within acceptable (regulatory) limits considered protective of human

health and the environment (see Appendix B). The United Nations Environment Programme 

reports that ambient air quality standards in the ROK and Japan are within World Health 

Organization targets (UNEP 2016a, 2016b). Given this, air quality impacts from combustion 

would be minor and would be short-term, lasting 2.5 years. Cumulative effects of mercury are 

discussed in Section 4.2.2 below.

Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, the Mine would continue to produce and ship up to 10.0 Mtpy of 

coal, the same annual production rate evaluated for the No Action Alternative (above), but this 

rate of production would last for 9 years longer than the No Action Alternative. Annual 

emissions and air quality effects from the Proposed Action would be the same as those 

resulting from the No Action Alternative but would continue for those additional 9 years. Air 

quality impacts related to the Proposed Action would be minor for Mine operations and 

negligible for rail transport, seaport handling and ocean transport. The degree of impacts from 

overseas combustion would depend on emission controls and local conditions within either the 

ROK and/or Japan but would be minor due to existing regulations in place that are considered 

protective of human health and the environment as noted above. Air quality impacts from all 

segments would be short-term, but would persist for 9 additional years relative to the No 

Action Alternative. As further described in Appendix B, impacts would be expected to 

decrease over time as equipment (e.g., locomotive engines, ship engines, boilers, etc.) that emits 

air pollutants is improved and replaced and as regulations become more stringent. 

The Proposed Action would have the same rail transport rate as the No Action Alternative (1.8 

loaded and 1.8 empty trains per day) and indirect impacts associated with generation of coal 

dust would be negligible. While effects would occur 9 more years under the Proposed Action, 

relative to the No Action Alternative, the duration of air quality effects is still considered shortterm as the effects would cease after rail transport of the Mine’s coal concludes. As with the 

No Action Alternative, coal dust deposited in soil and water would remain in the long-term.

4.2.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative impact assessment is inherent to evaluation of air quality impacts due to the 

combined effects of multiple emission sources on an affected area, whether it be the air quality 

in the vicinity of a monitoring station, an airshed, a region, or the world as a whole. Air 

pollutant emissions directly related to mining and indirectly resulting from rail transport, port 

operations, ocean transport, and combustion occur in a highly regulated context, as described 

in Appendix B. 

If undertaken, emissions related to mining, transporting, and combusting 6.0 Mt of coal mined in 

Panel 15 over 0.7 years would not exceed those presented in Section 3.2 as the annualized

production rate is not expected to exceed 10.0 Mtpy under any scenario. Air quality effects 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 56

from criteria pollutants and arsenic would be minor and short-term, lasting approximately 0.7 

years after mining ceases under the Proposed Action. 

Most emissions affect air quality in areas proximal to the emissions source and result in shortterm effects as they dissipate rather than accumulate over time. While mercury air emissions 

also dissipate in the atmosphere, elemental mercury can travel long distances before depositing 

to soil and water where it accumulates and can be reemitted, resulting in long-term effects (see 

Appendix B for additional detail). Total mercury emissions range from 0.06 to 0.35 tons 

under the No Action Alternative and from 0.28 to 1.7 tons under the Proposed Action, 

accounting for between 0.001 and 0.03 percent of global mercury emissions (2,066 tons 

annually; UNEP/AMAP 2015). Total mercury emissions from combusting 6.0 Mt of coal from 

Panel 15 would add between 0.02 and 0.09 tons, a negligible contribution to emissions 

attributed to the Proposed Action and other sources. Existing regulations in the ROK and Japan 

and increasing implementation of mercury controls similar to those implemented in the US and 

are expected to reduce mercury accumulation in the environment in the short-term and longterm.

While the extent of cumulative air quality impacts would vary by segment as discussed and their 

locale, the factors identified above indicate that cumulative impacts on air quality resulting from 

criteria pollutants and arsenic emissions would be minor and short-term. Mercury emissions 

would be minor and have long-term effects as they are combined with global emissions and 

accumulate in the environment.

Coal dust resulting from the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative would combine with 

dust generated from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable coal haulage. Continued 

implementation of BNSF’s Coal Loading Rule (BNSF 2015a, 2017b) ensures that coal dust 

emissions are minimized on BNSF owned and operated rail lines; thereby minimizing the 

potential for coal-dust related emissions and subsequent deposition to soil and water. Increases 

to port capacity are not foreseeable, so the future rate of coal transport on the Main Line 

would not change significantly from recent shipping rates. Based on this and the findings of 

evaluations for other rail transport projects (WDOE and Cowlitz County 2017, STB 2015a), 

project-related coal dust emissions, dispersion and deposition would result in negligible longterm cumulative effects to air quality and the environment.

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures

No additional mitigation measures were determined necessary to avoid unacceptable impacts.

4.3 Climate

4.3.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect GHG emission rates resulting from mining, transporting, and combusting 

coal from the Mine are presented in Appendix C, Exhibit 6 and summarized in Section 3.3

on a 1.0 Mt of saleable coal basis. Based on this foundation, GHG emissions generated from 

mining, transporting, and combusting 22.9 Mt of coal under the No Action Alternative (50.1 MtCO2e) and 109.7 Mt under the Proposed Action (240.1 Mt-CO2e) would have a net difference 

of 190.0 Mt CO2e. Nearly all (99 percent) of GHGs are emitted outside of the US and 97 

percent are a result of coal combustion.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 57

While direct and indirect GHG emissions resulting from the Proposed Action and No Action 

Alternative would occur over multiple years, comparison to annual global statistics provides a 

context for evaluating total emissions related to both actions since 99 percent of GHGs would 

be emitted outside of the US. In 2010, global anthropogenic GHG emissions totaled 

approximately 54,000 Mt-CO2e. Total emissions directly and indirectly resulting from mining 

under the No Action Alternative, would be approximately 0.09 percent of annual global GHG 

emissions, respectively, on a 2010 basis and would therefore have minor direct and indirect 

effects on climate in the short and long-term on an annual basis. Under the Proposed Action, 

total direct and indirect emissions resulting from mining over 11.5 years would be 

approximately 0.44 percent of annual (single year) global GHG emissions (2010). Therefore, 

while the Proposed Action would contribute to the effects of climate change, its contribution 

relative to other global sources would be minor in the short- and long-term on an annual basis.

Emissions from US based activities (i.e., mining and rail transport) are compared to US 

emissions on a 2015 basis and projected Montana emissions on a 2020 basis for comparison on 

a regional and national scale. Under the No Action Alternative, US based activities would emit 

approximately 0.622 Mt-CO2e, less than 0.01 percent of annual US GHG emissions, and 1.34 

percent of annual projected Montana emissions. By comparison, US based activities under the 

Proposed Action would emit approximately 2.98 Mt-CO2e, 0.04 percent of annual US GHG 

emissions, and 6.43 percent of annual projected Montana emissions. 

As noted in Section 3.4, the ROK and Japan have both submitted INDC GHG emissions 

reduction plans for achieving United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

objectives (Japan 2015 and ROK 2015). These plans may reduce GHG emissions relative to 

these estimates during the life of the Proposed Action. Incremental effects of the Proposed 

Action and No Action Alternative on climate are expected to be minor in the short and longterm however due to the nature of climate change those effects cannot be attributed to anyone 

source at a small scale. 

4.3.2 Cumulative Effects

Projected Climate Conditions and Effects

As discussed in Section 3.3, the most recent findings and broad predictions regarding climate 

change and its effects are presented in IPCC’s report titled Climate Change 2014: Synthesis 

Report, the Fourth National Climate Assessment (USGCRP 2017), and Montana Climate Assessment

(Whitlock et al 2017), which are incorporated by reference in this EA. Projected effects of 

climate change are discussed in each of these documents at varying scales (e.g., global, US, and 

Montana) covering a variety of topics and resources. A summary of projected cumulative 

conditions and trends, as reported in these three documents is presented in Appendix D. 

Cumulative Effects of Mining-Related Emissions

As noted in Section 4.3.1, the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative would provide 

minor contributions to GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, relative to all other past and

present global emission sources. In the future, these emissions are expected to comprise a 

smaller portion of global emissions as energy-related CO2 emissions (the largest contributor of 

GHG emissions) are projected to increase by approximately 7 percent between 2015 and 2030 

(USEIA 2017b). Mining of Panel 15 (RFD, see Section 4.0) would produce approximately 6.0 Mt 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 58

of saleable coal, equating to approximately 13.1 Mt-CO2e emissions from mining, transport, 

and combustion. Cumulative long-term effects of all mining-related emissions on climate change 

and subsequent effects on all resources are expected to be minor, but long-term, as emissions 

would persist in the atmosphere after mining is complete. 

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

GHG emissions was developed by a Federal Interagency Working Group (IWG) to assist 

agencies in addressing 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 CO2 emissions and is intended 

to be used as part of a cost-benefit analysis for proposed rules. Further discussion regarding the 

SCC as it relates to this EA is provided in Appendix D. 

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures

No additional mitigation measures were determined necessary to avoid unacceptable impacts.

4.4 Water Resources

Predicted hydrologic impacts of the Proposed Action are presented in the statement of PHC 

presented in the Mine permit and further evaluated in MDEQ’s CHIAs (MDEQ 2016a, 2017b).

The hydrologic monitoring program approved by MDEQ as part of the Mine permit (SPE 2017a, 

Appendix 314-4) is designed to identify impacts to wells, springs, streams, and ponds, which 

may differ from predictions. The Mine permit specifies mitigation measures to be employed to 

address mining-related hydrologic impacts in a manner consistent with applicable regulations 

(SPE 2017a, Section 313). An updated assessment of potential impacts to water quantity and 

quality based on recent monitoring observations and modeling completed since the BLM Coal 

Lease EA was prepared is presented in Appendix E, and summarized below:

4.4.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

No Action

For the No Action Alternative, the response of the underlying groundwater system is 

anticipated to be similar to, but slightly greater in magnitude than observations to date (see 

Section 3.4), and as further discussed in Appendix E. Drawdown would occur in the lower 

overburden strata, Mammoth coal, upper underburden and deep underburden aquifer. Impacts 

to groundwater quality and quantity would occur in the long-term. Mitigation would be 

implemented in accordance with the Mine permit and replacement water would likely be 

sourced from a well completed in the deep underburden aquifer. Some springs may be affected 

by mining in the short-term. Long-term effects to wells, springs and associated intermittent 

stream reaches, if any, would be mitigated in accordance with the Mine permit (SPE 2017a) 

resulting in minor long-term effects to water availability for existing uses.

Surface water downstream of disturbances and overlying the mining area would potentially be 

affected in the manner described in Section 4.2.4.2 of the BLM Coal Lease EA. Effects to surface 

water quantities would be minor and short-term. Subsidence would not be expected to affect 

surface water quality. Surface water quality in the vicinity of the Surface Facilities Area would 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 59

potentially be affected in the short-term, but compliance with Montana Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (MPDES) permits would ensure those effects are minor. 

Proposed Action

Mining under the Proposed Action would have broader impacts than the No Action 

Alternative, as summarized below, and discussed further in Appendix E. In general, mining is 

not expected to impact alluvial groundwater either in terms of water quantity or water quality. 

Impacts to shallower overburden groundwater levels, if they occur, are projected to be 

negligible and short-term. In contrast, impacts to the deeper overburden portions within 

fragmented/fractured zones are projected to be moderate and long-term. 

A groundwater model developed by SPE (2017a, Appendix 314-6) presents quantitative water 

level changes in the Mammoth coal and the upper underburden. The cone of depression and 

magnitude of drawdown of the Mammoth coal and upper underburden aquifers outside the 

permit boundary would be greatest to the north-northwest (Appendix A, Figure 4.4-1). 

Drawdown would decrease progressively with distance from the Mine. The nature of recovery 

following mining (at end of mining and at 50 years after mining) would depend upon the 

behavior of the constructed gate roads. Under modelled Scenario 1, gate roads would collapse 

(cave in) following mining (Appendix A, Figure 4.4-2 and 4.4-4). Under modelled Scenario 2, 

gate roads remain generally intact (Appendix A, Figure 4.4-3 and 4.4-5). Scenario 1 is 

considered to be the most likely long-term condition. The “Deep Underburden Groundwater 

Model” (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-7) predicts that the maximum drawdown at the end of 

mining in the deep underburden sandstone would be 3 feet; a minor change. 

Although shallower springs may be adversely impacted, springs sourced by overburden interval 

5 would be at a greater risk of impacts. The most likely effect to adversely impacted springs 

would be reduced discharge rates including the cessation of discharge, which could persist in 

the long-term. Minor short-term surface water impacts are expected as a result of subsidence 

and surface facility construction and reclamation.

Long-term impacts to affected groundwater and surface water uses would be mitigated in 

accordance with the Mine permit, as described in Appendix E, ensuring that water is replaced 

and overall impacts of the Proposed Action do not rise to the level of significance. State 

regulations and permitting administered by USACE would ensure that impacts to waters of the 

US, including wetlands, would be short-term and would not be major.

4.4.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative on groundwater would 

be similar to the direct and indirect effects discussed in Section 4.4.1, which account for the 

entire water system including natural variability and existing uses (primarily agricultural uses as

discussed in the BLM Coal Lease EA and CHIA [DEQ 2016]). Cumulative effects of the 

Proposed Action and No Action Alternative on surface water in combination with agricultural 

uses, fires, and minor construction activities, are generally expected to be comparable to the 

existing condition, but may have higher severity if overgrazing and fires are followed by intense 

precipitation events. Mitigation of mining effects on groundwater and surface water uses 

conducted in accordance with the Mine permit (SPE 2017a) would ensure that long-term effects 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 60

of mining in combination with these other activities are not major in the long-term. Additional 

details regarding cumulative effects to water resources are presented in Appendix E.

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures

No additional mitigation measures, outside of those already specified in the SMCRA PAP, were 

determined necessary to avoid unacceptable impacts.

4.5 Soil

4.5.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

Impacts to the soil resource are discussed in Sections 3.1.5 and 3.2.5 of the BLM Coal Lease 

EA. Impacts discussed below are primarily associated with additional surface disturbances, 

including WDA #2, that were not expected or analyzed at the time the BLM Coal Lease EA

was prepared. 

No Action

Disturbance in association with the No Action Alternative would encompass approximately 73 

acres (401 acres less than the Proposed Action) and would primarily occur in the Surface 

Facilities Area or in association with borehole pad and road construction. These disturbances 

would directly affect soil and be additive to the existing Mine disturbance. All soil management 

activities would occur as specified in the State-approved Mine permit. Soil suitable and 

necessary for use in reclamation would be salvaged by windrowing or stockpiling as an initial 

step in construction. Approved conservation and best management practices would help 

preserve soil conditions, limit wind and water erosion, and maintain suitability of soil for use in 

reclamation. 

Following final grading of surface disturbances, soil would be replaced and promptly revegetated 

in accordance with reclamation methods specified in the State-approved Mine permit, further 

reducing potential for degradation or soil loss due to erosion. With the exception of the 

Surface Facilities Area that has specific replacement depths suited for specific reclamation types, 

most graded areas would receive soil salvaged from within the same footprint distributed at 

depths similar to those which existed prior to mining effects. Replaced soil may have more 

homogenous textures and may also exhibit more near-surface coarse fragments as a result of 

salvage, stockpiling, and distribution. 

Short and long-term impacts to soils would be minimized by soil handling and revegetation 

methods specified in the Mine permit and State-regulations pertaining to mining. In the shortterm, soil would be stockpiled, thereby minimizing impacts. Long-term effects would be minor 

as soil materials would be placed on graded surfaces and would be capable of supporting the 

desired vegetation communities and approved post-mine land uses.

Proposed Action

Impacts to soil under the Proposed Action would occur directly as a result of 401 acres of 

disturbance in addition to the acreage disturbed under the No Action Alternative. Most 

additional disturbance (79 percent) would occur in the Surface Facilities Area (primarily related 

WDA #2 construction), although other disturbance would occur in association with subsidence 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 61

repairs, borehole pads and road construction. Adequate soil is available for salvage within the 

WDA #2 footprint to cover the facility during reclamation. Overall, impacts associated with the 

Proposed Action would be similar to the No Action Alternative, whereby effects would be 

minor in the long-term.

4.5.2 Cumulative Effects

Impacts of dispersed residential development were previously assessed in Section 4.3.3.5 of the 

BLM Coal Lease EA.

Mining of Panel 15 would likely result in surface disturbance comparable to that projected for 

the Proposed Action. Based on the extent of the delineated Panel 15 mining area, 

approximately 6 acres may be disturbed. Soil handling would occur as it would for the 

Proposed Action and final soil conditions would be suitable to support the post-mine land use. 

Historical fires have affected a substantial portion of the Mine permit area and vicinity, 

particularly the western-most areas overlying Panels 1 through 6. Although minor erosion may 

have occurred in the short-term following fires, all fire-affected lands are relatively stable have 

revegetated to an extent that supports grazing and provides utility for wildlife. The long-term 

effects of any future fires are expected to be similar, resulting in minor impacts to soil.

Considering this, long-term cumulative effects to soil in the Mine permit area would be minor.

4.5.3 Mitigation Measures

No additional mitigation measures were determined necessary to avoid unacceptable impacts.

4.6 Vegetation

4.6.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

No Action

Few hydrophytic monitoring points have been undermined to date, and no site-specific 

conclusions have been reached regarding potential mining impacts to vegetation communities. 

The expected effects to vegetation due to subsidence are discussed in Section 4.2.6 of the BLM 

Coal Lease EA.

Mining activities conducted in association with the No Action Alternative would directly affect 

vegetation through surface disturbance of up to 73 acres (401 acres less than the Proposed 

Action). Projected disturbances would occur in shrubland, burned ponderosa pine, ponderosa 

pine forest, and grassland habitats. Removal of vegetation would temporarily eliminate 

associated livestock forage and wildlife habitat provided by existing vegetative cover. 

In accordance with the State-approved Mine permit, facilities would be removed when they are 

no longer needed and disturbances would be promptly reclaimed and revegetated. Following 

final grading and soil placement, disturbed areas would be promptly seeded with seed mixes 

identified in the State-approved Mine permit. The approved seed mixes are selected to be 

compatible with surrounding vegetation types and to support the approved post-mine land 

uses. Reclaimed native plant communities would likely exhibit less overall diversity and possibly 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 62

less woody plant density (depending on the community) in the short-term. In the long-term, 

reclamation requirements and associated bonding would ensure that vegetation communities 

support the desired postmining land use at least to the extent capable before mining.

Direct and indirect effects to vegetation could include the spread of noxious weed species 

known to occur in the permit area and potential introduction of other invasive plant species. 

Vehicles and mine equipment could potentially spread noxious weeds along roadways, mine 

facilities, and associated construction sites. State regulations (ARM 17.24.716) and the mine 

permit (SPE 2014a) require SPE to control noxious weeds on all disturbed and reclaimed areas 

and the noxious weed control plans (SPE 2014b, 2014c) specify controls on non-disturbed 

portions of the permit area. While implementation of weed control measures reduces the 

spread of noxious weeds, these species are well-adapted to establish in disturbed areas and 

could spread to native areas adjacent to disturbances and persist following mining, although 

they would be prevented from spreading to an extent that would substantially affect land uses.

Impacts to vegetation as a result of the No Action Alternative are expected to be minor, but 

long-term.

Proposed Action

Impacts to vegetation resulting from the Proposed Action would be similar to those described 

for the No Action Alternative but would occur over a larger area. An estimated 401acres 

would be disturbed under the Proposed Action in addition to that disturbed by the No Action 

Alternative. Most of the disturbance in addition to the No Action Alternative (316 acres, 79 

percent) would be in the Surface Facilities Area, primarily in association with WDA #2. While a 

variety of habitats would be affected, most disturbance would occur in grassland and burned 

ponderosa pine habitats. 

Noxious weeds would continue to be present and could potentially spread in the permit area

as a result of the Proposed Action in a manner similar to that described for the No Action 

Alternative. Noxious weeds would be controlled and prevented from spreading to an extent 

that would substantially affect land uses.

Impacts to vegetation as a result of the Proposed Action are expected to be minor but longterm.

4.6.2 Cumulative Effects

The BLM Coal Lease EA Section 4.3.3.6 discussed effects of the Proposed Action and No 

Action Alternative in combination with grazing and residential development. Vegetation would 

also be affected by fires, potential future mining of Panel 15, ongoing exploration activities, and 

noxious weed infestations resulting from sources not related to mining.

Historical fires have affected a substantial portion of the Mine permit area and vicinity, 

particularly the western-most areas overlying Panels 1 through 6. Long-term effects including 

tree and shrub reduction are noticeable in areas of historical fires, which were cataloged as part 

of baseline vegetation surveys described in the BLM Coal Lease EA. All fire-affected lands are 

stable and have revegetated to an extent that supports grazing and provides utility for wildlife. 

Therefore, the effects of fires are considered minor in the long-term.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 63

Mining of Panel 15 would likely result in surface disturbance comparable to that projected for 

the Proposed Action. Based on the extent of the delineated Panel 15 mining area, 

approximately 6 acres may be disturbed. Such disturbances would likely be temporary, as they 

would be for the Proposed Action, and long-term effects would be minor.

Exploration activities have been conducted outside of the Mine permit area. New roads are not 

constructed and surface disturbance is minimized. All disturbances are revegetated in 

accordance with the requirements of prospecting permits, ensuring long-term effects are 

negligible. 

The inherent nature of noxious weeds and other invasive plants contributes to continued 

expansion throughout Yellowstone and Musselshell Counties, including the Mine permit area. 

Natural distribution occurs as a result of wind, water, and wildlife. Human activities, particularly 

activities involving movement of vehicles, machinery and livestock from weed impacted areas to 

other areas, can also contribute to expansion of noxious weeds. Continued application of 

herbicide and other measures to control noxious weeds would help limit this expansion, but 

noxious weeds are difficult to eradicate and are likely to be present to some extent in the 

vicinity of the Mine and surrounding counties into the foreseeable future. The cumulative effect 

would be minimized through continued implementation of noxious weed control plans, likely 

preventing substantial adverse effects to vegetation or associated land uses.

Cumulative impacts to vegetation resulting from these activities and natural processes are 

expected to be minor, but long-term.

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures

No additional mitigation measures were determined necessary to avoid unacceptable impacts.

4.7 Wildlife

4.7.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, local wildlife populations are and would continue to be 

directly affected by ongoing mining activities for approximately 2.5 years and then reclamation 

activities thereafter (additional period of approximately 16 months). Direct effects would 

include road kills by mine-related traffic; restrictions to animal movement due to activity, noise, 

disturbance, and habitat fragmentation; and displacement due to avoidance of mining activities 

and associated habitat loss and modification. Species that are less mobile (e.g., amphibians, 

reptiles, small mammals, nesting birds) could suffer direct mortality due to construction 

activities (e.g., ground clearing), particularly if such construction would occur during seasons 

when they are most vulnerable (e.g., nesting season). Wildlife present in the Mine permit area 

and immediate vicinity (Appendix F) would be affected by subsidence in the manner described 

in the BLM Coal Lease EA.

Approximately 73 acres would be disturbed under the No Action Alternative, 21 acres in the 

Surface Facilities Area and 52 acres in association with roads, borehole pads, subsidence 

repairs, and a new air portal. Projected disturbances would occur in shrubland, burned 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 64

ponderosa pine, ponderosa pine forest, and grassland habitats. Most surface activities would 

continue to occur in the existing Surface Facilities Area. New surface disturbances outside of 

the Surface Facilities Area would not experience continuous use (except for ventilation fans) 

and would be reclaimed promptly following discontinued use in accordance with the Stateapproved Mine permit, as discussed in the BLM Coal Lease EA. 

Wildlife sensitive to noise likely would avoid the vicinity of the fan installations during the 

period of operation. Species sensitive to human noise and presence could be displaced from 

adjacent habitats not directly affected by project activities. Displaced animals could be 

incorporated into adjacent populations which could, in turn, experience increased inter-and 

intra-specific competition, increased energy expenditure, increased mortality, decreased 

reproductive rates, or other compensatory or additive responses depending on variables such 

as species behavior, density, and habitat quality. Unsuitable habitat resource selection by 

displaced wildlife could lead to a sink in population.

Many of the bird species identified in Appendix F nest within the permit boundary and may be 

directly affected to the extent that new disturbances occur during the nesting season or mining 

activities occur in such proximity that breeding or nesting is disrupted. Raptor nests occur in 

relatively close proximity (within 500 feet) to proposed roads and other facilities and other 

undiscovered nests are likely present within the permit boundary, including newly constructed 

nests. Short-term effects to individual nesting raptors would be reduced to a moderate level or 

less by implementing mitigation measures in accordance with the Mine permit, as identified in 

Section 3.7, which include measures specific to eagles developed in consultation with USFWS.

Pocket gopher and ground-squirrel colonies are present in the Mine permit area and vicinity, 

but prairie dog colonies are not known to occur within the permit area or surrounding onemile area. The limited surface disturbance that would occur under the No Action Alternative

would have little effect on small mammal communities; therefore, effects on foraging raptors 

would be negligible and short-term. 

Sharp-tailed grouse leks occur in the permit area and vicinity, some of which have not been 

active in recent years. Lekking activities may be disrupted by nearby disturbance and equipment 

use, particularly at leks nearest to the Surface Facilities Area (Appendix A, Figure 3.7-1). 

While some leks may be avoided or have reduced attendance due to Mine activities, impacts on 

local grouse populations are expected to be minor and short-term.

Indirect impacts to wildlife may occur due to the effects of subsidence and changes to 

vegetative communities in association with surface disturbances and reclamation. These effects 

are expected to be minor and short-term, to the extent reclamation practices successfully 

reclaim or replace the habitats required for wildlife. Minor long-term effects to wildlife may 

occur due to changes to vegetation community composition and structure; permanent 

improvements to roads; or changes to water quality, quantity, and distribution. Wildlife may 

also experience minor, but long-term, indirect effects due to noxious weed infestations and 

associated changes to habitats.

In summary, direct effects on wildlife would be limited to the vicinity of proposed and existing 

disturbances and surface activity and would be moderate (at most) and short-term. Minor 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 65

effects on wildlife habitats would persist in the long-term after reclamation is complete and 

utility of the area for wildlife and land uses is restored.

Proposed Action

Impacts to wildlife resulting from the Proposed Action would be similar to those described for 

the No Action Alternative but would encompass a larger area and occur for approximately 9 

more years. As with the No Action Alternative, most of the direct effects of the Proposed 

Action, including habitat loss, would be limited to the vicinity of proposed and existing 

disturbances. An estimated 401 acres would be disturbed under the Proposed Action, in 

addition to that disturbed by the No Action Alternative. Most of the disturbance (340in 

addition to the No Action (316 acres, 79 percent) would be in the Surface Facilities Area. 

While a variety of habitats would be affected, most disturbance would occur in grassland and 

burned ponderosa pine habitats. The balance (85 acres) are projected for roads, boreholes, and 

subsidence repairs.

Construction and operation of WDA #2 would likely cause abandonment or relocation of 

three sharp-tailed grouse leks, which may affect local sharp-tailed grouse populations in the 

short-term. Such effects are expected to be minor, as those leks have exhibited low attendance 

(relative to leks on Dunn Mountain) in recent years of monitoring (see Section 3.7). Wildlife 

studies conducted at a large surface coal mine near Colstrip, Montana showed that as disturbed 

areas are reclaimed, grouse repopulate available habitats and establish dancing grounds in 

proximity to the historical locations (Yde and Waage 1996). If such lek reestablishment occurs, 

sharp-tailed grouse impacts would be further reduced in the long-term. Minor effects on local 

sharp-tailed grouse populations may also occur in the short-term due to construction of new 

infrastructure. Effects on sharp-tailed grouse may be similar to effects on sage-grouse, where 

new infrastructure has been observed to cause habitat avoidance, lower annual survival, reduce 

territory establishment by young males and otherwise contribute to population level declines 

(Hollaran et al. 2010).

Mining under the Proposed Action would move progressively farther from the nearest probable 

golden eagle nest on Dunn Mountain (Appendix A, Figure 3.7-1), reducing potential effects 

to that nest over time. Proposed activities would not further encroach on the other golden 

eagle nest located 1.6 miles northwest of the Surface Facilities Area. On April 4, 2018, SPE 

proposed revision to the Mine permit (minor revision 252) noting the new eagle nest within the 

permit boundary and incorporating reference to mitigation measures identified by USFWS 

(2018b) to minimize potential eagle impacts. The proposed permit revision is being reviewed by 

MDEQ. 

Other effects on wildlife would be comparable to the No Action Alternative, but would occur 

over a larger area for a longer period of time. Direct effects on wildlife would be limited to the 

vicinity of proposed and existing disturbances and surface activity and would be moderate (at 

most) and short-term. Minor effects on wildlife habitats would persist in the long-term after 

reclamation is complete and utility of the area for wildlife and land uses is restored.

4.7.2 Cumulative Effects

Most peripheral activities and disturbance related to mining (e.g., monitoring activities, noise, 

and traffic) would primarily occur in the surrounding 1-mile buffer where wildlife monitoring is 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 66

conducted. Cumulative effects in this area would result from implementation of the Proposed 

Action, future mining (including Panel 15), coal exploration, livestock grazing, noxious weed 

infestations, habitat loss and modification from agriculture, and habitat alteration as a result of 

wildfires. 

Intensive livestock grazing can reduce forage available for wildlife and lead to reduced vegetative 

cover, increases in vegetation that is less palatable to wildlife, and invasion by noxious weeds.

Livestock grazing can reduce habitat quality for small mammals that are prey for raptors and 

mammalian predators. Predator control activities in the vicinity of the Mine would adversely 

affect predator populations. Future mining or coal exploration activities and access roads can 

facilitate wind and water erosion that degrades wildlife habitat.

Drilling associated with coal exploration could further disturb wildlife due to human presence 

and noise. Drillhole disturbance is typically small and limited to the drillhole and surrounding 

spread cuttings. Exploration effects on wildlife are expected to be negligible and short-term.

Residential housing occurs in the vicinity of the Mine and further development may occur in the 

future. Residential developments can lead to habituation of wildlife and food-conditioning of 

some wildlife species, such as ravens, red fox, and black bear. Residential development leads to 

habitat alteration and loss of wildlife habitat. Roads and increased traffic levels associated with 

residential development increase the mortality risk of wildlife due to collisions with vehicles.

Also, increased vehicle traffic can interfere with the behavior of migratory birds. It is likely that 

residential developments would have free ranging pets which can increase mortality risk for 

wildlife.

Based on the projected distribution of Mine disturbances and distribution of subdivided tracts, 

large patches of various habitats would remain in the permit area and vicinity to provide habitat 

for those species sensitive to or displaced by development. Successful reclamation of miningdisturbed areas would lessen the long-term effects of loss of habitat. Consequently, the effects 

of habitat loss and displacement are expected to be minor, but long-term, as residential uses, 

roads, and agricultural activities (including trail use and maintenance) would continue long after 

reclamation is complete. 

All habitats would be affected by periodic fires which historically converted ponderosa pine and 

shrubland habitats to grassland. Ponderosa pine are slow to reestablish and future fires could 

affect remaining forested areas in the Mine permit area, thereby affecting species that prefer 

forested and shrub habitats. Impacts to species affected by habitat loss would be matched by 

habitat creation as the fires and subsequent plant establishment and regeneration naturally 

transforms the landscape. While future fires could have substantial effects on the habitats in 

which they occur, overall those effects would likely be comparable to the effects of recent and 

historical fires, resulting in minor long-term changes to the landscape and habitat availability as a 

whole. Forest fires, as opposed to prairie fires, may be beneficial to cavity nesting birds (e.g. 

mountain bluebird, Lewis’s woodpecker) and grassland species such as sharp-tailed grouse. 

Noxious weed infestations would likely continue to persist and possibly expand in the Mine 

vicinity in the long-term, affecting the habitats in which they occur and, in turn, displacing 

wildlife dependent on those habitats. While infestations can have moderate and long-term 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 67

localized effects, compliance with laws requiring noxious weed control would prevent such 

impacts from reaching the level of significance in the landscape as a whole.

While Mine effects on habitats would be minor in the long term, habitats could be adversely 

impacted to a moderate extent through the combined effects of fragmentation, fires, and 

noxious weed infestation. The cumulative effect of proposed Mining and other listed factors 

would result in, at most, moderate long-term effects on wildlife.

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures

No additional mitigation measures were determined necessary to avoid unacceptable impacts.

4.8 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species

4.8.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

As discussed in Section 3.8, no species listed as threatened or endangered under ESA are 

known or likely to occur in the area affected by the Proposed Action; therefore, OSMRE has 

determined that there would be “no effect” to listed species. Effects of subsidence on special 

status species was previously discussed in the BLM Coal Lease EA.

Greater sage-grouse has not been observed in the Project Area, core habitat is not present, 

and there is little habitat that would be considered suitable for sage-grouse. Considering this 

and the limited disturbance that would occur under either action, there would be no effects to 

this species. Because the Mine permit would not be amended under the proposed action, 

further review or approval pursuant to EO 12-2015 would not be required for either 

alternative.

Special status species present in the Mine permit area (Appendix F), including BLM-sensitive 

species and Montana Species of Concern (SOC), would be directly and indirectly affected by 

the Proposed Action in a manner similar to other wildlife, as discussed in Section 4.7 and in 

the BLM Coal Mine EA. Such effects would be moderate (at most) and primarily short-term, 

although some minor effects to habitats would persist in the long-term.

4.8.2 Cumulative Effects

Threatened or endangered species or their habitats and greater sage-grouse would not be 

affected by Mine activities; therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to those species.

Although, future wildfires at the periphery of forested habitat in the Bull Mountains may serve 

to improve sage-grouse habitat conditions by removing trees. Fire also removes less fireadapted shrub species such as big sagebrush which counteracts the benefit to sage-grouse. 

Montana SOC and BLM sensitive species may experience moderate impacts (at most) from the 

combination of existing and proposed mining, continued agricultural land uses, residential 

development, and future mining of Panel 15 similar to the effects on other wildlife as discussed 

in Section 4.7.2. 

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures

No additional mitigation measures were determined necessary to avoid unacceptable impacts.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 68

4.9 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

4.9.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

Cultural resources may be affected by surface disturbing activities during facility construction, 

subsidence repair, or other equipment operations. Cultural resources on steep slopes and in 

areas of cliffs and rock outcrops may be affected by subsidence movement resulting from 

underground mining. As discussed in Section 3.9 and the BLM Coal Lease EA referenced 

therein, before conducting mining related activities in areas to be affected, all areas to be 

undermined or potentially affected by surface disturbing activities are surveyed and the State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is consulted regarding potential impacts to sites potentially 

eligible for NRHP listing. 

No Action

The area to be affected by subsidence and 73 acres of surface disturbance under the No Action 

Alternative has been surveyed as discussed in Section 3.9. One site requiring further 

evaluation before assessing eligibility for NRHP listing (24YL1055) is in the area to be 

undermined. However, this site is not in an area of steep slopes and rock outcrops and is not in 

an area where surface disturbing activities are planned. No other sites identified as eligible for 

listing in the NRHP or requiring further evaluation are within areas where surface disturbance 

is likely to occur under the No Action Alternative. Based on the current underground mine 

plan and projected disturbance footprint (Appendix A, Figure 2.2-1), additional surveys 

would not likely be required under the No Action Alternative. 

If site 24YL1055 or any other potentially eligible cultural resources could be affected by the No 

Action Alternative, SHPO would be consulted regarding those effects. If adverse effects would 

occur, all parties would seek options to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those effects. Isolated finds 

and other sites not eligible for listing on the NRHP do not require further investigation or 

avoidance. Direct and indirect effects on cultural resources from the No Action Alternative 

would be negligible but long-term.

While no specific paleontological resources are known to occur in the Mine permit area, 

surface disturbing activities could cause long-term impacts to any paleontological resources 

encountered. Stipulation to the Federal coal lease requires SPE to report paleontological 

resources discovered during construction and suspend activity, thereby ensuring effects do not 

rise to the level of significance.

Proposed Action

Portions of the area that would be affected by subsidence and up to 401 acres of additional 

surface disturbance under the Proposed Action, relative to the No Action Alternative, have 

been surveyed. These include lands overlying Federal coal lease areas, the area overlying Panels 

5 through 9 where subsidence and surface activities would occur (including activities under the 

No Action Alternative), and the area where WDA#2 would be constructed. In addition to the 

site to be undermined by the No Action Alternative, studies completed to date identified four 

sites (24ML667, 24ML940, 24ME949, 24ML942) in areas to be undermined by the Proposed 

Action and requiring further evaluation before assessing eligibility for listing on the NRHP. 

These sites are not located in areas of steep slopes and rock outcrops and are not in areas of 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 69

planned surface disturbing activities. As required by the State-approved Mine permit and BLM 

Federal coal lease stipulations, remaining portions of the potentially affected area would be 

surveyed before undermining or conducting surface disturbing activities. OSMRE received 

concurrence from Montana SHPO on February 22, 2018 of No Adverse Effect.

If the four unevaluated sites listed above or other potentially eligible cultural resources are 

located in areas that could be affected by the Proposed Action, SHPO would be consulted 

regarding those effects, as discussed for the No Action Alternative above. Isolated finds and 

other sites not eligible for listing on the NRHP do not require further investigation or 

avoidance. Direct and indirect effects on cultural resources from the Proposed Action would 

be negligible but long-term. Similar to the No Action Alternative, impacts to paleontological 

resources would not rise to the level of significance due to stipulations of the Federal coal 

lease.

4.9.2 Cumulative Effects

Surveys ensure cultural resources are identified and permit requirements and lease stipulations 

ensure that sites eligible (or unevaluated and potentially eligible) for listing on the NRHP are 

avoided or impacts are otherwise mitigated. Isolated finds and other sites not eligible for listing 

on the NRHP could be affected by the Mine. As a result, cumulative impacts on cultural 

resources would be negligible but long term.

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures

No additional mitigation measures are necessary. 

4.10 Noise & Vibration

4.10.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

Noise-related impacts associated with mining would continue in a manner comparable to the 

existing condition but for an additional 9 years under the Proposed Action in addition to the 

2.5 years under the No Action Alternative.

Noise and vibration associated with rail operation have closely related causal factors with the 

magnitude of effect relating to the frequency of train passage. According to STB’s regulations, 

noise levels resulting from the passing trains would not have a measurable noise impact (thus 

requiring additional analysis) unless levels would exceed 65 Ldn or increase by at least 3 dBA. 

Changes in a noise level of less than 3 dBA are not typically noticed by the human ear. 

The following equation was recently used for two projects involving coal transport by rail (STB 

2015a, WDOE and Cowlitz County 2017) to calculate the change in noise levels.

10 x log (N2÷N1) = dBA change

In this equation, NI equals the existing (baseline) traffic volume along the rail line in 2016 and 

N2 equals the maximum estimated traffic additive of the action. The equation assumes that the 

distribution of the number of trains between daytime and nighttime does not change. This 

equation has been carried forward to analyze noise-related impacts associated with the 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 70

Proposed Action and No Action Alternative in the context of STB’s 3 dBA threshold. Using this 

equation, traffic must increase 100 percent to increase noise by at least 3 dBA. 

No Action

Mine Vicinity

Surface activities associated with the No Action Alternative would continue to generate noise 

for approximately 2.5 years using mine-related and employee vehicles and equipment 

comparable to existing condition. However, if production increases under the No Action 

Alternative (up to 10.0 Mtpy from 5.96 Mtpy in 2016), this could translate into more frequent 

mine and rail-related activities (e.g., additional tipple operations, more waste generation and 

handling) which could result in more frequent mine and rail-related noise generation on a daily 

basis. Outside the Surface Facilities Area, noise would continue to be generated along roads, at 

borehole pads, air portals and in the vicinity of subsidence repairs. The level and extent of noise 

generation would be comparable to the existing conditions and would occur at new locations 

(Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2) as mining progresses but would not occur east of Panel 8. The 

continuously operated ventilation fan may be moved to one new location above the East Mains. 

If constructed, the new fan would be approximately 4,400 feet from the nearest residence, 

equating to an estimated maximum noise level of 46 dBA at the residence, not accounting for 

further noise attenuation by the natural terrain and vegetation. Impacts would be considered 

minor and short term, as the duration of mining would be extended by 2.5 years and effects 

would diminish after mining concludes and cease after reclamation is complete.

Rail Transportation Corridor

As noted in Section 3.1, coal trains from the Mine are the only traffic on the spur to 

Broadview. The No Action Alternative’s maximum transport rate of 3.6 trains per day (loaded 

and unloaded) would yield maximum noise increase of 2.3 dBA compared to the average annual 

transport rate of 2.1 trains per day on the rail spur in 2016 (see Section 2.1.6). Noise increase 

relative to recent conditions on the spur would be below the 3 dBA threshold and would be 

less on segments between Broadview and Westshore, which have other rail traffic ranging from 

14.5 to 70 trains per day (see Section 3.1.3). Because the noise increases along the various 

segments would neither double nor meet the 3 Ldn dBA threshold for further analysis, impacts 

from the No Action Alternative would be considered minor and short term. 

Based on the lack of noise-related impacts associated with the No Action Alternative, no 

corresponding change or impacts relative to FTA human annoyance vibration criteria guidelines 

would be expected. While additional vibration would occur as a result of the No Action 

Alternative and be most pronounced in close proximity to the rail line, using FTA (2006) 

evaluation criteria, vibration effects would not increase substantially between Laurel and 

Westshore Terminal as the additional trains would not double rail traffic on any segment. 

Noise and vibration effects would be short-term and would cease after mining concludes in 2.5 

years.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 71

Proposed Action

Mine Vicinity

Surface activities associated with the Proposed Action would continue to generate noise for 

approximately 11.5 years total (9 more years than the No Action Alternative) in a manner 

comparable to the No Action Alternative, but the location of noise generating activities and 

facilities would expand (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2). Additional noise generating activities in 

the Surface Facilities Area would include construction and operation of the proposed WDA #2, 

which is expected to have noise levels comparable to the existing and adjacent WDA #1. 

Outside the Surface Facilities Area, noise would be generated along existing and new roads, at 

borehole pads, and in the vicinity of subsidence repairs. The level of noise generation would be 

comparable to that generated from existing activities and facilities, but would occur at new 

locations as mining progresses. As such, noise levels in the Amendment 3 mining area under the 

Proposed Action would be higher than ambient conditions (35 to 40 dBA).

The most notable noise generation would occur in association with a continuously operated 

ventilation fan, which may be installed at new locations above the East Mains as mining 

progresses (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2). If installed at the planned location, the ventilation fan 

would be located approximately 1,800 feet from a residence. Based on recent measurements at 

the existing fan, the fan noise could be approximately 54 dBA at the residence due to new 

installations, not accounting for attenuation by terrain and vegetation. The estimated noise level 

from the fan would be higher than ambient conditions and may be comparable to sound levels 

at an urban residence or conversation at a distance of 1 meter (OSHA 2013). Impacts would be 

considered moderate and short-term.

The slow expansion of mining activity north-eastward as mining progresses would be coupled 

with reduced activity above earlier mining areas (e.g., first few panels) as facilities outside of the 

Surface Facilities Area are decommissioned and reclaimed. The distance to receptors at 

residences and public roads would change as boreholes and associated facilities are added or 

decommissioned. While noise effects would occur over a longer period of time under the 

Proposed Action (9 years longer), the duration is still considered short-term as the effects 

would diminish after mining concludes and cease after reclamation is complete.

Rail Transport Corridor

The maximum rail transport rate under the Proposed Action, up to 3.6 trains per day (loaded 

and unloaded trains), would be the same as the highest rate under the No Action Alternative

but would last for an additional 9 years. Accordingly, noise impacts from Proposed Actionrelated trains would be considered minor and generally consistent with the No Action 

Alternative. Similarly, based on the lack of noise-related impacts associated with the Proposed 

Action, no corresponding change or impacts relative to FTA human annoyance vibration 

criteria guidelines would be expected. While noise and vibration effects would occur over a 

longer period of time under the Proposed Action (9 years longer), the duration is still 

considered short-term as the effects would cease after mining concludes.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 72

4.10.2 Cumulative Effects

In addition to Mine-related noise contributions, other potential sources of noise near the Mine 

include exploration activities, residential uses, and agricultural activities. Cumulative noise 

effects near the Mine associated with the Proposed Action as discerned by the public would be 

moderate but short term (11.5 years). 

Guideline criteria for evaluating rail-related noise and vibration effects described in Section 

4.9.1 are based on existing rail traffic on rail line segments. As discussed in Section 3.1, rail 

transport is forecast to increase along most segments of the rail line between Laurel and 

Westshore Terminal and rail line owners and operators are expected to make changes to rail 

systems in response to traffic forecasts. Noise and vibration effects of future actions related to 

rail operations will be evaluated by FRA, STB, and/or other permitting authorities in the 

context of existing regulations. Avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures will be 

adopted in association with approvals, as needed, to reduce rail-related noise effects to 

acceptable levels and avoid major impacts related to noise and vibration. Examples include but 

are not limited to wheel treatments to reduce wheel/rail interaction, use of sound barriers, use 

of wayside horns versus locomotive horns, stringent noise specifications for grade-crossing 

signals and equipment, operational restrictions lowering speed and reducing nighttime 

operations) and use of ballast versus concrete for guideways to improve ground absorption of 

noise (FTA 2006). 

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures

No additional mitigation measures were determined necessary to avoid unacceptable impacts.

4.11 Socioeconomics

4.11.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

Economic costs and benefits of the Proposed Action were not calculated or compared to the 

No Action Alternative for this EA. Rather, a regional economic impact analysis (see Appendix 

G) was conducted to describe the alternatives’ effects on economic conditions and local 

economic activity, generally expressed as projected changes in employment, labor income, and 

economic output (Watson et al. 2007). Additional discussions about socioeconomic impacts are 

presented in Sections 4.1.15 and 4.2.15 of the BLM Coal Lease EA.

Appendix X (Table 1-7) compares total estimated revenue under the Proposed Action and 

No Action Alternative based on current tax and revenue rates as discussed in Section 3.11

(see Table 3.11-2), mining duration (years), and total tons of saleable coal (see Table 2.2-1).

No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, the Mine would produce approximately 22.9Mt of saleable 

coal over 2.5 years, ending in 2019, which is 86.7Mt and 9 years less the Proposed Action. Total 

revenue would be approximately $432 million, including approximately $385 million at the local 

and County-level, $44 million in State revenue, and $3 million Federal revenue (Appendix G,

Table G-7). The Signal Peak Community Foundation would cease its scholarship activities after 

2017. Capital infrastructure investments would be $35 million in 2017 and 2018, declining to 

$10 million in 2019 (SPE 2017c).
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 73

Under the No Action Alternative Mine employment could increase to achieve a mining rate of 

10.0Mtpy. This increase would be followed by layoffs, potentially beginning in 2018. Most 

reductions in employment would likely occur in 2019 when mining ceases. In the near-term, 

unemployment in Musselshell County could rise as there is currently no additional local 

industries able to employ all workers that would be laid off by the Mine. In Roundup, where 

there is already surplus housing, housing availability could increase to the extent workers and 

their families move away from Roundup to accept new employment. Local businesses, 

Yellowstone and, in particular Musselshell, Counties would see a decline in revenue associated 

with Mine activities, and no replacement revenue sources have been identified. 

During the 2.5-year period of continued mining, revenue from the No Action Alternative would 

result in moderate, short-term impacts to the local economy, and minor direct and indirect 

effects at the State and national level. 

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would extend the duration of mining 9 years (relative to the No Action 

Alternative), and the Mine would produce an additional 86.7 Mt of saleable coal. All effects of

the No Action Alternative would occur under the Proposed Action, but revenue would be 

generated and mine closure and associated layoffs would be delayed approximately 9 years. 

Approximately $1.39 billion dollars of revenue would be generated under the Proposed Action, 

$957 million more than the No Action Alternative (Appendix G, Table G-7). The revenue 

(relative to the No Action) would be greatest at the local and county level ($670 million), 

followed by State revenue (approximately $243 million) and Federal revenue (approximately 

$44 million). Mine capital infrastructure investments would be $35 million per year through 

2027, declining to $10 million in 2028 (SPE 2017c).

No additional employees are anticipated under the Proposed Action relative to the No Action

Alternative, although the duration of employment would continue 9 years longer than the No 

Action Alternative (until approximately 2028). At the end of mining, layoffs would occur and 

Mine-related revenue would eventually cease as it does for the No Action Alternative. Because 

no new jobs would be created, availability of housing units would not be adversely impacted 

during the mining term. After mining, availability of housing in Musselshell County would 

potentially increase, similar to the No Action Alternative, unless a new industry is identified. 

During the 9-year period of continued mining, revenue from the Proposed Action would result 

in moderate, short and long-term impacts to the local economy, and minor direct and indirect 

effects at the State and national level. 

4.11.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative socioeconomic impacts related to the Proposed Action are those described in 

Section 4.11.1 (Proposed Action), which includes analysis of impacts at a local, county, State, 

and national level. The effects of the Proposed Action would be a smaller part of the economy 

as the scale of analysis is increased from a local level to a national scale, whereby the greatest 

effects would be nearer to the Mine (i.e., the cities of Roundup and Billings and Musselshell and 

Yellowstone counties) where Mine activities and revenues compose a larger portion of the 

economy. At the local and county level, cumulative effects of the Proposed Action on 

socioeconomics are expected to be moderate but short-term (11 years), delaying impacts that 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 74

could occur at the time of Mine closure if new industries are not added to employ laid-off 

workers and replace revenue. At the State and national level, Mine-generated revenue is a small 

portion of budgets that are continually changing as old revenue sources decline and new 

revenue sources are identified; therefore, the continuation of mining and eventual Mine closure 

would have minor and short-term impacts on State and Federal government. 

Mining of Panel 15 (RFD) could lead to additional of approximately 6.0 Mt over 0.7 years. 

Revenues could increase at a local and county level (estimated at $54.9 million dollars), at the 

State level (estimated at $18.7 million dollars) and at the Federal level (estimated at $5.9 million 

dollars) totaling over $79.5 million dollars, collectively. Total future revenue generated by the 

Mine in association with the Proposed Action and Panel 15 would be approximately $1.47 

billion. 

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures specific to reducing socioeconomic impacts are necessary. 

4.12 Environmental Justice

4.12.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

As discussed in Section 4.1, STB’s threshold for analysis of environmental justice concerns 

(i.e., increase of eight trains per day or 100 percent increase in traffic) would not be exceeded 

by either alternative relative to the current condition. Economic and demographic data 

presented in Section 3.12 indicate that no environmental justice concerns are present in the 

Study Area. No environmental justice populations would be disproportionally affected and no 

mitigation is required.

4.13 Visual Resources

4.13.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, mining and associated operations would disturb 

approximately 73 acres. Of this total, 21 acres of additional disturbance would occur within the 

Surface Facilities Area in a manner similar to the existing condition. Outside of the Surface 

Facilities Area, disturbance would generally occur in conjunction with subsidence repairs, up to 

15 boreholes, a new air portal, a new ventilation fan, and 7.6 miles of associated access roads. 

New facilities would be shielded from view from US Highway 87 by natural terrain but would 

be visible from Fattig Creek Road and local ranch trails. Additional facility lighting would most 

likely be employed at facilities at the north end of the panels (vicinity of the East Mains) where 

existing powerlines could be constructed to power a new ventilation fan similar to the existing 

fan. If installed, additional lighting would affect the night sky in a manner similar to existing 

lighting in the facilities area. Such lighting could be visible from nearby residences (dwellings), 

particularly those nearest to potential borehole locations above the East Mains (Appendix A, 

Figure 2.1-2).
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 75

Outside of the Surface Facilities Area, disturbed sites would be reclaimed as mining progresses, 

minimizing the duration of effects and returning the landscape to a condition that approximates 

the original surface contour, blends with the surrounding natural area, and supports the 

primary postmine land use of grazing land.

Visual effects would be minor in most areas depending on the proximity of lights to individual 

residences. Impacts would be short-term as the duration of mining would be extended by 2.5 

years, and lighting would be removed as individual facilities are decommissioned. Lighting at 

some locations may be only temporary, further reducing the duration of impacts. Disturbances 

would be revegetated at the time of mine closure, allowing affected areas to blend with the 

surrounding landscape, resulting in negligible long-term effects.

Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, mining and associated operations would disturb an additional 401

acres, relative to the No Action Alternative. Most of these acres (316 acres) would be 

associated with WDA#2 in the Surface Facilities Area. Outside of the Surface Facilities Area, 

additional surface disturbances would occur in association with subsidence repairs, boreholes, 

new access roads, and a new ventilation fan which would be constructed over the East Mains.

Similar to the No Action Alternative, new facilities would be shielded from view from US 

Highway 87 by natural terrain, but many would be visible from Fattig Creek Road, including 

WDA#2.

Facility lighting would only be employed at active facilities, so the location of lighting would 

change over time as mining progresses. In the short-term, lighting in the Surface Facilities Area 

could increase as WDA#2 is constructed and prior to closure and reclamation of WDA#1, 

after which lighting of WDA#1 would not likely be needed. Where exterior lighting is 

employed at facilities outside the Surface Facilities Area (e.g., new ventilation fans), those lights 

could be visible from residences (dwellings), such as those north of Panels 9 through 14 and 

northeast of the Mine permit boundary (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-2).

While visual effects would occur over a longer period of time under the Proposed Action (9

years longer than the No Action Alternative), the duration is still considered short-term as the 

effects would cease after mining concludes in 2028 and reclamation is performed, which would 

take approximately 16 months after mining is complete. Visual effects from new disturbances 

would be minor as most would occur in the Surface Facilities Area where the visual character is 

already altered by existing operations. Disturbances occurring at the north end of the panels 

(e.g., vicinity of East Mains) would likely be visible from Fattig Creek Road. In contrast, 

disturbances above the longwall panels and in the southern portions of the permit area would 

likely be visible only from ranch trails. Long-term effects of surface disturbances would be 

negligible due to the mitigating effects of reclamation, as described for the No Action 

Alternative.

Lighting effects would be minor depending on the proximity of lights to individual residences 

but would be short-term as lighting would be removed as individual facilities are 

decommissioned. Lighting at some locations may be only temporary, further reducing the 

duration of impacts.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 76

4.13.2 Cumulative Effects

In addition to Mine-related effects, scenic values within and proximal to the Mine’s landscape in 

the Bull Mountains are most notably affected by fires and residences in subdivided tracts. Fires 

have altered vegetation in the permit area and vicinity, reducing the extent of conifer forests in 

favor of the now prevalent grassland and shrub-grassland communities. Yard lights associated 

with local residences provide scattered illumination in an otherwise rural landscape. Subdivided 

tracts without existing residences could become occupied in the future, increasing the number 

of parties affected by mining activities and possibly further affecting visual character of the area. 

While these changes could occur, the landscape is expected to remain a rural setting and the 

cumulative effects on visual resources is expected to be moderate in the short-term and 

negligible in the long-term as mine facilities and lighting is removed and disturbances are 

reclaimed.

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures

No additional mitigation measures were determined necessary to avoid unacceptable impacts.

4.14 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

Discussions contained within this chapter and the BLM Coal Lease EA provide analysis and 

relationships of shorter uses (such as mining coal) and long-term productivity (such as land use 

for grazing and fish and wildlife habitat).

4.15 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are the effects on natural and human resources that would remain 

after mitigation measures have been applied. For the Proposed Action, subsidence is 

unavoidable if coal is mined in a productive and economic manner. Subsidence indirectly affects 

a number of resource areas as described in the BLM Coal Lease EA and updated herein. Details 

regarding mitigation measures and these impacts are presented in the preceding resource 

sections and the BLM Coal Lease EA. Unavoidable adverse effects are summarized in Table 

4.15-1.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA 77

Table 4.15-1. Unavoidable Adverse Effects of the Proposed Action.

Resource Unavoidable Adverse Effect

Topography 

and 

Physiography

Topographic effects of WDA #2 construction are unavoidable because waste must be 

generated and permanently stored to conduct operations in an economical manner and to 

maximize coal quality. Subsidence lowers the topography overlying the mining area.

Geology 

Mineral 

Resources and 

Paleontology

Buried paleontological resources may be permanently adversely impacted by construction 

activities however once discovered construction would stop in accordance with lease 

stipulations. Such impacts are unavoidable as the resources are not locatable and, 

therefore, cannot be avoided by construction.

Air Quality Emissions and associated impacts are unavoidable, but are not expected to degrade 

ambient air quality to a level that would violate NAAQS or standards in other jurisdictions 

outside of the US for emissions and associated impacts associated with seaport handling, 

ocean transport and combustion. 

Climate Mined coal is primarily used for combustion. GHG emissions from mining, transport, and 

combustion are unavoidable if the Proposed Action is implemented.

Water 

Resources

Impacts to water resources resulting from coal extraction and subsidence are unavoidable, 

particularly impacts and may include changes to the Overburden 5 aquifer which would be 

fractured and drained by subsidence. Replacement of water sources would to support 

uses that existed prior to mining.

Soil Soil in disturbance areas would exhibit more homogenous textures and may have more 

coarse fragments near the surface following mining. Some soil loss may occur as a result of 

erosion, prior to stabilization.

Vegetation Vegetation would be eliminated beginning with the initial disturbance and continuing until 

reclamation is complete, which would extend to the end of the mining term for many 

facilities. Noxious weeds may be introduced as a result of mining activity, potentially 

affecting vegetation communities and requiring implementation of control measures in the 

long-term.

Wildlife Wildlife would be temporarily affected by mine activities which would alter habitat 

conditions, particularly in the vicinity of surface disturbances. 

Cultural 

Resources

Although searches would be conducted, undiscovered cultural resources could be 

adversely impacted by subsidence and surface disturbing activities. If cultural resources 

potentially eligible for NRHP-listing could be affected by the No Action Alternative, SHPO 

would be consulted regarding those effects. 

Visual 

Resources

Mining activity and associated disturbances and facilities would unavoidably alter the 

landscape during the mining term, affecting the aesthetic qualities. Some features would be 

visible from public access points, including US Highway 87, Old Divide Road, and Fattig 

Creek Road. 

Noise Noise would result from mining activities at similar levels to the existing condition. 

However, activities would extend farther eastward in the permit area. Noise levels would 

change in location over time. Ventilation fans could result in 54 dBA noise levels at the 

nearest residence during a portion of the future mining term.

Transportation 

Facilities

Fattig Creek Road would be periodically affected by construction and use of road 

crossings associated with WDA #2. The effects would occur during the mining term.

Rail transportation effects during the mining term are primarily cumulative and any 

adverse effects would be managed under the authority of the STB (outside of OSMRE’s 

jurisdiction). 

Hazardous and 

Solid Waste

Economical coal mining and associated coal processing would yield coal waste to be 

permanently stored in existing WDA #1 and proposed WDA #2.
Appendix A - Figures

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA

APPENDIX A – FIGURES














Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-1

APPENDIX B – AIR QUALITY

1.0 Existing Conditions

Unless otherwise noted, baseline air quality described in this Appendix reflects 2016 conditions, 

including direct effects from mining and indirect effects of rail transport, seaport handling, ocean 

transport, and combustion (referred to as “segments”) of 5.96 Mt of saleable coal shipped in 

2016 (see Table 2.1-1 of the EA). Air quality considerations, baseline conditions, and 

applicable regulations and jurisdictions differ for each “segment” from mining to combustion, as 

discussed in this section.

1.1 Mining

Regulatory Setting

Under the CAA, EPA has established concentration levels for a set of seven common air 

pollutants judged “necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health” 

and “necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects” 

[40 CFR § 50.2(b)]. These pollutants, referred to as “criteria pollutants,” are: carbon monoxide 

(CO), NO2, SO2, ozone, lead, and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters less than or 

equal to 10 microns (PM10) and less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5). Ozone is not directly 

emitted in substantial quantities but is formed in the atmosphere primarily from reactions 

between nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Consequently, NOx

and VOC emissions are often regulated as ozone precursors. Federal concentration thresholds 

for criteria pollutants are known as NAAQS, last revised in 2015 (see Table B-1). No new 

NAAQS are currently proposed. States are generally responsible for ensuring these standards 

are met within their boundaries and may establish additional or more stringent standards 

(Montana’s standards are referred to as MAAQS) (see Table B-1). Tribal governments, with 

EPA approval, may also administer air quality standards within their boundaries, or they may 

default to EPA administration. 

For each NAAQS, responsible administrative agencies are required to designate areas within 

their jurisdictions as either in attainment, in violation (“nonattainment”), or “unclassifiable” in 

areas where insufficient data exist to make a definitive designation. EPA often combines the 

latter two classifications into an “unclassifiable/attainment” designation. In general practice, air 

quality is monitored in areas with potential standards violations due to the character and extent 

of area pollutant emissions sources. A nonattainment designation triggers extensive regulation 

designed to bring the area back into attainment. Official designations are listed at 40 CFR Part 

81, Subpart C.

Musselshell and Yellowstone Counties, within which the Mine is located, are designated 

“unclassifiable/attainment” for all criteria pollutants. Nonattainment areas nearest the Mine are 

for PM10 at Lame Deer, Montana in the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation (95 miles 

southeast) and for SO2 at Laurel, Montana (45 miles south). 
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-2

Table B-1. National and Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards.1

Pollutant & Averaging Period NAAQS MAAQS

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Hourly 100 ppb (2) 0.30 ppm (3)

Annual 53 ppb (4) 0.05 ppm (5)

Ozone

Hourly --- 0.10 ppm (5)

8-Hour 0.070 ppm (6)---

PM-10

24-Hour 150 g/m3 (7) 150 g/m3 (8)

Annual --- 50 g/m3 (4)

PM-2.5

24-Hour 65 g/m3 (9)---

Annual 15 g/m3 (10)---

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Hourly 75 ppb (11) 0.50 ppm (12)

3-Hour 0.50 ppm (8)---

24-Hour --- 0.10 ppm (8)

Annual --- 0.02 ppm (4)

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Hourly 35 ppm (8) 23 ppm (8)

8-Hour 9 ppm (8) 9 ppm (8)

Lead

90-Day 0.15 g/m3 (13) 1.5 g/m3 (5)

Notes:

μg/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter; ppb = parts per billion

Montana has additional standards for other pollutants that are not of concern for this assessment.

(1) See ARM 17.8 Subchapter 2 for MAAQS and 40 CFR Part 50 for NAAQS.

(2) 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years.

(3) Federal violation when exceeded more than once per calendar year.

(4) Annual mean.

(5) Not to be exceeded for the averaging time period as described in the regulation.

(6) Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years.

(7) Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years.

(8) No more than one exceedance allowed per calendar year.

(9) 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years.

(10) Annual mean, averaged over 3 years.

(11) 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years.

(12) Not to be exceeded more than 18 times in any 12 consecutive months.

(13) Rolling 3-month average. Not to be exceeded.

MDEQ maintains a network of monitoring stations to measure ambient concentrations of 

specific air pollutants throughout the state. This monitoring network is reviewed annually and 

adjusted to ensure resources are directed toward areas of interest, including areas of possible 

high pollutant concentrations. Active ambient monitoring stations closest to the Mine are 

located in Lewistown (73 miles northwest) and Billings (34 miles south). These monitoring 

stations are too distant for pollutant emissions from Mine-related activities to appreciably 

contribute to measured pollutant concentrations; therefore, reported concentrations at these 

stations are not considered to be associated with the Mine’s affected environment. 

The CAA also establishes areas, known as Class I areas and consisting primarily of national 

parks and wilderness areas, with special air quality protections. In addition to these 
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-3

“mandatory” areas, several tribal governments have applied for and have been granted Class I 

area status. The two closest Class I areas are both located approximately 85 to 90 miles from 

the Mine: the UL Bend Wilderness Area to the north and the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness

Area to the southwest. Due to its low levels of qualifying air pollutant emissions, the Mine is 

not subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration New Source Review (PSD-NSR) rules 

(see below) that would require it to evaluate potential impacts to Class I areas for permitting 

purposes.

Visibility degradation at Class I areas due to “regional haze” is a recognized concern. Regional 

haze is made up of microscopic particles that can travel long distances and that are mostly 

formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere of gaseous air pollutants such as nitrogen and 

sulfur oxides. To prevent future and remedy existing visibility impairment in mandatory Class I 

areas, EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule in 1999 (40 CFR §§ 51.308 through 51.309). A 

component of that rule requires installation of pollutant emissions control technologies and 

applies to existing industrial sources that meet several criteria including industry type and 

pollutant emissions potential. The Mine does not meet any of these applicability criteria.

The CAA contains many provisions and programs to limit air pollutant emissions from 

stationary sources, including the Title V Operating Permit Program, the PSD-NSR construction 

permit program, and the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

program. The Title V Operating Permit Program and PSD-NSR program apply only to “major” 

stationary sources, where “major” is specifically defined based on, among other factors, a 

source’s potential to emit regulated pollutants above defined threshold values (100 tons/year 

for Title V and 250 tons/year for PSD-NSR). The NESHAP program also generally applies only 

to “major” facilities, although some NESHAP standards apply to “area” (non-major) sources. A 

major source in accordance with the NESHAP rules has the potential to emit 10 or more 

tons/year of any single HAP or 25 tons/year of all HAPs combined. The Mine’s highest potential 

emission rate of any Title V or PSD-NSR pollutant from qualifying sources is 20 tons/year, and 

its total potential emission rate of HAPs from qualifying sources is 0.3 tons/year (SPE 2014a). 

The Mine is therefore classified as a “minor” and “area” emissions source. No other stationary 

emission sources located near the Mine are considered major stationary sources.

Mine-Related Emissions

Based on information included in SPE’s Application for Modification to Air Quality Permit 

#3179 (SPE 2014a), the Mine’s annual PM10 emission rate is estimated to be approximately four 

times greater than the rate for any other criteria pollutant. Approximately 98 percent of minerelated PM10 emissions results from fugitive sources, such as haul truck traffic and wind erosion 

of exposed surfaces, which tend to concentrate air quality impacts locally. Until recently, SPE 

was required to operate three monitoring stations at two sites (two stations co-located) 

proximal to the Mine (Appendix A, Figure 2.1-1) to measure concentrations of PM10. This 

network was intended to track localized impacts from the Mine and assure no ambient air

quality standards were violated. 

In February 2017, MDEQ allowed SPE to discontinue this monitoring effort based on the fact 

that in the preceding seven years none of the monitor stations measured a PM10 MAAQS or 

NAAQS exceedance attributed to Mine operations (MDEQ 2017a). While PM2.5 concentrations 
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-4

were not directly measured, PM2.5 is a minor fraction of PM10 for sources with predominately 

fugitive dust emissions. Table B-2 presents the maximum average PM10 concentration 

measured near the Mine for the last five years monitoring was conducted.

Table B-2. Summary for PM10 Ambient Monitoring Near the Mine.

Year

Highest Measured Value1

(μ/m3)

2

nd Highest Measured Value1

(μ/m3)

2016 93.3 40.3

2015 48.7 28.0

2014 24.0 20.3

2013 54.3 32.0

2012 24.0 20.3

Source: IML 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

(1) Values (measured in micrograms per cubic meter) are the average of highest and secondhighest 24-hour values measured at monitors operated near the Mine. The 24-hr PM10

MAAQS is based on the second-highest value, and the 24-hr PM10 NAAQS is closely related 

to the second-highest value.

The next-closest ambient air quality monitoring stations are in the Billings area (approximately 

35 miles south), Laurel (approximately 46 miles south) and Lewistown (approximately 73 miles 

northwest). Data from these monitoring stations (Table B-3) do not reflect ambient air quality 

in the vicinity of the Mine due to distances from the Mine and differences between air pollutant 

emitting sources in the areas. 

Mine activities that could adversely affect air quality are constrained by several conditions in 

MAQP #3179-12 (MDEQ 2016b). Operating restrictions include:

• Limit raw coal production to no more than 15.0 Mt during any 12-month rolling 

average;

• Use fabric filter baghouses to control particulate emissions from surface crushing 

operations;

• Limit the size of surface coal and other stockpiles to prescribed areas;

• Limit crushing capacity to a prescribed throughput rate; and,

• Develop and follow a fugitive dust control plan that includes prescribed mitigation 

measures.

The Mine is also subject to several opacity limits which effectively limit fugitive dust emissions 

and is subject to the Federal Coal Preparation and Processing Plants New Source Performance 

Standards (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Y). Annual reporting requirements and unscheduled 

periodic inspections help ensure compliance with all applicable conditions.

SPE (2014a) estimated the Mine’s potential maximum annual emissions of criteria pollutants of 

concern Appendix C summarizes the results of those estimates the portion attributed to each 

1.0 Mt of saleable coal produced for reference in this analysis. Table B-4 presents estimated 

annual emissions (tons per year) from Mine operations in 2016, which produced 5.96 Mt of 

saleable coal.
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-5

Table B-3. Summary of Ambient Monitoring in Region.

Monitor 

Location/Name

Pollutant 

Monitored

Most 

Recent 

Data

Measured 

Value (1) 

(2)

MAAQS/

NAAQS Units (3)

NAAQS/MAAQS 

Averaging 

Period

Design Value Method

Billings / St Lukes PM 2.5 2016

15 35 μg/m3 24-Hour NAAQS 98th Percentile

6.1* 12 μg/m3 Annual NAAQS Weighted Annual Mean

Billings / Coburn 

Road SO2 2016

18 75 ppb 1-Hour NAAQS 99th Percentile

n/a 0.5 ppm 3-Hour NAAQS Not exceeded more than 

1/year

0.005 0.10 ppm 24-Hour MAAQS Second Max 24 hr

0.00096 0.02 ppm Annual MAAQS Annual Mean

Lewistown NO2 2016

9.0 100 ppb 1-Hour NAAQS 98th Percentile

0.49 53 ppb Annual NAAQS Annual Mean

Lewistown Ozone 2016

0.061 0.10 ppm 1-Hour MAAQS 2nd Max 1 hr

0.055 0.070 ppm 8-Hour NAAQS 4th Max 8 hr

Lewistown PM10 2016

33 150 μg/m3 24-Hour 

NAAQS/MAAQS

Not to be Exceeded in a 

Year

33 50 μg/m3 Annual MAAQS Second Max 24 hr

Lewistown PM 2.5 2016

10 35 μg/m3 24-Hour NAAQS 98th Percentile

3.6 12 μg/m3 Annual NAAQS Weighted Annual Mean

Laurel / 

BLAQTC-Laurel SO2 2015

38 75 ppb 1-Hour NAAQS 99th Percentile

n/a 0.5 ppm 3-Hour NAAQS Not exceeded more than 

1/year

0.0089 0.10 ppm 24-Hour MAAQS Second Max 24 hr

0.00154* 0.02 ppm Annual MAAQS Annual Mean

Billings / St Lukes CO 2011

2.5 35 ppm 1-Hour NAAQS 2nd Max 1 hr

1.3 9 ppm

8-Hour 

NAAQS/MAAQS 2nd Max 8 hr

2.5 23 ppm 1-Hour MAAQS 2nd Max 1 hr

Source: EPA 2018b

(1) * indicates the mean does not satisfy minimum data completeness criteria

(2) n/a - data not available

(3) μg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter, ppm = parts per million, ppb = parts per billion

Table B-4. Estimated Total Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions from Producing 5.96 Mt of Saleable 

Coal in 2016.

PM10 PM2.5 NOx

1 SO2 CO VOC2

Estimated 2016 

Emissions (tons) 236 32 47 16 63 15

(1) Oxides of nitrogen, commonly quantified as a surrogate for NO2, a criteria pollutant.

(2) Volatile Organic Compounds. As a major component in atmospheric reactions that form 

ozone, it is generally regulated as an ozone surrogate. The application calculations quantify 

“total hydrocarbon” emissions, of which VOCs are a subset.

1.2 Rail Transport

Sections 2.1.7 and 3.1 of the EA describe the rail transport route considered in this analysis. 

From the Mine, coal is hauled approximately 1,390 miles (one way) through Montana, Idaho, 

and Washington to Westshore Terminal at the Port of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 

The route does not pass through any Class I areas The rail transport route passes through or 
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-6

near designated nonattainment areas in Montana8 None of these nonattainment areas have 

recorded a certified NAAQS exceedance for at least the last five years (EPA 2018c) and MDEQ 

is in the process of redesignating most of them to "attainment" (Coe 2018). Areas with 

historically degraded air quality are likely to have developed mitigation measures. For example, 

the city and partial county of Missoula, Montana were designated in 1990 as being in 

nonattainment with the PM10 NAAQS based on violations in the 1980s. The Missoula CityCounty Health Department evaluated sources of particulate matter and designed a control 

program which brought the area back into compliance with the NAAQS. As a result, no PM10

standard violation has been observed in the area since 1989 (Missoula County n.d.). MDEQ has 

petitioned the EPA for a redesignation to attainment and the request is currently being 

evaluated (Schmidt 2018). 

Locomotive Emissions

Under the CAA, EPA has sole authority to adopt and enforce locomotive emission standards 

(CARB 2006). States and localities are prohibited from creating statutes or rules that apply to 

mobile source emissions. Some municipalities, however, have coordinated with railroad 

operators to develop and implement plans to limit locomotive emissions at railyards. For 

example, in 2011 Missoula County developed a Montana Rail Link Idling Emissions Reduction 

Project. Funded by an EPA grant, the project installed small, fuel-efficient engines on 34 aged 

diesel locomotives to keep the main engines warm in cold weather. This reduced locomotive 

idling in the Missoula switchyard which, in turn, reduced railroad traffic-related emissions in the 

Missoula-area (Missoula 2011).

Under current regulations (40 CFR Part 1033) EPA has established tiered emissions standards 

that apply to locomotive engines based on the year of manufacture or remanufacture. The 

standards, which limit emissions of NOx, particulate matter, hydrocarbons, and carbon dioxide 

(CO2), establish four tiers of increasingly stringent limits for newer engines. The most stringent 

limits apply to engines manufactured in 2015 or later. Overall air pollutant emissions from 

locomotive fleets would decrease over time as old engines are retired and replaced with newer 

models.

Baseline criteria air pollutant emission rates for each 1.0 Mt of coal transported by rail between 

the Mine and Westshore Terminal were estimated using methods described in Appendix C. 

Those estimated emissions were used to estimate the total emissions from transporting 5.96 

Mt of saleable coal in 2016 (see Table B-5). Emission rates for each pollutant are estimated in 

tons per year (2016) as well as average pounds per mile (lbs/mile) over the 2,780 miles trains 

travel round-trip, with the latter reflecting the transitory and distributed nature of locomotive 

emissions.

 

8 MDEQ Nonattainment Area Map Available at: 

http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Air/AirQuality/Documents/Planning/airmaps/MontanaCommunityDesignationStatusA

ug2007.pdf
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-7

Table B-5: Estimated Total Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions from Transporting 5.96 Mt of Coal by 

Rail (Round-Trip) in 2016.

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC

Total Round-trip Emissions (tons) 45 42 1,622 2 386 78

Emissions Per Mile (lbs/mile) 33 30 1,167 1 278 56

PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from diesel fuel combustion may also be referred to as diesel 

particulate matter (DPM), which is composed of elemental carbon particles with adsorbed 

organic compounds as well as condensed aerosols. EPA (2003, pg. 11) evaluated toxic effects of 

diesel exhaust, which includes DPM, and determined it is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans 

by inhalation from environmental exposures.” EPA (2003, pg. 9) also observed that DPM is a 

portion of ambient PM2.5 and that the PM2.5 NAAQS “would be expected to offer a measure of 

protection from effects associated with DPM.”

Coal Dust Emissions

Coal dust is generated by uncovered loaded coal trains as discussed in Section 3.1 of the EA.

In addition to potential impacts related to rail safety, coal dust is identified as having potential to 

affect human health and environmental quality. Particulate emissions (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) can 

affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects (EPA 2017a), and trace elements in 

coal could potentially affect the environment where coal dust deposition occurs. 

In non-occupational settings, particulate matter and airborne dust is regulated by NAAQS. 

Because NAAQS regulate environmental exposure of the general population to all sources of 

particulate matter, these regulations are more stringent than standards regulating occupational 

exposure to coal dust at coal mines. There are no Federal or state guidelines or standards that 

identify acceptable levels of ambient dust deposition. 

BNSFs Requirements and Actions Pertaining to Coal Dust

BNSF currently enforces the Safe Harbor provision in the BNSF Coal Loading Rule (BNSF 

2015a, 2017b) to limit deposition (Section 3.1.3 of the EA). Since 2015, BNSF has also been 

operating a surfactant re-spray facility along its main line in Pasco, Washington to further limit 

coal dust. Coal trains traveling west along the main line route through the Columbia River 

Gorge are sprayed with a topper agent as it passes through to lessen potential coal dust release 

from rail cars (WDOE and Cowlitz County 2017).

On March 3, 2017, a consent decree (CASE NO. 2:13-cv-00967-JCC) was finalized between 

BNSF and the Sierra Club along with several other environmental groups settling a multi-year 

lawsuit over alleged coal and petroleum coke (petcoke) dust emissions from rail cars operating 

on rail routes in Washington State. Under this consent decree, BNSF will conduct a study on 

the feasibility of physical covers for coal and petcoke rail cars and pay $1 million to fund 

environmental projects across Washington State aimed at improving water quality or habitat. 

BNSF will also clean up coal and petcoke materials on or adjacent to BSNF’s right-of-way (on 

land only) at five locations in Washington State and conduct follow-up inspections of each area 

two times during the period of the Consent Decree (WDOE and Cowlitz County 2017)
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-8

Coal Dust Generation, Dispersion, and Deposition

Comprehensive literature reviews on topics related to coal dust emissions, dispersion, and 

deposition were conducted by STB (2015a) and WDOE and Cowlitz County (2017) to 

complete NEPA analyses for recent projects involving coal transport by rail (with transport 

rates ranging from 10 to 70 trains per day). These prior analyses concluded that most coal dust 

from rail cars is generated from the top surface of the loaded rail car. Volume of dust emitted 

depends on several factors including the type and composition of the coal, moisture content, 

ambient wind speed and direction, precipitation, use of topper agents, size of rail car’s top 

opening, the shape or profile of the coal surface in the car, the position of the car in the train, 

time and distance traveled, and train speed. 

Connell Hatch (2008) estimated that rail cars, each containing approximately 90 tons of coal, 

could lose an average of 0.0035 percent of total load over trips between 100 and 300 miles 

(estimated 6 pounds for each car). WDOE and Cowlitz (2017) considered the estimate high 

given the study did not make adjustments for moisture, including wetting or use of other dust 

control techniques such as toppers as required by the BNSF Coal Loading Rule. 

STB (2015a) modeling for a scenario with an additional 26.7 trains per day over current levels 

reported that at 50 meters from the rail line, the maximum annual increase in PM10 and PM2.5

from coal dust would be 6.1 μg/m3and 1.2 μg/m3, respectively. STB concluded that these 

predicted increases would be insufficient to lead to a violation of NAAQS for either PM10 or 

PM2.5. Similarly, WDOE and Cowlitz (2017) concluded that adding predicted coal dust emissions 

from eight loaded and eight empty trains per day to background levels would not lead to a 

violation of NAAQS along the evaluated rail segments. 

The distance between the rail and point of deposition (where dust settles on the ground) varies 

and depends primarily on the size of the particles, meteorological conditions including wind 

speed, and/or train speed (WDOE and Cowlitz County 2017). An Australian coal dust 

deposition study (as reported in Connell Hatch 2008, associated traffic rates unknown) found 

that maximum dust deposition occurred at 3 meters from the track with a coal dust deposition 

rate of approximately 90 milligrams per square meter per day (mg/m2/day). At 10 meters the 

deposition rate dropped to 30 mg/m2/day. STB (2015a) estimated the maximum modeled 

deposition rate would be 36 mg/m2/day at 50 meters from the track for a scenario with an 

additional 26.7 loaded trains per day and use of topper agents. 

Coal Dust and Human Health

From a human health perspective, inhalation of coal dust (particulate matter) is the primary 

exposure pathway of interest. Human exposure could also occur by ingestion of soil, sediment, 

water, agricultural products, fish, or other animals that have ingested soil or water affected by 

coal dust deposits. STB (2015a) conducted dispersion modeling to assess potential health 

impacts from inhalation of coal dust. Based on model results neither background conditions nor 

the addition of airborne coal dust from the high production level (26.7 trains per day) to the 

estimated background levels of particulate would cause particulate matter concentrations to 

exceed the NAAQS either alone or in combination with other project-related PM10 or PM2.5
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-9

particulate emissions, including exhaust emissions from locomotives and fugitive particulate 

matter from wind erosion.

STB (2015a) used the air dispersion and deposition model in combination with a fate and 

transport model to estimate concentrations of chemicals in coal dust in soil, water, and 

sediment. The model results were used to analyze potential human health impacts from 

ingestion of coal dust based on applicable EPA screening levels. The study determined that 

concentrations of coal dust constituents (including trace elements in coal and the chemical 

constituents of coal topper agents) in soil, dust, water, and fish would be below EPA screening 

levels for human exposure for all evaluated pathways. Estimated concentrations in soil ranged 

from two to five orders of magnitude below the soil ingestion screening levels. For movement 

through soil to groundwater, none of the estimated trace metal concentrations exceeded the 

screening level values; most of these values were two to three orders of magnitude less than 

the screening levels.

Coal Dust and Ecological Health

As part of the same study noted above, STB (2015a) combined the results of the modeling 

analysis discussed above to estimate chemical concentrations in soil, water, and sediment for 

evaluation of potential ecological impacts of the same project (26.7 loaded trains per day). 

Consistent with the study related to human health (ingestion), none of the chemical 

concentrations estimated for soil resulted in values greater than the EPA ecological soil 

screening levels for plants, soil invertebrates, avian wildlife, or mammalian wildlife. 

STB (2015a) estimated concentrations of coal dust constituents in surface water for the same 

project based on the average deposition from air over a modeled watershed and subsequent 

runoff and erosion into a modeled water body. Estimated values for water were well below 

available EPA freshwater screening benchmarks, with the exception of barium. However, based 

on the use of conservative assumptions, the concentration of barium in surface water was likely 

overestimated. When barium is released to water, the compound precipitates as barium sulfate, 

which has low solubility in water. As such, concentrations of soluble barium in surface water 

would not be expected to exceed benchmark or screening levels.

1.3 Seaport Handling

As discussed in Section 2.1.7 of the EA, nearly all coal from the Mine is shipped overseas from 

Westshore Terminal in British Columbia, Canada. Westshore Terminal is one of 27 major 

marine terminals that comprise the Port of Vancouver located in the Vancouver metropolitan 

area. The governments of Canada, British Columbia, and Metro Vancouver have developed 

several criteria pollutant ambient concentration standards and objectives as shown in Table B6 and Table B-7, and air quality is monitored in the Vancouver metropolitan area. Measured 

ambient pollutant concentrations at the station nearest to Westshore Terminal were all below 

the relevant air quality standards and objectives in 2014, the most recent year reported (Metro 

Vancouver 2015).

In 2013, an air quality study was conducted to evaluate local and regional baseline conditions 

and potential environmental impacts related to Westshore Terminal’s proposed port 

improvement and expansion project (Westshore Terminal LP 2013). The study evaluated 
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-10

emissions from marine and rail traffic, cargo-handling equipment, and on-road vehicles. It 

projected air emissions that would result from terminal activities in 2018 under two scenarios 

of coal throughput: Scenario A—39.7 Mtpy if the proposed expansion were to be completed—

and Scenario B—36.4 Mtpy coal throughput if the project were not completed (existing 

condition). Except for particulate emissions, the differences in criteria pollutant emission rates 

between the two scenarios were approximately 5 percent or less. The proposed port project 

was, however, expected to reduce particulate emissions by approximately 20 percent due to 

improvements in materials handling equipment. 

Appendix C presents estimated port-wide criteria pollutant emissions attributed to handling 

1.0 Mt of coal based on existing port capacity and emission rates (i.e., Scenario B, above) as this 

reflects the more conservative (i.e., highest) estimated emission rates of the two scenarios 

(Westshore Terminal LP 2013). Although emission rates for some of Westshore Terminal’s 

emitting units are not related to coal throughput by a direct linear correlation, the 

apportionment adequately describes the existing environment and is suitable for estimating 

emissions attributed to transferring 5.96 Mt of coal from the Mine in 2016 (Table B-8). 

Table B-6. Metro Vancouver’s Ambient Air Quality Objectives.

Air Contaminant 

and Averaging Time

AQO Level

(μg/m3)

AQO Level

(Ppb)

CO

1-hour 30,000 262,000

8-hour 10,000 8,700

NO2

1-hour 200 106

Annual 40 21

SO2

1-hour 196 75

24-hour 125 48

Annual 30 11

Ozone

1-hour 161 82

8-hour 128 65

PM10

24-hour 50 -

Annual 20 -

PM2.5

24-hour 25 -

Annual 8 -

Total reduced Sulphur

1-hour (acceptable) 14 10

1-hour (desirable) 7 5

Source: Metro Vancouver 2016

Notes:

AQO = Ambient Air Quality Objective

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

Ppb = parts per billion
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-11

Table B-7. British Columbia Ambient Air Quality Objectives.

Air Contaminant 

and Averaging 

Period

AQO 

Level

(μg/m3)

AQO Level 

(ppb) Source (1)

Date Adopted

by Source

Formaldehyde

1-hour 60 50 Provincial AQO 1995

NO2

1-hour 188 100 Interim Provincial AQO 2014

Annual 60 32 Interim Provincial AQO 2014

Ozone

1-hour 160 82 NAAQO 1989

8-hour 123 63 CAAQS 2013

PM2.5

24-hour 25 - Provincial AQO 2009

24-hour 28 - CAAQS 2013

Annual 8 - Provincial AQO 2009

Annual 10 - CAAQS 2013

PM10

24-hour 50 - Provincial AQO 1995

SO2

1-hour 196 75 Interim Provincial AQO 2016

1-hour 183 70 CAAQS 2016

Annual 13 5 CAAQS 2016

Total Suspended Particulate

24-hr 120 - NAAQS 1974

Annual 60 - NAAQS 1974

Source: BCME 2016

Notes:

AQO = Ambient Air Quality Objective

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

ppb = parts per billion

(1) NAAQO = National Ambient Air Quality Objective

 CAAQS = Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standard

Table B-8: Estimated Total Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions from Transferring 5.96 Mt of Coal 

Through Westshore Terminal in 2016. 

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC

Total Emissions (tons) 20 4 31 1 9 2
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-12

1.4 Ocean Transport

In 1973, the United Nations IMO developed the International Convention for the Prevention of 

Pollution from Ships. Modified in 1978, it is known as MARPOL 73/78. It forms a structure for 

regulations that help reduce and limit environmental damage from operational and accidental oil 

discharge, shipped cargo, sewage, garbage, and air pollutant emissions (IMO 2017). The last of 

these is addressed by Annex VI, “Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships,” 

which entered into force in 2005 and was supported by 86 countries as of June 2016 (Hughes 

2016). For the purposes of this assessment, Annex VI Regulations 13 and 14 are the most 

relevant. 

• Regulation 13: Establishes three tiers of NOx emission limits based on the year a vessel 

was manufactured and engine speed rating in units of revolutions per minute. Tier limits 

apply to manufacture dates as follows: Tier 1 after 1999, Tier 2 after 2010, and Tier 3 

after 2015 (if operating in an Emissions Control Area, or ECA). ECAs apply for up to 

200 nautical miles from the Canadian and United States Pacific coastline.

• Regulation 14: Limits SOx and particulate matter in ship engine exhaust primarily by 

limiting sulfur content in fuel that is allowed to be combusted. It also establishes three 

tiers of limits based on the vessel manufacture date brackets. Different fuel sulfur limits 

apply to ships operating within and outside of designated ECAs. 

Appendix C presents estimated criteria pollutant emissions from ocean transport of 1.0 Mt of 

coal. The one-way shipping distance was assumed to be 5,300 miles, the approximate average 

distance between Westshore Terminal and Japan or the ROK. Estimates reflect round-trip 

travel assuming the same emissions in both directions (i.e., emissions occurring over 10,600 

miles). Estimated baseline criteria air pollutant emissions from ocean transport of 5.96 Mt of 

coal in 2016 are presented in Table B-9. Emission rates for each pollutant are estimated in 

total tons as well as lbs/mile, with the latter reflecting the transitory and distributed nature of 

cargo vessel emissions.

Table B-9. Estimated Total Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions from Round-Trip Ocean Transport of 

5.96 Mt of Coal in 2016 (units as shown).

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC

Total Round-trip Emissions (tons) 698 642 5,238 4,941 472 202

Emissions Per Mile (lbs/mile) 132 121 988 932 890 38

1.5 Overseas Combustion

As discussed in Section 2.1.7 of the EA, nearly all coal is sold to power generators in the 

ROK and Japan. These countries therefore comprise the affected environment for analysis of 

overseas combustion effects on air quality. Both countries maintain a structure of regulations 

designed to maintain or improve air quality by limiting pollutant emissions from industrial and 

other emitting sources. 
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-13

ROK

The ROK’s Framework Act on Environmental Policy (ROK 2008) describes fundamental 

environmental policy goals for preventing pollution and managing natural resources for 

sustainable use. Air quality is managed under the Clean Air Conservation Act (ROK 

2011). This legislation establishes:

• A permitting and reporting system for facilities that emit one or more of 26 

designated air pollutants;

• Permissible emission limits designed to progressively become more stringent as 

emissions control technology improves;

• Guidance programs and periodic inspections with the potential for prosecution 

related to noncompliance; and

• Improvement mandates and improvement charges in cases where emissions 

limits are exceeded.

Japan

Japan’s Air Pollution Control Act directs the control and monitoring of air pollution 

under the direction of the Japan Ministry of the Environment (JMOE). JMOE has 

established environmental air quality standards for several pollutants (JMOE 2014). 

According to the United Nations Environment Programme, current standards are within 

World Health Organization targets, and “[a]ir quality in the country has improved 

dramatically over the past few decades even as the economy has grown, thanks to 

stringent legislation; Japanese cities [are] amongst [the] world’s least polluted....” 

(UNEP n.d.). 

JMOE has established national standards limiting air pollutant emissions from stationary 

sources, and prefectural governors can set more stringent emissions standards within 

their jurisdiction as needed. Emission standards include: maximum permissible limits for 

each type and size of facility; special standards which are stricter for areas where air 

pollution has or is likely to exceed the limits; more stringent prefectural emission 

standard in areas where national emission standards might be insufficient to protect 

human health or living conditions; and standards for controlling total emissions that 

prescribe maximum limits for specific large-scale factories (UNEP n.d.).

Appendix C presents estimated emissions of criteria pollutants and heavy metals HAPs (i.e., 

lead, mercury and arsenic), generated from combusting 1.0 Mt of coal at utility-scale power 

plants in the ROK and Japan (separately or collectively). Because specific power plants are not 

known, the range of estimates generated reflects the varying types of boilers and effectiveness 

of pollution control technologies that may be implemented at power plants in both countries. A 

low emission range assumes that a relatively effective pollution control technology is in place, 

while a high emission range assumes a relatively ineffective pollution control technology is in 

place. Estimated ranges of baseline pollutant emissions from combusting 5.96 Mt of coal in 2016 

are presented in Table B-10. 
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-14

Table B-10. Estimated Total Air Pollutant Emissions from Combusting 5.96 Mt of Coal in ROK and 

Japan in 2016.

Emission 

Range

PM10

(tons)

PM2.5

(tons)

NOx

(tons)

SO2

(tons)

CO 

(tons)

VOC 

(tons)

Pb1

(lbs)

Hg1

(lbs)

As1

(lbs)

Low 890 861 578 2,367 30 4 30 30 26

High 1,751 1,363 23,095 11,834 373 52 592 182 520

(1) Pb = lead, Hg = mercury, As = arsenic

Effects of most industrial source air pollutants are limited to the immediate area or, at most, 

the region surrounding the source. However, mercury emissions can also have a global effect. 

Because it does not degrade in the environment, mercury emitted to the atmosphere eventually 

deposits onto land or water bodies. Through a series of chemical transformations and 

environmental transport processes, deposited mercury can eventually accumulate in the food 

chain (EPA 2017e). Exposure to mercury threatens human health, with developing fetuses and 

young children most at risk. Mercury pollution can also harm wildlife and ecosystems (EPA 

2017b).

Mercury’s fate after it is emitted into the air depends primarily on its as-emitted chemical form 

and dispersion characteristics of the emitting source, such as stack height, and of the receiving 

atmosphere, such as wind currents. Depending on these factors, emitted mercury can travel 

thousands of miles in the atmosphere before eventually depositing in rainfall or in dry gaseous 

form. Recent estimates of annual global mercury emissions from both natural and 

anthropogenic sources are in the range of approximately 5,500 to 8,800 tons per year, including 

re-emitted mercury (EPA 2017f). Global emissions of mercury from anthropogenic sources are 

estimated at approximately 2,066 tons annually (UNEP/AMAP 2015). Table B-11 summarizes 

estimated 2010 mercury emissions from the US, Japan and ROK. 

Table B-11: Estimated Annual Mercury Emissions in 2010.

Sector

United 

States ROK Japan

Stationary Fossil Fuel Combustion –Power Plants – Coal (tons) 30 1.1 1.0 to 1.1

Total Emissions, all sectors (tons) 61 8.9 19 to 24

Source: UNEP/AMAP 2015, Annex 7.

Mercury emissions from both existing and new coal-fired power plants in the US are regulated 

by EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule. EPA (2017g) estimates that the rule 

prevents approximately 90 percent of the mercury in coal burned in US power plants from 

being emitted to the air. As domestic coal-fired power plants have worked to comply with 

these standards in recent years, mercury controls have also progressed and are available for 

coal-fired generation plants of various designs and ages in Japan and the ROK. Emissions 

reductions from these controls are reflected in the low range of mercury emissions presented 

above in Table B-9. 
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-15

2.0 Environmental Consequences

2.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

Effects on air quality are directly related to air pollutant emission rates that are generally 

proportional to the rate of saleable coal production across all segments as presented in 

Section 1.0 (above). Direct and indirect impacts are evaluated by quantifying annual emissions 

at the maximum rate of saleable coal production under each alternative (10.0 Mtpy) for 

comparison to Mine production in 2016 (5.96 Mt) as described in Section 1.0 (above). In 

addition to representing the most recent condition, the 2016 production rate is close to the 

lowest saleable coal production in the past five years (5.72 Mt in 2012, see Table 2.1-1 of the 

EA). 

Methods used to estimate emissions in this analysis are consistent with Section 1.0 of this 

Appendix and are further described in Appendix C, where annual emissions are presented on 

a 1.0 Mt basis. 

No Action

Mining

Table B-12 shows estimated annual criteria pollutant emission rates related to Mine 

operations for saleable coal production rates of 5.96 Mt for the 2016 baseline year, 10.0 Mt for 

the No Action Alternative, and the difference between the two annual rates. 

Table B-12. Estimated Annual Total Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions from Mine Operations (tons).

Saleable Coal 

Annual Production Rate PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC

Baseline (5.96 Mt in 2016) 236 32 47 16 63 15

No Action (10.0 Mt) 396 54 79 27 106 25

Difference (4.04 Mt) 160 22 32 11 43 10

Mining activities under the No Action Alternative would continue to be controlled by the 

existing MAQP (MDEQ 2016b) and the underlying regulations which are designed to prevent 

major impacts for 2.5 additional years (see Section 1.0, above). Potential emissions would not 

change, and the Mine would continue to qualify as a “minor” or “area” (i.e., non-major) 

stationary emissions source. The Mine would also continue, under the Regional Haze Rule, to 

be a non-regulated source and would not be expected to adversely impact air quality at any 

Class I area for 2.5 additional years.

Ambient air monitoring has demonstrated that the Mine’s historical impacts to local air quality 

have been minor with respect to applicable air quality standards (NAAQS and MAAQS). 

Although actual annual emissions from the No Action Alternative could increase relative to 

historical rates, they would not increase beyond levels associated with the MAQP limits

(MDEQ 2016b). MAQP limits ensure acceptable air quality impacts. The annual production rate 

of 10.0 Mt under the No Action Alternative is less than the MAQP production rate limit. 
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-16

Therefore, the Mine operations’ direct and indirect impacts to air quality are expected to be 

minor. This conclusion is supported by MDEQ’s February 2017 approval to terminate local air 

monitoring for PM10 (MDEQ 2017a). Air quality impacts related to the No Action Alternative 

would also be short-term, lasting at least 2.5 years while mining continues and then declining 

and eventually ceasing as the Mine is fully reclaimed in accordance with the Mine permit.

Rail Transport – Locomotive Emissions

Table B-13 presents estimated annual criteria pollutant emissions related to transporting coal 

by rail between the Mine and Westshore Terminal at annual saleable coal production rates of 

5.96 Mt for the 2016 baseline year, 10.0 Mt for the No Action Alternative, and the difference. 

Emissions are presented as pounds per mile traveled, reflecting distribution of impacts over the 

2,780 miles trains travel round-trip including rail segments that may see both loaded and 

unloaded rail traffic from both loaded and empty trains. Evaluating emissions on a local scale 

(per mile of track, in this instance) is more informative than evaluating total emissions. 

Table B-13. Estimated Annual Total Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions from Rail Transport (lbs/mile).

Saleable Coal 

Annual Production Rate PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC

Baseline (5.96 Mt in 2016) 33 30 1,167 1 278 56

No Action (10.0 Mt) 55 51 1,957 2 466 95

Difference (4.04 Mt)122 21 791 1 188 38

(1) Minor discrepancies occur due to rounding of source values.

At these emission rates, impacts to air quality from rail transport under the No Action 

Alternative are expected to be negligible and short-term, lasting 2.5 years. Emissions would be 

distributed over long distances and transitory in nature. As discussed in Section 1.0 (above), 

rail routes do not encroach on any Class I areas, and areas with historically degraded air quality 

are likely to have developed mitigation measures similar to the referenced Missoula, Montana 

example. Along routes passing through nonattainment areas, the increase in rail traffic under

both Alternatives would be less than 50 percent and less than 3 trains per day (49 CFR § 

1105.7), which is the threshold applied by STB for analysis of potential air quality impacts (STB 

2015a, Chapter 17).

Rail Transport – Coal Dust

WDOE and Cowlitz County (2017) and STB (2015a) analyzed projects involving coal transport 

by rail at daily rates and a total duration greater than what would be undertaken by the No 

Action (1.8 loaded and 1.8 empty trains per day). These analyses concluded that adverse impact 

of coal dust is below regulatory standards for air emissions and below human health and 

ecological screening levels associated with subsequent deposition to soil and water. As such, 

there would be no measurable effect on human or ecological health. Given this, coal dustrelated impacts associated with the No Action-related rail transport of coal would be negligible. 

Impacts on air quality would be short-term as the duration of mining and transport would be 

extended by 2.5 years. Coal dust deposited in soil and water would remain in the long-term.
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-17
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-18

Seaport Handling

Table B-14 shows estimated annual criteria pollutant emissions related to transferring coal at 

Westshore Terminal at annual saleable coal production rates of 5.96 Mt for the 2016 baseline 

year, 10.0 Mt for the No Action Alternative, and the difference. 

Table B-14. Estimated Annual Total Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions from Operations at the 

Westshore Terminal (tons).

Saleable Coal Annual 

Production Rate (Mt) PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC

Baseline (5.96 Mt in 2016) 20 4 31 2 9 2

No Action (10.0 Mt) 33 7 53 3 14 3

Difference (4.04 Mt)113 3 21 1 6 1

(1) Minor discrepancies occur due to rounding of source values.

At these emission rates, impacts to air quality from port operations under the No Action 

Alternative are expected to be negligible and short-term, lasting 2.5 years. As noted in Section 

1.0 (above), measured ambient pollutant concentrations proximal to Westshore Terminal were 

all below the relevant air quality objectives and standards in 2014. Existing regulations would

continue to ensure that individual emitting sources produce air quality impacts protective of 

human and environmental health. 

Ocean Transport

Table B-15 shows estimated annual criteria pollutant emissions related to transporting coal 

from the Westshore Terminal to the ROK and Japan at annual rates of 5.96 Mt for the 2016 

baseline year, 10.0 Mt for the No Action Alternative, and the difference. Emissions are 

presented as pounds per mile traveled round-trip because impacts are distributed over a large 

distance, similar to locomotive emissions, as discussed above. 

Table B-15. Estimated Annual Total Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions from Ocean Transport 

(lb/mile)

Saleable Coal Annual 

Production Rate PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC

Baseline (5.96 Mt in 2016) 132 121 988 932 89 38

No Action (10.0 Mt) 221 203 1,658 1,564 149 64

Difference (4.04 Mt) 89 82 670 632 60 26

At these emission rates, impacts to air quality from ocean transport are expected to be 

negligible and short-term, lasting 2.5 years. Localized impacts would be negligible as emissions 

would be distributed over long distances and transitory in nature. 
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-19

Overseas Combustion

Table B-16 shows estimated annual pollutant emissions related to combusting coal for power 

generation in the ROK and Japan at annual rates of 5.96 Mt for the 2016 baseline year, 10.0 Mt 

for the No Action Alternative, and the difference. 

Table B-16. Estimated Annual Total Air Pollutant Emission Ranges from Combusting Coal in the 

ROK and Japan

Saleable Coal Annual 

Production Rate

PM10

(tons)

PM2.5

(tons)

NOx

(tons)

SO2

(tons)

CO 

(tons)

VOC 

(tons)

Pb1

(lbs)

Hg1

(lbs)

As1

(lbs)

Low Emission Range

Baseline (5.96 Mt in 2016) 890 861 578 2,368 30 4 30 30 26

No Action (10.0 Mt) 1,494 1,445 970 3,971 50 7 50 50 44

Difference (4.04 Mt) 604 584 392 1,604 20 3 20 20 18

High Emission Range

Baseline (5.96 Mt in 2016) 1,751 1,363 23,095 11,835 373 52 592 182 520

No Action (10.0 Mt) 2,938 2,287 38,750 19,855 625 88 994 306 873

Difference (4.04 Mt) 1,187 924 15,655 8,021 253 35 401 124 353

(1) Pb = lead, Hg = mercury, As = arsenic

As discussed in Section 1.5 (above), combustion activities at power plants in the ROK and 

Japan are subject to air quality control laws that would ensure emissions and resultant air 

quality are within acceptable (regulatory) limits considered protective of human health and the 

environment. The United Nations Environment Programme reports that ambient air quality 

standards in the ROK and Japan are within World Health Organization targets (UNEP 2016a, 

2016b). Given this, air quality impacts from combustion would be minor and would be shortterm, lasting 2.5 years. Cumulative effects of mercury are discussed below.

Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, the Mine would continue to produce and ship up to 10.0 Mt of 

coal annually, the same annual production rate evaluated for the No Action Alternative (above). 

Annual emissions and air quality effects from the Proposed Action would be the same as those 

resulting from the No Action Alternative but would continue for an additional 9 years. Air 

quality impacts related to the Proposed Action would be minor for Mine operations (Table B12) and negligible for rail and ocean transport (Tables B-13 and B-15) and terminal 

operations (Table B-14). The degree of impacts from overseas combustion would depend on 

emission controls and local conditions within either the ROK and/or Japan but would be minor 

due to existing regulations in place that are considered protective of human health and the 

environment as noted above (Table B-16). Air quality impacts from all segments would be 

short-term, though would persist for 9 additional years relative to the No Action Alternative. 

As discussed in Section 1.1 (above), impacts would be expected to decrease over time as 

equipment (e.g., locomotive engines, ship engines, boilers, etc.) that emits air pollutants is 

improved and replaced and as regulations become more stringent. 

The Proposed Action would have the same rail transport rate as the No Action Alternative (1.8 

loaded and 1.8 empty trains per day) and indirect impacts associated with generation of coal 
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-20

dust would be negligible. While effects would occur 9 more years under the Proposed Action, 

relative to the No Action Alternative, the duration of air quality effects is still considered shortterm as the effects would cease after rail transport of the Mine’s coal concludes. As with the 

No Action, coal dust deposited in soil and water would remain in the long-term.

2.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative impact assessment is inherent to evaluation of air quality impacts due to the 

combined effects of multiple emission sources on an affected area, whether it be the air quality 

in the vicinity of a monitoring station, an airshed, a region, or the world as a whole. Air 

pollutant emissions directly related to mining and indirectly resulting from rail transport, port 

operations, ocean transport, and combustion occur in a highly regulated context, as described 

in Section 1.0 (above). 

If undertaken, emissions related to mining, transporting, and combusting 6.0 Mt of coal mined in 

Panel 15 over 0.7 years would not exceed those presented in Section 2.1 (above) as the 

annualized production rate is not expected to exceed 10.0 Mtpy under any scenario. Air quality 

effects from criteria pollutants and arsenic would be minor and short-term, lasting 

approximately 0.7 years after mining ceases under the Proposed Action. Cumulative effects of 

mercury emissions are discussed below.

Mine-related emissions in the US occur in a general environment of improving air quality. The 

EPA (2016b) reports: “Nationally, concentrations of the criteria and hazardous air pollutants 

have dropped significantly since 1990. During this same period, the U.S. economy continued to 

grow, Americans drove more miles and population and energy use increased.” 

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA 2016, pg. 44), “China, [South] Korea, Japan, 

the United States and European Union currently have the most stringent emission standards in 

the world.” Additionally, various government agencies continually monitor ambient air quality 

to ensure maintenance of acceptable conditions and progress toward improvement where 

conditions are unacceptable. These multiple regulatory restrictions and monitoring programs 

address and minimize cumulative air quality impacts.

As discussed in Section 1.0 (above), most emissions affect air quality in areas proximal to the 

emissions source and result in short-term effects as they dissipate rather than accumulate over 

time. While mercury air emissions also dissipate in the atmosphere, elemental mercury can 

travel long distances before depositing to soil and water where it accumulates and can be 

reemitted, resulting in long-term effects. Estimated mercury emissions from combusting 10.0 Mt 

of coal (the Mine’s maximum output) would constitute approximately 0.05 percent to 0.25 

percent of combined annual mercury emissions of the ROK and Japan (see Section 1.5, 

above). 

Total mercury emissions range from 0.06 to 0.35 tons under the No Action Alternative and 

from 0.28 to 1.7 tons under the Proposed Action, accounting for between 0.001 and 0.03 

percent of global mercury emissions (2,066 tons annually; UNEP/AMAP 2015). Total mercury 

emissions from combusting 6.0 Mt of coal from Panel 15 would add between 0.02 and 0.09 

tons, a negligible contribution to emissions attributed to the Proposed Action and other 

sources. Existing regulations in the ROK and Japan and increasing implementation of mercury 
Appendix B – Air Quality

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA B-21

controls similar to those implemented in the US (see Section 1.0, above) are expected to 

reduce mercury accumulation in the environment in the short-term and long-term.

While the extent of cumulative air quality impacts would vary with the specific related activity 

and location, the factors identified above indicate that cumulative impacts on air quality 

resulting from criteria pollutants and arsenic emissions would be minor and short-term. 

Mercury emissions would be minor and have long-term effects as they are combined with global 

emissions and accumulate in the environment.

Coal dust resulting from the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives would combine with 

dust generated from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable coal haulage. Continued 

implementation of BNSF’s Coal Loading Rule (BNSF 2015a, 2017b) ensures that coal dust 

emissions are minimized on BNSF owned and operated rail lines; thereby minimizing the 

potential for coal-dust related emissions and subsequent deposition to soil and water. Increases 

to port capacity are not foreseeable, so the future rate of coal transport on the Main Line 

would not change significantly from recent shipping rates. Based on this and the findings of 

evaluations for other rail transport projects (WDOE and Cowlitz County 2017, STB 2015a), 

project-related coal dust emissions, dispersion and deposition would result in negligible longterm cumulative effects to air quality and the environment.
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-1

APPENDIX C - AIR EMISSIONS

This appendix provides supports the EA’s descriptions of the existing conditions in Section 3.2

(Air Quality) and Section 3.3 (Climate) and also supports impact analysis for air quality and 

climate in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, respectively. Content is organized to separately evaluate 

emissions from the following “segments”: mining operations, rail transport, seaport operations, 

ocean transport, and combustion in both ROK and Japan. This presentation has three 

objectives:

1. Estimate emissions of pollutants of concern (i.e., “criteria” pollutants for which NAAQS 

are defined and heavy metal HAPs from coal combustion) resulting from mining, 

transport, and combustion of 1.0 Mt of coal from the Mine.

2. Estimate GHG emissions as CO2e emissions from mining, transport, and combustion of 

1.0 Mt of coal from the Mine.

3. Identify data, assumptions, and methods used to calculate the foregoing emissions 

estimates.

Mining activities, transport, and combustion locations described in Chapter 2 informed 

preparation of this appendix and attendant exhibits presenting emissions estimates. Emissions 

are estimated on a 1.0 Mt (shipped coal) basis to provide a means of comparing emissions 

associated with different annual production rates analyzed in the EA. 

1.0 Pollutant Emissions 

The EA evaluates existing air quality and future project-related air quality impacts in part by 

quantifying potential emissions of criteria air pollutants PM10, PM2.5, NOx (a surrogate for NO2), 

SO2, CO, and VOCs (as a surrogate for ozone), as well as heavy metals of concern from 

combustion (mercury, lead, and arsenic; lead is also a criteria pollutant). This section discusses 

emissions of these pollutants. 

1.1 Mine Operations

Potential air pollutant emission rates were calculated to support a 2014 application (SPE 2014a) 

to modify the Mine’s MAQP (#3179, Revision 08). Although the MAQP has been revised 

several times since 2014 (currently revision 12; MDEQ 2016b), emission estimates prepared for 

the 2014 application are suitable to support this EA for the following reasons.

• No MAQP revisions have been made that would affect emissions of gaseous air 

pollutants. 

• MAQP revisions primarily reflected changes to surface storage piles and the windblown 

dust emissions they create. Total coal pile surface area potentially increased by 1.5 acres 

resulting in estimated PM10 and PM2.5 rate increases of 0.2 and 0.03 tons per year, 

respectively.

• MAQP revisions related to the WDAs were expected to result in a net reduction of 

particulate emission rates.
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-2

• Calculated emission rates were intended to conservatively represent maximum 

production. Actual emissions for any given time period would likely be lower.

• Historical monitoring data indicate that Mine-related emissions have resulted in 

acceptable air quality and that continued operation within prescribed limits would

continue to produce acceptable impacts.

SPE estimated maximum potential emission rates based on an MAQP limit of 15.0 Mt of raw 

coal production per year (Exhibit 1, Table 1-1) (SPE 2014a). Historically, an average of 

approximately 70 tons of saleable coal is produced from 100 tons of raw mined coal, so 15.0 Mt 

tons of raw coal would produce approximately 10.5 Mt of saleable coal. 

Total emissions from Mine operations do not have a linear relationship with coal production. 

While emissions from some Mining activities, such as coal crushing, are calculated based directly 

on coal throughput rate, emissions from many of the Mine sources are estimated based on 

other factors such as engine size, disturbed exposed area, or vehicle miles traveled. Because 

some activities would occur largely independent of production rate, the assumption would tend 

to underestimate emissions resulting from 5.96 Mtpy during the 2016 baseline year. 

Consequently, the reported difference between 5.96 and 10.0 Mtpy of production may be 

overestimated. Nevertheless, assuming a linear relationship is adequate for the purpose of 

evaluating the range of mining rates between 5.96 to 10.0 Mtpy in the EA.

Exhibit 1 summarizes the potential Mine operating emissions reported in the 2014 application 

and estimates emissions for each 1.0 Mt of saleable coal produced for reference in the EA. 

CO2e calculations presented in Exhibit 1 are discussed below in Section 2.1.

1.2 Rail Transport

Inputs and equations used to estimate locomotive engine emissions between the Mine and 

Westshore Terminal (see Section 2.1.8 of the EA) are presented in Exhibit 2. Calculations 

are based on emission factors derived from projected 2018 locomotive age distribution of 

BNSF’s fleet as presented in a draft EIS for the proposed Tongue River Railroad (STB 2015a, 

Table E.1-8). Those factors were checked against generic EPA factors (EPA 2009) and found to 

closely agree, supporting their use in this analysis. While locomotive idling may occur in 

association with rail transport of coal from the Mine, specific locations and idle durations are 

not known; therefore, idling emissions are not included in locomotive emissions estimates.

Age-tiered pollutant emission factors prescribed by Federal rule 40 CFR Part 1033 are applied 

to the projected fleet age distribution to calculate weighted average factors for each air 

pollutant. While the 2018-based factors are expected to change over time, they are considered 

adequate for this analysis. The level of change that may have occurred between 2017 and 2018 

is expected to be within the range of uncertainty inherent in the 2018 projection. If emissions 

were slightly higher in the 2016 baseline year due to older locomotives in the fleet, the result 

would be a minor overestimation of incremental impacts. After 2018, newer model 

locomotives with more stringent emissions limits will replace older models, thereby reducing 

fleet-wide emissions and emissions associated with coal transport.
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-3

Projected engine emission factors (STB 2015a) relate the mass rate of pollutant emissions to a 

unit of energy expended to move coal (grams (g) of emissions per brake horsepower-hour, or 

bhp-hr, of energy). To use these emission factors, the energy unit is first converted to fuel 

usage based on the amount of energy contained in a unit of diesel fuel. Because the original 

emission factor is expressed in units of “brake horsepower” rather than horsepower, the 

calculation includes a separate factor to derive usable energy from potential energy in diesel. 

That factor is calculated from constants reported by the EPA (EPA 1985, Appendix A). The 

resulting set of pollutant-specific emission factors is presented as tons of pollutant emissions 

per 1,000 gallons of diesel combusted (Exhibit 2, Table 2-1).

The amount of fuel required to transport a ton of coal is derived from BNSF’s 2015 fuel 

efficiency factor of 848 gross ton miles per gallon of diesel (BNSF 2015b, page 20), where 

“gross ton miles” is “the weight of the train (excluding the locomotive) multiplied by the miles 

the train has traveled.” To derive pollutant-specific emission rates for transporting coal 

between the Mine and Westshore Terminal, this fuel efficiency factor is combined with the 

pollutant-specific emission factors (Exhibit 2, Table 2-1) and the following values:

• The distance between the Mine and Westshore Terminal, estimated to be 1,390 miles 

one-way (see EA Section 2.2);

• The typical number of cars per coal train (125) and the total mass of coal per train 

(15,250 tons) (SPE 2017b); 

• The amount of coal one train can haul (15,250 tons) (SPE 2017b); and

• The maximum weight of a train car loaded with coal (286,000 tons) (BNSF n.d.).

The last three values are used to calculate loaded and empty train weights. Separate emissions 

are then calculated for a loaded train traveling to Westshore Terminal and an empty train 

returning to the Mine. These one-way emissions are combined to estimate total round-trip 

emissions per 1.0 Mt of shipped coal (Exhibit 2, Table 2-1). Those values are divided by the 

round-trip distance (2,780 miles) to estimate average pounds of emissions per round-trip mile 

(Exhibit 2, Table 2-2) for reference in the EA. 

CO2e calculations presented in Exhibit 2 are discussed below in Section 2.2.

1.3 Seaport Operations

Estimated emissions related to coal handling at Westshore Terminal (see Section 2.1.8 of the 

EA) are presented in Exhibit 3. Emissions are estimated from information presented in a 2013 

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) evaluating planned modifications at the facility 

(Westshore Terminal LP 2013). The EIA projected 2018 emission rates associated with annual 

seaport capacity of 36 Mt (Exhibit 3, Table 3-1), reflecting conditions before modification 

(Westshore Terminal 2017a). The total emissions and seaport capacity are used to estimate the 

emissions attributed to each 1.0 Mt of coal transferred for reference in the EA (Exhibit 3, 

Table 3-2). If the modifications are completed as planned (currently scheduled for 2019), 

emissions attributed to each 1.0 Mt of coal would decrease by a minor amount in future years. 

CO2e calculations presented in Exhibit 3 are discussed below in Section 2.3.
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-4

1.4 Ocean Transport

Inputs and equations used to estimate cargo vessel emissions between Westshore Terminal to 

the ROK and Japan (see Section 2.1.8 of the EA) are presented in Exhibit 4. Calculations are 

based on emission factors that relate pollutant mass emissions in grams to the amount of 

energy a vessel’s engine produces in one hour (kilowatt-hours, or kWh). Pollutant-specific 

factors are discussed below.

NOx, SO2, and Particulate Emission Factors

Exhibit D, Table D-2 shows NOx emission limits established by the United Nations IMO for 

vessels manufactured after 1999. More stringent NOx emission limits apply to ships operating 

within designated Emission Control Areas (ECAs), but they are not used because the only ECA 

within the coal shipping route extends about 200 miles from the Canadian Pacific coastline, a 

minor fraction of the overall ocean transport route. Vessels built before 2000 are not subject 

to the IMO NOx limits. NOx emissions from these older vessels are calculated using the larger 

of two fuel-dependent emission factors provided in the Westshore Terminal EIA (Westshore 

Terminal LP 2013, Appendix 1, page 25).

The IMO also limits the amount of sulfur a ship’s fuel may contain. As with NOx emissions 

limits, fuel-sulfur limits are based on vessel age and are different for ships operating within and 

outside an ECA. Consistent with assumptions made for NOx, SO2 and particulate emissions are 

calculated based on the limits that apply outside an ECA. The limits for three different vessel 

age brackets (pre-2012, 2012-2020, and post 2020) are shown in Exhibit 4, Table 4-3.

Calculated SO2 emission factors are based on an average fuel consumption rate of 180 g of fuel 

per kWh of energy expended for 2-stroke main engines (Westshore Terminal LP 2013, 

Appendix 1, page 26). The amount of fuel combusted is converted into an amount of sulfur 

released based on the allowable sulfur content for each regulated vessel age group. An emission 

rate in units of grams SO2 per kWh of energy is calculated for each age group assuming all 

sulfur is exhausted as SO2.

Combustion particulate emissions are calculated from fuel sulfur content and particulate size 

factors using an equation provided in the Westshore Terminal EIA (Westshore Terminal LP 

2013, Appendix 1, page 25).

Single emission factors for NOx, SO2, and particulate are calculated to represent the composite 

fleet of vessels that used Westshore Terminal in 2016. Age distributions are derived from 2016 

vessel age data for the terminal (Olszewski 2017). These age distributions are combined with 

the age-group-specific emission rates to calculate emission factors (g/kWh) (Exhibit 4, Table 

4-4).

CO and VOC Emission Factors

The Westshore Terminal EIA (Westshore Terminal LP 2013, Appendix 1, page 25) presents 

CO and VOC emission factors (g/kWh) for an average ship’s 2-stroke main engine. 
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-5

Total Emissions

The following values are used to convert from g/kWh emission factors to emission rates per 

1.0 Mt of coal shipped (Exhibit 4, Table 4-4).

• The main engine power rating (13,120 kW) is derived by interpolating between average 

values relating ship carrying capacity and engine power rating (Man 2014).

• The engine load factor (0.8) is an average propulsion load under normal cruise speeds 

(Westshore Terminal LP 2013, pg 24).

• Normal cruise speed (13 knots) is the median of a range reported in the Westshore 

Terminal EIA (2013, page 24). 

• The average weight of coal per ship (145,000 tons/ship) is calculated from the total 

amount of coal shipped from Westshore Terminal in 2016 (28.4 Mt) (Westshore 

Terminal 2017b) and the number of ship calls that year (196 calls) (Olszewski, 2017).

Estimated emissions per 1.0 Mt of shipped coal are divided by the estimated average round-trip

distance (10,600 miles) to calculate pounds of emissions per mile traveled for reference in the 

EA (Exhibit 4, Table 4-4). Engine load, the primary factor determining cargo vessel air 

emissions, is about 10 percent lower for unloaded compared to fully loaded vessels. Vessel 

emissions are estimated assuming round trip loaded transport, which potentially overstates 

total emissions by up to approximately five percent.

CO2e calculations presented in Exhibit 4 are discussed below in Section 2.4.

1.5 Overseas Combustion

Inputs used to estimate emissions from combusting coal for power generation in the ROK and 

Japan (see Section 2.1.8) are presented in Exhibit 4. Emissions are estimated using a 

combination of EPA emission factors and representative coal quality analysis. Due to national 

environmental regulations in both countries, it is unlikely that a utility-scale generator would 

emit air pollutants without some means of emissions reduction. Therefore, calculations include 

estimated emissions control ranges for each non-GHG pollutant.

The EPA provides factors for emissions of criteria pollutants that result from uncontrolled coal 

combustion for several types of boiler and burner configurations (EPA 1998). Pulverized coal 

boilers are the most common boiler type used for utility-scale power generation. Therefore, 

pulverized coal boiler emission factors were reviewed, and the smallest and largest factors for 

each pollutant were used to establish ranges of potential emission rates for NOx, SO2, CO, 

filterable PM10, and condensable particulate matter (C-PM). Filterable PM2.5 emission factors are 

provided by EPA’s Air Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EPA 2001). Total PM10 and 

PM2.5 emissions are the sum of filterable and condensable components. An EPA emissions 

background document (EPA 1993) provides a VOC emission factor for coal combustion in a 

pulverized coal boiler. Emission rates for trace metals are calculated assuming all metals present 

in the coal would be released in the exhaust (i.e., an emission factor of 1.0). 

Exhibit 5, Table 5-1 estimates minimum and maximum emissions control efficiencies for each 

pollutant selected based on nominal capabilities of typical control technologies most likely to be 

applied at utility-scale power generation facilities. The efficiency rate is the percentage of air 
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-6

pollutant that is removed from exhaust by the control device, whereby high efficiency would 

yield lowest emissions. 

Control efficiencies are applied to the uncontrolled emission factors to estimate the range of 

controlled emissions resulting from coal combustion for reference in the EA (Exhibit 5, Table 

5-2). High emission estimates are the product of each pollutant’s largest uncontrolled emission 

factor and its lowest control efficiency. Conversely, low emission estimates combine the 

smallest uncontrolled emission factor and the corresponding highest control efficiency.

CO2e calculations presented in Exhibit 5 are discussed below in Section 2.5.

2.0 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GHG emissions are estimated for each segment, from mining to combustion, to support 

analyses of potential climate impacts. The three primary GHGs of concern for combustion 

sources are CO2, CH4, and N2O. Total GHG emissions are expressed as CO2e emissions. 

CO2e emission rates are calculated using GWPs (40 CFR Part 98, Subpart A, Table A-1), 

whereby non-CO2 GHG emissions are converted to CO2e emissions based on the energy each 

GHG absorbs relative to CO2. As the reference gas, CO2 has a GWP of 1.0 by definition.

Combined GHG emissions attributable to Mine operations, rail transport, seaport operations, 

ocean transport, and overseas combustion are presented in Exhibit 6, Table 6-1, which 

summarizes CO2e emissions reported in Exhibits 1 through 5. Additional details specific to 

CO2e emissions estimates for each segment are presented in the following sections.

2.1 Mine Operations

A 2014 application to modify MAQP #3179-08 estimates potential GHG emissions resulting 

from Mine operations (SPE 2014a). CO2e emissions per 1.0 Mt of saleable coal (Exhibit 1, 

Table 1-2) are estimated using the same methods used for non-GHG emissions assuming a 

linear relationship between annual mine production and emissions as presented in Section 1.1. 

2.2 Rail Transport

Estimated emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O resulting from rail transport of 1.0 Mt of coal are 

calculated in the same manner as non-GHG emissions (see Section 1.1.2 above) and 

converted to CO2e (Exhibit 2, Table 2-1). 

2.3 Seaport Operations

Westshore Terminal LP (2013) presented estimated CO2e emissions for operations in 2018. 

This estimate was used to estimate CO2e emissions attributed to transferring 1.0 Mt of coal 

(Exhibit 3, Table 3-2) using the same methods used for non-GHGs (see Section 2.3 above). 

2.4 Ocean Transport

CO2e emissions from transporting 1.0 Mt of coal from Westshore Terminal to the ROK and 

Japan (Exhibit 4, Table 4-5) are estimated using power and fuel use calculations used for nonGHG emissions (see Section 1.4 above and Exhibit 4). CO2 emissions calculations begin with 
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-7

an emission factor that relates emissions to fuel consumption (Westshore Terminal LP 2013, 

Appendix 1, page 25). CO2 emissions are calculated based on the engine energy production 

using a combination of the fuel consumption factor and the CO2 emission factor (Westshore 

Terminal LP 2013, Appendix 1, page 25). Westshore Terminal LP (2013) also reports emission 

factors for CH4 and N2O based on energy production. From these factors (g/kWh of CO2, CH4, 

and N2O) a CO2e factor in g/kWh is calculated using GWPs as discussed above. 

2.5 Coal Combustion

Inputs and formulas used to estimate CO2e emissions from combusting 1.0 Mt of coal from the 

Mine are presented in Exhibit 5. CO2 emissions are calculated from the typical carbon content 

of the Mine’s coal (58.15 percent) (SPE 2018a). All but 1.0 percent of the carbon is assumed to 

react during combustion to become CO2, and the molecular weights of carbon and CO2 are 

used to convert carbon mass emissions to CO2 emissions. Emission factors for CH4 and N2O 

provided in the Mandatory GHG Reporting rule (40 CFR 98.33, Table C-2) are converted to 

pounds of emissions per ton of coal using a typical heat content (expressed as British thermal 

units, Btu) for the Mine’s coal (10,194 Btu/pound or Btu/lb) (SPE 2018a). Emissions are 

reported as tons of CO2e emissions per 1.0 Mt of shipped coal (Exhibit 5, Table 5-3). These 

estimates are not specific to combustion overseas and would apply to any combustion location.
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-8
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-9
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-10
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-11
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-12
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-13
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-14
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-15
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-16
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-17
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-18
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-19
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-20
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-21
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-22
Appendix C – Air Emissions

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA C-23
Appendix D – Climate Change

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA D-1

APPENDIX D - CLIMATE CHANGE

This appendix provides additional information related to climate change to supplement 

descriptions of the existing condition (recent conditions and trends) in Section 3.3 and 

provides global, national, and regional context (projections) to support impact analysis in 

Section 4.3. 

1.0 Recent Conditions and Trends

As the leading international body for the assessment of climate change, IPCC reviews and 

assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced 

worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. IPCC’s fifth assessment report 

(IPCC 2014) presents details pertaining to observed climate changes and their causes; future 

climate changes, risks and impacts; future pathways for adaptation, mitigation and sustainable 

development; and adaptation and mitigation. 

IPCC (2014) findings related to recent global conditions and trends include the following.

• Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than 

any preceding decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest 

30-year period of the last 1400 years in the Northern Hemisphere, where such

assessment is possible. 

• The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated 

by a linear trend show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C 2 over the period 1880 to 

2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. It is extremely likely that 

more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 

1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and 

other anthropogenic factors together. 

• In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human 

systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate 

change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems 

to changing climate. 

• Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 

1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease 

in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase 

in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in 

a number of regions.

• In many regions, changing precipitation or melting snow and ice are altering hydrological 

systems, affecting water resources in terms of quantity and quality.

• Many terrestrial, freshwater and marine species have shifted their geographic ranges, 

seasonal activities, migration patterns, abundances and species interactions in response 

to ongoing climate change.

• Studies covering a wide range of regions and crops show that negative impacts of 

climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts.
Appendix D – Climate Change

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA D-2

• Cascading impacts of climate change can now be attributed along chains of evidence 

from physical climate through to intermediate systems and then to people.

• At present the worldwide burden of human ill-health from climate change is relatively 

small compared with effects of other stressors and is not well quantified.

As a key part of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, the US Global Change Research 

Program (USGCRP) oversaw production of a report describing the state of science relating to 

climate change and its physical impacts. USGCRP (2017) concluded that the climate of the US is 

strongly connected to the changing global climate and provided the following statements 

highlighting past and recent conditions related to climate change in the US and the globe. 

• Global annually averaged surface air temperature has increased by about 1.8°F (1.0°C)

over the last 115 years (1901–2016). This period is now the warmest in the history of 

modern civilization. The last few years have also seen record-breaking, climate-related 

weather extremes, and the last three years have been the warmest years on record for 

the globe. These trends are expected to continue over climate timescales.

• Based on extensive evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially 

emissions of GHGs, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative 

explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

• In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in 

response to human activities. Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around 

the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; 

melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean 

acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.

o For example, global average sea level has risen by about 7–8 inches since 1900, 

with almost half (about 3 inches) of that rise occurring since 1993. Humancaused climate change has made a substantial contribution to this rise since 1900, 

contributing to a rate of rise that is greater than during any preceding century in 

at least 2,800 years. Global sea level rise has already affected the US; the 

incidence of daily tidal flooding is accelerating in more than 25 Atlantic and Gulf 

Coast cities.

• Changes in the characteristics of extreme events are particularly important for human 

safety, infrastructure, agriculture, water quality and quantity, and natural ecosystems. 

Heavy rainfall is increasing in intensity and frequency across the US and globally and is 

expected to continue to increase. The largest observed changes in the US have 

occurred in the Northeast. 

• Heatwaves have become more frequent in the US since the 1960s, while extreme cold 

temperatures and cold waves are less frequent. Recent record-setting hot years are 

projected to become common in the near future for the US, as annual average 

temperatures continue to rise. Annual average temperature over the contiguous US has 

increased by 1.8°F (1.0°C) for the period 1901–2016.

• The incidence of large forest fires in the western US and Alaska has increased since the 

early 1980s and is projected to further increase in those regions as the climate changes, 

with profound changes to regional ecosystems.
Appendix D – Climate Change

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA D-3

• Annual trends toward earlier spring melt and reduced snowpack are already affecting 

water resources in the western US and these trends are expected to continue. 

• The global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has now passed 400 parts 

per million (ppm), a level that last occurred about 3 million years ago, when both global 

average temperature and sea level were significantly higher than today. 

• The observed increase in carbon emissions over the past 15-20 years has been 

consistent with higher emissions pathways. In 2014 and 2015, emission growth rates 

slowed as economic growth became less carbon-intensive. Even if this slowing trend 

continues, however, it is not yet at a rate that would limit global average temperature 

change to well below 3.6°F (2°C) above preindustrial levels.

The Montana Climate Assessment (Whitlock et al. 2017) identified the following key messages 

about recent trends related to regional climate change in Montana.

• Annual average temperatures, including daily minimums, maximums, and averages, have 

risen across Montana between 1950 and 2015. The increases range between 2.0-3.0°F 

(1.1-1.7°C) during this period. 

• Winter and spring in Montana have experienced the most warming. Average 

temperatures during these seasons have risen by 3.9°F (2.2°C) between 1950 and 2015.

• Montana’s growing season length is increasing due to the earlier onset of spring and 

more extended summers, and there are more warm days and fewer cool nights. From 

1951-2010, the growing season increased by 12 days. In addition, the annual number of 

warm days has increased by 2.0 percent, and the annual number of cool nights has 

decreased by 4.6 percent over this period.

• Despite no historical changes in average annual precipitation between 1950 and 2015, 

there have been changes in average seasonal precipitation over the same period. 

Average winter precipitation has decreased by 0.9 inches (2.3 cm), which can mostly be 

attributed to natural variability and an increase in El Niño events, especially in the 

western and central parts of the state. A significant increase in spring precipitation (1.3-

2.0 inches [3.3-5.1 cm]) has also occurred during this period for the eastern portion of 

the state.

The Montana Climate Assessment (Whitlock et al. 2017) also provided findings related climate 

change to effects on water, forests, and agriculture, which have been and will continue to be 

affected by changes in climate.

2.0 Projected Climate Conditions and Effects

The most recent findings and predictions about climate change and its effects are presented in 

IPCC’s report titled Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, the Fourth National Climate 

Assessment (USGCRP 2017), and Montana Climate Assessment (Whitlock et al 2017). Recent 

conditions and trends discussed in Section 1 are expected to continue. Projected effects of 

climate change are discussed in each of these documents at varying scales covering a variety of 
Appendix D – Climate Change

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA D-4

topics and resources as summarized below in Section 2.1 to 2.3. In support of Section 4.3.2 

of the EA, a detailed discussion of the SCC protocol is provided in Section 2.4

2.1 Global Projections

Projected global climate conditions and effects identified by IPCC (2014) include the following. 

• Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late

21st century and beyond. Projections of GHG emissions vary over a wide range, 

depending on both socio-economic development and climate policy.

• Continued emission of GHGs will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all 

components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and 

irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. 

• Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed 

emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last 

longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in 

many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to 

rise.

• Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human 

systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged 

people and communities in countries at all levels of development. Increasing magnitudes 

of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for 

people, species and ecosystems. Continued high emissions (globally) would lead to 

mostly negative impacts for biodiversity, ecosystem services and economic development 

and amplify risks for livelihoods and for food and human security.

• Many aspects of climate change and its associated impacts will continue for centuries, 

even if anthropogenic emissions of GHGs are stopped. The risks of abrupt or 

irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.

2.2 National Projections

The Fourth National Climate Assessment (USGCRP 2017) projects changes in temperature and 

precipitation, increased frequency of droughts, floods, wildfires, and extreme storms, changes in 

land cover and terrestrial biogeochemistry, changes in arctic conditions, sea level rise, and 

ocean acidification (and other ocean changes). EPA (2016a) identifies potential subsequent 

effects to health and society and ecosystems such as heat-related deaths and illness, disease 

spread, changes in growing seasons. Examples of projected effects identified by USGCRP (2017) 

include the following.

• Over the next few decades (2021–2050), annual average temperatures are expected to 

rise by about 2.5°F for the US, relative to the recent past (average from 1976-2005), 

under all plausible future climate scenarios. 

• Global average sea levels are expected to continue to rise by at least several inches in 

the next 15 years and by 1 to 4 feet by 2100. A rise of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot 

be ruled out. Sea level rise will be higher than the global average on the East and Gulf 

Coasts of the US. 
Appendix D – Climate Change

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA D-5

• The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades will depend primarily on 

the amount of GHGs (especially CO2) emitted globally. Without major reductions in 

emissions, the increase in annual average global temperature relative to preindustrial 

times could reach 9°F (5°C) or more by the end of this century. With significant 

reductions in emissions, the increase in annual average global temperature could be 

limited to 3.6°F (2°C) or less.

• Under higher scenarios, and assuming no change to current water resources 

management, chronic, long-duration hydrological drought is increasingly possible before 

the end of this century.

• Continued growth in CO2 emissions over this century and beyond would lead to an 

atmospheric concentration not experienced in tens to hundreds of millions of years. 

There is broad consensus that the further and the faster the Earth system is pushed 

towards warming, the greater the risk of unanticipated changes and impacts, some of 

which are potentially large and irreversible.

2.3 Montana Projections

Key projections (effects) identified in the Montana Climate Assessment (Whitlock et al. 2017) 

include the following.

• The state of Montana is projected to continue to warm in all geographic locations, 

seasons, and under all emission scenarios throughout the 21st century. By mid-century, 

Montana temperatures are projected to increase by approximately 4.5-6.0°F (2.5-3.3°C) 

depending on the emission scenario. By the end-of-century, Montana temperatures are 

projected to increase 5.6- 9.8°F (3.1-5.4°C) depending on the emission scenario. These 

state-level changes are larger than the average changes projected globally and nationally.

• The number of days in a year when daily temperature exceeds 90°F (32°C) and the 

number of frost-free days is expected to increase across the state and in both emission 

scenarios studied. Increases in the number of days above 90°F (32°C) are expected to 

be greatest in the eastern part of the state. Increases in the number of frost-free days 

are expected to be greatest in the western part of the state. 

• Across the state, precipitation is projected to increase in winter, spring, and fall; 

precipitation is projected to decrease in summer. The largest increases are expected to 

occur during spring in the southern part of the state. The largest decreases are 

expected to occur during summer in the central and southern parts of the state. 

• Hydrologic impacts may include reduced snowpack; changes in runoff timing, 

streamflows and resultant water availability; and increased drought severity and 

duration.

• Forest impacts may include: variable impacts to forest-wide processes, but negative 

effects of extreme heat; increased forest mortality and net loss of forested areas; 

altered forest disturbance regimes; increase in fire risk; increase in bark beetle survival; 

and reduction in the amount of carbon stored in forests.

• Agricultural impacts may include both favorable and disruptive effects on crop and 

forage; production; less reliable irrigation water; changes to commodity prices; increases 
Appendix D – Climate Change

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA D-6

in native plains vegetation, but declines in forage quality; and an overall increase in the 

need for innovation and adaptation to address climate change effects.

2.4 Social Cost of Carbon

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

GHG emissions was developed by a IWG, to assist agencies in addressing EO 12866, which 

requires Federal agencies to assess the domestic costs 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 internationally and is intended to be 

used as part of a cost-benefit analysis 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 cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, or ‘marginal,’ 

impacts on cumulative global emissions.” Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon

for Regulatory Impact Analysis under EO 12866 February 2010 (withdrawn by EO13783). 

While the SCC protocol was created 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. These requests are not appropriate for project-level 

NEPA analyses for a number of reasons. 

First, NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis (40 C.F.R. § 1502.23). NEPA requires 

agencies to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of their actions. OSMRE completed 

an analysis of the potential impacts under all applicable resource areas including air quality and 

climate change. OSMRE calculated potential emissions (including greenhouse gases) from mining 

operations, transportation, export, and coal combustion. This analysis contained quantitative or 

detailed qualitative information. OSMRE evaluated the best available information and the 

quantitative and or qualitative analyses provided a reasoned basis for making a choice among 

alternatives. 

Further, the decision not to expand the use of the SCC protocol for this EA is supported by 

the fact that this action is not a rulemaking for which the SCC protocol was originally 

developed. On March 28, 2017, the President issued EO 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 GHGs used in regulatory 

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

guidance contained in [Office of Management and Budget (OMB)] Circular A-4, “including with 

respect to the consideration of domestic versus international impacts and the consideration of 

appropriate discount rates” (E.O. 13783, Section 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, and there is no other requirement to apply the 

SCC protocol to project decisions. 

Although NEPA does require consideration of “effects” that include “economic” and “social” 

effects (40 C.F.R. 1508.8(b)), without a complete monetary cost-benefit analysis, which would 
Appendix D – Climate Change

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA D-7

include the social benefits of the proposed action to society as a whole and other potential 

costs and positive benefits, inclusion solely of an SCC cost analysis would be unbalanced, 

potentially inaccurate, and not useful in facilitating an authorized officer’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 at the project-level 

on the environment and does not include all costs or benefits from carbon emissions. The SCC 

protocol estimates economic damages associated with an increase in CO2 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 et al. 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 EIS, OSMRE 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 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, OSMRE’s ability to evaluate these 

impacts on a project-level would be doubtful. 9 This EA does, nonetheless, quantify direct and 

indirect GHG emissions and evaluate these emissions in the context of global emissions as 

discussed in Section 4.3.1 of the EA. 

 

9 This conclusion is supported in the February 2018 BLM Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Rule to Rescind or Revise 

Certain Requirements of the 2016 Waste Prevention Rule (BLM 2018), noting that “[t]he scientific and economics literature has 

further explored known sources of uncertainty related to estimates of the social cost of carbon and other greenhouse gases 

noting further that researchers have examined the sensitivity of Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) and the resulting 

estimates to different assumptions embedded in the models (see, e.g., Pindyck 2013, Hope 2013, Anthoff and Tol 2013, 

Nordhaus 2014, and Waldhoff et al. 2011, 2014). BLM further spoke to the “additional sources of uncertainty that have not 

been fully characterized and explored due to remaining data limitations, concluding that” [a]dditional research is needed to 

expand the quantification of various sources of uncertainty in estimates of the social cost of carbon and other greenhouse 

gases (e.g., developing explicit probability distributions for more inputs pertaining to climate impacts and their valuation). On 

damage functions, other experts have found that those used in most IAMs have no theoretical or empirical foundation, 

claiming that the overall model is able to “obtain almost any result one desires” (Pindyck 2013). Naturally, the indeterminate 

amount of uncertainty surrounding the IAMs used to approximate social costs for specific greenhouse gas emissions merits 

additional research and analysis and further peer-review in order to better ascertain the best available science and economics 

in accordance with E.O. 13783.” BLM’s discussion is in the context of a rulemaking for which the SCC was developed. The 

uncertainties regarding the applicability of social cost of carbon by OSMRE in the context of a specific project is even greater. 
Appendix D – Climate Change

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA D-8

To summarize, this 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 costbenefit analysis; and 4) the full social benefits of coal-fired energy production have not been 

monetized, and quantifying only the costs of GHG emissions for the project but not other costs 

and benefits would yield information that is both potentially inaccurate and not useful.
Appendix E - Hydrology

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA E-1

APPENDIX E - HYDROLOGY

1.0 Existing Condition

Surface water and groundwater hydrology and water uses are discussed in Section 3.4 of the 

BLM Coal Lease EA. Additional details about the hydrologic systems and water uses are 

presented with other baseline data in the Mine permit (SPE 2017a, Section 304). 

The Montana State Program evaluated the PAP to assess whether AVFs are present. As noted 

in the Amendment 3 CHIAs (MDEQ 2016b, 2017b), "no alluvial valley floor has been identified 

in the area." Since AVFs are not present, AVFs were not brought forward for analysis.

Hydrologic monitoring, including precipitation monitoring, has continued in accordance with 

Mine permit requirements since the BLM Coal Lease EA was prepared; the findings of which 

are presented in AHRs submitted to MDEQ. Since the BLM Coal Lease EA was prepared, SPE 

prepared an updated PHC addressing Amendment 3 and WDA #2, including description of 

existing Mine impacts. As part of the written findings for Mine permit approval, MDEQ issued 

an updated CHIA for Amendment 3 and prepared a separate CHIA for WDA #2. The CHIAs 

also discussed the existing condition and relevant findings to-date. A full list of these documents 

and citations follows:

• AHRs

o January to December 2011 AHR (Catena & Nicklin 2012)

o January to December 2012 AHR (Catena & Nicklin 2013a)

o October 2012 to September 2013 AHR (Catena & Nicklin 2013b)

o October 2013 to September 2014 AHR (Catena & Nicklin 2014)

o October 2014 to September 2015 AHR (Catena & Nicklin 2015)

o October 2015 to September 2016 AHR (Catena & Nicklin 2017)

o October 2016 to September 2017 AHR (Catena & WET 2018)

• Mine permit documents:

o PHC (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-5)

o Groundwater Model (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-6)

o Deep Underburden Groundwater Model (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-7)

• MDEQ CHIAs

o Amendment 3 CHIA (MDEQ 2016a)

o WDA #2 CHIA (MDEQ 2017b)

These documents present the most relevant information available since the BLM Coal Lease EA 

was prepared and are hereby incorporated into this EA by this reference. Data and 

interpretations most relevant to OSMRE’s decision are summarized in this EA. This section 

provides updates based on monitoring records through September 2017.

Precipitation in 2011 (particularly in May and June) was considerably above normal, increasing 

spring and stream flow rates, increasing water levels in wells, and causing several ponds to 
Appendix E - Hydrology

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA E-2

discharge. Precipitation patterns in recent years have been closer to long-term averages, and 

the effects of the above-normal 2011 precipitation have diminished, allowing hydrologic 

conditions to more closely reflect the historical monitoring record. 

While hydrologic conditions continue to fluctuate in response to variable precipitation patterns, 

the baseline hydrologic condition in areas unaffected by mining is consistent with that previously 

presented in the BLM Coal Lease EA. Recent monitoring indicates that impacts to streams and 

ponds by mining to-date are not detectable and effects to springs have been limited to those 

discussed in this section. In contrast, mining effects have been observed in groundwater wells in 

the permit area since the BLM Coal Lease EA was prepared. 

Locations of active hydrologic monitoring stations (SPE 2017a, see Appendix 314-4) are shown 

in Appendix A, Figure 3.4-1, and all stations specifically referenced in this EA are labeled. 

1.1 Groundwater

For discussion purposes, the monitored groundwater system is divided into four hydrogeologic 

units; alluvium, overburden, mammoth coal, and underburden. A thorough discussion of the 

stratigraphy of Mine geology, including aquifers and overburden intervals, and baseline 

hydrologic conditions is presented in Section 3.4 of the BLM Coal Lease EA. 

Alluvium

• A majority of the alluvial monitoring wells (Appendix A, Figure 3.4-1) are typically 

dry. This was especially true before 2011. Observed changes in water levels in the 

alluvial deposits in the Mine vicinity for data extending from inception of mining in 2003 

into 2017 are generally more responsive to natural climate events as compared to 

mining activity. (Catena & WET 2018). 

• Groundwater levels in several wells increased beginning in approximately 2010 with the 

most notable increase occurring in association with May 2011 precipitation/runoff 

events (Catena and WET 2018, Map 4). Since 2011, water levels in most alluvial wells 

have attenuated toward pre-2011 levels, though some still exhibit elevated water levels 

compared to pre-2011 conditions. Other factors likely contributing to temporally 

increased water levels in the Rehder Creek alluvium include ponding in a gravel pit, use 

of spreader dikes, and ponding at road embankments.

• Although alluvial wells have exhibited changes in water quality in recent years, most of 

those changes are likely a result of natural processes rather than response to mining 

activities. All alluvial wells containing groundwater, both within and outside the Mine

permit boundary, showed increases in TDS, sulfate, and other inorganic parameters 

beginning in 2011 (Catena & WET 2018). Recharge through previously unsaturated 

media resulting from abnormally high precipitation in 2011 likely led to dissolution of 

inorganic constituents and resulted in the observed concentration increases. Since 2012, 

the concentrations of inorganics in most alluvial wells either decreased or remained 

elevated but at a stable concentration relative to 2011 conditions, with the exception of 

BMP016. Exceptions to this include three alluvial wells located along the main stem of 

Rehder Creek downgradient of the Mine (Catena and WET 2018, Map 12), where water 

levels and TDS concentrations increased in response to 2011 precipitation and remain 

elevated as of September 2017, which may be mining related. 
Appendix E - Hydrology

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA E-3

Overburden

• Four overburden wells located above or proximal to areas undermined and subsided 

have shown drawdown of approximately 5 to 10 feet (varies by well) in response to 

mining activities; three screened in overburden interval 5 (BMP007, BMP060, BMP131)

and one screened in overburden interval 2 (BMP063) (Catena and WET 2018, Pages 12-

13, Map 5 – Page 1 and 2). 

• Overburden interval 5 contains a massive sandstone layer above the Rock Mesa coal 

bed that is likely fractured by mining subsidence. The net effect is that vertical 

permeability has increased in this sandstone resulting in increased leakage downward 

into the underlying fractured zone and fragmented zone. This has created a localized 

mining-related cone of depression in overburden interval 5 (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-5 

[see Figure 13-1 Page 2]; Catena and WET 2018, Page 13). 

• There have been increases of conductivity, TDS, and sulfate in overburden wells, most 

notably BMP052, but also BMP002 which shows a recent minor increase in TDS. All 

changes thus far are within MDEQ-7 numeric water quality standards. Ongoing 

monitoring will be used to evaluate whether parameter increases may be mining related 

(MDEQ 2017b). 

Mammoth coal

• Water levels in the vicinity of longwall mining have declined in response to mine 

dewatering in the Mammoth coal. The maximum drawdown is projected to be 

approximately 57 feet near well BMP008, in the north central portion of the 

underground mine plan area (Appendix A, Figure 3.4-2, Catena and WET 2018).

• Maximum observed drawdown outside the LOM boundary occurs at an observation 

well (BMP132) located approximately 500 feet north of the permit boundary and 0.4 

miles northwest of the East Mains near Panel 5; the closest active mining area (Catena & 

WET 2018). The magnitude of drawdown at this well presently extends to 

approximately 17 feet. The magnitude of drawdown has likely been influenced (reduced) 

by recharge associated with the above-average precipitation/runoff that occurred in 

2011. 

• Water quality data show that sulfate is the most dominant anion in Mammoth coal 

groundwater and sodium is the most dominant cation. This is consistent with the 

general geochemistry of area groundwater as described by Slagle et al. (1986). The 

average specific conductivity of water produced by Mammoth coal wells is higher than 

the alluvial and overburden hydrogeologic units. Mammoth coal wells produce Class II 

or III water and there have been no persistent trends upward or downward in 

Mammoth coal water quality since data collection began in 1989. 

• No exceedances of MDEQ-7 numeric water quality standards for monitored 

parameters, as approved by MDEQ (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-4, Tables 314-4.6 and 

314-4.7), have been observed for any of the Mammoth coal wells between 2003 and 

September 2017. 

• Elevated TDS values have been observed in BMP008 and it is not clear what caused the 

temporary increase. Elevated TDS has also been observed at four wells near the 

northeastern Mine permit boundary (BMP014, BMP074, BMP092 and BMP123). The 
Appendix E - Hydrology

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA E-4

cause of the increase in TDS in these four wells is also unknown (Catena and WET 

2018), but is unlikely related to mining due to the distance of the wells from current 

longwall mining (over 1.8 miles see MDEQ 2016a, Figure 9-25). 

Underburden

• Water levels in upper portions of the underburden (i.e., shallow underburden) have 

declined in the vicinity of active mining in response to mine dewatering. The greatest 

drawdowns (exceeding 60 feet in some places) have been observed in the northern and 

central portions of the mined area (Appendix A, Figure 3.4-3, Catena and WET 

2018). Drawdown at the northern permit boundary is estimated to be approximately 5 

to 10 feet, extending northward.

• For the upper underburden groundwater, sulfate is the dominant anion. Sodium and 

magnesium are the dominant cations. The highest sulfate concentrations exist near the 

western permit boundary, as is the case for the alluvial wells. There have been no 

persistent trends in groundwater quality in the upper underburden at wells within the 

area mined to-date and underburden groundwater classification has remained within the 

historically observed range for each well. 

• Increases in TDS have been observed in two wells within the permit boundary but 

outside the area mined (BMP009 and BMP056) as well as at least two wells outside the 

permit boundary (BMP006 and BMP079). TDS levels at BMP056 have returned to 

baseline levels, and TDS levels at BMP009 and BMP079 have decreased recently, but 

remain elevated above baseline. The TDS increase at BMP006 is not paired with an 

increase in any of the major ion concentrations suggesting that the recently observed 

increase may be an outlier. As such, these changes in TDS do not appear to be related 

to mining activities conducted to date and underburden groundwater classification has 

remained within the historically observed range for each well (Catena and WET 2018, 

Page 17 and Map 15).

• The deep underburden is hydraulically separated from mined Mammoth coal by over 

350 feet of multilayered low permeability strata, and groundwater levels and quality in 

lower portions of the underburden (deep underburden consisting of a massive 

sandstone) are likely not affected by mining or the Mine’s public water supply use to 

date.

1.2 Springs

The following observations have been made about springs undermined to-date (SPE 2017a, 

Appendix 314-5; Catena and WET 2018):

• Spring 17185, overlying Panel 3 (Appendix A, Figure 3.4-1), showed a brief cessation 

in flow as longwall mining passed underneath but commenced flowing at normal rates 

within two weeks after mining was complete in this area. This suggests that strata 

bounding/underlying this spring “resealed” after subsidence. There is no evidence of a 

long-term adverse effect to this spring from mining.

• Spring 17145 (Bull Spring), overlying the gate road between Panels 2 and 3 (Appendix 

A, Figure 3.4-1), ceased flowing in July 2014. Longwall mining beneath this spring 

(Panel 3) occurred in April 2014. Dry conditions at this spring have also been observed 
Appendix E - Hydrology

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA E-5

during below average precipitation or under drought conditions. The persistent no flow 

conditions observed since 2014, indicate an adverse impact to flow associated with 

undermining. Drought is also a potential factor for the lack of flow observed in this 

spring. Additional data are needed to evaluate long-term effects on water quantity and 

quality at this site (Catena and WET 2018). Additional data are needed to evaluate longterm effects on water quantity and quality at this spring.

• Spring 17275, overlying Panel 4 (Appendix A, Figure 3.4-1), showed a possible water 

quality response to longwall mining. A spike in TDS and electrical conductivity (EC) 

occurred after undermining in July 2014. Timing of the increases followed by subsequent 

decreases suggests that subsidence may have temporarily influenced water quality at this 

location. No obvious change in measured flow was observed at this spring; additional 

data are needed to evaluate long-term water quality changes at this spring. 

The remaining undermined springs continue to exhibit flows within historical (pre-mining) 

ranges, although conclusive evaluations cannot be completed for two springs undermined by 

longwall mining [17165 (‘Turtle Pond’ or ‘Big Dam on Top’) and 17415 (‘Litsky Spring’)] due to 

the lack of consistent and comparable historical data (Catena and WET 2018); therefore, it is 

possible that mining related impacts have occurred at these two springs (MDEQ 2016a). Based 

upon water quality data collected to date, there is no evidence of transitions in water quality 

associated with mining activity at any springs other than 17275, noted above.

Two new springs (1701S and 1702S, Appendix A, Figure 3.4-1) have emerged after longwall 

mining undermined and subsided the surrounding terrain. These springs were added to the 

monitoring plan in 2016 (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-4) to assess flow rates, water quality, and 

permanence. Monitoring records presented in AHRs indicate that both springs have created 

small pools of water where flow cannot be measured. Spring 1701S has been dry during the 

summers while Spring 1702S has had water present every month. Water quality of 1701S is 

comparable to other springs in the Mine permit area. In contrast, EC at 1702S is higher than 

other springs, possibly reflecting influence of frequently observed heavy cattle use rather than 

discharge water quality. 

1.3 Surface Water

The BLM Coal Lease EA (Section 3.4.4) provides a comprehensive description of surface water 

resources (streams and ponds) in the Mine permit area and vicinity. Surface water flow at the 

Mine occurs in response to rainfall and snowmelt events and, to a lesser and more localized 

extent, as a result of spring discharge. The majority of the stream channels located in the 

permit boundary are ephemeral; hence they are normally dry and flow only in response to 

rainfall and runoff events, the most notable of which occurred in response to high precipitation 

in May and June 2011 (Catena and Nicklin 2012). Detailed analysis and establishment of typical 

numeric baseline streamflow conditions are precluded due to predominantly ephemeral 
Appendix E - Hydrology

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA E-6

conditions10, which in combination with periodic sampling frequencies result in high variability in 

available water quality monitoring data (MDEQ 2016a, 2017b).

“Ponds in the Bull Mountains consist of stock ponds constructed solely for the storage of water 

for livestock watering. The location of stock ponds is limited to where spring inputs provide 

water, or where in-stream impoundments capture and store runoff water from precipitation or 

snowmelt events” (MDEQ 2016a). “Where ponds are located down gradient from spring issue 

points, pond volumes are directly related to spring flows, and may dry up as seasonal spring 

flows diminish or cease. Pond reliant solely on water from runoff events are less reliable and 

may only hold water for short periods of time.” Livestock use is marginally supported as “some 

parameters, particularly magnesium and sodium, are naturally elevated above the livestock use 

criteria.” “Nonetheless, livestock utilize stock ponds for watering in the absence of better 

water quality alternatives. In most cases, livestock use has affected water quality in most ponds, 

with the highest nitrate-nitrite and ammonia concentrations reported for ponds that see 

consistent livestock use.”

1.4 Hydrologic Conditions Surrounding the Existing WDA

Detailed discussion of WDA features are available in Ch. 2, and WDA#1 was analyzed in detail 

in the BLM Coal Lease EA. Monitoring wells (BMP052 [overburden] and BMP033 [alluvium]) 

downgradient of WDA#1 have exhibited elevated levels of radium and fluoride most likely due 

to the use of deep Madison well water for coal processing, but concentrations would not cause 

impacts to downstream surface water or groundwater resources as no human health standards 

have been exceeded (MDEQ 2017b, Section 9.2.3.1). Additionally, BMP033 has exhibited single 

samples with elevated selenium in exceedance of significance criteria; however, concentrations 

are near the baseline range, and it is likely that these results represent the variability of the 

natural condition (MDEQ 2017b, Section 9.2.3.2). These impacts are limited, presumably due to 

the low permeability of both compacted waste and the underlying strata, which limit infiltration. 

Ephemeral runoff from WDA #1 is detained in a down-gradient pond and discharge is approved 

and regulated by MDEQ under an existing MPDES permit. Since construction of WDA #1 and 

an associated sediment pond, several discharge events have occurred following significant 

precipitation events or to facilitate pond sediment cleanout in preparation for significant 

precipitation events. 

Unplanned discharges have only occurred as a result of infrequent large precipitation events, 

such as the previously mentioned May 2011 event that resulted in flood conditions throughout 

Musselshell County. During this precipitation event, WDA #1’s pond spillway suddenly eroded 

while discharging. In response to this event, SPE increased the pond’s storage capacity and 

 

10 In the EA, we use the use the term “stream” when discussing ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial surface water channels. 

The State of Montana uses the term “stream” when describing intermittent and perennial surface-water channels; however, 

when describing an ephemeral surface-water channel they use the term “ephemeral drainageway” instead of the term 

“ephemeral stream.” Although, the terms have different words, they mean the same thing under Montana and Federal 

regulations; therefore, for the purpose of clarity and simplicity, we have used the word “stream” in the EA when describing 

ephemeral surface-water channels.
Appendix E - Hydrology

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA E-7

strengthened the pond spillway with a concrete footer and gabion baskets to ensure the 

spillway would not erode during future discharges. 

Another series of major (infrequent) precipitation events occurred during May 2013 and August 

2014; both of which resulted in discharge violations for exceedance of settleable solids criteria. 

The August 2014 event also resulted in a violation for pH. Pond discharge tends to be small in 

comparison to Rehder Creek’s overall flow rate, and there is no evidence that surface 

disturbance has adversely impacted surface water resources off the permit area (MDEQ 2017b, 

Section 9.2.3.1).

The August 2014 discharge event sample also showed elevated values for organic nitrogen, 

phosphorus, and several metals (iron, lead, nickel, copper and zinc) (MDEQ 2017b, Section 

9.2.3.1). However, since May 2013, whole effluent toxicity testing has been conducted on WDA 

#1 effluent and no “significant” aquatic toxicity (i.e., mortality of tested organisms) has been 

observed to-date (data presented in recent AHRs).

1.5 Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands

Wetlands have not been formally delineated in the Mine permit area. The BLM Coal Lease EA 

describes wetlands as occurring in association with springs and describes their vegetative 

characteristics (Section 3.6.1) and utility for wildlife (Section 3.7). Historically flowing channel 

segments and sites exhibiting wetland characteristics have primarily been found in association 

with monitored springs and ponds and occur on the surface overlying the underground mine 

plan area (Appendix A, Figure 3.4-1). The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has not 

made an official determination as to whether water courses or wetlands occurring within the 

permit area are jurisdictional under Section 404 of the CWA. If jurisdictional waters of the US 

are present, such features would most likely occur along stream channels and would include 

connected wetlands. 

Most sites that would satisfy criteria for wetlands under the CWA are expected to occur at 

springs and ponds and downgradient positions receiving water from those features. Although 

formal wetland delineations have not been completed, ponds and springs are included in the 

approved hydrology monitoring program specified in the Mine permit (SPE 2017a, Appendix 

314-4). Additionally, SPE conducts hydrophytic vegetation monitoring to document natural 

variability and evaluate potential effects on vegetative conditions at sites that include wetlands 

(hydrophytic vegetation discussed in Section 3.6 of the EA). 

1.6 Spring and Well Impact Mitigation

As discussed elsewhere in this document and the BLM Coal Lease EA, the Mine permit specifies 

mitigation measures to be employed in response to observed effects to water resources. SPE 

has proposed a site-specific mitigation plan for Spring 17145, previously used for livestock 

watering, that is currently being reviewed by MDEQ. Additional monitoring will be conducted 

to assess long-term spring affects and the need for permanent mitigation. 

One stock water well (BMP064) completed in the deep underburden and located in Panel 3 was 

abandoned before mining. After mining progressed beyond the original well location, a
Appendix E - Hydrology

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA E-8

replacement well was drilled and completed in the same aquifer. No other water resources 

have required mitigation in accordance with permit requirements. 

2.0 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

Predicted hydrologic impacts of the Proposed Action are presented in the Mine permit and 

further evaluated in MDEQ’s cumulative hydrologic impact assessments (MDEQ 2016a and 

2017b). These analyses concluded that proposed mining activities are designed to “minimize 

disturbance to the hydrologic balance both inside and outside the permit area and to prevent 

material damage outside the permit area” (MDEQ 2017b). The hydrologic monitoring program 

approved by MDEQ as part of the Mine permit (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-4) is designed to 

identify impacts to wells, springs, streams, and ponds, which may differ from predictions. The 

Mine permit specifies mitigation measures to be employed to address mining-related hydrologic 

impacts in a manner consistent with applicable regulations (SPE 2017a) 

Information in this section updates expected impacts to water quantity and quality based on 

recent monitoring observations and modeling completed since the BLM Coal Lease EA was 

prepared. Additional information pertaining to hydrologic impacts, particularly water quality 

impacts and mitigation are presented in Section 4.2.4 of the BLM Coal Lease EA. Most 

observations to-date are in reasonable conformance to projections made in the BLM Coal 

Lease EA. The main exception relates to projected drawdown in the Mammoth coal and upper 

underburden from mine dewatering, which is superseded by modeling outputs set forth in the 

Mine permit (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-6) and discussed in this section under the Proposed 

Action. 

2.1 Direct & Indirect Effects

No Action

For the No Action scenario, the response of the underlying groundwater system is anticipated 

to be similar to, but slightly greater in magnitude than observations to date (see Section 1.4, 

above). Effects that would occur in association with mining and associated subsidence under the 

No Action scenario are discussed below. 

Expected Groundwater Impacts

• Drawdown would occur in the following stratigraphic units:

o Lower portions of the overburden strata – mainly overburden interval 5 and 

near active longwall mining;

o Mammoth coal – a majority of drawdown would occur in the northern central 

portion of the underground mine plan area and in areas adjacent to and north of 

the permit area;

o Upper underburden – a majority of drawdown, would occur in the northern 

central portion of the permit area and in areas to the north of the underground 

mine plan area; and,

o Deep underburden aquifer – a maximum drawdown would be less than 3ft;

• The effective cones of depression in the Mammoth coal and shallow underburden would 

expand slightly beyond that which is presently observed (Appendix A, Figures 3.4-2 
Appendix E - Hydrology

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA E-9

and 3.4-3, Catena and WET 2018). The effects would be long term but would not rise 

to the level of major adverse impact as impacts to water uses would be mitigated in 

accordance with the Mine permit (SPE 2017a, Appendix 3-13.2).

• There is the potential that groundwater supply sources dependent upon the deeper 

overburden, Mammoth coal, or upper underburden, could be adversely affected by 

mining. If such impacts occur, mitigation would be implemented in accordance with the 

Mine permit and replacement water would likely be sourced from a well completed in 

the deep underburden aquifer.

• Impacts to groundwater quality are projected to be limited to the mine gob and to 

strata immediately underlying and/or immediately adjacent to the gob (SPE 2017a, 

Appendix 314-5). Water quality impacts could also occur in other overburden strata, 

although limited impacts have been observed to-date (see spring impacts below).

• Impacts to groundwater quality and quantity would occur in the long-term but would 

not rise to the level of major adverse impact as impacts to water uses would be 

mitigated in accordance with the Mine permit and ARM 17.24.648.

Expected Spring Impacts

• Some springs may be affected by mining in the short-term as observed at 17145 and 

17275 (discussed in Section 3.4). Based on the limited effects observed at springs in 

response to mining to-date long-term effects to spring water quality or quantity are 

considered unlikely at most springs in response to mining under the No Action. 

• Long-term effects to springs and associated intermittent stream reaches, if any, would 

be mitigated in accordance with the Mine permit (SPE 2017a, Appendix 3-13.3) as 

discussed in the BLM Coal Lease EA (Section 4.2.4.3) and Section 2.1.5 of the EA,

resulting in minor long-term effects to water availability for existing uses.

Expected Surface Water Impacts

• Surface water downstream of disturbances and overlying the mining area would 

potentially be affected in the manner described in Section 4.2.4.2 of the BLM Coal Lease 

EA.

• Surface water quantity effects are considered unlikely. Some limited detention (ponding) 

may occur if ridges develop and would be mitigated as described in the Mine permit 

(SPE 2017a, Appendix 313-3). For example, minor grading was performed at the north 

end of Panel 4 to restore stream flow in an unnamed ephemeral tributary of Rehder 

Creek. Small unmitigated storage associated with ponding, if it occurs, would be 

negligible, though possibly long-term. Surface water runoff would continue to be affected 

by impoundment in the Surface Facilities Area, consistent with the current condition. 

Such effects would be minor and short-term as ponds would be removed after other 

mine facilities are decommissioned and reclamation is complete. 

• Subsidence would not be expected to affect surface water quality. Surface water quality 

in the vicinity of the Surface Facilities Area would potentially be affected in the shortterm, but compliance with MPDES permits would ensure those effects are minor. 
Appendix E - Hydrology

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA E-10

As discussed in the BLM Coal Lease EA, mitigation measures described in the Mine permit have 

been developed to address spring and groundwater (well) impacts. Implementation of those 

measures, including measures implemented to date (see Section 2.2 of the EA and Section 

1.4, above), ensures that long-term impacts to water quality and quantity would not be major.

Proposed Action

Expected Groundwater Impacts - Alluvium

Mining is not expected to adversely impact alluvial groundwater either in terms of water 

quantity or water quality.

Expected Groundwater Impacts - Overburden

Primary impacts to saturated zones in the overburden would occur in the fragmented and 

fractured zones for strata in subsidence areas. In subsided areas, the fractured zone extends 

into the sandstone above the Rock Mesa coal (in overburden interval 5). Given that 

multilayered sequences of claystones, siltstones, shale and sandstone are present throughout 

the overburden section, lower permeability strata fractures would likely “reseal” following

subsidence, meaning effects to relatively shallower overburden intervals would be less likely 

(SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-5). Impacts to shallower overburden groundwater levels, if they 

occur, are projected to be negligible and short-term. In contrast, impacts to the deeper 

overburden portions that are within the fragmented/fractured zones are projected to be 

moderate and long-term, potentially requiring mitigation of affected wells and springs in 

accordance with the Mine permit to ensure effects do not rise to the threshold of significance. 

“Any changes in water quality are likely to be localized over the longwall panels. There will be 

no measurable effects on existing or anticipated uses, and no changes in water quality which will 

be harmful detrimental or injurious to the listed uses.” (MDEQ 2016a).

Expected Groundwater Impacts - Mammoth Coal and Underburden

Two groundwater models were recently developed to provide better estimates of Mine effects 

on the Mammoth coal and underburden aquifers. These models supersede the prior model 

discussed in the BLM Coal Lease EA Section 4.2.4.1 (pages 4-13 through 4-21). The 

“Groundwater Model” (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-6) is a three-dimensional model representing 

strata extending from the overburden to the upper underburden. This groundwater model 

focuses on quantitative water level changes in the Mammoth coal and the upper underburden as 

they would be affected by mining under the Proposed Action. It also provides simulation results 

that allow prediction of flows in response to such mining. Key predictions of this model with 

regard to the Proposed Action include the following:

• Maximum drawdown in the Mammoth coal and upper underburden at the end of the 

mining is projected to be up to 90 feet within the permit boundary (Appendix A, 

Figure 4.4-1).

• The cone of depression and magnitude of drawdown of the Mammoth coal and upper 

underburden aquifers outside the permit boundary are predicted to be greatest to the 

north northwest, with the maximum drawdown outside and immediately adjacent and 

northwest of the permit boundary projected to reach approximately 50 feet by the end 
Appendix E - Hydrology

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA E-11

of mining. Drawdown would decrease progressively with distance from the Mine. The 

cone of depression extents and drawdown magnitudes are projected to be much more 

limited (ranging from less than 5 feet to just over 20 feet) beyond the permit boundary 

to the east, south and west (Appendix A, Figure 4.4-1).

• Following cessation of mining, water levels would begin to recover. The nature of 

recovery would depend upon the behavior of the constructed gate roads following 

mining the adjacent panels (discussed in SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-6, Attachment 3M). 

Under modelled Scenario 1, gate roads would collapse (cave in) following mining

(Appendix A, Figure 4.4-2). Under modelled Scenario 2, gate roads remain generally 

intact (Appendix A, Figure 4.4-3). If gate roads remain generally intact for an 

extended time after mining (Scenario 2), the tendency would be for greater mine 

pooling in northern portions mined area. If gate roads cave soon after mining (Scenario 

1), the degree of mine pooling would be less; this scenario is considered to be the most 

likely long-term condition. While some gate roads have remained intact in mined out 

portions of the Mine, others are caving as designed. For either scenario, residual 

drawdown is projected to occur within the permit boundary with portions of the 

Mammoth coal remaining unsaturated in the long-term (at least 50 years) (Appendix 

A, Figures 4.4-4 and 4.4-5). If gate roads remain intact, the model predicts that 

groundwater levels would increase relative to baseline groundwater levels both within 

and just beyond the northern permit boundary (Appendix A, Figure 4.4-5).

The “Deep Underburden Groundwater Model” (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-7) is a threedimensional model focused on the underburden strata, especially the deep underburden 

sandstone. The model provides a tool for evaluating the hydraulic capacity of this deep 

underburden sandstone to serve existing uses and potential use for replacement water to 

mitigate mine impacts, if needed. The model predicts that the maximum drawdown at the end 

of mining in the deep underburden sandstone would be 3 feet, a minor change. 

While effects to the Mammoth Coal, upper underburden, and overburden would be long-term, 

impacts to affected uses would be mitigated in accordance with the Mine permit, ensuring that 

water is replaced and overall impacts of the Proposed Action do not rise to the level of major 

impact. Impacts to the deep underburden as a result of mining would be minor in the longterm, so it would remain a viable source of replacement water for mitigation, as discussed 

below (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-7).

Expected Spring Impacts

The massive sandstone above the Rock Mesa coal in overburden interval 5 is the interpreted 

source of overburden groundwater contributions to mine gob and gate roads following 

subsidence. Springs sourced by this sandstone would be at a greater risk of impacts compared 

to springs located in relatively higher portions of the overburden strata. However, shallower 

springs may be adversely impacted (e.g., Spring 17145 discussed in Section 1.4, above). The 

most likely effect to adversely impacted springs would be reduced discharge rates including the 

cessation of discharge, which could persist in the long-term. Water quality of some springs may 

also be affected in the short and long-term. Mitigation measures employed in accordance with 
Appendix E - Hydrology

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA E-12

the Mine permit (SPE 2017a, Appendix 313-2 and 313-3), as noted below and in the BLM Coal 

Lease EA, would ensure impacts to water quality and availability for existing uses are not major. 

Expected Surface Water Impacts

Surface water impacts are expected, as discussed below. Mitigation measures employed in 

accordance with the Mine permit, as noted below and in the BLM Coal Lease EA, would ensure 

long-term impacts to ponds, stream channels, and surface water quality and availability are not 

major. 

The Proposed Action is unlikely to have measurable effects to channel flows. Some very limited 

ponding in stream reaches may occur if ridges develop as a result of uneven subsidence in the 

vicinity of gate roads. Storage associated with that ponding, if it occurs would be negligible, but 

potentially long-term. 

Intermittent and ephemeral stream reaches dependent upon spring discharges for flow were 

identified in the baseline monitoring and discussed in the BLM Coal Lease EA. Such reaches 

would only be affected if the source spring(s) are affected by mining subsidence. Adverse longterm effects to intermittent and ephemeral reaches would potentially occur, but mitigation (SPE 

2017a, Appendix 313-3) would ensure that those impacts are not major.

Ponds in the mining area may be affected by subsidence, potentially resulting in leakage. 

However, observations to-date show that surface cracking is less evident in valley bottoms 

where ponds are constructed. This is because gentle slopes and unconsolidated surficial 

materials allow soil to displace and cover underlying fractured rock (Personal Communication 

between Roberta Martínez Hernández, Environmental Engineer, OSMRE, and Martin Van Oort, 

Hydrologist, MDEQ, February 8, 2018). Affected ponds would be repaired soon after impacts 

are detected in accordance with the Mine permit requirements, ensuring that adverse longterm impacts would not occur.

Expected Hydrology Effects of WDA #2

Hydrologic effects of WDA#2 would be very similar to WDA#1 and are discussed in the 

Mine’s PHC (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-5) and MDEQ’s CHIA (MDEQ 2017b). Such effects 

include the following. 

• Shallow strata that would underlie or be adjacent to WDA#2 tend to be unsaturated 

and the vertical permeability of the compacted waste material would be extremely low, 

reducing the potential for impacts to groundwater quality or quantity as a result of 

WDA#2 construction. 

• There are no springs within the proposed WDA#2 footprint and springs historically 

identified in the vicinity were typically dry from 1989 to 2014 and are no longer 

monitored (MDEQ 2017b); therefore, no impacts to springs or associated wetlands are 

projected.

• Detention of storm-water and snowmelt runoff during occasional runoff events would 

occur in WDA#2, but given that WDA#2 disturbance constitutes approximately 2 

percent of the Rehder Creek basin, effects to surface water flows would be negligible 
Appendix E - Hydrology

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA E-13

relative to total stream flow. Effects on surface water quantity would be negligible in the 

long-term as WDA #2 would be reclaimed in a manner that does not impound water. 

• Surface water discharge from the WDA#2 pond during significant precipitation events 

could affect downgradient surface water quality in the short-term. However, the size of 

the catchment is small relative to Rehder Creek drainage as a whole. Water quality 

impacts, if they occur, would be negligible or minor. The MPDES discharge permit would 

further ensure hydrologic control structures associated with WDA#2 are designed, 

constructed, and operated in a manner protective of the receiving drainage. The facility 

would be fully reclaimed and stabilized following mine closure, resulting in negligible 

water quality effects in the long-term.

Potential Future Mitigation Requirements

SMCRA, MSUMRA, and attendant Montana regulations (ARM 17.24.648) require replacement 

of water supplies used for domestic, agricultural, industrial, or other legitimate uses if such 

supply has been affected by contamination, diminution, or interruption as a result of mining 

operations. Impacts to wells, springs, streams, and ponds would potentially occur and be 

mitigated in accordance with the Mine permit. Mitigation requirements are consistent with 

those described in the BLM Coal Lease EA, except as noted in this section.

Potential exists for some mined-out wells to require replacement and drawdown caused by 

mine dewatering could reduce the static water column in some wells. If such effects would 

occur, the most appropriate mitigation measure would be to drill a replacement well into the 

deep underburden sandstone, a reliable source of groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the 

Mine (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-5). As discussed in Section 2.1.5 of the EA, the Mine bond 

includes a “Trust Fund” to address potential long-term costs associated with maintenance and 

operation of any necessary water replacement facilities in accordance with ARM 17.24.301.

The Mine permit (SPE 2017a) includes plans for spring impact analysis (Appendix 314-2) and 

impact detection (Appendix 314-3) that would identify springs affected by mining and 

subsequent mining subsidence. Mitigation described in the Mine permit (SPE 2017a, Appendix 

313-2) would be implemented if a given spring is affected to the degree that it cannot meet the 

use that existed prior to mining. The two most practical means of mitigation for spring flows 

include (in order of priority) spring redevelopment (e.g., repair) and construction of a 

replacement water source.

If spring redevelopment proves to be infeasible, then the lost water supply would most likely be 

mitigated through construction of a new well and water distribution system (i.e., pipeline and 

storage tanks), whereby impacts to more than one spring could be mitigated by a single well 

feeding multiple water tanks. Wells would most likely be drilled into the deep underburden 

sandstone, although the mine pool and overburden aquifers may also provide suitable water. 

The Musselshell River is under administrative closure as of June 26, 1992 (ARM 36.12.1016). 

The closure area contains the mainstems of the North and South Fork of the Musselshell River, 

and the Musselshell River downstream to the mouth of Flatwillow Creek. Per the administrative 

closure, no new appropriations of surface water for consumptive use can be made during the 

period of July 1 – August 31 each year. During the period of September 1 – 30, the only 
Appendix E - Hydrology

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA E-14

applications of consumptive use that would be accepted would be for supplemental irrigation. If 

necessary, SPE could apply for consumptive use in the Musselshell River Basin outside of the 

administrative closure periods through the Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation (DNRC). Other methods described in the BLM Coal Lease EA would remain 

available for spring impact mitigation.

Intermittent reaches dependent upon spring flow sources may be affected by mining and may 

require repair or replacement. Mitigation measures presented in the Mine permit (SPE 2017a, 

Appendix 313-3) and described in the BLM Coal Lease EA would be implemented to repair or 

replace damaged water sources; with a notable exception being that options to replace springs 

with continuously pumping and discharging wells are limited by State law. Depending on the site 

and degree of impact to spring discharge, some channel segments may not exhibit intermittent 

or perennial flow after mining. However, all water sources necessary to support the postmining

land uses would be replaced in accordance with applicable regulations, thereby ensuring longterm Mine-related impacts to hydrologic conditions are not major. 

Potential Impacts to Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands

As noted in Section 1.4 (above), the USACE has not yet made formal determinations of 

jurisdiction under the CWA. The Mine permit specifies methods for handling hydric soil and 

revegetating non-jurisdictional wetlands (SPE 2017a, Volume 2, Section 313) as part of the 

reclamation plan evaluated by the BLM Coal Lease EA. The Mine permit also states that before

construction activities begin within jurisdictional waters, SPE would consult with MDEQ, obtain 

appropriate permits from USACE and revise the Mine permit, as necessary, to specifically 

address the associated construction activity. Such requirements would apply to surface 

disturbance for roads, drill pads, WDA #2 construction, and subsidence repairs. While waters 

of the US, including wetlands, may occur within the areas to be disturbed in association with 

the Proposed Action, existing regulations and permit conditions would require impact 

avoidance or mitigation (e.g., replacement or reclamation) of any construction-related impacts 

to waters of the US, including wetlands. State regulations and permitting administered by 

USACE would ensure that impacts would be short-term and would not be major.

2.2 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative on groundwater would 

be similar to the direct and indirect effects discussed in Section 2.1 of the EA, which account 

for the entire water system including natural variability and existing uses.

MDEQ (2016a) states that “[t]he primary non-mining impact on the hydrologic balance in the 

Bull Mountains is from agriculture. Cattle grazing impacts the quantity and quality of surface 

water resources, and springs are adversely impacted by alterations to their issue points to 

support cattle watering.” Agricultural uses of groundwater will continue and new spring 

developments may be constructed. New wells may be drilled for agricultural or domestic use 

purposes. While such developments could have localized effects on shallow aquifers they are 

not expected to have major effects on existing uses or the groundwater system as a whole. 

Most reliable wells would likely be drilled into the deep underburden aquifer, a reliable source 

of water in the Mine vicinity. The deep underburden aquifer is capable of supporting mitigation 

uses discussed in Section 4.4.1 and other foreseeable agricultural and domestic uses in the area
Appendix E - Hydrology

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA E-15

without major adverse impact to water availability in the long-term, although some drawdown 

would occur in the long-term. 

Agricultural uses, fires, and minor construction activities (e.g., residential subdivisions and 

roadways) will continue to affect surface waters. The degree of adverse impact is expected to 

be comparable to the existing condition, although short-term effects of fires or overgrazing on 

surface water quantity may be more severe if followed by intense precipitation events resulting 

in substantial runoff. Local watersheds would be affected by construction of ponds for 

agricultural use, but the requirement to permit water rights would ensure overall impacts to 

watersheds do not become major in the long-term. In general, surface water quantity and 

quality in the postmining landscape is expected to be highly variable, as it is in the existing 

condition. Major, irremediable impacts to the quality and quantity of surface water resources 

are not expected from continued underground mining.

Mitigation of mining effects on groundwater and surface water uses conducted in accordance 

with the Mine permit (SPE 2017a) would ensure that long-term effects of mining in combination 

with these other activities are not major in the long-term.
Appendix F – Wildlife Species List

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA

APPENDIX F – WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST
Appendix F – Wildlife Species List

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA

Species Recorded or Potentially Occurring in Wildlife Monitoring Area1 (Catena 2017b)

Species2 SOC2

BLM 

Sens.3

1989-

1996 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

BIRDS

American coot (Fulica americana) X X X X X X X X

American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) X X X X X X X

American green-winged teal (Anas crecca) X X X X X X

American kestrel (Falco sparverius) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

American pipit (Anthus rubescens) X

American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla)

American robin (Turdus migratorius) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

American tree sparrow (Spizella arborea)

American wigeon (Anas americana) X

Baird’s sandpiper (Calidris bairdii) X

Baird's sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) SOC S

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) S X X X X X X X X X

Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) X X X X X X X

Barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) X X X X X X

Barred owl (Strix varia) X

Belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) X

Black-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus 

erythropthalmus)

SOC

Black-billed magpie (Pica pica) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Black-capped chickadee (Poecile 

atricapillus)

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus 

melanocephalus)

X X X X X X X X

Blue-winged teal (Anas discors) X X

Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) SOC

Bohemian waxwing (Bombycilla garrulus) X X

Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus

cyanocephalus)

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Brewer's sparrow (Spizella breweri) SOC S X X X X X X X X X X X

Brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) X X X X X

Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Bullock’s oriole (Icterus bullockii) X X X X X X X X X X X X

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) SOC S

Canada goose (Branta canadensis) X X X X X X X X X

Canyon wren (Catherpes mexicanus) X X X

Cassin’s kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans) X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Cassin's Finch (Carpodacus cassinii) SOC X

Cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) X X X X X

Chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius 

ornatus)

SOC S X X
Appendix F – Wildlife Species List

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA

Species Recorded or Potentially Occurring in Wildlife Monitoring Area1 (Catena 2017b)

Species2 SOC2

BLM 

Sens.3

1989-

1996 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

BIRDS Cont...

Chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera)

Clark's nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) SOC X X X X X X X X

Clay-colored sparrow (Spizella pallida) X X X X X

Cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) X X X X X X

Common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Common poorwill (Phalaenoptilus nuttallii) X X X X X X

Common raven (Corvus corax) X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Common redpoll (Carduelis flammea) X

Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) X X X X X X X X

Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) X X X

Cordilleran flycatcher (Empidonax 

occidentalis); formerly western flycatcher 

(Empidonax difficilis)

?

j X X X

Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Dickcissel (Spiza americana)

Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) X X X X X X X X

Dusky flycatcher (Empidonax oberholseri) X X X X X

Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis) X

Eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) X

j

Eastern screech-owl (Otus asio)

Eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens) ?

j

European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Evening grosbeak (Coccothraustes 

vespertinus)

SOC X X X X

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) SOC S X X

Gadwall (Anas strepera) X

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) SOC S X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus 

savannarum)

X X X X X X

Gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) X X X X X X X

Gray partridge (Perdix perdix) X X

Gray-crowned rosy-finch (Leucosticte 

tephrocotis)

SOC X X

Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) SOC X X

Great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus)

SOC S

Green-tailed Towhee (Pipilo chlorurus) SOC X

Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca) X X X
Appendix F – Wildlife Species List

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA

Species Recorded or Potentially Occurring in Wildlife Monitoring Area1 (Catena 2017b)

Species2 SOC2

BLM 

Sens.3

1989-

1996 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

BIRDS cont...

Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) X X X X X X

Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus) X

Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes 

cucullatus) X

Hoary redpoll (Carduelis hornemanni)

Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

House finch (Carpodacus mexicanus)

House sparrow (Passer domesticus) X X X X X X X

House wren (Troglodytes aedon) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea)

Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Lapland longspur (Calcarius lapponicus)

Lark bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys) X X X X

Lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Lazuli bunting (Passerina amoena) X X X X

Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) X

Least flycatcher (Empidonax minimus) X X X X X X X X X

Lewis' woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) SOC S X X X X X X X X X X

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) SOC S X

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) SOC S X X

Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa) X X X

McCown’s longspur (Calcarius mccownii) SOC S

Merlin (Falco columbarius) X X X

Mountain bluebird (Sialia currucoides) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Mountain chickadee (Poecile gambeli) X X X X X X

Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) SOC X X X

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) X X X X X

Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)

Northern pintail (Anas acuta)

Northern pygmy-owl (Glaucidium gnoma) ?

j X

Northern rough-winged swallow 

(Stelgidopteryx serripennis)

X X X X

Northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius 

acadicus)

X X

Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata) X

Northern shrike (Lanius excubitor) X X

Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)

Orchard oriole (Icterus spurious)
Appendix F – Wildlife Species List

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA

Species Recorded or Potentially Occurring in Wildlife Monitoring Area1 (Catena 2017b)

Species2 SOC2

BLM 

Sens.3

1989-

1996 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

BIRDS cont...

Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) X X

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) SOC S

Pine grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator) X

Pine siskin (Carduelis pinus) X X X X X X X

Pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) SOC X X X X X X X X

Plumbeous vireo (Vireo plumbeus) 

(formerly Solitary Vireo) X X X X X X X

Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) X X X X X X X X X X X X

Pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) X

Red crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) X X X X X X X X X X

Red phalarope (Phalaropus fulicaria)

Red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) X X X X X X X X X X

Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus)

Red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus)

SOC S X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Red-naped sapsucker (Sphyrapicus 

nuchalis)

X

Red-necked phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus)

Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus)

Rock Pigeon (Columba livia) X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Rock wren (Salpinctes obsoletus) X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Rose-breasted grosbeak (Pheucticus 

ludovicianus)

Rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus) X X X X X X X X X

Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus)

Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus)

Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) SOC S X

Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) X

Savannah sparrow (Passerculus 

sandwichensis)

X X X X X X X

Say's phoebe (Sayornis saya) X X X X X X X X X X X X

Scissor-tailed flycatcher (Tyrannus 

forficatus)

Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) X

j Xj X X

Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus 

phasianellus jamesi)

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)

Snow bunting (Plectrophenax nivalis) X X

Snowy owl (Nyctea scandiaca)

Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) X X X
Appendix F – Wildlife Species List

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA

Species Recorded or Potentially Occurring in Wildlife Monitoring Area1 (Catena 2017b)

Species2 SOC2

BLM 

Sens.3

1989-

1996 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

BIRDS cont...

Sora (Porzana carolina) X X X X X X X

Spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia) X X X X X X X X

Spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) SOC S

Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri)

Stilt sandpiper (Calidris himantopus) X

Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) X

Swainson's thrush (Catharus ustulatus) X

Townsend's solitaire (Myadestes 

townsendi)

X X X X X X X X X X

Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) X X X X X X X X X X X X

Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) SOC X

Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus) X

Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Unidentified flycatcher X X

Unidentified Empidonax Flycatcher X

Upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) X X X X X X X X

Veery (Catharus fuscescens) SOC S

Vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Violet-green swallow (Tachycineta 

thalassina)

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Virginia rail (Rallus limicola)

Warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus) X X X X X X X

Western bluebird (Sialia mexicana) X X

Western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana) X X X X X X X X X X X

Western wood-pewee (Contopus 

sordidulus)

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus)

White-breasted nuthatch (Sitta 

carolinensis)

X X X X X X X X X X

White-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia 

leucophrys)

X

White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia 

albicollis) X

White-throated swift (Aeronautes 

saxatalis)

X X X X X X X X X

White-winged crossbill (Loxia leucoptera) ?

i

Whooping crane (Grus americana) SOC

Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii)
Appendix F – Wildlife Species List

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA

Species Recorded or Potentially Occurring in Wildlife Monitoring Area1 (Catena 2017b)

Species2 SOC2

BLM 

Sens.3

1989-

1996 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

BIRDS cont...

Willet (Tringa semipalmata) X

Wilson's phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) X

Wilson's Snipe (Gallinago delicata), 

formerlly common snipe X X X X X X X X

Wood duck (Aix sponsa) X

Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) X

Yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus)

X

Yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica 

coronata)

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

MAMMALS

Badger (Taxidea taxus) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Beaver (Castor canadensis)

Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) X X X X X X X X+ X+ X+

Black Bear (Ursus americanus) X

Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys 

ludovicianus)

SOC S

Bobcat (Felis rufus) X X X X X X X X X X

Bushy-tailed woodrat (Neotoma cinerea) X X X X X X X X X X

Cottontail (Sylvilagus spp.) X X X X

Coyote (Canis latrans) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) X X X X X X X

Desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Dwarf shrew (Sorex nanus) SOC

Eastern Red bat (Lasiurus borealis)

Elk (Cervus elaphus) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) SOC S X?+

Hayden’s shrew (Sorex haydeni)

Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) SOC X X X X+ X+ X+

House mouse (Mus musculus)

Least chipmunk (Tamias minimus) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) X X X X+ X+ X+

Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) X X X+ X?+

Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) X X X?+

Long-tailed vole (Microtus longicaudus) X

Long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) X X X

Meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) X X X X

Merriam shrew (Sorex merriami) SOC

Mink (Mustela vison)

Mountain cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii) X X X X X X X
Appendix F – Wildlife Species List

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA

Species Recorded or Potentially Occurring in Wildlife Monitoring Area1 (Catena 2017b)

Species2 SOC2

BLM 

Sens.3

1989-

1996 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

MAMMALS cont...

Mountain lion (Felis concolor) X X X X X X

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) X X X

Northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys 

leucogaster)

X X

Northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) T X?+

Northern pocket gopher (Thomomys 

talpoides)

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Olive-backed pocket mouse (Perognathus 

fasciatus)

X

Ord's kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ordii)

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) SOC S X X?+ X?+

Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster)

Preble shrew (Sorex preblei) SOC

Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Raccoon (Procyon lotor) X X X X X X

Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) X X X

Red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) X X

Richardson’s ground squirrel (Urocitellus 

richardsonii)

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Sagebrush vole (Lammiscus curtatus)

Silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) X X X X+ X+ X+

Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) SOC S X X X X X+ X+

Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) X X X

Thirteen-lined ground squirrel (Ictidomys 

tridecemlineatus)

X

Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus 

townsendii)

SOC S X X

Unidentified Myotis X X X X X X?+ X?+ X?+

Western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys 

megalotis)

Western jumping mouse (Zapus princeps)

Western small-footed myotis (Myotis 

ciliolabrum)

X X X?+ X?+

White-footed mouse (Peromyscus 

leucopus)

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) X X X X X X X

White-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii) X X X X X X X

Yellow-bellied marmot (Marmota 

flaviventris)

X X X X X X X X X

Yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus) X X
Appendix F – Wildlife Species List

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA

Species Recorded or Potentially Occurring in Wildlife Monitoring Area1 (Catena 2017b)

Species2 SOC2

BLM 

Sens.3

1989-

1996 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

AMPHIBIANS

Boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris maculata) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Great Plains toad (Bufo cognatus) SOC S X X

Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) X X X X X X X

Plains spadefoot (Spea bombifrons) SOC S

Tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Woodhouse's toad (Bufo woodhousii) X X X X X X X X X

REPTILES

Common garter snake (Thamnophis 

sirtalis)

X

m X

Common Sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus 

graciosus)

X

Eastern racer (Coluber constrictor) X X

Gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer) X X X X X X

Greater short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma 

hernandesi)

SOC S

Milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum) SOC S

Painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Plains garter snake (Thamnophis radix) X

Rubber Boa (Charina bottae) X

Spiny softshell (Apalone spinifera) SOC S

Western hog-nosed snake (Heterodon 

nasicus)

SOC S

Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) X X X X X X X X

Western Terrestrial garter snake 

(Thamnophis elegans)

X X

(1) Species recorded in a given year are noted with a "X". Species of questionable identification are identified with a "?". Species recorded by acoustic survey only are identified with a "+".

(2) Montana species of concern ("SOC") (MTNHP 2016). 

(3) BLM sensitive ("S") species (BML 2014). Red Knot and Northern Myotis are listed as Threatened under the ESA and are flagged with a "T" in this column. 
Appendix G – Socioeconomics

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA G-1

APPENDIX G – SOCIOECONOMICS

This appendix provides supporting data and statistics to supplement description of the current 

condition as presented in Section 3.11 and Section 3.12 of the EA, including 2015 

population, housing, and employment estimates, recent (2016) Mine-related revenue data and 

updated census tract information. This appendix also provides a regional economic impact 

analysis that describes effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative on economic 

conditions and local economic activity to support the description of environmental 

consequences in Section 4.11 of the EA. 

1.0 Current Socioeconomic Conditions

1.1 Local Economy 

The general business economies of Musselshell and Yellowstone Counties differ by orders of 

magnitude as presented in Table G-1.

Table G-1. Comparison of County Business Patterns, 2015

County and category1 Number of 

Establishments2

Number of Paid 

Employees

Annual Payroll 

($1,000)

Musselshell County

Total for All Sectors 116 937 47,494

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas 

extraction (NAICS 21)

10 185 16,513

Yellowstone County

Total for All Sectors 5,565 69,990 2,982,038

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas 

extraction (NAICS 21)

64 581 81,031

Source: US Census Bureau 2017

(1) NAICS = North American Industry Classification System

(2) An establishment is a single physical location at which business is conducted or services or industrial operations 

are performed.

A summary of payrolls, expenditures, tax revenues (hereafter collectively referred to as 

“revenues”) for 2016 and associated rates are provided in Table G-2. In that same year 

(2016), the Mine produced 5.96 Mt of saleable coal with an approximate value of $23 per ton. 

Additional information about select revenue categories is provided below.

In 2016, Mine payroll totaled approximately $31 million, with over $23.5 million reported in 

taxable wages and $7.5 million attributed to benefits such as vacation, sick leave, medical 

insurance, retirement plan contributions, workers’ compensation insurance and unemployment 

taxes. Approximately 29 percent of the 260 Mine employees resided in Musselshell County 

while the remaining 71 percent resided in Yellowstone County. However, Yellowstone County 

and the City of Billings are proportionally affected less by Mine employment due to their larger 

and more diverse economy, as shown in Table G-1. 
Appendix G – Socioeconomics

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA G-2

Table G-2. Estimated Revenues for 2016. 

Revenue 

Source/Category Rate Musselshell County

Yellowstone 

County

State of 

Montana

Federal 

Government

Mine Expenditures, including Payroll

Wages and Benefits1 $8,990,000 $22,010,000

Local Business 

Transactions $4,000,000 $36,000,000

Community

Foundation $350,000 

Taxes and Fees

Montana Severance 

Taxes 4% of saleable value $3,940,000

Resource Indemnity 

Trust Fund and 

Groundwater 

Assessment Tax

0.4% of gross value (i.e., 

saleable value) $400,000

Gross Proceeds 

Tax

2.5% of saleable value. 

50% to State, 50% to 

County (increases after 

2020)

$1,155,000 $82,000 $1,237,000

State Land Surface 

Annual Lease $3,839

State Mineral 

Royalties $260,000

Federal Land Surface 

Annual Lease $3/acre annually $8,819

Federal Mineral 

Royalties

8% of saleable value

(50% to State, 50% to 

Federal Gov't.)

$86,000 $86,000 

Abandoned Mine 

Reclamation

$0.12 per saleable ton

(underground rate) $698,000 

Free on Board (FOB) 

/Black Lung

Lesser of 4.4% or $1.10 

per saleable ton 

(underground rate), paid 

on domestic sales only.

$176,000 

Totals $14,495,000 $58,092,000 $5,926,839 $968,819

Source: SPE 2017c. All values are approximate.

(1) County portions estimated from the portion of the Mine’s 260 employees residing in Yellowstone County (71%) and 

Musselshell County (29%). Includes the portion that would be paid as State and Federal income tax.

SPE pays both State and Federal corporate taxes; individual employees pay State and Federal 

income taxes. The Mine was an “existing underground coal mine producing coal from the mine 

as of December 31, 2010”, qualifying it for a gross proceeds tax rate of 2.5 percent through 

2020, after which the rate will increase to 5 percent [MCA 15-23-703(1)(c)]. Fifty percent of 

the gross proceeds tax is returned to the counties. In the case of the Mine, the entire annual 

distribution goes to the county where the longwall is positioned on the last day of the year. In 

2016, $1,237,000 was returned to the counties, a majority of which was distributed to 

Musselshell County and Roundup Public School District 55-55H. In addition to revenues 
Appendix G – Socioeconomics

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA G-3

generated annually as a result of mine operations, in 2012 SPE paid one-time bonus bid 

payments associated with the Federal coal lease ($11 million) and State coal lease ($4 million) in 

the Amendment 3 area (SPE 2017c).

Due to the presence of the Mine and potential growth-related issues, Musselshell County has 

applied for and received Coal Board grants funded by the Coal Severance Tax and administered 

by the Montana Department of Commerce. The first grants began in 2009 when the Mine was 

reopening. The Coal Board funded 10 projects in Musselshell County, the City of Roundup, and 

Roundup Public School District 55-55H. The awards totaled $2.5 million for projects valued at 

$3.8 million. Multiple awards were made between 2010 and 2016, when Yellowstone County 

received an award of $60,000 to help fund renovation of the fire hall in the Broadview Fire 

District. Also in 2016, Musselshell County was awarded $500,000 for a social services facility 

and $300,000 for equipment at the Roundup Memorial Healthcare facility (DOC 2018).

1.2 Population.

Musselshell County experienced a 3.5 percent loss in population between 2000 and 2010, but a 

6.5 percent increase from 2010 to 2015 (Table G-3). Estimates from the US Census Bureau 

(2015a) indicate nearly 40 percent of the County population resides in the City of Roundup, 

which experienced a decline in population from 2000 to 2010, followed by a near-equal rise in 

population from 2010 to 2015. By comparison, Yellowstone County and Billings have 

experienced sustained growth since 2000, with more than a 20 percent growth rate from 2010 

to 2015. Yellowstone County and Billings are the largest county and city in Montana, 

respectively. 

Table G-3. Study Area Population Characteristics, 2000 to 2010, 2000 to 2015

Population Statistic

Musselshell 

County

City of 

Roundup

Yellowstone 

County

City of 

Billings Montana

2000 Population14,497 1,931 129,352 89,847 902,195

2010 Population24,339 1,790 144,050 101,549 973,739

Percent Change, 2000-2010 -3.5 -7.3 11.4 13.0 7.9

2015 Population Estimate 4,790 1,900 153,692 108,134 1,014,699

Percent Change, 2000-201536.5 -1.6 18.8 20.4 12.5

1 US Census Bureau, 2000a.

2 US Census Bureau, 2010.

3 US Census Bureau, 2015a. 

1.3 Employment 

Table G-4 presents employment data from 2000 and 2015, during which time total 

employment in Montana increased by nearly 14 percent while employment in Musselshell 

County decreased by 1.2 percent (26 jobs) and Yellowstone County employment increased by 

more than 19 percent. The unemployment rate in both counties and the State fell between 

2000 and 2015 (US Census Bureau 2000b, 2015b). The unemployment rate for August 2017 

(Not Seasonally Adjusted) is reported as 3.6 percent in Musselshell County, 3.2 percent in 

Yellowstone County and 3.4 percent for the State of Montana (MTDLI 2017a), indicating 

further increases in employment. 

Mining, categorized as part of an industry which includes agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 

and mining, was responsible for 21.1 percent of the 2015 civilian labor force in Musselshell 
Appendix G – Socioeconomics

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA G-4

County (US Census 2015b). This compares to 3.5 percent in Yellowstone County, and 7.3 

percent for the State of Montana as a whole. The mining industry accounted for approximately 

4,500 jobs in Montana in 2015 (MTDLI 2017b). Based on these statistics, SPE’s 260 employees 

account for approximately 5.7 percent of the State’s mining industry employment. 

Table G-4. Study Area Employment Characteristics, 2000 to 2015

Year and Employment Statistic

Musselshell 

County

Yellowstone 

County Montana

20001

Number in the Civilian Labor Force 2,088 68,620 454,687

Unemployment Rate 7.6 4.5 6.3

Percent employed in Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 

and Mining

20.6 3.0 7.9

20152

Number in the Civilian Labor Force 2,062 81,943 517,807

Unemployment Rate 4.6 4.1 6.2

Percent employed in Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 

and Mining 

21.1 3.5 7.3

Percent Change in Civilian Labor Force, 2000 - 2015 -1.2 19.4 13.9

1 US Census Bureau 2000b.

2 US Census Bureau 2015b. 

1.4 Housing

Table G-5 presents a summary of housing characteristics in the Study Area in both 2000 and 

2015. The 2015 American Community Survey (US Census 2015c) estimated a total of 68,500 

housing units in 2015 in both Musselshell and Yellowstone counties, collectively, with 

approximately 760 unoccupied units in Musselshell County and 4,340 unoccupied units in 

Yellowstone County. The relative low percentage of housing occupied in Musselshell County 

and the City of Roundup indicate that there is still surplus housing in both jurisdictions, but 

especially in the county, which is consistent with the findings of the BLM Coal Lease EA.

Yellowstone County and the City of Billings continue to have an active housing market as 

indicated by statistics in Table G-5.

Table G-5. Study Area Housing Units and Change, 20001to 20152

Year and Housing 

Statistic

Musselshell 

County

City of 

Roundup

Yellowstone 

County

City of 

Billings Montana

2000 Housing Units 2,317 977 54,563 39,151 412,633

2000 Percent Occupied 81.1 85.3 95.5 95.8 86.9

2015 Housing Units Estimate 2,708 995 65,792 47,044 488,845

2015 Percent Occupied 72.0 81.5 93.4 93.7 83.7

Percent Change in Housing 

Units, 2000-2015 16.9 1.8 20.6 20.2 18.5

1 US Census Bureau 2000c.

2 US Census Bureau 2015c.

1.5 Environmental Justice Populations

Census tract records were examined to determine if any environmental justice populations are 

present within the 12 census tracts within 1 mile of the Mine or rail segments between the 
Appendix G – Socioeconomics

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA G-5

Mine and Laurel (Table G-6). None of the tracts meet the meaningfully greater criteria for 

environmental justice populations.

Table G-6. Environmental Justice Populations within Study Area

Jurisdiction

2015 

Population1

Percent

Minority1

Percent 

Poverty2

State of Montana 1,014,699 13 15.2

Yellowstone County 153,692 12.6 11.5

301110014012 2,191 4.2 7.4

301110014021 3,326 3.7 4.5

301110014014 2,143 3.2 4.2

301110014016 3,626 1.0 2.3

301110015021 1,041 1.0 8.0

301110018011 1,697 15.3 0

301110018012 2,730 0.9 1.7

301110014023 1,390 7.6 17.3

301110019021 1,158 1.0 1.2

301110019023 1,602 6.2 18.5

Musselshell County 4790 7.5 16.4

300650001002 847 0.7 10.5

300650001003 1,095 5 21.6

1 US Census Bureau 2015d, 2015e. 

2 US Census Bureau 2015f, 2015g.

2.0 Regional Economic Analysis 

This section provides a regional economic analysis to describe the alternatives’ effects on 

economic conditions and local economic activity, generally expressed as projected changes in 

employment, labor income, and economic output (Watson et al. 2007). Employment and 

income are not considered measures of benefits but are descriptors of the distribution of 

potential impacts on local or regional economics and populations. As noted in Section 3.11 of 

the EA, the monetary contributions to the economy resulting from Mine activities are generally 

termed “revenue” for purposes of this analysis.

Table G-7 compares total estimated revenue under Proposed Action and No Action 

Alternative based on current tax and revenue rates as discussed in Section 3.11 of the EA 

(see Table 3.11-2), mining duration (years) and total tons of saleable coal shown in Table 

2.2-1 of the EA. All values are reported in 2016 dollars, not inflation adjusted. For purposes of 

this assessment, employment was assumed to be constant at 260 employees for the duration of 

mining. However, some increase in employment is expected to achieve a mining rate of 

10.0Mtpy for both alternatives. Employment would decline as the Mine enters closure (for both 

alternatives) and some employment would continue during the closure and reclamation phases 

that occur for approximately 18 months after mining ceases. The portions of employee wages 
Appendix G – Socioeconomics

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA G-6

and health benefits that would be paid as Federal and State income taxes were not separately 

estimated but were instead included in the county and local portion for tabulation. 

Table G-7 Difference between the Total Estimated Revenues of the No Action and Proposed Action 

Alternatives.

Revenue Source / Category

No Action 

Revenue

($1,000)

Proposed Action 

Revenue

($1,000)

Difference between 

Alternatives 

($1,000)

Estimated Local and County Revenue from Mine Activities

Wages and Benefits1

Musselshell County 22,475 103,385 80,910

Yellowstone County 253,115 414,000 160,885

Local Business Transactions

Musselshell County 10,000 46,000 36,000

Yellowstone County 90,000 414,000 324,000

Gross Proceeds Tax (County Share)2

Musselshell County 6,767 56,486 49,719

Yellowstone County 2,021 16,872 14,851

Community Foundation3 $350 $4,025 3,675

Subtotal 384,728 1,054,768 670,040

Estimated State Revenue from Mine Activities4

Severance Tax 28,121 140,961 112,840

Gross Proceeds Tax (State 

Share) 8,788 73,358 64,570

Resource Indemnity Trust Fund 2,812 14,096 11,284

State Land Surface Lease 12 46 35

State Coal Mineral Royalty52,324 20,140 17,816

Federal Coal Royalty (State 

Share) 2,088 38,806 36,718

Subtotal 44,144 287,408 243,263

Estimated Federal Revenue from Mine Activities4

Federal Surface Lease 26 106 79

Federal Coal Royalties 2,088 38,806 36,718

Abandoned Mine Reclamation 204 3,624 3,420

FOB/Black Lung61,008 4,827 3,819

Subtotal 3,326 47,363 44,037

Total 432,198 1,389,538 957,341

(1) Includes the portion that would be paid as State and Federal income tax. Wages would increase from this amount if 

employment rises to achieve production of 10.0Mtpy under either alternative.

(2) Estimated allocations to Musselshell County (77%) and Yellowstone County (23%) Source: SPE 2017c.

(3) Musselshell County only. Source: SPE 2017c.

(4) Excludes the portion that would be paid as State and Federal income tax.

(5) Source: SPE 2017c.

(6) Assumes 4 percent of total saleable coal is sold domestically with a $1.10 per ton tax rate.

SPE (2017c) estimates the value of each saleable ton to be $28 in 2017 and $32.50 in 2018. 

Coal values from 2019 to 2028 would be subject to fluctuations in market conditions. The US 

Energy Information Administration (USEIA reports that global coal consumption is expected to 

remain “roughly the same between 2015 and 2040...with decreasing consumption in China and 
Appendix G – Socioeconomics

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA G-7

the United States offsetting growth in India.” Asia is expected to remain the world’s largest 

importer of coal (USEIA 2017b), and coal consumption by Asia (including Japan and South 

Korea) is expected to remain relatively constant between 2017 and 2028 (USEIA 2017c). Mine 

mouth (i.e., at the mine before transport) coal prices are also expected to remain relatively 

constant (USEIA 2017d). Based on this information, a value of $32.50 per saleable ton was used 

to estimate revenues from 2019 to 2028.

As noted in Section 3.11 of the EA, gross proceeds tax is allocated to the county where the 

longwall miner is located at the end of the year. This assessment assumed that the distribution 

of gross proceeds tax revenues to counties would be proportional to the amount of coal mined 

in each county (i.e., 77 percent to Musselshell County and 23 percent to Yellowstone County).
Appendix H – Consultation and Coordination

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA H-1

APPENDIX H – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Consultation & Coordination 

A full discussion of the consultation and coordination efforts made during preparation of the 

application for the existing State-approved mining permit and the preparation of the BLM Coal 

Lease EA is presented in Chapter 5 of that EA. The BLM is a cooperator in preparation of this 

EA, completing technical review and providing assistance in the analysis.

As described in Chapter 1, OSMRE conducted a scoping process from October 20 to 

November 20, 2017 during which public comments were solicited to identify issues of concern. 

OSMRE published legal notices in the Billings Gazette on October 20, 2017 and the Roundup 

Record Tribune on October 25, 2017 describing the project in summary form and informed the 

public that scoping comments would be accepted until November 20, 2017. Public outreach 

letters describing the EA and soliciting scoping comments were mailed on October 20, 2017 to 

State, county and city governments; adjacent landowners; and other interested parties. OSMRE 

also sent letters of notification to tribes/tribal representatives via certified letters on October 

20, 2017. OSMRE made a project website available that provided project information and 

comment opportunities available at the following link.

https://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/bullMountainsMine.shtm.

Scoping letters were received from individuals and representatives of private and public entities 

during the public scoping period. A description of issues analyzed in this EA are summarized in 

Section 1.3. Comment letters received during the public review period for this EA will be 

considered during the ASLM approval process.

Preparers and Contributors 

OSMRE and BLM personnel that contributed to the development of this EA include the 

following: 

Table 5.2-1. OSMRE and BLM personnel.

Name Organization Project Responsibility

Gretchen Pinkham OSMRE NEPA Project Lead

Lauren Mitchell OSMRE MPDD Coordinator

Roberta Martinez-Hernandez OSMRE Water Resources Review

Ed Vasquez OSMRE Biological Resources Review

Jeremy Iliff OSMRE Cultural Resources Review

Greg Fesko BLM Cooperating Agency Review
Appendix H – Consultation and Coordination

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA H-2

Third party contractors who contributed to the development of this EA are identified in Table 

5.2-2. 

Table 5.2-2. Third party contractor personnel.

Name Organization Project Responsibility

Judd Stark Catena Consulting, LLC

NEPA Project Manager / Document Preparation 

/ Technical Review / Quality Assurance / 

Quality Control (QA/QC)

Laura Pfister NewFields Mining & Energy Services Assistant Project Manager / Document 

Preparation / QA/QC 

Karen Lyncoln Catena Consulting, LLC Socioeconomics / Document Preparation / 

QA/QC 

Pete Feigley, PhD Catena Consulting, LLC Technical Review - Wildlife

Bruce Waage Catena Consulting, LLC Technical Review - Wildlife

Kevin Mathews Bison Engineering Document Preparation and Technical Review -

Air Quality and Climate 

Jeff Chaffee Bison Engineering Technical Review - Air Quality and Climate Air 

Quality and Climate

Distribution of the EA 

This EA will be distributed to individuals who specifically request a copy of the document. It will 

also be made available electronically on the OSMRE website at the following link.

https://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/initiatives/bullMountainsMine.shtm
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-1

APPENDIX I – PUBLIC COMMENT RESPONSE

Submission 

ID Name and Organization

A Joe Farinelli, Signal Peak Energy

D Michael Garrity, Alliance for the Wild Rockies

E

Environmental Defense Fund, Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University of Law, Sierra 

Club, Union of Concerned Scientists

G Sue Olson, Local Rancher (form letter example)

H Lauren de Paepe (form letter example)

I

Mark Templeton, Abrams Environmental Law Clinic, University of Chicago Law School, Dr. 

Greenstone

J

Shiloh Hernandez, Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of Montana Environmental 

Information Center, the Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians, Montana Elders for a Livable 

Tomorrow, and Missoula 350.org

K

Shiloh Hernandez, Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of Montana Environmental 

Information Center, the Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians, Montana Elders for a Livable 

Tomorrow, and Missoula 350.org

L Mark A Hutson

M Dr. Paul Smith, D.O.

N Brian Moench, MD

O Thomas Michael Power, PhD and Donovan S. Power, MS, Power Consulting Incorporated

P Dr. James E. Hansen

Q Steve Charter, Northern Plains Resource Council

R Brianna Whitaker, Montana Department of Transportation

S Nicole Borner, Musselshell County Commissioner
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-2

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

1 A

District Court 

Order, 

Adequacy of 

Analysis

The Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 EA Fully Addresses the 

Purported Deficiencies Identified by the Montana District 

Court....The Bull Mountains EA addresses each of these 

issues in detail on remand...The letter notes that topics 

addressed include: rail transportation impacts, non-local, 

non-ghg emissions of coal combustion, and social cost of 

carbon analysis. In sum, OSMRE thoroughly addressed each 

of the issues identified in Judge Molloy’s August 14, 2017 

Order and reasonably concluded that the impacts of the 

mine expansion are anticipated to be short-term and minor 

in the local, regional, and global contexts.

Comment noted.

2 A

Social Cost of 

Carbon –

General

Though Signal Peak agrees with OSMRE that a Social Cost 

of Carbon calculation is neither necessary nor helpful, given 

Judge Molloy’s concern that such a calculation was lacking 

from the 2015 EA, Signal Peak engaged Dr. Timothy 

Considine of the University of Wyoming to perform that 

analysis. Dr. Considine’s report is titled “Reconsidering the 

Carbon Costs for the Bull Mountains Mine Extension.” 

Signal Peak submits the calculations for informational 

purposes, but reiterates that the calculations are based on 

mathematical models that are highly simplified 

representations of complex climate systems and the world 

economy. The results are very sensitive to key parameters 

that are highly uncertain at best, and therefore, are 

unreliable and unhelpful.

OSMRE reviewed the submitted SCC calculations and agrees 

that the values presented are highly variable. The report 

submitted by the commenter states that, “Total emission costs 

for the 9-year time horizon vary by over 40-fold from a low of 

$247 million to as high as $10.5 billion”. While OSMRE does 

not believe that a social cost of carbon analysis is warranted for 

this project decision and did not include it in the EA, as outlined 

in Appendix D, Section 2.4, we note that this analysis and its 

wide margin of error support our conclusion such analysis was 

not needed because that the social cost of carbon without a full 

cost-benefit analysis is of very limited utility to the decision 

maker. 

See Appendix D, Section 2.4 for rational on why a social cost of 

carbon analysis was not conducted.

3 A

Social Cost of 

Carbon -

General

The social costs of carbon emissions from the Bull 

Mountains mine extension is calculated by multiplying this 

estimated annual CO2 emission level by the four SCC 

estimates. The global emission costs are between $122 and 

$166 million under the 7% discount rate and between $1.1 

and $1.3 billion with the 3% discount rate assumption. In 

contrast, the emission costs assuming domestic benefits 

apply are between $23 and $32 million with the 7% discount 

rate and from $150 and $176 million assuming the 3% 

discount rate. Total emission costs for the 9-year time 

horizon vary by over 40-fold from a low of $247 million to 

as high as $10.5 billion.

The calculations (of Social Cost of Carbon presented as an 

attachment to the comment) assume the absence of a 

competitive market to replace Bull Mountains coal in the 

East Asian market. This assumption is incorrect for the 

See response to Comments #2. 

OSMRE reviewed the reports submitted by the commenter 

titled “The Impact of the Proposed Bull Mountains Mine 

Extension on Greenhouse Gas Emissions” and “Reconsidering 

Carbon Costs for the Bull Mountains Mine Extension”. 

OSMRE’s analysis in the EA does not assume that the coal 

would be replaced by other sources but analyzes the impacts 

associated with the Proposed Action (coal would be mined) and 

No Action (coal would not be mined). OSMRE acknowledges 

that the actual consequences of a No Action Alternative would 

fall somewhere in between. However, OSMRE is not required 

to conduct a coal market analysis and/or a cost-benefit analysis 

(40 CFR 1502.23) and therefore presents the potential impacts 

using readily available information.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-3

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

reasons Dr. Considine discusses in his second report “The 

Impact of the Proposed Bull Mountains Mine Extension on 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” 

4 A

Hydrology -

Springs

The EA repeatedly mischaracterizes the impacts to Spring 

17145. There has been no determination made in any 

report or analysis that concludes that the cessation of flow 

is mine related. The cessation of flow is potentially minerelated. 

See responses to Comments #5, #6, and #7.

5 A

Hydrology -

Springs

Section 2.1.5 should be revised: “SPE has proposed a sitespecific mitigation plan for Spring 17145 which has 

potentially been adversely impacted after being undermined 

in 2013 and again in 2014.”

The statement as written is accurate in that flow ceased at 

Spring 17145 after being undermined. Further, spring mitigation 

plans are only required under SMCRA and the PAP when there 

is evidence of a mining related impact. Additionally, this text was 

discussed and agreed upon during a meeting on between 

OSMRE and MDEQ on February 9, 2018.

6 A

Hydrology -

Springs

Section 3.4.2 should be revised: “Observations at spring 

17145 indicate potential mining related impacts, and SPE has 

proposed a site-specific mitigation plan that is currently 

under review by MDEQ.”

The text as written is accurate and already uses the term 

"indicates" thereby acknowledging that the evidence highly 

suggests but does not definitively prove a mining impact. 

Additionally, this text was discussed and agreed upon during a 

meeting between OSMRE and MDEQ on February 9, 2018.

7 A

Hydrology -

Springs

Appendix E, Section 1.2 should be corrected to accurately 

reflect the reference cited (Catena and WET 2018): The 

erroneous sentence currently reads “Although dry 

conditions were occasionally observed before mining, dry 

and non-flowing conditions observed since July 2014 

indicate that cessation of flow is associated with mining in 

Panel 3.” This is clearly not an accurate summary of the 

reference cited. To accurately summarize the Catena and 

WET 2018 report, this sentence should read: “Dry 

conditions at this spring have also been observed during 

below average precipitation or under drought conditions. 

The persistent no flow conditions observed since 2014, 

potentially indicate an impact to flow associated with 

undermining. Drought is also a potential factor for the lack 

of flow observed in this spring. Additional data are needed 

to evaluate long-term effects on water quantity and quality 

at this site.”

The text has been revised to state: "Dry conditions at this 

spring have also been observed during below average 

precipitation or under drought conditions. The persistent no 

flow conditions observed since 2014, indicate an impact to flow 

associated with undermining. Drought is also a potential factor 

for the lack of flow observed in this spring. Additional data are 

needed to evaluate long-term effects on water quantity and 

quality at this site."

8 A Reference List

On the Catena Consulting and WET 2018 reference the 

dates are incorrect. It should be October 2016 – September 

2017.

The reference text has been revised to correct this error.

9 A Reference List

MDEQ reference 2017b, the date is incorrect for TR3 

Major Revision, it should be August 2017.

Although the document cited in the EA (MDEQ's TR3 CHIA) is 

part of MDEQ's August 2017 written findings, the document has 

a footer with the date "9/1/2017". The EA has been revised to 

reflect this date.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-4

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

10 A Figures Appendix A, Fig 3.4-3, the title should be titled Upper 

Underburden Drawdown.

The title of Figure 3.4-3 has been revised to correct this 

omission.

11 A

Chapter 2 -

Existing 

Condition

Section 2.1.4, the last sentence in this section should be 

removed. There is no such requirement. The sentence 

beginning “To the extent possible.......” should be 

removed.

The referenced statement is consistent with the mine permit 

(SPE 2017a, Section 313, Page 313-6), which states that, "To the 

extent possible, prior to significant surface disruption, DEQ and 

SPE will conduct a survey of the surface above the panel to be 

reclaimed to establish agreement on which features are to be 

reclaimed and the methods to be used."

12 A

Hydrology -

Mitigation

Section 2.1.5, the last paragraph on page 13, the use of the 

word “source” is incorrect. SPE is obligated to mitigate the 

beneficial use of the water right. The sentence should be 

revised to read: “If the beneficial use of the water right is 

adversely impacted, SPE is required to mitigate those 

impacts......” Note: throughout EA, “adversely” should be 

added before “impacted”.

The text in Section 2.1.5 has been revised to read "If the 

beneficial use of the water right is adversely impacted, SPE is 

required to mitigate those impacts..."

Throughout the EA, the text has been revised to add 

"adversely" before the words impact and impacted, as 

appropriate.

13 A

Hydrology -

Surface Water

Section 3.4.3 clarification is needed. The repeated use of the 

word “stream” throughout this EA is misleading. This 

paragraph should be revised to read: “No perennial streams 

are located in the mine permit area or even the water 

resource study area. The vast majority of the drainage 

channels located in the permit boundary are normally dry 

and flow only in response to substantial rainfall and runoff 

events the most notable of which occurred in response to 

high precipitation in May and June 2011 (Catena and Nicklin 

2012). Some intermittent stream reaches dependent upon 

spring discharges for flow were identified in the baseline 

monitoring and discussed in the BLM Coal Lease EA. Small 

segments of typically dry drainages that sometimes flow are 

referred to as perennial and intermittent reaches...”

We use the term “stream” in the EA for a body of flowing 

water within a bed and bank of a natural channel. The use of the 

word “stream” is not misleading, but appropriate because State 

and Federal regulations for coal mining and reclamation apply to 

ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams, not drainage 

channels. The State of Montana commonly uses the term 

“stream” when describing intermittent and perennial surfacewater channels. However, when describing an ephemeral 

surface-water channel they use the term “ephemeral 

drainageway” instead of the term “ephemeral stream.” 

Although, the terms use different words, they mean the same 

thing under Montana and Federal regulations, thus we did not 

feel it was necessary to remove the word stream from the 

referenced sentences. A footnote has been added to the EA 

(Section 3.4.3) that informs the reader that the terms 

“ephemeral stream” and “ephemeral drainageway” have the 

same meaning. 

Upon a closer look at the section because of the comment, we 

have revised section 3.4.3 for the purpose of clarity to read as 

follows: "The majority of the stream channels located in the 

permit boundary are ephemeral; hence they are normally dry 

and flow only in response to rainfall and runoff events, the most 

notable of which occurred in response to high precipitation in 

May and June 2011 (Catena and Nicklin 2012). Short segments 

of streams, which exhibit perennial or intermittent flow 

characteristics as a result of spring discharges, are referred to as 

perennial and intermittent stream reaches. Some perennial and 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-5

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

intermittent stream reaches were identified in the baseline 

monitoring and discussed in the BLM Coal Lease EA. Perennial 

and intermittent stream reaches dependent upon spring flow 

sources may be affected by mining and may require mitigation 

measures presented in the Mine permit (SPE 2017a, Appendix 

313-3). Detailed analysis and establishment of typical numeric 

baseline stream flow conditions are precluded due to 

predominantly ephemeral conditions, which in combination with 

periodic sampling frequencies also result in high variability in 

available water quality monitoring data (MDEQ 2016a)."

14 A

Hydrology -

Forecasted 

Impacts

Section 4.4.1 the first sentence draws a conclusion that is 

unsubstantiated. There is no information provided regarding 

the No Action Alternative suggesting that the response of 

the underlying groundwater system will be slightly greater in 

magnitude than observations to date. It should be revised to 

read: “For the No Action Alternative, the response of the 

underlying groundwater system is anticipated to be similar 

to observations to date."

Appendix E presents supportive evidence for the statement, 

"For the No Action scenario, the response of the underlying 

groundwater system is anticipated to be similar to, but slightly 

greater in magnitude than observations to date" Notably the 

effective cones of depression in the Mammoth coal and shallow 

underburden would expand slightly beyond that which is 

presently observed.

15 A

Hydrology -

Surface Water

In Section 4.4.1 the use of the word “stream” is misleading. 

The second paragraph in this section should be revised:

“Surface water down gradient of disturbances.......”

Our use of the word “downstream” in the EA is not misleading, 

but appropriate. The BLM EA, which this EA is tiered off of, 

uses the term “downstream” often when it is describing impacts 

on surface water outside the permit boundary. In addition, the 

terms upstream and downstream are commonly used when 

discussing surface-water issues. Alternatively, the term 

“downgradient” is usually associated with discussions involving 

groundwater. In fact, the authors of the BLM EA use the term 

“downgradient” almost exclusively when discussing 

groundwater issues. The text was not revised due to the reason 

discussed above. 

16 A

Hydrology -

Surface Water

The use of the word stream also appears in Appendix E 

Section 1.3 and should be removed: “A majority of drainage 

channels situated within the permit boundary are normally 

dry and flow only in response to substantial runoff 

events...Detailed analysis and establishment of typical 

numeric baseline flow conditions are precluded due to 

predominantly ephemeral conditions...”

We use the term “stream” in the Appendix E for a body of 

flowing water within a bed and bank of a natural channel. The 

use of the word “stream” is not misleading, but appropriate 

because Montana and Federal regulations for coal mining and 

reclamation apply to ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial 

streams. The State of Montana uses the term “stream” when 

describing intermittent and perennial surface-water channels; 

however, when describing an ephemeral surface-water channel 

they use the term “ephemeral drainageway” instead of the term 

“ephemeral stream.” Although, the terms have different words, 

they mean the same thing under Montana and Federal 

regulations, thus we did not feel it was necessary to remove the 

word stream from the referenced sentences. A footnote has 

been added to the EA (Section 3.4.3) that informs the reader 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-6

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

that the terms “ephemeral stream” and “ephemeral 

drainageway” have the same meaning. 

Upon a closer look at the section because of the comment, we 

have revised the text for the purpose of clarity to state the 

following: “The majority of the stream channels located in the 

permit boundary are ephemeral; hence they are normally dry 

and flow only in response to rainfall and runoff events, the most 

notable of which occurred in response to high precipitation in 

May and June 2011 (Catena and Nicklin 2012). Detailed analysis 

and establishment of typical numeric baseline stream flow 

conditions are precluded due to predominantly ephemeral 

conditions...”

17 A

Air Quality -

General

A new first sentence in [Section 3.2.1] would be 

appropriate. “SPE operates an underground mine which 

when compared to a typical surface mine, results in far less 

Mine Related Emissions. Based on information....”

Comment noted. OSMRE did not make any text edits as the 

sentence is not necessary for the purposes of the analysis.

18 A General

Throughout the EA the mine name has been misspelled. It is 

the Bull Mountains mine, not the Bull Mountain mine.

The spelling "Bull Mountain Mine" was only noted to occur in 

three locations in Appendix I (Reference List): 

SPE 2016: This source is an IML report prepared for SPE, which 

also incorrectly identifies the mine name as Bull Mountain Mine. 

MDEQ no date: This source also incorrectly identifies the mine 

name as Bull Mountain Mine.

MDEQ 2016b: This source also incorrectly identifies the mine 

name as Bull Mountain Mine.

19 D

Social Cost of 

Carbon - Best 

Method for 

Fulfilling 

OSMRE's 

Obligation

The EA does not include an analysis of the Social Cost of 

Carbon of the emissions that will necessarily result from 

mining coal at Bull Mountain. This useful tool should have 

been applied in order to more fully account for the costs 

associated with climate change.

One commenter, Signal Peak Energy, completed a social cost of 

carbon analysis, which found estimated social costs of carbon 

emissions vary by over 40-fold depending upon the choice of 

discount rate and geographic boundaries. As stated in Appendix 

D, Section 2.4, a social cost of carbon analysis is not warranted 

for this project decision for several reasons including: the 

project is not a rulemaking, the technical supporting documents 

and associated guidance have been withdrawn, and it would 

present a skewed analysis as it would only analyze the costs (e.g. 

decrease in net agriculture productivity, health impacts, 

property damage from increased flood risk and changes in 

energy system costs), and not the benefits of coal-fired energy 

production (e.g. electricity generation). In addition, as 

demonstrated by the numbers produced when the social cost of 

carbon protocol was completed by the commenter, the total 

emission costs vary by over “40-fold depending upon the choice 

of discount rate and geographic boundary.” This large variation 

supports OSMRE’s decision not to complete the analysis 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-7

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

because of its limited utility to the decision maker. 

20 D

Rail Impacts -

General

The vast majority of this export coal will travel through 

several Montana communities, and have severe and negative 

consequences to public health and public safety. The EA 

failed to adequately consider the indirect and cumulative 

impacts of coal trains. 

See Response to Comment #63 related to diesel emissions and 

human health and Comment #112 related to coal dust and 

human health. See Response to Comment #113 related to coal 

dust and safety. Further, as discussed in Section 4.1.1, impacts of 

coal dust on rail safety would be mitigated under the Proposed 

Action through dust control and track maintenance in the same 

manner as the existing condition (Coal Loading Rule and SPE’s 

associated coal profiling and application of a dust suppressant 

agent).

OSMRE consulted with BNSF on November 20, 2017 regarding 

the likely rail transportation route. BNSF stated that they do 

not “pre-plan exact routes for trains”. Although OSMRE 

analyzed the likely route used to transport coal from Mine, due 

to weather, construction, maintenance, or other unforeseen 

circumstances the route could change on a short or long-term 

basis. Therefore, any impacts OSMRE to an exact population for 

any length of time. cannot be known with any certainty.

21 D

Rail Impacts -

Air Quality

OSM must fully consider the impacts to air quality from coal 

trains, especially in non-attainment areas. 

OSMRE, where appropriate and not overly speculative, included 

reasonable forecasting as in the case with the Air Quality and 

Climate Change discussion in Chapter 4 allowing the decision 

maker to evaluate potential impacts associated with the 

Proposed Action using representative or predicted emissions. 

Specifically, as outlined in Section 3.2 and 4.2 and as supported 

in Appendix B and Appendix C, rail transport emissions are 

presented as lbs/mile traveled, reflecting distribution of impacts 

over the 2,780 miles trains travel round-trip including rail 

segments that may see both loaded and unloaded rail traffic 

from both loaded and empty trains. Separate emissions are 

calculated for loaded and unloaded trains and combined to 

estimate total round-trip emissions.

See response to comment #59 regarding impacts to 

nonattainment areas and Class I airsheds.

22 D

Rail Impacts -

Coal Dust, 

Clean Water 

Act

OSM must also consider that coal trains are repeatedly 

polluting rivers and streams in Montana, in violation of the 

Clean Water Act.

As outlined in Appendix B, coal dust release is limited by 

current practice and BNSF requirements. Specifically, BNSF 

currently enforces the Safe Harbor provision in the BNSF Coal 

Loading Rule (BNSF 2015a, 2017b) to limit deposition (Section 

3.1.3 of the EA). Since 2015, BNSF has also been operating a 

surfactant re-spray facility along its main line in Pasco, 

Washington to further limit coal dust. Coal trains traveling west 

along the main line route through the Columbia River Gorge 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-8

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

are sprayed with a topper agent as it passes through to lessen 

potential coal dust release from rail cars. Furthermore, OSMRE 

discussed that under a recent consent decree, BNSF will 

conduct a study on the feasibility of physical covers for coal and 

petcoke rail cars and pay $1 million to fund environmental 

projects across Washington State aimed at improving water 

quality or habitat. 

As further outlined in Appendix B, in its analysis, OSMRE 

considered recent STB (2015) analysis which examined the 

potential ecological impacts of additional airborne coal dust 

from a 'high production level (26.7 trains per day) [as compared 

to the maximum 3.6 trains per day associated with the 

Proposed Action] and estimated chemical concentrations in soil, 

water, and sediment for evaluation of potential ecological 

impacts. Consistent with the study related to human health 

(ingestion), none of the chemical concentrations estimated for 

soil resulted in values greater than the EPA ecological soil 

screening levels for plants, soil invertebrates, avian wildlife, or 

mammalian wildlife. The study also estimated that the average 

deposition from air over a modeled watershed and subsequent 

runoff and erosion into a modeled water body. Estimated values 

for water were well below available EPA freshwater screening 

benchmarks.

Rail operation is outside the jurisdiction of OSMRE. All permits 

required for rail operation are obtained by the rail 

owner/operator through direct interaction with the permitting 

authorities, including EPA or state agencies with approved 

programs under the CWA, as appropriate. OSMRE is not aware 

of BNSF holding an NPDES permit for coal dust lost during 

transportation as the action would not require one under 

CWA. As stated in the Tongue River Railroad EIS, Chapter 6, 

Coal Dust, “OEA found that the concentration of most trace 

elements in dust, water, soil, and fish would be below the 

screening levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, (USEPA). The results indicated, however, that the 

concentration of barium could exceed the USEPA screening 

level for surface water. Because OEA relied on conservative 

assumptions that tend to overstate the concentration of trace 

elements, OEA believes that the concentration of barium in 

surface water would actually be lower than the results predict. 

Also, because barium does not tend to remain dissolved in 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-9

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

water, OEA concluded that coal dust from the proposed rail 

line would not cause the concentration of barium in surface 

water to exceed the USEPA screening levels.” (TRR EIS page 6-

2).

23 D

Wildlife, Special 

Status Species

OSM must also consider the impact of coal trains on grizzly 

bears. Does the Bull Mountain Mine have a take permit for 

grizzly bears? Grizzly bears have been killed by trains in 

Montana.

Threatened, endangered, and special status species are 

discussed in Sections 3.8 and 4.8 of the EA. The EA analyzes 

potential effects of the mine and rail spur and found that there 

would be "no effect" to listed species with potential to occur 

and therefore no need for a take permit. Grizzly bears do not 

occur in the vicinity of the mine and rail spur. The rail line 

beyond Broadview is an existing independent utility that is also 

used by other rail customers and is not interrelated to or 

interdependent with the proposed action as defined in the 

Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook. In 2004 BNSF 

applied for an incidental take permit from USFWS regarding 

grizzly bear impacts. The permit would cover an 85-mile stretch 

of the Middle Fork of the Flathead River corridor along the 

southern edge of Glacier National Park.11 OSMRE contacted the 

Kalispell Field Office of USFWS and were informed that the 

Habitat Conservation Plan is in progress and the incidental take 

permit application would then be submitted. The incidental take 

permit would be under the jurisdiction and authority of USFWS.

Impacts of rail operations are analyzed in conjunction with STB 

and FRA decisions, as appropriate. 

24 D

Wildlife, Special 

Status Species

Bull trout may be especially vulnerable to climate change. Predicting the degree of impact of any single emitter of GHGs 

may have on global climate change or on the changes to biotic 

and abiotic systems that accompany climate change is not 

possible at this time. The exact coal consumer in Japan or ROK 

is unknown and any impacts to threatened and endangered 

species in the surrounding area would be too speculative to 

analyze. Therefore, impacts to bull trout or other endangered 

species were not specifically evaluated and FWS was not 

consulted regarding climate change effects on those species. 

Given the cumulative nature of the GHG and climate change 

issue, and a lack of project-specific impacts, please see the 

cumulative section (Section 4.3.2 and Appendix D) for a general 

description of anticipated changes and impacts at the global, 

national and local [Montana] levels.

25 D Alternatives - Large-scale deployment of renewable energy and energy OSMRE completed a thorough evaluation of any reasonable 

 

11 Billings Gazette. 2004. BNSF Applies for Grizzly Bear Take Permit. Available at: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/bnsf-applies-for-grizzly-bear-takepermit/article_789c8655-cddb-5b44-91e2-9fab210eae72.html. Accessed on: May 9, 2018. 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-10

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

Renewable 

Energy

efficiency measures are reasonable alternatives that should 

be considered as alternatives to continued coal mining at 

the Bull Mountains Mine.

alternatives as described in Section 2.3.3 of the EA, including 

alternative land uses (renewable/clean energy 

development/activities, education and training, recreation and 

tourism, other non-fossil fuel sectors). OSMRE determined that 

this type of alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need as 

defined in Section 1.2 of the EA. Also, implementation of such 

an alternative would be dependent on many factors including 

future energy markets, labor force, federal and state regulations 

which would make any such development too remote and 

speculative for analysis. Chapter 2 includes discussion of 

alternatives carried forward for analysis as well as alternatives 

considered but eliminated from detailed discussion in 

accordance with CEQ's regulations 40 CFR 1502.14.

26 E

Social Cost of 

Carbon - Best 

Method for 

Fulfilling 

OSMRE's 

Obligation

NEPA requires a “reasonably thorough discussion” and 

“necessary contextual information” on climate impacts. The 

social cost of greenhouse gases provides such information, 

while the mere recitation of so many tons of carbon that 

will be emitted by the project fails to provide the public and 

decisionmakers with the required information. NEPA 

requires “hard look” consideration of beneficial and adverse 

effects of each alternative option for major federal 

government actions.

OSM has monetized effects like billions of dollars’ worth in 

revenue. Failing to similarly monetize the climate costs of 

the project is inconsistently arbitrary and deprives the 

public and decisionmakers of the information and context 

they need to weigh all the project’s potential effects...OSM 

has failed to meaningfully address that court’s ruling on the 

arbitrary failure to use the social cost of greenhouse gas 

metrics.... It is arbitrary to apply inconsistent protocols for 

analysis of some effects compared to others, and to 

monetize some effects but not others that are equally 

monetizeable....[A]gencies must provide details on discrete 

effects of a project’s impacts within the relevant context. 

The social cost of greenhouse gases provides this critical 

information.

Monetizing climate damages provides the informational 

context required by NEPA, while a purely quantitative 

estimate of tons or a qualitative description of discrete 

climate effects like sea-level rise provide little context....Not 

only is the social cost of greenhouse gas methodology 

OSMRE took a hard look at potential climate change impacts 

and completed a thorough qualitative and quantitative analysis 

including calculating potential greenhouse gas emissions from 

mine operations, transportation, export, and coal combustion, 

see Section 4.3 and Appendix D of the EA.

Although the EA does discuss the socioeconomic impacts, 

including revenue, the EA is not required by NEPA to contain a 

monetary cost-benefit analysis of the project, and we did not 

include one in this EA. Unless we produced a complete 

monetary cost-benefit analysis, which would include both the 

social costs of the project (including the social costs of carbon) 

as well as the social benefits of the projects (e.g., the monetary 

benefits of the power generated), inclusion solely of a cost 

analysis for the social cost of carbon would be contrary to 

NEPA and create an unbalanced and inaccurate assessment of 

the project. As such, it would not be useful in facilitating a 

decision by the authorized official. See also EA Appendix D, 

Section 2.4.

Moreover, another commenter completed a social cost of 

carbon analysis (see Comment no. 3A), which showed that total 

emission costs vary by “Total emission costs for the 9-year time 

horizon vary by over 40-fold from a low of $247 million to as 

high as $10.5 billion”.” While OSMRE does not believe that a 

social cost of carbon analysis is warranted for this project 

decision and did not include it in the EA, as outlined in 

Appendix D, Section 2.4, we note that this analysis and its wide 

margin of error support our conclusion such analysis was not 

needed because that the social cost of carbon without a full 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-11

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

ideally suited for valuing the marginal climate damages of 

individual projects, but the monetization directly reflects the 

“actual incremental impacts” of emissions on climate 

change. Monetization is actually a more useful way under 

NEPA to present the information to decisionmakers and the 

public than a qualitative description of discrete effects or a 

mere tallying of the tons of emissions....[T]he integrated 

assessment models do a reasonable job of capturing many of 

the discrete climate effects that decisionmakers and the 

public care about....“[T]he impact of greenhouse gas 

emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of 

cumulative impact analysis that NEPA requires,” and it is 

arbitrary to fail to “provide the necessary contextual 

information about the cumulative and incremental 

environmental impacts”...[T]he social cost of greenhouse gas 

metric provides useful context even without a full costbenefit analysis. 

cost-benefit analysis is of very limited utility to the decision 

maker. 

27 E

Social Cost of 

Carbon - Best 

Method for 

Fulfilling 

OSMRE's 

Obligation

[In the 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement—Four 

Corners Power Plant and Navajo Mine Energy Project] 

OSM noted that the social cost of greenhouse gases is 

representative of “net” climate-induced effects, meaning the 

estimates take into account both costs and benefits from 

climate change. OSM’s use of the social cost of greenhouse 

gases in 2015 proves that the metric is readily available and 

appropriate for NEPA analyses of this type of action.

See response to Comment # 26. See Appendix D, Section 2.4 

for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted.

The Four Corners Power Plant and Navajo Mine Energy Project 

is different from the Proposed Action at the Bull Mountains 

Mine because it was a mine-to-mouth operation with several 

connected actions including an action at the power plant and 

associated transmission line rights-of-way renewals. OSMRE 

analyzes every Project independently to determine the proper 

scope and methodology under each resource. The FCPP EIS 

SCC analysis values presented shows the high variability of the 

results from 4.6 to 40.5 billion dollars in 2007 under the 

Proposed Action and from 4.8 to 46.3 billion dollars in 2014 

under the Proposed Action. This level of variability makes the 

results unhelpful to the decision maker to make a reasoned 

choice amongst alternatives.

OSMRE does not believe that a social cost of carbon analysis is 

warranted for this project decision and did not include it in the 

EA, as outlined in Appendix D, Section 2.4.

28 E

Social Cost of 

Carbon - Does 

Not Apply Only 

to Rulemaking

Despite OSM’s claims that the social cost of greenhouse 

gases only apply to rulemakings, the social cost of 

greenhouse gas methodology is well suited to measure the 

marginal climate damages of individual projects. These 

protocols were developed to assess the cost of actions with 

See response for Comment # 26. See Appendix D, Section 2.4 

for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted.

OSMRE is not required to use the SCC tool because the SCC is 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-12

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

“marginal” impacts on cumulative global emissions, and the 

metrics estimate the dollar figure of damages for one extra 

unit of greenhouse gas emissions....The marginal cost is 

attained by first running the models using a baseline 

emissions trajectory, and then running the same models 

again with one additional unit of emissions. The difference in 

damages between the two runs is the marginal cost of one 

additional unit....OSM reaffirmed in [the Four Corners] EIS 

that, though the metric was first developed for cost-benefit 

analysis in federal rulemaking, it was nonetheless useful and 

appropriate for NEPA analyses.

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. The SCC analysis is used to help support the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) when an agency is completing 

a rulemaking. The RIA includes a complete cost-benefit analysis 

which SCC would be a small part of. OSMRE is not required to 

complete a cost-benefit analysis under CEQ’s NEPA 

Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 1502.23).

See response for Comment # 27 on differences between the 

Proposed Action and the Four Corners EIS.

29 E

Social Cost of 

Carbon -

General

While the social cost of greenhouse gases does calculate the 

economic impacts of climate damages stretching out for 

several centuries over the lifespan of carbon emissions, the 

methodology estimates a specific value for the cost of 

emissions from each individual year. There are year-by-year 

estimates for the per-ton cost of emissions for each of the 8 

additional years of operation at Rosebud mine.

See response for Comment # 26. See Appendix D, Section 2.4

for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted.

As shown by the SCC values submitted from a commenter the 

year-by-year estimates range from $5.27 - $54.40 from years 

2018 – 2026 on the global scale and from $1.00 to $7.61 from 

years 2018 – 2026 on the domestic scale. These values are 

highly variable and therefore not useful to the decision maker to 

make a reasoned choice amongst alternatives.

OSMRE is analyzing potential impacts from the Bull Mountains 

Mine Amendment 3 lease area in Roundup, Montana not actions 

at the Rosebud Mine in Colstrip, Montana.

30 E

Social Cost of 

Carbon - Best 

Method for 

Fulfilling 

OSMRE's 

Obligation

[U]ncertainty is not a reason to abandon the social cost of 

greenhouse gas methodologies; quite the contrary, 

uncertainty supports higher estimates of the social cost of 

greenhouse gases, because most uncertainties regarding 

climate change entail tipping points, catastrophic risks, and 

unknown unknowns about the damages of climate 

change....There are numerous well- established, rigorous 

analytical tools available to help agencies characterize and 

quantitatively assess uncertainty...[Additional details 

provided by commenter in the] attached technical appendix 

on uncertainty.

See response for Comment #26. See Appendix D, Section 2.4 

for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted.

The level of uncertainty from a SCC analysis would not aid a 

decision maker in making a reasoned choice amongst 

alternatives. Another commenter completed a social cost of 

carbon analysis (see Comment no. 3A), which showed that total 

emission costs vary by over “40-fold depending upon the choice 

of discount rate and geographic boundary.” While OSMRE does 

not believe that a social cost of carbon analysis is warranted for 

this project decision and did not include it in the EA, as outlined 

in Appendix D, Section 2.4, we note that this analysis and its 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-13

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

wide margin of error support our conclusion such analysis was 

not needed because that the social cost of carbon without a full 

cost-benefit analysis is of very limited utility to the decision 

maker. 

31 E

Social Cost of 

Carbon -

Obligation for 

Hard Look 

Under NEPA

[A]ny implication that the significance of this action’s effects 

on global climate change is somehow uncertain would 

violate NEPA’s standards for a hard look review....[O]nce 

emissions have been quantified (as they have been here), the 

additional step of monetization through application of the 

Interagency Working Group’s 2016 estimates entails 

nothing more than a simple arithmetic calculation. 

[Commenter provided citations to court cases exemplifying 

why it is arbitrary to not monetize emissions.] Under any 

reasonable social cost of greenhouse gases, the direct and 

indirect emissions from the Bull Mountain expansion will 

cause hundreds of millions of dollars in climate 

damages...[which] is also significant, particularly in the 

context of a document the very purpose of which is to 

evaluate a project’s environmental impacts. 

See response for Comment #26. See Appendix D, Section 2.4 

for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted.

OSMRE determined through both qualitative and quantitative 

analysis that impacts to climate change from the Proposed 

Action would be minor in the short- and long-term on an

annual basis, see EA Section 4.3.

32 E

Social Cost of 

Carbon -

Change in 

Administration 

Guidance Does 

Not Relieve 

Legal 

Obligations 

Executive Order 13,783 assumes that federal agencies will 

continue to “monetiz[e] the value of changes in greenhouse 

gas emissions” and instructs agencies to ensure such 

estimates are “consistent with the guidance contained in 

OMB Circular A-4....[T]he Executive Order’s withdrawal of 

the CEQ guidance on greenhouse gases does not —and 

legally cannot—remove agencies’ statutory requirement to 

fully disclose the environmental impacts of greenhouse gas 

emissions.... Some agencies under the Trump administration 

have continued to use the IWG estimates even following 

the Executive Order [examples provided by 

commenter]...For more detail on why the IWG’s 2016 

estimates remain the best values currently available to 

federal agencies and why the IWG’s choice of a central 

estimate of global damages calculated at a 3% discount rate 

is appropriate under Circular A-4, please see the attached 

comments on the social cost of greenhouse gases submitted 

last year to the Bureau of Land Management. [Exhibit with 

November 6, 2017 comments provided by commenter].

See response for Comment # 26. See Appendix D, Section 2.4 

for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted.

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.

The SCC as outlined in now withdrawn Technical Support

Documents would not present values showing all associated 

costs and benefits of a project and therefore does not provide a 

meaningful and accurate cost-benefit analysis.

OSMRE is not required to complete a cost-benefit analysis 

under CEQ’s NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-14

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

1502.23).

33 E

Social Cost of 

Carbon -

General

Alleged benefits of carbon emissions, such as from increased 

fertilization, are in fact already included in the IWG’s 

estimates and are probably even overstated in those 

estimates. 

See response for Comment # 26. See Appendix D, Section 2.4 

for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted.

According to the withdrawn Technical Support Document for 

the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis, “The 

SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with 

an incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is 

intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net 

agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services due to 

climate change.” Changes to net agricultural productivity are 

dependent on the estimated regional climate change impacts on 

an area and cannot be applied to a local, project level analysis. 

The changes due to climate change listed do not present a 

comprehensive benefit analysis that would aid the decision 

maker.

34 E

Social Cost of 

Carbon - Best 

Method for 

Fulfilling 

OSMRE's 

Obligation

[T]here certainly are key damages, including catastrophic 

outcomes, that are not yet fully monetized in the IWG’s 

social cost of greenhouse gas estimates...[T]he social cost of 

greenhouse gases should be seen as a conservative lowerbound estimate of the greenhouse gas impacts. Even while 

this metric represents the best and most rigorous effort 

that the U.S. government has engaged in thus far to 

realistically quantify the impacts of these emissions, it is very 

likely to underrepresent the true extent of those 

impacts...[A]gencies should qualitatively discuss any 

significant omitted category of costs or benefits while 

continuing to use the IWG estimates as a lower bound of 

the costs of greenhouse gas emissions.

See response for Comment #26 and #32. See Appendix D, 

Section 2.4 for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis 

was not conducted.

As mentioned by the commenter there is still uncertainty in the 

scientific community on aspects of the social cost of carbon of 

which would lead agencies that utilize it to either over estimate 

or under estimate potential impacts.

This uncertainty would make the results of any such SCC 

analysis highly variable and therefore not useful to make a 

reasoned choice amongst alternatives. The SCC does not 

provide a complete cost-benefit analysis omitting other key 

aspects of the project unrelated to climate change. OSMRE is 

not required to complete a cost-benefit analysis under CEQ’s 

NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 1502.23).

35 G

Socioeconomics 

- Benefits / 

Support for 

Mine

Signal Peak Mine is the largest tax payer in the county and 

has boosted Musselshell from the poverty county it once 

was. Good paying jobs from the mine are essential for our 

area and the mine employs many local residents. Signal Peak 

Community Foundation provides scholarships for students 

attending college, grants for county departments and grants 

for non-profit organizations in the county. Approval of the 

mining plan modification will benefit those that have high 

Comment noted.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-15

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

paying jobs at the mine, the local businesses, Musselshell 

County, the State of Montana and the Federal Government.

36 H

Social Cost of 

Carbon - Best 

Method for 

Fulfilling 

OSMRE's 

Obligation

The EA does not include an analysis of the Social Cost of 

Carbon of the emissions that will necessarily result from 

mining coal at Bull Mountain. This useful tool should have 

been applied in order to more fully account for the costs 

associated with climate change.

See response for Comment # 26. See Appendix D, Section 2.4 

for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted.

37 H

Rail Impacts -

General

The vast majority of this export coal will travel through 

several Montana communities, and have severe and negative 

consequences to public health and public safety. The EA 

failed to adequately consider the indirect and cumulative 

impacts of coal trains. 

See response to Comment #20.

38 H

Rail Impacts -

Air Quality

OSM must fully consider the impacts to air quality from coal 

trains, especially in non-attainment areas. 

See Response to Comments #21 and #59.

39 H

Rail Impacts -

Coal Dust, 

Clean Water 

Act

OSM must also consider that coal trains are repeatedly 

polluting rivers and streams in Montana, in violation of the 

Clean Water Act. 

See Response to Comment #22.

40 H

Alternatives -

Renewable 

Energy

Large-scale deployment of renewable energy and energy 

efficiency measures are reasonable alternatives that should 

be considered as alternatives to continued coal mining at 

the Bull Mountains Mine. 

See response to Comment #25.

41 I

Social Cost of 

Carbon -

Obligation for 

Hard Look 

Under NEPA

OSMRE cannot satisfy NEPA’s “hard look” requirement 

without undertaking a complete analysis of the Bull 

Mountains expansion’s environmental impacts based on high 

quality information, like the SCC...Endorsed by federal 

courts, the SCC provides the very “high-quality 

information” that NEPA’s “hard look” requirement 

demands... OSMRE’s refusal to undertake a complete 

analysis...through a tool like the SCC still violates NEPA. 

Pursuant to CEQ regulations and Ninth Circuit precedent, 

OSMRE’s Bull Mountains EA must be based on “high quality 

information” and contain “quantified or detailed 

information” about, and a “useful analysis” of, the project’s 

cumulative climate impacts.

See response for Comment #26. 

The “hard look” that NEPA requires is a reasoned analysis 

containing quantitative or detailed qualitative information.

OSMRE satisfied the hard look requirement by evaluating best 

available information and quantifying or qualitatively discussing 

potential impacts so the decision maker could make a reasoned

choice among alternatives.

One reason that the SCC tool is not particularly useful here is 

that the SCC tool is heavily dependent on a well-reasoned 

estimate of the marginal change in carbon emissions from the 

action’s induced effect on net coal use. In other words, if we 

were to use the SCC tool to calculate the social cost of carbon 

costs associated with the operation, it would most likely 

significantly overstate the benefits of the no action alternative. 

This is because we would effectively be assuming in the no 

action alternative that the global net coal use would decline by 

the same amount as the tonnage produced at the Bull 

Mountains Mine. In reality, as even advocates for the SCC tool 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-16

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

recognize,12 if the no action alternative were selected, other 

suppliers motivated by profits are likely to make up at least 

some of difference in order to meet the demand. Thus, applying 

the SCC tool to the expected coal supplied by the Bull 

Mountains Mine would be confusing to the decision maker and 

the public because it would be based on an extreme and 

unrealistic assumption—that the coal produced at this mine 

dictates global power-generation to such a degree that carbon 

emissions the social costs associated with them would be 

reduced in kind under the no action alternative. 

In addition, as we previously recognized with regard to GHG 

emissions in comment response 74, our GHG emissions 

overestimate the emissions likely to be reduced under the no 

action alternative. The assumptions inherent in the SCC tool 

compound this problem because it is effectively overestimating 

an overestimate of global coal consumption, which makes it too 

speculative to be useful to the decision maker and the public.

As described in Appendix D, Section 2.4 and in the response to 

comments, OSMRE does not believe that the SCC tool would 

provide OSMRE with the best available information when 

disclosing the impacts of climate change because of the 

uncertainty surrounding the methodology. 

OSMRE takes its responsibility of satisfying NEPA’s “hard look” 

requirement seriously. Preparing the environmental assessment 

for Bull Mountains Federal Mining Plan Modification is no 

exception. The “hard look” required by NEPA means making 

use of all relevant data and detailed information available, 

applying sound science and economic principles, as well as 

considering all methodologies available. But equally important, 

scrutinizing assumptions based on the realities specific to each 

case. 

OSMRE took a hard look at potential climate change impacts 

 

12 Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of Montana Environmental Information Center, the Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians, Montana Elders for a Livable Tomorrow, and 

Missoula 350.org Comments; see also Reforming the US Coal Leasing Program” Kenneth Gillingham, James Bushnell, Meredith Fowlie, Michael Greenstone, Charles Kolstad, Alan 

Krupnick, Adele Moris, Richard Schmalensee, James Stock. Science (sciencemag.org) December 2016 and Putting a Carbon Charge on Federal Coal: Legal and Economic Issues” 

http://www.rff.org/research/publications/putting-carbon-charge-federal-coal-legal-and-economic-issues. 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-17

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

and completed a thorough qualitative and quantitative analysis 

including calculating potential greenhouse gas emissions from 

mine operations, transportation, export, and coal combustion, 

see Section 4.3 and Appendix D of the EA.

Although the EA does discuss the socioeconomic impacts, 

including revenue, the EA is not required by NEPA to contain a 

monetary cost-benefit analysis of the project, and we did not 

include one in this EA. Unless we produced a complete 

monetary cost-benefit analysis, which would include both the 

social costs of the project (including the social costs of carbon) 

as well as the social benefits of the projects (e.g., the monetary 

benefits of the power generated), inclusion solely of a cost 

analysis for the social cost of carbon would be contrary to 

NEPA and create an unbalanced and inaccurate assessment of 

the project. As such, it would not be useful in facilitating a 

decision by the authorized official. See also EA Appendix D, 

Section 2.4.

Moreover, another commenter completed a social cost of 

carbon analysis (see Comment no. 3A), which showed that total 

emission costs vary by “Total emission costs for the 9-year time 

horizon vary by over 40-fold from a low of $247 million to as 

high as $10.5 billion”.” While OSMRE does not believe that a 

social cost of carbon analysis is warranted for this project 

decision and did not include it in the EA, as outlined in 

Appendix D, Section 2.4, we note that this analysis, its wide 

margin of error, and its assumption about the impact of the coal 

from this mine on global power supply support our conclusion 

that such an analysis was not needed because of its limited

usefulness to the decision maker.

Finally, NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis of the 

project such as that described by the commenter. As such, the 

Bull Mountains Mine EA does not present any economic benefits 

or costs for any resource. As required by NEPA (see 40 CFR § 

1508.14), the socioeconomic impacts are discussed, including a 

description of the local economy and the project’s potential 

changes to the employment, labor income, and local economic 

activity. These impacts can be perceived either positively or 

negatively by the community; however, a positive perception of 

increased economic activity in an area is very distinct from being 

an “economic benefit” as defined in economic theory and 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-18

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

methodology (Watson et al. 2007, Kotchen 2011). Accordingly, 

this discussion is not a cost-benefit analysis and does not 

attempt to monetize the benefits of the project. As such, it is 

not necessary to monetize the costs of the project as the 

commenter suggests. 

42 I

Social Cost of 

Carbon - Does 

Not Apply Only 

to Rulemaking

OSMRE is not relieved of its responsibility to consider the 

costs of carbon emissions when undertaking a cost-benefit 

analysis merely because that analysis is contained in an EA 

rather than a “rulemaking.”... When preparing an EIS, 

agencies must, to “the fullest extent possible . . . take into 

proper account a complete analysis of the project’s 

environmental impacts.”...Statements about the SCC’s 

origins as a rulemaking device “do not explain why [the] 

agenc[y] believe[s] the protocol [is] inaccurate or not useful 

in this instance.” 

See response for Comment # 32.

Executive Order 13783 withdrew the Technical Support 

Documents upon which the protocol was supported by 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 at the project-level, and 

there is no Executive Order requirement to apply the SCC 

protocol to project decisions.

The SCC as outlined in now withdrawn Technical Support 

Documents would not present values showing all associated 

costs and benefits of a project and therefore does not provide a 

meaningful and accurate cost-benefit analysis.

As we have stated, NEPA does not require a cost-benefit 

analysis (40 C.F.R. § 1502.23), although NEPA does require 

consideration of “effects” that include “economic” and “social” 

effects (40 C.F.R. 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 

costs and positive benefits, inclusion solely of an SCC cost 

analysis would be unbalanced, potentially inaccurate, and not 

useful in facilitating an authorized officer’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 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-19

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

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.

According to the now withdrawn SCC Technical Support 

Document, “[t]he purpose of the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) 

estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate 

the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 

into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, 

or “marginal,” impacts on cumulative global emissions.” The 

SCC tool is to be used as part of the overall cost-benefit 

analysis required for a Regulatory Impact Analysis. OSMRE is 

not required to complete a cost-benefit analysis under CEQ’s 

NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 1502.23).

43 I

Social Cost of 

Carbon -

Obligation for 

Hard Look 

Under NEPA

[As required by NEPA, OSMRE must] take a sufficiently 

“hard look” at the Bull Mountains expansion’s 

environmental impacts, which requires a complete analysis 

of the project’s climate costs through a tool like the SCC 

methodology. 

See Comment # 41. See Appendix D, Section 2.4 for rational on 

why a social cost of carbon analysis was not conducted.

A “hard look” is a reasoned analysis containing quantitative or 

detailed qualitative information. OSMRE met the hard look

requirement by evaluating best available information and 

quantifying or qualitatively discussing potential impacts so the 

decision maker can make a reasoned choice amongst 

alternatives. OSMRE does not believe that the SCC tool would 

provide OSMRE with the best available information to disclose 

the impacts of climate change and was not arbitrary or 

capricious in its decision to not use the tool as described in 

Appendix D, Section 2.4. 

OSMRE takes its responsibility of satisfying NEPA’s “hard look” 

requirement seriously. Preparing the environmental assessment 

for Bull Mountains Federal Mining Plan Modification is no 

exception. The “hard look” required by NEPA means making 

use of all relevant data and detailed information available, 

applying sound science and economic principles, as well as 

considering all methodologies available. But equally important, 

scrutinizing assumptions based on the realities specific to each 

case. 

OSMRE completed a hard look of the potential impacts under 

all applicable resource areas including air quality and climate 

change. OSMRE calculated potential emissions (including 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-20

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

greenhouse gases) from mining operations, transportation, 

export, and coal combustion, see EA Section 4.3 and Appendix 

D.

44 I

Social Cost of 

Carbon -

Change in 

Administration 

Guidance Does 

Not Relieve 

Legal 

Obligations 

OSMRE cannot ignore the SCC as the best available tool to 

calculate costs associated with carbon dioxide emissions 

simply because the current administration withdrew 

guidance documents related to the SCC....The SCC is a 

widely-known and well- established analytical tool to 

present climate damages associated with particular carbondioxide emissions that qualified third parties already 

understand. The SCC aids decision-making because it 

represents “high-quality” environmental information that 

contributes to a complete analysis of the project’s 

environmental impacts.

See response for Comment #26 and #32. See Appendix D, 

Section 2.4 for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis 

was not conducted.

Again, NEPA’s “hard look” requirement is meant to ensure a 

reasoned and complete analysis containing quantitative or 

detailed qualitative information upon which the decision maker 

can base a reasoned decision that evaluates best available 

information and quantifying or qualitatively discussing the 

potential impacts presented by the alternatives. NEPA does not 

require a specific tool for analyzing the options and OSMRE 

does not believe that the SCC tool would provide it with the 

best available information to disclose the impacts of climate 

change or other pertinent environmental information. Its

decision not to use the SCC was not arbitrary or capricious, as 

discussed in in Appendix D, Section 2.4. 

Moreover, the Presidential Order issued on March 28, 2017,

withdrew the Technical Support Document and Technical 

Update documents related to the SCC tool as they were no 

longer representative of government policy. The Order also 

stated that “[i]n order to ensure sound regulatory decision 

making, it is essential that agencies use estimates of costs and 

benefits in their regulatory analyses that are based on the best 

available science and economics.” And that “[e]ffective 

immediately, when monetizing the value of changes in 

greenhouse gas emissions resulting from regulations, including 

with respect to the consideration of domestic versus 

international impacts and the consideration of appropriate 

discount rates, agencies shall ensure, to the extent permitted by 

law, that any such estimates are consistent with the guidance 

contained in OMB Circular A-4 of September 17, 2003 

(Regulatory Analysis), which was issued after peer review and 

public comment and has been widely accepted for more than a 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-21

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

decade as embodying the best practices for conducting 

regulatory cost-benefit analysis.”13 OSMRE, however, is not 

completing a cost-benefit analysis for a regulatory impact 

analysis and therefore is not required to use the SCC tool.

In sum, the SCC tool, as the commenter states, presents 

potential climate damages. It does not present a full cost-benefit 

analysis and therefore it is not a complete picture of the costs 

and benefits of the Project.

While interim protocols have been developed for use in the 

rulemaking context, they do not apply to project decisions, and

there is no Executive Order requirement to apply the SCC 

protocol to project decisions.

Further, the SCC, as outlined, would not present values 

showing all associated costs and benefits of a project and 

therefore would not provide a meaningful analysis for the 

project.

45 I

EA Quantifies 

Benefits But 

Not Costs

The EA violates NEPA case law because it quantifies benefits 

but does not quantify cost....The analysis excludes the 

potential negative economic impacts from the project from 

the list (such as increase in traffic, diminished economic 

activity associated with recreation, or increased health care 

and lost labor costs resulting from higher local air

pollution)....In a true economic impact analysis, however, 

such tax benefits would not be counted because they would 

be considered fiscal impacts instead.

See response for Comment # 41.

NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis of the project 

such as that described by the commenter. As such, the Bull 

Mountains Mine EA does not present any economic benefits or 

costs for any resource. As required by NEPA (see 40 CFR § 

1508.14), the socioeconomic impacts are discussed, including a 

description of the local economy and the project’s potential 

changes to the employment, labor income, and local economic 

activity. These impacts can be perceived either positively or 

negatively by the community; however, a positive perception of 

increased economic activity in an area is very distinct from being 

an “economic benefit” as defined in economic theory and 

methodology (Watson et al. 2007, Kotchen 2011)14. 

 

13 2017. Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executiveorder-promoting-energy-independence-economic-growth/. Accessed: May 9, 2018.

14 Watson et al. 2007. Determining Economic Contributions and Impacts: What is the difference and why do we care? Philip Watson, Joshua Wilson, Dawn Thilmany, and Susan Winter. 

NOAA Fisheries, USDA Forest Service, and Colorado State University - USA, Journal of Regional Policy and Analysis. Available at: 

https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/74/Watson,%20et%20al%20Impacts%20vs%20Contribution%2037-2-6.pdf Accessed on: January 3, 2018. Kotchen, M.J. (2011). Cost-benefit 

analysis. Chapter in: Encyclopedia of climate and weather, Second edition. Schneider, S.H., editor-in-chief. New York, Oxford University Press: pp 312-315.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-22

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

Accordingly, this discussion is not a cost-benefit analysis and 

does not attempt to monetize the benefits of the project. As 

such, it is not necessary to monetize the costs of the project as 

the commenter suggests. 

The EA does, however, discuss the economies of the local 

counties and the Mine’s payroll, local business transactions, 

infrastructure investments, community foundation 

contributions, coal board grant eligibility and awards, royalties 

and taxes in Sections 3.11 and 4.11 of the EA. These values are 

presented to disclose to the public what contribution the Mine 

has to the local economies and any associated impacts under 

the Proposed and No Action Alternative. The EA does not 

present the taxes paid by the Mine as benefits. This 

methodology is common when analyzing potential 

socioeconomic impacts in a NEPA analysis.

Because a cost-benefit analysis was not conducted, using the 

SCC tool would not present the public or the decision maker 

with all cost and benefits associated with the Project. Therefore, 

including the SCC tool analysis would skew the public and 

decision makers’ perception of impacts.

46 I

EA Quantifies 

Benefits But 

Not Costs

Courts have consistently held that failing to quantify costs 

when a tool is available to do so constitutes an arbitrary and 

capricious agency action under NEPA....The Bull Mountains 

expansion EA should be understood as conducting a costbenefit analysis since OSMRE quantifies and discusses the 

project’s direct and indirect economic benefits...Such an 

analysis squarely requires using the SCC according to the 

federal court in High Country Conservation Advocates v. 

United States Forest Service.

See response for Comment #26, 41, and 45. 

A “hard look” is a reasoned analysis containing quantitative or 

detailed qualitative information and under the Administrative 

Procedure Act, federal courts will not invalidate agency 

decisions unless they determine them to be “arbitrary” or 

“capricious.” OSMRE’s analysis, evaluating best available 

information and quantifying or qualitatively discussing potential 

impacts so the decision maker can make a reasoned choice 

among alternatives, satisfies NEPA. Neither NEPA nor the 

courts require using the SCC, What is required is a reasoned 

analysis considering the environmental implications of OSMRE’s 

actions under all applicable resource areas. Given all the 

uncertainties surrounding the SCC, there is little support to 

conclude that the SCC tool would provide OSMRE with the 

best available information to disclose the impacts of climate 

change impacts. Thus the decision not to use the tool was not 

arbitrary or capricious as described in Appendix D, Section 2.4.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-23

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

OSMRE’s efforts to satisfy NEPA’s “hard look” requirement are 

reflected in its preparation of the environmental assessment for 

Bull Mountains Federal Mining Plan Modification. OSMRE made 

use of all relevant data and detailed information available, 

applying sound science and economic principles, as well as 

considering all methodologies available. OSMRE examined the 

potential climate change impacts and completed a thorough 

qualitative and quantitative analysis including calculating potential 

greenhouse gas emissions from mine operations, transportation, 

export, and coal combustion, see Section 4.3 and Appendix D 

of the EA.

Although the EA does discuss the socioeconomic impacts, 

including revenue, the EA is not required by NEPA to contain a 

monetary cost-benefit analysis of the project, and we did not 

include one in this EA. Unless we produced a complete 

monetary cost-benefit analysis, which would include both the 

social costs of the project (including the social costs of carbon) 

as well as the social benefits of the projects (e.g., the monetary 

benefits of the power generated), inclusion solely of a cost 

analysis for the social cost of carbon would be contrary to 

NEPA and create an unbalanced and inaccurate assessment of 

the project. As such, it would not be useful in facilitating a 

decision by the authorized official. See also EA Appendix D, 

Section 2.4.

Moreover, another commenter completed a social cost of 

carbon analysis (see Comment no. 3A), which showed that total 

emission costs vary by “Total emission costs for the 9-year time 

horizon vary by over 40-fold from a low of $247 million to as 

high as $10.5 billion”.” While OSMRE does not believe that a 

social cost of carbon analysis is warranted for this project 

decision and did not include it in the EA, as outlined in 

Appendix D, Section 2.4, we note that this analysis and its wide 

margin of error support our conclusion such analysis was not 

needed because that the social cost of carbon would not be 

useful to the decision maker.

NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis of the project 

such as that described by the commenter. As such, the Bull 

Mountains Mine EA does not present any economic benefits or 

costs for any resource. As required by NEPA (see 40 CFR § 

1508.14), the socioeconomic impacts are discussed, including a 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-24

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

description of the local economy and the project’s potential 

changes to the employment, labor income, and local economic 

activity. These impacts can be perceived either positively or 

negatively by the community; however, a positive perception of 

increased economic activity in an area is very distinct from being 

an “economic benefit” as defined in economic theory and 

methodology (Watson et al. 2007, Kotchen 2011)15. 

Accordingly, this discussion is not a cost-benefit analysis and 

does not attempt to monetize the benefits of the project. As 

such, it is not necessary to monetize the costs of the project as 

the commenter suggests. 

OSMRE completed its “hard look” of the potential impacts 

under all applicable resource areas including air quality and 

climate change. OSMRE calculated potential emissions (including 

greenhouse gases) from mining operations, transportation, 

export, and coal combustion. These actions reviewing the Bull 

Mountains Mine Modification EA complied with NEPA.

47 I

Climate - GHG 

Emissions

OSMRE’s comparison [of mine related emissions to 

domestic and global emissions] obscures the impact of this 

individual project in dividing the emissions totals by a huge 

and uninformative denominator....The previous, nowvacated Bull Mountains expansion EA similarly calculated 

total emissions and compared them to national totals. The 

court concluded that such analysis, “despite quantifying 

greenhouse gas emissions, failed to adequately assess the 

indirect and cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas 

emissions.”

OSMRE has presented substantial information in the EA 

describing direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated 

with GHG emissions and the consequential relationship to 

climate, see Sections 3.3 and 4.3. The analysis generated direct 

and indirect GHG emission rates resulting from mining, 

transporting, and combusting coal from the Mine (as outlined in 

Appendix C, Exhibit 6). What OSMRE cannot do with certainty, 

is to predict or describe exactly what the impact on climate 

change will be from the Proposed Action's GHG emissions. 

Predicting the degree of impact of any single emitter of GHGs 

may have on global climate change or on the changes to biotic 

and abiotic systems that accompany climate chang, is not 

possible at this time. Given the cumulative nature of the GHG 

and climate change issue, and a lack of project specific impacts, 

 

15 Watson et al. 2007. Determining Economic Contributions and Impacts: What is the difference and why do we care? Philip Watson, Joshua Wilson, Dawn Thilmany, and Susan Winter. 

NOAA Fisheries, USDA Forest Service, and Colorado State University - USA, Journal of Regional Policy and Analysis. Available at: 

https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/74/Watson,%20et%20al%20Impacts%20vs%20Contribution%2037-2-6.pdf Accessed on: January 3, 2018.

Kotchen, M.J. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis. Chapter in: Encyclopedia of climate and weather, Second edition. Schneider, S.H., editor-in-chief. New York, Oxford University Press: pp 

312-315.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-25

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

please see the cumulative section (Section 4.3.2 and Appendix 

D) for a general description of anticipated changes and impacts 

at the global, national and local [Montana] levels.

48 I

EA Quantifies 

Benefits But 

Not Costs

Socioeconomic impact analyses are required under NEPA 

only insofar the socioeconomic impacts addressed are 

interrelated with physical environment impacts....CEQ’s 

NEPA regulations state, “When an environmental impact 

statement is prepared and economic or social and natural or 

physical environmental effects are interrelated, then the 

environmental impact statement will discuss all of these 

effects on the human environment.” Thus NEPA regulations 

and case law indicate that the purpose of the socioeconomic 

impact section is not to simply to list the general 

socioeconomic benefits of the proposed project, but to 

provide a space for agencies to address concerns about 

socioeconomic impacts that issue from, but are not identical 

to, the physical environment impacts that are the focus of 

any EA.

See response for Comment #45.

As required by NEPA (see 40 CFR § 1508.14), the 

socioeconomic impacts are discussed, including a description of 

the local economy and the project’s potential changes to the 

employment, labor income, and local economic activity. These 

impacts can be perceived either positively or negatively by the 

community; however, a positive perception of increased 

economic activity in an area is very distinct from being an 

“economic benefit” as defined in economic theory and 

methodology (Watson et al. 2007, Kotchen 2011)16. 

Accordingly, this discussion is not a cost-benefit analysis and 

does not attempt to monetize the benefits of the project. As 

such, it is not necessary to monetize the costs of the project as 

the commenter suggests. 

40 CFR 1508.14 states that the Human Environment includes 

the people’s relationship to the environment including economic 

and social effects. OSMRE discloses the socioeconomic portion 

of the “Human Environment” in terms of jobs, payroll, 

population, housing, and local government facilities and services 

in Sections 3.11 and 4.11 of the EA. These analyses disclose to 

the public the interrelated impacts of the Proposed and No 

Action on the Human Environment in compliance with the 

NEPA Implementing Regulations.

For all the reasons provided, OSMRE does not agree that the 

best tool for fulfilling the goals of NEPA is the SCC for this 

specific project. As discussed, the potential for an “unbalanced” 

 

16 Watson et al. 2007. Determining Economic Contributions and Impacts: What is the difference and why do we care? Philip Watson, Joshua Wilson, Dawn Thilmany, and Susan Winter. 

NOAA Fisheries, USDA Forest Service, and Colorado State University - USA, Journal of Regional Policy and Analysis. Available at: 

https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/74/Watson,%20et%20al%20Impacts%20vs%20Contribution%2037-2-6.pdf Accessed on: January 3, 2018.

Kotchen, M.J. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis. Chapter in: Encyclopedia of climate and weather, Second edition. Schneider, S.H., editor-in-chief. New York, Oxford University Press: pp 

312-315.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-26

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

EA, coupled with erroneous assumptions resulting in the misuse 

of the SCC, weigh against its use here.

49 J

Air Quality -

Coal Dust, 

Human Health

Black lung disease is a fatal disease caused by inhalation of 

coal mine dust. One recent study found black lung to be 

most prevalent among miners who had been mining for 

more than 20 years, though some had been working for as 

few as less than 10 years. The proposed expansion will 

mean that the Bull Mountains Mine will be in operations for 

approximately 20 years, and even more than that at the 

current production rate. Have miners at the Bull Mountains 

Mine received regular chest radiographs? If so, what have 

the results been? Do they receive regular radiographs now?

In occupational settings the Mine must comply with the airborne 

coal dust standards regulated by Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. 

MSHA is required to complete an inspection at an underground 

coal mine at least four times per year17. As outlined in the PAP 

Operations Plan, dust control measures will be utilized on 

roadways, transfer points, rail load out, during coal preparation, 

and underground. 

50 J

Socioeconomics 

- Fair Market 

Value of Coal

The Mineral Leasing Act gives BLM the responsibility to 

lease mineral resources on public lands and requires the 

federal government recover, at a minimum, the “fair market 

value” of coal during the lease sale process. It appears that 

Signal Peak energy is currently taking advantage of an 

accounting loophole that has enabled it to sell federal coal 

to its own subsidiaries, pay royalties on the initial sale, then 

reap windfall profits when those subsidiaries sell the same 

coal at a much higher price once exported to Asia without 

any additional royalty. In the EA Signal Peak Energy states 

that it “estimates the value of each saleable ton to be $28 in 

2017, and $32.50 in 2018,” and further states, “a value of 

$32.50 per saleable ton was used to estimate revenues from 

2019 to 2028.” The draft EA notes, however, that last year 

the coal sold for only $23 per ton (Draft EA at G-1).{By 

comparison], in the fourth quarter of 2017, Cloud Peak 

reported that it cost approximately $59.20 to deliver coal 

to the export terminal at Westshore, and that after 

adjusted EBITDA made a profit of $1.40 per ton.8 [Based 

on this], it would be uneconomic for Signal Peak to ship the 

coal, even to Westshore terminals, at a value of $32.50 per 

ton. . Likely, Signal Peak is realizing profits of approximately 

$80 per metric ton once the coal reaches its destination in 

Asia Japan or South Korea, which is the approximate 

benchmark price for Indonesian coal for the first half of 

2017.

As part of its duty under the mineral leasing act, OSM and 

As described in the BLM’s 2011 EA for the Bull Mountains Mine, 

Lease by Application, “the BLM is required to evaluate the Lease 

by Application submitted by SPE and issue decisions related to 

the coal lease area.” If the highest bid received at the sale meets 

or exceeds the Fair Market Value (FMV) as determined by BLM 

and if all other leasing requirements are met, a lease will be 

issued to the successful qualified high bidder. The competitive 

lease sale will be held as described in Federal regulations found 

at 43 CFR Subpart 3422, Lease Sales. Signal Peak Energy was the 

successful bidder for the lease in February 2012. On June 1st, 

2012 the Federal Coal lease issued by BLM was effective. The 

competitive lease sale was held in accordance with the BLM’s 

requirements at 43 CFR 3422. OSMRE received a Resource 

Recovery and Protection Plan approval from BLM in February 

2015 and confirmed on April 11, 2018 that it remains in effect 

by BLM. 

OSMRE's obligations under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 are 

specific to preparing a mining plan decision document under 30 

CFR 746 and not to assess the Fair Market Value of the coal. 

OSMRE is required to analyze how the coal is to be mined and 

any alternatives. OSMRE is not re-analyzing the BLM’s leasing 

action.

 

17 https://www.msha.gov/about/program-areas/coal-mine-safety-and-health
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-27

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

the Secretary must assess the fair market value of the coal 

sold by Signal Peak, and assure that the yield payment of 

royalties on the full market price of coal realized after 

export occur. OSM must address this ongoing controversy 

in its socioeconomic analysis. It is another reason for the 

agency to conduct a more in-depth investigation via an EIS.

51 K

District Court 

Order, 

Adequacy of 

Analysis

The issues raised in those previous comments [provided as 

attachments to the comment letter] remain relevant to this 

expansion of the mine, since they involve the same coal 

resource. For the foregoing reasons OSM’s draft 

environmental assessment is legally insufficient.

Comment noted.

OSMRE carefully considered the district court order, scoping 

comments, and public comments received on the 2015 and 

2018 EA including all attachments. That review and 

consideration formed the scope and basis of analysis for the 

2018 EA and OSMRE believes that we have addressed all 

commenter concerns.

OSMRE’s EA is legally sufficient and provides the public and 

decision maker with useful and relevant information both 

qualitative and quantitative for important issues.

52 K

Purpose and 

Need

OSM’s bland, legalistic statement of purpose and need in 

fact avoids stating any normative congressional policies that 

are intended to guide the agency’s decisionmaking. OSM 

identifies its statutory authority and the relevant 

congressional directives, including the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), and the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. Each of the laws identifies the 

importance of using federal coal to meet the domestic 

energy needs of the United States. At minimum, OSM has to 

disclose to the public that SPE and Gunvor are harming 

national energy security by exporting coal. Relatedly, OSM 

must also disclose that royalties and taxes on coal exports 

are generally underpaid, resulting in significant losses to the 

public.

As outlined in Section 1.2 of the EA, OSMRE does not include 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 under its regulatory framework. 

OSMRE analyzes the potential coal destinations as identified in 

Section 2.1.8 of the EA. The EA states that at least 4% of the 

coal is bound for domestic use however the exact destinations 

are unknown. Signal Peak Energy could vary the percentage of 

coal bound for export or domestic use depending on future 

coal markets. OSMRE does not have any authority to limit Signal 

Peak Energy’s sales, see Section 2.3.4 of the EA. The lease was 

approved by BLM in accordance with their regulations and the 

permit was approved by MDEQ as the regulatory authority and 

in accordance with MSUMRA. OSMRE is not re-analyzing the 

BLM leasing decision. OSMRE’s scope of analysis is related to 

how the coal will be mined.

See response for Comment # 50. OSMRE does not evaluate the 

fair market value of the coal under the Mineral Leasing Act. BLM 

completes that evaluation during the leasing stage. OSMRE's 

obligations are under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, not 

SMCRA and are specific to preparing a mining plan decision 

document under 30 CFR 746. OSMRE does not assess the Fair 

Market Value of the coal.

53 K

Alternatives -

Renewable 

OSM must consider clean alternatives to continued coal 

consumption, including renewable energy and energy 

See response to Comment #25.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-28

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

Energy efficiency. Coal energy is fast becoming obsolete: 

uneconomic, environmentally harmful, and socially 

unacceptable. Large-scale deployment of renewable energy 

and conservation measures are reasonable alternatives that 

should be considered as alternatives to continued coal 

mining at the Bull Mountains Mine. OSM is required to 

consider alternatives that are not within its jurisdiction. 40 

C.F.R. § 1502.14(c). Consideration of such alternatives is 

particularly apt given that the proposed mining, intended 

primarily for export, will not help, but harm, OSM’s 

asserted goal of improving the national energy security (by 

reducing reserves and increasing prices). 

54 K

Hydrology -

Existing Impacts

Contrary to the EA’s assertion that impacts to springs are 

“unlikely” (EA at E-9), “[a]ll springs that have so far been 

undermined and have been evaluated by DEQ have been 

impacted in terms of either water quantity or water 

quality.” Moreover, the data simply do not support the EA’s 

assertion that historical data are insufficient to assess 

impacts to Spring 17415.

Existing spring impacts are discussed in Section 3.4 and 

Appendix E. The findings presented therein are consistent with 

the PHC presented in the PAP (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-5), 

Amendment 3 CHIAs (MDEQ 2016b, 2017b), and more recent 

findings of hydrology monitoring referenced in Appendix E of 

the EA. Although, we state in the EA that due to a lack of 

historical data, changes to flow and water-quality observed in 

spring 17415 could not be definitively linked to mining, we state 

it is possible that the changes in flow and water-quality are due 

to mining. 

55 K

Alternatives -

Alternative 

Mining Methods

OSM could avoid these subsidence related [impacts to 

springs] by considering the feasibility of a form of mining 

that would not involve surface subsidence: room and pillar 

mining. While this alternative may not be preferable to 

Signal Peak, that does not preclude OSM from considering it 

and allowing the public to consider it. Comment also 

references OSM Comment L (Hutson) for supporting 

evidence. 

See response to Comment #25.

56 K

Alternatives -

Domestic Sale 

of Coal

OSM must consider conditioning mining on domestic sale of 

the coal. In both SMCRA and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

Congress has made clear that domestic coal mining should 

support domestic energy security. Further, the proposed 

export of coal from the Bull Mountains only deprives the 

domestic market of coal, but, in fact, it drives up the price 

of domestic coal, which in fact harms domestic energy 

security. In light of these authorities, OSM and the Secretary 

must consider a reasonable alternative that would require 

any federal coal mined from the Bull Mountains to be sold 

to domestic markets.

It is not OSMRE’s policy to direct or enforce where the coal 

produced from the Mine is sold and combusted. OSMRE's 

obligations are under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, not 

SMCRA and are specific to preparing a mining plan decision 

document under 30 CFR 746. OSMRE analyzed the reasonably 

foreseeable coal destinations as outlined in Section 2.1.8 of the 

EA. It would be highly speculative to make any predictions 

regarding domestic sales now or in the future due to changing 

coal market conditions. OSMRE is unaware of any domestic 

energy security concerns that would restrict the sales of a coal 

mine operator. OSMRE analyzed the reasonably foreseeable 

destinations of the coal based on historic sales and information 

provided from Operator regarding potential future sales.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-29

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

In Section 2.3, "Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study", a 

new section 2.3.4 has been added to address "Conditioning 

Mining on Domestic Sale of Coal", which reflects the text 

above.

57 K

Rail Impacts -

General

The EA fails adequately to assess the indirect and cumulative 

impacts of coal trains. First, there is no basis for OSM using 

the Surface Transportation Board’s regulations for 

determining whether to assess environmental impacts at all. 

Moreover, these regulations only apply to applications for 

construction or abandonment of a rail line. Further, 

consideration of these regulations, if anything, reveals flaws 

in the draft EA’s analysis. The eight train or 100 percent 

increase in rail traffic is just one consideration for the 

“environmental report” that a rail applicant has to submit, it 

is not in any way a limit on what impacts the agency is 

required to consider. 

OSMRE maintains it is appropriate to rely on STB (as the 

primary railroad regulatory authority) thresholds and 

conclusions as a basis for analysis. STB stated that “the potential 

for adverse impacts to result from increased rail traffic on 

existing lines is usually limited to rail safety, air quality (including 

an increase of at least three trains per day in nonattainment 

areas), noise and vibration, grade-crossing delay and safety, and 

environmental justice” (STB 2015a, Chapter 17). As outlined in 

Chapter 4.1, STB’s threshold for environmental analysis of air 

and noise is an increase of eight trains per day or a 100 percent 

increase in rail traffic (49 CFR 1105.7). STB also applied (which 

OSMRE adopted) this threshold when assessing the need to 

evaluate freight rail safety, grade-crossing safety and delay, and 

environmental justice (STB 2015a, Chapter 17).

58 K

Rail Impacts -

Environmental 

Justice

OSM’s refusal to actually assess the environmental justice 

implications of coal trains is arbitrary (moreover, STB 

regulations don’t actually address environmental justice). By 

comparison, the Washington Department of Ecology 

determined that coal train traffic would have 

disproportionately high impacts on low-income and minority 

communities.

OSMRE relied on threshold for analysis of environmental justice 

concerns (i.e., increase of eight trains per day or 100 percent 

increase in traffic) identified by STB for analysis of a recent rail 

project (STB 2015a, Chapter 17). As noted in Section 4.12., this 

threshold would not be exceeded on the main line relative to 

the current condition. WDOE and Cowlitz County (2017) and 

STB (2015a) analyzed projects involving coal transport by rail at 

daily rates and a total duration greater than what would be 

undertaken by either the No Action Alternative or Proposed 

Action (1.8 loaded and 1.8 empty trains per day).

59 K

Rail Impacts -

Air Quality

The draft EA mistakenly states that “the route does not 

pass through any Class I areas and, with one exception, all 

areas in the US through which the route would pass are 

designated as either in attainment or unclassifiable with 

respect to all national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). This is mistaken. The route through Montana 

passes multiple Class I airsheds: the Selway Bitterroot 

Wilderness; the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, and, 

potentially, Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness....

Moreover, the route passes through multiple nonattainment 

areas, including Laurel and East Helena (sulfur dioxide, lead), 

Flathead County (PM10), Columbia falls (PM10), Whitefish 

Air quality is discussed in Section 3.2, Section 4.2, and Appendix 

B. Air quality impacts nearest to the rail route are considered 

negligible. The most likely rail route analyzed in the EA does not 

pass through any Class I areas (including those noted by 

commenter) and the negligible effects would diminish with 

distance, ensuring that Class I areas are not adversely affected. 

As the commenter noted, the route does pass through 

nonattainment areas. MDEQ is actively working to redesignate 

the Flathead Valley (Columbia Falls, Whitefish, and Kalispell) and 

Libby particulate nonattainment areas and the East Helena lead 

and SO2 nonattainment areas to an “attainment” status. They 

plan to begin the process for Thompson Falls in the near future. 

The Laurel SO2 nonattainment designation was triggered by 

historical modeling and has not been confirmed by observation. 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-30

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

(PM10), Missoula (PM10), Sanders County (Thompson Falls) 

(PM10), Libby (PM2.5). The draft EA’s suggestion that air 

quality in Missoula is a bright spot is wholly misleading. 

Commenter notes examples of NAAQS exceedences at 

Missoula.

Appendix B, Section 1.2 has been revised to read as follows: 

"Sections 2.1.7 and 3.1 of the EA describe the rail transport 

route considered in this analysis. From the Mine, coal is hauled 

approximately 1,390 miles (one way) through Montana, Idaho, 

and Washington to Westshore Terminal at the Port of 

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The route does not pass 

through any Class I areas. The rail transport route passes 

through or near designated nonattainment areas in Montana. 

None of these nonattainment areas have recorded a certified 

NAAQS exceedance for at least the last five years (EPA 2018c) 

and MDEQ is in the process of redesignating most of them to 

"attainment" (Coe 2018). Areas with historically degraded air 

quality are likely to have developed mitigation measures. For 

example, the city and partial county of Missoula, Montana were 

designated in 1990 as being in nonattainment with the PM10 

NAAQS based on violations in the 1980s. The Missoula CityCounty Health Department evaluated sources of particulate 

matter and designed a control program which brought the area 

back into compliance with the NAAQS. As a result, no PM10 

standard violation has been observed in the area since 1989 

(Missoula County n.d.). MDEQ has petitioned the EPA for a 

redesignation to attainment and the request is currently being 

evaluated (Schmidt 2018)."

Appendix B, Section 2.1 has been revised to include the 

following sentence:

"Along routes passing through nonattainment areas, the 

increase in rail traffic under both Alternatives would be less 

than 50 percent and less than 3 trains per day (49 CFR § 

1105.7), which is the threshold applied by STB for analysis of 

potential air quality impacts (STB 2015a, Chapter 17)."

60 K

Air Quality -

Coal 

Combustion, 

Human Health

precursors of ozone, emitted in Asia, including Korea and 

Japan, are responsible for an alarming amount of the ozone 

that plagues the Western United States. A recent study 

demonstrated that the tripling of NOx emissions in Asia, 

since 1990, are responsible for as much as 65% of the 

ground level ozone in the Western United 

States...Furthermore, this increase in ozone precursors 

originating in Asia are responsible for more than off setting 

the ozone decrease related to a 50% reduction in domestic 

The cited references refer to effects of total combustion 

emissions (including agriculture, transportation, industrial, and 

residential) from Asia, of which incremental emissions 

potentially resulting from the proposed project would be a small 

fraction. Section 4.2.1 and Appendix B discuss ROK and 

Japanese emissions regulations designed to maintain or improve 

air quality. The US surface ozone trends report cited in the 

comment acknowledges "offsetting effects [on tropospheric 

NOx densities] of regional emission reductions in South Korea 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-31

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

emissions of NOx. The EPA has estimated that as much as 

25% of the particulate pollution over Los Angeles originates 

in Asia. 

and Japan" (page 2950).

61 K

Air Quality -

Coal 

Combustion, 

Human Health

The agency's estimation of heavy metals release, i.e., arsenic, 

lead, and mercury for example, is in fact a very large amount 

of some of the most toxic substances known. Stack 

emission controls will reduce air transport of coal 

combustion toxins, but it will hardly eliminate them.

Combustion emissions are discussed in Section 3.2, Section 4.2, 

and Appendix B and the expected ranges of lead, arsenic, and 

mercury emissions are estimated. As noted in the EA, the 

degree of impacts from overseas combustion would depend on 

emission controls and local conditions within either the ROK 

and/or Japan but would be minor due to existing regulations in 

place that are considered protective of human health and the 

environment. Cumulative impacts on air quality resulting from 

criteria pollutants and arsenic emissions would be minor and 

short-term. Mercury emissions would be minor and have longterm effects as they are combined with global emissions and 

accumulate in the environment.

62 K

Air Quality -

Coal 

Combustion, 

Human Health

A complete assessment of the environmental and public 

health consequences of coal combustion must factor in the 

toxicity of the fly ash and bottom ash captured from the 

coal combustion.

Handling and disposal of coal combustion residuals falls under 

the regulatory authority of the country where combustion 

occurs, see EA Section 2.1.8 for coal destinations. The location 

of disposal or beneficial use of coal combustion residuals is not 

known; therefore, any associated impacts would be overly 

speculative.

63 K

Rail Impacts -

Air Quality, 

Human Health

This constant stream of pollution [from rail transport] will 

harm public health in multiple communities in Montana. 

Diesel emissions from coal trains, particularly particulate 

matter, is hazardous to the health of children... Adding more 

coal train traffic from the approved expansion of the Bull 

Mountains Mine will have measurably harmful health impacts 

on children in western Montana [including] greater risk of 

NAAQS non-attainment. Comment also references 

Submission M (Smith) for supporting evidence. 

Air quality impacts from rail transport are discussed in the EA 

Section 3.2, Section 4,2 and Appendix B.

Appendix B provides federal concentration thresholds for 

criteria pollutants (including particulate matter) represented by 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as well 

as Montana’s Ambient Air Quality Standards (MAAQS) 

As discussed in Appendix B, Section 1.2 of the EA, PM10 and 

PM2.5 emissions from diesel fuel combustion may also be 

referred to as diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is 

composed of elemental carbon particles with adsorbed organic 

compounds as well as condensed aerosols. EPA (2003, pg. 11) 

evaluated toxic effects of diesel exhaust, which includes DPM, 

and determined it is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans by 

inhalation from environmental exposures.” EPA (2003, pg. 9) 

also observed that DPM is a portion of ambient PM2.5 and that 

the PM2.5 NAAQS “would be expected to offer a measure of 

protection from effects associated with DPM.”

With regard to coal dust, WDOE and Cowlitz County (2017) 

and STB (2015a) analyzed projects involving coal transport by 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-32

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

rail at daily rates and a total duration greater than what would 

be undertaken by the No Action (1.8 loaded and 1.8 empty 

trains per day). These analyses concluded that impact of coal 

dust is below regulatory standards for air emissions and below 

human health and ecological screening levels associated with 

subsequent deposition to soil and water. As such, there would 

be no measurable effect on human or ecological health. Given 

this, coal dust-related impacts associated with the No Actionrelated rail transport of coal would be negligible. 

64 K

Rail Impacts -

Air Quality, 

Human Health

Coal trains from the mine expansion will also have 

important cumulative effects in light of approximately 2,300 

additional coal trains from the Spring Creek strip-mine that 

will chug across Montana each year. These additional coal 

trains will likely also cause increases in cancer risk in all the 

communities in Montana. The Washington Department of 

Ecology determined in its EIS for the proposed Millenium 

coal port in Longview, Washington, that diesel emissions 

from a comparable number of trains (16 per day) would 

cause a notable increase in cancer risk to people and 

communities along the train line.

See response to Comment #63 related to diesel emissions and 

human health and Comment #112 related to coal dust and 

human health. Cumulative impacts are analyzed in the EA under 

each resource area (see Section 4.1.2 related to Transportation 

& Transmission). 

As stated in Section 4.2.2 of the EA, “Most emissions affect air 

quality in areas proximal to the emissions source and result in 

short-term effects as they dissipate rather than accumulate over 

time.” This would include local communities along the Main 

Line. The Health Impact Assessment for the Millennium Bulk 

Terminal EIS has not been finalized yet. As stated in the 

Millennium Bulk Terminal EIS, “EPA does not include DPM in its 

cancer risk assessment, because it does not consider the data 

sufficient to quantitatively determine the diesel cancer potency 

factor.” The DPM modeling contours presented in the 

Millennium Bulk Terminal EIS Air Quality supporting document 

show those impacts associated with full operation of the export 

terminal combined with operations from coal handling, hauling, 

and vessel transport. The Proposed Action analyzed in this EA 

does not include the Millennium Bulk Terminal as a reasonably 

foreseeable project because of the recent permit denial and 

litigation surrounding the project. This factor in combination 

with the additional operations included in the modeling 

referenced by the commenter shows that Proposed Action 

analyzed in this EA would be unlikely to cause “a notable 

increase in cancer risk to people and communities along the 

train line” as stated by the commenter.

65 K

Wildlife, Special 

Status Species

[The draft EA does not] assess the potential [effects] of 

these thousands of coal trains on threatened and 

endangered species and habitats, [particularly the effects of 

coal dust]. Given that the various railroad routes from the 

Bull Mountains Mine to the Westshore terminal in 

Vancouver pass through multiple ecologically sensitive areas, 

See response to Comment #22 related to ecological 

considerations related to coal dust.

See response to Comment #113 related to current BNSF 

requirements pertaining to the Coal Loading Rule. In addition, 

the EA (Section 4.2.2) states that implementation of BNSF’s 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-33

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

including multiple rivers, wetlands, and Glacier National 

Park, there is significant potential that spilled coal dust will 

adversely impact aquatic life and water fowl, including 

numerous species listed as threatened or endangered 

throughout the northwestern United States and the 

northern plains region. OSM must not only assess these 

impacts in the draft EA, but must also consult with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service about potential impacts to these 

species and their habitat.

Coal Loading Rule (BNSF 2015a, 2017b) ensures that coal dust 

emissions are minimized on BNSF owned and operated rail 

lines; thereby minimizing the potential for coal-dust related 

emissions and subsequent deposition to soil and water.

See response to Comment #23 for discussion of ESA-listed 

species effects analysis.

66 K

Wildlife, Special 

Status Species

Coal train derailments are another potential source of 

significant localized environmental harm, including potential 

harm to endangered fish (the draft EA contains no 

discussion of the risks of derailments).

See response to Comment #65. Rail derailments are not a 

normal part of rail operation which is designed to minimize the 

risk of such events. While derailments do occur, the location 

and effects of such derailments would be highly speculative and 

are therefore not analyzed.

67 K

Rail Impacts -

Congestion

The EA also fails to adequately discuss the train traffic 

congestion. For example, while the draft EA correctly notes 

that numerous rail segments along the train route to the 

export terminal in Canada are past 100 percent (draft EA at 

49), it improperly discounts these impacts in light of 

unidentified “railroad improvements.” What will be the 

impacts of increased congestion? When are the unidentified 

improvements expected to occur? How long will the 

railroads experience excessive congestion before all such 

improvements are completed? 

OSMRE identified in Section 4.1.2 that coal shipment between 

2019 and 2028 under the Proposed Action, would occur during 

a period when rail traffic is anticipated to increase, which, 

collectively, has the potential to adversely affect operations (due 

to congestion). However, railroads and other infrastructure 

owners are anticipated to address key capacity issues by 

implementing capacity and efficiency improvements (ITD 2013, 

WSDOT 2014); and all such changes will be subject to the 

review of STB and/or FRA, as appropriate. OSMRE has no 

jurisdictional authority over rail operations.

68 K

Rail Impacts -

Coal Dust, 

Clean Water 

Act

The draft EA also fails to acknowledge that coal trains from 

the mine are going to repeatedly violate the Clean Water 

Act by discharging coal dust and chunks into waters of 

Montana, Idaho, and Washington on their route to Canada. 

The coal dust and chunks that blow or fall off the trains into 

these waters are point source discharges that require a 

permit under the Clean Water Act. The coal trains do not 

possess discharge permits from the State of Montana (or 

any other state). Thus, discharges of coal dust and chunks 

are unlawful. STB regulations, on which OSM relies in its 

decision not to analyze certain impacts, require 

consideration of “whether permits under section 402 of the 

Clean Water Act . . . are required for the proposed action.” 

49 C.F.R. § 1105.7.

See Response to Comment #22. A railroad operation would 

not be considered a direct or indirect discharge of wastewater, 

stormwater, runoff from industrial activities or construction as 

the rail is a linear system transporting multiple commodities 

making any known impact associated from one commodity 

being widely dispersed by wind and air too difficult to permit or 

regulate. BNSF as part of its employee safety rules incorporates 

a spill prevention and handling guidance to help address 

individual incidents.18

69 K

Rail Impacts -

Cumulative

It is the cumulative impacts of coal trains and other rail 

traffic—especially trains carrying fossil fuels—that is most 

OSMRE relied on STB thresholds and conclusions as a basis for 

analysis, including cumulative. Because OSMRE does not have 

 

18 BNSF. 2004. BNSF Employee Safety Rules. Available at: http://www.bnsf.com/employees/safety/pdf/EmployeeSafRevised080204.pdf. Accessed: May 9, 2018.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-34

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

harmful to communities and the environment. The draft EA 

fails to conduct a lawful analysis of the cumulative effects of 

the approximately 1300 coal trains the mine will send across 

Montana each day. For example, there is no analysis of the 

cumulative impacts of coal trains and other rail traffic 

beyond a cursory statement about coal dust. There is no 

assessment of impacts to vulnerable communities, no 

assessment of cumulative air emissions (particularly in 

nonattainment areas, Class I areas, or with respect to 

increased cancer risks, vibrations, or derailments). Nor is 

there any assessment of the financial impacts excessive rail 

traffic will inflict on communities along the tracks or the 

cumulative impacts to threatened and endangered species.

jurisdiction or authority OSMRE relies on another agency’s 

expertise and standards for purposes of the analysis. STB stated 

that “the potential for adverse impacts to result from increased 

rail traffic on existing lines is usually limited to rail safety, air 

quality (including an increase of at least three trains per day in 

nonattainment areas), noise and vibration, grade-crossing delay 

and safety, and environmental justice” (STB 2015a, Chapter 17). 

As outlined in Chapter 4.1, STB’s threshold for environmental 

analysis of air and noise is an increase of eight trains per day or 

a 100 percent increase in rail traffic (49 CFR § 1105.7). STB also 

applied (which OSMRE adopted) this threshold when assessing 

the need to evaluate freight rail safety, grade-crossing safety and

delay, and environmental justice (STB 2015a, Chapter 17).

Cumulative effects of rail transportation (including safety) are 

discussed in Section 4.2.1. Cumulative effects regarding railrelated air quality emissions are discussed in Section 4.2.2 

(including coal dust). Cumulative effects regarding rail-related 

noise and vibration is discussed in Section 4.10.2. No direct or 

indirect effects were identified related to environmental justice 

(Section 4.12.1) therefore no cumulative effects were described. 

Rail-related topics addressed in the EA were consistent with 

direction provided by STB and did not extend to financial 

impacts to communities, endangered species, etc. 

70 K

Air Quality -

Coal 

Combustion, 

Human Health

The EA fails to take a hard look at the indirect and 

cumulative impacts of coal combustion, particularly health 

effects. The EA calculates the tens of thousands of tons of 

criteria pollutants and hundreds of pounds of deadly toxins 

that will be released each year from combustion of this coal 

in Japan and Korea. However, the draft EA then glibly states 

that no significant harm will result because those countries 

have air pollution regulation. The evidence is clear that the 

emission of tens of thousands of tons of particulate matter, 

oxides of nitrogen, and sulfur dioxide, along with hundreds 

of pounds of highly toxic lead, mercury, and arsenic will 

result in impacts that are anything but “minor." While it is 

clear that impacts will be most harmful in the area near 

where the coal is emitted, many of the emissions will reach 

the western United States. Comments are further 

elaborated via embedded information and referenced 

publications cited in Dr. Biran Moench (See Comment N) as 

well as comments from Dr. Thomas Power and Donovan 

Power [aka Power Report] (See Comment O) and 

Topics raised by the commenter and discussed in the attached 

Power Report and document from Dr. Moench are addressed 

in the EA and specific responses are presented in response to 

comments 117-128, below. As outlined in Section 4.2.1, 

estimated annual pollutant emissions related to combusting coal 

for power generation in the ROK and Japan would be subject to 

air quality control laws that would ensure emissions and 

resultant air quality are within acceptable (regulatory) limits 

considered protective of human health and the environment 

(see Appendix B). The United Nations Environment Programme 

reports that ambient air quality standards in the ROK and Japan 

are within World Health Organization targets (UNEP 2016a, 

2016b).

Regarding mercury specifically, the EA notes in Section 4.2.2 and 

discusses in more detail in Appendix B, that while mercury air 

emissions also dissipate in the atmosphere, elemental mercury 

can travel long distances before depositing to soil and water 

where it accumulates and can be reemitted, resulting in long-
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-35

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

documents referenced therein. term effects...Existing regulations in the ROK and Japan and 

increasing implementation of mercury controls similar to those 

implemented in the US and are expected to reduce mercury 

accumulation in the environment in the short-term and longterm.

71 K

EA Quantifies 

Benefits But 

Not Costs

Impacts from non-GHG emissions can be monitized. Based 

on multiple peer reviewed sources, the damages from nonGHG air pollution from the mine expansion is 

approximately $67 per ton of coal, more than doubling the 

value of the coal. Given that OSM has chosen to trumpet 

(to the point of exaggeration) the economic benefits of the 

coal, the agency is required to also monetize the costs to 

the public. References Section 6 of Power Report (See OSM 

Comment #15) as supporting documentation. 

OSMRE presents information for non-GHG emissions including 

Mercury in Section 4.2.1 of the EA. OSMRE is not required to 

monetize those potential impacts. OSMRE discloses the

potential impacts of the Project related to socioeconomics in 

Section 4.11 and does not present them as benefits.

OSMRE is not required to complete a cost-benefit analysis 

under CEQ’s NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 

1502.23).

72 K

Climate - GHG 

Emissions

The EA fails to adequately evaluate the impact of GHG 

emissions from the mine expansion. OSM compares 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to global concentration 

levels. This is not an appropriate comparison. Rather, such 

comparisons simply acknowledge the nature of the climate 

problem: lots of individual projects combine to cause 

massive climate damages. Nor should OSM use this 

comparison as a means to assess significance under NEPA.

See response to Comment #47.

73 K

Climate - GHG 

Emissions

OSM compounds the problem by using this comparison to 

global emission levels to incorrectly assert that GHG of the 

proposed mine expansion are “minor." To most observers, 

this level of change in GHG emissions from a single source 

would not be considered insignificant.

See Response to Comment #47. In addition, the estimated 

collective GHG emissions from the Proposed Action from 

mining, transporting, and combusting coal from the Mine across 

the entire timeframe of the Proposed Action (11.5 years) was 

compared to annual global statistics. This conservative approach 

does not identify the annual contribution of the Proposed 

Action relative to annual GHG emission levels, which would be 

a substantially smaller amount.

74 K

Climate - GHG 

Emissions

OSM failed to acknowledge that its decision will likely have 

an impact on the coal market and that this will in turn affect 

GHG emissions. In scoping comments on the proposal, 

MEIC and other organizations explained that “OSM must 

analyze the market effects of its decision,” that basic

economic principles of supply and demand instruct that 

changes in supply tend to change prices in predictable ways, 

and that changes in price tend to change use of a given 

product, offering models that could be used to study and 

disclose the market effects of OSM's decision. OSM refused 

to even acknowledge these comments, much less offer a 

reasoned explanation as to why these models are 

unavailable or not informative. [J]ust as a perfect 

The EA does not rely on "perfect substitution" argument nor 

does it state that the mining would result in an incremental 

increase in coal production. Instead, the EA quantifies associated 

impacts related to the Proposed Action including emissions 

from mining through combustion to allow the decision maker to 

draw a distinction between the alternatives and make an 

informed choice (see Chapter 4 of the EA). A full-scale supply 

and demand market analysis is not required and is outside the 

scope of this EA.

A commenter submitted a report titled, “The Impact of the 

Proposed Bull Mountains Mine Extension on Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions” which states that “Signal Peak Energy has a 6 tenths 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-36

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

substitution assumption was illogical, unsupported, and 

contrary to basic principles of supply and demand, so too is 

a zero substitution assumption where all coal mined from 

the proposal represents an incremental increase in 

nationwide coal production over the No Action alternative.

of one percent share (0.64%) of the East Asian steam coal 

market.” It is always possible that other suppliers would pick up 

the coal that is not brought to market from the Bull Mountains 

Mine under a No Action Alternative due to its small size 

relative to the East Asian steam coal market, but how that 

would happen would depend on the highly variable coal market 

which would making any assumptions for analysis or modeling 

too speculative. In any event, OSMRE’s analysis in the EA does 

not assume that the coal would be replaced by other sources 

but analyzes the impacts associated with the Proposed Action 

(coal would be mined) and No Action (coal would not be 

mined). OSMRE acknowledges that the actual consequences of a 

No Action Alternative would fall somewhere in between making 

our analysis conservative and likely to somewhat overestimate 

the impacts. OSMRE is not required to conduct a coal market 

analysis and/or a cost-benefit analysis (40 CFR 1502.23) and 

therefore presents the potential impacts using readily available 

information in a manner useful to the decision maker.

OSMRE is not required to complete a cost-benefit analysis 

under CEQ’s NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 

1502.23).

75 K

Climate -

Carbon Budget

OSM failed to use carbon budgets as a tool to assess the 

climate impact of the proposed mining. Instead, OSM merely 

disclosed the amount of GHG emissions that would be

caused by burning all of the coal from within the proposed 

Bull Mountain expansion area. OSM refused to even 

mention carbon budgets in its Draft EA, and failed to 

provide any method of analyzing the impact, rather than 

simply the amount, of GHG emissions.

A full-scale carbon budgeting analysis is not required to 

determine if significant impacts related to GHG emissions are 

occurring and is outside the scope of this EA. OSMRE, where 

appropriate and not overly speculative, included reasonable 

forecasting as in the case with the Climate discussion in Chapter 

4 allowing the decision maker to evaluate potential impacts 

associated with the Proposed Action using representative or 

predicted emissions.

76 K

Social Cost of 

Carbon -

General

EA failed to use the social cost of carbon to assess climate 

impacts. Comment specifically focuses on the five reasons 

that OSM identified for not using SCC to analyze climate 

impacts via a detailed report from Dr. Thomas Power. (Also 

See Comment O). 

See response for Comment #26. 

OSMRE has reviewed Dr. Power’s report and disagrees with 

the five assertions made. In his first point he states that there is 

“large scientific literature” documenting that the SCC tool is 

available and goes on to state that there is no economic 

literature to support economic benefits of coal combustion. 

OSMRE does not dispute the tool is available however OSMRE 

is not required to use the tool as described in Appendix D, 

Section 2.4. 

The Project being analyzed in the EA involves direct impacts 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-37

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

associated with coal mining and operations and indirect impacts 

associated with coal transportation and combustion. When 

looking at the project, OSMRE would be required to present to 

the public all aspects of the Project in a true cost-benefit 

analysis. However, OSMRE is not required to complete a costbenefit analysis under CEQ’s NEPA Implementing Regulations 

(40 CFR 1502.23).

The second point made is about the use of specific terminology 

and that OSMRE cannot “change benefits to impacts”

in the EA to describe socioeconomic impacts. The use of 

specific nomenclature is important to help inform the public and 

decision maker. Because OSMRE does not characterize the 

socioeconomic impact as positive or negative it allows the 

reader to make an informed opinion based on the values 

presented. OSMRE recognizes that perceived “positive” or 

“beneficial” impacts to one person may be perceived “negative” 

impacts to another.

The third point made in the report discusses the need to 

present “both sides”, benefits and costs. As stated earlier, 

OSMRE does not characterize socioeconomic impacts as 

benefits. OSMRE is not required to complete a cost-benefit 

analysis under CEQ’s NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 

1502.23). The use of SCC tool in combination with the current 

socioeconomic impact analysis would not present a full costbenefit analysis and would be misinforming the reader. The main 

policy guidance document for the SCC tool is Executive Order 

12866. The Preamble to this executive order makes clear that 

the pertinent population reference point for analyzing federal 

regulatory policies is the U.S. citizenry, not the world. The 

standard approach to benefit-cost analysis in this case would be 

to omit the benefits and costs to citizens of other 

countries, consistent with the position considered within the 

context of legal rights. Consistent with the context of defining 

economic standing based on legal rights, standard benefit-cost 

practice sums across the jurisdiction consisting of the citizens of 

the policy. Power's use of SCC failed to recognize the scope of 

the analysis.

The fourth point made in the report states that there are “no 

significant social benefits associated with coal combustion that 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-38

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

are not included in the market price of the coal”. As stated 

before, the SCC tool analyzes impacts from coal combustion 

where the Project to be analyzed by OSMRE includes coal 

mining and operations as direct impacts. OSMRE does not 

calculate economic benefits as asserted in the Report and 

presents factual information related to socioeconomic impacts 

in the EA. 

One commenter, Signal Peak Energy, completed a social cost of 

carbon analysis, which found estimated social costs of carbon 

emissions vary by over 40-fold depending upon the choice of 

discount rate and geographic boundaries. As demonstrated by 

the numbers produced when the social cost of carbon protocol 

was completed by the commenter, “Total emission costs for the 

9-year time horizon vary by over 40-fold from a low of $247 

million to as high as $10.5 billion” and vary “depending upon the 

choice of discount rate and geographic boundary.” This large 

variation supports OSMRE’s decision not to complete the 

analysis because of its limited utility to the decision maker.

The fifth point made in the report stated “Economic Impact of 

Non-Carbon Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Coal 

Combustion”. OSMRE quantifies impacts associated with nonGHG emissions when possible as shown in Sections 3.2, 3.3, 4.2, 

and 4.3 of the EA. OSMRE is not required to monetize nonGHG impacts nor is the agency required to complete a costbenefit analysis. 

77 K

Social Cost of 

Carbon - Does 

Not Apply Only 

to Rulemaking

The fact that the SCC was developed in the context of 

analyzing the climate impacts of regulations, as opposed to 

site-specific projects, is irrelevant. The SCC measures the 

climate damages caused by increases in carbon dioxide 

emissions in the atmosphere. Those damages are the same 

whether the increase in carbon dioxide emissions results 

from a federal rulemaking or a site-specific federal decision. 

See response for Comment #26. See Appendix D, Section 2.4 

for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted.

According to the now withdrawn SCC Technical Support 

Document, “The purpose of the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) 

estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate 

the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 

into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, 

or “marginal,” impacts on cumulative global emissions.” The 

SCC tool is to be used as part of the overall cost-benefit 

analysis required for a Regulatory Impact Analysis. OSMRE is 

not required to complete a cost-benefit analysis under CEQ’s 

NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 1502.23).
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-39

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

One commenter, Signal Peak Energy, completed a social cost of 

carbon analysis, which found estimated social costs of carbon 

emissions vary by over 40-fold depending upon the choice of 

discount rate and geographic boundaries. As demonstrated by 

the numbers produced when the social cost of carbon protocol 

was completed by the commenter, the total emission costs vary 

by over “40-fold depending upon the choice of discount rate 

and geographic boundary.” This large variation supports 

OSMRE’s decision not to complete the analysis because of its 

limited utility to the decision maker.

78 K

Social Cost of 

Carbon - Best 

Method for 

Fulfilling 

OSMRE's 

Obligation

As MEIC and others pointed out in scoping comments, in 

2017 OSM’s sister federal agency the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM) prepared a draft EIS for the 

Liberty Oil Production Plan and used the IWG’s social cost 

of carbon estimates to analyze and disclose the climate 

impacts of that project-level decision. There is no logical 

reason for some federal agencies within the Department of 

Interior to use the SCC, but not others. 

The BOEM SCC analysis referenced by the commenter builds 

off of the SCC analysis run for a Programmatic EIS covering 

2017 – 2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Program 

which was run to support their larger economic analysis for the 

program. The values presented in the BOEM Liberty Oil 

Production Plan vary from 0.622 to 7.69 for the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives depending on the discount rate and 

from 0.853 to 10.610 under the No Action Alternative. This 

demonstrates that high variability of results when completing an 

SCC analysis which does not allow the decision maker to use 

these values when making an informed and reasoned choice 

amongst alternatives.

The significant differences between the BOEM Liberty Oil 

Production Plan and OSMRE’s Bull Mountains Amendment 3 

Area analysis supports OSMRE’s decision to not conduct a 

social cost of carbon analysis as explained in Appendix D, 

Section 2.4.

As stated in Section 3.3.2.4 of the BOEM EIS, “However, the 

models used to develop SCC estimates, known as integrated 

assessment models, do not currently include all of the important 

physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change 

recognized in the climate change literature because of a lack of 

precise information on the nature of damages and because the 

science incorporated into these models naturally lags behind the 

most recent research.”

79 K

Social Cost of 

Carbon - Best 

Method for 

Fulfilling 

OSMRE's 

Obligation

[Despite the fact that IWG was disbanded,] the action does 

not eliminate the knowledge and information embodied in 

the data sets, analysis, and quantitative conclusions that 

came from the Inter-Agency Working Group. That 

knowledge remains available for use.

See response for Comment #42. See Appendix D, Section 2.4 

for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-40

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

80 K

Social Cost of 

Carbon - Best 

Method for 

Fulfilling 

OSMRE's 

Obligation

Nothing about the SCC limits its application to full-blown 

cost-benefit analyses. The tool is available for use as a 

means to assess the environmental damage caused by each 

incremental ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the 

atmosphere. OSM’s assertion that its detailed quantitative 

accounting of the economic gains associated with the 

project is not actually an assessment of benefits is not 

credible. Notably, in other NEPA analyses OSM forthrightly 

acknowledges that state, local, federal, and private revenue 

and jobs resulting from a project are “benefits.” The 

agency’s refusal to do this here contradicts its own practice 

and is arbitrary. Similarly, OSM’s recent draft EIS for the 

Rosebud Mine Area F expansion recognized that such 

revenues constituted “benefits.”

See response for Comment #26. See Appendix D, Section 2.4 

for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted. The EA does not claim any socioeconomic benefits. 

If the SCC tool was used OSMRE would not be presenting the 

public or the decision maker with all cost and benefits 

associated with the Project. Therefore, including the SCC tool 

analysis would skew the public and decision makers perception 

of impacts. 

The Rosebud Mine Area F EIS referenced by the commenter is 

a joint lead EIS between OSMRE and MDEQ. MDEQ state 

regulation Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) requires 

disclosure of the Purpose, Need, and Benefits. The disclosure 

made in the EIS is reflective of those requirements under MEPA 

and not NEPA and OSMRE. 

81 K

Social Cost of 

Carbon - Best 

Method for 

Fulfilling 

OSMRE's 

Obligation

OSM is incorrect that the SCC “does not measure the 

actual incremental impacts of a project on the 

environment.” To the contrary, the SCC does estimate the 

damage of small (or incremental) additions of carbon 

dioxide to the atmosphere – down to the single ton of 

CO2. 

See response for Comment #26. See Appendix D, Section 2.4 

for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted.

As stated in the now withdrawn SCC Technical Support 

Document, “When attempting to assess the incremental 

economic impacts of carbon dioxide emissions, the analyst faces 

a number of serious challenges. A recent report from the 

National Academies of Science (NRC 2009) points out that any 

assessment will suffer from uncertainty, speculation, and lack of 

information about (1) future emissions of greenhouse gases, (2) 

the effects of past and future emissions on the climate system, 

(3) the impact of changes in climate on the physical and 

biological environment, and (4) the translation of these 

environmental impacts into economic damages. As a result, any 

effort to quantify and monetize the harms associated with 

climate change will raise serious questions of science, 

economics, and ethics and should be viewed as provisional.” 

This supports OSMRE’s rational for not using the SCC tool in 

the EA as explained in Appendix D, Section 2.4.

82 K

Social Cost of 

Carbon -

General

OSM incorrectly asserts that it would be misleading to 

disclose some costs of the proposed expansion via the SCC 

(as OSM has done with some of the benefits) without 

disclosing all of the costs and benefits of the proposal. 

There are several flaws in this excuse, as explained by Dr. 

Power in an attached report (Comment O).

See response for Comment #26 and #76. See Appendix D, 

Section 2.4 for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis 

was not conducted.

83 K

Climate -

Carbon Budget

The draft EA acknowledges that unmitigated climate change 

portends “severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts for 

The Comment references the Paris Climate Agreement, which 

is an accord among 197 countries to reduce their greenhouse-
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-41

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

people, species, and ecosystems” and that “[w]ithout major 

reductions in emissions, the increase in annual average 

global temperature relative to preindustrial times could 

reach 9°F (5°C) or more by the end of the century.” Draft 

EA at D-4. The draft EA further acknowledges that 

“significant reductions” will be required to limit global 

warming to 2°C or less. Id. These numbers and statements, 

however, are meaningless without the context and 

recognition of the federal policy—adopted in the Paris 

Agreement and the Copenhagen Accord—that 2°C is the 

minimum threshold for safety. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(c). 

Further, the draft EA must recognize that the production of 

100 million tons of coal and some 200 million tons of CO2 

is simply not consistent with the “significant reductions” 

that will be necessary to meet the 2°C threshold. In short, 

any new leasing of federal fossil fuel resources is 

inconsistent with a carbon budget that would seek to avoid 

catastrophic climate change. Topic of climate change 

references Comment #16 Hansen for supporting evidence. 

gas emissions. The Paris Climate Agreement formally “entered 

into force” on 4 November 2016. The U.S. ratified the 

agreement in September 2016 and the U.S. document entered 

into force on November 4, 2016. The agreement is considered 

a “treaty” under international law, but only certain provisions 

are legally binding and the agreement does not include binding 

emission targets (CCES 2017). Under U.S. law, U.S. 

participation in an international agreement can be terminated by 

a president, acting on executive authority, or by an act of 

Congress, regardless of how the United States joined the 

agreement. However, the Paris Agreement specifies that a party 

may not withdraw from the agreement within the first 3 years 

following its entry into force (CCES 2017).

In 2017 President Trump announced his intention to withdraw 

from the Paris Agreement. Under Article 28 of the Agreement, 

a country cannot formally provide written notification of 

withdrawal until three years from the date the Agreement 

entered into force for a Party (November 4, 2019 for the 

United States). Article 28 goes on to state that... 

“Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year 

from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of

withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the 

notification of withdrawal”. 

As outlined in Section 3.3.4 of the EA, the ROK and Japan have 

both submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contribution 

(INDC) [Per Article 4 of the Paris Agreement] GHG emissions 

reduction plans for achieving United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change objectives (Japan 2015 and 

ROK 2015). The ROK plans to reduce GHG emissions by 37 

percent from the “business-as-usual” level by 2030 (ROK 

2015)... Japan plans to reduce GHG emissions by 26 percent by 

2030 compared to 2013 levels. 

Also, see response to Comment #75.

84 K

Hydrology -

Forecasted 

Impacts

The first significant problem with the analysis of water 

resources is that it is internally inconsistent. Contrary to 

the conclusion in the Lease EA that post mining water 

quality will “ be suitable for the current and post-mining 

uses of watering livestock and wildlife,” both the Lease EA, 

The EA presents an updated description of the existing 

hydrologic condition and projected impacts in Sections 3.4 and 

4.4 and Appendix E. The EA identifies projected changes in 

groundwater quality with reference to the PHC (SPE 2017a, 

Appendix 314-5) and CHIAs (MDEQ 2016b, 2017b) and notes 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-42

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

Raisbeck et al., and the CHIA indicate that post-mining 

water quality will be harmful to cattle. Worse, OSM 

acknowledges that this pollution is going to impact not just 

the Mammoth coal, but also the upper underburden. Draft 

EA at 4-14.

that impacts to existing water uses require mitigation in

accordance with the mine permit application package 

requirements (SPE 2017a).

85 K

Hydrology -

Forecasted 

Impacts

OSM’s EA also fails to take a hard look at the effects of 

migration of the polluted gob water away from the mine. 

Downgradient migration of the plume of affected water is 

referenced to the Lease EA and PHC and the referenced 

analyses are stated to be inadequate for reasons noted.

The Montana State Program reviewed and accepted the findings 

of the PHC, including the groundwater model and findings 

related to potential impacts outside of the mine permit 

boundary. Those findings constitute a "hard look" and are 

summarized in Section 3.3, 4.3, and Appendix E. 

86 K

Hydrology -

Mitigation

The Draft EA and the Lease EA improperly rely on 

mitigation that is not legally mandated and that is far from 

certain. OSM continually relies on mitigation to justify its 

conclusion that the impacts of the proposed action will not 

be significant. See Draft FONSI at 1-7. For mitigation OSM 

continually relies on the unsupported assumption that 

available replacement water is available in the deep 

underburden. What authority does OSM possess that 

shows that a couple wells are sufficient to determine the 

areal extent and capacity of an aquifer? 

Existing impacts to water quality and quantity are discussed in 

Section 3.4 and Appendix E. Expected future impacts to water 

quality and quantity are discussed in Section 4.4 and Appendix E. 

Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, impacts to a supply of 

water for beneficial uses identified through monitoring 

conducted in accordance with the mine permit must be 

mitigated as required by MSUMRA and discussed in EA Section 

2.1.5, Section 3.4, Section 4.4 and Appendix E. The Montana 

State Program administered by MDEQ has authority for 

approval of the mine permit, determinations for water supply 

impacts, and approval of mitigation measures. Based on 

information presented in the PAP (SPE 2017a), (including 

baseline monitoring and the PHC, and annual reports of 

hydrology monitoring, which are incorporated by reference into 

the EA, MDEQ has concluded (see the CHIA, MDEQ 2016b) 

that likely impacts to existing beneficial uses can be mitigated in 

accordance with MSUMRA and applicable regulations. Such 

mitigation does not require replacement of “stream flow” 

where other mitigation can replace recognized beneficial uses of 

spring discharge.

Also see comment #99.

87 K

Hydrology -

Mitigation

The PHC acknowledged that it was uncertain whether there 

would be sufficient water available in the channel aquifer to 

provide mitigation for livestock and domestic use, as well as 

wetlands and streamflow. In its most recent model of the 

deep underburden aquifer, Signal Peak Energy acknowledges 

its limited use for mitigation.

See response to Comment #86.

88 K

Hydrology -

Mitigation

Further demonstrating the uncertainty about the proposed 

use of the deep underburden aquifer for any mitigation is 

the fact that MDEQ has determined that the deep 

groundwater model (prepared by Nicklin Earth and Water 

for Signal Peak Energy and relied on by Nicklin Earth and 

See response to Comment #86. The groundwater model has 

been accepted by MDEQ as part of the mine permit and MDEQ 

has concluded that likely impacts to existing beneficial uses can 

be mitigated in accordance with MSUMRA and applicable 

regulations, with the deep underburden aquifer as the most 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-43

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

Water in its preparation of OSM’s Draft EA) suffers from 

numerous deficiencies. OSM must respond to the 

shortcomings in the model if it intends to rely on the model 

in its EA. This uncertainty of mitigation is exacerbated by 

the total lack of information in the Draft EA or Lease EA 

regarding how long pollution impacts from the proposed 

mining operation will persist. Clearly a greater supply of 

mitigation water will be needed to provide replacement 

water for a longer period of time. Available science suggests 

that the pollution from the mine expansion will persist for 

“hundreds of years” to over a millennium. How will Signal 

Peak Energy assure that mitigation occurs for a century to a 

millennium?

likely source of mitigation water in the long-term. The EA 

considers water quality effects that extend long-after mining and 

reclamation are complete, as discussed in Section 4.4, Appendix 

EA, the PHC (SPE 2017a) and the CHIA (MDEQ 2016b).

89 K

Hydrology -

Mitigation

OSM has acknowledged that impacts to wetlands and 

spring-fed intermittent and perennial waters cannot be 

mitigated and that such wetlands and waters will be 

sacrificed, allowed to dry up and disappear. Not only does 

this not constitute mitigation, it is also contrary to OSM’s 

own interpretation of the requirements of the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act, which requires more 

than just maintenance of water resources for existing uses. 

[U]nder the proposal, components of the hydrologic regime 

would not be identified, protected or monitored unless 

those components relate to post-mining uses of land and 

water.

Intermittent and perennial stream reaches sourced by 

overburden interval 5 within the permit boundary may exhibit 

long-term reduced flow or cessation of flow due to coal mining 

activity as described in EA Section 4.4 and Appendix E; 

however, other long-term effects to wells, springs and 

associated intermittent and perennial stream reaches would be 

mitigated in accordance to the Mine permit resulting in minor 

long-term effects to water available for existing uses. Mitigation 

measures are primarily focused on replacing adversely affected 

beneficial uses of water resources. However, as noted in 

Appendix E of the EA. 

“Mitigation measures presented in the Mine permit (SPE 2017a, 

Appendix 313-3) and described in the BLM Coal Lease EA 

would be implemented to repair or replace damaged water 

sources; with a notable exception being that options to replace 

springs with continuously pumping and discharging wells are 

limited by State law. Depending on the site and degree of 

impact to spring discharge, some channel segments may not 

exhibit intermittent or perennial flow after mining. However, all 

water sources necessary to support the postmining land uses 

would be replaced in accordance with applicable regulations, 

thereby ensuring long-term Mine-related impacts to hydrologic 

conditions are not major. “

And

“While waters of the US, including wetlands, may occur within 

the areas to be disturbed in association with the Proposed 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-44

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

Action, existing regulations and permit conditions would require 

impact avoidance or mitigation (e.g., replacement or 

reclamation) of any construction-related impacts to waters of 

the US, including wetlands. State regulations and permitting 

administered by USACE would ensure that impacts would be 

short-term and would not be major.”

Further the CHIA (MDEQ 2017b) states "mitigation plans in the 

permit include restoring springs, stream reaches, ponds, by 

opportunistic development of springs where they appear, 

guzzler emplacements, horizontal wells, vertical wells, pipeline 

systems, deepening or rehabilitating existing wells, reclamation 

of stream reaches and function, water treatment where 

appropriate or necessary, and restoring premine land uses 

(MDSL, 1993)."

90 K

Hydrology -

Mitigation

Even assuming that replacement water is available (which is 

in doubt) and that recreation of perennial springs from 

pumped water were not contrary to state law, there is 

considerable uncertainty that Signal Peak Energy can assure 

mitigation for any period of time after the cessation of 

mining and the end of reclamation (let alone for perpetuity). 

The reason for this is that the water from the deep 

underbuden aquifer has a high sodium absorption ratio 

(SAR). The Lease EA acknowledges the problem posed by 

high SAR levels, but the proposed mitigation is uncertain, 

hypothetical, and does not appear to be mandated. For 

mitigation, the agency hypothesizes that “if necessary, SPE 

would apply some simple management practices that can be 

implemented to minimize negative effects” of the high SAR 

values. These supposed mitigation measures appear 

permissive and not mandatory. 

See response to Comment #86 and #88.

91 K

Hydrology -

RFD

The conclusion from the Lease EA, which OSM has adopted, 

regarding the cumulative impacts of additional mining to the 

north (the mirror image mine) must be revisited.

As noted in Section 4.0 of the EA, while exploration activities 

are ongoing, current information is inadequate to prepare a 

mine plan for coal resources other than that described in the 

EA. No other mining activities have been proposed in the Mine 

vicinity; therefore, such mining is not imminent. Future mining 

other than that described in the EA is too speculative to be 

considered reasonably foreseeable. Additionally, in an 

unpublished decision issued on February 27, 2018, Northern 

Plains Resource Council v. BLM, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00060-SPW (9th

Cir.), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the agency’s 

decision not to analyze the “mirror image” mine because it is 

not a reasonably foreseeable action.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-45

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

92 K

Hydrology -

Madison Well 

Water

OSM has also failed entirely to take a hard look at Signal 

Peak Energy’s use of enormous quantities of highly polluted 

water from the Madison formation. There is significant 

uncertainty about the fate of pollutants in this water. OSM 

must address this matter in its NEPA assessment, as the 

Lease EA and the Draft EA have failed entirely to consider 

it.

Potential impacts of the Madison well water are discussed in the 

PHC (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-5) and MDEQ's CHIAs (MDEQ 

2016b, 2017b), which were incorporated by reference into the 

EA. Effects of the Madison well water on surface water and 

groundwater are discussed in Section 3.4 and Appendix E. 

93 K

Hydrology -

Coal Ash 

Effects

OSM has also failed to consider the impacts of water (and 

air) pollution that could result from the use of coal ash in 

the waste disposal area (WDA) at the mine. Fly ash typically 

contains numerous pollutants, and consequently, the 

environmental impacts of using fly ash at the mine site must 

be considered. When fly ash becomes exposed to water, 

leaching of these toxic elements may occur. 

Air quality is discussed in Section 3.2 and impacts to air quality 

are discussed in Section 4.2. Water quality is discussed in 

Section 3.4 and impacts to water quality are discussed in Section 

4.4. The PHC presented in the PAP (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-

5) was evaluated during preparation of the EA and includes a 

discussion of fly ash. As noted in Section 2.1.2, in approving the 

PAP and providing the beneficial use determination, MDEQ has 

"concluded that that the addition of [fly] ash to the [coal 

processing waste] would not pose a risk to surface water, 

groundwater, or other environmental conditions." 

App. E of the EA states, “since May 2013, whole effluent toxicity 

testing has been conducted on WDA #1 effluent and no 

“significant” aquatic toxicity (i.e., mortality of tested organisms) 

has been observed to-date (data presented in recent AHRs).”

94 K

Hydrology -

Wetland 

Impacts

OSM must also address the potential impacts to wetlands 

from the proposed mine expansion and connected actions. 

It is insufficient for the agency to simply make a vague 

statement that a [dredge and fill] permit may or may not be 

required. Further, if the proposed mine causes perennial or 

intermittent stretches to dry up, then it would be causing 

violation of state water quality standards.

Sections 3.4 and 4.4 note that wetlands may be impacted by the 

proposed action and further notes that state regulations and 

separate CWA permitting administered by USACE would 

ensure that impacts to waters of the US, including wetlands, 

would be short-term and would not be major.

Intermittent and perennial reaches sourced by overburden 

interval 5 within the permit boundary may exhibit long-term 

reduced flow or cessation of flow due to coal mining activity as 

described in EA Section 4.4 and Appendix E; however, other 

long-term effects to wells, springs and associated intermittent 

and perennial stream reaches would be mitigated in accordance 

with the Mine permit resulting in minor long-term effects to 

water available for existing uses. 

95 K

Hydrology -

Forecasted 

Impacts

OSM has also failed to address what impacts will result from 

eventual portal discharge from the mine following 

reclamation.

The expected long-term impacts of mining are discussed in 

Section 4.4 and Appendix E. The PHC approved as part of the 

PAP (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-5) and referenced in the EA 

presents modelling results indicating that discharges are unlikely. 

The CHIAs (MDEQ 2016b, 2017b) identifies mine portal 

discharge as possible, but also indicates they are unlikely while 

noting that any such discharge would be subject to MPDES 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-46

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

regulatory requirements, in addition to MSURMA requirements.

96 K

Hydrology -

AVFs

OSM has failed entirely to evaluate potential impacts to 

alluvial valley floors (AVFs).

The following sentences have been added to Appendix E, 

Section 1.0:

“The Montana State Program evaluated the PAP to assess 

whether AVFs are present. As noted in the Amendment 3 

CHIAs (MDEQ 2016b, 2017b), "no alluvial valley floor has been 

identified in the area." Since AVFs are not present, AVFs were 

not brought forward for analysis.”

97 K

Hydrology –

Climate Change

OSM ignores whether the impacts of the proposed mining 

action will be exacerbated by the worsening impacts of 

climate change.

Climate impacts are discussed in Section 3.4 and Appendix D 

and hydrology impacts are discussed in Section 4.4 and 

Appendix E. The climate discussion notes that "hydrologic 

impacts may include reduced snowpack; changes in runoff 

timing, streamflows and resultant water availability; and 

increased drought severity and duration." As noted in the EA, 

"long-term impacts to affected groundwater and surface water 

uses would be mitigated in accordance with the Mine Permit".

98 K

Hydrology -

Mitigation

There remain significant concerns about Signal Peak’s ability 

to reclaim impacted water resources. As noted above, every 

spring that has been undermined and that has been assessed 

has suffered impacts to water quality or water quantity.

See responses to Comments #54 and #86.

99 K

Hydrology -

Mitigation

There is significant concern, uncertainty, and controversy 

over whether the deep Underburden has sufficient water to 

replace impacted springs. Prior studies of the Bull Mountains 

have concluded that “[a]lthough the sandstone units are 

prominently displayed in outcrop, most are lenticular and 

cannot be traced over large areas in the subsurface.” By 

contrast, Signal Peak’s consultant assumed, based on 

sandstone outcrops, that the deep aquifer was continuous, 

an unwarranted assumption upon which Montana DEQ 

relied. Commenter also references OSM Submission L 

(Hutson) for supporting evidence. 

See response to Comment #86.

As the regulatory authority for technical review and approval of 

mine permit applications under SMCRA, MDEQ has reviewed 

and accepted the findings in the PHC and agrees that the deep 

underburden aquifer is expansive and will provide adequate 

water for mitigation of beneficial uses adversely affected by mine 

operations.

Well logs show that the deep underburden (sandstone) aquifer 

is continuous. Further, reliability and suitability of that aquifer is 

supported by the number of wells and existing use in the Mine 

vicinity. 

App. E states, “The “Deep Underburden Groundwater Model” 

(SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-7) is a three-dimensional model 

focused on the underburden strata, especially the deep 

underburden sandstone. The model provides a tool for 

evaluating the hydraulic capacity of this deep underburden 

sandstone to serve existing uses and potential use for 

replacement water to mitigate mine impacts, if needed. The 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-47

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

model predicts that the maximum drawdown at the end of 

mining in the deep underburden sandstone would be 3 feet, a 

minor change. 

While effects to the Mammoth Coal, upper underburden, and 

overburden would be long-term, impacts to affected uses would 

be mitigated in accordance with the Mine permit, ensuring that 

water is replaced and overall impacts of the Proposed Action 

do not rise to the level of major impact. Impacts to the deep 

underburden as a result of mining would be minor in the longterm, so it would remain a viable source of replacement water 

for mitigation, as discussed below (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-

7).”

100 K EIS vs. EA 

Montana DEQ has conceded that other means of replacing 

destroyed springs have not been tested, are not currently 

available, and are otherwise dubious. How can OSM be sure 

that other uses will be replaced if there is uncertainty about 

whether there is sufficient physically or legally available 

water to replace impacted springs? The draft EA fails to take 

a hard look at these issues...[and the unresolved questions 

demonstrate] both uncertainty, controversy, and therefore 

warrants further investigation via preparation of an EIS. 

MDEQ is the regulatory authority and has jurisdiction to update 

mitigation requirements as new information or circumstances 

arise to ensure the permit remains in compliance with 

MSUMRA. OSMRE used best available information to inform its 

conclusions. Pursuant to 40 CFR §1502.22, Incomplete or 

Unavailable Information, OSMRE is not required to obtain the 

information if the means to obtain it are not known MDEQ 

states that the means of potential replacement are not currently 

available. The Mine permit identifies several potential mitigation 

measures accepted by MDEQ as being reasonable for mitigation 

of the probable consequences of mining, as required by 

MSUMRA. Based on the data available, the regulatory 

requirements, and the findings of MDEQ’s technical review and 

permitting decisions, OSM concluded that long-term impacts to 

affected groundwater and surface water uses could and would 

be mitigated, ensuring that water is replaced and overall impacts 

of the Proposed Action do not rise to the level of major 

impacts.

OSMRE has determined that the level of documentation 

provided in the subject EA confirms that potential impacts do 

not rise to the significance level of preparing an EIS. Rationale 

and findings are included in OSMRE's FONSI.

101 K EIS vs. EA 

The draft EA fails to take a hard look at the socioeconomic 

impacts of the mine expansion. First, OSM arbitrarily asserts 

that the eventual closure of the mine (in either alternative) 

will not have significant impacts, which contradicts the prior 

determination by the Montana Department of State Lands in 

1992 and OSM’s own conclusion on the closure of the 

Rosebud Mine in its contemporaneous DEIS for Area F of 

See response to Comment #100.

The amount of disturbance acreage and annual tonnage rates in 

the NEPA documents referenced by the commenter are larger 

than those presented in the Bull Mountains Mine EA. 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-48

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

that strip-mine. Similarly, OSM concluded in its EA for the 

Spring Creek mine that reduction in similar revenues would 

result in significant direct and indirect negative 

socioeconomic effects. OSM is going to trumpet the 

economic revenue associated with the mine expansion, it 

must acknowledge the significant controversy over whether 

the public is receiving fair market value for coal, which, as 

here, is exported. The draft EA fails to take a hard look at 

what will happen to the miners when the mine eventually 

closes. Each of these points is sufficient to warrant 

preparation of an EIS.

OSMRE concluded in the Rosebud Area F analysis that 

socioeconomic impacts under the No Action would be 

moderate to major. The Rosebud Area F Proposed Action and 

No Action Alternatives involve 6,746 acres which is 

approximately 5,000 more acres than under the Proposed 

Action analyzed in the Bull Mountains Mine EA. 

The Spring Creek Mine LBA 1 EA analyzed potential impacts 

under the Proposed and No Action Alternative for a Mine that 

would produce 19 million tons per year which is approximately 

9 million tons per year more than the Proposed Action analyzed 

in the Bull Mountains Mine EA. 

The EA takes a hard look at potential socioeconomic impacts 

under the No Action Alternative in Section 4.11.1 by presenting 

qualitative and quantitative information to provide context and 

intensity for the determination as presented in the FONSI.

102 K EIS vs. EA

OSM erred when it failed to conduct a full analysis of Signal 

Peak’s proposal, in the form of an EIS and instead prepared 

a less comprehensive and insufficient EA. This EA 

incorporates and relies upon two EISs that are now 26 and 

28 years old (both contain dated information). Commenters 

note that the prior analyses did not assess mining affects 

relative to NAAQS, greenhouse gas emissions, climate 

impacts, or the social cost of carbon. In addition, EIS is 

required is underscored by the Interior Department’s 

Departmental Manual (“DM”) at 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 with regards to the proposed mining plan modification.

See response to Comment #100.

Impacts identified in the EA range from negligible to moderate. 

Significance is analyzed in the FONSI.

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. The Proposed Action would 

last for approximately 11.5 years (Table 2.2-1) with reclamation 

activities taking up to 16 months (Section 2.2.2 of the EA) which 

is below the 15 years or more Department Manual standard.

Departmental Manual 516 13 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))”.

103 K EIS vs. EA

OSM’s court-ordered remand to prepare further analysis 

provides clear evidence that the prior documents did not 

adequately address the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action. OSM’s continued reliance on an EA to 

justify approval of the proposed mining plan under NEPA is 

not justified and the agency must prepare an EIS if it is to 

See response to Comment #102. 

The US District Court did not order that OSMRE prepare an 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-49

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

recommend approval to the Secretary of the Interior. EIS. In completing its analysis, OSMRE carefully analyzed the 

impacts and determined that an EA was appropriate.

104 K EIS vs. EA

OSM failed to adequately analyze the context and intensity 

of the proposal’s impacts in determining their significance. 

Several reasons discussed including, (1) CEQ guidelines 

require that agencies determine the degree to which the 

proposed action affects public health or safety. Coal mining 

activities, including transportation and eventual combustion 

create significant impacts to health and safety. (2) An 

additional factor CEQ lays out is whether the action is 

related to other actions with individually insignificant but 

cumulatively significant impacts. While it is still murky at 

what point a proposed agency’s actions to climate change 

rise to the level of “significant” and trigger an EIS, the CEQ 

guidelines suggest that EPA’s GHG reporting trigger of 

25,000 metric tons of GHGs should be used as a reference 

point for determining what type of NEPA analysis to 

undertake. Several cases have found EAs insufficient for 

failure to adequately consider a proposed action’s impact on 

climate change. (3) One factor for determining whether to 

prepare an EIS under 40 CFR 1508.27(b)(4) is whether the 

impacts are highly controversial. The term ‘highly 

controversial’ refers to instances in which “a substantial 

dispute exists as to the size, nature, or effect of the major 

federal action rather than the mere existence of opposition 

to a use.” OSM cannot have it both ways- either the GHG 

impacts are too “uncertain” to quantify in a Social Cost of 

Carbon calculation and therefore “highly controversial”, or 

they are certain enough to calculate a Social Cost of Carbon 

calculation and are therefore not controversial. In either 

scenario, the road leads to the completion of an EIS.

See response to Comment #100.

OSMRE adequately analyzes potential impacts to human health 

and safety as explained under each appropriate resource area 

(such as air quality and transportation). OSMRE analyzed 

potential impacts from climate change in Section 4.2 of the EA. 

The Mine, as shown in Appendix C, Exhibit 1, is below the 

EPA’s greenhouse gas reporting rule (20,806 CO2e per year) 

which is for individual sources. OSMRE provides comparison of 

GHGs from all sectors of the Proposed Action against U.S. and 

Global emissions. Impacts identified in the EA range from 

negligible to moderate. Significance is analyzed in the FONSI.

As explained under criterion # 4 in the FONSI, OSMRE has 

determined that this Project is not considered highly 

controversial. 

105 K EIS vs. EA

OSM Incorrectly Characterized Bull Mountains’ Air Quality 

Impacts as “Minor”. OSM additionally failed to fully analyze 

and assess the significance of non-GHG pollutants 

associated with burning additional Bull Mountains mine coal. 

OSM did identify the costs of burning this additional coal, 

however, the revised EA fails to indicate what the economic 

impacts of these emissions are. OSM misleadingly states that 

the “degree of impacts from overseas combustion [of 

additional Bull Mountains Mine coal]...would be minor due 

to existing regulations in place that are considered 

protective of human health and the environment.” Recent 

scientific reviews have analyzed the damages from the nonSee Response to Comments #47 and #100.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-50

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

carbon emissions from coal-fired electric generators: sulfur 

and nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, volatile organic 

compounds, ammonia, and mercury. These reviews show 

quantifiable damages to human longevity, health, quality of 

life, and property. OSM incorrectly asserts that GHG of the 

proposed mine expansion are “minor.” The reality is that 

the estimate of GHG emissions alone from this mining plan 

modification are anything but “minor.” Virtually all federal 

agency actions that “significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment” affect and are affected by such climate 

change.

106 K EIS vs. EA

OSM Must Account for the Significant Impacts of the 

Inevitable Mine Closure in an EIS. OSM ignored the impacts 

that the inevitable closure of the mine will have on the 

community, causing significant impacts to the impacted 

community. OSM itself recognizes in its draft EIS for the 

Rosebud Area F mine expansion that mine closure would 

have “moderate to major long term effects on social 

services and resources” and “moderate to major impacts” 

on socioeconomic conditions in the community around the 

mine. It is unclear how OSM can reach the opposite 

conclusion with respect to the closure of the Bull Mountains 

Mine. [C]ourts have recognized that, although 

socioeconomic effects do not trigger the EIS requirement 

on their own, when the requirement is triggered by physical 

impacts, socioeconomic impacts must be considered, as 

well. Here, there is evidence that significant environmental 

impacts will occur as a result of the approval of the 

proposal. OSM has an obligation to consider the 

socioeconomic impacts from clean energy activity, clean-up, 

increased tourism, and other non-fossil fuel sectors, and 

identify resources that are available to support economic 

diversification and transition. That Signal Peak has not 

developed an action plan to transition the community spells 

disaster for local mine workers and the surrounding town. 

The Secretary of the Interior has discretion to disapprove 

mining plans...meaning rejection is wholly authorized.

The amount of disturbance acreage and annual tonnage rates in 

the NEPA documents referenced by the commenter are larger 

than those presented in the Bull Mountains EA. 

OSMRE concluded in the Rosebud Area F analysis that 

socioeconomic impacts under the No Action would be 

moderate to major. The Rosebud Area F Proposed Action and 

No Action Alternatives involve 6.746 acres which is 

approximately 5,000 more acres then under the Proposed 

Action analyzed in the Bull Mountains 2018 EA. 

OSMRE analyzes the potential socioeconomic impacts 

associated with the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative 

in Section 4.11 of the EA.

107 K

Wildlife, Special 

Status Species

Commenter expressed concern over OSM’s decision not to 

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding 

potential impacts to threatened and endangered species, as 

required by the Endangered Species Act. Topics raised 

included the following. OSM failed entirely to consider 

impacts to threatened and endangered species from coal 

See response to Comments #23 and #24.

OSMRE held several teleconferences with USFWS to discuss 

potential impacts from the Proposed Action including the 

northern long-eared bat. USFWS as well as Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (MDNRC) 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-51

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

trains [discussed above]. Also, OSM’s decision not to 

consult with FWS regarding the northern long-eared bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis) on the basis of there being “[n]o 

confirmed observations” is mistaken. Both historic 

monitoring as well as existing habitat indicates that northern 

long-eared bats may be present in the project area. OSM 

lacks authority under NEPA, the ESA, or SMCRA to make 

permitting decisions or offhand “findings” based on 

‘suggestion’ rather than on defensible conclusion or fact. It 

is clear that the permit area has been inadequately studied 

to allow for sound determination about presence or 

absence of Myotis septentrionalis. Also, without that water 

component, as noted above, many of the species within the 

permit and adjacent area (and possibly within a much 

greater area) will be dramatically affected. This is relevant to 

biota whether they are officially threatened and endangered 

species, ‘sensitive or special category species’, or 

comparatively commonplace species. OSM must also 

consult with FWS regarding the presence of Greater sage 

grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in the project area. 

Similarly, OSM’s “no effect” determination with respect to 

Red knot (Calidris contutus) is arbitrary. So too with regard 

to whooping crane. Canada lynx have historically been 

identified in central Montana, which requires additional 

consultation.

stated that the Project is outside the bat’s current range and 

concurred with our no effect finding. MDNRC also agreed with 

OSMRE’s no effect determination for sage grouse. OSMRE is 

not required to consult on a no effect finding which was also 

the determination made for the Red Knot and Whooping 

Crane. Section 3.8 of the EA discusses this further.

108 L

Hydrology -

Mitigation

The CHIA makes the unsupported statement that “Based 

on the results of the investigation presented in the Bull 

Mountains Mine No. 1Permit, Appendix 314-7, (Nicklin, 

2014) water quantity in the deeper underburden in sufficient 

to provide for the use at the OSW and any mitigation wells 

which may become necessary in the future.” This statement 

is directly contradicted by the cited report. The ability of 

the deep underburden to potentially supply substantially 

more than 100 gpm without impacting other users of water 

in the basin is something that should have been carefully 

evaluated using the tools that were developed with this use 

in mind. There is however, no indication that a thoughtful 

evaluation of this issues was ever done.

See response to Comment #86. and #99.

109 L

Hydrology -

Mitigation

The permit application fails to consider that the rate of flow 

from wells installed for mitigation purposes could be limited 

by Montana water law. The mine is located in the 

Musselshell River Basin, which is closed to new water 

appropriations, and state water law may limit utilization of 

See response to Comment #86. and #89. Continuous discharge 

of water is not proposed as such discharge would not be 

needed to mitigate adversely affected beneficial uses.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-52

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

continuously pumping and discharging wells for spring 

mitigation. It appears that utilization of water from the 

default source of water identified in the PHC for use in 

mitigating impacts from mining may be of very limited 

availability.

110 L

Hydrology -

Mitigation

The permit application fails to make a determination that 

utilization of the deep underburden aquifer will not affect 

existing users of groundwater or nearby surface waters. The 

capacity of the deep underburden to produce potentially 

over 100 gpm, in perpetuity, without impacting other users 

of this water is highly doubtful and has not been adequately 

evaluated.

See response to Comment #86. and #99.

111 M

Rail Impacts -

Air Quality, 

Human Health

Diesel emissions from coal trains, particularly particulate 

matter, is hazardous to the health of children. I am deeply 

concerned that adding more coal train traffic from the 

approved expansion of the Bull Mountains Mine will have 

measurably harmful health impacts on children in western 

Montana. Air quality in many towns in western Montana is 

already marginal. Additional coal trains will only put 

Missoula, and other western Montana communities, at 

greater risk of NAAQS non-attainment and negatively affect 

public health. 

See Response to Comment #63.

112 M

Rail Impacts -

Air Quality, 

Human Health

There is no known safe threshold limit for particulate 

matter. There is currently significant uncertainty 

surrounding coal dust. Recent scientific studies from 

Washington State indicate that coal dust from coal trains 

contributes to local particulate matter pollution. Thus, any 

additional particulate matter from additional trains could 

directly harm my respiratory health, as it could harm the 

health of everyone else in the community, including 

otherwise healthy adults. This is particularly true on days 

where the air quality is already jeopardized by local traffic, 

industry and inversion layers prevalent in the Missoula 

Valley causing the air quality to be close to or above the 

healthful limit. We already suffer from substantial numbers 

of days spent in the hazardous range for particulate matter 

from forest fires. I treat the sickest kids, whose health is 

already partially compromised. Increased diesel particulate 

matter from additional coal trains from the Bull Mountains 

Mine is a real threat to these children. 

Comment has been addressed in EA. For Comment pertaining 

to diesel particulate matter, see Response to Comment #63.

For the Comment pertaining to coal dust, Section 3.2.2 

discloses that particulate emissions (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) can 

affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects (EPA 

2017a), and trace elements in coal could potentially affect the 

environment where coal dust deposition occurs. To examine 

this, OSMRE considered a recent STB (2015) analysis to assess 

the potential health impacts of from inhalation of coal dust from 

a 'high production level (26.7 trains per day) [as compared to 

the maximum 3.6 trains per day associated with the Proposed 

Action]. STB (2015a) used the air dispersion and deposition 

model in combination with a fate and transport model to 

estimate concentrations of chemicals in coal dust in soil, water, 

and sediment. The study determined that addition of airborne 

coal dust from the high production level (26.7 trains per day) to 

the estimated background levels of particulate would not cause 

particulate matter concentrations to exceed the NAAQS either 

alone or in combination with other project-related PM10 or 

PM2.5 particulate emissions, including exhaust emissions from 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-53

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

locomotives and fugitive particulate matter from wind erosion. 

The study also determined that concentrations of coal dust 

constituents (including trace elements in coal and the chemical 

constituents of coal topper agents) in soil, dust, water, and fish 

would be below EPA screening levels for human exposure for 

all evaluated pathways (Appendix B). 

Section 4.2.2 also states that...Continued implementation of 

BNSF’s Coal Loading Rule (BNSF 2015a, 2017b) ensures that 

coal dust emissions are minimized on BNSF owned and 

operated rail lines; thereby minimizing the potential for coaldust related emissions and subsequent deposition to soil and 

water. 

See also response to Comment #22.

113 M

Rail Impacts -

Coal Dust, 

Public Safety

Railroad companies have stated that coal dust can 

compromise railroad ballast, affecting track stability, and can 

lead, ultimately, to derailments. Increased risk of 

derailments poses an important public health risk, 

particularly if the trains are carrying hazardous materials. 

Increased coal train traffic and instability of the tracks due 

to the effect of coal dust on railroad ballast seems especially 

hazardous to the citizens of western Montana, which lacks 

rail safety plans and has only two inspectors for rail safety in 

the whole state.

OSMRE includes discussion of the potential impacts of coal dust 

on rail ballast and potential for derailments in Section 3.1.3 of 

the EA. 

As outlined in Section 3.1, Item 100 of BNSF Price List 6041-B 

(BNSF 2015a, 2017c) contains BNSF's coal dust mitigation 

requirements; also known as the Coal Loading Rule. The 

current Coal Loading Rule has been in effect since October 

2011 and requires all shippers loading coal at any Montana or 

Wyoming mine to take measures to load cars in such a way that 

ensures coal dust losses in transit are reduced by at least 85 

percent compared to cars where no remedial measures have 

been taken.

The Coal Loading Rule also has a "safe harbor" provision stating 

that a shipper will be deemed to be in compliance with BNSF's 

Coal Loading Rule if it loads cars in compliance with BNSF's 

published Load Profile Template and applies an approved intransit dust suppressant agent to the loaded cars in the specified 

manner. Alternatively, the BNSF allows coal shippers to use 

other methods to reduce dust emissions if the shipper is able to 

show that its methods reduce emissions of fugitive coal dust by 

at least 85 percent. In May 2015, the STB issued a decision 

which affirmed the reasonableness of the Coal Loading Rule and 

upheld its enforceability (STB 2015b). Also, as discussed in 

Appendix B, since 2015, BNSF has also been operating a 

surfactant re-spray facility along its main line in Pasco, 

Washington to further limit coal dust. Coal trains traveling west 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-54

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

along the main line route through the Columbia River Gorge 

are sprayed with a topper agent as it passes through to lessen 

potential coal dust release from rail cars (WDOE and Cowlitz 

County 2017).

Continued implementation of BNSF’s Coal Loading Rule (BNSF 

2015a, 2017b) would minimize coal dust emissions, and ongoing 

track maintenance ensures that rail conditions do not degrade 

to an extent that would affect rail safety (i.e., cause 

derailments). 

Rail derailments are not a normal part of rail operation which is 

designed to minimize the risk of such events. While derailments 

do occur, the location and effects of such derailments would be 

highly speculative and are therefore not analyzed.

114 M

Rail Impacts -

Coal Dust, 

Human Health

Coal dust escaping from coal trains from the Bull Mountains 

Mine is causing increased deposition of toxic pollutants, 

such as mercury, lead, arsenic, and cadmium, in the soils and 

waters of western Montana.

See response to Comments #22 and #112 related to coal dust 

and water quality.

115 M

Air Quality -

Coal 

Combustion, 

Human Health

The American Thoracic Society, American Lung Association, 

American Academy of Pediatrics, and Physicians for Social 

Responsibility have all taken strong positions about the 

adverse health impacts of climate change and have 

acknowledged that coal is single greatest contributor to the 

increasing carbon dioxide levels that are driving climate 

change.

Predicting the degree of impact of any single emitter of GHGs 

may have on global climate change or on the changes to biotic 

and abiotic systems that accompany climate change is not 

possible at this time. Given the cumulative nature of the GHG 

and climate change issue, and a lack of project-specific impacts, 

please see the cumulative section (Section 4.3.2 and Appendix 

D) for a general description of anticipated changes and impacts 

at the global, national and local [Montana] levels.

116 M

Air Quality -

Coal 

Combustion, 

Human Health

In addition to carbon dioxide emissions, I am also deeply 

concerned and troubled about the deposition of toxic heavy 

metals such as mercury, lead, arsenic, and cadmium, from 

coal combustion. This pollution can be transported between 

continents, so mercury from coal burned in Asia can be 

deposited in the western United States. Heavy metal 

pollution is associated with harm to children and neonates.

As outlined in Section 4.2.1, estimated annual pollutant 

emissions related to combusting coal for power generation in 

the ROK and Japan would be subject to air quality control laws 

that would ensure emissions and resultant air quality are within 

acceptable (regulatory) limits considered protective of human 

health and the environment (see Appendix B). The United 

Nations Environment Programme reports that ambient air 

quality standards in the ROK and Japan are within World Health 

Organization targets (UNEP 2016a, 2016b).

Regarding mercury specifically, the EA notes in Section 4.2.2 and 

discusses in more detail in Appendix B, that while mercury air 

emissions also dissipate in the atmosphere, elemental mercury 

can travel long distances before depositing to soil and water 

where it accumulates and can be reemitted, resulting in longterm effects...Existing regulations in the ROK and Japan and 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-55

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

increasing implementation of mercury controls similar to those 

implemented in the US and are expected to reduce mercury 

accumulation in the environment in the short-term and longterm.

117 N

Air Quality -

Coal 

Combustion, 

Human Health

Coal fired power plants are major sources of environmental 

toxins, both in the immediate area where they are located, 

as well through global dispersion of their emissions and 

waste by-products. Only by ignoring its enormous health 

and environmental impacts can coal-fired power be 

considered a “low-cost” energy source. Discussion includes 

factors such air pollution, various forms of mercury 

pollution, fly ash and bottom ash, other heavy metals 

pollution and the impact of air pollution on global weather.

See response to Comment #116. 

Handling and disposal of coal combustion residuals falls under 

the regulatory authority of the country where combustion 

occurs, see EA Section 2.1.8 for coal destinations. The location 

of disposal or beneficial use of coal combustion residuals is not 

known; therefore, any associated impacts would be overly 

speculative.

118 O

Social Cost of 

Carbon - EA 

Quantifies 

Benefits But 

Not Costs

Although OSMRE lists the amount of non-GHG emissions 

from combustion of Bull Mountains coal, it does not discuss 

the premature mortality and morbidity associated with 

those emission or provide any quantitative assessment of 

the economic impact of those emissions. Several recent 

scientific reviews have analyzed the damages from the noncarbon emissions from coal-fired electric generators: sulfur 

and nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, volatile organic 

compounds, ammonia, and mercury. These reviews show 

quantifiable dollar-valued damages to human longevity, 

health, quality of life, and property. Somewhat more 

startling is the finding in the American Economic Review and 

Environment International Studies that the non-carbon air 

pollution damages for coal-fired electric generation have a 

value that exceeds the value being created by the electric 

generators. That is, at current levels of air pollution, those 

coal-fired electric generators are producing, on net, a 

negative economic value because the social costs associated 

with coal-fired electric generation are greater than the 

market value of the electricity generated. This is despite the 

fact that coal emissions are subject to environmental 

regulations. Those regulations do not reduce the damage to 

health to zero. Note that this is the same conclusion that 

was reached when the SCC emissions were compared to 

the current mine mouth price of the additional Bull 

Mountains Mine coal in the analysis above.

See response for Comment #26. See Appendix D, Section 2.4 

for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted.

As stated in the EA, Section 2.1.8, the expected coal 

destinations are to facilities in Japan and the Republic of Korea 

the exact generating stations are unknown and therefore 

OSMRE is unable to quantify any human health related impacts 

associated with coal combustion because such an analysis would 

require knowing the exact facility and demographics of the 

surrounding population. OSMRE is not completing a cost-benefit 

analysis as part of this Project, as it is not required under 40 

CFR 1502.23, and therefore monetization of non-GHG 

emissions would not be appropriate. The uncertainty and high 

variability regarding the methodology and outputs of a nonGHG monetization would not be useful or helpful to the 

decision maker.

119 O

Quality of 

Analysis 

The 2018 EA, rather than correcting the errors identified in 

Judge Molloy’s order, largely “relitigated” Judge Molloy’s 

conclusions, disputing each of the above points even where 

Judge Molloy had expressly considered and rejected these 

This EA takes a hard look at all impacts of the project not 

sufficiently analyzed in other NEPA documents. As discussed 

throughout Chapter 1, we carefully considered those issued 

identified by the Court and those raised in scoping as we 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-56

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

OSMRE’s arguments when they were presented during the 

U.S. District Court proceedings.

prepared the EA. 

120 O

Social Cost of 

Carbon - EA 

Quantifies 

Benefits But 

Not Costs

The 2018 EA makes new claims about the social costs and 

benefits associated with coal mining and combustion; 

specifically the EA asserts that there are unspecified and 

unquantified social benefits associated with mined coal and 

its combustion that have been ignored that may offset the 

quantified social costs of carbon and other pollutants. This, 

OSMRE claims, is one of the reasons that the social cost of 

carbon should not be considered: It introduces a social cost 

but ignores the social benefits. Note that this is the reverse 

of Judge Molloy’s conclusion that OSMRE skewed the 

analysis by quantifying benefits in dollar terms while refusing 

to quantify the costs associated with coal combustion in the 

same way. The difference between these conflicting 

overviews is that there is a large scientific literature 

documenting the social costs of coal combustion and tools 

are available to measure those social costs. On the other 

hand, there is no economic literature documenting the 

existence of significant social benefits from coal combustion.

See response for Comment #26 and #76. See Appendix D, 

Section 2.4 for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis 

was not conducted. The EA does not claim any socioeconomic 

benefits. Section 4.11 of the EA discloses known potential 

economic impacts associated with the Proposed and No Action 

Alternative.

121 O

Social Cost of 

Carbon - EA 

Quantifies 

Benefits But 

Not Costs

Relabeling Positive Local Economic Consequences as 

“Impacts” or “Revenues” Rather Than as “Benefits” is 

Economically Misleading and Does Not Eliminate the Bias 

Associated with Quantifying Positive Economic Impacts in 

Dollar Terms While Failing to Quantify the Negative 

Impacts in the Same Terms. No matter what labels OSMRE 

uses, its approach in the 2018 Revise EA makes the same 

error Judge Molloy identified in his Order, which is that 

OSMRE again quantifies positive economic impacts in dollar 

terms while refusing to similarly quantify negative economic 

impacts. In fact, that was the basis of Judge Molloy’s 

rejection of this very point when it was raised by OSMRE 

during the U.S. District Court proceedings: “In its response 

to comments on the draft Mining Plan EA, the Enforcement 

Office asserted that these numbers are ‘an economic impact 

assessment, to be distinguished from a cost-benefit analysis.’ 

This is a distinction without a difference where, as here, the 

economic benefits of the action were quantified while the 

costs were not.” Thus, in the case of gross and net 

economic benefits of the additional mining, the dollar value 

of the coal produced and the value added by the mining 

process are measures of both economic benefit and of 

economic impact. 

See response for Comment #26 and #76. See Appendix D, 

Section 2.4 for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis 

was not conducted. The EA does not claim any socioeconomic 

benefits. Section 4.11 of the EA discloses known potential 

economic impacts associated with the Proposed and No Action 

Alternative.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-57

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

122 O

Social Cost of 

Carbon - Best 

Method for 

Fulfilling 

OSMRE's 

Obligation

The first objection to the use of SCC in the quote above, 

that the SCC was developed to be used in a cost-benefit 

framework that OSMRE was not required to undertake, was 

also specifically addressed by Judge Molloy and rejected in 

his order. Just because a particular type of analysis is not 

explicitly required in a NEPA document does not mean that 

a particular tool cannot or should not be used when it 

provides a more complete depiction of the impacts of a 

proposed federal action. OSMRE’s explanation for why it 

did not make use of the SCC Protocol amounts to a 

rejection of the Judge’s findings in the decision that 

mandated the writing of the new EA.

See response for Comment #26. See Appendix D, Section 2.4 

for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted.

OSMRE is allowed to determine which tools are appropriate for 

the Project analysis. As explained in Appendix D, Section 2.4 

OSMRE does not believe that the SCC tool is appropriate to 

use for this Project.

123 O

Climate - GHG 

Emissions

OSMRE Incorrectly Labels the Project’s Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions as “Minor.” According to OSMRE’s own 

comparison to 2010 emission levels, the Proposed Action 

will increase global emissions by almost one-half of one 

percent. Stated differently, it would take only 200 projects 

of this size – from any sector of the economy, in any 

country, anywhere in the world – to produce annual 

emissions equal to 100 percent of the global GHG emission 

in 2010. There were 710 coal mines in production just in 

the U.S. as of 2016, which would mean only a little more 

than a quarter of the mines would have to be of similar size 

and scope and it would be similar to the Proposed Action, 

doubling total global GHG emissions. To most climate 

scientists, this level of change in GHG emissions from a 

single source would be considered significant. Yet here, 

both a 0.5 percent increase in global GHG emissions and 

the increase in non-GHG emissions were both labeled as 

minor. The reality is that the estimate of GHG emissions 

alone from this single mine plan modification are anything 

but “minor.”

See Response to Comment #73.

The statistic in the EA reflects the total emissions over the 

entire life of the proposed action (all coal mined) in comparison 

to a single year of emissions for relative comparison. On an 

annual basis, emissions would be much less than 0.44 percent –

closer to 0.04 percent if mined at a rate of 10Mt saleable coal

per year. The EA text has been revised to read as follows:

“Under the Proposed Action, total direct and indirect emissions 

resulting from mining over 11.5 years would be approximately 

0.44 percent of annual (single year) global GHG emissions 

(2010).”

124 O

Social Cost of 

Carbon - EA 

Quantifies 

Benefits But 

Not Costs

There Are No Significant Social Benefits Associated with 

Coal Combustion That Are Not Included in the Market 

Price of the Coal. There is no peer-reviewed economic 

literature documenting the social benefits of coal 

combustion and the resulting pollutants released. Absent 

economic evidence to the contrary, the competitive market 

mine mouth coal price reflects the full economic benefit of 

the proposed coal mining. That is, the full benefit of the 

mined coal at the mine mouth is reflected in that price and 

has been presented in the 2018 EA. Included in that mine 

mouth price are the wages and benefits paid to miners, the 

See response for Comment #26 and #76. See Appendix D, 

Section 2.4 for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis 

was not conducted. 

The EA does not claim any socioeconomic benefits. Section 4.11 

of the EA discloses known potential economic impacts 

associated with the Proposed and No Action Alternative. 

OSMRE is not required to complete a cost-benefit analysis 

under 40 CFR 1502.23.

OSMRE quantifies potential impacts from climate change 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-58

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

revenues flowing to governments, and the purchases the 

mine makes to supply its mining operation, etc. OSMRE 

touts the mine mouth price of the coal, and further 

quantifies wages, royalties and taxes paid by the coal 

company. Of course, one cannot add together the value of 

the coal and the value added by the workers and the 

infrastructure and services provided by governments. That 

would be double counting. It is important to note that the 

$1 billion in revenues flowing to governments or the wages 

and benefits flowing to mine workers are not in addition to 

the market value of the coal. The market value of the coal 

covers all of the market costs incurred in mining the coal. 

The total value associated with the coal is reflected in the 

market price of the coal. By contrast, OSMRE has made no 

attempt to quantify any of the significant economic impacts 

caused by the GHG and non-GHG pollution that results 

from burning Bull Mountains coal, despite readily available 

tools to do so for both GHG and non-GHG pollutants.

including greenhouse gas emissions in Section 4.3 and Appendix 

D of the EA.

125 O

EA Quantifies 

Benefits But 

Not Costs

The Economic Impact of Non-Carbon Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions from Coal Combustion. Much as the 2018 EA did 

with the GHG emissions, the emissions are quantified in 

terms of tons and pounds of pollution emitted, but there 

was no monetized cost associated with them. There is a 

widely accepted method to attach a dollar cost to these 

non-carbon coal combustion emissions. Judge Molloy 

specifically asked that these non-GHG impacts be 

addressed.

Impacts of non-GHG emissions are addressed in Section 3.2, 4.2 

and Appendix B. Emissions are quantified and potential 

environmental effects are discussed in the context of regulatory 

thresholds relevant to each segment from the mining to 

combustion. There is no requirement to monetize effects of all 

environmental impacts, nor is there a requirement to complete 

a cost benefit analysis.

Based on the analysis, OSMRE concluded that air quality impacts 

related to the Proposed Action would be minor for Mine 

operations; negligible for rail transport, seaport handling and 

ocean transport; and minor for overseas combustion. OSMRE is 

not required nor does it feel that it is appropriate to monetize 

impacts of non-GHG emissions as the analysis tools would 

present highly variable values dependent on assumptions that 

are too speculative and ultimately would present values that 

would be un-useful to the decision maker.

126 O

Climate - GHG 

Emissions

The 2018 EA makes no effort to indicate what the damages 

or economic impacts of these emissions are except to make 

qualitative statements that the “degree of impacts from 

overseas combustion [of additional Bull Mountains Mine 

coal]...would be minor due to existing regulations in place 

that are considered protective of human health and the 

environment." This statement merely dodges the failure to 

state the damages in dollar terms and misstates the science 

As outlined in Section 4.2.1, estimated annual pollutant 

emissions related to combusting coal for power generation in 

the ROK and Japan would be subject to air quality control laws 

that would ensure emissions and resultant air quality are within 

acceptable (regulatory) limits considered protective of human 

health and the environment (see Appendix B). The United 

Nations Environment Programme reports that ambient air 

quality standards in the ROK and Japan are within World Health 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-59

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

relating non-GHG emissions from coal combustion to 

human health. The level of emissions that are allowed even 

under “good” emissions control regulations does not 

eliminate all health impacts, as will be discussed below. By 

refusing to quantify these harms, while simultaneously 

labelling such impacts as “minor,” OSMRE gives the 

impression that these emissions have zero economic 

impacts. That is misleading. 

Organization targets (UNEP 2016a, 2016b).

OSMRE, where appropriate and not overly speculative, included 

reasonable forecasting as in the case with the Air Quality and 

Climate Change discussion in Chapter 4 allowing the decision 

maker to evaluate potential impacts associated with the 

Proposed Action using representative or predicted emissions.

Rationale for not including an economic assessment of 

emissions costs (i.e., social cost of carbon) is presented in 

Appendix D, Section 2.4.

NEPA does not require cost benefit analysis, nor does it require 

that all impacts be monetized.

127 O

Social Cost of 

Carbon - EA 

Quantifies 

Benefits But 

Not Costs

If one totals the non-carbon damages and the damages from 

carbon pollution (the SCC), the total monetized damages of 

the coal would be $95-$350 per ton of coal, dwarfing the 

estimated $24 per ton current economic value of the coal. 

This is remarkable given that the social cost of carbon 

estimates are, as noted above, considered conservative.

See response for Comment #26. See Appendix D, Section 2.4 

for rational on why a social cost of carbon analysis was not 

conducted.

See response to comment #125 regarding the effects of nonGHG emissions.

128 O

EA Quantifies 

Benefits But 

Not Costs

Although OSMRE lists the amount of non-GHG emissions 

from combustion of Bull Mountains coal, it does not discuss 

the premature mortality and morbidity associated with 

those emission or provide any quantitative assessment of 

the economic impact of those emissions. Several recent 

scientific reviews have analyzed the damages from the noncarbon emissions from coal-fired electric generators: sulfur 

and nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, volatile organic 

compounds, ammonia, and mercury. These reviews show 

quantifiable dollar-valued damages to human longevity, 

health, quality of life, and property. Comment references 

several scientific reviews to illustrate this point. 

See response for Comment #26 and #118.

See response to comment #125 regarding the effects of nonGHG emissions.

129 P

Climate -

General

Statements of Concern: Continued high fossil fuel emissions 

unarguably sentences young people to a massive, implausible 

cleanup or growing deleterious climate impacts or both. 

Fossil fuel companies that have profited to date from 

policies allowing exploitation certainly should retrain and 

retain displaced workers to the maximum feasible extent, 

and government must ensure this is done. But the transition 

to a fossil-free economic system must be delayed no longer 

Comment noted.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-60

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

if we intend to ensure a viable climate system for the 

progeny of those workers and others.

In my expert opinion, based on multiple lines of evidence in 

terms of atmospheric CO2, ambient temperature, and 

Earth’s energy balance, we are now well into the danger 

zone. Ours is now a period of significant atmospheric 

carbon overshoot. We must act with conviction and correct 

scientific information if we are to keep this period short –

again, on pain of depriving our progeny of their right to a 

viable climate system that will be essential to minimal 

fulfillment of their life prospects Allowing the DefendantIntervenor to prepare to expand its Bull Mountain Coal 

Mine would be a major step in precisely the wrong 

direction, in light of the total coal reserves at stake in this 

litigation.

130 Q

Hydrology -

Forecasted 

Impacts

"We believe that OSMRE’s characterization of the mine’s 

existing impacts on water resources and on its potential 

future impacts is misleading...While we appreciate that the 

EA acknowledges the mine’s impact to overburden wells 

(3.4.1, page 32), its characterization of other water impacts 

is deficient. For instance, while mitigation may only have 

been required for one spring to date, that does not mean 

that overall impacts have been so limited. There have been 

impacts to waters on SPE mine-owned lands – to Lipsky 

Spring, for instance, as well as a spring across the fence from 

Turtle Pond."

Existing spring impacts are discussed in Section 3.4 and 

expected future impacts are discussed in Section 4.4 with 

supporting information presented in Appendix E. Annual 

hydrology monitoring reports, mine permit documents, and 

MDEQ's CHIAs reviewed during preparation of the EA are 

incorporated by reference in Appendix E. This information 

supports the findings presented in the EA, which are consistent 

with those of the Montana State Program. Text in Appendix E 

has been modified as follows, “The remaining undermined 

springs continue to exhibit flows within historical (pre-mining) 

ranges, although conclusive evaluations cannot be completed for 

two springs undermined by longwall mining [17165 (‘Turtle 

Pond’ or ‘Big Dam on Top’) and 17415 (‘Litsky Spring’)] due to 

the lack of consistent and comparable historical data (Catena 

and WET 2018); therefore, it is possible that mining related 

impacts have occurred at these two springs (MDEQ 2016a).” 

The spring across the fence is formally identified as spring 17185 

which is also discussed in the EA in Section 3.4.2 and Appendix 

E, Section 1.2 This showed a brief cessation in flow as longwall 

mining passed underneath but commenced flowing at normal 

rates within two weeks after mining was complete in this area. 

This suggests that strata bounding/underlying this spring 

“resealed” after subsidence. There is no evidence of a long-term 

adverse effect to this spring from mining.

131 Q

Hydrology -

Mitigation

We do not know if this mitigation [to spring 17145] will be 

effective yet; consequently, we are reluctant to agree when 

it comes to assertions that requirements in the mine plan 

Comment noted. Further, PAP requirements are designed to 

minimize long-term impacts; if the initial mitigation plan is 

determined by MDEQ to not be successful further mitigation 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-61

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

will minimize long-term water impacts. would be required.

132 Q

Hydrology -

Existing Impacts

[With regard to two new springs that emerged after 

mining], we are concerned that the information as 

presented implies that mining in some way has improved or 

might improve usable surface water resources, a 

characterization that we find patently false.

The two new springs are discussed in Appendix E of the EA. At 

this time, these springs are not considered mitigation or 

improvement of condition but are reflective of the types of 

impacts that have occurred as a result of mining. 

From a regulatory standpoint, MDEQ does not distinguish 

between springs and seeps – all surface discharge of 

groundwater is formally recognized as a spring. Some springs 

discharge at discrete points, while others discharge in a diffuse 

area.

133 Q

Hydrology -

Surface Water

We are also concerned that the EA may minimize surface 

water impacts (3.4.3, page 33). We appreciate that the EA 

acknowledges that some springs may be affected and 

require mitigation, but the EA’s decision to not fully address 

this critical issue by gathering “detailed analysis and 

establishment of typical numeric baseline streamflow 

conditions” is problematic. Though many of the streams are 

indeed ephemeral, there are reliable spring-fed surface 

reach flows in others (e.g., one spring in Section 27 6N, 27E, 

a drainage that we believe has been poorly evaluated; a 

stream at the head of Black Canyon; and one stream at the 

head of Railroad Creek). The surface flows from these 

water sources are useful for ranching and serve important 

riparian functions that must be acknowledged and 

protected.

See response to Comment #86.

Springs in Section 27, T6N, R27E include 72115, 72125, 72135, 

72155, 72165, 72175, all of which have been historically 

monitored for flow. Springs 72135 and 72165 are typically dry 

and are no longer actively monitored. Of the other springs, 

72155 has the most substantial flow and it is monitored 

monthly. 

Although it is uncertain specifically which springs the 

commenter is referencing, 71115 is a typically flowing spring at 

the head of Railroad Creek and 53175 is a typically ponded 

spring in an area informally called Black Canyon, both of which 

are monitored monthly. In addition, stream monitoring station 

71416 is located downgradient of 71115 along Railroad Creek.

Spring monitoring characterizes groundwater discharge and flow 

rates nearest to issue points. All channel flow at these locations 

is associated with the spring discharge, except during infrequent 

precipitation or snowmelt events. Further monitoring of 

channel flows would not better characterize conditions at these 

locations.

134 Q

Hydrology -

Mitigation

OSMRE should take a hard look at a “worst case scenario” 

of replacement needs as the mine moves into wetter 

country and compare those two numbers, as we believe 

$250,000 is likely too low [for reasons noted].

See response to Comment #86. NEPA does not require analysis 

of a worst-case scenario. In accordance with MSUMRA and 

regulations, the bond is intended to cover the cost of 

maintenance in the long-term. Bond amounts are reevaluated at 

permit renewals (every 5 years) as required by ARM 17.24.416, 

or more frequently if MDEQ determines it is necessary, thereby 

ensuring that inadequacies are identified in response to changes 

in conditions and liabilities.

135 Q Hydrology - We are also concerned about adequacy around claims that See response to Comments #86, #88 and #99. MDEQ has 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-62

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

Mitigation “replacement water [for mitigation] would likely be sourced 

from a well completed in the deep underburden aquifer” 

(4.4.1, page 55). The quantity and quality of that potential 

replacement water resource have yet to be adequately 

characterized.

concluded that the deep underburden aquifer is a suitable and 

available source of replacement water.

136 Q

Hydrology -

Forecasted 

Impacts

The increase in sulfate levels in overburden wells in the 

mined area (E-3) is a concern to us, as are potential 

increased sulfate levels (as well as arsenic and other 

problematic pollution criteria) in replacement water. 

Existing well impacts are discussed in Section 3.4 and expected 

future impacts are discuss in Section 4.4 with supporting 

information presented in Appendix E. Mitigation is also 

discussed in Section 2.1.5. Affected water uses will be mitigated 

in accordance with the approved mine permit and MSUMRA 

and attendant regulations. In the CHIA (MDEQ 2017b), MDEQ 

has concluded that the deeper underburden is suitable for 

livestock drinking water supplies.

137 Q

Hydrology -

Existing Impacts

The fact that the EA notes a “lack of persistent trends in 

groundwater quality” (E-4) leaves us with no real assurances 

that any replacement water would be guaranteed to be of 

sufficient comparable quality to keep our ranches 

economically viable.

Section 4.4 and Appendix E of the EA describe hydrology 

impacts. MSUMRA requires replacement of adversely affected 

water supplies for beneficial uses. Impact determination and 

mitigation methods are presented in the PAP (SPE 2017a, 

Section 313 and 314) and referenced in the EA (Section 2.1.5).

The EA states on p. 35, “There have been no persistent trends 

in groundwater quality in the upper underburden at wells within 

the area mined to date... Underburden groundwater 

classification has remained within the historically observed range 

for each well.” 

Text on p. E-4 has been modified as follows for clarity and to be 

more in line with text from section 3.4.1 of the EA; “There have 

been no persistent trends in groundwater quality in the upper 

underburden at wells within the area mined to-date and 

underburden groundwater classification has remained within the 

historically observed range for each well.”

138 Q

Hydrology -

Forecasted 

Impacts

Mining-to-date has occurred on the drier side of the 

proposed “Life of Mine” area, and it is wrong to assume that 

impacts seen in this area of the mine would be equivalent to 

the impacts that might be seen on the wetter side of the 

proposed mining area.

Impacts predicted in the PHC (SPE 2017a, Appendix 314-5) and 

MDEQ's CHIAs (MDEQ 2016b, 2017b) and summarized in the 

EA consider hydrogeologic conditions of the entire permit area.

139 Q

Topography -

Subsidence

Narrower subsidence cracks have often been much deeper 

than [8-9 feet]...this assessment [does not] address the fact 

that those sometimes-narrow, sometimes-wider cracks can 

pose a risk to livestock, wildlife, or other surface-land users, 

whether it be in the form of broken legs or other injuries. 

Additionally, efforts to fill cracks, whether narrow or wider, 

have had impacts themselves.

Subsidence and subsidence repairs are discussed in Section 

2.1.4. That discussion is consistent with the approved permit 

(SPE 2017a) and recent practices and such activities are 

consistent with MSUMRA. As discussed in the EA Section 2.1.4, 

"subsidence features resulting from mining have been reclaimed 

as necessary to eliminate hazards and restore the pre-mining 

land use. Where disturbance necessary for repair exceeds the 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-63

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

disruption due to the feature, no repairs are made unless the 

features are inconsistent with State regulations pertaining to 

subsidence control..."

140 Q

Topography -

Subsidence

The EA is also deficiently silent on the potential impacts of 

slope failure on surface lands above the mine...Rock-toppling 

and other impacts from critical slope failure risks are 

unaccounted for as impacts on properties like the mine.

As noted Table 1.6-1 of the EA, topography and physiography 

are discussed in Sections 3.1, 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 of the BLM Coal 

Lease EA. The BLM Coal Lease EA discusses slope failure and 

rock toppling as potential effects of subsidence. The BLM Coal 

Lease EA is incorporated by reference into the EA and impacts 

to topography and physiography are not further analyzed.

141 Q Reclamation

While in some sections the EA obliquely acknowledges that 

there are localized impacts from subsidence repair (2.1.4, 

page 13 - “[w]here disturbance necessary for repair exceeds 

the disruption due to the feature, no repairs are made...”), 

we would note that SPE’s inability to fix those subsidence 

impacts does not absolve them of their responsibility to 

address and correct those impacts. The fact that those 

impacts cannot be successfully remediated is a distinct 

problem and concern, not an excuse to ignore a problem 

because it cannot be mitigated without creating a larger 

one.

Subsidence and subsidence repairs are discussed in Section 

2.1.4. That discussion is consistent with the approved permit 

(SPE 2017a) and recent practices and such activities are 

consistent with MSUMRA. As discussed in the EA Section 2.1.4, 

"subsidence features resulting from mining have been reclaimed 

as necessary to eliminate hazards and restore the pre-mining 

land use. Where disturbance necessary for repair exceeds the 

disruption due to the feature, no repairs are made unless the 

features are inconsistent with State regulations pertaining to 

subsidence control..."

142 Q Reclamation

Subsidence on the face of Dunn Mountain on Panel 2 was 

not addressed with an attempt at hydroseeding until several 

years after the subsidence had occurred. We would also 

note that the reclamation in question still has not achieved 

much re-vegetation cover either.

As noted in Section 1.1, the Montana State Program is a 

Federally-approved coal regulatory program administered by

MDEQ. The MSUMRA Mine permit (SPE 2017a) is approved by 

MDEQ and includes detailed descriptions of reclamation 

practices (see Mine permit Section 313). Bond is held by MDEQ 

until reclamation is complete and postmining land uses are 

restored. Reclamation bond is discussed in Section 2.1.1 of the 

EA.

143 Q Reclamation

[The EA] states that “reclamation requirements and 

associated bonding would ensure that vegetation 

communities support the desired postmining land use at 

least to the extent capable before mining”...We have 

significant concerns about this assertion, as evidenced by the 

above-mentioned difficulties in establishing vegetation on 

the subsidence seen above Panel 2. Additionally, reclamation 

on the big crack at the end of Panel 4 does not exhibit a 

sufficient mix in the variety of vegetation growing, perhaps 

because the reclamation only used four types of forbs 

and/or because it did not involve topsoil. 

See response to Comment #142.

144 Q

Rail Impacts -

General

OSMRE must do more to codify [impacts of coal trains] and 

cannot rely on the Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) 

regulatory authority over rail issues to avoid taking a hard 

look at the impacts of existing and potential increased rail 

Impact analysis was not ignored but focused specifically on the 

appropriate regulatory agency's analysis thresholds as a basis for 

analysis. As outlined in Section 3.1, Surface Transportation 

Board (STB) has jurisdiction over railroad rate and service 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-64

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

traffic. While, as the EA acknowledges, STB regulations 

often preempt state and local laws and authority (1.4, page 

6), this does not mean that OSMRE can therefore ignore 

any of these impacts. Rather, the lack of available handles 

and authority to mitigate the impacts of coal transportation 

by rail are instead all the more reason to fully and accurately 

assess and weigh the scope and nature of those impacts and 

effects. This is similarly true for coal transportation impacts 

outside of the United States in receiving countries.

issues, authority to investigate rail service matters of regional 

and national significance, and rail restructuring transactions. 

STB’s Office of Environmental Analysis is responsible for 

directing the environmental review process, conducting 

independent analysis of all environmental data, and making 

environmental recommendations to the STB. STB's 

environmental rules are found at 49 CFR Part 1105. Given their 

jurisdiction on matters related to rail, STB thresholds for 

environmental analysis are adopted as basis for analysis of rail 

transport issues in this EA. 

145 Q

Rail Impacts -

General

More trains means more noise, a greater potential that 

emergency responders are delayed at at-grade crossings in 

reaching residents when there is a medical emergency (or a 

fire or the need for police), and a greater potential for 

vehicle collisions with trains and for pedestrian accidents. 

More trains mean an increase in the amount of airborne 

pollutants (particulate matter) from diesel engines as well as 

from coal dust, and an increased risk of derailments. 

OSMRE relies on STB conclusion that “the potential for adverse 

impacts to result from increased rail traffic on existing lines is 

usually limited to rail safety, air quality (including an increase of 

at least three trains per day in nonattainment areas), noise and 

vibration, grade-crossing delay and safety, and environmental 

justice” (STB 2015a, Chapter 17). STB’s threshold for 

environmental analysis of air and noise is an increase of eight 

trains per day or a 100 percent increase in rail traffic (49 CFR § 

1105.7). STB also applies this threshold when assessing the need 

to evaluate freight rail safety, grade-crossing safety and delay, 

and environmental justice (STB 2015a, Chapter 17).The percent 

change in rail traffic resulting from the Proposed Action relative

to the existing condition (2016), would be highest on the rail 

spur (potentially a 70 percent increase from 2.1 to 3.6 trains per 

day) but would not exceed STB’s thresholds for analysis of 

these issues.

For Comment pertaining to airborne pollutants (particulate 

matter), see response to Comment #63. 

For Comment related to derailments, see response to 

Comment #66 and #113.

146 Q

Rail Impacts -

General

The financial cost of increased train traffic to downrail 

communities also needs to be discussed...Taxpayer costs in 

overpasses, underpasses, quiet zones, and other issues 

should be included in OSMRE’s review.

See response to Comment #57.

Rail-related topics addressed in the EA were consistent with 

STB regulations and did not extend to taxpayer costs. Exact 

costs to taxpayers from rail improvement projects would be 

dependent on the funding type (state, private, or federal), 

location, and final design of the projects outlined in each state 

rail plan as discussed in the EA Section 3.1.3. Without this 

information any further analysis would be too speculative and 

not useful to the decision maker.

147 Q

Rail Impacts -

Air Quality, 

The review must also look at the health impacts of coal 

train traffic [and]...must thoroughly examine the health 

For Comment pertaining to diesel particulate matter, see 

response to Comment #63.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-65

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

Human Health impacts of diesel exhaust and coal dust resulting from coal 

train traffic. Commenters referenced several scientific 

studies that...establish the link between fugitive coal dust 

and human health impacts.

For Comment pertaining to coal dust, see response to 

Comment #112.

148 Q

Rail Impacts -

Safety

OSMRE’s review must look at the impacts of [coal train] 

derailments.

See response to Comments #66 and #113.

149 Q

Rail Impacts -

Coal Dust,

Public Safety

OMSRE must look more thoroughly at the impacts of 

fugitive coal dust on rail system safety [particularly the] 

increased risk of general derailments resulting from coal 

train traffic. Fugitive coal dust emissions contribute to 

ballast fouling on railroad tracks, and the National 

Transportation Safety Board has concluded that coal dust 

on railroad tracks has been a contributor to derailments.

See response to Comments #66 and #113.

150 Q

Rail Impacts -

General

The Washington Department of Ecology’s Final 

Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed coal 

export terminal in Longview, Washington, found that the 

port would have “unavoidable and significant adverse 

environmental impacts” for nine environmental resource 

areas, including rail transportation, rail safety, vehicle 

transportation, noise and vibration, and air quality- including 

increased cancer risk along the railroad tracks, blocked 

railroad crossings, train-related accidents, and more.

WDOE and Cowlitz County (2017) and STB (2015a) analyzed 

projects involving coal transport by rail at daily rates and a total 

duration greater than what would be undertaken by either the 

Proposed Action or No Action Alternative (1.8 loaded and 1.8 

empty trains per day). Specifically, WDOE and Cowlitz County 

(2017) analyzed potential impacts associated both the 

construction and operation of a coal export terminal including 

rail facilities, coal stockpile area, conveyors, transfer stations, 

buffer bins, vessel facilities, etc., with a maximum annual 

throughput capacity of up to 44 million metric tons of coal per 

year (compared to the current 150,000 metric tons currently). 

As part of the Proposed Action an average of 8 loaded trains 

and 8 empty coal trains per day (average of 16 trains daily; 480 

trains monthly) would operate on BNSF and UP rail lines inside 

and outside of Washington State as they travel to and from the 

project area. Not only is the Proposed Action analyzed as part 

of this EA different than that analyzed as part of WDOE and 

Cowliz County (2017), but the related rail traffic analyzed in this 

EA (1.8 loaded and 1.8 unloaded trans versus 8 loaded and 8 

empty trains per day) is appreciably less and also below 

previously identified STB thresholds for analysis (See Comment 

#145). 

151 Q

Rail Impacts -

General

The EA attempts to punt on assessing these [coal train] 

impacts (see, for instance, 3.10.2, page 40) because coal 

train traffic from SPE’s longwall mine already exists, and the 

expansion of the mine would be more notable for its 

continuation of train traffic over future years than for 

increasing the raw number of trains currently on the tracks. 

The EA discusses existing conditions related to rail traffic in 

Section 2.1.8 and for multiple resources in Chapter 3 and the 

appendices, including quantification of existing traffic rates and 

emissions. The EA properly analyzes the effects of both 

alternatives in Chapter 4 and Appendices, identifying the 

incremental changes associated with each action and cumulative 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-66

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

OSMRE’s finding here is problematic. Many of the health 

impacts associated with coal train traffic, for instance, are 

zero-sum in addition to cumulative. 

effects.

152 Q

Climate -

General

It is insufficient for OSMRE to punt on climate change 

impacts by noting that combustion activities are governed 

by receiving countries and international organizations (1.4, 

page 6) and are, therefore, not the responsibility of OSMRE. 

Comment noted. OSMRE adequately analyzed impacts on 

climate change in Section 3.3 and 4.3 and Appendix D of the EA 

by quantifying GHG emissions, comparing those emissions to 

regional, national, and global emissions, and discussing the past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable climate conditions and 

associated effects based on recent literature. OSMRE does not 

have jurisdiction or authority to require mitigation measures on 

combustion activities.

153 Q

Alternatives -

Purchase 

Carbon Offsets

OSMRE should therefore (and at a minimum) analyze an 

alternative that requires SPE to purchase carbon offsets in 

order to limit the direct, cumulative, and connected climate 

impacts of its mining operation.

As discussed in Section 4.3 and Appendix D of the EA, climate 

change impacts are expected to be minor under the Proposed 

Action in the short- and long-term on an annual basis.

The creation of carbon offset markets or opportunities for 

carbon offset projects is beyond the scope of the EA and is not 

currently an OSMRE policy. 

Cap and trade legislation—the premise for carbon credits--

should be developed at the National or State level. This policy 

development is not appropriate at the project level. 

SPE may join existing out-of-state carbon credit markets (such 

as California’s) voluntarily, but there is no compulsory 

requirement for the agencies to include it. 

The federal agencies are not involved in any financial investment 

decisions that SPE makes as a corporation. Since no cap has 

been established, there is no need to require purchase of 

carbon credits as mitigation measure for this leasing analysis. 

This is outside the scope of the project because we are not 

setting policy for coal production in the United States.

In Section 2.3, "Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study", a 

new section 2.3.5 has been added to address "Carbon Offsets", 

which reflects the text above.

154 Q

Reasonably 

Foreseeable 

Development

The EA misses several important Reasonably Forseeable 

Development scenarios that must be addressed under 

NEPA, including the following:

-There have been proposals discussed to significantly 

As noted in Section 4.0 of the EA, while exploration activities 

are ongoing, current information is inadequate to prepare a 

mine plan for coal resources other than that described in the 

EA. No other mining activities have proposed in the Mine 
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-67

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

expand the footprint of the existing longwall mine to the 

north (see appendices for a schematic map proposed by a 

different mine owner). 

-In addition to expanding the footprint of the additional 

mine, OSMRE must analyze the impacts of potential 

additional mining within the footprint of the current Life of 

Mine Area. In addition to the Mammoth seam, there are a 

handful of additional subsurface coal seams in the Bull 

Mountains.

-In addition to additional longwall mining, the EA must also 

look at the potential impacts of surface mining in the Bull 

Mountains. Some of the exploration that SPE has done in 

the Bull Mountains (4.0, page 46) has been to assess surface 

mining potential. There is copious additional evidence of 

potential surface mining intent as well.

vicinity; therefore, such mining is not imminent. Future mining 

other than that described in the EA is too speculative to be 

considered reasonably foreseeable.

155 Q EIS vs. EA

Given the degree of controversy, the presence of unknown 

risks (subsidence impacts, groundwater impacts), the 

precedent for future actions with potentially significant 

impacts (the mirror-image mine to the north, mining 

multiple seams, surface mining), the irretrievable loss of 

topographic diversity, and the potential for expanded 

impacts due to waste disposal areas, we believe that a 

thorough comprehensive review of this plan by preparation 

of a full environmental impact statement should be 

undertaken now to fully analyze this proposed expansion of 

Signal Peak Energy's mine in the Bull Mountains.

See response to Comment #100.

156 R Transportation

The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) staff 

would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide 

input regarding the Proposed Federal Mining Plan 

Modification for Bull Mountains Mine No. 1.

If the proposal will have direct impact on MDT facilities or 

encroach into MDT right-of-way, please contact the District 

office regarding permitting. Without prior approval, the 

developer may be required to remove/repair all 

improvements or impacts at their own expense.

Please contact Tom Tilzey, Billings District Maintenance 

Chief at (406)657-0217 to discuss any necessary permits.

If you have any questions concerning this email, please feel 

free to contact me.

The Proposed Action would not have a direct impact on MDT 

facilities or encroach into MDT right-of-way.
Appendix I – Public Comment Response

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA I-68

Comment 

No. 

Submission 

ID(s) Category Comment Response

157 S Socioeconomic

If we lose the largest contributor to Musselshell County’s 

tax base, we will not be able to create the foundation we 

need to bring us into the future. Signal Peak Mine (SPM) 

pays 36.3% of our personal property taxes. The community 

voted for a 20 year bond to build a new grade school. If you 

add the loss of our largest tax contributor on top of the 

federal and state budget cuts, our community will not have 

any money to match grants for infrastructure and economic 

development opportunities. 

I believe that the lives of people who live in communities 

that have been historically dependent of fossil fuels matter 

just as much as the environment. We already know what 

can happen to these communities when they are not given 

the chance to change their future. I do not want to see that 

happen in my hometown.

OSMRE includes a socioeconomic discussion in Sections 3.11 

and 4.11.
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-1

APPENDIX J – ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND

REFERENCES

1.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations

μg microgram 

μg/g microgram per gram

μg/m3 microgram per cubic meter

AADT annual average daily traffic

AHR annual hydrology report

AQO Ambient Air Quality Objective

ARM Administrative Rules of Montana

As arsenic

ASLM Assistant Secretary, Land and Mineral Management 

(DOI)

BCME British Columbia Ministry of Environment

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

bhp-hr break horsepower-hour

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BNSF BNSF Railway

Btu British thermal unit

Btu/gal diesel British thermal units per gallon of diesel

Btu/hp-hr British thermal units per horsepower-hour

Btu/lb British Thermal units/lb

C celsius

CAA Clean Air Act

CAAQS Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standard

CARB California Air Resources Board

CCS Center for Climate Strategies

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 methane

CHIA cumulative hydrologic impacts

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

C-PM condensable particulate matter

CPW coal processing waste

CWA Clean Water Act

dBA adjusted decibels, a logarithmic unit of sound levels

DM Departmental Manual

DOI US Department of the Interior

DPM diesel particulate matter
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-2

dwt dry weight tonnage

EA Environmental Assessment

EC electrical conductivity

ECA Emissions Control Area

EEDI Energy Efficiency Design Index

EF pollutant emission factor

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FCLAA Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendment (1976)

FGD Flue gas desulfurization

FOB free on board

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Authority

g grams

g/bhp-hr grams per brake horsepower-hour

g/g-mol grams per gram-mole

g/kWh Gram per kilowatt-hour

g/lb grams per pound

gal gallon

GHG Greenhouse gas

g-mol gram-mole

GWP global warming potential

HAP hazardous air pollutant

HC hydrocarbon

Hg mercury

hp horsepower

hp-hr horsepower-hour

hp-hr/gal horsepower-hour per gallon

IEA International Energy Agency

IMO International Maritime Organization

INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ITD Idaho Transportation Department

IWG Federal Interagency Working Group

JANRE Japan's Agency for Natural Resources and Energy

JMOE Japan Ministry of the Environment

kg kilogram

kW kilowatt

kWh kilowatt-hours

lb pound

lb/lb-mol pound per pound-mole

lb/ton pound per ton
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-3

LBA lease by application

lbs/mile pounds per mile

Ldn day-night noise level

LLC Limited Liability Company

LOM life of mine

LOS level of service

LSE London School of Economics and Political Science

MAAQS Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards

MAQP Montana Air Quality Permit

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution

from Ships (Maritime Pollution)

MATS Mercury and Air Toxic Standards

MBEWG Montana Bald Eagle Working Group

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended

MCA Montana Code Annotated

MDA Montana Department of Agriculture

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality

MDSL Montana Department of State Lands

MDT Montana Department of Transportation

MEIT Canada’s Marine Emissions Inventory Tool

mg/m2/day milligrams per square meter per day

mi mile

MLA Mineral Leasing Act (1920)

MMBtu million British thermal units

MPDD Mining Plan Decision Document

MPDES Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

MSUMRA Montana Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act

Mt million tons

Mt-CO2e million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions

Mtpy million tons per year

N2O nitrous oxide

NAAQO National Ambient Air Quality Objective

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (1969)

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOx nitrogen oxides

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSMRE Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

PAP permit application package

Pb lead

PC pulverized coal
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-4

PHC probable hydrologic consequences

PM particulate matter

PM10 particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters less than 

or equal to 10 microns

PM2.5 particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters less than 

or equal to 2.5 microns

PMM Principal Meridian, Montana

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

PRB Powder River Basin

PSD-NSR Prevention of Significant Deterioration New Source 

Review

QA/QC Quality Assurance/ Quality Control

R2P2 Resource Recovery and Protection Plan

RFD Reasonably Foreseeable Development

ROK Republic of Korea

SCC Social Cost of Carbon

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SMCR Specified Maximum Continuous Rated

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977)

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOC Species of Concern

SPE Signal Peak Energy, LLC

STB Surface Transportation Board

TDS total dissolved solids

tonnes metric tons

tons US short tons

TRCC Tongue River Railroad Company

TX tier level

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USDOT US Department of Transportation

USEIA U.S. Energy Information Administration

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGCRP US Global Change Research Program

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOC volatile organic compound

WDA waste disposal area

WDOE Washington Department of Ecology

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation

wt % Weight percentage of pollutant
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-5

2.0 References

Aaberg, S.A. and Crofutt, C. 2014. Signal Peak Energy 2013 West Exploration Area Class III 

Cultural Resources Inventory, Musselshell County, Montana. Aaberg Cultural Resources 

Consulting Service. November.

Anderson, C. 2018. Personal Communication between DEQ Enforcement Section Leader and 

Karen Lyncoln, Catena Consulting, LLC. January 31, 2018. 

Anthoff, D. and Tol, R.S.J. 2013. “The uncertainty about the social cost of carbon: a 

decomposition analysis using FUND.” Climatic Change, 117: 515-530.

Arave, N. 2018. Personal Communication. BLM Solid Minerals Branch Chief - Acting. Email to 

Karen Lyncoln, Catena Consulting, LLC. January 31, 2018.

Arrow, K., M. Cropper, C. Gollier, B. Groom, G. Heal, R. Newell, W. Nordhaus, R. Pindyck, 

W. Pizer, P. Portney, T. Sterner, R.S.J. Tol, and M. Weitzman. 2013. “Determining 

Benefits and Costs for Future Generations.” Science, 341: 349-350.

BNSF Railway Company (BNSF). No Date (n.d.). Rail Network Maps. Weight Restriction Maps, 

4 Axel Cars, over 45 ft in length. Available at: http://www.bnsf.org/ship-with-bnsf/mapsand-shipping-locations/rail-network-maps.html Accessed: November 17, 2017.

_____. 2013. Coal Map, BNSF Railway. Geonova Publishing, Inc. August.

_____. 2015a. BNSF PRICE LIST 6041-B. Issued June 19, 2015. 

_____. 2015b. Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Report. Page 20. Available at: 

http://www.bnsf.com/in-the-community/pdf/corporate-responsibility-report-2015.pdf. 

Accessed: November 29, 2017.

_____. 2017a. Letter from Dava Kaitala (General Director, Construction Permitting) to 

Elizabeth Shaeffer, Manager, Field Operations Branch, OSMRE), with attachments. 

November 20, 2017. Email transmittal. [provided as response to OSMRE's October 20, 

2017 letter to Jason Plett, BNSF RE: Preparation of an Environmental Assessment for a 

Proposed Federal Mining Plan Modification for Bull Mountains Mine No. 1].

_____. 2017b. BNSF Railway Company, Rules and Other Governing Provisions, Item 100, Coal 

Dust Mitigation Requirements. BNSF 6041-B, Pages 4, 19, and Appendix B. August 17, 

2017

British Columbia. 2018. Web page: British Columbia's Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax. Modified 

January 19, 2018. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climatechange/planning-and-action/carbon-tax. Accessed on: February 13, 2018.
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-6

British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BCME). 2016. British Columbia Ambient Air Quality 

Objectives. B.C. Ministry of Environment. Available at: 

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/air/reportspub/aqotable.pdf Accessed on: February 15, 2018.

Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), The Birds of North America Online 

(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North 

America. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/506.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2011. Environmental Assessment, Bull Mountains Mine No. 

1, Federal Coal Lease MTM 97988, Musselshell County, Montana. DOI-BLM-MT-C010-

2009-0010-EA. April 2011.

BLM. 2018. Regulatory Impact Analysis Proposed Waste Prevention Rule. BLM-2018-0001-

0002. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=BLM-2018-0001-0002. 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2006. Fact Sheet: Statewide Strategies to reduce 

Locomotive and Associated Rail Yard Emissions. California Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Resources Board. December 2006. Available at: 

https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/loco/121406ryloco_strtgy.pdf Accessed on: 

December 21, 2017.

Canada. 2017. Web page: Canada's Clean Fuel Standard: how it will work. December 2017. 

Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climatechange/news/2017/12/canada_s_clean_fuelstandardhowitwillwork.html Accessed on: 

February 13, 2018.

Catena Consulting, LLC and Nicklin Earth and Water, Inc. (Catena and Nicklin). 2012. 2011 

Annual Hydrology Report, Bull Mountains Mine No. 1, Signal Peak Energy, LLC. SMP 

C1993-017. Roundup, Montana. March 31, 2012.

_____. 2013a. 2012 Annual Hydrology Report, Bull Mountains Mine No. 1, Signal Peak Energy, 

LLC. SMP C1993-017. Roundup, Montana. Revision 1. July 11, 2013.

_____. 2013b. Annual Hydrology Report, October 2012-September 2013. Signal Peak Energy, 

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1, Permit ID: C1993017. December 30, 2013.

_____. 2014. Annual Hydrology Report, October 2013-September 2014. Signal Peak Energy, 

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1, Permit ID: C1993017. December 30, 2014.

_____. 2015. Annual Hydrology Report, October 2014-September 2015. Signal Peak Energy, 

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1, Permit ID: C1993017. December 30, 2015.
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-7

_____. 2017. Annual Hydrology Report, October 2015-September 2016. Signal Peak Energy, 

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1, Permit ID: C1993017. January 27, 2017.

Catena Consulting, LLC and Water and Environmental Technologies (Catena and WET). 2018. 

Annual Hydrology Report, October 2016-September 2017. Signal Peak Energy, Bull 

Mountains Mine No. 1, Permit ID: C1993017. January 26, 2018.

Catena Consulting, LLC (Catena). 2011a. 2010 Study Year Hydrophytic Vegetation Monitoring 

Report. Bull Mountains Mine No. 1. March 21, 2011. Rev. 0. 

_____. 2011b. 2010 Study Year Wildlife Monitoring Report. Bull Mountains Mine No. 1. March 

21, 2011. Rev. 0. 

_____. 2012a. 2011 Study Year Hydrophytic Vegetation Monitoring Report. Bull Mountains 

Mine No. 1. March 26, 2012. Rev. 0. 

_____. 2012b. 2011 Study Year Wildlife Monitoring Report. Bull Mountains Mine No. 1. March 

26, 2012. Rev. 0. 

_____. 2013a. 2012 Study Year Hydrophytic Vegetation Monitoring Report. Bull Mountains 

Mine No. 1. March 26, 2013. Rev. 0. 

_____. 2013b. 2012 Study Year Wildlife Monitoring Report. Bull Mountains Mine No. 1. March 

26, 2013. Rev. 0. 

_____. 2014a. 2013 Study Year Hydrophytic Vegetation Monitoring Report. Bull Mountains 

Mine No. 1. March 24, 2014. Rev. 0. 

_____. 2014b. 2013 Study Year Wildlife Monitoring Report. Bull Mountains Mine No. 1. March 

25, 2014. Rev. 0. 

_____. 2015a. 2014 Study Year Hydrophytic Vegetation Monitoring Report. Bull Mountains 

Mine No. 1. March 30, 2015. Rev. 0. 

_____. 2015b. 2014 Study Year Wildlife Monitoring Report. Bull Mountains Mine No. 1. March 

30, 2015. Rev. 0. 

_____. 2016a. 2015 Study Year Hydrophytic Vegetation Monitoring Report. Bull Mountains 

Mine No. 1. March 28, 2016. Rev. 0. 

_____. 2016b. 2015 Study Year Wildlife Monitoring Report. Bull Mountains Mine No. 1. March 

28, 2016. Rev. 0. 

_____. 2017a. 2016 Study Year Hydrophytic Vegetation Monitoring Report. Bull Mountains 

Mine No. 1. March 29, 2017. Rev. 0. 
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-8

_____. 2017b. 2016 Study Year Wildlife Monitoring Report. Bull Mountains Mine No. 1. March 

30, 2017. Rev. 0. 

_____. 2018. Preliminary Wildlife Monitoring Findings: 2017 Raptor Nest and Sharp-tailed 

Grouse Lek Surveys. Bull Mountains Mine No. 1. January 30, 2018.

Center for Climate Strategies (CCS). 2007. Montana Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference 

Case Projects 1990-2020. Available at: 

http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Energy/ClimateChange/Documents/GreenhouseGasInvent

ory.pdf Accessed on: February 4, 2018.

Coe. 2018. Personal Communication between Stephen Coe, MDEQ Professional Engineer, and 

Kevin Mathews, Bison Engineering Engineer, on April 19, 2018.

Connell Hatch. 2008. Final Report Environmental Evaluation of Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions 

from Coal Trains Goonyella, Blackwater and Moura Coal Rail Systems. Queensland Rail 

Limited. March 31. Queensland, Australia. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. "Environmental Justice: Guidance under the 

Environmental Policy Act", the President's Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ).

Montana Department of Commerce (DOC). 2018. Montana Department of Commerce 

Projects, Grants and Loans Workbook. Available at: 

https://dataportal.mt.gov/t/DOASITSDDataPortalPub/views/DOCGrants/DOCGrantsDa

shboard?%3Aembed=y&%3AshowAppBanner=false&%3AshowShareOptions=true&%3A

display_count=no&%3AshowVizHome=no Accessed on: January 2, 2018.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1985. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

AP-42 Appendix A, Miscellaneous Data and Conversion Factors. Available at: 

https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/appendix/appa.pdf

_____. 1993. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 1.1 Bituminous and 

Subbituminous Coal Combustion. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. April 1993. Table 4-1, Background Document Check.

_____. 1995. AP 42, Fifth Edition Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: 

Stationary Point and Area Sources. Appendix A: Miscellaneous Data and Conversation 

Factors. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-

compilation-air-emission-factors Accessed on: March 8, 2018.

_____. 1998. Publication AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth Edition, 

Volume I, Chapter 1.1, Bituminous and Subbituminous Coal Combustion. EPA, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. September 1998.
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-9

_____. 2001. Air Emissions Inventory Improvement Program. Volume II, Chapter 14. 

Uncontrolled Emission Factor Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants. July 2001. Available at: 

https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-emissions-inventory-improvementprogram-eiip Accessed on: December 28, 2017.

_____. 2003. Diesel engine exhaust; CASN N.A. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Chemical Assessment Summary. 

Last updated 2003. Available at:; 

https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0642_summary.pdf

Accessed on: February 2, 2018.

_____. 2009. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Highlights: Emission 

Factors for Locomotives. EPA-420-F-09-025. April 2009.

_____. 2016a. Climate Change Indicators In the United States. 2016. Fourth Edition. Available 

at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-

08/documents/climate_indicators_2016.pdf Accessed on: February 4, 2018.

_____. 2016b. Web report: Our Nation's Air | Status and Trends Through 2016. Available at: 

https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2017/#home

_____. 2017a. Webpage: Particulate Matter (PM) Basics. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/pmpollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#PM Accessed on: November 7, 2017.

_____. 2017b. Webpage: Health Effects of Exposure to Mercury. Last updated March 30, 2017. 

Available at: https://www.epa.gov/mercury/health-effects-exposures-mercury Accessed 

on: January 2, 2018.

_____. 2017c. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015 (published 

2017), developed by the US Government to meet US commitments under the United 

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Available at: 

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks1990-2015 Accessed on: February 8, 2018. 

_____. 2017d. Environmental Justice, US Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: 

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice Accessed on: January 26, 2018.

_____. 2017e. Webpage: EPA's Report on the Environment (ROE) | Mercury Emissions. Last 

updated July 28, 2017. Available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator.cfm?i=14

Accessed on: January 2, 2018.

_____. 2017f. Webpage: International Cooperation | Mercury Emissions: The Global Context. 

Last updated June 12, 2017. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/internationalcooperation/mercury-emissions-global-context Accessed on: January 2, 2018.
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-10

_____. 2017g. Webpage: Mercury and Air Toxics Standards | Cleaner Power Plants. Last 

updated May 5, 2017. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/mats/cleaner-power-plants

Accessed on: January 2, 2018.

_____. 2018a. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions

Accessed on: February 4, 2018.

_____. 2018b. Webpage: Outdoor Air Quality Data, Monitor Values Report. Available at: 

https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report Accessed on: 

February 16, 2018.

_____. 2018c. Webpage: EPA, Air Quality Design Values. 2016 Design Value Reports available 

for download. Modified February 2018. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/airquality-design-values#report Accessed on: April 19, 2018.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 1999. Procedures for Considering Environmental 

Impacts. Department of Transportation. Fed. Reg. Vol. 64. No. 101. Page 28545-28556.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 

FRA-VA-90-1003-06. Washington, DC.

Ferguson, D. 2010. A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of Signal Peak Energy's Bull 

Mountains Mine No. 1, Panel 1 Subsidence Study Area, Musselshell County, Montana, 

GCM Services, Inc., February.

Gillingham, K. et al. Reforming the US Coal Leasing. Science December 2016. Available at: 

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1096. Accessed: July 24, 2018.

Hagstrom, B. 2018. Personal communication between Bonadee Hagstrom, Deputry Clerk and 

Recorder, Musselshell County and Karen Lyncoln, Catena Consulting on January 24, 

2018. 

Highway Capacity Manual in San Mateo County. 2005. Congestion Management Program, Traffic 

Level of Service Calculation Methods, San Mateo County. Available at: 

http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/cmp_2005_Appendix_B.pdf Accessed 

On: January 23, 2018.

_____. 2013. Congestion Management Program, Chapter 3, Level of Service, San Mateo 

County. Accessed at: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2013-CMP_FinalNov13.pdf Accessed On: January 23, 2018.

Hollaran, M. J., R. C. Kaiser, and W. A. Hubert. 2010. Yearling greater sage-grouse response to 

energy development in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:65-72.
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-11

Hope, Chris. 2013. “Critical issues for the calculation of the social cost of CO2: why the 

estimates from PAGE09 are higher than those from PAGE2002.” Climatic Change, 117: 

531-543.

Hughes. 2016. MARPOL Annex VI - an update of international regulatory developments for 

prevention of air pollution and the energy efficiency of ships. Presented at the July 29, 

2016 Global Shippers' Forum AGM, Colombo, Sri Lanka by Dr. E. Hughes. Available at: 

https://globalshippersforum.com/media/1252/edmund-hughes-imo-29-july-2016_final.pdf

Accessed on: December 19, 2017.

Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). 2013. Idaho Statewide Rail Plan. Available at: 

http://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/freight/Idaho%20Statewide%20Rail%20PlanOCRreduced.pdf Accessed: October 12, 2017.

IML Air Science (IML). 2012. Signal Peak Energy, LLC Bull Mountain Mine, Ambient Air 

Monitoring Network, 4th Quarter Report 2012. 

_____. 2013. Signal Peak Energy, LLC Bull Mountain Mine, Ambient Air Monitoring Network, 

4

th Quarter Report 2013. 

_____. 2014. Signal Peak Energy, LLC Bull Mountain Mine, Ambient Air Monitoring Network, 

4

th Quarter Report 2014. 

_____. 2015. Signal Peak Energy, LLC Bull Mountain Mine, Ambient Air Monitoring Network, 

4

th Quarter and Annual Report 2015. 

_____. 2016. Signal Peak Energy, LLC Bull Mountain Mine, Ambient Air Monitoring Network, 

4

th Quarter Report 2016.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: 

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. EXIT Contribution of Working Group 

I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. 

Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 

NY, USA. Cited in EPA 2018.

_____. 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II 

and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, 

Switzerland, 151 pp. Available at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

Accessed on: February 4, 2018.
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-12

International Energy Agency (IEA). 2016. Energy and Air Pollution | World Energy Outlook 

Special Report. 2016. Available at: 

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WorldEnergyOutlookSpeci

alReport2016EnergyandAirPollution.pdf Accessed on: January 4, 2018.

International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2011. Annex 19. Resolution MEPC.203(62). 

Adopted July 15, 2011. Available at: 

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Docum

ents/Technical%20and%20Operational%20Measures/Resolution%20MEPC.203(62).pdf

Accessed on: February 13, 2018.

_____. 2017. Webpage: International Maritime Organization | Brief History of IMO. Copyright 

2017. Available at: http://www.imo.org/en/About/HistoryOfIMO/Pages/Default.aspx

Accessed on: December 18, 2017.

Japan. 2015. Submission of Japan's Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). 

Submitted July 17, 2015 to the United Nations Conference of Parties under the UN 

Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: 

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx

Accessed on: January 3, 2018.

Japan Agency for Natural Resources and Energy (JANRE). 2014. Strategic Energy Plan. Available 

at: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2014/0411_02.html Accessed on: January 3, 

2018.

Japan Ministry of the Environment (JMOE). 2014. Environmental Quality Standards in Japan - Air 

Quality. September 25, 2014. Available at: https://www.env.go.jp/en/air/aq/aq.html

Accessed on: December 28, 2017.

Kenner, C. 2018. Personal communication between Candy Kenner, Musselshell County Road 

Department Secretary, and Karen Lyncoln, Catena Consulting, on January 23, 2018.

Krupnick, A. et al. Putting a Carbon Charge on Federal Coal: Legal and Economic Issues.

Resources for the Future July 2016. Available at: 

http://www.rff.org/research/publications/putting-carbon-charge-federal-coal-legal-andeconomic-issues. Accessed: July 24, 2018.

London School of Economics (LSE). 2018. Webpage: The London School of Economics and 

Political Science, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. 

Framework Act on Low Carbon Green Growth, regulated by Enforcement Decree of 

the Framework Act on Low Carbon Green Growth. Copyright SLE 2018. Available at: 

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/law/framework-act-on-low-carbon-greengrowth-regulated-by-enforcement-decree-of-the-framework-act-on-low-carbon-greengrowth/ Accessed on: January 12, 2018.
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-13

Man. 2014. Propulsion Trends in Bulk Carriers - Two-stroke Engines. MAN Diesel & Turbo. 

Copyright March 2014.

MarineTraffic. 2017. Voyage Planner - Distance calculator. Available at: www.marinetraffice.com

Accessed on: December 8, 2017.

Martinson, R. 2010. Signal Peak Energy: A Class Ill Cultural Resource Inventory of An Intake Air 

Portal and Access Road in Yellowstone County, Montana. Renea Martinson, 

Ethnoscience, Inc., August.

Merriam-Webster. 2014. Online Dictionary Available at: 

http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/climate Accessed on: September 16, 2014.

Metro Vancouver. 2015. 2014 Lower Fraser Valley Air Quality Monitoring Report. Prepared by 

the Air Quality and Climate Change Division of Metro Vancouver. November 2015. 

Available at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/airquality/AirQualityPublications/2014_LFV_AQ_Monitoring_Report.pdf

Metro Vancouver. 2016. Metro Vancouver's Ambient Air Quality Objectives. Metro Vancouver. 

Updated June 2016. Available at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/airquality/AirQualityPublications/CurrentAmbientAirQualityObjectives.pdf Accessed on: 

February 15, 2018.

Meyer, G. 2012a. A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of Signal Peak Energy's Bull 

Mountains Mine No. 1, Panels 2 to 6 Subsidence Study Area, Musselshell and 

Yellowstone Counties, Montana. GCM Services, Inc. January.

_____. 2012b. A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of Signal Peak Energy's Bull Mountains 

Mine No. 1, 2012 Study Area, Musselshell and Yellowstone Counties, Montana. GCM 

Services, Inc. May.

_____.. 2014. A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Signal Peak Energy's 2014 Study Area 

(Panels 6-9), Musselshell and Yellowstone Counties, Montana. GCM Services, Inc. 

November.

Missoula County. n.d. Webpage: Missoula Public Health City-County Department | 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas. Available at: 

https://www.missoulacounty.us/government/health-department/air-quality/air-pollutioncontrol-areas/missoula-nonattainment-and-maintenance-areas Accessed on: December 

15, 2017.

Missoula. 2011. Missoula Metropolitan Planning Organization report regarding Montana Rail 

Link Idling Emissions Reduction Project results. Available at: 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-14

8&ved=0ahUKEwidnuHwtZvYAhUH_IMKHXWuA20QFgguMAE&url=ftp%3A%2F%2Fft

p.ci.missoula.mt.us%2FDEV%2520ftp%2520files%2FTransportation%2FTPCCAttach%2F2

011%2FDecember%2F20111031_Msla_MRL_nat-final-p1-

rev1x.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2rZU9GveOLRbZ3AFAR2wqP Accessed on: December 21, 

2017. 

Montana Bald Eagle Working Group (MBEWG). 2010. Montana Bald Eagle Management 

Guidelines: An Addendum to Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan, 1994, Montana Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana. Available at: 

http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=44181 Accessed on: December 19, 2017.

Montana Department of Agriculture (MDA). 2017. Montana Noxious Weed List. Available at: 

http://agr.mt.gov/Portals/168/Documents/Weeds/2017%20Noxious%20Weed%20List.pdf

Accessed on: February 16, 2018.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2016a. Bull Mountains Mine No 1. 

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment, Amendment 3. July 8, 2016.

_____. 2016b. MDEQ Bull Mountain Mine No.1 Montana Air Quality Permit 3179-12. Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality, Permitting and Compliance Division, Helena, 

Montana. January 6, 2016.

_____. 2017a. Department Letter: Request to discontinue Ambient Air Monitoring. Proulx, J.P. 

to Weber, D.R. February 3, 2017. 

_____. 2017b. Bull Mountains Mine No 1. Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment, Major 

Revisions TR3. September 1, 2017.

Montana Department of Labor and Industry (MTDLI). 2017a. MTDLI Research & Analysis Local 

Area Unemployment Statistics. Available at: http://dli.mt.gov Accessed on: November 1, 

2017.

Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). 2010. Montana State Rail Plan. Available at: 

https://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/railways/railplan.pdf Accessed: 

October 19, 2017.

_____. 2016. Road Design Manual, Montana Department of Transportation, Appendix E, Level 

of Service Criteria, September. Accessed on: line at 

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/cadd/RDM/20-RDM-AppendixE-LOSCriteria.pdf on January 23, 2018.

_____. 2017. Montana Rail System. August 2017. Available at: 

https://mdt.mt.gov/travinfo/docs/railmap.pdf Accessed on: February 16, 2018.
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-15

_____. 2018. Statewide Traffic Count Site Map. Traffic Count Sites: 33-3-005, 33-3-006, and 

33-3-023. Available at: https://mdt.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html Accessed 

on: January 5, 2018.

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MFWP). 2000. Sage-grouse Historic Distribution. Map of 

historic greater sage-grouse distribution in Montana. Available at: 

http://gis.fwp.mt.gov/arcgis101/rest/directories/arcgisoutput/webResources/metadata/wil

d/distributionSageGrouseHistoric.htm

_____. 2015. Sage-grouse habitat, current distribution in Montana. Montana Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks, January 2015. Available at: 

http://gis.fwp.mt.gov/arcgis101/rest/directories/arcgisoutput/webResources/metadata/wil

d/distributionSageGrouse.htm

_____. 2017. Greater Sage-Grouse Lek Distribution in the Vicinity of Bull Mountains Mine No.

1. Email from Coreen Robson (MTFWP) to Pete Feigley (Catena). December 19, 2017.

Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP). 2013. Element occurrence records for Montana 

species of concern. Data provided by Montana Natural Heritage Program, P.O. Box 

201800, 1515 East Sixth Ave., Helena, MT 59620-1800. August 2013.

_____. 2016. Animal Species of Concern. Last updated May 3, 2016. Available at: 

http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern/output/NHP_Animal_SOC.pdf Accessed on: 

January 29, 2018

Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MTNHP & MTFWP). 

2018. Montana Field Guide: Northern Myotis-Myotis Septentrionalis. Available at: 

http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AMACC01150 Accessed on: January 

27, 2018.

Montana Office of the Governor. 2014. Executive Order 10-2014. Creating the Montana Sage 

Grouse Oversight Team and the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program. 

Available at: 

http://governor.mt.gov/Portals/16/docs/2014EOs/EO_10_2014_SageGrouse.pdf

Montana Office of the Governor. 2015. Executive Order 12-2015 - Amending and Providing for 

Implementation of the Montana Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy. Available at: 

http://governor.mt.gov/Portals/16/docs/2015EOs/EO_12_2015_Sage_Grouse.pdf

Montana Department of Labor and Industry (MTDLI). 2017b. MTDLI Research & Analysis 

Current Employment Statistics. Available at: http://dli.mt.gov. Accessed on: November 1, 

2017
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-16

Musselshell County Commissioners. 2017. Scoping Letter in Support of Signal Peak Mine 

between the Musselshell County Commissioners and OSMRE. October 30, 2017

Musselshell County. 2018. Musselshell County Noxious Weed List. Available at: 

https://musselshellcounty.org/services/weeds/ Accessed on: February 16, 2018

Nelson. 2018. Personal communication between Rod Nelson, MDT District 5 Engineer, and 

Karen Lyncoln, Catena Consulting, on January 23, 2018.

Nordhaus, William D. 2017. “Revisiting the social cost of carbon.” Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States, 114 (7): 1518-1523.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2013. OSHA Technical Manual (OTM), 

Section III, Chapter 5, Noise. Updated August 15, 2013. Available at: 

https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/ Accessed on: 8 March, 2018.

Ochsner, R. 2014. Personal Communication. Signal Peak Energy, LLC Engineer. Email to Karen 

Lyncoln, Catena Consulting, LLC. September11, 2014. 

Olson, S. 2017. Personal letter from Sue Olson, representative of the Signal Peak Community 

Foundation, sent November 20, 2017.

Olszewski, G. 2017. Personal communication. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Environmental 

Specialist e-mail to Kevin Mathews, Bison Engineering. December 19, 2017.

Pindyck, Robert. 2013. “Climate change policy: What do the models tell us?” Journal of 

Economic Literature, 51(3), 860-872.

Republic of Korea (ROK). 2008. Republic of Korea. Framework Act on Environmental Policy. 

Republic of Korea Ministry of Government Legislation. Last amended March 28, 2008. 

Available at: http://www.moleg.go.kr/english/korLawEng?pstSeq=47525 Accessed on: 

December 21, 2017.

_____.. 2011. Clean Air Conservation Act. Republic of Korea Ministry of Government 

Legislation. Last amended April 28, 2011. Available at: 

http://www.moleg.go.kr/english/korLawEng?pstSeq=57723&rctPstCnt=3&searchConditio

n=AllButCsfCd&searchKeyword=air Accessed on: December 21, 2017.

_____. 2015. Submission by the Republic of Korea-Intended Nationally Determined 

Contribution. Submitted June 30, 2015 to the United Nations Conference of Parties 

under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: 

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx

Accessed on: December 21, 2017.
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-17

Rose, S. 2014. Understanding the Social Cost of Carbon: A Technical Assessment. Electric 

Power Research Institute. December 8, 2014

Schmidt. 2018. Personal communication. Missoula City-County Health Department. Air Quality 

Specialist e-mail to Jeff Chaffee, Bison Engineering. January 23, 2018.

Slagle, S.E. and et al. 1986. Hydrology of Area 48. Northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountain 

Coal Provinces. Montana and Wyoming. US Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Open-File Report 84-141.

Signal Peak Energy, LLC. 2014a. Application for Modification to Air Quality Permit #3179-08; 

Expand Stockpile lA. Transmittal letter and summary emission sheets. July 17, 2014.

_____. 2014b. Yellowstone County Weed District Weed Management Plan. March 14, 2014.

_____. 2014c. Musselshell County Weed District Weed Management Plan. March 14, 2014.

_____. 2017a. Bull Mountains Mine No. 1. Permit No. C1993017. Last updated September 9, 

2017. Available from: 

Montana DEQ Coal Program, 1218 East 6th Av, Helena, MT 59601, 

Phone: (406) 444-4970 

OR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1999 Broadway, 

Suite 3320, Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 293-5000. 

_____. 2017b. October 12, 2017 electronic data transmittal from SPE to OSMRE in response 

to OSMRE Data Request #1 (September 29, 2017 request for various data to support 

NEPA analysis).

_____. 2017c. November 30, 2017 electronic data transmittal from SPE to OSMRE in response 

to OSMRE Data Request #2 (November 15, 2017 request for socioeconomic data). 

_____. 2018a. January 5, 2018 electronic data transmittal from SPE to OSMRE in response to 

OSMRE Data Request #3 (December 12, 2017 request for responses to numerous 

questions to support preparation of the Mining Plan Modification EA). 

_____. 2018b. January 30, 2018 electronic data transmittal from SPE to OSMRE in response to 

OSMRE Data Request #4 (January 29, 2018 request for RFD/Panel 15 data to support 

NEPA analysis).

_____. 2018c. April 17, 2018 letter from Dusty Weber, SPE, to Chris Yde, MDEQ, Subject: 

Notification of Flow Resumption at Bull Spring (17415). Permit C1993017.

Surface Transportation Board (STB). 2011. Decision - Finance Docket No. 35305: Arkansas 

Electric Cooperative Corporation - Petition for Declaratory Order. March 3, 2011. 
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-18

Available at: 

https://www.stb.gov/Decisions/readingroom.nsf/WEBUNID/79B5382AE20F79308525784

80053111F?OpenDocument/ Accessed on: November 7, 2017. 

_____.2015a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Tongue River Railroad Company (TRRC) 

Construction and Operation of a New Rail Line in Southeast Montana. Docket No. 

30186. Available at: 

https://www.stb.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/fc695db5bc7ebe2c852572b80040c45f/e7

de39d1f6fd4a9a85257e2a0049104d?OpenDocument Accessed: October 19, 2017.

_____. 2015b. Decision - Finance Docket No. 35557: Reasonableness of BNSF Railway 

Company Coal Dust Mitigation Tariff Provisions. May, 15 2015. Available at: 

https://www.stb.gov/Decisions/readingroom.nsf/WEBUNID/AE390A49EC15448885257E

450053A765?OpenDocument Accessed: November 7, 2017.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2016a. Republic of Korea Air Quality 

Policies. United Nations Environment Programme. Available at: 

http://web.unep.org/airquality/air-quality-policy-catalogue# Accessed on: December 28, 

2017. 

_____. 2016b. Japan Air Quality Policies. United Nations Environment Programme. Available at: 

http://web.unep.org/airquality/air-quality-policy-catalogue Accessed on: December 28, 

2017. 

_____. No Date. Japan Air Quality Policies. United Nations Environment Programme. Available 

at: http://web.unep.org/airquality/air-quality-policy-catalogue#J Accessed on: December 

28, 2017

_____. 2014. Mercury Emissions Capture Efficiency with Activated Carbon Injection at a 

Russian Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant. September 2014. Section 7.5 Findings and 

conclusions - Hg emission reduction. Pg. 21. Available at: 

https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=334370&keyword=carb

on+AND+capture&actType=&TIMSType=+&TIMSSubTypeID=&DEID=&epaNumber=&

ntisID=&archiveStatus=Both&ombCat=Any&dateBeginCreated=&dateEndCreated=&dat

eBeginPublishedPresented=&dateEndPublishedPresented=&dateBeginUpdated=&dateEnd

Updated=&dateBeginCompleted=&dateEndCompleted=&personID=&role=Any&journalI

D=&publisherID=&sortBy=revisionDate&count=50

United Nations Environment Program / Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme 

(UNEP/AMAP). 2015. Global Mercury Modelling: Update of Modelling Results in the 

Global Mercury Assessment 2013. Available at: 

http://wedocs.unep.org/discover?scope=%2F&query=mercury+modeling&submit

Accessed on: January 2, 2018.
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-19

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). 2018. UN Climate 

Change: The Paris Agreement. Available at: 

http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php Accessed on: March 2, 2018.

US Census Bureau. 2000a. Profile of Selected Demographic Characteristics. Available at: 

https://factfinder.census.gov/rest/dnldController/deliver?_ts=527515479294 Accessed 

on: October 31, 2017

_____. 2000b. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. Available at: 

https://factfinder.census.gov/rest/dnldController/deliver?_ts=527608559402 Accessed 

on: October 31, 2017.

_____. 2000c. Profile of Select Housing Characteristics2000. Available at: 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?fpt=table

Accessed on: October 31, 2017.

_____. 2010. Profile of Selected Population and Housing Characteristics, 2010. Available at: 

https://factfinder.census.gov/rest/dnldController/deliver?_ts=527515777284 Accessed 

on: October 31, 2017.

_____. 2015a. American Community Survey, Selected Demographic Characteristics, 2015 5-

year averages. Available at: 

https://factfinder.census.gov/rest/dnldController/deliver?_ts=527686047339 Accessed 

on: October 31, 2017.

_____. 2015b. 2015 American Community Survey Selected Economic Characteristics, Table 

DP03. Available at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15

_5YR_DP03&src=pt Accessed on: October 31, 2017.

_____. 2015c. 2015 American Community Survey, Selected Housing Characteristics, 2015 5 

year averages. Available at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15

_5YR_DP04&src=pt Accessed on: October 31, 2017.

_____. 2015d. 2015 American Community Survey, Race Characteristics in selected Musselshell 

County census blocks. Available at: 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15

_5YR_B02001&prodType=table Accessed on: November 16, 2017.

_____. 2015e. 2015 American Community Survey, Race Characteristics in selected 

Yellowstone County census blocks. Available at: 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15

_5YR_B02001&prodType=table Accessed on: November 16, 2017.
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-20

_____. 2015f. American Community Survey, Poverty Characteristics in Selected Census 

Blocks in Musselshell County. Available at: 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15

_5YR_B17010&prodType=table Accessed on: November 16, 2017.

_______2015g. American Community Survey, Poverty Characteristics in selected census 

blocks in Yellowstone County. Available at: 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15

_5YR_B17010&prodType=table Accessed on: November 16, 2017._____.

_____. 2017. American Community Survey, Geography Area Series: County Business Patterns, 

2015 Business Patterns CB1500A11. Available at: 

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=BP_201

5_00A1&prodType=table Accessed on: January 2, 2018.

US Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2016. US DOT Crossing Inventory Form: 

Crossing 088439S. Available at: http://fragis.fra.dot.gov/GISFRASafety/ Accessed on: 

January 2, 2018.

US Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2017a. Coal Data Browser. Available at: 

https://www.eia.gov/beta/coal/data/browser/#/shipments/mine/2401950/?freq=A&pin=

Accessed: December 2017.

_____. 2017b. International Energy Outlook Executive Summary. September 17, 2017. 

Available at: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/exec_summ.php Accessed on: March 2, 

2018. 

_____. 2017c. International Energy Outlook 2017 - Table: World Coal Consumption by Region 

- Case: Reference - Coal Consumption: OECD: OECD Asia. Available at: 

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=7-IEO2017 Accessed on: January 

1, 2018.

_____. 2017d. International Energy Outlook 2017 - Table: Total Energy Supply, Disposition, 

and Price Summary - Case: Reference - Total Energy: Real Prices: Coal at Mine mouth. 

Available at: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/?src=-f1 Accessed on: 

January 1, 2018.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. National bald eagle management guidelines. 

Available at: 

https://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf

Accessed on: December 19, 2017.

_____. 2018a. Northern Long-Eared Bat Range. Map Created January 2, 2018. Range as of 

December 7, 2017. Available at: 
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-21

https://www.fws.gov/Midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/RangeMapwForestNLEB02J

an2018.pdf Accessed on: January 27, 2018.

_____. 2018b. Memo from Jodi Bush, Office Supervisor, Helena, MT to Elizabeth Schaeffer, 

Manger, Field Operations Branch Manager, Denver Colorado. Subject: Bull Mountains 

Mine No. 1 Underground Coal Mine – Golden Eagle Nest Locations Relative to 

Associated Mining Activities. March 21, 2018.

US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth 

National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. 

Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. US Global Change Research Program, 

Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6. Available at: 

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

Waldhoff, S., Anthoff, D., Rose, S., & Tol, R. S. J. (2011). The marginal damage costs of different 

greenhouse gases: An application of FUND (Economics Discussion Paper No. 2011–43). 

Kiel: Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

Waldhoff, S., D. Anthoff, S. Rose, and R.S.J. Tol. 2014. The Marginal Damage Costs of Different 

Greenhouse Gases: An Application of FUND. The Open-Access, Open Assessment EJournal 8(31): 1-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2014- 31.

Washington State Department of Transportation. 2014. Washington State Trail Plan: Integrated 

Freight and Passenger Rail Plan 2013-2035. Available at: 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F67D73E5-2F2D-40F2-9795-

736131D98106/0/StateRailPlanFinal201403.pdf Accessed: October 12, 2017.

Watson et al. 2007. Determining Economic Contributions and Impacts: What is the difference 

and why do we care? Philip Watson, Joshua Wilson, Dawn Thilmany, and Susan Winter. 

NOAA Fisheries, USDA Forest Service, and Colorado State University - USA, Journal of 

Regional Policy and Analysis. Available at: 

https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/74/Watson,%20et%20al%20Impacts%20vs%20Cont

ribution%2037-2-6.pdf Accessed on: January 3, 2018.

Washington Department of Energy (WDOE) and Cowlitz County. 2017. Millennium Bulk 

Terminal EIS. Available at: http://www.millenniumbulkeiswa.gov/index.html Accessed on: 

October 19, 2017.

Weber, D. 2014. Personal Communication. Permitting Manager Signal Peak Energy, LLC. Email 

transmittal to Judd Stark, Catena Consultants regarding existing noise conditions based 

on readings taken by Bob Ochsner. September 23, 2014.
Appendix J – Acronyms, Abbreviations, and References

Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 Federal Mining Plan Modification EA J-22

Westshore Terminals Investment Corp (Westshore Terminal). 2017a. Westshore Terminals 

Investment Corporation Third Quarter Report. November 2017. Available at: 

http://www.westshore.com/#/financereports

_____. 2017b. Annual Report 2016. Westshore Terminals Investment Corporation. March 

2017. Available at: http://www.westshore.com/#/financereports

_____. 2017c. Westshore Terminals Investment Corporation. Annual Report 2016. For 

financial year ended December 31, 2016. Available at: 

http://www.westshore.com/#/financereports

Westshore Terminal Limited Partnership (Westshore Terminal LP). 2013. Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Terminal Infrastructure Reinvestment Project. Draft. 

November 13, 2013. Prepared by SNC-Lavalin Environment and Water for Westshore 

Terminals. Submitted to Port Metro Vancouver. Available at: 

http://www.westshore.com/pdf/misc/eia-11152013-report.pdf

Whitlock C, Cross W, Maxwell B, Silverman N, Wade AA. 2017. 2017 Montana Climate 

Assessment. Bozeman and Missoula MT: Montana State University and University of 

Montana, Montana Institute on Ecosystems. 318 p. doi:10.15788/m2ww8w Available at: 

http://montanaclimate.org/

Yde, C. and Waage, B. 1996. The Response of Sharp-Tailed Grouse to Coal Mining in Montana. 

In: Twentieth Western States Sage and Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse Workshop 

Transactions, July 15-18, 1996, Gillette, WY. 

Yellowstone County. 2016. Yellowstone County, Fiscal Year 2016-2017, Final Budget Summary, 

Yellowstone County Finance Department, August. Available at: 

http://www.co.yellowstone.mt.gov/finance/budget17/SummaryFY17.pdf Accessed on: 

January 2, 2018.

_____. 2018. Yellowstone County Noxious Weed List. Available at: 

http://www.co.yellowstone.mt.gov/publicworks/weed/weeds.asp Accessed on: February 

16, 2018.